House of Commons
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
Our commitment to this country’s fishing industry is absolute, and we have defended it resolutely in our negotiations with the European Union. We promised fishermen in Wales, Cornwall and across the United Kingdom that we would take back control of our waters, and that is precisely what will happen.
Mrs Murray [V]
Welsh fishermen have said to me how important it is that we take back control of our waters and do not give away access in any trade deal with the EU. Does my right hon. Friend back them in that goal?
Simon Hart
I agree with my hon. Friend. The fishing industry made its views absolutely clear back in 2016, as did 55% of the Welsh nation. UK sovereignty over fishing in UK waters is not up for discussion.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The Wales Office is engaged with businesses the length and breadth of Wales, with a simple message: “Make sure you are prepared for the end of the transition period, whether or not we reach a negotiated outcome with the EU.”
Fay Jones
When I was speaking to sheep farmers in Builth Wells in my constituency at the weekend, they made it clear that they do not want to be a political football. They are keen to embrace the changes that will come, but they want the certainty that their Government will support them come what may. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is working closely with all Cabinet colleagues to ensure that my sheep farmers are front and centre of the UK Government’s mind when transition ends?
Simon Hart
Not only my hon. Friend’s sheep farmers but sheep farmers in constituencies across the House can feel confident that the Government are on their side. One way we can demonstrate that is the fact that we have guaranteed the £337 million of funding across the lifetime of this Parliament. People said we would not do it, but we have done it, and we are committed to ensuring that there is a healthy future for the farming industry, particularly livestock in Wales.
Mr Speaker
With the first of two questions, Liz Saville Roberts. Happy birthday!
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. It was interesting to hear the reference made to Welsh fishing previously, but I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that 90% of the Welsh fleet is made up of small boats, under 10 metres in length, which catch shellfish and non-quota fish species such as bass. Between the prospect of no-deal tariffs to their markets in Europe and the covid closure of hospitality, fishermen such as those in Porthdinllaen near where I live see no Brexit bonanza on the horizon. As Nelson might have put it, “Wales expects that every Secretary of State for Wales will do his duty.” Can the Secretary of State explain how his Government’s vainglorious Trafalgar posturing with warships in the channel helps our small fishing vessels?
Simon Hart
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments. I was rather hopeful that leaving the common fisheries policy and regaining our status as an independent nation state might be something that would appeal to a separatist, but sadly that does not appear to be the case. I can answer her question, perhaps, by referring her to the inclusion in the spending review of £2 million-worth of support for fisheries in Wales in 2021-22 and for the lifetime of this Parliament. We share a common theme, in the sense that I too have those fishing interests off the coast of west Wales and I am very conscious of the problems she raises. That is why we are determined to ensure that they are properly looked after.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that there is a consultation going on about how to allocate fishing quotas in the future. If that is done on historical grounds for Wales, it will be very bad news indeed for our fishermen. Turning to the Prime Minister’s latest U-turn on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, it will give a modicum of flexibility to the devolved nations, but it is undeniable that the Bill is a disaster, weakening devolved power and centralising more power here in Westminster. The Conservatives and Labour have been working together this week to let efforts to give our devolved Governments a say in state aid fail. Will the Secretary of State commit to a productive U-turn this time, and assure me that no other powers will be reserved through the internal market Bill?
Simon Hart
The fact that the Government have listened carefully to the arguments should not be deemed some kind of act of evil or a U-turn. It shows that we are conscious of the complexities of this legislation and have listened carefully to the arguments. Where the right hon. Lady makes a mistake is in thinking that the contents of the UK Internal Market Bill are somehow a threat to devolution. Actually, they are a means by which we can encourage inward investment into Wales and encourage jobs and livelihoods. We have had this exchange across the House before, and it strikes me as worrying that she always refers to power—it is all about power to Cardiff, rather than jobs and livelihoods in Wales. For a party that argues it is the party of Wales, it seems to be remarkably out of touch with the people of Wales.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
One of the findings of our Select Committee report last week on this issue was that the Government have really stepped up their communication with Welsh businesses ahead of the end of the transition period, which is very welcome. The new money that the Government have announced for Welsh ports, including Fishguard in my own constituency, is very welcome too, but will my right hon. Friend say a bit more about what he is doing with the Welsh Government to ensure that the inland checking facilities that will be required ahead of the full implementation of new border checks will be in place, given the very challenging timetables that he is working to?
Simon Hart
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Of course, the devolution settlement poses its own complexities. With Holyhead, we have a Welsh Government-UK Government-HMRC relationship that needs to be managed as we progress towards the end of the transition period, but Fishguard and Pembroke on the coast of west Wales, in the areas we represent, are entirely in the gift of the Welsh Government. However, we have tried to ensure that we work almost on a daily basis with the Welsh Government to ensure that those delivery timetables and objectives are in place.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s failure to get the Brexit deal that they promised means we still have no clue about the terms on which businesses will be trading from January, and we face the very real prospect of a no-deal exit, risking chaos at our ports and shortages of critical goods. As the CBI and others have said all year, businesses cannot be expected to prepare for a no deal Brexit in the middle of a pandemic, so what is the Secretary of State’s message to those Welsh businesses that now face a Brexit cliff edge in just a few days’ time?
Simon Hart
I have been working closely with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in Cardiff, hosting joint webinars and seminars. We are also engaging with businesses across Wales in limitless number of ways, and the message I am getting from them is not the same as the message that he has just delivered to the House. They are, by and large, prepared. They are certainly aware of the challenges, but also of the opportunities that this process throws up for them. I would also make the point that, right from the start of this, the hon. Gentleman’s party was saying that there would not be a manifesto commitment about a referendum, but there was, and that there would not be a referendum, but there was. They said that the leave camp would lose the referendum, but it did not. Then they said there would not be a withdrawal agreement, but there was. They said that the Conservatives would not win the election, but they did. Now he is saying there will not be a deal; I think we should wait and see.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]
I have been speaking to businesses across Cardiff North, and they are doing all they can to protect against the impact of a no deal, but they are deeply worried about supply chain delays, stockpiling and a tariff cliff edge. They are saying that they can put the sandbags down, but that’s it. So will the Secretary of State apologise to the many people in Cardiff North and across the whole country whose jobs and livelihoods he is willing to gamble and play politics with, and tell me whether his Government are preparing to fail or failing to prepare?
Simon Hart
After all, it was the hon. Lady’s party that voted against a deal last year, so when she had the opportunity to land this more carefully, she chose not to and therefore increased the risk of getting the outcome that she definitely does not want. Attempting to pillory the Government when actually there has been considerable daily joint working between the Welsh Government, under the control of her own party, and the UK Government over many months to ensure that the risks are minimised, is not just an insult to the House but an insult to her own colleagues in Cardiff who have been devoting a huge amount of time to try to make this work as seamlessly as possible.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in regular discussions with Welsh Ministers about the UK shared prosperity fund before and after the announcement of the spending review. Further engagement will take place as further details of the fund are announced.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for that response. It has been suggested in the other place that the management of the UK shared prosperity fund will involve advisers jointly appointed by the UK and devolved Governments, yet the past few months have shown that this Government do not see themselves as an equal partner to the devolved nations and that they are instead wrongly centralising power to Westminster at the expense of devolution. What guarantees can he give to the devolved nations that they will have a cast-iron equal say on the governance of the UK shared prosperity fund? This is particularly pertinent, given the shocking contempt shown by the Government in trying to railroad through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
David T. C. Davies
The Prime Minister is showing his commitment to the importance of powers for the Scottish and Welsh Governments at this very moment in Brussels, where he is standing up against those bureaucrats who are trying to take powers away from the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government. It is this Conservative party and this Government who are standing up for the devolved settlement, and of course the UK Government will be looking forward to working in partnership with the devolved Administrations around the United Kingdom to ensure that the shared prosperity fund is properly spent.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
As well as providing no certainty on the trading arrangements in just three weeks’ time, the Government have also ducked and dived on questions about the funding that Wales will receive in future years. Despite the Tory promise that Wales will not lose a single penny, the actual figures tell a different story. Wales alone was due some £350 million of new money for projects next year, but the Treasury is providing only £220 million for the whole UK. With Wales losing not just pennies but millions of pounds, how can the Government say they have kept their promise?
David T. C. Davies
The Government have kept their promise, because, of course, some of the funding that goes to Wales will still be coming from the European Union after we have left the transition period. If we take the total amount of money that is going to be spent, we will find it is the same. The Government have met their commitment to ensure that the same level of funding is spent in Wales, and we will meet our commitment to ensure that the money is better spent and not wasted, as the Wales Audit Office recently reported on agricultural spending, and is used to level up communities across the whole of Wales.
Nia Griffith
I am not sure whether that is a conclusive answer, but we are now nearly four and a half years on from the referendum and the Government still cannot provide clear answers on funding, so let me ask the Minister about the criteria on which the funding will be allocated. As he knows, the Welsh Government and local councils have agreed a framework for regional investment in Wales, so can he confirm that his Government will support that framework and not ride roughshod over devolved agreements or make up the spending criteria as they go along?
David T. C. Davies
We are certainly not going to make it up as we go along. Of course, the UK Government have been heavily involved in regional partnerships through the growth deals, which have been working very successfully in Wales as a result of funding from the UK Government. We have already demonstrated our commitment to working in partnership not just with the Welsh Government but with local authorities, because we are absolutely determined that the money that replaces European funding is not wasted, as it has been previously, but is spent on the most needy communities in Wales.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Government are steadfast in their support for Welsh agriculture, and that is why we have provided the same level of funding for Welsh farmers in 2021-22 as they received in 2019: £337 million a year. That meets our manifesto commitment to guarantee the annual budget for farmers, a commitment that applies for the whole of this Parliament.
Edward Timpson
We all want to see farmers in Wales and right across the United Kingdom prosper outside the European Union, but how can my hon. Friend ensure that farmers in my Eddisbury constituency will be able to compete with Welsh farmers just over the border who will continue to receive their area payments in the early years of the agricultural transition, whereas all English farmers will see their basic payment scheme payments of £230 per hectare halved by 2024?
David T. C. Davies
As a Government who are committed to the devolved settlement, we obviously will not be telling devolved Governments what they can do with the money; we will simply make sure the money is there. Of course, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has been brought forward to make absolutely certain that we do not see a situation where one part of the United Kingdom is able to compete in an unfair fashion with another part of the United Kingdom, and that is why I hope all Members will support that Bill.
John Lamont
My constituency in the Scottish borders is the second-highest recipient of common agricultural policy payments in the United Kingdom. Indeed, four of the top five recipients are in the devolved Administrations. How will the Government support the devolved Administrations with these payments in the future?
David T. C. Davies
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s constituents, like farmers across the whole United Kingdom, are pleased that the British Government will not implement the 10% cut to agricultural payments, which is being brought about by the European Union. He will be pleased that we have used the most generous exchange rate possible to calculate what those payments will be. If he lived in Wales, he would be pleased to know that the UK Government are providing £1.3 billion of additional funding to the Welsh Government, and we look forward to seeing how much of that will be used on agriculture.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the First Minister before he announced the closure of pubs in Wales and asked him to consider a tiered structure for covid restrictions, which would have better targeted areas with a high incidence of the virus. Regrettably, at that time the First Minister chose not to do so. I believe he may now be about to follow my right hon. Friend’s advice.
Tim Loughton
Before the Welsh Labour Government had the bright idea of bringing in a circuit breaker, the infection rate in Wales was 33 per 100,000 head of population. Since then, Wales has had one of the toughest lockdowns. Pubs have to close at six o’clock and they cannot serve alcohol. Infection rates in Wales are now 423 per 100,000. Have Welsh Government Ministers confided in my hon. Friend the reasons for this raging success, and is it perhaps that people in Wales have been so driven to drink with despair that they have to do it at home without social distancing, rather than in pubs?
David T. C. Davies
It is a sad fact that at the moment Wales has the highest number of cases per 100,000 in the UK, the highest number of deaths per 100,000, and the lowest amount of testing, but I do not think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I wish to make any political point out of that. All of the United Kingdom has suffered. What I think we would welcome is a recognition that the Welsh Labour Government do not have some sort of magical answer to this situation which has eluded everybody else. We would welcome Welsh Ministers sitting down and working with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the UK Government, so we can tackle this pandemic together as one nation.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
As we have heard, pubs in north Wales have been closed down by the Welsh Government and their trade is being destroyed, despite the fact that infection rates in north Wales are significantly less than in much of south Wales. When my hon. Friend does speak to Welsh Ministers, can he urge them to adopt a more intelligent and nuanced approach to covid restrictions? Otherwise, many of those pubs will never reopen.
David T. C. Davies
As I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), we would welcome the Welsh Government working in tandem with the UK Government to bring in a tiered system, so that in areas with a low incidence of the virus fewer restrictions are put in place. I believe that is an approach the Welsh Government are finally going to adopt. We look forward to sitting down and working with them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The Government have provided a record amount of support to the Welsh Government, including a funding guarantee of an additional £5 billion this financial year. The Welsh Government will also receive an additional £1.3 billion next year, including £770 million to tackle covid-19.
David Simmonds
What further pressure can the Secretary of State bring to bear on Cardiff Bay to ensure that the funding going to the Welsh Government as a consequence of the Barnett consequentials formula finds its way to frontline services and is not absorbed in the bureaucratic costs of the Lib-Lab Government in Cardiff Bay?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, particularly at a time when the Welsh Government are sitting on over £1 billion of unallocated Barnett funding, and so many businesses and institutions in Wales are crying out for support. As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) said, we respect the devolution settlement and it is right that we should. However, if people are concerned, they have an opportunity to change this one-party state at the Senedd elections next May.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The House needs only to look at the £30 million loan we secured for Celsa to see our commitment to Welsh manufacturing industry. We also provided over £2 billion in direct support to businesses in Wales, and our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution will mobilise £12 billion of Government investment to stimulate manufacturing across the whole of the UK.
Geraint Davies [V]
The delays in the Brexit deal, alongside the pandemic, have meant that the Welsh steel industry has been hit hard, Airbus has lost 1,400 jobs, Grenadier cars will be produced in France instead of Wales, and even Brains brewery is up for sale. Will the Secretary of State now press the Chancellor for a sector-specific manufacturing strategy, in the knowledge that only UK Governments can borrow in the long term at low interest rates to secure long-term pre-pandemic production levels after the vaccine is deployed and after the deal is agreed?
Simon Hart
The Chancellor’s contributions to the companies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as well as to Celsa, which I mentioned in my answer, have been second to none. We have had a very good, robust and thorough exchange with all the businesses to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I could not agree with him more that part of the covid recovery programme is there to ensure not only that we get through the next few months but that there are sustainable futures for all those industries, particularly steel. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that we were quick off the blocks to rescue Celsa—and 600 to 800 jobs—in that process right at the beginning of the pandemic. That shows beyond reasonable doubt that we are absolutely committed to a steelmaking footprint in Wales.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The Shotton steel plant produces some of the finest quality steel products in the world. The Prime Minister has said that UK steel producers will be
“at the front of the queue”—[Official Report, 24 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 1311.]
when it comes to future infrastructure projects, so will the Government now set targets on procurement? We need action rather than words—all we tend to get from this Government are warm words. Please, do not just blame Europe; can we have a proper answer?
Simon Hart
I am not going to blame Europe—or anybody else, for that matter. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have been making big strides as far as procurement is concerned and, of course, after the end of the transition those strides will be even bigger—that does not constitute blame, of course. We have regular conversations in Government, including with the Welsh Government, about making sure that procurement not only offers value for money for taxpayers but taps into the wonderful supply chain that we have in the UK, of which he gave a very good example.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The Government are unwavering in their commitment to the Union as a social and economic partnership. Its strength is demonstrated by the economic support we have provided to Welsh business during the covid-19 outbreak and by the city and growth deals that help to level up communities across the UK.
Suzanne Webb
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the strengths of our Union—our great and united Union—is that we can support and help each other in times of crisis? What support are the UK Government giving to the Welsh Government to help them to fight the pandemic, now that Wales has the second-highest death rate per 100,000 in Europe?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend touches on a current and important point: the Union is not a competition; it is a partnership. I sometimes think it gets portrayed as the former, whereas we all know that it is the latter. The UK Government have been able to introduce numerous financial interventions to assist the Welsh Government in fighting this dreadful pandemic. The most recent is yesterday’s joint letter from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to the First Minister saying that where hospitals face real challenges and hardship in Wales, NHS England and the UK Government stand ready to offer whatever support we can and to put down our political differences to make sure that we fight covid as a UK-wide challenge.
Theresa Villiers
The scale of the response to covid in Wales in terms of economic support would never have been possible without the combined strength of our United Kingdom, so will my right hon. Friend emphasise that that strength will help us to ensure that Wales recovers alongside the rest of the United Kingdom as, hopefully, we move on from covid next year?
Simon Hart
My right hon. Friend is right. All the businesses in Wales that we have spoken to during the covid crisis have pointed out that they do not recognise political boundaries: they are fiercely Welsh and very patriotic, but they recognise that the economic regions stretch into the far corners of the UK and well beyond. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we do make that commitment. Whether or not we are Unionists in the original sense, we are very much on the same page.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister and Welsh Ministers on a range of issues, including the UK shared prosperity fund.
Ruth Jones
Nadolig llawen i chi, Mr Speaker.
We have heard a lot from the Minister about the shared prosperity fund this morning, but I am still none the wiser on the details. What guarantees can the Minister provide that the long-awaited shared prosperity fund will provide no reduction in moneys received by the Welsh Government compared with current structural funding? What guarantees can the Minister provide that it will be the Welsh Government who decide how the money is allocated in Wales?
David T. C. Davies
We have already made the commitment that the amount of money will match everything that came from Europe. Previously, the European Union held the strings and controlled how the money was spent; now, it will be the UK Government working in partnership with local authorities and the Welsh Government to ensure that the money is spent wisely.
Kevin Brennan [V]
The Minister says that the money will be matched, but when the dealing is done, will the so-called shared prosperity fund in fact turn out to be a pared back austerity fund for Wales, in keeping with normal Conservative practice? Merry Christmas.
David T. C. Davies
The shared prosperity fund will mean more money going into Wales, along with more powers, which will come about as a result of Brexit, going to Wales. We are looking forward to putting our Conservative record before the people of Wales in the elections next May.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
If, like the road to hell, this UK Government’s proposals regarding the shared prosperity fund are littered with good intentions, their actions, as with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, show that they are most interested in accumulating power to themselves. Please can the Minister explain when exactly we will learn what the mechanism will be for involving the Welsh Government in deciding which people, communities and local businesses will receive the necessary funding to enable them to level up, who will be the final arbiter, how much money will be available and when the process will begin?
David T. C. Davies
We have already said that discussions are ongoing, that the money will be matched, and that the shared prosperity fund will deliver our levelling-up agenda across Wales. The Labour party spent a long time saying that there would not be any money and that there would not be any interest in Wales, but the reality is that we have shown that the money will be there and we want to make sure that it is used properly. Those sorts of arguments might raise a few cheers at Labour party conferences, but the people of Wales will be pleased to know that that money is going to come and that that interest in levelling up the whole of Wales will follow.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Yesterday, I made a written ministerial statement updating the House on the latest position on the leak investigation,
as you requested, Mr Speaker.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing all Members and staff a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Members from across the House will also want to join me in sending our warmest wishes to all our armed forces, both in the United Kingdom and those who are stationed overseas. Members will also, I hope, want to join me in sending our very best wishes to all members of the emergency services, health and care workers, and those who will be working over Christmas.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Michael Fabricant [V]
May I join the Prime Minister in those good wishes for Christmas and add my own good wishes to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Prime Minister and hope that you both have a peaceful and safe Christmas period?
Look, on the subject of Christmas, my constituents in Lichfield and Burntwood and those in the rest of the country have had a torrid year with the covid pandemic, and we have this very small break over Christmas. People must use common sense, of course: do not start hugging granny; do not go wild over Christmas; and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister previously said, let us be jolly careful over Christmas. I want to say to my Prime Minister that it would not be helpful if some smarmy lawyer, or somebody now at this late stage, were to argue for a change in the laws. May I ask my right hon. Friend, here and now, who is neither smarmy nor a lawyer—
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right in many ways, but right to stress the importance of people taking care this Christmas, because although some things are unquestionably going well—I am very pleased to tell the House that we have had a good start with the roll-out of the vaccination programme and in just seven days 108,000 people in England and 138,000 across the whole of the UK have received their first vaccination—we must remember that transmission takes place asymptomatically in so many cases: one in three people are currently asymptomatic with covid. That is why my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should exercise extreme caution in the way we celebrate Christmas. We can celebrate it sensibly but we have to be extremely cautious in the way we behave.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in his good wishes to all the staff, the armed forces and our emergency services, and thank you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities for doing all that you have done this year to keep Parliament safe, and open, in challenging circumstances?
Since this is—probably—the last PMQs of the year, I want to look at some of the decisions that the Prime Minister has made in the last 12 months. Let me start at the beginning of the pandemic, when images from hospitals in Italy and Spain were being shown on our televisions and the infection rates were rising in the UK. Does the Prime Minister now accept that his slowness to respond led to more deaths, a longer lockdown, and deeper economic damage?
The Prime Minister
No, because at every stage we followed the scientific guidance, and continue to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention to what is happening across the whole of Europe, and indeed there are spikes now taking place across the whole of the EU. Thanks to the tiering system that we have in place in large parts of the country, and thanks to the heroic efforts of the people of the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber, we are seeing those rates coming down. Yes, it is true that we have spikes now in some parts of London and the south-east, but we will make sure, with our adjustments to the tiering that we conduct over the next weeks, that we will address those issues. That is the right way forward for this country, and that is how we will defeat the virus—with vaccines, with community testing and with tough tiering. I think that what people would like to hear in this season of good will to all men is a little bit of support from the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what the Government are trying to do to beat coronavirus, and perhaps just a little less carping.
Keir Starmer
If the Prime Minister will not listen to me, let me quote his own spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility. It said that the UK locked down later and for longer than some of its European neighbours and experienced a deeper fall and slower economic recovery. This is not bad luck. It is not inevitable. It is the result of the Prime Minister’s choices. But if the Prime Minister disagrees, perhaps he can tell us why Britain, the sixth-richest country in the world, with all our brilliant scientists and amazing NHS, ends the year with one of the highest numbers of covid deaths in Europe—over 64,000, each one leaving a grieving family—and the deepest recession of any major economy. Why does he think that has happened?
The Prime Minister
The House will have noted the slight change of tune in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s criticisms of the UK’s performance. But perhaps he could tell me why the UK is the first to produce a viable treatment for coronavirus in the form of dexamethasone or the first country in the world to roll out a clinically tested stage 3 vaccine. This is a pandemic that has affected the whole of Europe, and this Government have continued to take the tough decisions necessary to beat it. If I may say so, without wishing to cast aspersions on the point of the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would take his criticisms of the UK Government’s decisions a little more seriously, frankly, if he had been able to decide last week, or the week before, whether he even supported the approach we were taking or opposed it. He could not do either: he abstained.
Keir Starmer
I said two weeks ago at this Dispatch Box that I was very concerned that tier 2 would not be strong enough to hold the virus. The Prime Minister said, “Don’t worry about that. Just support us. Throw away the problems.” Two weeks later, what have we got? The virus rising in tier 2 and tier 3, and I will come back to that. If the Prime Minister thinks that the highest death numbers and the deepest recession is somehow delivering for the British people, he is a long way removed from the truth.
The problem is that the Prime Minister makes the same mistakes over and over again. Two weeks ago, he unveiled the latest covid plan. He told the House, as he has many times before, that his plan would suppress the virus, but the latest figures show the opposite. The Prime Minister talked about spikes here and there. Let me tell the House that in three out of four tier 2 areas, infections are going up. In over half of the tier 3 areas, infections are going up—exactly the concern that I put to the Prime Minister two weeks ago, when he said, “Just back us anyway.” As a result, this morning 10 million people moved into tougher restrictions—exactly what we said would happen: areas going up the tiers. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that his latest plan has once again failed to control the virus and protect the NHS and our economy?
The Prime Minister
Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman criticises the Government’s plans without producing any kind of plan of his own, except I seem to remember that he was the mastermind author of the Labour firebreak in Wales. If we look at what is happening across the country, it is thanks to the efforts of the British people that we are seeing significant reductions in the virus in some of the areas where it was really surging. That is because of the hard work of the people of this country. We will, of course, continue to reflect that as we go forward with the tiering approach, and we will continue to roll out the vaccine and community testing. I think that his time would be better employed supporting those wonderful initiatives, supporting community testing, encouraging people to get a test and encouraging people to get a vaccine, rather than continually attacking what the NHS and the Government are trying to do.
Keir Starmer
I have encouraged everybody to have the vaccine every time I have stood up and talked about it. The Prime Minister is avoiding the issue. In some places, the infection rate has gone up 70% in the last seven days. Everybody knows that this is a problem. The Prime Minister is yet again pretending that it is not.
Another major mistake of the last 12 months was losing public trust. We all know what the tipping point was: the 520-mile round trip to Barnard Castle and the humiliating way in which the Prime Minister and his Cabinet chose to defend it. Now we learn that, while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are telling the armed forces, police officers, careworkers and firefighters that they will get a pay freeze, Dominic Cummings has been handed at least a £40,000 pay rise. How on earth does the Prime Minister justify that?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman totally trivialises the efforts of the British people in getting the virus down. He says that none of the lockdown measures have worked. That is absolutely untrue. From 5 November to 3 December, the people of this country came together once again to get the virus under control, and they have made a huge amount of progress. We will continue with that tiering system, and we will get the virus down. That is the best way forward for this country. All he wants to do is to lock the whole country down—he is a one-club golfer; that is the only solution he has—and then, all he does is attack the economic consequences of lockdowns.
Keir Starmer
Mr Speaker, you could script that from October and November, when the Prime Minister was saying that a lockdown was the last thing the country needed and would be disastrous. Two weeks later, he put it on the table and voted for it—ridiculous! This is exactly the problem: not learning from mistakes. Obviously, we know that for Dominic Cummings, it was not performance- related pay. I think that the British people will find it pretty hard to understand why it is one rule for our key workers and another for his advisers.
It is now likely that the next big mistake will be over the easing of restrictions over Christmas—and it is not smarmy lawyers saying this. Let me tell the House what the British Medical Journal has said. The British Medical Journal said yesterday:
“we believe the government is about to blunder into another major error that will cost many lives.”
The Prime Minister should listen to that advice, not just ignore it as usual. If he really is going to press ahead with this, can he tell us what assessment has been done of the impact that it will have on infection rates and increased pressure on the NHS? What is the impact?
The Prime Minister
I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had the guts just to say what he really wants to do, which is to cancel the plans people have made and cancel Christmas. That is really, I think, what he is driving at. He is looking a bit blank; I think that is what he is driving at. But I can tell him that, as of today—just this morning—there is actually, as I say, unanimous agreement across the UK Government and across all the devolved Administrations, including members of all parties, including his own, that we should proceed, in principle, with the existing regulations, because we do not want to criminalise people’s long-made plans. We do think it is absolutely vital that people should at this very, very tricky time exercise a high degree of personal responsibility, especially when they come into contact with elderly people, and avoid contact with elderly people wherever possible. That is how, by being sensible and cautious, not by imposing endless lockdowns or cancelling Christmas, as he would appear to want to do—that is the only implication I can draw from what he has said, unless he wants to announce some other idea—we will continue to work together to keep this virus under control, to defeat it and take the country forward.
Keir Starmer
Here we go again: ignoring the medical advice, and we know where that leads, because we have seen what happened in the last nine months. Whatever the Prime Minister says, there is no escaping the brutal facts that Britain has one of the highest numbers of covid deaths in Europe and the worst economic damage.
This is the last PMQs of the year, and I for one often wonder where the Prime Minister gets his advice from. Well, now I know, because I have here the official newsletter of the Wellingborough Conservative party. It is not on everyone’s Christmas reading list, but it is a fascinating read, because it gives a lot of advice to wannabe politicians. It says this:
“say the first thing that comes into your head… It’ll probably be nonsense… You may get a bad headline… but… If you make enough dubious claims, fast enough”,
you can get away with it. The December edition, includes the advice:
“Sometimes, it is better to give the WRONG answer at the RIGHT time, than the RIGHT answer at the WRONG time.”
So my final question to the Prime Minister is this: is he the inspiration for the newsletter, or is he the author?
The Prime Minister
I think what the people of this country would love to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this season of good will is any kind of point of view at all on some of the key issues. This week, he could not make up his mind whether it was right for kids to be in school or not, and havering completely. He could not make up his mind last week whether or not to support what the Government were doing to fight covid, and told his troops, heroically, to abstain. He could not make up his mind about Brexit, we all seem to remember. We do not know whether he will vote for a deal or not. He cannot attack the Government if he cannot come up with a view of his own. In the words of the song, “All I want for Christmas is” a view, and it would be wonderful if he could produce one.
This Government are getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities, with 20,000 more police, 50,000 more nurses, 48 new hospitals and—although it has been very tough and very difficult, and everybody appreciates the suffering and hardship that the people of this country have been going through—by rolling out the vaccine, by community testing and by tough tiering, which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports, we are going to defeat coronavirus and we are going to take this country forward into a great 2021.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who has campaigned nobly in that cause. As he knows, already we have not only set up a points-based immigration system, taking back control of our borders, but we will ensure that—and we have already done many free trade deals—we will use the economic advantages of Brexit, coming out of the European Union, to do free ports, to make this country the most attractive place for investment for business and for enterprise around the world and, above all, to resist the depredations of the socialists opposite, who would destroy that opportunity and do everything they possibly could to take us straight back into the lunar pull of the European Union, which is the true ambition of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all colleagues, staff, essential workers, health workers, and everyone in these nations all the best for Christmas? I hope everyone does their best to keep everybody safe.
In the past few hours, the President of the European Commission has said that the next few days are going to be “decisive” in the Brexit negotiations. With just two weeks to go, it is a disgrace that businesses and people have been left with that crippling uncertainty, and the real threat of food and medicine shortages come the new year. One year ago, at the general election, Scotland rejected this Prime Minister. It rejected this Tory Government, and it rejected their extreme Brexit. People in Scotland now need to know the price they will be forced to pay. Ahead of any vote in Parliament, will the Prime Minister commit to releasing a detailed economic impact assessment of the cost to the UK of his extreme Tory Brexit plans?
The Prime Minister
Notwithstanding the slight uncharacteristic air of gloom from the right hon. Gentleman, there is every opportunity—and hope I have—that our friends and partners across the channel will see sense and do a deal. All that takes is for them to understand that the UK has a natural right, like every other country, to want to be able to control its own laws and its own fishing grounds —I would have thought that would be important to the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever happens in the next few days, I know that this country will prosper mightily on the terms that we agree with our European friends, and whatever those terms may be—whether they are Australian or Canadian—he can go forward with a high heart and confidence into 2021, knowing that there are great opportunities for Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Ian Blackford
I am not quite sure what that was, Mr Speaker, but it certainly wasn’t an answer to the question. I am not surprised, because the Prime Minister did not want to answer the question. He knows that the United Kingdom is poorer and worse off as a result of the extreme Tory Brexit, and the costs continue to soar. The Warwick study estimates that Scotland has already lost £4 billion as a result of Brexit, and Bloomberg Economics estimates that the UK will have lost £200 billion by the end of this year. Scottish Government analysis estimates that every person in Scotland will, on average, be worse off to the tune of £1,600.
Scotland has been completely ignored by Westminster throughout the Brexit process, and we are now being kept in the dark over the devastating price that we will be forced to pay. People in Scotland are not willing to suffer the consequences of this economic vandalism, and 16 consecutive polls have shown a majority for independence—that is little wonder, Mr Speaker. Is it not as clear as day that the only way left to protect Scotland’s interests and our place in Europe is for Scotland to become an independent country?
The Prime Minister
Again, despite the gloom that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to spread about Scotland and the rest of the UK, the UK currently has the highest youth employment in the G7—I could perhaps have made that point to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—and lower unemployment than France, Italy, Spain, the United States and Canada. There is a threat to the Scottish economy, sadly, and that is the high tax regime and mismanagement of the Scottish nationalist party. That is the problem that Scotland faces, and I hope that the people of Scotland can see it.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for everything she does to campaign for Derbyshire Dales and for hospitality. It has been a terrible time for hospitality. We all share the anguish of those who work in the hospitality sector. That is why we have cut VAT overall, as she knows, from 20% to 5% in those sectors until the end of March, and we are going to develop, with her help, a tourism recovery plan to help people come to see the beauties of the Derbyshire Dales in particular.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that Northern Ireland would have the “best of both worlds” as a result of the talks with the European Union. For that to be true, we need access to both UK and EU trade deals. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether he is pushing for that in those talks?
The Prime Minister
Of course, as the agreement with our friends has already made clear, the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, will participate fully in all trade deals that the UK does, and Northern Ireland will continue to have unfettered access to the whole of the UK market.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed. I know that my hon. Friend, as a doctor, knows the vital importance of medical research and pure science. That is why this Government are investing record sums in science R&D—£14.6 billion in 2021-22. That is going to support all the life sciences sectors. If anybody wants evidence of why it is so vital to support those sectors, they have only to look at the events of the last few months.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. What the NIC is saying is that there are other things we can do as well, including massively improving the midland main line—I think everybody would want to do that—but the ambition to do the eastern leg, as I have said in the House before, remains absolutely unchanged.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, the whole of the country and the taxpayers of this country play that role; it is our job to make sure that we spend the money sensibly, and that is what we were doing. I am delighted that, thanks in part to the campaigning by my hon. Friend, his constituency is attracting an average of 3.8% more per pupil next year compared with this year through the national funding formula—a total of £4.8 million more, in addition, of course, to our commitment to pay every teacher a starting salary of £30,000.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is quite right to raise the problem in the hospitality sector. We are committed to doing everything we can. She knows about the £3,000 grant, the additional £2,100, plus the £1,000 for wet pubs. But the best thing of all—in addition to the cuts in business rates and VAT that I have already mentioned—is for areas in the west midlands to work together—
The Prime Minister
Sorry; forgive me. The best thing is for areas in the north-east to work together to reduce the virus through community testing in the way that Liverpool has succeeded in doing. I appreciate that the hon. Member’s constituency is in in tier 3 and things are very, very tough, but if we all work together, we can get the virus down and get our pubs open again.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are confident that the UK will prosper, whether on a Canada-style arrangement or Australia-style terms.
Joy Morrissey
In the light of the new opportunities that the end of the transition period will bring, is the Prime Minister aware of the ambitious economic growth proposition developed in Buckinghamshire? Will he back this bold bid for Bucks to ensure that Buckinghamshire continues to increase its contribution to the Exchequer: a win for the businesses of Bucks and a win for the levelling-up agenda?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I know that Buckinghamshire Council is working closely with my hon. Friend and partners across the voluntary sector. We have been in initial discussions with Buckinghamshire about its proposals and are happy to taken them forward.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not responsible; the hon. Member keeps saying “you”, and honestly, I do not want to be responsible for any of this.
Ronnie Cowan
My apologies, Mr Speaker. I am obviously addressing my question to the Prime Minister. There are obstacles that exist across the United Kingdom to the creation of drug consumption rooms, and those obstacles can be removed at Westminster. Previously the UK Government have held an ideological view that drug consumption rooms encourage drug taking. Will the Prime Minister engage with me and allow me the opportunity to help him do a good thing?
The Prime Minister
I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I must say that we do not want to do anything that would encourage the consumption of more drugs, nor do we want to decriminalise the possession of drugs, because I believe that they ruin lives and drive criminality across the whole United Kingdom. I am more than happy to look at the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman one more time, and to pursue the agenda of tackling drugs, but the vast panoply of powers that are needed to tackle drugs and drugs crime are already vested with the devolved Administration in Scotland, and I am afraid that the failures that he talks about are very largely down to them.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is great to hear my hon. Friend, because he speaks such good sense on this matter; I hope that he is heard up and down the land. It is absolutely vital that people who are offered the vaccine do take steps to get it immediately. They will be protecting themselves and they will be protecting everyone else.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
It is very important that all businesses treat their employees with fairness and respect. In that sense, I utterly share the point of view of the hon. Lady, but it is also vital that we have a flexible economy that is able to generate jobs, particularly when we are going to go through a very difficult and bumpy time. We have had a proud record of keeping employment high and unemployment low in this country, and we want to continue with that approach.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I will do what I can to fit in his very kind invitation to inspect this sculpture. I admire Mr Gormley’s work greatly, by the way. I am delighted that Kirklees College has opened the Pioneer Higher Skills Centre, providing high level education and skills training for the people of Dewsbury. I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for that.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I can confidently say that I do not believe that there is another Member of this House who has built as many buses, or caused as many buses to be built, as I have. We are absolutely committed to rolling out, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, 4,000 zero- emission buses and the country’s first all electric bus town. He is right to lobby for the wonderful Alexander Dennis buses that are built in in Falkirk. We will certainly champion them, as well as buses built in Ballymena and elsewhere. He can take it from me that, in a zero-carbon way, we are putting the pedal to the floor until we get to 4,000.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker—I share your enthusiasm for what Kevin Sinfield—
The Prime Minister
For what Sir Kevin—thank you, Mr Speaker—and Leeds Rhinos have done. MND is indeed a devastating condition. I congratulate Sir Kevin on his actions, and the Government are certainly in full support.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is of course right to draw attention to the hardship of parents who have had to cope with kids coming home from school because of self-isolation rules. One of the things that we are trying to do now is roll out lateral flow testing on a grand scale for schools, so that we reduce the size of the bubbles that have to self-isolate. We are doing whatever we can to support families throughout the crisis, as she knows, with big uprates in universal credit and all manner of support that we are providing, in addition to free childcare for 30 hours a week.
The best answer for this crisis is to keep our kids in school, to test them and to roll out that programme of mass community testing, which I am sure the hon. Lady supports in her neighbourhood, in order to drive the virus down, allow the vaccine time really to kick in, and protect our elderly and vulnerable so that we can all move forward together as a society. That is what this Government are aiming for, but in the meantime I fully appreciate the problem that she has raised, and we will do our very best to address it.
Mr Speaker
Order. In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business, and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I will now suspend the sitting for three minutes.
Petition
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of North Staffordshire.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of North Staffordshire;
Declares that improving rail infrastructure and providing better rail services in our city and wider North Staffordshire is vital for the growth of our local economy; notes that over 1,000 constituents have signed a corresponding petition asking to reopen the railway between Stoke and Leek; further declares that it would create jobs and unlock the potential of unused brownfield sites in our area; and further that it would greatly benefit commuters and passengers.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take such action as is necessary to reopen the railway between Stoke and Leek.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002639]
Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether the changes to the immigration rules laid last week will reduce the numbers of asylum seekers in supported accommodation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
This Government are taking action to fix the asylum system so that it is firm and fair—firm where the system is being abused, but fair to those who need protection. And we have been clear: we will use every means at our disposal to make the use of small boats to cross the channel unviable.
Last week we laid changes to the immigration rules that are vital to curb irregular migration, which is often facilitated by ruthless criminal gangs. Channel crossings are not only highly dangerous but unnecessary, because France and other European countries are safe. Asylum should be claimed there. These changes will mean that individuals who could and should have claimed asylum previously in a safe country may not have their asylum claims determined in the UK where we are able to safely return them. The changes also enable us to consider the return of these individuals to any safe country besides the safe country where they could have claimed asylum. Individuals will also not be able to make asylum claims at sea.
At the end of the transition period, the UK is no longer bound by the Dublin regulation. These new measures will enable us, by agreement, to replace Dublin with more flexible returns arrangements. This will have a deterrent effect, by sending a clear message to anyone thinking of coming to the UK dangerously from a safe country that they should not risk their lives by doing so. This deterrent effect will also destroy the business model of the ruthless criminal gangs.
Such returns would, of course, reduce numbers in accommodation. I want to be clear that we are not turning our back on those who need our help after fleeing persecution, oppression or tyranny. We stand by our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, the European convention on human rights and other relevant treaties. We will continue to welcome people to the UK through safe and legal routes, assisting the most vulnerable, providing accommodation and meeting essential living needs.
As I have set out, we are taking a number of steps to tackle irregular, dangerous migration. But addressing the problem really requires a complete overhaul, and in the first half of next year we will bring forward a Bill to fix the immigration and asylum system once and for all. This country will be fair to those who need protection, but firm where the system is being abused.
Caroline Nokes
Coming into force on 1 January, the Home Office’s proposed changes to the asylum system have far-reaching implications. Intended to act as a deterrent to people traffickers, which of course is laudable, they instead create a separate tier of asylum seekers, who will not have their claims considered and who the Minister will seek to return, albeit with no mechanism yet to do so. They will also be housed in camps, such as the one proposed in Test Valley, with no mains electricity or mains water. How does the Minister intend to issue written guidance as to how these changes will be processed? He has just 10 working days before they come into force. Will the permitted development powers that the Minister intends to use to create several of these camps be extended by statutory instrument, like these rules, avoiding parliamentary scrutiny? Does he think the changes might in fact see an increase to the asylum application backlog? Does he have a strategic plan or does he hope that housing people on sites where he admits he will not provide healthcare will just act as a deterrent? He acknowledges that, even without covid, only a few thousand failed asylum seekers are returned each year, and in 10 working days he loses Dublin. I know he is working with the French to secure a replacement, but what about Greece, Spain and Italy, and will those agreements be in place by 1 January?
The Home Office is already in court over its inhuman treatment of asylum seekers housed in barracks and it has settled some claims, moving people into more appropriate accommodation. Is the Minister concerned he has laid these rules before the rest of those cases are heard, and just a matter of days after the Equality and Human Rights Commission stated that the Home Office had
“a culture where equality was not seen as important”?
Last year, Wendy Williams identified that the Home Office needed to examine the development of policies to make sure that the person was put at the heart of its services. How do these rules fit with that?
The Minister has talked of legal routes, but he has committed to resettle only 232 people—the final step in delivering the pledge to resettle 20,000 Syrians, of which we were all proud. When will he finally launch the programme to resettle 5,000 refugees this year, which was announced in 2019?
The Minister plans to put people in camps with no mains water at a time when we know hygiene is critical. If it were not for you having granted this urgent question today, Mr Speaker, he would not even have come to the House to explain himself.
Chris Philp
On the first question, about the asylum track, after somebody arrives—having come, we believe, from a safe country where they could have claimed asylum—and if they are declared inadmissible, we will seek for a short period to get the agreement of that other country to return them there, where their asylum claim can be substantively and properly considered. If that is not possible, the asylum claim will of course be substantively and properly considered in this country.
My right hon. Friend asked some questions about our asylum system more generally—I think she was in some way seeking to insinuate that it was not reasonable or fair. The accommodation that we provide is reasonable and good, and there are 60,000 people currently being accommodated.
In terms of our system more widely, last year we made 20,000 grants of asylum or other forms of protection—that is a very high number. We welcomed and received more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children last year than any other European country, including Greece. Over the last five years, our resettlement schemes have seen 25,000 people taken directly from conflict zones and resettled in the United Kingdom—more than any other European country. After the 232 remaining people have come over, we will continue with resettlement, as far as we are able to, given the context of coronavirus and everything else. I therefore think we have a proud record of helping people who are genuinely in need.
My right hon. Friend asked about safe and legal routes. In addition to what I have described, last year over 6,000 people came into the UK under the refugee family reunion routes, which of course continue to exist.
The purpose of these changes is to prepare us for life after Dublin, and it is quite right that we make preparations, but at the heart of this is a desire to dissuade people—indeed, prevent people—from making unnecessary and dangerous journeys, particularly across the English channel, endangering their own lives and feeding ruthless criminal people smugglers, and all for no purpose, because France is a safe country where asylum can easily be claimed, as are the other European countries these migrants have travelled through.
My right hon. Friend asked about future agreements. She referenced France, and we are of course in close dialogue with France—we have a very close and friendly relationship. We will also be entering into discussions with other countries, including some of the ones she mentioned, as soon as the current European-level negotiations are concluded. These rules lay the foundations for those future discussions and negotiations, but most of all they will deter dangerous and unnecessary journeys, and I hope the House will join me in supporting that objective.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this urgent question and for the incredibly important points she made, not least in relation to asylum accommodation.
As we have heard, these changes will allow a claim to be found inadmissible if someone has had the opportunity to claim asylum in another safe third country prior to claiming asylum in the UK. That is not dissimilar to the current arrangements under the Dublin III regulations that we have in place with our European neighbours, but which will cease at the end of this month. We are leaving the Dublin III regulations, so this change allows the Government to deem a claim inadmissible without any co-operation or agreement in place to facilitate returning the person concerned to a third country. This is an unworkable half-plan, being introduced by the back door as changes to the immigration rules, with no opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
On Monday, the Minister outlined that it is this Government’s intention to open discussions with those countries as soon as we are able to do so. Can he confirm that those talks are yet to start and that there will be no such arrangements in place by 1 January, when these changes come into effect? Will he clarify what a person’s rights will therefore be in the period between their claim being found inadmissible and a returns agreement being reached?
The changes also suggest that an asylum claim can be reinstated after a reasonable period of time, if another safe country is unable to admit that person. How long is “a reasonable period”? Further still, as the Minister has confirmed, these changes will allow someone to be removed to any safe third country, including countries that the person has never been to and has no connection with. How does he envisage that that could possibly work in practice?
The changes before us come into effect in less than a month’s time. The Minister must realise the widespread concern about leaving some incredibly vulnerable people in limbo, at risk of homelessness and destitution.
Chris Philp
Let me reassure the shadow Minister on one or two points. She concluded her questions by asking about the risk of destitution. To be clear, if somebody who is in the inadmissible cohort is unable to make provision for their own accommodation or upkeep, they will be eligible for accommodation in the normal way, just as people currently in the Dublin third country cohort, awaiting return to a European country, are accommodated and supported. There will be no risk of destitution, which would of course infringe their article 3 rights were it ever to happen.
The hon. Lady asks about the status of people who may fall into that cohort. Clearly, the intention is that a period of time will pass when we seek the agreement of a third country to return them. That will happen within a reasonable time—we will set that out in guidance, but it will be a matter of a few months; it will not be a long time. If, after that reasonable time, no agreement is forthcoming, their asylum claim will be substantively considered here. There will not be any extended period of limbo, which I do not think would be in anybody’s interests.
The hon. Lady refers to the fact that these arrangements are in some regards similar in concept to Dublin. I hope the House will take from that that they are reasonable in spirit, because no one has objected to the principles that underpin the Dublin regulations—indeed, many people have pointed to them as exemplars.
Finally, the message all of us in this House should be sending out, the Opposition Front Bench included, is that if somebody is in continental Europe and they feel they have a protection claim that needs to be heard, they should not attempt a dangerous crossing of the English channel. They should not pay money to ruthless people smugglers. They should use the very well-functioning asylum systems in our very civilised European neighbours. Let that message go out from this House today; it will save life.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Many people in the country share the views the Minister has just expressed; they are appalled by the dangerous and illegal trade in people across the channel, both in dangerous boat voyages and in trucks and cargo containers. He has every support from millions of people to do something. Will he also ensure in the new law that comes in that, while there is the opportunity for appeal, there are not repetitive, constant and frivolous appeals, delaying the judgment and wasting the time and resource of the Home Office?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. As he says, I think these proposals and this approach will command widespread public support. The public do not understand why people should cross the English channel in dangerous circumstances, facilitated by criminals, when they could perfectly easily claim asylum in France or somewhere else, which is of course what they should do. Characteristically, he makes an extremely pertinent and prescient point about the legal process, which the new Bill next year will most certainly address. At the moment, it is possible to bring a series of claims over a period of time—repetitively, sometimes vexatiously and sometimes even in contradiction with one another—with the express purpose in mind of preventing, frustrating or delaying the proper application of our immigration rules. We will be legislating to prevent that kind of abuse of the legal process, and I look forward to working with him on making that law a reality.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this urgent question. It seems to me that this is not about fixing the asylum system; rather, it is about blocking access to it, leaving people in limbo and undermining the refugee convention in doing so. The Minister has focused on the channel, but putting aside those crossing the channel, can he be clear on what percentage of asylum applicants the Department thinks is likely to be impacted by these inadmissibility rules and left in limbo? Can he be clearer on what statutory support and accommodation will be available to those who are put in that limbo situation? If this is really about replacing Dublin, surely we must wait to see what replacement agreements are concluded and what safeguards are in place before being asked to look at these changes.
Finally, if the Government are serious about fixing the asylum system, will they start by addressing yesterday’s news of 29 deaths in asylum accommodation this year alone? Can we have a clear Government commitment and published policy to record and investigate such deaths, to support the bereaved and to learn lessons so as to prevent further tragedies? Surely creating a legal limbo of several months will only make things worse, not better.
Chris Philp
First, as I have said, the people in this cohort will not be in limbo, because after a reasonable period, if no return to another country is possible, the asylum claim will be substantively considered here. The possibility of limbo that the hon. Gentleman referred to does not exist, as I have said twice already.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of destitution. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), the people in this cohort will be eligible for accommodation and support, so the risk of destitution, which would be in contravention of article 3, does not exist either.
The hon. Gentleman asked about people crossing the channel and referenced the refugee convention. He will know that article 31 of the refugee convention talks about people
“coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”
being immune to various forms of penalty. He will know that France is a safe country where people’s life and freedom are not threatened. Human rights are respected in France. Asylum claims can be processed in France and, indeed, in other countries through which this cohort typically pass prior to their arrival in France. That deals with the questions that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the very sad deaths in accommodation, every single one of which is, of course, a tragedy. I remind him that we have 60,000 people in asylum accommodation. While each individual case is very sad, if he studies the statistics he will see that the numbers are not out of line with what we would expect among a population of 60,000 people.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Sooner or later, there is going to be an appalling tragedy in the channel. The reason economic migrants make this crossing is that they know that our present asylum laws are a complete joke. If someone makes it halfway across the channel, their chances of ever being deported are virtually nil, because of the activities of so-called human rights lawyers, who are actually putting lives at risk by their shenanigans in the law courts. What we want from the Minister is a firm commitment that, from 1 January, if someone crosses the channel and it is obvious that they are coming from a safe country, they will be immediately returned—that is what we want to know.
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend, who has a distinguished legal background, for his question. He is absolutely right: we need to deter these crossings, and we need to ensure that our legal process works effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, very often it does not do so. Despite that, we are able to return and deport quite large numbers of people if they should not be in the country or if they have committed very serious criminal offences, as we discussed a couple of weeks ago.
In relation to the question about immediate returns from 1 January, that is the policy objective of the Government—it is my objective, the Home Secretary’s objective and, indeed, the Prime Minister’s objective. But in order to effect returns, we need the agreement of the receiving country, and so my top priority, as soon as the European-level negotiations are concluded, is to seek exactly those kind of return agreements.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Government are about to end the only agreement that they have in a place for safe returns by ending the Dublin agreement, which will make it harder, not easier, for the Minister to complete safe returns. He told the Home Affairs Committee that there are currently no negotiations for a replacement—they have not even started—and we are only 15 days away. Will the Minister confirm what I think he just said—that asylum accommodation and support will still be available for everyone who is in this limbo for the next few months? Does that mean that with no return agreement in place and the existing support systems continuing, he is actually adding several months to the waiting times for asylum claims to be sorted out? If he had an agreement, he could just use the existing rules.
Chris Philp
On the Select Committee Chair’s question about accommodation and support, I can confirm that it will be available, as I have said already, because not to provide it would breach article 3. That support will be available and people will not fall into destitution.
On the negotiations, back in May—I believe it was 19 May—we tabled an EU proposal on these matters, but if that is not agreed to in the course of the current discussions, we will seek bilateral agreements with various countries. As I said to the right hon. Lady’s Committee a week or two ago, individual member states have been asked by the Commission not to engage in such discussions while the European negotiations are ongoing, so we will commence those as soon as we are able to. Even in the absence of those discussions, it is possible to raise returns cases on a case-by-case basis with member states, which, of course, we can do from 1 January. Critically, the new provisions prepare the way—they lay the foundations—for agreements that we may reach in future, besides facilitating case-by-case action.
Finally, although currently in force, the Dublin regulations have not been terribly effective. The right hon. Lady will know that the numbers we successfully return under Dublin are really rather small, numbering in the low hundreds per year. I am confident that, through active negotiation, not only can we replace Dublin but we can improve on it.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for everything he is doing to tackle illegal migration into this country. As he knows, in Stoke-on-Trent we have resettled the largest number of refugees in the region, which has put significant pressure on local services. Will my hon. Friend look at what more can be done to ensure that local services are not overwhelmed, and put more pressure on local authorities in other parts of the country that are not contributing fairly to the rehousing of refugees?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend and Stoke-on-Trent for their work to welcome genuine refugees, including as part of the resettlement programme. He raises a good point, because some parts of the country decline to take unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as part of the national transfer scheme, thereby putting enormous pressure on gateway authorities such as Kent, Portsmouth, Croydon and Hillingdon; and many other authorities, despite proclaiming themselves to be cities or even nations of sanctuary, often do not give consent for dispersed accommodation for asylum seekers. I say to any of those local authorities and to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales: please help us by accepting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under the national transfer scheme, particularly from Kent, Portsmouth, Hillingdon and Croydon, and please give consent for dispersed accommodation, because it is essential that we have that available to accommodate people who are seeking asylum.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Does the Minister recognise that this is a huge global issue; that there are almost 80 million refugees globally; that 85% of them have been taken in by the poorest countries in the world, not the wealthiest; that all of them are human beings; and that those who have made their way to this country, historically and in the current time, have made a massive contribution to our lives and our wellbeing? Can he say something positive about the contribution that refugees make to our society?
In the light of the new regulations, can the Minister give us an assurance that no refugees will be destitute while they are waiting for a decision, that none will be left homeless and that none will be left without food? Sadly, in all our cities one comes across people who are making apparently legitimate claims for asylum but are left in a position of destitution and forced to rely on the faith community merely to survive. Does the Minister not think that we can do a bit better than that in the fifth richest country in the world?
Chris Philp
I have already given the assurance about destitution to the shadow Minister and to the Chair of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the asylum system in general does provide support, accommodation and other support, the cost of which is getting on for £1 billion a year, so it is generous in nature. He talks about the refugee problem around the world, which we recognise. That is one reason why we spend a great deal of money on overseas aid. Even after the recent adjustment, that will still be many, many billions of pounds, probably in the region of £10 billion, which is more than almost every other country in the world, so we are doing our bit that way.
We are also doing our bit through the resettlement scheme, which I talked about earlier. It is the largest resettlement scheme of any European country—25,000 people over the past five years. Of course I accept that the people who choose to make their home in this country can, and very often do, make a significant contribution, which we welcome. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), set up the points-based immigration system with the Home Secretary, which went active very recently. It is essential that people either claiming asylum or entering the country for work and other purposes do so legally, and all Members of this House, including the former Leader of the Opposition, should be very clear with migrants in Europe that they should not attempt this dangerous crossing and they should not pay dangerous people smugglers. If they need protection, they should claim it where they are in Europe.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
My Dudley North constituents and I really want to place on record our gratitude to the Home Secretary and her team for the huge efforts that they are putting into fixing our broken asylum system. Does the Minister agree that we must get this legislation absolutely watertight to put a stop to the fraudulent claims that are costing the hard-working taxpayers of this country very dearly?
Chris Philp
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am afraid that, as it stands, the legal system is, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, unfortunately routinely abused with repeated unmeritorious claims. We are determined to prevent that from happening. Of course people will have a fair hearing, but we cannot have our legal system abused. I am very much looking forward to my hon. Friend’s assistance in making sure that this legislation is tightly drafted to ensure that there are no loopholes.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
I too congratulate the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on obtaining this very important urgent question. It is quite remarkable that, but for her efforts, there would be no effective scrutiny of changes of this magnitude. May I take the Minister at his word when he speaks about support for safe and legal routes and perhaps invite him then to update the House on what work he is doing to build a replacement for the Dubs scheme to bring unaccompanied refugee children from Europe to the United Kingdom?
Chris Philp
As I have already said, we have a very effective resettlement scheme, which takes people directly from conflict zones. The resettlement schemes that we have run over the past five years have principally focused, for obvious reasons, on Syria. A total of 25,000 people have come in via those schemes over five years. The Dubs scheme focuses on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe. If we have to prioritise our scarce resources, we should prioritise people, including children, who are in dangerous places such as Syria, not people who are in Italy, who are already in a safe European country. Furthermore, in terms of UASCs in Europe, this country had more UASC applications last year than any other European country. The figure was about 3,800 applications, which means that we are doing our bit for UASCs in Europe, but it is right that we prioritise people in dangerous places, not people in countries such as Italy when it comes to direct resettlement.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I welcome the immediate steps this Government have taken to overhaul our broken asylum system. What steps is my hon. Friend taking in the longer term to fix the system once and for all?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right: the measures in this set of rules are only a first step. The asylum and immigration system has far more systematic and fundamental problems that cause it, unfortunately, to be abused on many occasions. We need to have fundamental legislative change and, as I said in oral questions just a few days ago, we intend to legislate in the first half of next year to make sure that the legal system is tightened up, so that it cannot be abused and we have a system that is fair to those who need protection, but firm on those trying to abuse it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, would like to thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing the urgent question. The treatment of asylum seekers already in the care of the Home Office is immensely significant and the Government’s shocking treatment of asylum seekers in Penally camp in Pembrokeshire contrasts with the heart-warming response of local groups who support them as they arrive in the community. Winter is upon us and it remains unclear whether the camp was ever used by the Ministry of Defence during the winter months in the past. The camp is located in a remote rural location, raising questions of whether the Home Office can provide duty of care services effectively. Given those questions, will the Minister commit to set a date for an inspection of the camp by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration?
Chris Philp
It is not for me to tell the chief inspector how to conduct his inspections and his affairs, but I would say that Penally has been set up in a thoughtful and careful way. We have had to use such emergency accommodation because during coronavirus the number of people we are accommodating has gone up very dramatically, from 48,000 to about 60,000, as the cessations or move-ons we would ordinarily do have been substantially reduced. In the case of negative cessations, they are currently paused entirely across the whole United Kingdom. So that is the reason why it is organised as it is. As I said earlier, if Members, and in particular local authorities and devolved Administrations, want to see the use of hotels and places such as Penally reduced, supporting the Home Office in procuring more dispersed accommodation is the way to do that.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On accommodation, Clearsprings Ready Homes, which I believe manages the Penally camp and has also managed accommodation in my constituency for many years, made multimillion-pound profits over the past few years, paid one of its directors £147,000 last year—that is more than Dominic Cummings—and took a £2 million dividend in 2019. Yet we hear of squalid, degrading and unsafe conditions at its properties. I have raised those issues over many years with Ministers and officials, but it has been awarded a generous new contract with the Home Office. Why was it awarded that contract? How is it value for money? What will the Minister do to bear down on those appalling conditions?
Chris Philp
The contracts for the three service providers were awarded after a thorough process to evaluate the bids and they are, of course, subject to ongoing scrutiny on issues such as quality of accommodation, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. Generally speaking, the accommodation provided is of good quality and it compares very favourably with accommodation provided by some other countries. However, if he would like to write to me with any specific issues he wants to raise in relation to particular units of accommodation in his constituency, I will of course make sure they are investigated.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I am aware that many asylum seekers are being housed in hotels in central London. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that we are looking to find a long-term solution?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right that hotels are being used in central London and, indeed, in other cities. That is a consequence of the very short-term pressures created by coronavirus. It is our intention, as we go into next year and as the coronavirus pandemic abates, to get hotel numbers back down again. For financial and other reasons, it is not ideal to have to use hotels and we would like to phase out their use as quickly as we possibly can in the coming year.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
On Christmas eve, the first asylum seekers are due to arrive at the remote site of Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, where they will be housed in prefab-style accommodation. We have seen a similar approach in Kent and Wales, where Army barracks are being used, and other sites are planned. That is a lot of activity for what we are told is a temporary arrangement. Will the Minister explain the new policy approach to housing asylum seekers in hostile environments and tell me exactly when it will end?
Chris Philp
It is not a hostile environment. The accommodation meets the required standards. As I explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), we are having to provide additional units because the number of people being supported has gone up enormously as a result of coronavirus. Far fewer cessation notices have been served this year than would ordinarily be the case, because we are mindful of the welfare of the people concerned and the wider population. We do intend to scale up the cessations as quickly as we safely can. As we do that, the pressure on numbers will reduce correspondingly.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to preventing the criminal gangs from preying on the vulnerable people who make the dangerous crossings from France to the UK. One of the concerns that we all have is about how he will speed up the decision-making process so that those who are entitled to asylum in this country can be speedily resettled, and those who are not entitled to be here can be returned to a safe place as fast as possible. Will he advise the House on what action he will take in the new year to speed up the process so that decisions are made quickly?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right that speeding up the decision making is in everybody’s interests. It will mean that fewer people will need to be accommodated, it will be good for those people who get a positive decision, and for those who have a negative decision we can proceed with removal. Clearly, the coronavirus pandemic has had a negative effect on decision making, but it is now being rapidly ramped up again. We intend to recruit more asylum decision makers in the new year, and we also intend to look at ways of deploying technology, so better IT systems, to speed up processes and decision making. I recently visited Lunar House in Croydon, close to my constituency, where many of the teams who make the decisions are based. The spirit of my hon. Friend’s question is absolutely right, and we certainly intend to act upon it.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
This afternoon the Minister has sought to assure Members that the changes to this regime will protect applicants from destitution, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that the level of destitution in the UK, among UK citizens, is set to double to 2 million families. Can he explain how he expects Members to accept that the Government will protect asylum seekers from destitution, when they cannot protect 2 million UK nationals?
Chris Philp
We are protecting asylum seekers from destitution at the moment. I have already pointed out that we are spending in the region of £1 billion a year supporting the various cohorts of asylum seekers, and the accommodation and cash allowances that they are provided with have been tested by the courts and found to be suitable, so there is very clear evidence that the Government’s work in this area does the trick. The hon. Gentleman asked about wider issues, so I will just point out that measures such as elevating the minimum wage and increasing the tax-free allowance have done huge amounts over the past five or six years to combat poverty and create prosperity. As the economy recovers next year, after coronavirus, that will continue.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I know that both my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary are doing everything in their power to stop the illegal crossings on the south coast and the continuing abuse of our immigration and asylum system, but it is perfectly clear that we do need long-term reform. When can we expect the full details of how the Government intend to reform our currently broken system so that the UK is no longer a soft touch?
Chris Philp
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We intend to introduce legislation in the first half of next year, but that will of course be consulted on, so that everyone with an interest in the matter, including my hon. Friend and his constituents, can propose ideas and we can make sure the legislation has the desired effect.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
During this transition period, the Dublin regulations have given the UK temporary power to transfer refugees and migrants back to the EU country from which they arrived. As the ever-shifting deadline looms, I understand that the Home Office has sped up its asylum seeker processing in an attempt to deport vulnerable immigrants, including suspected trafficking victims, before the year’s end. I have dealt with a lot of cases of trafficking victims in Ilford South. I seek reassurance from the Minister that he will seriously consider putting proper screening in place so that anything that is unlawful and could end up creating serious harm can be stopped. Will he consider ending deportation until robust and proper screening is implemented?
Chris Philp
There is a robust screening process in place, via the single competent authority and the national referral mechanism. That is working, I think it is fair to say, extremely effectively, so the risks the hon. Member identifies do not currently exist. This is a matter that is frequently tested in the courts, so we will almost certainly not be stopping removals and deportations. The Government are determined to apply the law, whether to people who have failed in their asylum claims or dangerous criminals who pose a threat to our constituents. I hope the Labour party and the hon. Gentleman will join us in supporting the proper operation of our law and protecting our constituents.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I welcome the steps the Government have taken to deter dangerous journeys that put human lives at risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a long-standing principle that asylum seekers should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity, in the first safe country they reach? Will he also confirm that safe countries still include France, Italy, Greece, and so on?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right. European Union countries, including the ones she lists, are obviously manifestly safe and civilised countries. People who find themselves in need of protection in those countries should claim asylum there, as she says. They should not attempt dangerous crossings of the English channel, facilitated by ruthless criminals, and every single Member of this House should send the same message.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
These major, fundamental changes to the immigration rules were laid last week, incredibly, with zero consultation with stakeholders such as local authorities and the asylum sector. In the last two years the number of people waiting for longer than six months for a decision has increased almost threefold, with nearly 40,000 people having to wait at least that long. Surely the changes risk creating even greater inefficiency and delays, with people having to wait to find out whether the UK will even consider their asylum claim?
Chris Philp
The changes are designed to ensure that we can enter into agreements with other countries to replace Dublin. They are designed to ensure that people who unnecessarily come to the United Kingdom—often clandestinely, often dangerously and often facilitated by criminals—do not do so, because they could instead claim asylum somewhere safe, such as France or Germany. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that that is the right thing to do and what we should be encouraging people to do.
On the timing of asylum decision making, as I mentioned in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), we want to speed things up, but unfortunately coronavirus has impacted decision making, as it has impacted so many elements of the public service system. However, we are focused on making sure the system speeds up, and that is a top priority for the coming year.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for everything they are doing in this area. Does the Minister agree that the attitude of many Opposition Members in objecting to the deportation of convicted criminals, including murderers and rapists, harms the case of genuine refugees? Will he act to overhaul the rules, which see some lawyers abusing the system, to the detriment of taxpayers in North West Durham and across the country, and also genuine refugees?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We saw in our debate a couple of weeks ago some Opposition Members, astonishingly, standing up for the rights of people who have been convicted of extremely serious criminal offences, instead of standing up for the rights of victims or the rights of our constituents to be protected against the harm that those dangerous individuals represent. He is also right when he points out that unmeritorious claims crowd out, or push further back in the queue, the claims of those who have every right to protection. That is why we are determined to legislate next year to ensure that those whose claims are genuine are treated quickly and fairly, but that where people do not have a good claim and are abusing the system, the system is firm and rejects those claims.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
As a city of sanctuary, Newcastle seeks to support those fleeing war and persecution, but all too often the Home Office places them in accommodation that is unsuitable, inadequate or plain disgusting, and where they may be targeted by far-right groups, as happened recently in Newcastle, and then leaves them for months or years without proper consideration of their case, at great cost to the mental wellbeing of those who are already vulnerable. Am I right to think that the Minister’s solution to this is now to arbitrarily reduce the cases considered, rather than actually fixing the process?
Chris Philp
The Government’s policy, as I have laid out, is to do everything we can to make sure that where people wishing to claim asylum are already in a safe, civilised country like France, Germany or Spain, they claim asylum there and do not attempt a dangerous journey facilitated by ruthless criminals. That is the right thing to do, and I would hope to have the hon. Lady’s support in doing it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The people of Ashfield and Eastwood are fed up with seeing illegal economic migrants leaving safe countries such as France to claim asylum in the UK while filling the pockets of greedy lawyers. I welcome the immediate steps the Government are taking to overhaul our broken asylum system, but the people of Ashfield and Eastwood want to know what steps my hon. Friend is taking in the longer term to fix this system once and for all.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right in the sense that the system does not work currently in the way that it should. People are able to make repeated, unmeritorious and sometimes vexatious claims to frustrate the system and prevent removal. For that reason, we will legislate in the first half of next year to make sure that the system is fundamentally fixed and fundamentally reformed in a way that will give his constituents the confidence they have every right to expect.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that Glasgow has housed and accommodated asylum seekers for almost 20 years—something of which we are very proud. Can he say a bit more about how those who may be considered to be inadmissible under the new rules will be supported and accommodated? Will they, for example, be placed in detention centres, camps, barracks and hotels—he will be aware that a group of doctors has written to the Department with concerns about the conditions for asylum seekers in these sorts of accommodation—or is he going to rule out those sorts of accommodation going forward?
Chris Philp
Glasgow does accommodate a large number of asylum seekers. We work very closely with Glasgow City Council and the Communities and Local Government Secretary in the Scottish Government on that topic. Glasgow is the only Scottish authority to receive asylum seekers. It would ease the pressure on Glasgow, and indeed across the United Kingdom, if other Scottish local authorities were able to accommodate asylum seekers as well. In terms of the type of accommodation provided, the inadmissible cohort, although inadmissible, will be entitled to accommodation, as I have said, and the support that goes with that. We will make sure that the support they receive fully complies with all our legal and moral obligations.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for asking this question. The vast immigration detention estate, in all its forms, is a standing indictment of our failed immigration system, which, as the Minister knows, every day carries with it a risk. He is right to focus on reform, although I would say that the goal is not so much to be fast and furious as to be fair and accurate.
My question relates to the security of some of the barracks accommodation and other accommodation that is being provided. There have been some reports of asylum seekers leaving these estates and not coming back. What inquiries has the Minister undertaken, and what reassurance can he give to communities where these sites are located?
Chris Philp
The size of the immigration detention estate has actually shrunk considerably over the past five or six years. I think I am right in saying that it has reduced in size by, very approximately, 50%. Detention is used sparingly and only as a necessary precursor to removal. On the accommodation for people seeking asylum, this is not detention. The people are not detained and are free to come and go as they choose, but obviously those operating the sites keep a very careful eye on them. For example, there is a process of signing in and signing out, and if people are not back on the site by 10 pm each evening, then inquiries are made. Although the people in the centres are not detained, very careful measures are taken to understand their whereabouts to make sure that nothing untoward happens in the local communities. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that as reassurance, but I would be happy to discuss these issues further, particularly in the Yarl’s Wood context, if he would like to do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to the questions so far. The changes explain that an asylum claim can be reinstated after a “reasonable period of time” if another safe country is unable to admit that person. Can the Minister outline what a reasonable period is, what support will be given in the interim period, and what processes are in place to support people whose claims are deemed inadmissible in the United Kingdom?
Chris Philp
I can assure the hon. Member that while the process unfolds of seeking another country to receive the person, support will be made available to avoid the risk of destitution. The reasonable length of time taken to secure the agreement of another country will be laid out in guidance shortly, but it will be a matter of a few months; it will not be an extended period.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Britain’s broken asylum system is currently costing the taxpayer over £1 billion per year. Does the Minister agree that a decisive push is now needed comprehensively to deal with and process more quickly the 60,000 asylum seekers currently in supported accommodation, and to disincentivise others from making the perilous journey across the channel?
Chris Philp
Yes, I do agree. In fact, some of those 60,000 are people whose asylum claims are not pending but whose asylum claims have been rejected, and where the legal process has been convoluted and removal has not been effected. One of the things that we intend to do in our Bill is ensure that failed asylum seekers can be more quickly returned to their safe country of origin, which, of course, is what should happen. My hon. Friend is right that we need to speed up asylum decision making and get these numbers down. That is fair to individuals who have a valid asylum claim, but also to the taxpayer, upon whom otherwise falls an extremely large financial burden. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s sentiments.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Lewisham is proud to be a borough of sanctuary, and the council has stated that it will not collaborate with the Home Office in enforcing new immigration rules that make rough sleeping a legal ground to cancel or refuse permission to stay in the UK. As we enter the coldest months of the year, how can the Minister justify these rules when they risk deterring rough sleepers from seeking help and threaten to put many lives at risk?
Chris Philp
The Government have been extremely clear that the rules on rough sleeping to which the hon. Lady refers only apply where the person concerned has persistently refused offers of help and support, and are engaging in persistent antisocial behaviour. It is expected to be used in an extremely small number of circumstances. Of course everybody will be offered help and support to get off the streets. The Government have invested about £700 million this year alone in helping people to get off the streets and into accommodation. She mentions Lewisham’s desire to assist. One way in which the London Borough of Lewisham can certainly assist is by taking on some unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are arriving in Kent. I look forward to hearing from her and from the leader of her authority as to exactly how many of those children they propose to take in over Christmas.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for approaching an hour. We are now going to suspend for three minutes for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes, and the safe exit and arrival of Members of Parliament.
Uyghur Slave Labour: Xinjiang
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what the Government are doing to deal with the overwhelming evidence of the Chinese Government’s use of Uyghur slave labour in Xinjiang province.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
Evidence of forced Uyghur labour within Xinjiang and in other parts of China is credible; it is growing and it is deeply troubling to the UK Government. Yesterday’s media reporting, based in part on Chinese Government documents, suggests that forced labour is occurring on a significant scale. The reports raise particular concerns regarding the cotton industry, with serious implications for international and UK supply chains. We have consistently made clear our view that all businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang or with parts of their supply chains in Xinjiang should conduct appropriate due diligence to satisfy themselves that their activities do not support, or risk being seen to support, any human rights violations or abuses.
In our national action plan, implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, we set out our expectation that UK businesses should respect human rights across their operations and their international supply relationships. While there is an important role for Government, businesses have a clear responsibility to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour. We have issued clear guidance and held regular meetings with businesses and industry stakeholders to underline our concerns and the importance of thorough due diligence. We have also financed projects to build the evidence base and increase awareness of the risks. This includes the high-profile report “Uyghurs for sale”, which has led several companies to take action in respect of their supply chains.
I have updated the House on a number of occasions on the UK’s international leadership and extensive diplomatic activity to hold China to account. Most recently, alongside Germany, we brought together a total of 39 countries in a joint statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in October. That sent a powerful message to China on the breadth of international concern, including on the issue of forced labour. In September, we devoted our entire national statement at the UN Human Rights Council to China, again raising forced labour.
In summary, the UK has taken the lead internationally. We have shone a light on the evidence of what is going on, to raise awareness and urge action, and we have provided clear guidance to business. However, the Government acknowledge that, in light of the gross human rights abuses being committed, there is more to be done. That is why, in September, the Home Secretary announced plans to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is co-ordinating extensive work right across Government to address this deeply concerning issue.
I will conclude by reassuring the House that we recognise and share the depth of cross-party concern on the human rights situation in Xinjiang. We have made that concern abundantly clear to the Chinese Government, and we expect China to live up to its responsibilities under international law and to the commitments it has made as a leading member of the international community. Continuing to stand up for those whose human rights are oppressed remains a top priority for this Government.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Let me make it clear that this question is not about being anti-Chinese—far from it. It is about the abuses of the dictatorial Chinese Communist Government and its ruling elite. On Monday, Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China adviser Adrian Zenz published research taken from internal Chinese Government files, which showed that in 2018 the prefectures of Aksu and Hotan sent 210,000 workers via coercive labour transfer to forcibly pick cotton for a Chinese paramilitary organisation, the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. That is, in effect, slave labour. Furthermore, Mr Zenz and IPAC have also shown that the Chinese Government forced Uyghur women into sterilisation. As a result, the Uyghur population in those regions fell by as much as 84% between 2015 and 2018. That is action verging, I believe, on genocide.
Meanwhile, the peaceful proponents of democracy in Hong Kong are locked up and forced to flee their homes; Christians and Falun Gong have suffered organ harvesting, while half a million Tibetans have been forced into labour camps. The Chinese Communist party is oppressive at home and bullying abroad—just look at the its actions in bullying Australia for calling for an independent inquiry into the origins of covid, and the revelations over the weekend that supposedly secure institutions such as even the Foreign Office have been penetrated not only by CCP members, but by members of the fanatical United Front. The security issues are paramount.
I ask my hon. Friend when he will announce that those responsible for all these evils will be sanctioned under the Magnitsky regimes. We have been going on and on about that, without answer. Will he commit to reviewing all our dependency on China and to putting that on a secure basis? May I ask what he is doing now about the penetration by those United Front entryists into the embassy and other secure institutions in the United Kingdom? Will his Department support the forthcoming genocide amendment that is now in the other place?
I simply say to my hon. Friend that we must condemn—not just criticise, but condemn—the actions being taken by this abusive Government. We have learned in the past that appeasement does not work. That is why we must take this head-on, right now, before it becomes too big to manage.
Nigel Adams
I thank my right hon. Friend both for securing this urgent question and for the work he does with colleagues cross-party on this important issue. He raised the question of members of the CCP and United Front getting access to some of our institutions. First and foremost, we protect our most sensitive information by ensuring that local staff do not have access to it, regardless of whether they hold any party affiliation, and we undertake robust vetting of staff. We value the work of local staff immensely and they help to promote UK prosperity, but, as he knows, there are 91 million members of the Chinese Communist party; it is a mass-membership organisation at the heart of Chinese government, business, academia and social life.
My right hon. Friend also raised the question of sanctions. Of course, that is an issue that we have discussed on a regular basis since announcing our regime in July. We are constantly and carefully considering further designations under that regime, and we will keep all potential listings under review.
My right hon. Friend also asked about the amendment to the Trade Bill in the other place. Our commitment to upholding human rights and opposing genocide in all its forms is unequivocal. The Trade Bill applies only to trade agreements that have already been signed with the EU that we are rolling over as an independent trading nation. None of the agreements that we have signed, which have been scrutinised by Parliament, have eroded any domestic standards in relation to human rights or equalities.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday, Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis described the treatment of the Uyghur people as an “unfathomable mass atrocity”. He added:
“Let no person say that the responsibility lies with others.”
The shocking BBC revelations must be the trigger for action, following accounts of forced sterilisations, beatings and re-education camps, which undeniably share features of genocide.
Yesterday, it became clear that Britain is deeply involved in this story. We are tied to the Uyghur people through our global supply chains, importing cotton born of forced labour into our markets and, in doing so, unwittingly helping to sustain these appalling mass atrocities. I want to hear about action today. The Government must introduce Magnitsky sanctions and work with our allies to maximise their effect. Has the Minister discussed targeted sanctions with partners in North America, Europe and Australia?
In October, the Foreign Secretary said he needed to “gather the evidence”, but by December no Xinjiang officials were included in the updated Magnitsky list. Without further evidence, we will not make progress, so how are the Government going to work with allies to pressure China to allow the UN access to Xinjiang? Has the Minister considered the use of the 1984 convention against torture, a potential international legal process that does not present the same jurisdictional challenges facing the International Criminal Court or face the same evidence bar?
When the BBC asked British companies to confirm that cotton from Xinjiang was not used in their supply chains, only four were able to do so. If that does not fire our sense of urgency, what on earth will? The review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 concluded that for many companies it was simply a “tick-box exercise”, with 40% not complying at all. It recommended enforcement and stronger processes. What are the Government waiting for?
Can the Minister confirm today that no public body, whether it is the NHS, the armed forces or his own Department, uses cotton from Xinjiang? If he cannot, will he tell us what he is going to do to ensure that the Modern Slavery Act covers public bodies and that not a penny of public money is spent on allowing the mass persecution of the Uyghur to continue?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I share the Chief Rabbi’s serious concerns about the gross violations of human rights that are being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims—and other minorities, it is fair to say—in Xinjiang.
The hon. Lady is right to mention the report. We have repeatedly urged businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang or with parts of their supply chains in the region to ensure that they conduct the appropriate due diligence—to ensure that those activities do not support human rights violations or abuses. We have reinforced that message through engagement with businesses, industry groups and other stakeholders. Of course we work internationally in our co-operation on these issues; we were able to pull together 39 countries at the UN to support our statement.
On the Modern Slavery Act, incidentally, the UK is the first country in the world to require businesses to report on how they are tackling modern slavery in their operations. The Home Office has announced a series of measures to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act, including extending transparency obligations to certain public bodies, which the hon. Lady mentioned, and those measures will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. I can also tell her that the FCDO is co-ordinating extensive further work across Government to address this deeply concerning issue, which we acknowledge.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). This report by Adrian Zenz is extremely powerful and makes clear and sobering reading. I am sure the Minister will have followed the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing yesterday, where we heard from Uyghur activists—one in Europe and one in the United States—as well as human rights lawyers and a UN expert. They all made clear their view on the human rights violations that we are witnessing today.
The Minister has heard the call for Magnitsky sanctions to be urgently applied and not merely promised, as we have sadly heard too much in the House. Will he commit to ensure that the resources of the Foreign Office at home and abroad will help companies to ensure that they track slave products and slave labour through their supply chains and that Her Majesty’s Government will help them to inspect factories and supply routes around the world?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is right. That is why we will be taking measures to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act. As I mentioned, the FCDO is co-ordinating further extensive work. We are working right across Departments to ensure that we have the correct response. That involves supporting businesses, which do an awful lot of trade in that part of the world, and we have been making it absolutely clear that they need to ensure that their supply chains are free of forced labour, otherwise there will very likely be consequences. He knows that sanctions are being constantly and carefully considered. They also need to be developed responsibly and on the basis of evidence. It is not appropriate to speculate on any individuals who may or may not be sanctioned in the future.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on bringing this important issue to the House. I am pleased to follow three very strong contributions that I agree with. There is common ground here and a common effort, so I do not propose to cover that ground again. I will boil it down to two concrete questions for the Minister.
The Minister is right to say that companies have a primary responsibility for their own due diligence, to ensure that they are not profiting from slave labour, but there has been a lot of carrot, and it is time for some stick. The BBC has shown up the Government’s inaction in auditing UK companies’ involvement in and potential profiting from slavery, so I repeat my call for a Government audit of UK companies involved in this. I was struck by his comments to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) about the FCDO’s work across Departments to have parallel efforts on Government procurement. Could we have a statement to the House specifically on those efforts in early course?
Nigel Adams
We will be able to update the House on that cross-Government work in due course—likely in the new year. The hon. Gentleman says that we are behind the curve. I would politely mention that the UK being the first country to require businesses to report how they identify and address modern slavery should be to this Government’s credit. The Home Office made it clear in September that we intend to strengthen those laws. He will have to wait a little bit longer in terms of those actions being brought to the House.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I want to add my weight to the Chief Rabbi’s intervention, which exposes the abuse of the Uyghur. The Chief Rabbi also said that there must be an
“urgent, independent and unfettered investigation into what is happening.”
Can the Minister comment on that? As crimes against humanity by the Chinese Government grow, has the Chinese ambassador been summoned to explain what is happening?
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, on which I sit, is conducting an inquiry into UK business supply chain links to Xinjiang. We are now implicated in this, and we have to take action, not speak powerfully on this issue. Finally, may I encourage the Minister to reach out to the incoming Biden Administration, to learn more about the United States Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and see how we can collaborate to prevent the abuse of Uyghur men, the exploitation of Uyghur women and the destruction of the lives of Uyghur children?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise a number of points. We are seriously concerned about a number of gross violations of human rights that are being perpetrated against Uyghur men and women and other minorities in Xinjiang. The Chief Rabbi is spot on, and we share his concerns about these violations that are being perpetrated. As I said, we are working internationally and co-operating with our partners on this issue. I am hopeful that my hon. Friend will draw some comfort in the new year from the new measures that we bring forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Can Members please focus on shorter questions? I would like to get everybody in.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
As people shop for their Christmas presents, we are all grateful to be able to buy products from our fifth largest trading partner, China, but I am sure that many people would be appalled to know that by shopping for some brands, they are inadvertently spending their money on such abhorrent practices as slave labour. To help consumers make wise choices now, will the Government create a publicly available watchlist of companies of concern? Will the Minister consider a total ban on any products that are linked in any way to human rights abuses?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for the way that she engages with FCDO. Most parties are on the same page in this situation, and our officials meet businesses and industry stakeholders regularly to make them aware of the scale of forced labour issues. I ask her to have a bit of patience into the new year, when we will bring to the House the next stage of support and action via the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We will also be able to talk a little more about cross-Government work.
I forgot to answer one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), about the Chinese ambassador. He has been summoned to the Foreign Office to meet the permanent under-secretary, and following the publication of the report in the last couple of days, yesterday we made our views known strongly to the embassy.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The principle of non-intervention in another country’s internal affairs is generally a good one, but surely it is applicable only when people are able to choose the Government whom they live under, and where their rights and freedoms are respected. Does my hon. Friend agree that with respect to totalitarian states there is a duty on all strong and free nations to speak out for the weak and forgotten, even when politically uncomfortable or inconvenient?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. We are not dealing with a country with a normal party system. We have long worked with international partners on this issue, and we led the first joint international statements at the third committee of the General Assembly last year, as well as in June at the UN Human Right Council. As I said, to get 39 countries to join our statement at the third committee about the situation in Xinjiang was no mean feat but, as ever on these issues, my right hon. Friend is spot on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This House is united in its joint calls for our Government to act and respond robustly. I first raised the treatment of the Uyghurs in this House in 2015, yet here we are five years later and the situation remains every bit as desperate. I know it is not the personal responsibility of the Minister, but I believe we have a moral obligation to use whatever channels are available to ensure that all is done to penalise China. We must apply as much pressure as we can to help those who are being persecuted only because of their religion and their faith.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is a long-term champion of freedom of religion and belief. We are deeply concerned about the persecution of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners, and I know he cares deeply about that. We are concerned about the actions that are going on, and as the UK we are proud that we stand up and speak out when we see such violations occur. I know the hon. Gentleman will continue to bring such cases to the House, and if he would like us to follow up any specific cases, we are more than happy to do so.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I commend the Government for the approach they have taken thus far and for their intention to ensure that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is made more robust to tackle this issue. With that in mind, can I push for an extension to the Magnitsky Act to be placed on those Chinese individuals we are able to identify? Can I also ask whether the Government might recognise the independent Uyghur tribunal set up by Sir Geoffrey Nice, which is due to report next year?
Nigel Adams
We are liaising. We are very much aware of the work my hon. Friend refers to, and our officials and Ministers are having discussions in that regard. He mentions sanctions. As he knows, we are constantly and carefully considering further designations, and we will keep all potential listings under review.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
May I remind the Minister, who I have a lot of time for, that we have all-party support on this issue? China is really waging a war against democracy and human rights —not just in Hong Kong and China but worldwide. Is it not about time that we sent President Xi Jinping a strong message that we will not continue to allow investment in our country or to allow wealthy members of the politburo to come to the classic luxury shops in this country—when they are open? Can we not send a stronger message now that we will not put up with this any longer and that our hearts and minds are with the poor persecuted people working as slave labourers?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, trade with China is important to the UK. China is the UK’s fourth largest trading partner, and total bilateral trade was worth over £76 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 2 2020. However, as we continue to strive for that positive relationship, we will not sacrifice our values or our security. We are absolutely clear-sighted about challenges, and as we continue to engage we will always protect our national interest, speak up and hold China to its international commitments and promises.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the 19th century, the House of Commons established its legacy on behalf of the enslaved and persecuted people in the world with the slavery and emancipation Acts. Is the Minister aware, after these questions, that whatever action he takes, the House of Commons will give him full support? The Chinese Government do not care a damn about mere words; only action will persuade them. Will he therefore summon the UK fashion industry to tell it that, unless it can prove that cotton is not picked with slave labour, it will stop importing from China? Will he also pursue the Magnitsky sanctions point, and will he, after Brexit, pursue with our allies the point on trade sanctions?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, as he has on other occasions. Of course we will continue to call out China when it abuses its international obligations. We have announced new measures that will strengthen the Modern Slavery Act. As soon as an opportunity arises, we will bring those to the House. I would ask my right hon. Friend to be a little patient, into the new year, on the other measures we hope to bring forward following our consultations across Government.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The abhorrent persecution of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang by the Chinese Government must receive sustained international condemnation. The UK Government must be a key player in that and must not sit back and let the abuses continue. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support the appointment of a UN special rapporteur for the investigation of forced labour and ethnic persecution in Xinjiang?
Nigel Adams
We have been leading on this issue internationally, and I referred to the 38 other countries that joined us at the UN in one of the many statements that we have made on this issue. However, any action we take at the UN has to have an opportunity of succeeding, and there is no point bringing forward measures that will potentially give the intended target a propaganda coup.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) [V]
Like many right hon. and hon. Members across the House, I have been shocked, saddened and appalled by the plight of the Uyghurs in China. This was reinforced yesterday by the words of the Chief Rabbi. I would like to inquire what practical steps the Minister and the Foreign Secretary are taking to hold China to account for its disturbing and abhorrent actions.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise this again. We welcome the Chief Rabbi’s intervention, and we share his serious concerns about the violations that are being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are playing a leading role internationally in holding China to account for these violations. We have led or co-ordinated multiple joint statements on this issue. This groundswell of international concern does send a powerful message, and I can assure him that it is increasing the pressure on the Chinese authorities to change course.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
As future post-Brexit trade deals are negotiated, can the Minister confirm that the UK will not back down on its moral and ethical principles to secure any economic gains and that China agreeing to put an end to violations of its citizens’ human rights is an unmoveable precondition to the UK signing such a deal?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. We have a high level of ambition for our trade and investment partnership with China. We want to work with China to increase trade and investment flows, to make sure that our companies can get market access and to set a mutual ambition for a future relationship, but as we strive for that positive future relationship, we will not sacrifice either our values or our security.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question. The treatment of the Uyghurs is atrocious. Will the Minister confirm that the imposition of measures intended to prevent births within an ethnic or religious group is expressly forbidden under the terms of article II(d) of the UN convention on genocide, and will he seriously consider what international actions can be taken beyond joint statements to respond to the human rights abuses being committed in Xinjiang?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to this. We debated that very issue some months ago in the Chamber. Of course, we abhor any of those practices. He refers to the term “genocide”. That very much has a specific definition in international law. It is our long-standing policy that any judgment as to whether crimes against humanity or genocide have occurred is absolutely a matter for judicial decision.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
The ever-increasing body of evidence of industrialised atrocities by the Chinese Communist party brings into stark focus my calls for the creation of an atrocity prevention unit at the FCDO. Does my hon. Friend agree that, internationally, we must ensure that the cost to the CCP’s reputation and economy is so great that it finally ceases the appalling genocide being committed against the Uyghur people, and what steps is he taking to magnify those costs to the greatest extent possible?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her continued work in this area. I agree that it is absolutely vital that China understands the breadth of international concern about the situation in Xinjiang. She knows that we have taken the lead internationally on this issue. We have gone from 28 countries supporting a joint statement in June to 39 countries supporting a statement at the UN in October. This does send a powerful message to China, and if international businesses continue to take the action we are urging to ensure their supply chains are free of forced labour—I note that a number of prominent UK businesses have already done so—that will also send an important message to China.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Why has it taken the FCDO so long to apply the Magnitsky sanctions against Chinese Government officials responsible for grave human rights abuses against the Uyghur people—we have heard from other Members what has happened in Tibet and what is happening in Hong Kong—given the speed in which the Minister has said that they added sanctions to Belarussian officials previously?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has heard it multiple times at this Dispatch Box, that we are constantly and carefully considering further designations under the sanctions regime, but they have to be developed with absolute evidence in a responsible way. It is not right to speculate or rush into these measures. There is a pretty good chance of seeing asset flight if that is the case, but I can assure him that we are very carefully considering any further designations.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
In the 21st century, businesses put a great premium on showing that they are socially responsible, yet it is impossible to be one if you use products that are the result of forced labour, so does my hon. Friend agree that our businesses need to establish immediately whether they are using anything that is a product of forced labour, and if they are, to cease doing so immediately?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise this. I agree that there is a role for Government, but businesses have a vital role to play in ensuring that their supply chains are free of forced labour. We repeatedly urge businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang or with parts of their supply chain in the region to do so and to conduct that due diligence. We are going to make enhancements to the Modern Slavery Act. We have reinforced this message through very close engagement with businesses, industry groups and other stakeholders.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Well done, Chief Rabbi, for being one of the most authentic voices to speak out in support of the Uyghur people. Well done, Ministers, too, for taking a lead in October at the United Nations. Will the Minister persuade not only his colleagues, but the Governments that he persuaded in October to support the Uyghur people, to look at national public procurement supply chains to ensure that, while it is difficult to persuade the fashion industry to eschew dubiously sourced cotton, national Governments are doing everything in their power to ensure that products in their supply chains—I am thinking particularly of uniforms—have nothing to do with cotton sourced from countries that may be using forced labour?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend is right. As I said, we are working cross-Government and we are working intensively with our international partners. It is absolutely the case that we should be bringing pressure to bear on those companies that are operating in the region. This is an area on which we will have a bit more to say in the new year, but I give him my assurance that we are working very co-operatively with our international partners on these issues, as well as across Government.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Some of the comments that the Minister has made remind me of his predecessor’s responses to the situation in Myanmar against Rohingya Muslims. It shows that the failure of our Government to take a strong international leadership role to secure justice sends a dangerous message to repressive Governments around the world that ethnic cleansing and genocide against Muslims and other minorities is an acceptable policy tool. That is the message that he is sending, so it is time that our Government stop making excuses. I appreciate what he is doing, but he needs to look at the record of action and inaction in the past and learn from that. That is why I call on him once again to heed the advice of Members across the House and start to apply sanctions—Magnitsky sanctions —and to seek a UN investigation into what is happening, as well as supporting the International Court of Justice case on genocide prevention led by the Gambia in relation to the Rohingya Muslims, because it is just not acceptable for our Government to continue to make excuses.
Nigel Adams
We are not making excuses. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady and we have spoken at great length on these issues, both inside and outside the Chamber. We are taking a lead; if that was not the case, a rising number of countries would not be supporting our statements at the UN. We are of course looking very closely at the case in Myanmar—we have discussed it face-to-face on a number of occasions and will continue to do.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I understand that these things are difficult, but I encourage the Minister to persuade our allies that, whatever the difficulties and costs of tackling this and other problems now, they will only go up. The sooner we deal with these issues, the easier they will be to tackle. On this particular issue, what steps can we take to ensure—not just through guidance—that UK companies are not benefiting from slave labour?
Nigel Adams
Like many right hon. and hon. Members, my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We constantly urge businesses involved in investing in this part of the world to ensure that their supply chains are free of forced labour and to satisfy themselves that their activities do not support, or give the impression that they support, forced labour. We constantly talk to industry groups, as well as directly to businesses. It is worth pointing out that we have financed projects to increase awareness of how international supply chains may contribute to human rights violations or abuses in Xinjiang.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Concentration camps, forced labour, medical sterilisations —disturbingly, we have seen all this before. Until garment retailers and Xinjiang officials act, will the Minister legislate to require UK garment retailers to show on labelling if cotton is sourced from forced Uyghur labour in Xinjiang, so that consumers can decide for themselves which brands they wish to support?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We constantly raise serious concerns about the gross violations of human rights to which she refers. As I have said, we raised the deeply concerning latest new evidence directly with the Chinese embassy yesterday. I urge her to have a little patience in terms of the new measures on supply chains that the Government are going to bring forward.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
It was disappointing to read this week that the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court had declined to investigate China in respect of the persecution of Uyghur Muslims on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction to do so, and we know that the UK tribunal led by Geoffrey Nice has no legal teeth of its own, so will my hon. Friend consider working with our many international partners to seek a special resolution at the UN and perhaps even establish a specialist tribunal, so that in time those responsible for these crimes can be brought to justice?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. A whole range of options is available to us that involve working with the UN. As I mentioned in a previous answer, whatever steps we take have to have a realistic chance of being successful in that particular forum. We will continue to work with our international partners, as she suggests; working alongside our international partners is the best approach in this regard.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
We have rightly heard from both sides of the House condemnation of the atrocious, barbaric and, quite frankly, harrowing treatment of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Members from all parties who have been working on the National Security and Investment Bill over the past month heard evidence from none another than Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who sketched out a very complex picture that clearly showed that for far too long successive Governments have placed economic interests, including with China, far ahead of our human rights obligations. Will the Minister consider that and say whether he will look again at our relationship with China and not prioritise economic interests ahead of either national security or human rights?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Obviously trade with China is important to us. As I said earlier, it is the fourth largest trading partner. It is important to help UK firms to overcome the economic challenges of covid and ensure our long-term prosperity, but I can guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we will not sacrifice either our values or our security in that regard.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Clearly the footage shown on the BBC earlier this week showed factories located right next door to prison camps in Xinjiang. That is very disturbing and suggests very strongly that the people working in those factories are in the prison camps, and are not doing so willingly. It is also clear that the conditions under which people are living are inhumane. When he sees the Chinese ambassador, will my hon. Friend urge him to accept the need for an independent investigation into the treatment and detention of the Uyghur people, so that we can get to the bottom of this and ensure proper, humane conditions, and make sure that people are paid for the work they do and that they do so voluntarily?
Nigel Adams
We do make this absolutely clear; in fact, the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the UN Human Rights Commissioner or another independent fact-finding body must be given unfettered access to Xinjiang to check the facts to which my hon. Friend refers. We call for that repeatedly in joint statements at UN bodies and we bring this up regularly with the Chinese ambassador to the UK, but I reiterate that it is vital that China allows such access without delay.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
What conversations has the Minister had with his counterpart in China about the treatment of the Uyghur people, and what conversations has he had with counterparts elsewhere to co-ordinate an international response to the human rights abuses being committed against the Uyghur in Xinjiang?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady asks a very good question. We regularly have conversations with our international partners, as exemplified by the 39 countries that joined us at the UN, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with his counterpart in China on this very issue.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The human rights violations in China have rightly sparked significant concern in my constituency, not least among the substantial Muslim population in Kensington. Will my hon. Friend commit to me that we will keep up the international pressure, in particular with the incoming US Administration?
Nigel Adams
Of course, it is absolutely key that we keep up the international pressure, working with our international partners, not least the United States and the incoming Administration. We are looking forward to working with the new Administration on all our shared interests, and the issue of Xinjiang and the Uyghur population will be high on our agenda.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I commend the work of the BBC for shining a bright light on these practices. It is a body that often gets a lot of bad press in this Chamber, but it has done a terrific job. Given that 20% of global cotton comes from the area—84% of Chinese cotton that goes into production—it is difficult for businesses to trace the source in their supply chains. What powers do the Government have under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and how are they exercising them? Why have the Government been quick to move on Belarus with Magnitsky sanctions, but slow on China?
Nigel Adams
On the final point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I have said numerous times at this Dispatch Box, we are carefully considering a range of designations under our global human rights regime. We have to do that in a responsible way, based on accurate evidence, and all potential listings in that regard are under review.
In terms of supply chains, we are repeatedly urging businesses involved in investing in Xinjiang, or with parts of their supply chains in that region, to ensure that they conduct the appropriate due diligence to ensure that none of their products, or the supply chains for them, have been involved in forced labour. I politely ask the hon. Gentleman, as I have other hon. Members, to wait until the new year, when we will be able to conclude our cross-Government work and come to the House to put forward some measures that hopefully he will be able to support.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
There is no excuse in the 21st century for slavery to still exist, so will my hon. Friend agree that businesses should hear loud and clear today that they should never profit and see fashionable the opportunity to make money from the slavery and suffering of others? Will he please outline the steps that he is taking to build the largest possible international coalition, including business, to condemn the Chinese action?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital that China understands the breadth of international concern about the situation. That has been the focus of all our intensive diplomatic activity on the issue. As I said, it is reflected in the growth in the number of countries that have joined us, rising from 28 countries last year to 39 countries at the latest Human Rights Council in June.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is indeed chilling to see those pictures, and to read about what is happening not only in the re-education camps but now in this slave labour report. We have seen a decade of this Government getting closer to China, which has been deeply concerning for many of us. Now the Government are delaying in putting new measures forward—talking about the new year, and not saying when in the new year, or exactly what they will do. We cannot wait. The time is urgent now. People’s lives are being put at risk. Could the Government be clearer on exactly what they are bringing forward and when, and how they will bring more nations on board, because 39 countries are clearly not enough to stop this human rights abuse?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady will have to be patient, I am afraid, in terms of the parliamentary time that would allow us to bring forward the changes to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act, for example. She talked about our very recent relationship with China. We want a positive and mature relationship with China, which is a very important member of the international community. Without China, we risk not being able to tackle global challenges, but when we have concerns we will raise them, and where we need to intervene we do.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
My constituents in Stoke-on-Trent Central are deeply concerned and shocked by reports of forced labour of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Britain’s Modern Slavery Act requires big businesses to detail their anti-slavery efforts annually; however, as my hon. Friend will know, well-meaning words fall short of action. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that UK businesses are not complicit in modern-day slavery?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend rightly raises the Modern Slavery Act. At the risk of repeating myself, I remind the House that we are the first country in the world to require businesses to report on how they are tackling modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. As she will know, in September the Home Office announced a series of measures to strengthen the Act, and transparency in thousands of businesses and public body supply chains. That involves extending the reporting requirement to public bodies with a budget of £36 million or more. We want more transparency and comparability by requiring organisations to publish their statement on our new reporting service. We will bring those measures forward at the first opportunity when parliamentary time allows.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
That is very good to hear. I wonder whether those requirements will apply to the many organisations that have been handed covid procurement contracts by the Minister’s ministerial colleagues to lots of their different friends. We are all becoming very dependent on the use of large quantities of personal protective equipment that have been manufactured in China. What steps are the Government taking specifically to ensure integrity in those supply chains?
Nigel Adams
We have taken steps to reduce our dependence on imported PPE. Thankfully, UK manufacturers are now capable of providing 70% of all items of PPE, except gloves, that we expect to use throughout the winter. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that, before the pandemic, just 1% of PPE was produced in the UK. The FCDO is working through our embassy in Beijing to ensure that external due diligence service providers carry out open source checks on Chinese suppliers of medical products produced during the peak of the covid epidemic. All procurement processes were in line with the UK procurement regulations during this time.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be absolutely appalled by the credible reports of forced abortions and forced sterilisation. Will he commit to taking action on this by formally and publicly condemning the population control practices of the Chinese Communist party and requesting that these cease immediately?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise these abhorrent issues. We debated this in the Chamber earlier this year when a report was made available. We will continue to hold China to account under its international obligations and to take the lead globally.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
China routinely breaches the international norms that we stand for, whether it be egregious trade practices, intellectual property or human rights issues such as those in Xinjiang. Will my hon. Friend outline the steps taken to raise our concerns directly with the Chinese Government?
Nigel Adams
Absolutely. Again, my hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. We did so yesterday directly with the Chinese embassy. The Chinese ambassador is regularly summoned to the FCDO—one would think that he would have his own car parking space by now, given the number of times that he has visited. The Foreign Secretary has raised our serious concerns about the situation in Xinjiang directly with his counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi, on a number of occasions, most recently in July.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It has been nearly two years since the Environmental Audit Committee published its report into fast fashion. During that inquiry, we heard disturbing evidence about practices in the cotton trade in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and about bondage child labour in the cotton mills of Tamil Nadu, and there was also reference to prison camps in China as well. The Government rejected nearly all of our recommendations, including a requirement for due diligence checks on the supply chain. Does the Minister regard that as a missed opportunity, and what progress has been made in the past two years since that warning sign was raised by the Environmental Audit Committee?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is right to raise this. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, we will be strengthening the Modern Slavery Act. That will be done at the earliest opportunity when parliamentary time allows. Since the work that she refers to, we have also been carrying out extensive work across Government on this particular issue and, as I have said to other hon. and right hon. Members, I ask her to have just a little bit of patience into the new year and she will be able to see the further work that the Government come forward with.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Given that the FCDO routinely engages with its Chinese counterparts, may I please ask the Minister what its reaction is when confronted with the evidence and whether diplomacy with China has any effect at all?
Nigel Adams
I can assure my hon. Friend that China does care deeply about its international reputation. We have seen China change its narrative in response to international pressure. One example is that it has moved from outright denial of the existence of these camps to claiming that they are vocational education centres. Its vigorous protest against our multilateral activity suggests that it cares a great deal about the action that we are taking, so I disagree with those who say that our diplomacy has no effect. Of course, the situation in Xinjiang remains deeply concerning, but that is a reason to doubly intensify our diplomatic efforts and not to abandon them.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Given the growing concern over the impact of disinformation emanating from Confucius Institutes, including efforts to deny that which is patently happening in Xinjiang, will the Minister and his Government colleagues be reviewing the presence of those institutions in the UK with a view to limiting their influence?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point that no one else has yet raised. A number of UK higher education providers host Confucius Institutes, and are responsible for ensuring that their partnerships are managed appropriately with the right due diligence in place. We take very seriously any concerns regarding the operation of international organisations at those education providers. Like all similar bodies, Confucius Institutes need to operate transparently and with a full commitment to our values of openness and freedom of expression.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and other questions for exactly an hour. We are now going to suspend briefly, just for the sanitisation of the Government Dispatch Box; the other was not touched.
Arms (Exports and Remote Warfare)
Wednesday 16th December 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Arms (Exports and Remote Warfare) Bill 2019-21 View all Arms (Exports and Remote Warfare) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about enabling arms exports oversight by the United Kingdom Parliament and the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies; to prohibit the use of lethal autonomous weapons; to make requirements about transparency in arms exports and the use of drones and other remote weapons; and for connected purposes.
I am very proud to be here on behalf of the Scottish National party and others. I am grateful to the supporters, and a wide range of non-governmental organisations and civic society who are very concerned by this topic. I am particularly grateful to the Oxford Research Group’s remote warfare programme, Drone Wars UK, the UN Association, Amnesty International, Article 36, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, Scientists for Global Responsibility, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, and the Quakers, as well as to our excellent Clerks of the House and Roddy McGlynn in my team for getting us here today.
There are three strands to our proposal. We believe that change is needed urgently to how the UK deals with: arms exports—that is sending material elsewhere for other people’s control; drones—that is material that may be deployed globally either from the UK or not, but under the UK’s control; and lethal autonomous weapons—that is new technology that represents a very dangerous evolution in warfare. We also believe that the existing structure of scrutiny within this House—which is, of course, a matter for this House, although we think it needs to be looked at in the round in this piece of legislation—is not fit for purpose.
It is worth establishing a few points. I am an SNP Member of this House proudly working towards an independent Scotland and energising democratic prospects, so why should I care about UK arms exports? There is a simple answer: we are not independent yet and this is an issue of pressing domestic—however we define it—and global concern. It is incumbent upon us to try to effect change here, to make Scotland’s voice and concerns heard, and thereby demonstrate the stance of an independent Scotland. Whatever is in Scotland’s future, I believe that this is a pressing domestic issue for all of us everywhere.
It is also worth establishing—it may be controversial for some—that I am not against the defence industry. Defence companies represent important research and development, precision manufacturing, high-end engineering, academic contributions and partnerships, and aerospace developments that are key parts of Scotland’s economy now and going forward—and the UK’s as well. They also play a part in the defence ecosystem and the national security of these islands. I believe the Bill will help to strengthen their position by removing the stigma that is, in some quarters, associated with their efforts by bringing a transparency to their effects globally.
There are, as I say, three strands to the proposal. On arms exports, we must assess the scale of what we are talking about. The UK is the world’s second-biggest exporter of arms, worth £11 billion in 2019. That has a significant economic impact domestically, but it also has a significant impact on other countries’ domestic affairs globally and it is right that we in this place properly scrutinise those effects. Although the existing arrangements give a façade of scrutiny, they contain no effective mechanisms for democratic oversight or transparency. Currently, the Minister grants a licence—after consideration, I do not doubt—but there is no transparency to that process. We do have the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which sits across and is composed of four Committees of this House, but it seldom meets, the Chair is unpaid, it did not sit at all for nine months in 2015 and it took six months to be established in 2020. It barely publishes reports—the last was two years ago. We do not think, therefore, that the current system is working, and we do not think it is adequate for where we are now and where we will be in the future. We propose to create a Select Committee with status, with budget and with heft within this House to properly approve licences on ministerial recommendation, to move the scrutiny and move the power to this place on behalf of the people of these islands.
There are security implications, of course. We would model the new Select Committee on the Intelligence and Security Committee. We believe that the solutions can be found. We would also task it with seeking, as part of its deliberations, input from the devolved Administrations and civic society to ensure democratic accountability and transparency within its processes. Of course, the organisation of how the House scrutinises the Government is a matter for the House, but this is a wider question. The architecture is not fit for purpose, but it also needs new purposes going forward, particularly on drones.
Drones—new technology that is evolving very fast—have changed warfare already. We saw in the last few weeks in Nagorno-Karabakh that the deployment of drone technology was pivotal in the outcome of that conflict and in the suffering of many, many civilians. UK Government policy on drones is opaque and effectively incompatible with democratic oversight. It is also put to shame—there are other countries doing this better—by the US and Israel, who have much more transparent and accountable policies on drone use.
The legislation we seek to bring forward would update UK policy on drones, particularly on the rules of engagement, adherence to international law, and—this is really important—post-strike assessments to learn lessons on how the technology is evolving. We would have that overseen by the new Committee. This would be a modern, democratic oversight that will not present problems for a modern, democratically overseen military command and would move power back to where it should be.
The third strand of the legislation relates to lethal autonomous weapons. This is, as yet, experimental technology, but it is evolving very fast and, I believe, in a deeply dangerous direction. Drones are remote and can operate worldwide, but there is still a human finger on the trigger. The development of artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology, as well as other related technologies, could remove that human element from control of these weapons altogether. They should be banned pre-emptively. I am not the first person to call for that; 30 nations, the UN Secretary-General and, indeed, the Pope have called for a ban, on moral but also technological grounds.
The UK can genuinely take a lead on this and, in a bipartisan spirit, I urge it to do so, because that would be a genuinely globally significant development. Ban lethal autonomous weapons pre-emptively and work to build a global consensus on the practicalities of meaningful human control over weapons systems. That would be of global significance. If global Britain got behind that effort, it would be a meaningful contribution and I would be the first to applaud.
In conclusion, we believe that the Bill is necessary, pragmatic, workable and urgent. There is a lot of support for it across the House and in wider civic society. In that bipartisan spirit, I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alyn Smith, Kirsty Blackman, Deidre Brock, Amy Callaghan, Stewart Hosie, Caroline Lucas, Chris Law, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Kirsten Oswald, Liz Saville Roberts, Tommy Sheppard and Hywel Williams present the Bill.
Alyn Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed (Bill 235).
Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill: Business of the House
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill
Wednesday 16th December 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act 2020 View all Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 16 December 2020 - (16 Dec 2020)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The UK will regain full control of its borders at the end of the transition period on 31 December. Irrespective of the ongoing negotiations with the European Union regarding a free trade agreement, the Government have been clear that there will be additional requirements for people and goods travelling to the EU. Since the Trade Bill is unlikely to pass and receive Royal Assent before the new year, we need to ensure that there is no gap in the Government’s ability to share the information that we already collect and hold in order to mitigate any temporary friction from the end of the transition period. That is what this Bill achieves, replicating the Government amendments made to the Trade Bill—clauses 8 to 10 —which is currently passing through the other place. These powers are critical to support the use and sharing of trade-related data between Government Departments and public bodies. They will ensure that there is no lapse in their ability to do this at the end of the transition period before the Trade Bill achieves Royal Assent.
In summary, the Bill will allow the effective use of Government data to ensure the smooth flow of people, goods and services after the end of the transition period. The Cabinet Office’s border and protocol delivery group—the BPDG—is leading work to ensure that our borders are robust and efficient, establishing a borders operations centre to monitor and manage flow through the border and support mitigation of any disruption.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Bill is relatively uncontroversial. However, the flow of information in itself will not be enough to deal with the situation we are likely to face in the new year. How concerned is the Minister by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs’ report that the Welsh ports, in particular, are at an unacceptable risk of not being ready for whatever faces them at the beginning of next year?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was well put. I appeared before the Welsh Affairs Committee as part of its inquiry, and I read its report in some detail at the weekend. We are working flat out across Government to ensure that all our borders and ports are ready. It is the purpose of the borders and protocol delivery group and of the borders operation centre to make sure that we are ready. We are confident that we have done everything we can to ensure that we are ready on our borders for 1 January, but I have read the report and I noted what it had to say. The Government will be responding in due course.
These powers are critical to support the use and sharing of data related to trade. As I mentioned, a border operations centre will monitor and manage flow through the border and support the mitigation of any disruption. To facilitate that, the Bill will ensure that the Government make the best use of the data they already collect and hold, and reduce inefficiencies and bureaucracy for business. It will support better services by permitting data on the flow of international trade to be shared and analysed, and by helping to identify and resolve the root cause of disruption. It will allow the Government to use data more effectively to plan new controls at the border, ensuring that security is maintained, that new requirements are introduced seamlessly and that any temporary friction is mitigated.
We recognise that the Bill has been proposed on an expedited schedule, and that hon. and right hon. Members attach great importance to data security, so I would like to reassure the House that the Bill contains measures to ensure that the permitted use of the data it facilitates is discretionary and specific. The Bill does not create any additional powers to collect data, and it applies only to the public bodies specified and only where those public bodies are satisfied that the data use would support a Ministers’ functions relating to trade. It creates an offence of unlawfully disclosing information, and ensures that data sharing remains subject to general data protection regulation and Data Protection Act protection. Regarding the expedited schedule, I should emphasise that all these measures have already been subject to substantive scrutiny in both Houses during the passage of the Trade Bill, through the relevant clauses, without further amendment. The Bill also contains a sunset clause, which will ensure consistency with the powers being delivered through the Trade Bill.
Clause 2(9) provides the power for a Minister of the Crown to add public authorities to the data-sharing gateway. As this power would include the ability to add devolved Ministers, it has the potential to alter the executive competence of devolved Administrations. In accordance with the Sewel convention, we are seeking consent from the devolved legislatures, and I have written to Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to begin this process.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I apologise for intervening on him once again. Is that the reason that the Welsh Government are not specifically included in clause 2? Are the Government waiting for the legislative consent motion to go through, after which the Welsh Government would be included as one of the groups that would be part of the data sharing? What is the reason for the Welsh Government not being included in clause 2?
Greg Hands
Actually, I will have breaking news. I think that the Welsh Government have given legislative consent to the Bill this morning. Secondly, we have very good and constructive engagement with the Welsh Government, particularly with Baroness Eluned Morgan in the other place. I might add that we did not have that constructive engagement actually in the other place, but via Zoom. We have had very constructive engagement with the Welsh Government to ensure that we have the ability to work together to manage these aspects. Trade is obviously a reserved power, but it has an impact on devolved competences. For example, the management of highways around ports is firmly in an area of devolved competence, so making sure that the two Governments can work together is extremely important.
During the passage of the Trade Bill, we have undertaken a significant programme of ministerial and official-level engagement with the devolved Administrations. That has enabled us to respond to requests, including those related to data-sharing gateways, to assist them with their devolved functions. As the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill replicates clauses in the Trade Bill, I will be making the same two commitments to the devolved Administrations on data sharing that we made during Committee of the Trade Bill in the other place.
First, the data shared under clause 2 will be used by the border operations centre being established by the Cabinet Office to develop strategic insights about the flow of trade and functioning of the border. The Cabinet Office is committed to sharing strategic analysis related to flow of trade where it will support the more effective management of flow through the border. The Cabinet Office will continue to work closely with devolved Administrations to ensure that relevant analysis and information can be shared to support devolved functions relating to trade and management of the border. Secondly, the UK Government commit to consulting the devolved Administrations before any devolved authorities are added to the list of specified authorities that can share data under clause 2.
Regarding the expedited schedule that we are using today, I should emphasise that all these measures have already been subject to substantive scrutiny in both Houses during the passage of the Trade Bill through the relevant clauses, without further amendment. As I said, the Bill contains a sunset clause, which will ensure consistency with the powers being delivered through the Trade Bill.
This Bill is necessary to ensure that Government can use this information properly to minimise disruption at the border following the end of the transition period. It is limited in scope and contains specific safeguards to prevent inappropriate or excessive use of data. It is a procedural but vital Bill to support readiness for the UK to take back control of its borders, minimise any temporary disruption to the flow of people and goods, and support the development of smart processes and frictionless trade that will support businesses and citizens alike. That will, in turn, underpin the delivery of a world- class border fit for the UK’s future as an independent trading nation, protecting our country, strengthening our economy and growing our international trade. I commend the Bill to the House.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to respond to the Bill for the Opposition. The Bill has only emerged within the last couple of days, so I would like to thank the Minister for his efforts to work co-operatively with us on it and for the virtual meeting that he had with me and the shadow International Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I would also like to thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his office’s liaison with regard to the legislation.
The Government are bringing forward this legislation at some haste, not out of choice, but out of necessity. They need these clauses on the statute book by the end of the transition period to prevent disruption and to best tackle any relevant issues. This, of course, was never meant to be a Bill, and it may not last on the statute book for more than a few weeks. These clauses belong in the Trade Bill, which is still in the other place, and it is simply because the Government have run out of time that they are shoving them through as a stand-alone Bill. This has certain echoes of the negotiations on our future relationship with the European Union, which are running a little too close to the wire too.
We welcome preparedness for the end of the transition period, and we support this effort to minimise disruption and allow data sharing between HMRC and other bodies, such as local councils and resilience forums. However, this is another case of the Government pulling together a last-minute attempt to paper over the cracks that they have created by their failure to conduct the negotiations within a suitable timescale or, indeed, to meet any one of the deadlines—I think there have been five—that the Prime Minister has set for their conclusion. The Minister’s letter to MPs on the Bill tells us:
“The backup vehicle for these clauses would have been the legislation to implement any deal, but without a clear outcome regarding trade negotiations with the EU, we are doing the responsible thing by putting forward standalone legislation to ensure clarity at the end of the year”.
No “clear outcome” is a mild way of describing the current chaos, and let us be clear: the responsibility for that lies with the Prime Minister.
The Trade Bill, of which clauses 8 to 10 more or less make up the Bill in front of us, was first brought to the House in 2017—more than three years ago. Since then, it has been reborn, it has been amended and it has been scrambled into some quick fixes. The Opposition would like the Trade Bill to make its way on to the statute book before it reaches another anniversary; we are looking forward to seeing it back, and I will come on to that point.
Essentially, the Trade Bill was written to provide for accession to the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement, the rolling over of trade agreements with non-EU countries prior to 31 December, the creation of a UK Trade Remedies Authority and this data-sharing provision for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Minister will recognise that the Government have achieved the first three on that list by various means, and the fourth with this Bill.
However, we are concerned that that might leave the Trade Bill itself in the long grass—as the Minister knows; we have talked about this informally—allowing the Government to avoid some of the commitments they have now made, as contained in the Trade Bill after the excellent work in the other place. Principally, those amendments enshrine protections for the national health service and social care in any trade deals, ensure that trade deals secured take into account the human rights record of our trading partners—something that is clearly of great concern to the House, as evidenced by the urgent question earlier today—and increase parliamentary oversight by providing improved scrutiny mechanisms.
Those amendments are welcomed by the Opposition and, I am sure, by the Government too. We look forward to debating them when the Trade Bill returns, so I invite the Minister to commit to concluding the passage of the Trade Bill by the end of January and allowing the sunset provisions in clause 4 of this Bill to take effect by then. That will replace this Bill and allow the Trade Bill’s clauses to supersede it.
The Trade Bill is on Report in the other place now, and I think that will continue in the first week of January, so we feel that is an appropriate target and a deadline that the Government might make this time. I ask the Minister to commit to that. That commitment would ensure that we do not lose the Bill and that we have proper scrutiny of the very many excellent amendments being tabled in the other place. I look forward to that commitment being made as we debate this Bill this afternoon.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise in support of this Bill. When I saw that we had six hours to debate this Bill and only 10 speakers down to speak, I thought that at last I might have just enough time to begin to outline some of my thoughts on this particular measure.
Behind that, there is a serious point, as we enter the Christmas and new year period: too often this year there has been very little time for anyone making a speech in this House. We are frequently limited to two or three minutes, and not all of us are, as Lincoln, able to summarise our thoughts in 272 words or less. If it is possible for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to talk to the Speaker to see whether there are ways of amending that in the new year, it would be a very nice new year’s resolution.
While I am in that spirit, perhaps I may address a comment to the Minister. Frequently this year, and maybe for good purpose, the Government have come forward with measures a day or two ahead of their being placed before this House, and they have then gone through the House in a single day. For minor measures such as this one, there is very little to be concerned about, if questions are answered adequately by the Minister, as I am sure they will be. However, the Coronavirus Act 2020, and any potential free trade agreement with the EU, are very significant measures to be passed in a single day, and I am not sure the governance of this country is fully served by such oblique reference to the legislature.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman stood last year and was elected, as were the majority of Members of this House, on a manifesto that included an unconditional guarantee of a free trade agreement with Europe. Do his comments of a few moments ago indicate that he now is not convinced that a free trade agreement with Europe is the best way forward?
Richard Fuller
No, I have full faith in my commitments in the manifesto and in the election, and full confidence in the Prime Minister. I only wish that the separatists from the Scottish National party would have the same full confidence in their words ahead of any referendum on their future, but that is not for today.
I want to press the Minister on some issues largely to do with information. I think he has mentioned some of them, but it would be reassuring to have them more fully expanded upon, because information is the currency of modern wealth creation in many instances, and it is certainly a source of competitive advantage.
I am not clear—perhaps the Minister could clarify this for me—to what extent the permissions in the Bill relate to sharing information solely within the borders and boundaries of the United Kingdom, and to what extent any such information will be shared with third parties. What reassurance can the Minister provide that the scope and format of data sharing, either within Ministries or externally, will not result in a loss of competitive advantage to an individual business, an industry sector or the nation state?
It would be helpful to have a little more clarity from the Minister on the scope of data. He explained that it is to do with trade, but that is a very wide-ranging remit. He said that it is to do only with data that is currently held by public bodies, but public bodies in this country hold almost every piece of data imaginable on us as individuals and on corporations and business activity. Perhaps he cannot say explicitly what will be included, but what sorts of things might be included? Perhaps he could also explain what might be excluded.
Will the Minister clarify that no demands will be made for new data disclosures, essentially protecting people from other burdens—additional data that may be required —in this short period? If there may be demands for additional data disclosure, what might they be?
What provisions are there for the anonymity of data, particularly in relation to the sharing of data with other nation states? Even if the data is at commodity level, that may be a concern. Some sectors have one or two main UK providers, so just because the data is at the level of a standard industrial classification code does not necessarily mean that it does not disclose information that may be relevant to a particular competitor.
I think the Minister was clear about the oversight of data rules in the case of a breach, saying that existing legislation will be covered. If that is not correct, perhaps he could advise us.
A particular bugbear of mine is HMRC’s influence over the Government, which is undue in many respects at the moment. Can the Minister assure me that the provisions of clause 2(4) will specifically restrict HMRC from cross-sharing data with other elements of its work, most explicitly to do with the taxation of enterprises in the UK?
I was interested to read that clause 2(11) defines a public authority as
“an authority exercising functions of a public nature,”
which did not seem to take me very far at all. Will the Minister advise whether the phrase “a public nature” is a defined term in law? If it is not, will he explain what it might mean? Does it include, for example, regulatory agencies, private organisations that are fulfilling public contracts, or organisations that are recipients of public moneys, all of which one could claim are “exercising functions of a public nature”? It would be helpful to get some scoping of what is included here.
The Opposition spokesman and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) referred to a trade deal with the EU. There has been some press speculation—it is just speculation—that the European Union, in its discussions, has proposed pre-emptive tariff regimes as part of its approach to the UK. Can the Minister reassure me that no provisions of the Bill would require information to be disclosed to the European Union as part of a negotiation of any pre-emptive tariff regime in the intervening period? I think that is highly unlikely, but because there has been some speculation, it would be useful to have clarification.
When it comes to agricultural products—the Opposition spokesman mentioned this, but I emphasise it in particular —many people who are farming producers or who are interested in food standards are very reassured by the Minister’s amendments to the Bill, both in this place and in the other place, regarding food standards. As many farmers will be looking particularly intently at this Bill, will he provide reassurance that nothing in this Bill will do anything to undermine the measures under- pinning standards on agricultural products and trade in agricultural products?
I shall give up my ambition to fill six hours and retire, not hurt but early. I commend the Bill to the House.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Minister, perfectly reasonably, described the Bill as, in essence, providing the legal basis upon which information can be disclosed and shared between public authorities to ensure that Ministers and those organisations can fulfil their obligations in terms of trade functions. That is perfectly reasonable—nothing wrong with that.
Indeed, the explanatory notes make it very clear that we need such a measure in any event, whether we have a deal—a good deal or a bad deal—or no deal in barely two weeks’ time, so this is absolutely necessary. I share the shadow Minister’s concern that the Trade Bill was not completed in its entirety. It is incomplete, and therefore we have to introduce a measure that may have a very short shelf life indeed.
I have one question on Second Reading, in relation to clause 1. The Minister rightly referred to the devolved Administrations potentially being added to the list of public authorities in clause 2, but clause 1(1)(b) already says that the Revenue may disclose information
“facilitating the exercise by a devolved authority of the authority’s functions relating to trade”.
That is already on the face of the Bill, so it does not need to be added in relation to the Revenue’s ability to disclose.
The Minister will be aware of the Scottish Government’s priorities in this regard. Ivan McKee’s letter to him on 12 August said:
“Our priority is getting timely and comprehensive access to the HMRC’s trade microdata, which sits behind the HMRC’s overseas trade statistics and regional trade statistics covering both exports and imports. This company-level data contains variables, such as: company reference number, date, flow, type, value of trade, quantity of trade, weight, commodity code, country of origin, destination, port of entry, dispatch, etc. These variables will allow the Scottish Government to analyse Scottish trade over time, sector, product and destination at a more detailed level than is currently published by the HMRC.”
That is a statement of fact, but given that clause 1(1) permits HMRC to disclose information connected to a devolved Administration to allow them to fulfil their obligations in relation to trade, can I just check with the Minister—I am sure this is correct, but I would be happy to have it on record—that this is not simply permissive, but that it is actually the Government’s intention to provide the data from the Revenue, as provided for by the Bill, to allow the Scottish Government to do accurate work in relation to their trade functions? I am sure that is the case, but it would be very helpful to have it on the record.
In case the Minister thinks he is going to get off with just that, it is worth pointing out that the letter of 12 August also says:
“That does not mean we support the UK Government’s proposed trade policy more generally.”
In terms of our demand for more parliamentary scrutiny, and so on, that is perfectly reasonable.
The Minister described the expedited timetable for this Bill, and my goodness, it is seriously expedited—just one day. Let me just gently say to him that, given that the explanatory notes said that we are going to need a measure like this in any event, if we had not wasted time on the pointless, meaningless, futile United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, whose avowed purpose is to break international law and engage in a power grab from devolved Administrations, we might perhaps have had time to have a rather less expedited look at this, including questions on access to and sharing of data, and where and who might have access to it. That might be quite difficult—although frankly, given how few people there are here, not so difficult—in the timetable that we have available.
I have no problem with supporting this Bill on Second Reading. There is one cause of concern that we will raise in Committee—and hopefully the Minister can provide good, strong answers to it—but, as it stands, we certainly have no intention of opposing, at this stage, the legal basis on which to share information.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I echo much of what the Labour and SNP spokespeople have said. There is little that can be added, certainly with the Bill being brought forward in the manner that it is today and the time that we have. That is indicative of the shambles of the Government’s handling of our exit from the EU and the end of the transition period. I am not sure how the Government expect industry and business to be prepared for 1 January when this expedited legislation illustrates just how unprepared the Government themselves appear to be for the end of the transition period.
The Liberal Democrat party and I agree that we do need, upon leaving the EU, legislation to make trade deals with other countries, but perhaps we are in this situation because many of us do not agree that the Trade Bill—the original Trade Bill—is the way to do it. It has failed on several counts, but particularly in setting out proper procedures for parliamentary consultation, scrutiny and approval of future international trade agreements.
This Bill is, as the Minister said, necessary in order to allow our authorities to function properly on 1 January. However, if the Government expect, understandably, this place to recognise the need for flexibility to cope with this lack of preparedness, surely businesses and companies across the country should be able to expect a similar understanding. I appeal to the Government to recognise, and urge the Minister to take back to his colleagues, the need for an adjustment period for businesses to implement change, because if we are going to accept that this is a difficult period, as it is because of the lack of the deal on which we are still waiting for word, then surely business can demand the same sort of understanding that the Government are asking of the House.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am very pleased to be able to speak in this Second Reading debate. This is actually the first time I have spoken in the Chamber since I contributed to the debate on the Chancellor’s financial statement immediately before lockdown. The reason for that is that I believe it is incumbent on all of us not to be here unless we absolutely have to. I greatly regret the fact that the Government have not brought forward proposals to reactivate the full remote participation in debates that we had for a short time earlier in the year.
Obviously I did not travel down here to take part in this debate, because we did not know that it was taking place. I did so because of two important pieces of secondary legislation on the Order Paper that are no longer there. I was on the train yesterday morning on my way down especially to speak on those two items when I got an email saying that they had been pulled and asking if I would mind contributing for the SNP on this one. Rather than have a situation where the taxpayer was paying for me to travel from Fife, have a couple of nights in London, and then go back up again when I did not need to be here at all, I was tempted to make sure that they got their money’s worth, and every penny of it, by taking up the full three hours that is allocated to this Second Reading debate. However, my reading of the mood music is that that would not endear me to anybody here or to anybody else, so I will not do it.
That trivial example of the impact that this has had on my planning for today is a tiny fraction of the bigger picture. The only reason this Bill has had to come forward at all just now, and the reason it is having to be brought forward in such a hurry, is that the Government do not have control of the process. A process that was supposed to be about Parliament taking back control is now seeing Parliament having its business chopped and changed at a few hours’ notice. At the moment, the hundreds of people who work here—not just MPs but staff of the House of Commons—do not know whether they will have to come to work next week. The Prime Minister wanted to ensure that everybody had certainty as to the rules about visiting loved ones at Christmas, but Members and staff of the House of Commons do not know for certain whether they will have to be at work at the start of that period. Parliament is not in control of the process, and the Government are not in control of the process, and it is difficult to see whether anyone is in control of the process.
I fully understand that we now need to get this legislation through in a hurry. I was unhappy about some details of the coronavirus legislation, which the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) mentioned earlier, but I fully understood the need to get it on the statute book as quickly as possible. The emergency we face now is not of the same type; this emergency is entirely of the Government’s making. It is not the fault of those who voted in the referendum four and a half years ago. Those who voted to leave had a reasonable right to expect that the Government would have delivered on their wishes before the last minute, as is happening now. Not only are the Government not delivering on time; they are not delivering at all. They promised to deliver a free trade agreement with Europe—that was in the manifesto and was mentioned several times—but they have not delivered that.
The explanatory notes to the Bill indicate that parts of it would have been needed even if we had that free trade agreement with the European Union, but the vast majority of it would not have been, and we certainly would not have been under this exceptional time pressure if the process had been managed by a Government who were competent had some idea of where they wanted to get to, instead of being continually obsessed with where they were trying to get away from.
As the Minister said, and as others have alluded to, the Bill simply extracts a few clauses from a Bill that has already been through a detailed scrutiny process, and that eases the concern a bit, but the wider problem is still there. What other emergency legislation will the Government have to bring through, possibly before 31 December, if not very early in the new year, that we do not know about and that has not been through the full scrutiny process as part of another piece of legislation? This process is supposed to be about Parliament taking back control, but I have never seen so much legislation having to be rushed through Parliament, with little time for scrutiny and with some of that legislation possibly having a profound effect on the lives of people and on the way the economy gets back on its feet when the covid pandemic is finally brought under control.
As for the detailed content of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who speaks from the Front Bench, referred to some of the issues. I think the Minister gave assurances in his opening comments that all the requests the Scottish Government made in relation to this Bill and the main Trade Bill have been picked up. In effect, this Bill picks up parts of the Trade Bill as amended with the agreement of the Scottish Government. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the fact that the negotiation of international trade treaties is reserved to Westminster does not mean that the devolved Administrations have little or no responsibility for making trade work for their countries, their communities and their businesses. A lot of the decisions taken by the United Kingdom in the negotiation of trade agreements can be made to work only with the full involvement of the devolved Administrations.
I understand that there have been discussions—I do not know whether at Minister level, officer level or both —over the past few days about this Bill, and I would certainly commend that if it has taken place, but there needs to be much closer and much more co-operative working across the four nations than there has been until now on Brexit. Otherwise, we will find that legislation and trade agreements that are passed purely at the will of Government Ministers in London will have little relevance, or sometimes a negative effect, for Governments, Administrations and citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom.
When we, presumably, agree to the Bill later, I hope that those comments will be borne in mind. I would also appreciate it if the Minister could tell us in his closing remarks what other emergency legislation he is aware of that the Government expect to bring before the House between now and 31 December.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Clearly, this is a significant but quite straightforward technical Bill, as the Minister set out. However, last year the Government led people to believe that they had a deal ready to go. They said we were all set to sever ties with Europe and go our own way. In the last few weeks, we have heard Ministers spinning the airwaves, desperately trying to explain that the oven-ready deal they boasted about referred only to the withdrawal agreement and not the substance of the trade deal with Europe. Mr Deputy Speaker, if this is an oven-ready deal, please remind me never to take up an invitation to Christmas dinner with the Minister, because clearly this is just not good enough.
Today, after three long years and repeated promises that things would be sewn up by now, the Trade Bill has yet to pass into law. This House has yet to discuss the amendments from the other place, and the Government have yet to guarantee that in any future deal we will not see regression on our environmental, food, animal welfare and agricultural standards. There have been no guarantees on protections for our NHS, no guarantees on full parliamentary scrutiny of any future trade deals and no guarantee that human rights will remain enshrined in our future trading relationships across the globe.
Instead, just two weeks before the end of the transition period, we are discussing a non-controversial, technical proposal, which allows HMRC to share data with other bodies. People with an eye on this Chamber would be forgiven for thinking that Ministers are making this up as they go along. Either that or they are using this quick-fix, rushed legislation to kick the Trade Bill into the long grass and avoid tackling the amendments from the other place on protecting the NHS, parliamentary scrutiny and human rights. I hope that is not the case.
What assurances can the Government give that the Trade Bill will not be unduly delayed and kicked down the road, following this Bill? What assurances can the Minister give me that they will uphold any amendments on protecting the NHS and social care in trade deals? If, as Ministers claim, this Bill is not a replacement for the wider Trade Bill, when can we expect that Bill back in the Commons?
Enough of the spin and delay. Businesses are crying out for clarity on arrangements after the transition period. The Government must commit to the full passage and implementation of the Trade Bill, with full consideration of the amendments, support for human rights, and protections for our NHS and environmental, agricultural, food and animal welfare standards.
Paul Blomfield
With the leave of the House, I shall briefly respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) disappointed me: I was so looking forward to him utilising the six hours. However, he made important points about scrutiny, additional data disclosures, anonymity of data, cross-sharing within HMRC, and food and agricultural standards, to which I shall return.
The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), speaking on behalf of the SNP, was right to highlight the time wasted, and the trust and confidence in this country consequently eroded, by the consideration of aspects of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a good point when she asked how businesses can be prepared for our departure from the transition when the Government themselves clearly are not.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) made an important point about our parliamentary proceedings during the pandemic, which the Opposition hope the Government will reconsider. He was more modest than the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire: he was aiming for only three hours. Again, however, he disappointed us by not taking them. However, he made the important point that the Government are not in control. The repercussions of that are felt not simply in this House, but by businesses and on jobs across the country.
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) made some important points, to which I will return, about the maintenance of protections and scrutiny.
This Bill is about the management of trading relationships and allowing that to happen as smoothly as possible. On those future relationships, I hope the Minister will agree that the amendments made to the Trade Bill in the other place strengthen it and that any delay in its continued passage would not be appropriate. The Labour amendment to the Trade Bill on the first day of Report, which protects the NHS and social care from trade deals, is clearly essential. Now the US President-elect has been confirmed, many may feel there may be some reduction in concern about that, but it remains of paramount importance that our public services are protected.
The urgent question that we considered before we moved to the Bill was on the appalling treatment of the Uyghur people. It demonstrates the serious concern about human rights abuses across the world that is felt on both sides of the House. It is vital that our trade deals recognise that, and in the other place colleagues have amended the Bill to require trade negotiations to be preceded by an assessment of the other country’s human rights record. That undeniably sensible and responsible check and balance is backed up by another check, which means that, before any deal is ratified, Ministers will be obliged to show that it will comply with the UK’s human rights obligations. Finally, the Government would produce an annual report on compliance with rights laws by trading partners, and all these would be presented to the relevant committees in the Commons and the Lords, with the possibility that the courts could be used to challenge trade deals that breached rights standards.
Just last night in the other place, the Trade Bill was amended to improve the accountability of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, providing for parliamentary scrutiny, which would much improve the process. We have to accept that CRaG is wholly inadequate, as it leaves whether there is a debate and vote entirely in the Government’s gift. Such a debate and vote in Parliament happen only after the agreement is signed. There is no scrutiny of negotiating objectives or texts during negotiations.
This is done far better in other countries. We talk often about being “world-leading” in circumstances where that transparently does not apply. In this context we must recognise that other countries conduct scrutiny of trade deals much better. For example, in the US scrutiny involves unions, businesses and civil society. The amendments made in the other place at least allow for debate through which those points can be raised and the voices of those affected can be heard. So this Bill must pass, but there are wider questions about scrutiny and trade policy across the Trade Bill that require attention. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that that will happen early in the new year, and that we can look for the Bill being concluded by the end of January.
In the explanatory notes to the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, the Government state:
“The Cabinet Office is establishing the Border Operations Centre to manage and mitigate potential disruption caused by the new border requirements at the crucial moment of transition. Without the data sharing clauses, Cabinet Office will be limited in the data it can receive from other departments, which will significantly hamper its ability to provide the single version of truth for flow of goods through the border, including a commodity level view of flow across the border (such as medicines and food supply).”
Does the Minister accept that, without the deal promised by the Prime Minister—the oven-ready deal for which the nation voted last December—which will deliver barrier-free and tariff-free trade, the potential disruption will be far worse? We are two weeks from the end of the transition period, but this Bill will not provide a silver bullet for managing trade smoothly after 31 December. It is the deal that the Prime Minister promised a year ago and signed up to in the political declaration at the start of this year that will deliver
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”,
safeguard
“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”,
keep people safe with a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership”
and indeed ensure the protection of the Good Friday agreement through the proper implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is where the Government’s focus should be right now, and should have been to ensure that we would have, as the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said, the opportunity to debate in full the provisions of any agreement reached in good time, and to conclude that process to enable businesses to be ready.
Greg Hands
To respond to what I think has been a very constructive debate on Second Reading of this Bill, can I first welcome the tone that has been set? The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and his neighbour—I think she must be his neighbour—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), made similar points about the passage of the Bill. I have to say that nobody, I think, would be more pleased than I to see the Trade Bill finally reach Royal Assent, as during my previous time at the Department I was here at the Dispatch Box introducing that Bill in the spring of 2017. I am told that the overall passage of the Trade Bill then and now has involved some 130 hours of scrutiny and debate. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who did preface his remarks by saying he had not been here to debate for some time, and I understand his reasons for that, may have implied there had been insufficient scrutiny of some of these measures. I can reassure him that there has been very extensive scrutiny. But I do say a couple of things.
Peter Grant
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could I just correct his understanding of what I said? I made it perfectly clear that I appreciated that this Bill in another way has had significant scrutiny. My concern is that there might be other emergency legislation on its way through the pipeline that we will not have time to give sufficient scrutiny. That was the point I was making.
Greg Hands
I appreciate the hon. Member’s clarification. It certainly is not my job to outline whatever other legislation may be out there. That would be entirely a matter for the Leader of the House of Commons, who, as we know, made a statement on other legislation earlier this week.
The Member speaking for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, says that he supports the Bill, he supports the continuity agreements, he supports its procurement measures, he supports the trade defences, he supports the data sharing—but he has used every available opportunity to vote against the Bill. He voted against it on Second Reading, he voted against it on Third Reading and it has been voted against at every available opportunity by the official Opposition and by the Scottish National party as well. He says that the concern is that we might kick the Trade Bill into the long grass. No, we very much want the Trade Bill to get Royal Assent as soon as possible. It has very important provisions in it, such as allowing domestic law to remain amendable for continuity trade agreements and the Trade Remedies Authority. It is a very important piece of legislation.
But I did welcome the hon. Member’s commitment to conclude the Trade Bill by the end of January. I see the current Government Deputy Chief Whip here—the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). As a former Government Deputy Chief Whip, I and, as a former Chief Whip of the Opposition, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that that is not entirely in the hands of the Government and that, actually, it is very much as well in the hands of the whole of Parliament. But I will take that as a submission to the usual channels that the official Opposition want the Trade Bill to achieve Royal Assent by 31 January, which is what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said. I will take that as a submission of the Opposition’s intent—good intent—to get it through as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member says he was against CRaG, but I remind him that it was the last Labour Government who introduced CRaG. His boss, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), actually voted for CRaG. He also propagated this deliberate confusion about the oven-ready deal. It is quite clear that that referred to the withdrawal agreement that the House of Commons voted on a year ago. I would just ask him: is he going to support the further trade deal, if there is one, with the European Union? We have heard silence from the official Opposition on that.
To turn to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who also had a very constructive tone, in areas of devolved competence we have been clear. I am repeating the same commitments made at the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Trade Bill, including in the Committee stage of the Trade Bill, that he remarked on at the time and he will remember well. I am making those same commitments today. Overall, we wish to work with the devolved Administrations, particularly in areas of devolved competence, where they have a clear role, such as the management of highways, around ports and other things that relate to facilitating trade.
The hon. Member added, notwithstanding that, that he did not want me to think this was a sudden conversion, with him agreeing with the Government trade policy—definitely not. As I have pointed out from the Dispatch Box a few times, the Scottish National party has not supported a single trade agreement proposed either here or in Brussels.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that these are not new measures in any sense. They are taken directly from the Trade Bill. The HMRC powers were published in 2017. The further powers were published in July on Report. We are introducing this legislation purely because the Trade Bill probably will not get Royal Assent before 31 December.
I reassure my hon. Friend that there are safeguards on the data. It is data that is already collected. There is no new disclosure of data. Specific named authorities are discretionary to support a Government Minister’s function in relation to trade. In terms of such things as anonymity, the existing restrictions around the General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act 1998 kick in. On taxation, there are already strong measures in place to protect the data of taxpayers. The Bill is clear that data can be shared only where disclosure would support functions related to trade. It could not be disclosed for any other purposes.
My hon. Friend also asked about a private company performing a function on behalf of a public authority. That is possible, but it would operate under the same restrictions and the discretionary powers would apply—GDPR and so on. He asked me for a Dispatch Box commitment on agriculture and food standards. Our commitment is absolute. The commitment that he and I made individually and collectively in our general election manifesto this time a year ago continues as well.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) called for an adjustment period, which I think is a new term for a transition period. She is calling for a transition period from the transition period, which would increase uncertainty. The UK is leaving the single market and the customs union on 1 January, and an indeterminate postponement of that would, by definition, only increase uncertainty.
Greg Hands
I am going to finish now. The purpose of the Bill is simple: it allows the Government to use data that they already hold, in order to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, goods and people across the UK’s borders at the end of the transition period. The Bill will support better services by permitting data on the flow of international trade to be shared and analysed. The Bill does not create any new powers, but brings forward critical powers that are needed from the end of the transition period to ensure that the Government and public bodies can use the information that they already collect.
We have had a good debate, carried out in an excellent spirit, and I thank all Members for their contributions. My thanks also go to the Government Opposition Whips, of course, who have ensured that the Second Reading has run effectively—particularly under your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
That will be it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill
Wednesday 16th December 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act 2020 View all Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 16 December 2020 - (16 Dec 2020)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair. However, I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but Chair of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.
Clause 1
Trade functions: disclosure of information by HMRC
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 2 stand part.
Clauses 3 to 6 stand part.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
Thank you, Dame Rosie, if I have the nomenclature correct. As we come to the end of the transition period, it is important that the Government make the best use of the information that they already hold to minimise any disruption that may result from the new border requirements that will apply irrespective of the nature of our trading relationship with the EU. More specifically, it is important that the Government use that information to develop a detailed picture of the flow of goods and people at key locations at the border. That will inform decision making right across Government, leading to better outcomes for businesses and citizens.
As Members will be aware, the clauses in the Bill have been scrutinised previously by the House during the passage of the Trade Bill. Members may recall that a key source of information within Government relating to both trade and border management is HMRC, which has significant responsibilities in relation to the movement of goods across the border. HMRC has specific statutory restrictions in relation to the sharing of information that it holds and, in the absence of an express legal gateway to permit sharing, the Government cannot make use of this data effectively.
The clause has therefore been introduced to allow HMRC to share the data that it holds with any other public or private body that carries out a public function related to trade for the purposes of that function. This power enables HMRC and bodies working with or on behalf of HMRC to share data with Departments, including, for example, the Cabinet Office, which, through the border and protocol delivery group, is leading Government preparedness for border readiness at the end of the transition period.
BPDG has established a border operations centre to monitor and manage flow at the end of the transition period and to support relevant authorities to better manage border controls and ensure that frictions to the flow of trade are minimised and negative impacts are mitigated. The border operations centre will use data provided by HMRC, alongside other Departments and public bodies, so that it can analyse and promote efficiencies in the flow of traffic in goods and services in and out of the United Kingdom. Access to HMRC data is crucial to developing this detailed commodity-level view of the flow of goods at the border.
Additionally, the clause will facilitate the sharing of information with other organisations, such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Customs Organisation, both of which the UK will be obligated to share data with as part of our international obligations for the purposes of trade. This is a necessary clause to ensure continuity as we come to the end of the transition period, as it will enable the efficient use of HMRC data to support the Cabinet Office’s role in minimising temporary disruption at the border that may result from our new trading relationship with the EU and enable the sharing of data with international organisations where necessary.
Measures have been included in the Bill to ensure the proper handling of the data and to safeguard and protect its use, with penalties for unauthorised disclosure, onward sharing or use. Moreover, Departments will comply with requirements of data protection legislation, including the general data protection regulation, when handling any personal data shared under this gateway, where it is deemed proportionate and necessary to do so. This clause is essential for the Cabinet Office and other bodies to ensure the continued smooth flow of goods.
Moving on to clause 2, alongside HMRC, to which clause 1 applies, more than 20 Departments and public bodies have either operational or policy responsibilities relating to the border, using over 100 IT systems between them. These Departments and public bodies collect and hold numerous types of information related to trade. However, as with HMRC, this information could typically be used only for very specific purposes, with statutory restrictions on the sharing of information with other Departments. These restrictions inhibit the Government identifying and utilising the full potential of their information to support trade policy and the flow of goods and services through the border. The restrictions also lead to inefficiencies, including duplicative requests to industry to share data.
The clause fixes that problem and will allow specified public bodies and Departments to share data where it supports the exercise of a Minister of the Crown’s functions relating to trade. By combining and analysing specific border data, the Government and the Cabinet Office, in particular, will be able to develop insights and analysis to support the Government as a whole to deliver better services. This will ensure that goods and trade to continue to flow when the UK becomes an independent trading nation at the end of the transition period. As with clause 1, this clause does not, however, grant any additional data collection powers to the Government. Instead, it seeks to create a discretionary gateway to enable more effective sharing of data that Departments and public bodies already hold.
Moving to clause 3, the Government rightly take the safeguarding of information and personally identifiable information, in particular, very seriously. As I hope I made clear in introducing clauses 1 and 2, the ability to share data under both gateways is discretionary. Individual Departments and public authorities providing data will need to be satisfied that data sharing is necessary to support functions relating to trade prior to sharing the data. Furthermore, as I mentioned when introducing clauses 1 and 2, any data shared by the data-sharing gateway that is being established will have to comply with data protection legislation, including the general data protection regulation and its principles, covering necessity, proportionality and minimisation to protect the rights of individuals.
Clause 3 provides an additional safeguard on top of all the others by creating a criminal offence if information relating to a person’s identity, or information from which a person’s identity might be deduced, is shared in contravention of clause 2. I hope that will provide further assurance, if it is required, that the data shared through the gateway will be handled appropriately.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am interested in clause 3. To whom are the Government concerned that the information might be shared inappropriately? Who would be the recipients of that information?
Greg Hands
I think the hon. Gentleman’s question was about what kind of people would be inappropriate; it would be people to whom the legislation will not apply. We are talking about a discretionary power to share data to assist a Minister in functions relating to trade. In addition, the criminal power, as I understand it, is in the Bill specifically to prevent any individual person’s identity from becoming either known directly or deduced through the data that has been produced. Clause 3 puts in place an additional power to prevent that data from becoming known. I do not really want to speculate, Dame Rosie, but I can imagine a whole series of people and bodies that might have inappropriate access to an individual’s data as they pass through a border. I think we can all imagine the sort of people who may not have either your, mine or the Government’s best interests, or the interests of international trade, at heart.
Clause 4 contains the sunset elements of this Bill. As the House will be aware, the Trade Bill is currently passing through the other place and is now unlikely to receive Royal Assent before the end of the transition period. As I hope I made clear in introducing clauses 1 and 2, it is essential that we are able to provide a gateway to enable the sharing of trade-related data that the Cabinet Office requires before the end of this period as it takes on border-monitoring functions. To ensure that we can do that in time, the Bill replicates clauses 8 to 10 of the Trade Bill, which has been referred to at least twice so far. Clause 4 is therefore required to facilitate the expiry of clauses 1 to 3 of this Bill if similar clauses are passed in the Trade Bill, and will thereby ensure that the UK statute book is kept in good working order.
Clause 5 sets out the interpretation of key terms for the purposes of the Bill. Specifically, it provides interpretation of the terms “the data protection legislation”, “enactment”, “the investigatory powers legislation” and “Minister of the Crown”. The interpretations are intended to ensure that the reader of the Bill has clarity in respect of and understands the use of those terms in the Bill.
Finally, Clause 6 sets out the territorial extent of the legislation, when it will come into force and its short title. Subsection (1) sets out the territorial extent of the provisions:
“This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
This is a standard clause in any Bill to specify the extent of the its measures.
I note that the Government have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on these provisions as part of work on the Trade Bill, to ensure that the data- sharing gateways can also assist them with their devolved functions—I have already mentioned traffic management around ports as a classic case of where a devolved Administration have a legitimate and correct interest in ensuring that data will flow and therefore that trade flows. In that spirit of working closely together, the Government made two commitments to the devolved Administrations in relation to data sharing under clause 9 of the Trade Bill when it was in Committee in the Lords, and I will repeat them today. First, the data shared under clause 9 of that Bill will be used by the border operations centre and the Cabinet Office to develop strategic insights. The Cabinet Office is committed to sharing strategic analysis related to the flow of data where it will support the more effective management of flow through the border. Cabinet Office officials will continue to work closely with counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that relevant analysis and information can be shared to support devolved functions relating to trade and management of the border. Secondly, the UK Government commit to consulting the devolved Administrations before any devolved authorities are added to or removed from the list of specified authorities that can share data under clause 9 of the Trade Bill.
I turn to the remaining subsections of clause 6. Clause 6(2) of the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill provides for the Bill to come into force on the day of Royal Assent. Clause 6(3) simply provides that the Bill, once enacted, will be cited as the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act 2020. I hope that the House agrees that clause 6, and therefore all six clauses, should stand part of the Bill.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
We recognise that at present there are limited circumstances in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can disclose information, such as when consent has been given by a taxpayer or when compelled to do so to comply with a court order. The Bill clearly continues that tight framing over the protection of information.
I have a few questions for the Minister, but I shall first comment on amendment 1. Although it is clear that amendment 1 aims to make watertight clause 2(8)—and I do understand the concerns behind that—Labour is satisfied that subsection (8) offers sufficient protection. However, I hope that the Minister can expand on that and explain what kind of instances subsection (7) might cover so that we can be fully assured on that point.
As we said earlier, this Bill is very much a lift of clauses 8 to 10 of the Trade Bill, although it diverges slightly by widening the protections in clause 2(8), ensuring that no disclosures made under this Act would
“contravene the data protection legislation, or…be prohibited by the investigatory powers legislation”,
rather than including specific references to the parts of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Data Protection Act 2018, as we saw previously. Will the Minister give us a reason for that change and let the House know what is now in scope that was not previously?
The Bill gives new powers to HMRC to share information with international bodies, local bodies, devolved Administrations and others for analysis and monitoring. Will the Minister elaborate on the purposes for which that might be done, more specifically? Perhaps he could also explain the way in which the border operations centre will use that data to support local authorities, local resilience forums and other key public services, such as hospitals and clinical commissioning groups, when transporting key medicines or vaccines during the pandemic.
A little more broadly, I wonder whether the Minister could give other details about the border operations centre and the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. For instance, after the awarding of the port infrastructure fund yesterday, what assessment has he made of the number of ports that consider their allocation of the fund adequate to cover the necessary infrastructure changes required by the border operating model? As that fund was so significantly over-subscribed, what discussions is the Minister having with the Cabinet Office to ensure that our borders are fully operational by 1 January?
There is another point on which many of my colleagues and I have pressed Ministers. I do not think that we have had the opportunity to press this Minister on it, though, so I will give him a chance to answer. Can he tell us how many customs agents of the 50,000 recommended by the Government have now been trained and recruited? Will he also give us an update on the IT systems required to process customs and support our borders after the transition? Data sharing under the powers of the Bill is clearly welcome, but we also need the systems that sit alongside it to enable us to minimise disruption.
The Bill is needed to allow public bodies to access information about their areas and to prevent disruption. It also contains useful protections regarding data sharing, but it is a drop in the ocean when it comes to preparedness for the end of the transition period, so I hope that the Minister can answer some of those additional questions and give not simply this House, but business, the reassurance that it needs.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I wish to speak to amendment 1,
tabled in my name, and to some of the other clauses.
During the passage of the incomplete Trade Bill there were, as the Minister will have seared into his soul, a number of debates and amendments—I think amendments 33 and 34—relating to the requirement to collect data by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, specifically with regard to the exclusion of protection of legal professional privilege, which in many other circumstances would have applied. The same issue to some extent arises, in terms of the disclosure of information, in clause 2(7) of the Bill. It states:
“A disclosure under this section does not breach— (a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person disclosing the information, or (b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
The explanatory notes make it very clear that
“Certain information held by specific public authorities are subject to constraints on disclosure. To enable sharing of this information, clause 2(7) provides a general disapplication of these restrictions.”
If I may, I will just remind the Minister what was said in previous debates on this matter. Legal professional privilege and confidentiality are essential to safeguard the rule of law and the administration of justice. They permit information to be communicated between a lawyer and client without the fear of it going to a third party without the clear permission of the client. In normal circumstances, that includes HMRC. Many UK statutes already give express protection of legal privilege and it is vigorously protected by the courts.
We are in a rather odd position where data can be collected and is required to be collected, and where legal professional privilege has been disregarded entirely. We are now in a position where clause 2(7) disregards legal privilege in terms of the disclosing or sharing of that information. The Minister may well pray in aid some of the limited protections that are offered in clause 2, but if I run through them I suspect we might conclude they are not quite as strong as the Minister might like to think they are. The explanatory notes state:
“Clause 2(8) confirms that nothing in this section authorises the disclosure of information which would contravene data protection legislation or which is prohibited under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.”
So far, so good—that is helpful, but very, very narrow. Others may say that it is only specified public authorities who can disclose or share information. They are specified in clause 2(3) as: the Secretary of State, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, a strategic highways company, or a port health authority constituted in a particular way. However, clause 2(9) states:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend this section for the purpose of specifying a public authority in, or removing a public authority from, subsection (3).”
Therefore, any number of other bodies could be added to that list. The other protection one could point to would be to say, “Ah, but they can be added if they are dealing with functions relating to trade.” They include:
“the analysis of the flow of traffic, goods and services...the analysis of the impact, or likely impact, of measures or practices…the design, implementation and operation of such measures”,
and so on. Those three specifics, however, are prefaced by:
“Those functions include, among other things, functions relating to”.
That allows it to be completely open-ended. It is not a comprehensive or complete list. As anyone watching will know, trade is no longer simply about traffic flows, the number of containers, quota and tariffs. It is about a whole range of things: all sorts of regulations, security, immigration and goodness knows what.
The provision is vague and ill-defined. It strikes me as being subject to scope creep by regulation. Fundamentally, it includes clause 2(7)(a) and (b), which is a get out of jail free card insofar as it disapplies the normal protections of information being disclosed, which would be subject in many other circumstances, including in statute, to legal professional privilege. That is actually a problem in the long run, but not necessarily in the short run as it allows us to get over an immediate hurdle where data must be shared. I appreciate that but, in the long run, how on earth can we say that we are a law-abiding country and that we want to adhere to the international legal system—the rule of law internationally—when we have here the disapplication of fundamental rights and protections for people not to have their information, normally subject to legal protection, shared, collected, distributed and disseminated. When the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked whether a private body could act as a public authority, the answer seemed to be that, yes, it could. That means that we could have a private body—a private company of indeterminate origin and a very small book value—doing something on behalf of the public, acting as a public authority, where the normal protection of data, which it may be provided with to fulfil its role, has the normal protections of legal privilege disapplied in statute.
Time is short. I know that this is urgent, I am not stupid, but this is actually serious. We cannot have a Government riding roughshod over legal protection, legal privilege, in this way over such a short period of time just because they have failed to get their ducks in a row and a proper functioning Trade Bill through where everything joins up.
It is not my intention, Dame Rosie, to press amendment 1 to a vote, but I do hope that the Minister takes seriously what I have just said and understands the possible consequences, particularly if it is private bodies acting as public authorities which have disapplied from them everything in terms of protection other than data protection and whether it would breach one other piece of named legislation. That is a serious and bad place to be.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I will not take the House’s attention for long. Again, I find myself in agreement. The Liberal Democrats have serious reservations about the original Trade Bill, but we recognise that, through no fault of this House, the Bill has to be expedited. We need some form of data protection and for our authorities be able to use the data effectively, so we are prepared not to go along with this Bill, but to accept that we need it and that we need it by 1 January. We are in this situation simply because the negotiations with the European Union have not gone in the way that the Government had assured us they would and because the situation has not been handled by the UK Government as expertly as we might have hoped.
Greg Hands
I will, if I may, respond to those points. I thank Members for making them and for participating in this Committee debate.
Taking the points in turn, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked about instances covered by clause 2(7). As he noted, reference to investigatory powers legislation is absent from the Trade Bill. That is a minor drafting error. I should have made that clear. An equivalent change will be made to the Trade Bill in due course during its passage.
The hon. Gentleman asked a series of more general questions about borders and ports and I will try to answer those as best I can, recognising that almost all of his questions are within the remit of other Departments, rather than the Department for International Trade.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the border operations centre will assist the movement of medicines and vaccines. That will be a key part of the priorities that we have set for the border after 1 January, to ensure that vital goods continue to flow quickly and efficiently. I will give an example of the sort of data that would be within scope for the border operations centre, assuming that the Bill becomes law. The ability to analyse customs declarations, transit declarations, export declarations, safety and security declarations and things such as highways data would, I think, allow medicines and vaccines to be moved more quickly and more efficiently than would otherwise be the case without the data.
Stewart Hosie
If the Minister is right that removing the disapplication would restrict the Government’s ability to collect the data they need, will he tell the Committee what data that is currently protected the Government wish to access or have a hold of that they would not otherwise be able to get?
Greg Hands
That is a very reasonable question, but I will stress what I said earlier: it is not possible at this stage to anticipate what specific restrictions may apply to the additional public bodies, otherwise we would have put on the face of the Bill which other public bodies could be added in due course. We have not put those on the face of the Bill, but we have said that it is perfectly possible that, during the conduct of these operations, it will become clear that there is other data out there that would assist the Government in ensuring that trade flows well at the border. We want to ensure that those other bodies could quickly come within scope, through the delegated procedures that we have laid out in legislation, and therefore it would not be appropriate to put a general restriction on those bodies. It is best to rely on the overall restrictions in the legislation to ensure that we have robust data protection.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has raised an issue that would become more relevant if the sunsetting of this legislation does not take hold. If this legislation sunsets, most of us will be fairly comfortable with it. However, there is an opening here, with the combination of subsections (7) and (11) of clause 2, and subsection (1)—that sets out the purpose—which is that it would be right for Parliament to have some review of the application of this in practice. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance, if there is no sunset within six months, that he will come back to the House to reassure us that those potential areas of concern have not been breached?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I must say that if the Trade Bill has not received Royal Assent within six months, I will certainly be under scrutiny in this House, for a piece of legislation that has now been with us for three and a half years. I can give him that assurance. Obviously, the intention is that this will sunset when the Trade Bill receives Royal Assent. We do think that the overall restrictions on the use of the data, and the discretionary nature of the power, are appropriate in this place. But it is also quite right for the Government to make allowance for the fact that it may come to light that extra data will be needed, and we do not want to have what might be viewed as unnecessary restrictions on the use of that data being added now as it becomes useful to us during the course of January. Our intention, however, is that the legislation should sunset as early as possible, with the Trade Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Clause 2(8) makes explicit the requirement for any data sharing conducted under the proposed gateway to comply with data protection legislation, including GDPR. Government Departments sharing data under this gateway will also be expected to comply with robust data governance practices, including completing data protection impact assessments and ensuring that data sharing agreements are in place. Furthermore, clause 3 creates an offence for the disclosure of any information in contravention of clause 2 where a person’s identity is specified in the disclosure or can be deduced from it—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
I hope my remarks have reassured the hon. Member for Dundee East on both the importance of clause 2(7) and the steps that the Government have taken to ensure the safeguards are in place where data is shared under this gateway. I hope that his intention is not to press his amendment. I urge the Committee to support clauses 1 to 6.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Greg Hands.)
Stewart Hosie
I would be delighted to take this opportunity to make the briefest of Third Reading speeches and to return to a theme that has typified this entire debate. Notwithstanding the need to be able to share data or to have the legal basis on which to do so, it is completely wrong to rush this through with potentially hours, or possibly a day or so, before the House rises for recess and barely a fortnight before the full horrors of Brexit come on to the British people and business in this country.
This is a lesson for us all in the future: there must be a better way of dealing with technical matters, even ones that come up urgently, than today’s very short and expedited debate. I hope that, as the Minister said in Committee, the Trade Bill gets its Royal Assent soon enough that the dangers implicit in this—temporary, I hope—legislation with a long sunset clause do not come to fruition.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Christine Jardine
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and your patience, and I ask your advice on a matter that has come to my attention today that is of great importance not only to my constituent, Murray Gray, but to a number of constituents, mostly children, who are currently in receipt of private prescriptions for medicinal cannabis. I have had confirmation today that the Department of Health and Social Care says that those prescriptions will not be permissible after 1 January, so a number of patients will find themselves without medication. I wondered whether there is some way that could be raised as an urgent matter to be discussed by the House, and that we could hear from the Department, before the House rises for recess.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. It is not really a matter for the Chair, but she is a very experienced Member of the House and I am sure she will talk to the Table Office about the different ways she might raise this matter, perhaps through written questions or directly with Ministers. Obviously, the Treasury Bench has heard what she has to say, so I trust that she will do that as quickly as she can. It is also business questions tomorrow, and she may wish to raise it there.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order to allow the safe entry and exit of right hon. and hon. Members.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Wednesday 16th December 2020
(3 years, 10 months 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 16 December 2020 - (16 Dec 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That this House agrees with Lords amendments 8P, 8Q, 8R, 8S, 8T and 8U.
I am delighted to be able to come back to the House today with positive news for business and for our constituents. As I have said before, I am immensely grateful to colleagues across both Houses for their constructive discussions with Government, and I would like to extend my thanks to all colleagues in both Houses for working with the Government to reach agreement on how we can best ensure that the frictionless intra-UK trade we enjoy today can continue into the future, especially as we recover together from covid-19. As we have made clear, this Bill is about protecting businesses and livelihoods—real people and real jobs—and I am pleased that both Houses have worked constructively to do that. I want to again extend my thanks to colleagues on the Opposition Benches in this place, and in the other place in particular, for their engagement.
As I set out to the House yesterday, the Government are committed to the common frameworks programme. We attach enormous value to the fora that they provide for collaborative working with the devolved Administrations. The Government have also been clear that the market access principles will work in tandem with common frameworks. We have been asked to provide as much clarity as possible on our continuing commitment to the programme, and we have thought long and hard about this over recent weeks. It is important that we respect the flexibility, and also the commonality, of common frameworks, paying close attention to the interests of all parts of the UK involved in the common frameworks programme and protecting the voluntary and consensus-driven nature of the programme. Indeed, these aspects are key to the effectiveness of the processes. The Government have listened carefully and reflected on the points put forward in both Houses about putting common frameworks on the face of the Bill, and we have now done so through these Lords amendments.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Obviously we welcome some sort of concession on common frameworks, but the Minister said yesterday that enshrining common frameworks in the Bill would create uncertainty for business, so what has changed from last night to today?
Paul Scully
What has changed from last night to today is the convivial and constructive discussions we have had to allow for amendments that are worded to the satisfaction of, certainly, the other place and I hope this place, that will allow us to progress with both the common frameworks as a voluntary process and the certainty of the internal market.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Before the Minister starts launching the fireworks in celebration of the progress in the Lords yesterday, I would like to remind him that the Welsh Government remain deeply dissatisfied and have announced that they intend taking the UK Government to court over the provisions in the Bill, not least the state aid provisions and the economic intervention proposals. Will he explain how the common frameworks process will work and where power will reside within the common frameworks, because there is a degree of ambiguity about that? Will he also commit the British Government to bringing forward a statement on the common frameworks to the House of Commons for scrutiny in the new year so that we can have a discussion about whether this is actually the best way forward?
Paul Scully
Clearly it is disappointing that the Welsh Government have chosen to issue that statement, especially in the light of the productive working relationship that we have enjoyed with their Ministers and officials during the passage of the Bill. I know that the common frameworks have been subject to much debate, and I hope I will be able to clarify this as we go through. There will be more discussion in the new year about the frameworks and how they will work moving forward, because they have been productive in a number of areas to date, and I know that that will continue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister for what he has brought forward, but I seek clarification, as I often do, on the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Will the final decisions on any movement of goods, east-west, north-south, or whatever it may be, lie with the Northern Ireland Assembly or with this place? Also, what discussions has he had with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment?
Paul Scully
Ironically, not particularly on common frameworks or the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, although I have taken over from my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), in the quad discussions with the devolved Administrations. We had my first one this morning, and I look forward to further conversations. As for what happens to Northern Ireland goods to GB and vice versa, we have had an agreement in the Joint Committee. I look forward to seeing the results of the talks that are continuing in Brussels, because ultimately if there is a pathway to a deal, that will help to smooth the transition process. Ultimately, however, the long-term aim of what happens to the workings of the Northern Ireland protocol will sit with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, given their vote in a few years’ time.
The Government here are demonstrating their commitment to the programme by, first, placing common frameworks on the face of the Bill, through our amendments yesterday in the other place, and, secondly, clarifying the relationship that we see between agreements made under the common frameworks processes and the internal market principles established by the Bill. Specifically, we are making it clear, through amendments 8P to 8S, that delegated powers under clauses 10 and 17 may be utilised to, among other things, make provision to reflect common framework agreements. In such cases, the Secretary of State would be able to bring to the House a statutory instrument to exclude from market access principles a specific agreed area of divergence. That would follow consensus being reached between the UK Governments and all the relevant parties that that was appropriate, in respect of a specific defined topic within a common framework.
For parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, previous amendments are provided for consent to be sought from the devolved Administrations. If that is not forthcoming within a month, MPs and peers from all parts of the UK would thereafter be able to debate and, if appropriate, agree to the change. We do not currently expect such cases to arise very frequently, but want to be clear that appropriate means are in place to respect them when they do.
The amendments to clauses 10 and 17 are complemented by amendments 8T and 8U. In line with other Government amendments to enhance the overall transparency of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the role of the Office for the Internal Market, these amendments demonstrate our commitment to transparency and evidence building regarding the interaction between the market access principles and the common frameworks programme. As part of the OIM’s five-yearly review into the effectiveness of parts 1 to 3 in supporting a healthy internal market, the OIM will now also address how parts 1 to 3 have affected the operation of agreements under common frameworks, including the effect that those agreements have had on the operation of the internal market. This will ensure proper scrutiny of both regulatory changes and the progress made under common frameworks.
The Government are confident that these amendments provide an appropriate way to ensure that market access principles in the Bill can act to ensure certainty and a seamlessly functioning internal market for all British businesses and citizens. They do this while allowing a degree of agreed flexibility, reflecting different circumstances in particular parts of the UK. In reaching agreement on these amendments and thus agreeing on the final outstanding issues of the Bill, both Houses will be protecting and preserving the United Kingdom’s internal market, which has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Well here we are again—groundhog day. Early on, I dubbed this Bill the infernal market Bill, and it has certainly lived up to that name. It is good to see the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in his seat again. I am not sure what he is going to do in a few weeks’ time after all his doughty energies tackling issues around Brexit. I am not sure whose fault it is all going to be in a few weeks’ time. Perhaps Ministers should watch their backs; they might find it is their fault once Brexit can no longer be blamed for all his ills.
Let me start by thanking Ministers and their officials for the discussions that we have had in recent days about how we can make the best of this bad Bill. Let us be honest: when it first saw the light of day, it was clear for all to see what a terrible Bill this was. It was wrong in seeking to break international law, and it was wrong in disrespecting the devolution settlement and failing to understand the way the UK now works through power sharing. That is why we have been so vociferously opposed to it in this House.
We led the way on that, starting, as you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) taking down every single argument of the Prime Minister, who was here himself on Second Reading. Through the Bill’s many stages in this House, we have been clear in our opposition to some of its serious flaws. It has been a long and difficult process.
Alan Brown
If Labour has really led the way, why did it back down in the votes in the other place on protecting devolution in respect of Westminster’s ability to spend and meddle in devolved affairs?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case. That is not what happened in the other place. It is thanks to the Labour leadership in the other place that we have seen improvements to the Bill, and I will say a bit more about that in a minute.
The Bill is now in much better shape than it was. It is far from good, let alone perfect, but it is better. That is thanks to the leadership shown by Labour colleagues in the other place, who built alliances and worked with guile and tenacity to get us to where we are. The Government, by the way, have a majority in the other place; despite that, we managed to inflict a number of Government defeats. As a result, the Government dropped most of part 5, which was the international lawbreaking part of the Bill originally and now upholds the Northern Ireland protocol.
After Labour worked cross-party with colleagues and others to ensure successive Government defeats in the other place, and after several rounds of ping-pong— I have lost count of how many—the Bill has been improved in a number of ways. We have the one-month mechanism for the devolved Administrations’ consent on regulations; the operation of the internal market in the interest of consumers; the consent and involvement of the devolved Administrations on the make-up and operation of the Office for the Internal Market, and the removal and review of the Henry VIII powers.
Today, we welcome the Government’s concessions on common frameworks in response to Lord Hope and Lord Stevenson’s amendments. In particular, amendments to clauses 10 and 17 allow for agreements arising from common frameworks to be excluded from the application of market principles. They also include in the Bill a definition of a common framework agreement, something that we have been seeking from the beginning. We also welcome the amendment to clause 31 that provides for the Competition and Markets Authority and the Office for the Internal Market to include in their five-year reporting details of the interaction between market access principles and common framework agreements, and of the impact of common framework agreements on the operation and development of the internal market.
We have fought long and hard to ensure that the Bill does not undermine devolution, because we believe in devolution. These are important safeguards that really do strengthen the Bill.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Lady will be aware that, as I alluded to earlier, the Labour Government in Wales are threatening legal action. Is that something that she and the Labour party in Westminster will be supporting?
Lucy Powell
I have just been alerted to that. I am not sure of the details at this stage, so it is probably best that I do not comment. However, it is obviously a Labour Administration, and we support them and have worked very closely with them. I thank them for their co-operation with us on the Bill.
Common frameworks will allow different nations in the UK to set their own standards in key areas and to agree minimum standards for all. That is why it was so important to us from the start that there was recognition of common frameworks on the face of the Bill. However, it is still far from ideal, and the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to these issues only because of the pressure we have applied, working tirelessly in the other place, and I pay tribute again to Lord Hope, Lord Stevenson and Baroness Hayter for all their work on this.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I was very taken by the reference the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) made to improvement. Having looked at the Bill and followed it over the last few weeks, I find it difficult to call it an improvement.
However, I want to pay tribute to the Public Bill Office. Given the amendments, and the contortions the Public Bill Office has had to absorb in looking at the Reasons Committee’s consideration of these issues and at the question of what insistence on disagreement or agreement is at a particular point in time before it comes from one House to the other and goes back again, this has been an incredible exercise in complexity—so much so that it would be asking an awful lot to expect anybody, including the Minister, to be able to claim that they really understand what it is that has ultimately arrived. I was going to ask him if he would like to explain exactly what all this means. We will only find out in due course.
I was looking at the reasons for disagreeing only yesterday, and they were very clear. One said that the Government disagreed with the Lords over the question of legal certainty and disruption to business. Suddenly, almost at the wave of a magic wand, all of that has completely evaporated into thin air, and we have ended up with this extremely contorted, extremely confusing and ambiguous series of statements. However, at the heart of it, there is one point that I want to put to the Minister. Does he recall the famous Schleswig-Holstein question? Only three people comprehended what was going on, or they had originally, but unfortunately one had forgotten, one had died and the other had gone mad. [Interruption.] I am not going to attribute any one of those to the Minister. However, right at the heart of this, a lot of very complicated drafting has been put in to try to salvage some face. As I read it, the Secretary of State can make these regulations but—this goes to the heart of it—that process would be subject to the affirmative resolution under clause 10(2), which is mirrored in clause 17. It strikes me that there is one fundamental question: can the Minister effectively veto matters that have been discussed and consulted on with the devolved Administration? If the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution, it seems that may well turn out to be the case. Who knows? I do not know at the moment, and only when the process reaches its conclusion will we know whether the reserved powers in the Scotland Act 1998 will bite. I cannot be sure of that. I have a feeling that this may end up in the courts, and perhaps the situation will be made clearer. We are at the end of the line for this Bill, and I regard the whole thing as being difficult to plot in terms of a clear path to any conclusion.
Jonathan Edwards
In the 10 years that I have been in this place, I think this is the first time that I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman on a substantial point. The concession last night in the Lords opens up a number of new questions, and there needs to be a well thought out process regarding how the common frameworks will work, where power will reside within the frameworks, and who has the power to create them. I would like a far more consensual approach than we have seen today.
Sir William Cash
I am glad to hear that. I am not sure—we cannot be sure—whether these provisions might eventually be declared void for uncertainty, and I am not clear about what they will do in practice. At least, however, we have got to the end of the Bill. I am in favour of the Bill in principle, and that is about all I need to say for the moment. As far as I am concerned, the future lies ahead with uncertainty built into these provisions.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Any improvement to the Bill would be welcomed, but the proposed amendment does nothing to protect the devolution settlement—the Minister said as much in his opening remarks—and the provisions will simply allow this Parliament to overrule Scottish Parliament and Welsh Parliament decisions. It is incredible to hear Labour Front Benchers trying to take credit. They say that they led the way, but they have actually paved the way for this Bill to do that to the Scottish Parliament. They talk about the guile they have shown, but it is gall that they have when they talk about this. You can understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why Labour has only one MP in Scotland.
Instead of taking this Bill apart, as they should have done, those on the Labour Front Bench spend more of their time talking about the democratically elected Members of Parliament that they have here, who, as I pointed out, are in vastly greater numbers than the one Labour MP from Scotland. They are not listening to Scotland—they never do—and Labour has allowed this aberration to come forward in this way by abstaining in the House of Lords.
The amendment does not protect devolution, as I said: the Minister has laid that out clearly today for everybody to hear. Westminster Ministers will still have the right to impose lower food, environmental and other devolved standards on Scotland, regardless of the view of Holyrood. This Bill is the biggest assault on devolution in the history of the Scottish Parliament. It undermines devolved policy making, grabs spending powers, and removes state aid from being a devolved responsibility. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly refused to give this Bill consent, and it is outrageous that the UK Government are once again ignoring the wishes of the people of Scotland as well as Wales.
In welcoming the amendment, Professor Aileen McHarg warned:
“There are still significant problems with this Bill: it changes the scope of devolved decision-making; it reserves additional powers to Westminster; it empowers the UK Government to spend in devolved areas that have nothing to do with markets (eg prisons, sport, international student exchanges); and above all—unlike EU law—it has an inherently asymmetrical effect on decision-making for England and for the devolved territories.
This is a Bill which squarely falls within the scope of the Sewel Convention, and the necessity of which is deeply questionable.”
But of course the Government have not listened to that, and Labour has capitulated on it.
The only reason for this Bill as it now stands is to demolish devolution. If the Government take this Bill forward today, as they obviously will, that is what they will be doing. Any pretence thereafter by the Scottish Tory MPs that they respect the democratic rights of the people of Scotland will be blown apart if they support this today. In fact, they have already supported it, because it seems that it will go through. They have done nothing to protect the democratic rights of the Scottish people.
People in Scotland are watching. People in Scotland, when they see the effects of this Bill, will be angry about the fact that their rights are being taken away by these Tory Ministers, aided by their Labour bedfellows. They will be furious about the fact that their rights are being stripped from them. They are listening, they are watching, and they are seeing developments in this place. They are understanding, now, that the only way to protect their Parliament, their rights and their democracy in Scotland is to go forward as an independent nation—and they will be voting for that, I am sure, in due course.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Yesterday I said that there was still time for compromise, so I am glad that the Government have finally gone for some degree of a consensus approach, and there is no doubt that what will be on the statute book is an improvement on the legislation that was initially introduced back in the autumn. I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s engagement over the Bill. I also thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Lords, who have played an important role, and our staff teams across both Houses.
However, I do still have concerns about the Bill, one of which is about the Office for the Internal Market. The Government need to be transparent about what role that office will play in future trade deals. Can foreign investors in a US trade deal use it to undermine the devolved nations? I have asked that question repeatedly. I am also conscious that the legislative value of this Bill might, in practice, be limited, or indeed pretty much non-existent, especially if we reach a trade deal and a standards agreement with the EU. We obviously need more clarity on this, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said.
Unfortunately, as I pointed out yesterday, these changes, while positive, are too late, because the damage has already been done. The Minister heard the speeches of SNP Members yesterday, but I wonder whether he listened. With this Bill, the Government have been pouring fuel on a fire, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). I ask the Minister: what has this all been worth? If the Government are committed to the future of the United Kingdom, they need to start acting like it.
I cannot count the number of newspaper articles I have read over the past year reporting a reset in the Government’s approach to the Union, that a new Cabinet Committee has been set up to finally solve the Government’s problem as regards relations with the devolved nations, or that the Prime Minister is going to love-bomb Scotland. I urge the Government: this is not about Committees, or grand new offices in Edinburgh, or bridges or tunnels over or under the Irish sea. Those of my constituents who are uncertain about where they want Scotland’s future to lie will not be convinced by Union Jacks on UK Government infrastructure projects: cack-handed stuff, as the passage of this Bill clearly indicates. What they will be convinced by is a UK Government who treat the devolved nations with respect, maturity and honesty, and who work together with the devolved nations to find consensus, because I do believe that we have too much in common for borders to divide us. Are we in this place capable of that? I like to believe we are, but for too many of my constituents, it has not felt like that over the last few months with this Bill.
So I do urge the Government: compromise and consensus were the reluctant final steps they took with regard to this Bill. Noting the comments of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) in relation to the Welsh Government’s statement, let the first steps the Government take in their future relationship with the devolved nations be that compromise and consensus.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I suppose it is good to see that the Government have finally admitted that they have to listen to the concerns being raised about their appalling ignorance over devolution and how the UK currently works. Is it not bizarre that the unelected bunch along the corridor had more appreciation of the democratic deficit at the heart of the UK than the Government of “reclaiming sovereignty” fame?
It is appalling too—I have to say this—that the loyal and spineless Opposition betrayed generations of Scottish Labour activists and politicians who fought to establish devolution and battled their own party sometimes, but who learned to work across civic Scotland to deliver it. I think they must not have heard the warnings of Scottish Labour Action that a powerful devolved Administration in Scotland were not a frippery, but an absolutely essential counterpoint to Westminster and Whitehall blindness to issues anywhere outside the south-east of England. I expect nothing better from the Tories, but the Labour party has betrayed its own members and the activists who spent so long on the Calton Hill vigil. This desperate attempt to appeal to Tory values to try to bury the incompetence of the previous leadership might seem a decent old political strategy, but it renders the existence of the Labour party utterly meaningless.
In any case, we finally have a nod to the devolution settlement, even if it has been forced by the House of Lords. In yesterday’s debate, the Minister said this legislation was about devolution, demonstrated that it was about dismantling devolution and failed to answer any of the questions raised during the debate. It seems that Ministers in this UK Government no longer seek to engage in discussion, but instead merely fling pre-written barbs that they clearly think are clever. It is not clear whether they know how to debate and choose not to, or do not actually have command of their brief. Either way, it is unfitting for a Minister and no way to run a Government.
Instead of offering amendments to this elected Chamber yesterday or at any point during the passage of this Bill, the Government arranged their business in the unelected Chamber—somewhere it clearly feels most comfortable, among the privileged and away from the bother of the concerns of the people we represent. Those amendments, I will grant, go a little way towards addressing some of the concerns that have been raised, but I suggest that they were driven more by a desire to mollify cantankerous Lords than by the need to create decent legislation. They are tiny baby steps in the right direction at the time we needed giant strides and they leave, as we have already heard, reams of unanswered questions—how disputes between Governments will be resolved, for example, and how consumers can be protected from unthinking and uncaring Prime Ministers, for another.
The amendments will also embed an imbalance in the framework of a post-Brexit UK that will see England’s Government outweigh the other Governments in any negotiation, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) pointed out. He put his finger on the exact nub of this problem. England’s Government will outweigh the other Governments in any negotiation, because it continues to claim overlordship as the supposed Government of the UK. Labour might be interested in looking at that, because it echoes the democratic deficit that drove the creation of the devolved Administrations in the first place.
Sir William Cash
I personally have always believed that there should have been a referendum of the whole United Kingdom over the devolution question. I put down my own amendment back in 1997, and half the Conservative party went against a three-line Whip and followed me into the Lobby. That is the real way to get consent. I believe in the Union, and I believe that there should never have been devolution other than through a United Kingdom referendum, if it was going to happen at all.
Deidre Brock
I do not want to be rude to the hon. Gentleman, but he presents us with a glorious example of exactly why many on the SNP Benches want to get away from this House of Commons.
Scotland faces the same situation as we did in the last quarter of the last century: a UK Government of a hue that we did not vote for and would not support are riding roughshod over the interests of the Scottish people and will ignore them if they can. This Bill will pass today, but the debate will continue, and we have not yet begun to fight.
Alan Brown
I would like to briefly add to what my colleagues have said. We welcome some sort of recognition of the common frameworks. There is a lot still to be teased out in terms of how that will work. We know that Westminster’s sovereignty will overrule things, and that is still a big concern, but we welcome that measure. I still do not understand how the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and said that common frameworks could not be enshrined in the Bill, because it would be so bad and would cause businesses uncertainty, and now he says, “We’ve listened to the Lords, and everything’s okay.” It would be good if he could clarify that when he sums up.
Despite what the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said, Labour did not lead the way on this. Labour gave up on devolution, and it gave up in the other place. Labour did not even back my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) in the Reasons Committee. Labour sat on its hands in the vote in that Committee. Lord Stevenson said, “We will not divide the House.” That is giving up. Labour gave up in the Lords.
Let us look at clause 48 and what Labour gave up on. Westminster is now allowed to provide infrastructure at places in the United Kingdom, including infrastructure connected with any of the other purposes mentioned. That infrastructure includes water, which is still publicly owned in Scotland, electricity, gas, telecoms, sewerage—also publicly owned in Scotland—railway facilities and roads or other transport facilities. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, that paves the way for the glorious Union bridge or Union tunnel that we do not want and do not need, because we can invest better in transport infrastructure ourselves.
There is no doubt that the greatest improvements in Scotland’s infrastructure have come since the introduction of the Scottish Parliament, making decisions for the people of Scotland on behalf of the people of Scotland and representing the people who elected them. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Manchester Central want to intervene? No. As I was saying, the greatest improvements in Scotland’s infrastructure have come since the introduction of the Scottish Parliament. MSPs are answerable to the people who elected them. Unfortunately, we have a right- wing Tory Government who Scotland did not elect, and now they are free to overrule us. Labour backed down. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Manchester Central said; Labour backed down and gave up.
The Bill allows Westminster to spend not only in Scotland but in Wales, overruling the Welsh Labour Government on health, education, culture, sports facilities, court or prison facilities and housing. We are leading the way in building social housing in Scotland. We ended the right to buy. The Tories obviously still think that the right to buy is a good thing, forcing councils to get rid of their housing stock. How dare Westminster legislate to provide housing in Scotland—we have done very well without your help, thank you very much.
State aid is something else that Labour gave up on. It has been stated clearly that state aid was never a reserved function, and therefore it was devolved to the four nations, so why is Westminster taking it back? Does it think that that sends out a good message?
People are watching. Studies in Scotland have shown time and again that people in Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament to legislate and invest in these matters over Westminster, so why Westminster thinks it can do a better job is beyond me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, it looks like independence is the only way that we can protect the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Bring it on.
Paul Scully
Let me quickly answer a few points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) asked for a bit more detail on the amendments. In the small number of cases in which the market access principles apply to divergence agreed under a common framework, clauses 10 and 17 could be used to exclude the agreement from the market access principles. The Secretary of State would be able to do so following a consensus agreement that that was appropriate under the common framework. That is the appropriate way to ensure that the market access principles in the Bill can ensure certainty and a seamlessly functioning internal market while still respecting agreed limited divergence under the common frameworks programme.
Originally, Lord Hope’s amendments would have required the Secretary of State to exclude any divergence agreed under the common frameworks process from market access principles; by contrast, the Government’s amendment makes it clear that this is an option open to the Secretary of State, thereby giving the Secretary of State the discretion to ensure that the disapplication of the market access principles would never lead to the emergence of unacceptable trade barriers within the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about the CMA, the OIM and what would happen with international players. The CMA and the OIM have the flexibility to investigate and report on any issues that they choose, but they are not themselves decision makers on market access principles. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have made sure that both the OIM and the Bill itself will apply rules to each part of the UK—to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—equally.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the Minister for his response, but will he accept that, in the letter he wrote to the Scottish Affairs Committee after his appearance before the Committee in relation to the Bill, he was unable definitively to rule out foreign investors being able to take the UK Government to court, whether through the OIM or otherwise?
Paul Scully
In establishing the Office for the Internal Market through this Bill, I wanted to make sure that it was not the Office for the Internal Market itself that it would be able to work through, so that is within the purview of this particular part of the Bill.
The hon. Member for North East Fife talked about about the fact that when we talk about devolution it is not about Committees, and I totally agree: it is about dialogue, consensus and giving business certainty. This is in stark contrast to what we have seen from the Scottish National party, which walked away from discussions about the internal market in 2019. That is no way to build consensus and to have that dialogue. If the SNP and the Scottish Government want to talk about ending the right to buy and to go with that to the council house-owning residents in their electorate, that is up to them. We are not talking about devolved parts of housing; when we talk about spending or any of these other issues, it is complementary to what the Scottish Government, or indeed the Welsh Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly, are doing within their devolved rights.
Drew Hendry
Once again, the Minister has talked about the Scottish Government walking away from the internal market discussions; of course, the internal market discussions led on to this Bill—we knew it was going to be a bad move forward. The Scottish Government engaged constructively, and continue to be willing to do so, in the common frameworks discussions. The Minister should make that clear when he makes that point about the internal market discussions. On the matter of housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out, the Government can now interfere in and overrule legislation in Scotland.
Paul Scully
No, this is about spreading. I readily accept that the discussions on common frameworks continue, and I very much welcome that. As I say, common frameworks go wider than just trade and the measures covered in the Bill. None the less, to walk away from discussions on the internal market a full year or 18 months before we reached this position is really to walk away from the responsibility to help to shape the discussions, as we have seen in the more fruitful conversations with the Welsh Senedd, including in recent days.
We heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) talk about pre-written barbs, but time and again when we have come back to this place it has just been a rehearsal of the arguments not about the devolution settlement or the Bill itself, but about independence. It has been the same debate time and again, instead of Members involving themselves in the detail of the Bill and giving certainty to business.
Paul Scully
I will not give way.
I finish by thanking everyone who spoke in the debate, and by once again thanking all hon. and right hon. Members and noble Lords who have engaged with the Bill over the last few weeks. I thank the Public Bill Office for its support to all Members and officials across Government. I pay tribute to the entire ministerial team across both Houses and all Departments, who have worked jointly to deliver the Bill—in particular, Lord Callanan, Lord True and the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). I also pay tribute to Yasmin Kalhori and the team of the Leader of the House of Lords.
I welcome the contributions and the constructive discussions that we have had in recent days with Opposition Members in both Houses that have got us to this place. We have had some passionate debates on the Bill, because of the importance of the issues. However, the Bill will ensure that UK businesses can trade across the four parts of the UK in a way that helps them to invest and create jobs, just as they have for hundreds of years. I am therefore delighted to ask the House to agree to the amendments, and to complete our scrutiny and consideration of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat, and he knows that. [Interruption.] This is just showing off. He should resume his seat, otherwise I will name him and order him to leave. [Interruption.] Does he want to be named? Is that what is happening? [Interruption.] If that is what is happening, we can do it. [Interruption.] Okay—I will name him. I know what he is doing. [Interruption.] Oh, for goodness’ sake! Very childish.
Drew Hendry, Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, was named by the Deputy Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44),
That Drew Hendry be suspended from the service of the House.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker directed Drew Hendry to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.
Main Question again proposed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with Lords amendments 8P, 8Q, 8R, 8S, 8T and 8U.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will suspend for three minutes, in order to allow safe exit and entry.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Helen Jones to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 January 2021 for the period ending on 31 December 2025; and that Her Majesty will re-appoint Sir Robert Owen to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 January 2021 for the period ending on 31 December 2023.
The Speaker’s Committee has produced a report—its first report of 2020— in relation to this motion. It may help if I set out the key points for the record. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority board members are appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Under the Act, the Speaker is responsible for overseeing the selection of candidates for appointment to the IPSA. The names of any candidates to be members of the IPSA must be approved by the Speaker’s Committee for the IPSA. The Act also states:
“At least one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who has held (but no longer holds) high judicial office (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005…At least one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who is qualified under Schedule 3 to the National Audit Act 1983…to be an auditor for the National Audit Office...One of the members of the IPSA…must be a person who has been (but is no longer) a member of the House of Commons.”
On this occasion, the vacancies are for a former Member of the House of Commons and a former holder of high judicial office.
The terms of office of the current incumbents come to an end on 31 December this year. Jenny Willott, the former MP currently serving on the IPSA board, is stepping down at the end of her term. I would like to put on record our thanks to her for her service. As is normal for these appointments, Mr Speaker appointed a panel who conducted the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. The panel was chaired by former civil service commissioner, Mark Addison. The other members of the panel were Cindy Butts, a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the IPSA, and Richard Lloyd, the interim chairman of the IPSA. The panel reported back to the Speaker’s Committee with a list of candidates that it assessed as being appointable to each role. The Speaker’s Committee considered the report at its meeting last week. It agreed with Mr Speaker that Helen Jones should be appointed to the former Member of the House of Commons position, and that Sir Robert Owen should be reappointed to the former holder of high judicial office position.
Helen Jones, who will be familiar to many Members, was the popular Member for Warrington North from 1997 to 2019. She chaired the Petitions Committee with distinction from 2015 to 2019. [Interruption.] Somebody has a telephone call coming in; I hope it is important. Helen Jones previously served as an Opposition spokesman, senior Government Whip and Parliamentary Private Secretary. Prior to entering the House, she worked as a solicitor, a teacher and a justice and peace officer in the Liverpool archdiocese. Sir Robert Owen is the current incumbent and has served as an IPSA board member since 2016. He was a judge in the Queen’s bench division of the High Court, a nominated judge of the administrative court and the presiding judge of the western circuit. He also chaired the Litvinenko inquiry in 2014-15.
If the appointments are made, Helen Jones will serve on IPSA for five years and Sir Robert Owen will serve a further three-year term. I hope that the House will support these appointments, and we wish the candidates well in these important roles. I commend the motion to the House.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for setting out in full the background to these appointments. The Opposition support the motion, but I want to say a couple of words about Sir Robert Owen. I am pleased that a person of his stature has agreed to be reappointed. Helen Jones has served in this House, as the Leader of the House has outlined, as Chair of the Petitions Committee. I know that both will bring their expertise on this important body. Her Majesty’s Opposition support everything that the Leader of the House has said and support the motion.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for moving the motion in our proceedings this evening, and of course we support both candidates and we wish them both well. I think we are all familiar with Helen Jones, who has such a distinguished record of service to the House, and wish her well in her deliberations. I think we can all trust that our interests will be looked after by the IPSA.
This process has followed the best possible practice in the House and is an exemplar for how we do these things. What we did was select from a wide range of people who came forward with the necessary experience. What was required was a practical engagement with the House, and the way the process was handled was a credit to the House. We can only compare that with what happened a couple of weeks ago, which was an absolute and utter disgrace and an embarrassment to this House, when this House turned down what the Commission had decided for lay members of the Standards Committee.
We should look at both examples: one, a best-practice exemplar of how we do things; the other, a disgrace that will do nothing but discourage good people from coming forward and offering their services to this House. We should be doing everything possible to get people such as Helen Jones and Robert Owen, not turning them away by changing the criteria halfway through the process, when it had been agreed by the Commission. I hope we never, ever get into such a situation again, that what we are doing today is the gold standard for how we make such appointments to the House, and that we never, ever revisit the shambles of a couple of weeks ago, with the lay members of the Standards Committee.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thought we were going to achieve a degree of pre-Christmas consensus. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House. I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was unfair to the House of Commons. In any process where this House is the final decision maker, it must not be deemed, thought or considered to be a mere rubber stamp. Any process that ends in this House must always do so with the House being free to choose as it sees fit. That is why under statute there is provision for this debate. It is therefore limited to 90 minutes—although that seems to be more time than will be taken on this occasion—but this House should never view itself as a cipher or a rubber stamp.
These issues are important, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have two very fine candidates on this occasion. To have a former judge of the stature of Sir Robert Owen is exactly what we need and gives confidence to Members that matters will be handled fairly. I also think it was important to have Helen Jones—somebody who had served in the House for a long time and thoroughly understood the ways of the House, and who, as Chairman of the Petitions Committee, showed how effectively she can work on a cross-party basis—because we want this committee to achieve consensus and to work well for the interests of the House, while also defending taxpayers’ interests in the use of their money. I am therefore grateful for the broad support, but it is important to remember that this House, when it is the final arbiter, is an uninhibited arbiter.
Question put and agreed to.
Railway between Stoke and Leek
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of North Staffordshire.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of North Staffordshire;
Declares that improving rail infrastructure and providing better rail services in our city and wider North Staffordshire is vital for the growth of our local economy; notes that over 1,000 constituents have signed a corresponding petition asking to reopen the railway between Stoke and Leek; further declares that it would create jobs and unlock the potential of unused brownfield sites in our area; and further that it would greatly benefit commuters and passengers.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take such action as is necessary to reopen the railway between Stoke and Leek.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002639]
Border Carbon Adjustment Tariffs and Decarbonisation
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Border carbon adjustment: it may not trip off the tongue, but this is not a dull subject. This policy is the stuff that dreams are made of.
I ask hon. Members to imagine that, as they settle down in their beds, they start to wonder how we could create the economic environment for levelling up in our manufacturing heartlands, giving them a low-carbon head start on the rest of the world. As they turn over and start to count the fluffy sheep jumping over a fence, they catch sight of a free market that naturally seeks out the most effective way to reach carbon net zero and deliver on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. Finally, just as they drift off to sleep, they glimpse, as in a glass darkly, a Government leading the world at COP26, achieving an international approach that brings co-operation and rapprochement with our European and American friends and allies. Could this be real, or must it evermore remain but a dream?
Well, this is no dream, and we can turn it into reality with a border carbon adjustment. We know we need to reduce carbon to net zero by 2050, and centuries of experience have taught us that the free market is without equal in being able to solve challenging economic problems such as this. Yet, right now, our free market stands helplessly by, its creativity and innovation useless.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward. He is right about the Prime Minister’s statement on environmental issues. Does he agree that we now have the potential to make a real and lasting change for the better by implementing environmental changes, but that we must also be aware that the pressure on businesses must allow them to continue to operate and not put them out of business? There is a balance to be got, I believe, and we have an obligation not only to the industry, but to the environment to get it right.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is one of the great benefits of a border adjustment: it allows us to raise domestic costs without being unfairly undercut by international imports coming in. We can square the circle. We can support the environment by setting a carbon price that is sufficient to change people’s behaviour, to make lower-carbon products more attractive in the economy than higher-carbon products, while at the same time facilitating our domestic industry to remain competitive.
It is because we cannot price carbon emissions that our market is currently floundering. The reason is that they are an externality. When I produce a piece of paper, I take account of the cost of the ingredients for the paper, the energy I will use, my overheads, my marketing spend, my transport and distribution costs, and my profit. However, in the free market exchange with my purchaser, the cost to society of the emission of carbon through that manufacturing process is not currently accounted for, because it is dissipated into the environment and we cannot put a price on it. That is why we have market failure on the price of carbon.
So what do the Government do to try to deal with that market failure? They are left in a very difficult position. They try to change behaviour by announcing a reduction in targets, making piecemeal regulations as and when they become available, and picking innovation winners—we have a list, most recently hydrogen and modular new nuclear, to name but two. I very much hope the Government have got those expensive choices right. Based on the available evidence I believe that they have, but that is the point: only a properly functioning market finds the best way to allocate capital, with its invisible use of the combined knowledge of the sum of all the participants in that market. No Government can match that combined wisdom.
Our current approach to carbon pricing simply does not work. If we raise the cost of energy with our higher cost of carbon, our industry simply becomes uncompetitive, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out a moment ago. Manufacturing simply moves abroad, or it goes bust and its place is taken by the raft of imports from higher-carbon countries—in addition to the very high cost of carbon in the import process and transport—like China. The result is damaging to jobs. It is, of course, damaging to our business. It is very damaging to our balance of trade. It is very damaging to our tax base and it is damaging to the climate. All in all, it is a damaging disaster.
Border carbon adjustment can transform that process: charge imports from a high- carbon economy the same carbon cost as we impose on our domestic industry via a BCA and the problem is solved. There would be no incentive for our manufacturers to base production abroad, since the costs would be equalised. Foreign companies would no longer have an unfair trade advantage. In fact, it would provide them with a direct incentive to reduce carbon usage in their domestic environment to avoid corrective tariffs. From a policy perspective—I am using China as an example—the Chinese Government would have a choice: either their exports pay a carbon price at our border and the money goes to our Exchequer; or they create a carbon price in their domestic market and they get to keep the money themselves. There is, therefore, a really positive incentive internationally for carbon reduction and the benefits to be spread. After all, climate change knows no borders. Better still, using the same calculation for border carbon adjustment but this time in reverse, our own factories would get the benefit of a carbon cost rebate at the border when they export, making their exports both cheaper and more profitable, increasing our competitiveness already on the international market.
There are many ways that you can skin this particular cat, Madam Deputy Speaker. We can either design a system whereby all products coming in or out of the United Kingdom have their carbon contribution assessed, or, if that is considered to be too complex, we can take baby steps. We can start off by applying a BCA towards the five or six most carbon-intensive industries and then take it from there. We would start with steel, fertiliser, petrochemicals, aluminium and energy. I will take two examples from that list by way of explanation.
First of all, with steel, an independent research project has been undertaken to assess the impact of a border adjustment tariff on the steel industry. Its conclusions were that were we to implement a BCA in the United Kingdom, it would increase the competitiveness of UK steel against many of its international competitors, at the same time as raising for the Treasury a tax windfall of between £270 million and £850 million if that carbon price was set at between £50 and £75 per tonne.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly sophisticated argument. On international competition, can he tell us what other countries are doing? For example, is the EU considering something along these lines?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend has anticipated a point in my speech
that I was coming to in a few minutes. He is absolutely right that, just in July this year, the EU started a formal consultation on the implementation of the border carbon adjustment process for the entire European Union—and not just there, but he will have to wait a moment or two before I come on to the other exciting news.
Let us look at steel. We can get a huge amount of tax benefit, plus increased competition, that will give a fair, competitive advantage to our domestic steel.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend and his campaign for border carbon adjustment payments, which makes absolute sense. There is no reason why people who are not green should get a competitive advantage over those countries that are leading in the battle to become carbon neutral. My question is a somewhat technical one: we have a very complex economy, how do we work out which products need border carbon adjustment payments and which ones do not, or do we just focus on one key industry, or do we try to do it across the board?
Jerome Mayhew
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The answer is that there are many different ways that we could approach it. The simplest would be to choose the five or six key carbon-heavy industries and start with them. As we get more knowledge of how to implement this kind of scheme, we could spread out to the wider economy. I suggest that the best way to do that would be to look at the carbon-emitting credentials of the energy market in the third country and assess in broad terms what its carbon contribution is. For example, in China, the coal contribution to the energy mix is between 70% and 80% and we would use that as the basis for the carbon contribution of its imports. When we get a bit more sophisticated, we could look at giving rebates to individual businesses that can demonstrate that they have a low-carbon approach despite the high-carbon attitude of their country as a whole. That would benefit behaviour and would not be protectionist, but would merely be a fair assessment of the carbon cost of transactions.
Moving on to energy, we naturally assume that we create all the energy that we use in this country domestically, but that is not the case. On average, we import, via undersea interconnectors, about 7% of the electricity that we use in this country. Members may recall that, last May, we trumpeted in the press that we had a two-week period in which we were coal free. We had coal-free electricity for two weeks. That was very exciting, but what the newspapers failed to mention was that, during that two-week period, we imported from Holland 40 GW of coal-fired electricity. The reason that we did that was not that we lacked generating capacity in the United Kingdom, but that it was cheaper to import coal-fired electricity from mainland Europe than it was to use our own. The reason why it was cheaper was that it was entirely tax-free, whereas we imposed a carbon tax on the generation of our own domestic electricity. Unbelievably, we actually incentivise the importation of high-carbon coal-generated electricity at the expense of our domestic manufacturing processes. How can that be right? A border carbon adjustment would sort that out in a jiffy.
What single better way is there to forward this Government’s levelling-up agenda than by putting in place the economic conditions for the market to want to re-industrialise in the UK, and all that with no need for Government subsidies. In fact, not only does it not require Government subsidies but it will actually produce an annual windfall for the Treasury year after year. Working out how big that windfall might be has a number of imponderables in it, but the Grantham Research Institute of Climate Change and the Environment has produced a report on this and, again, using the assessment of a carbon price between £50 and £75 a tonne, starting in 2020 and working up towards 2030, it assessed that the gross amount that the Treasury could recover under this process would max out at £36.7 billion a year. I stress that that is the gross amount. Members may well take the view that, rather like VAT, this is a tax that is consumer based and would impact poorer households disproportionately as a percentage of their gross income. The Government might very well want to use some of that £36.7 billion to cushion the blow and to make it more acceptable for lower-income families, perhaps by investing in insulation for their houses or other measures.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fascinating speech—despite starting off talking about sheep, he has managed to keep everyone’s enthusiastic attention throughout. A lot of emissions-intensive British industries will already find it difficult to compete in the global marketplace. As we begin to encourage the use of carbon capture and clean hydrogen by heavy industry, they will face higher production costs. Would a border carbon adjustment enable heavy industry to decarbonise while preventing job losses, and is that something the Treasury would also find attractive?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head, because one of the key benefits of a border carbon adjustment is that it would allow us to decarbonise, and allow our heavy industry to accept the pain of higher energy costs, therefore letting the market work in our domestic market to incentivise the development of lower-carbon technology, while at the same time protecting it from being undercut by countries that are taking a little longer to go on the low-carbon journey.
We are not going to be spending money; we are going to be making money. That money could be used as the Treasury knows best. It does not mean that the money is taken out of the economy, because it could be put straight back in—in productivity-enhancing tax cuts, I hope, but that is up to the Treasury.
Best of all—I have saved the best till last—by freeing up the ability to price domestic carbon emissions at a realistic, behaviour-changing level, we can unleash the magic of the free market to seek out the most efficient solutions to low-carbon production. We do not need the Government to pick winners and subsidise industry once a market is working properly. Give a price to carbon, and that is exactly what we will create: a many-headed monster of innovation, entrepreneurialism, dynamism and efficient, productive capital growing our low-carbon future.
This future, if we are brave enough to embrace it before other nations, rather than just following, and if we are bold enough to allow the reshaping of the economy by demand rather than by direction, will equip our industry as leaders in low-carbon manufacturing. They will be leaders because they will be swimming in their natural element, whereas their international competitors will still be struggling to react to the short-term Government green initiatives and schemes that we all currently suffer from. It is a lead that could generate exports and growth in this country.
What is stopping us from delivering on the Prime Minister’s vision of a low-carbon, dynamic economy? Some worry about a protectionism challenge at the World Trade Organisation, but with a BCA applied in an open and transparent manner, nothing could be further from the truth. This policy is about removing unfair competition, not creating it. In any event, WTO rules expressly allow for tariffs whose purpose is to protect
“human, animal or plant life and health”
or
“to conserve exhaustible natural resources”.
Those are two exceptions tailor-made for this kind of tariff.
More practically, if the UK were to join the United States of America, our friends in the European Union and other countries to establish the principle of BCAs at COP26, that would be a game changer, because that would ensure their practical acceptance. Others worry that putting forward such an ambitious proposal at COP26 runs the risk of failing to achieve the consensus that would allow the PR men to claim a stunning success. It might, but the risk of failure is the price of ambition, so should we give up on our ambition? Of course not.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about the application of WTO rules, but what happens if a free trade agreement is already in place? Would that free trade agreement have to be renegotiated? Suppose we have a free trade agreement with the EU and we want to put a carbon tariff on German steel, which is very carbon intensive. Are we going to be tied in knots by what we might have already agreed? How does he think that would be resolved?
Jerome Mayhew
The example that my hon. Friend gives—that of Germany—would fall neatly into the European Union, which is consulting on this very issue, so in that case, it would be a coalition of the willing to allow us to go forward, I hope, with a form of equality between the European emissions trading scheme, or its successor, and the approach that we would take ourselves. However, I accept that that would be up to country-by-country negotiations.
Is there international support for this approach? Do we have a realistic prospect of bringing the world community together and with us at COP26? I say that there is, because President-elect Biden has already spoken about “carbon adjustment fees” against
“countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations.”
That is a clear indicator that the incoming Administration in America is taking this seriously. I know that there is many a slip between a statement of intent and action, but it is something that we can potentially get behind at COP26. The European Union, as has been mentioned, just this July launched a formal consultation on the implementation of a border carbon adjustment, and it is worth noting that for the President of the Commission—I think it was part of her manifesto when she was first appointed— this is one of the key objectives for her presidency.
Anthony Browne
I commend my hon. Friend on his absolutely fascinating speech. It is clearly good to try to get global co-operation on this as a coalition of the willing, as he put it, among as many countries and trading partners as possible. If we fail to do that, does he think that the UK should go on its own, or would that be too difficult and put us too much out on a limb in the global trading system?
Jerome Mayhew
I say that we go it alone. I think it is one of the great freedoms that we have from Brexit. We have taken the trouble to get our independence. What use is it if we are not prepared to use it—if we are too scared to use our independence to make a bold statement and say, “This is the right thing to do. We are going to do it. Follow us if you like.”?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am delighted to hear the depth with which the hon. Member is exploring this subject. What he has been saying is fascinating. Does he agree, though, that if it is about the right thing to do, the first thing we must do is to stop the subsidies and tax concessions that currently go to carbon industries domestically, and that it only makes sense as part of a whole package if we do that?
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member recognises that we are on a journey in our decarbonisation of industry. I would be delighted if I managed to persuade the Minister to accept this one element of the policy without rewriting the entire economic agenda for the next period, but it is clearly true that, over time, we will be moving away from petrochemicals, and the economic case—the business case—for subsidising what will soon become stranded assets becomes less and less clear.
Our hosting of COP26 would be the perfect forum to crystallise these disparate movements that we have already identified around the world into a coherent whole. What better objective for the conference could there be? Politics is full of mis-steps and compromise. Very rarely do the stars align in favour of a truly inspiring act of political and economic leadership—one that can transform the future of our country and the world for the better. The stars are aligning for border carbon adjustments, if only the Government will believe in the Prime Minister’s vision of a post-Brexit Britain and be bold.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) gave a compelling and fascinating speech. He elucidated many of the technical difficulties associated with imposing unilaterally, as he was arguing, a carbon border tax. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) hit the nail on the head when he asked, “Should we do this unilaterally?” I am going to start by saying that, in my view and in the Government’s view, this is an important subject but it has to be treated as part of a multilateral effort. We are responsible for 1% of carbon emissions globally, and if we impose a tax unilaterally on carbon-emitting products coming into this country, we may well be disadvantaging our own consumers if others around the world are not placing such a tax. The Government feel that multilateral co-operation in this regard is by far the best way to prevent carbon leakage.
Another thing I would say to my hon. Friend is that by focusing on carbon emissions, he is really discussing the thorny issue of carbon accounting. Ultimately, the intellectual difficulty of accounting for carbon is the broader problem of whether the carbon is produced abroad or at home. In that respect, I would like to refer him to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his announcement in this Chamber a little more than a month ago. I am proud that he announced that the UK would become the first G20 country to make Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures-aligned climate-related financial disclosures fully mandatory across the economy.
I am not saying that my hon. Friend said this, but I do not think it is right to say that we are somehow laggards on the issue of carbon accounting. In fact, I would say that we are taking a leadership role on this subject. He alluded to the fact that the EU is looking at how it can implement a carbon import regime with a tax on carbon-emitting products coming into the EU, and we are absolutely engaged with the EU in discussing that. We feel that that is part of the multilateral approach.
If my hon. Friend takes a broad view of this subject internationally, he will see that 2020 has seen far greater progress than any previous year. Only a couple of months ago the Chinese Government pledged to achieve a net zero carbon target in 2060, and that is incredibly significant. I remember when I was first appointed to this job, someone said to me that what we did in the United Kingdom would make no difference if China continued along its present path. I am pleased to say that China has changed its path and said very clearly that it has set a net zero target for 2060. The Japanese followed suit soon afterwards, adopting our target of 2050, as did the South Koreans. So the auspices for international co-operation on the measure that my hon. Friend has described are actually very good, and there is a chance that if we cannot reach an agreement at COP26 next November, we may well be advancing along the lines that he suggests in the not-too-distant future. I have to stress that multilateral co-operation on how we price carbon and how we account for carbon in the round is far more constructive than placing a unilateral tax in the way that he has described.
One thing I would say about the figures that my hon. Friend very ably quoted in regard to the benefit to the Treasury is that there would obviously be behavioural impacts, so it would be difficult for me to model the consumer demand for products that had been taxed in the way that he has described. I would be interested to have a conversation with him about the assumptions behind the analysis that he very ably referred to in his excellent speech.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My right hon. Friend has said something that I regard as significant. Yes, we are going to try to achieve a multilateral approach at COP26, but if we do not succeed, we will consider a more unilateral approach. I am bound to say at this particular juncture, when the term “level playing field” is so commonly spoken about in respect of a certain negotiation, that it would surely be a distortion of international competition for some countries to be doing their best to deal with climate change and for other countries to be exploiting those efforts. If that is not a distortion of genuine free trade, I do not know what is. I think that the unilateral approach is justified.
Kwasi Kwarteng
This is an interesting debate. My hon. Friend suggests that a unilateral approach, punishing other countries for not adopting the climate change agenda—that is effectively what we would be doing—might work. As I have had to say repeatedly, I think that a multilateral approach is the best way forward. There is an open debate about the effectiveness of a unilateral approach when every other country in the world would not be disadvantaging these products.
Barry Gardiner
Does the Minister recognise that at the moment, £10.5 billion of public money goes from the Treasury as subsidy to fossil fuels in this country? That is more than any other country in the EU, where the average is about £6.5 billion. Therefore, if we are to go down the route suggested by the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and his colleagues on the Government Benches, it is important that the UK shows good faith and does not punish other countries for what it is doing worse itself. To punish those countries for the carbon encapsulated in their industries while subsidising our own fossil fuel industries more than all the rest would seem rather ridiculous.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is exactly what I was trying to say with regard to TCFD disclosures. We have to look at carbon accounting and carbon pricing in the round. It is a global market and we have to look at what we are doing on discouraging carbon-emitting behaviour in the wider context of international trade. That is a fair point.
Barry Gardiner
So will the Minister speak with the Chancellor about how we can reduce the subsidies to fossil fuels in this country—domestically—so that some of the innovative ideas that the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) has put forward this evening might be taken forward with credibility? [Interruption.]
Kwasi Kwarteng
Sorry—I was just respectfully pointing out to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire that he cannot intervene on an intervention.
I am very happy to take up that point. Of course, I discuss with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor all the time how we can capture carbon accounting more effectively in order to pursue the goal that we all seek, which is a net zero world and certainly a net zero British economy.
Kwasi Kwarteng
No, I have to make some progress.
Ahead of COP26, obviously, as the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) mentioned, we have to look at carbon accounting in the round, and we have to look at how we reduce incentives for carbon-emitting activity here in the UK and in the context of the imported carbon that we bring in from other countries. All these issues have to be addressed in the round.
What I wanted to say, and have said very clearly, is that we are actual leaders in this subject. We are actually driving ahead mandatory TCFD financial disclosures. There are no other countries in the G20 that have done that. We passed the net zero amendment to the Climate Change Act 2008 last year. Again, even though other countries have made public statements supporting that policy, they have yet to enshrine it in their in their legal codes. We are showing leadership. We intend fully to continue showing leadership and providing that sort of steer at COP26 in Glasgow.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister has repeatedly said that the best way to proceed is by multilateral agreement, and I absolutely agree. It is wonderful that we have COP26 coming up next year, and it is the perfect opportunity to show multilateral leadership. Will the Minister therefore commit to the House that we will make border carbon adjustments a core objective of COP26?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is not in my power to make that commitment to the House. As my hon. Friend knows, I am not the COP26 president, and I suggest that he directs that question to my right hon. Friend the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary, who is the president of COP26. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue is absolutely at the centre of the wider debate about climate change and of what I might call international energy diplomacy, and I am sure it will discussed very seriously at COP26 next year.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I just want to put something on the record. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) quoted a £10 billion subsidy figure for fossil fuels. Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not accept that figure? It is based on things such as the fact that we charge only 5% VAT on domestic fuel instead of 20%. It is typical of the EU to regard a low tax to help poorer households afford their fuel bills as a subsidy. One of the reasons we are leaving the EU is that it puts out rubbish propaganda such as that. We do not subsidise fossil fuels, and I hope the Minister will make that clear.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is right. It is pretty extraordinary to say that we are somehow the laggards on this subject. When a country such as Germany is phasing out its coal dependency only in 2038, it is a bit extraordinary for Opposition Members to make that claim. We are very much the leaders in this arena, and my hon. Friend was quite right to point that out.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am not going to take any more interventions, I am afraid.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland has ably demonstrated, this is a fascinating subject, and it will continue to exercise many minds and much passion. In fact, no more serious subject could be debated here, and I commend him for bringing it to our attention, for debating it in a very open and, dare I say, friendly way, and for giving one of the best speeches I have heard from the Back Benches this Parliament in terms of the thoroughness with which he presented his material and the passion with which he stated his arguments.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) was good enough to mention the warm home discount, which was not referred to in any of the speeches by SNP Members. Of course, the warm home discount that he was good enough to mention is a critical part of the Government’s fight against fuel poverty. It provides financial assistance to more than 3 million low-income and vulnerable households each winter, and each one of those households benefits to the tune of £140 a year roughly, which represents £3.5 billion of public money and is a significant contribution.
[Official Report, 19 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 233WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook).
The correct response should have been:
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) was good enough to mention the warm home discount, which was not referred to in any of the speeches by SNP Members. Of course, the warm home discount that he was good enough to mention is a critical part of the Government’s fight against fuel poverty. It provides financial assistance to more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households each winter, and each one of those households benefits to the tune of £140 a year roughly, which represents over £3 billion of direct assistance over the last 10 years and is a significant contribution.
Petition
Palliative care at Primrose Terrace, Jarrow
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
National Tree Strategy
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members of the new arrangements for Westminster Hall so that social distancing can be respected. I remind Members that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the wind-ups, provided there is space in the room. Members are asked to respect the one-way system around the room; please exit by the door on the left. Members should sanitise their microphones before they use them, using the cleaning materials provided, and dispose of them—that is the cleaning materials, not the microphones—as they leave the room.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the National Tree Strategy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I declare an interest as a metro Mayor.
With Parliament’s focus understandably elsewhere at the moment, I am grateful to the Minister, to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and to hon. Members for being here in Westminster Hall this morning. I also thank the Petitions Committee for linking this debate to the “Legal rights for ancient trees” petition, to which 17,000 people have added their name.
Our country—indeed, our planet—faces two major environmental crises: climate change and biodiversity collapse. The principle that trees harness the power to help us overcome both those crises is one on which we can all agree. I hope, too, that we can agree that, as the famous Chinese proverb puts it, “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is now.”
We should take encouragement from the fact that every single major political party committed at last year’s general election to significantly increasing tree cover. From capturing carbon to reducing soil erosion, from improving air quality to alleviating flooding, and from supporting biodiversity to promoting health and wellbeing, the benefits that trees bring to our natural environment, our economy and our society cannot be overlooked or overstated.
However, the fact remains that we do not have enough trees and we are not yet looking after the trees that we have adequately. That is why the England tree strategy is so important. It represents a golden opportunity to rethink our approach to trees. Moreover, it is a chance to show the world how the UK is leading the way in addressing the climate emergency, by championing nature-based solutions ahead of COP26.
I should say from the outset that I will focus my remarks on the forthcoming England tree strategy, but this debate is entitled “National Tree Strategy”. Forestry, of course, is devolved and it is therefore important that we hear the voices from all our four nations. First, and I am sure that the Minister will address in her remarks, I would welcome an update on the consultation process. What work is being done to develop the strategy and when does her Department expect to publish the revised strategy?
I turn now to the issue of targets. As we know, the Government are committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Although I appreciate that there is considerable debate over the ambition of that date, if the Government are to achieve this goal, the UK will require a major expansion of tree cover. Despite the role that trees play in combating the climate crisis, there is no formal way to set targets regarding trees in England.
In its sixth carbon budget, which was published last week, the Committee on Climate Change was clear that the UK needs to do more. According to the committee’s report, we need to increase tree cover in the UK from the current level of 12% to around 20%. This will require up to 70,000 hectares of new trees and woods to be established each year. On our current trajectory, however, we will get nowhere near that recommendation.
Take last year as an example. The provisional Forestry Commission figures showed that just 13,460 hectares of new trees and woodland were created, of which only 17% was in England. That leads me to the Environment Bill, which I feel has a gaping hole on the issue of tree planting. In Committee, the Government were clearly reluctant to insert targets in the Bill, as was seen with new clause 17, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.
Perhaps the Minister will take another look at new clause 19, which I tabled in Committee with the support of the Woodland Trust. It would ensure that the Government prepared a tree strategy for England and produced targets for the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland. The proposal has a great deal of public support. Those on the Bill Committee should have received a compendium of comments from Woodland Trust members, which show a thirst for meaningful and binding targets. I invite the Minister to confirm whether the England tree strategy will include statutory targets and to say something about the target-setting measures in the Environment Bill.
Of course, this is not just a stats game. Quantity is important, but that should not mean that we compromise on quality. We urgently need more trees, but they must be the right trees, in the right places and delivered in the right way. A good place to start is how we calculate the expansion of trees and woods in England. Rather than looking simply at a number-of-trees-planted figure, which is problematic for several reasons, we need a standardised, reliable national metric, such as the percentage of land area covered by trees. We also need to establish a series of sub-targets, including for the expansion of new native woodland, trees outside woods and natural regeneration.
I will move on to what trees mean to people, because one of the most obvious lessons of the current public health crisis has been the importance that people place on green space. For many people, especially those living in flats and those without a garden, the local park has been a lifeline without which lockdown would have been even more of a struggle. I believe that the natural world should be not a faraway, abstract concept, but a part of our everyday lives—a notion that holds true regardless of whether we live in Barnsley or Benbecula, Sheffield or Shetland. The Woodland Trust’s “Space for people” research highlights what needs to be done in this respect. Across the UK, only 21% of people live within 500 metres of accessible woodland, and 27% do not have a larger accessible woodland within 4 km of their home.
By committing to increase the number of people who are able to benefit from trees and woodland in our towns and cities, the England tree strategy could help to transform our relationship with nature. That is why I believe that local authorities should be mandated to produce statutory local tree plans. Crucially, the plans would need to be town hall led rather than Whitehall driven. That means ensuring that local government has the power, money and capacity to deliver green reform. I am pleased to say that Barnsley Council is well on the way, having approved its tree planting strategy back in September. We are actively involved in supporting this work at regional level.
This point may be better directed at the Minister’s colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but currently London’s Mayor is the only Mayor in England with the power to produce a binding environment strategy. Despite the lack of devolved powers, we have still developed a plan in South Yorkshire to reach net zero by 2040 at the latest. My ambition is for woodland creation and tree planting to play a pivotal role in getting us there.
We have strongly supported plans to grow the Northern forest, and have recently recruited a woodland creation officer to work with our local nature partnership and other partners. The project of the Northern forest is close to my heart. I was part of the team that put the first trees in the ground, I planted the millionth tree, and last year I co-ordinated a letter, to which more than 120 cross-party northern leaders added their support, calling on the Prime Minister to back the Northern forest initiative.
Let me explain for hon. Members not familiar with it that the Northern forest will see 50 million trees planted over the next 25 years in the north of England by the Woodland Trust and its community forest partners. I am proud to say that more than 2.1 million trees are already in the ground. Sadly, woodland cover in our northern counties is only 7.6% ,which is far lower than England’s average of 10%, so the Northern Forest initiative seeks to address that disparity. The forest will span 120 miles, connecting the towns and cities of Liverpool, Manchester and Lancaster to the west, and Sheffield, Leeds and Hull to the east, benefiting 13 million residents and generating £2.5 billion in social, economic and environmental benefits. I very much hope that the England tree strategy will commit to supporting the delivery of the Northern forest.
Levelling up should not just be about new trains and skills programmes, crucial though they are. Regional inequality affects every part of people’s lives, including—crucially—their health and wellbeing. Projects such as the Northern forest should be afforded the status that they deserve. Given the role that trees play in flood prevention, it would be remiss of me not to say a few words about a topic with which the Minister is very familiar. She and I have discussed it one or two times previously. As she knows, it is now one year on from the flooding and devastation that battered our communities in South Yorkshire.
The Minister will be aware that I wrote to her and the Secretary of State last month following a constructive South Yorkshire flooding roundtable. Perhaps she will give a quick update on the points that I raised in the letter. First, where are we on confirming the provisional funds allocated to us through the medium-term plan and grant-in-aid proposals? Secondly, where are we on our innovative proposal to work together to deliver nine shovel-ready projects to protect 860 homes and critical elements of our regional infrastructure? Such a commitment from the Government would show that they are serious about working hand in hand with local leaders to level up, tackle the climate emergency and solve the problems faced by our communities.
I said at the start that we do not have enough trees and that we are not adequately looking after the ones that we have. The importance of the latter must be recognised in the strategy. There have been at least 20 serious plant pests and diseases inadvertently imported into the UK in the last 30 years. We are on course to lose 150 million mature trees and 2 billion saplings and seedlings to ash dieback disease in the next 10 to 20 years, and we have experienced a catastrophic loss of historic trees. Ancient woodlands cover less than 3% of our land and, once lost, can never be replaced. The England tree strategy must commit to preventing any further loss and to the restoration of all plantation on ancient woodland sites.
I appreciate that there are plenty of other issues to speak about. I have not touched on funding structures, the relationship between agriculture and forestry, and much more besides. I will conclude by saying that the need for an ambitious, fully resourced and long-term plan for trees has never been greater. The decisions that the Government make on the forthcoming strategy will shape the viability of our country and relationship with the natural world. By investing in our trees and woods, we invest in healthier and happier futures and lay the foundation for a legacy of which we can all be proud. It is a purpose around which I hope we can all unite.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 11 o’clock. I am obliged to call the Labour party spokesman no later than 10.37 am. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister, and Dan Jarvis will have three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. There are six stellar Back Benchers seeking to contribute to the debate. If the time is allocated evenly, each Back Bencher will have eight or nine minutes. If we can share the time equally, that will be best for all. We will start with Chris Clarkson.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone? I will not use the full nine minutes.
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this debate and for an extremely thoughtful speech. I am glad he touched on the Northern forest, as that is what I intend to talk about. As a proud Lancastrian, that is the highest praise I can give to a Yorkshire MP.
As some Members know, I like trees. In fact, my first ten-minute rule Bill called for all future housing developments to have tree-lined streets. I was particularly pleased when the Government adopted that proposal as part of the new planning regulations, and so, with a 100% success rate, I have not introduced any since. That particular endeavour led Quentin Letts to compare me to Basil Fotherington-Tomas, which caused some amusement in the Tea Room, but, given the other nickname I recently acquired courtesy of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), I will take it.
My dendrological exuberance does not just extend to planning. The UK’s horticulture sector is worth £24 billion and supports more than 560,000 jobs. Not only will it play a vital role in aiding our ambition to reach net zero by 2050; it will play an important part in our national recovery from covid-19. The Government’s ambition to recognise the importance of trees through a national tree strategy is a part of this.
I recently contributed to an article in the Conservative Environment Network’s net zero northern powerhouse series, setting out the importance of the Northern forest. It has never been more necessary to secure a future for generations to come and it is essential that policies and practices are put in place to protect trees and woods, to safeguard and buffer ancient woodlands and to stimulate new planting.
In November 2018, the first tree of the Northern forest was planted down the road from my Heywood and Middleton constituency in Radcliffe, where the planting of 200 saplings began as part of the Government’s £5.7 million investment. The Woodland Trust and the partnership behind the Northern forest estimate that it will cost about £500 million to develop it by planting 50 million trees over 25 years, trebling the current planting rate across the area. As an area, we have less than 8% tree coverage—one of the lowest in the country—so it is ideal territory for a new forest. As a major infrastructure project, it is predicted to generate about £2.5 billion of social, economic and environmental benefits.
The presence of trees and other greenery in our environment has a discernible effect on the physical and mental wellbeing of us all, as well as being responsible for cleaner air and playing a role in addressing climate change. As someone who lives in a flat, I say to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central that he is absolutely right that those parks were essential during lockdown.
Local authorities in Greater Manchester, Northumberland and Cumbria were selected by the Government in August to help kickstart nature’s recovery on a countrywide scale. As part of this, our combined authority in Greater Manchester will receive about £1 million of funding to set up a pilot study for a local nature recovery strategy, in conjunction with Natural England. This will kickstart the green recovery with practical and locally-led solutions, bringing a broad range of groups together to identify the green priorities for restoring nature. Our City of Trees will become a beacon for this important work. We should also encourage companies to align their own strategy for zero carbon with the opportunity that planting trees offers to offset emissions. If, as is predicted, the Northern forest offsets around 7 million tonnes of carbon once planted, it could really help make a dent in a corporation’s carbon footprint.
With an environmentally sensitive approach, planting the right trees in the right areas and ensuring that these are maintained as part of an ambitious long-term arboricultural strategy that is fixed on our 2050 goal, we should return around 30% of our country to nature in our lifetimes. In that way we can become, in the words of the Latin playwright Caecilius Statius,
“Serit arbores quae alteri saeclo prosint”—
those who plant trees for future generations.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate and on his speech which set out some important points. As a Twigg, I am not sure whether I should declare an interest in this debate, but I did think that, as a Twigg, I should participate. I stress that Twigg, in my sense, has two g’s at the end.
In my constituency, Widnes, west Runcorn and Hale village are not blessed with large areas of woodland—most of the woodland only covers fairly small areas. The north of England has significantly less woodland cover than the rest of England, despite being home to 30 million people. We have just 7.6% woodland cover, which is significantly lower than the England average.
The Woodland Trust is working with the Mersey forest, City of Trees, the White Rose forest, HEYwoods and the Community Forest Trust to create a new Northern forest. This will increase woodland cover, while bringing endless benefits and opportunities to the people of the north. The Northern forest is already in progress, and once completed it will help tackle climate change; encourage nature-rich landscapes; reduce the risk of flooding, which has already been referred to; create thousands of new jobs; of course provide cool and clean air in our towns and cities; and improve health and wellbeing.
This is all very positive, but we know much more has to be done. In the time I have, I want to talk mainly about how more can be achieved to increase woodland cover in northern towns, such as the ones I represent in Runcorn and Widnes. In the last century, places such as Widnes, have faced a devastating environmental impact from the chemical industry, which dominated the town. People said Widnes could be smelt before they got to it. There were many chemical factories nearby to the Newtown area, where I am from and which was demolished in the slum clearance programme in the 1960s, well into the 20th century, but there were no trees to speak of. All my family members tell me that they cannot recall hearing or seeing any bees or, for that matter, many flying insects.The chemical pollution had seen to that. I am pleased to say that the old, polluted Widnes has now been transformed, since the early 1970s—not least because of the work of Halton Borough Council. It is now a place that people want to move to and live in
The Mersey forest project and Halton Council have made some welcome improvements in the number of trees in recent times, especially in street and urban tree planting. However, why should urban areas such as Widnes and Runcorn have to be content with only street planting, and small public space tree planting? Of course those are important, but we need to plant many more trees to increase woodland and create a new and significant woodland with native British trees. It is a question of woods that people recognise as woodland.
The Halton local plans, including the delivery and allocations local plan, are very much based on housing and industrial development, but do not seem to give the same weight to tree planting and developing forest and biodiversity. Why should current green and green-belt land be taken for development, rather than for the creation of larger woods with all the community and environmental benefits that that would bring? One of the largest areas in my constituency is a private golf course, which has a lot of trees. There is a proposal to use a significant part of that land for housing. That should never be allowed. It is right in the heart of Widnes. We want more trees and more space for our communities.
I see that today the proposals for controversial planning reforms in England have been revised—according to the local press—after the new housing targets prompted a backlash among many Conservative MPs. We also hear from the press that a computer-based formula used to decide where houses should be located has been updated to focus on cities and urban areas in the north and midlands. If that is true it is appalling. That brings me back to the point about whether it is okay for urban areas such as Runcorn and Widnes to be concerned with tree planting schemes, but not for them to create new significant woodland.
Yesterday the all-party group on gardening and horticulture wrote to me, and I think what it said was important. The group told me:
“A large proportion of the UK’s horticultural industry is concerned that growers may not have the ability and confidence to increase the production of young trees to the levels required. They need to feel confident that there will be an increased market of significant volume at the end of the growing cycles. Competing environmental schemes may lead to landowners perceiving greater benefits from taking other initiatives (such as solar panels) rather than planting trees. Some Government policies and structures are standing in the way of growers having such confidence”.
Promoting tree establishment is very important.
“The right trees need to be planted in the right place to maximise the long-term environmental, social and economic benefits of urban trees, as well as ensure that they do not perish and can survive. This means that species are identified, sourced, and planted in the environment best suited to their needs in order that they may flourish. The planting of the tree is a crucial part of the process, but it is but one part: tree establishment is equally as important. In particular, young tree maintenance is essential to enabling a newly planted tree to establish and thrive.”
How often do we see that newly planted trees are struggling because they have been through drought or have not been watered properly?
“Tree officers, for example, are the custodians of our urban trees, but years of under-investment in public sector tree management have left many of them struggling.”
Of course, some local authorities do not have tree management officers to speak of.
“Trees planted in urban settings need maintenance which has not always happened in the past, as responsibility is often passed between local government departments. Ensuring that local governments have the capabilities to maintain trees in the long term is crucial to ensuring that planting efforts are not wasted. The right professionals with the right resources are needed, but under-investment in the industry in recent years has left many struggling.”
It is a matter of quality, not just quantity, in native trees. We want biodiversity and hedgerows as well. We have seen commitment from the various political parties, which talk about hundreds of millions—in fact, billions—of trees over the next 10 to 30 years. We do need billions of trees to be planted in that period.
Councils should be at the forefront of the re-wooding of our communities, especially in towns such as Runcorn and Widnes, which are highly urbanised but still have enough land within the borough boundaries to accommodate and sustain significant tree planting and, therefore, the development of woods in the future. Developments in my constituency, such as the towns fund initiative in Runcorn—if that proposal comes off—will give opportunities for more tree planting. Again, there are opportunities with the Unlock Runcorn canal initiative, to restore the locks and the links to the Manchester ship canal, but we need the funding to do that.
In summary, Mr Hollobone, the main ask is that Government, working with local authorities, fund significant new sustainable tree planting and sustainable woods. We want people to see what they know and recognise as woods, and for every single town that has the space, to be able to have a wood planted and see it become sustainable and develop over the years. These are new woods, which people with no access to a car can easily get to and enjoy, where they can have the boost to their wellbeing that we know being among the trees brings.
From the pandemic that we have been through, we know how important it is for people to get out walking. I want to see that happen. It is key that every town should have a new wood, where they have land available; most towns have that land. The northern towns should not be lumbered with having to build lots more houses and industrial developments because the leafy parts of the south have risen up against us, as we have seen in the press today.
My final point is that local authorities should have funded tree officers. Schools and local organisations should be at the heart of tree planting, working alongside local authorities.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and thank you for such kind words at the beginning. It is always nice to be considered esteemed.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on his brilliant speech. Many of the points he raised are relevant to my constituency in Totnes and south Devon. I am sure there are many issues on which we shall be able to work together. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson). If wisdom grew on trees, he would surely be a bush.
My constituency is incredible fortunate. In the north it has a national park in the form of Dartmoor, and in the south there is a large area of outstanding natural beauty. We are incredibly privileged that it is so well looked after and cultivated by charities and local government organisations, to ensure that tourists and residents alike are able to benefit from it, in every shape and form. The important point is that it is in demand. People want more, not less. They do not want development to ride over their green spaces, and to see those beautiful hills, moorlands and peat bogs ruined by too many properties sprouting up left, right and centre. It is the same in our cities and towns, where our urban parks and our royal parks have been a safeguard and sanctuary for many people over the course of this year.
It is important to recognise the relationship that we all have with our green spaces and how we might cultivate them in future years. The Government have taken some appropriate steps over the past weeks and months. The England tree strategy consultation, which has had over 20,000 submissions and is due to report back in the spring, is incredibly welcome.
In the course of my remarks, I will recommend how we can incentivise and drive demand, in order to plant more trees, create more green spaces and encourage biodiversity. Under the 25-year environment plan, £5.7 million has been made available to plant 1.8 million trees by 2025. In my constituency, Moor Trees has benefited from that to the tune of almost half a million pounds. Moor Trees is a local organisation, based just outside Totnes, that has planted 145,000 trees since its establishment—100% of which are native species—restoring 88 sites and relying on thousands of volunteers. The money that is being given to them does not just lead to the planting of more trees; it leads to the creation of new jobs and the establishment of new sites, where we can green and improve biodiversity in every shape and form.
It is important to understand the value and benefit that the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Fisheries Act 2020 will have in creating and restoring our countryside and our coastline. We will be able to sequester more carbon, to ensure that there is sustainability on land and at sea, and that we can do well by our farmers and fishermen. That is certainly something on which I know the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) would agree with me. All of these are elements that give us the chance and the opportunity to improve the productivity of our land and to ensure that those who do not live on it, but come on holidays or as visitors to the UK, can benefit from the beauty of what we have.
On carbon sequestration, we know that trees are an extremely effective way to sequester carbon but grassland goes with that too. By looking at new and innovative techniques, such as regenerative agriculture and no-till farming, we can help to marry up farming and tree planting as effective tools for lowering the emissions that are created by derelict countryside or out-of-date techniques.
We are all stewards of the land. The conversation that has been had today in this Chamber is not a new one. In fact, Disraeli spoke of the Disraeli feudal principle that we are all stewards of the land to pass it on to the next generation. We are making exactly the same important point today—that we must pass on our land to future generations in a better state than we received it. Many people across my constituency feel extremely strongly about that.
In the time that I have, I want to ask the Government to consider a few things to improve the level of tree planting, bearing in mind that the consultation is coming and that, I am sure, many of these submissions have been put forward. There must be an incentivisation programme for people to plant trees, whether they are a large landholder, a farmer or a small landholder of an allotment or a hedgerow. Whatever it may be, we must find a way to do that.
The use of common land, and what it can be used for, has been routinely overlooked. The historical right to graze on common land is no longer utilised in many cases. Can the Government look at a programme in which people are incentivised to plant trees and to restore common land to what it was before? How might we engage with those who do that?
The point has been well made by the National Farmers Union that taxation must never get in the way of those who are trying to plant trees. Agricultural property relief or business property relief may not be available to those who take away their land from farming and put it to tree planting. Would the Minister be kind enough to respond as to how we might get around that issue?
I also ask the Government to consider a volunteer programme. There is significant concern about our green spaces, and significant engagement on the issue, so will the Government work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to create a volunteer programme to ramp up tree planting and get people more engaged with local organisations, such as Moor Trees, in other hon. Members’ constituencies? There is an appetite for that. If we can do something like that, we will be able to meet, and go beyond, the target of 70,000 trees a year. In fact, if we recognise that we want 12% more of our country to be covered by trees by 2060, that would be a suitable way to do it.
I am very proud to be the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds champion for the cirl bunting. Quite why I am deserving of being a champion for the cirl bunting, I do not know, but I spend many happy moments walking the south-west coastal path in south Devon looking for it. I have yet to see it, but it is there; I have been told that I may have been looking at the wrong bird, which is a slight problem.
There is an important point to make about biodiversity. We know that if we improve our hedgerows and trees, we can improve biodiversity, which has been hit incredibly hard over the past 40 to 50 years. Let us use this opportunity to make sure that we are cultivating biodiversity by using natural species of trees and plants, to help to regrow and recultivate that wildlife.
Our green spaces must be maintained, whether in urban centres or in the rural countryside—that point was brilliantly made by the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). The Minister has been a champion of the issue. I look forward to seeing what happens in the Environment Bill when it comes back before the House. I hope that she will work with us all to shape this opportunity to plant more trees and embody the opportunity to give future generations more green jspaces.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate. I am the parliamentary species champion for swifts, so I am in the slightly unusual position of campaigning for swift bricks, rather than trees, to protect their habitat; but we all recognise the importance of tree planting and rewilding. It is about not just making our towns and cities more pleasant places to live, but the benefits for physical and mental health of being able to get out into nature, as hon. Members have mentioned.
As has been said, planting more trees is absolutely central to efforts to address the climate change emergency, the ecological emergency and the devastating collapse in biodiversity that we have we seen, by providing natural carbon sinks and habitats for wildlife to flourish. As has been mentioned, it also prevents soil erosion and flooding. In the winter of 2015-16, when I went to some of our northern constituencies that had been badly affected by flooding, there was much discussion about the need to plant more trees to prevent soil erosion. I went to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and talked to Yorkshire Water. It is about planting trees in the right place, as well. It is not just numbers that count but location and the type of tree.
Without natural climate solutions we have little hope of reaching net zero emissions or preventing further species decline. The issue is not limited to tree planting; peatlands and sea grass meadows are also vital carbon sinks. I give credit to the RSPB and the WWF for their recent work to raise the profile of those areas. I hope the Government will finally act in response to their campaigns.
However, we are here to talk about tree planting. The UK’s lack of ambition on this front in the past is reflected by the fact that we have 13% forest cover. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central said 12%. Whatever the precise figure, that is compared with an EU average of 40%, so clearly there is a lot more to be done. I welcome recent Government pledges on tree planting. As has been said, at the last election there was a race to outdo each other on the number of trees to be planted. The Government were bottom of the league table, pledging to plant only 30 million a year, while the Labour party was pledging to plant 100 million. I think we can all agree, if not on the precise number, that the ambition needs to be there.
I briefly want to mention my concern about deforestation overseas. We are here to talk about England’s tree strategy, but it is shocking to see the continued devastation in the Amazon rainforest, which is referred to as the lungs of the Earth, due to its immense capacity to convert carbon to oxygen. It faces an onslaught due to industrial agriculture, mining and forest fires linked to climate change. When the Environment Bill was in Committee we tried to add provisions to start measuring our global footprint and the links to deforestation in our supply chain.
While I am talking about the Environment Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central criticised its lack of focus on tree planting. I have a huge number of concerns about the Bill, not least that it has yet to become law. There will be a regulatory gap once we exit the transition period, with the Office for Environmental Protection not fully up and running and able to take enforcement action until July 2021, according to what I have heard. A chair has been appointed but no board has been recruited. We do not know about its budget or resources. How are we going to enforce regulations, not just stop people chopping down trees? We have already heard that there is going to be rowback on planning proposals, but there is still a real battle between the need to protect our natural environment and the desire to build more houses.
We have not had the right reassurances about how net gain and biodiversity offsetting will work, particularly over the long term. It is one thing to say that if trees are chopped down to build houses, more trees need to be planted elsewhere, but how can we be sure that, 10 years down the line, that woodland is protected and maintained? Who is responsible—the developer or the council? Who is held to account if the trees are not put in place? There are concerns about whether the regulators have the powers and resources to take such enforcement action.
A major driver of deforestation in this country, as in the Amazon, is land conversion for agricultural purposes. A key means to address that is agroforestry. I am pleased that, under the Agriculture Act, farmers will be rewarded for planting more trees and encouraging biodiversity on their land. There is a lot of evidence to show that if we plant trees and other plants among crops, rather than rigidly sticking to monocultures, we could improve conditions for crops and wildlife by creating nutrient-rich, complex ecosystems. A lot of people think that the countryside that we see as we go through it on a train—fields of grass, with cows grazing on them—is the natural environment, but it is not. That is not what our countryside should look like. It should be far more diverse, and there should be far more trees. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology—if anyone wants to join, they are very welcome—and we have been campaigning for these things for a long time. Agroforestry should be an absolutely central part of any national tree-planting strategy.
All major landholders have a responsibility to try to do their bit. I have been asking questions at Church Commissioners questions, as the Church of England is one of the biggest landowners in this country. I was originally told that because so much of its land is high-grade agricultural land, it is not really suitable for planting trees, but the figures I have show that well under half of it is good-quality agricultural land, so the Church of England could do much more to plant trees, and the same goes for the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Minister is doing what she can to encourage that.
In Bristol—I am a Bristol MP—we are leading the way on tree planting. We have a campaign to double Bristol’s tree canopy cover by planting 250,000 trees by 2030. The “one tree per child” campaign is part of that, and in 2015, when we were the European green capital, we managed to plant one tree for every primary school child in the city.
The Woodland Trust has been doing great work planting mini-orchards. One of my pet hates is when housing is developed, leaving green triangles everywhere—little bits of green space—or verges by the pavement. They are of no use for anything. People cannot sit on them and children cannot play on them. It is nothing but grass. The Woodland Trust has been helping to plant mini-orchards on some of those pieces of land, which makes a huge difference to the look and feel of a place. I hope to hear how the Minister plans to do more to empower local communities to push forward with those sort of tree-planting and rewilding programmes.
One of the upsides of covid, and of councils having less in the way of resources, is that they have not been mowing the grass in the same way, and we have seen biodiversity flourish. Some people think it looks scruffy, but I think most of us would agree that that is a massive improvement. I think we are all on the same page on this, but I would like to hear from the Minister how we will raise our ambitions and meet the targets that we have been talking about.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be called in this really important debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who really has championed this cause. Talking of champions, I feel that I must put on the record the tansy beetle, which I have seen and cherish most dearly in York. It is known as the jewel of York.
The more we understand about the environmental emergency, the loss of biodiversity and the change to our climate, the more we understand the centrality of reparation, and that is what we are here to discuss. If we do not take action, we will see more flooding, more soil degradation, more carbon in our atmosphere, temperatures rising and global catastrophe. For that reason, I welcome the Government’s focus on trees. I know that the Minister is committed to that agenda, but she needs to be more ambitious and bolder. Her strategy must be cross-purpose and cross-departmental, and her plan must change minds.
On ambition, Labour committed to planting 300 million trees and investing £2.5 billion in our first term. We would have achieved a total of 1 billion trees by 2030, and 2 billion by 2040, to support the narrative that woodland growth is essential to a biodiversity shift. Labour would have reached 2 million hectares of new woodland by 2040, and 3 million hectares by 2050. That is what we mean by ambition.
Building a carbon-storage landscape in both urban and rural settings means rebuilding lost habitats, creating beautiful environments and, importantly, holding water and restoring soils. The Committee on Climate Change echoes the need for ambition if net zero is to be reached by 2050, although that is far too late. It says that woodland cover needs to rise from the current 13% to at least 17%, but 19% would be better. Friends of the Earth says that it should be 26%—double the current cover.
We have 3 billion trees in the country—I have not counted them, but I have that number on good authority. We must raise our game and plant 120 million trees every single year. However, if the Government had it their way, they would have planted only 900,000 hectares by 2050, and when they first came to power, they wanted to sell off our woodlands by privatising our forests—and they are light on ambition now, despite being armed with all the facts about the impact of tree planting.
How are the Government doing? Let us take last year. Some 13,460 hectares of new woodland was created in the UK. Just 17% of that was in England, and just 90 hectares was created by public bodies; 96.2% of planting in England was by the private sector. This is an abysmal record by the Government. They are committed to planting 30 hectares of new woodland in England; at that rate, we will be lucky to meet the Committee on Climate Change targets by the turn of the next century, and meet less than half of our ambitions. In England, the Government are hardly scratching the surface. Compare that with the coverage in France, where it is at 32%; Germany, where it is at 33%; and Spain, where it is at 37%. We have to pull our weight and look at the mitigation that forestry brings.
I welcome the Northern forest initiative, which will make such a difference to my constituency. It will provide new opportunities for work and a social setting, and is important for our landscape. The Labour group in York and I supported the White Rose forest from its inception, and I am glad that we have convinced our council to take planting seriously. Latterly, it has signed up to this initiative, and has purchased 150 acres to grow York community woodlands.
However, I urge the council to go further, particularly in the light of our flooding situation in York, which the Minister knows all about. We need to plant smartly alongside rivers to absorb the water that comes from those catchments. If we plant there, the water will be drawn deep into the roots and soil, which really will slow the flow. That is why it is so important that we have a proper, cross-purpose, joined-up strategy to ensure we maximise the benefits of planting. Also, the canopy stops water hitting the ground as fast, and can bring a real reduction in run-off. In fact, some predict a reduction of up to 80% compared with hardcore land. It is therefore really important to transform surfaces around rivers into green spaces, and then plant there.
York also suffers from poor air quality. It is in the Vale of York, and the topography means that the air is held there—and therefore pollution is, too. We need to ensure that our urban spaces are well planted. This clashes with the Government’s plan to build on brownfield sites. I urge the Minister to look at land swaps, so that brownfield sites can become greenfield sites again, and perhaps other areas can be used in environmentally sensitive ways for development. This will bring more of those green lungs into the centre of our conurbations. That is much needed, not only for the health benefits, but for the social and mental health benefits. A benefit of not having transport in York city centre is that it reduced nitrogen dioxide levels significantly: they dropped 47%, which is the eighth largest fall in the country. However, while planting can help with mitigation, it cannot be seen as the only measure. I therefore call on the Minister to work cross-departmentally, in particular with the Department for Transport, to construct environments that are robust, and protect our health in cities and conurbations in the future.
I call on the Minister, when looking at tree planting and transport, to consider the Government’s road-building programme. The environmental assessment is poor or non-existent; the impact will be catastrophic for our environment. Likewise, there is High Speed 2. I tried to amend the HS2 Bill to protect the environment. Chris Packham beautifully described the 108 ancient woodlands that will be destroyed under the Bill as “cathedrals of biodiversity” that will be lost. We would not do that to our cathedrals, so we need to look again at what we are doing to our ancient woodlands. Perhaps the need for speed can be reassessed, given the need to secure those ancient woodlands.
Woodlands are also healers of our poor physical and mental health—gymnasiums to mitigate poor health. They cannot be just about rural landscapes; they are about urban landscapes, too. England’s tree strategy must look at urban as well as rural areas, because for the poorest people in our communities, access to our countryside is often limited.
Finally, I want to talk about changing minds. When I talk to children, they get it; they understand the connectivity between nature and their wellbeing, and they know that this is the right thing to do. We have an immense challenge in bringing about behavioural change, and to convincing developers and others of the importance of investment in our future bio-economy. We need to ensure that hardwired into the “Planning for the Future” White Paper, which is under consultation, is a tree plan; it should be at the heart of where we are going, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central said. We need to recognise that hardcore planning is as significant, if not more so, than environmental planning when it comes to trees.
We need to get the balance right. At the moment, it feels as if it is tipped against nature, and we need to pull that back. After today’s debate, as we head towards COP26, I hope that the Government will wake up to the climate challenge, and challenge themselves, now more than ever.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for setting the scene well, as he so often does in both the main Chamber and Westminster Hall. I thank everyone for their considerable contributions so far, and I am very much looking forward to the speeches of the shadow Minister and the Minister, who is appropriately dressed for the occasion; in a forest, we would not even know she was there, such is her colour scheme. It is lovely to see her, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
As a country sports enthusiast, conservation is something I am passionate about. I am not a tree-hugger, but I tell you what: I love trees. Over the past few years, I have planted a large number of trees—approximately 3,500—on the land that we own back home. That is a small part to play, but I am pleased to do it. Planting those trees has restored the bird, plant and insect life referred to by the hon. Members for Barnsley Central, and for Halton (Derek Twigg).
Keeping some trees in the corners of fields creates a habitat that encourages birds. The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), an RSPB champion, referred to the cirl bunting. In my constituency, the yellowhammer has returned in numbers to our farm—and the surrounding farms, because I am not the only person doing this; it is also thanks to the efforts of Vi Calvert and her late husband Michael, who neighbour my land, as well as Lord Dunleath in Ballywalter, and Daphne and Bill Montgomery in Grey Abbey. They have made it happen. They were able to, but that is not the point; the point is that they have done it. They make a direct contribution to tree-planting.
To be honest, one of the reasons why I plant trees—I say this unashamedly—is that I love shooting. I hope that those trees will produce pigeons. When they produce pigeons, I will be more than happy, so there is a purpose in what I am doing. At the end of the day, it also means that I can hand over those trees and that land to my eldest son and my grandchildren. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central referred to the Chinese proverb, “If you want to plant a tree, you should have done so 20 years ago.” We did that nearly 20 years ago, so we are now seeing them grow, but I do say to myself, “I wish I had planted trees over there, too, so I could see them grow in my lifetime.” However, my family, after me, will see them.
Northern Ireland has the lowest number of trees planted in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have a target to achieve. I was encouraged last week to hear that the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister, alongside the Woodland Trust and Northern Ireland Water, have committed to planting 1 million trees in the next 10 years. It is part of a broader plan to plant 18 million trees in the next 10 years. That is fantastic, but it is only an extra 1% of trees. We must do more to catch up. DAERA is doing that, but it is important that other Departments do the same if they can.
Northern Ireland Water is Northern Ireland’s second-largest landowner. It is good to see its commitment. I encourage others to recognise that planting trees improves water quality, captures carbon, mitigates flooding and enhances the natural environment. The Minister has spoken about flooding on many occasions, and hon. Members have asked about planting trees to prevent flooding. Those things are really important.
Most people agree that we are in a combined climate and biodiversity crisis. We must recognise where we are. This is not just about new trees; we must see this as an opportunity to improve the protection, restoration and management of woods. The two planting schemes that I have been involved with have been educational tree planting in primary and secondary schools in the area. To mark an occasion, we plant a few trees. Those projects, carried out with the Woodland Trust and others, ensure that trees become part of children’s way of life, from an early age through to their later years. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central mentioned that trees have become a greater part of our lives now that we are walking perhaps more than we ever did. I am fortunate in that I can go for a walk on the land behind me and on my neighbour’s land whenever I want, but not everybody can do that.
Having spoken to experts at the Woodland Trust, it is clear that while Northern Ireland Water and Northern Ireland are heading in the right direction, we need to be more ambitious. The Northern Ireland forestry strategy for sustainable growth, published in 2006, set out a plan to double woodland cover from 6% to 12% by 2050. By 2020, we moved to 8%. the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister announced the “Forests for Our Future” programme in March 2020, which seeks to plant 18 million trees across 900 hectares by 2030. We are told that will amount to an additional 1% of coverage. Although that seems unambitious against the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations, it sets the direction of travel—we are going from 200 hectares to 900 hectares. As I said, that is only 1%, so it is important that we try to do more. The Government in Northern Ireland are doing their bit. It is up to the landowners to do something, too. It is a bold first move to suggest quadrupling planting rates.
The Woodland Trust has commended the DAERA Minister for his ambitious reworking of the grant programme to incentivise landowners to convert to woodland. Perhaps the Minister here can give us some idea of the grant scheme available to landowners and farmers, to incentivise them to do that. The condition of planting trees back home is that they cannot be cut down for 30 years. I never cut mine down; I hope they will live as healthy a life as they can. To meet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets, ambitions need to be much bolder, and a renewed tree strategy should be developed as a pillar of the plans to decarbonise; it is important that we reach that target.
To conclude, the future agricultural payment schemes replacing the common agricultural policy will be pivotal in delivery of trees in the farmed landscape. The message is that a UK-wide approach will benefit all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We want to address this issue in the best way. As on all the other issues we speak about—I say this very honestly, Mr Hollobone; you know where I come from—we are better, stronger and always more effective together.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. I call Luke Pollard for Her Majesty’s Opposition.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on proposing the debate and for speaking so eloquently about the need not only to plant more trees but to plant the right trees in the right place as well.
Whether you are a tree-hugger or not a tree-hugger, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described himself, a towering oak of insight or a little bush of enthusiasm, to borrow the words of the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), this has been a good debate. The message the Minister needs to take from it is that we are all willing her on to greater ambition for tree planting.
There is much cutting and pasting of environmental soundbites, often three-word statements like build back better, green industrial revolution, green new deal. What we need is the policy and delivery to be stapled to those soundbites. We have heard today a cross-party endorsement of the need for delivery and ambition to be combined if we are to achieve the level of tree planting that we all want to see in this country. We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Members from all parties have highlighted not only the benefits that come from tree planting in carbon sequestration and biodiversity gain, but the benefits to mental health and wellbeing that were so clearly articulated by my hon. Friend in his opening remarks.
The benefits of tree planting are immense. Scientists predict that a worldwide tree planting programme could remove two thirds of all emissions from human activities that remain in the atmosphere today. The University of Exeter—a university proudly in my neck of the woods in the south-west—has found that, overall, people living in green urban areas were displaying fewer signs of depression or anxiety. Trees really are a cure-all medicine. They are good for our mental health, our physical health and the health of our planet. Coronavirus has shown what really matters to people and what people value. Family, friends, community, health and nature have been what I find people in Plymouth have really valued and are focusing more on for next year. The connection with nature is really important.
Every tree matters. Labour has always been ambitious when it comes to our plans for tree planting. We want to see 1 billion new trees planted across Britain by 2030 and 2 billion by 2040, not just rows and rows of conifers, not just trees for commercial use, but a wide variety of species, deciduous and evergreen, British native species and the best varieties from around the world, adding to our rich tapestry of biodiversity. We must plant the right trees in the right places and make sure they are accessible for us all to enjoy.
We all know that we are living in a climate emergency, but too often we forget that we are living in an ecological emergency as well. To tackle the climate crisis and cut carbon, we need new forests, salt marshes and peat bogs too. We need to value biodiversity, deal with species loss and habitat loss and make sure that we are championing not only totemic, iconic species in Britain, such as badgers and so on, but insects such as beetles, little birds, and all the fantastic variety in our animal kingdom. Nature is one of our greenest allies in defending the world from climate breakdown and it is important that we use it now.
It is safe to say that the England tree plan the Government are consulting on is unambitious at best and disappointing at worst. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there is no formal way to set targets in England; that might be something the Minister will want to take on board from this debate. We need to know what success looks like, whether our tree planting efforts are going in the right direction, at the pace required, how many trees are being planted and, importantly, how many trees we are losing along the way. The Government have set out the need to plant more but do not record how many we lose, so we are only really measuring one side of that equation. We need to look at both sides if we are to make this work.
The contributions to the debate have been excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and I share a love of swift bricks. They may just be breeze blocks with holes in, but they are a present that should be sent to every major housebuilding developer over the Christmas season, because building back better must also mean building nature into our new developments. That means not only the correct level of planting, but building birdlife and the life of nature into that opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) set out the ambition very clearly when she talked about the need for an English ambition in this respect. There have been no contributors from Scotland today, but if we look at the level of tree planting in Scotland, we see that the heavy burden Scotland is carrying for the United Kingdom is obscuring the lack of delivery in England. The focus on English ambition that my hon. Friend spoke about is very important, as is the role of tree planting in providing nature-based solutions for flood alleviation. That is especially important in the areas that have been hardest hit by floods, including York in recent years.
The balance being tipped against nature is a very good way of describing our planning system. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Treasury about where the Dasgupta review has got to? The Government started a review of the economic value of biodiversity, which sounds like a very Conservative thing to do—putting a value in pounds, shillings and pence on everything—but there is a real logic to it. Not valuing biodiversity in the economic decisions we make effectively means that nature is worthless in those decisions. We have seen an interim report from the Treasury on the Dasgupta review, which I think in most cases pointed in the right direction, but we do not have a timetable for when the final report will be published. A timetable would be useful.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) spoke passionately, echoing the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, about the importance of the Northern forest. Setting up tree planting in a way that is accessible to people is a really important part of what we have to achieve. Rows and rows of conifers, as I described them, are really important for our commercial forestry business, and we need that business to improve because Britain is a huge importer of wood when we should be growing and using more wood of our own; but we also need to ensure that tree planting is accessible because woodland can make a really big difference to both our mental health and physical health. Awareness of that needs to be baked in to our environment policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) described the situation very well when he argued the case for councils to be at the forefront of rewooding. Borrowing the very good description of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, the process should be town hall-led and not Whitehall-driven. The idea that every town should have a new wood is also important. I support the National Trust’s campaign to ensure that everyone lives within 10 minutes’ walk of a green space, but as well as what constitutes a green space, we should consider what the nature-rich environment is that we want to create in our urban areas, and in our semi-rural areas as well—living near a field does not mean living near accessible nature. We must remember that ensuring there is more accessible nature for all communities is important.
The hon. Member for Totnes is always good value in these debates and I enjoyed his remarks this morning. The cirl bunting is a really important bird, as are many of the birds along the south coast of Devon, extending from Plymouth into Cornwall. The challenge around common land tree planting is an interesting one, but it has not been raised in the debate so far. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to continue to ask questions about how that challenge can be addressed. There is a good case for preserving the values of common land and its accessibility, so there is a good campaign in the making.
In Plymouth, we fought hard against the initial plans from David Cameron to sell off our forests. I led the campaign to save Cann Wood from being sold, and it is now reaping the benefits of people really valuing it precisely because it was almost lost. That is something that we should consider. Plymouth already has one of the largest canopy covers of any city of its size, and with the Woodland Trust our Labour council has put together an exciting plan for trees, which is a model of best practice. We want to plant a bare minimum of nearly 3,000 trees across 67 locations in addition to the 30,000 street trees and 100 hectares of woodland that Plymouth already has.
Planting the right trees in the right place is important, especially when we look at the root growth pattern of different species. There are far too many communities in our country that are blighted by unlevel pavements because of poor decisions about which species of tree to plant in which area, and too many people are dying unnecessarily in accidents because trees have been planted near relatively high-speed roads. Trees are not frangible and reflect the impact of any collision straight away, so there is much to be done in that regard, too.
I should also celebrate the arrival of Plymouth’s first beaver in hundreds of years. We will need to plant some more trees to cope with our little friend the beaver and its efforts to dam up the river around Forder valley, which is an important part of our flood prevention strategy. This is a source of much concern. The boy beaver that we have will be joined by a girl beaver in the new year, so they can have lots of little beavers.
Ancient woodland is a really important part of the debate, because once lost it can never be replaced. Only 3% of our land is ancient woodland. I want the England tree strategy to commit to preventing any further loss and to restoration of all plantation on ancient woodland sites along the way. The amendment attempted by Labour to the High Speed 2 legislation to include statutory reporting on the impact on ancient woodland in the construction process was an important contribution. I am pleased that the Government accepted that, but I have to say to Ministers that there is much more work to be done in that respect, and much good will was lost because of the decisions taken by Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East spoke about seagrass. I am not an official champion for seagrass, but as someone who has taken it to heart, I will say that we need to recognise that seagrass and kelp forests have an important part to play in carbon sequestration; they are 30 times more effective than the equivalent tree planting on land. Our ambition on land must be matched by our ambition in the marine environment. That is really important.
Ministers’ ambitions for increased tree planting and the England tree strategy must be truly cross-departmental. Highways England, Network Rail and other public bodies must have the same ambition baked into their particular values. What we have heard today should leave the Minister in no doubt that we want her to succeed in the level of tree planting that she has committed to, and to go much, much further.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is an absolute pleasure to be having this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. What a veritable forest of parliamentary tree-huggers and lovers we have in the room! We have so much in common when we talk about trees. I like to argue with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), but that is quite difficult on this subject, although I will try on a couple of points.
Of course, I have to thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this debate about tree planting and the all-encompassing things that trees bring to us and to our lives. Planting more trees in England and protecting our existing woodlands are a key part of the Government’s plan to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
I said that I was not going to get feisty, but I will get this off my chest. We do not just talk about tree planting numbers. We have the national forest inventory, which looks at all tree planting and forestation, so it is not right to say that we talk only about the numbers of trees. Just as important to us is protecting the standing trees. This is not just about individual tree planting numbers.
I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister on the importance of planting the right tree in the right place and how we can do much more to sequester carbon and deliver all the multiple benefits that trees provide us with. That is why the Government’s ambitious “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution” clearly sets out our commitment to plant 30,000 hectares of trees every year in the UK by 2025, protecting and restoring our natural environment, but also creating jobs. A number of hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, suggested that we are not being ambitious. I say that this plan absolutely demonstrates our ambition. This is not just a game of numbers and writing random numbers on the board; we are setting out the process and methods by which we will actually be able to plant the trees. That is the key thing, because it is not straightforward. We have to harness the good will of all the landowners in this country and all the other people involved. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, there are various big land owners, including the Church and the Ministry of Defence. Those are all important.
I think that we do have the ambition. We are committed to what I would say is a step change in how we work, and we are working closely with devolved Administrations, which is really important as well. Yes, Scotland is planting a great many trees, but it has different terrain, so people are not always comparing like with like. We have to work together on this.
We are exploring whether a statutory target for trees in England would be appropriate under the target-setting process that we have set out in the Environment Bill, which has just been through Committee. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will know, if he has listened to the Committee’s proceedings, what that process is and what it will enable. We can set a target on anything we think is the right thing to do for the environment. Certainly, we can explore whether we need targets for trees, which is tremendously exciting, because we have not had that opportunity before—that is why the Environment Bill is so great. I applaud Northern Ireland and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the new target that has been announced for how many trees will be planted in Northern Ireland, which is to be welcomed.
We welcome the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and we will carefully consider its recommendations as we set out our sixth carbon budget. Our nature for climate fund will invest £640 million in driving up nature-based solutions, including supporting our ambitious tree planting programme. It will be underpinned by the imminent and much talked about England tree strategy, which will be published in spring, as has been referenced.
Today’s debate is timely because Lord Goldsmith, the Minister responsible for trees, with whom I work closely because trees obviously have an impact on everything to do with the environment, is hosting a roundtable right now to discuss the strategy’s development. A great deal of work continues on that.
We have an opportunity, as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central rightly said, to harness this moment and have an exciting new way of thinking about trees. Over the summer, we consulted on the England tree strategy. We received more than 20,000 responses, which reflects the interest in this area and the importance placed on trees. I thank every single body and organisation that contributed to that consultation. We have a vision that will set out what we want England’s treescape to look like for future generations and how we deliver the goal set out in our 25-year environment plan.
As many hon. Members have said, trees and woodlands can deliver multiple benefits, not least for nature and biodiversity. We have heard so much about biodiversity, not least from our cirl bunting champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). Cirl buntings actually live in the more arable lands that we get around the coast, but that is not say that we cannot talk about them in a tree debate, because it is all about biodiversity. We need well-designed new woodlands, supported by long-term management, to help nature’s recovery.
Through our new environmental land management scheme, landowners and managers will be able to integrate trees into the landscape, which will contribute to the nature recovery networks for which there are many measures of support in the Environment Bill, and be able to support the Government’s commitment—another big Government commitment—to 30% of our land being protected by 2030.
On top of our future schemes, I encourage any farmer or landowner considering tree planting to sign up to the countryside stewardship grants now, if they have not done so already, or to extend their schemes, because those will enable them to transition to the new environmental land management scheme if they choose to in future. We already have a range of grants to encourage woodland planting, but we will be opening new grants for woodland creation in spring, with money from the nature for climate fund, which is designed to do just that.
Trees and woodlands can deliver for water and soil. We know, for example, that trees can make an important contribution to natural flood management, as we have heard from several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). We have supported that through £5.7 million of funding in the Northern forest. Linked to that, £700,000 has been allocated to Leeds City Council for its flood alleviation scheme to help to prevent future flooding incidents in Leeds through the creation of woodlands higher up the steep-sided valleys known as cloughs. That is exactly what many hon. Members have been suggesting. Work is under way, and hopefully we will see a great deal more of it.
We are also exploring opportunities to support tree planting and woodland creation along rivers, to create riparian woodlands. We hope that the beavers will not come and gnaw them all down—beavers are very useful in one way, but not when it comes to that. It is a carefully controlled management tool that we have to work into all our processes of thinking. Woody buffer strips along waterways can be helpful in many ways.
Lord Goldsmith and I have been engaging with a number of experts and specialists who have illustrated the variety of that kind of planting, which can help our aquatic environment, mitigate flooding, and help us meet our net-zero targets. The Environment Agency has already been awarded £1.4 million from the nature for climate fund to support projects that will plant more than 850,000 trees and protect and enhance 162 km of river.
We know that tree planting is not suitable for all locations, so we will work to ensure that the vision showcases how we can deliver tree planting that is sensitive to protected landscapes and complements our heritage. We obviously need to ensure they work in harmony with habitats such as our peat lands and the uplands, and we will link up with the peat strategy to ensure that we have the trees in the right place.
A number of Members mentioned management issues with trees. Managing pests, deer and grey squirrels is obviously important if we want to maintain trees and biodiversity, as is managing outbreaks of disease, such as the devastating ash dieback, which has been mentioned. I went up to the Quantocks near me the other day, and I nearly cried; it was so devastating. I took photographs—I am always sending them to my team—of how devastating that disease is and what an impact it is going to have. The Government have already set up a nursery that is growing saplings that might be resistant. A lot of work is going on at pace to make sure we can address this, because it is so important.
The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) mentioned the horticultural nursery industry, and I think he will welcome the fact that, back in the summer, we announced a £2 million partnership of investment to work up domestic nursery capacity to provide the trees that we will need. That is obviously really important.
This is not just about woodlands, though; it is also about hedgerows and shelter belts. We have already taken some actions: we have allocated £2.5 million from the shared outcomes fund to encourage tree planting outside woodlands, and we have announced that we are introducing guidance for local authorities to do their own tree and woodland strategies. I was really interested to hear about Barnsley Council’s tree strategy. Lots of local authorities are working in that way, and it is great to be proactive. They know their areas and where they would like to have the trees.
Trees on farms are also really important. I grew up on a farm and have planted many trees, as has my dad; he has owl boxes and bird boxes all over the place. Those trees are now little woods, so that shows that if we get on with it, it is worth it. I hope the hon. Member for Bristol East will welcome the fact that we have just released guidance on how agroforestry, which integrates trees into the farm landscape, as she eloquently outlined, can be eligible for the basic payment scheme. I agree that could make a really big contribution to our landscapes.
Many hon. Members mentioned urban trees, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson)—I congratulate him on his success with his ten-minute rule Bill. The Government listened, so what a great start. Sit down now—excellent work! I also have to congratulate him on his Latin pronunciation. He made so many good points. Urban trees are so important and will play a part, as will community, forest and parkland trees, which have multiple benefits. We have spent £10 million on the urban tree challenge fund, which has planted just over 18,000 trees across towns and cities to date. We will be continuing with that funding.
On top of that, we are supporting urban tree planting through the green recovery challenge fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned the planting of 145,000 trees over 88 sites—I think a lot of that came from funding—and I congratulate him on that. That is the model that others should follow, so I hope they keep up the great work.
On the green recovery challenge fund, Earthwatch has recently received funding to plant tiny forests the size of tennis courts. I am a tennis player and I still want some tennis courts, but that is a great idea. Earthwatch has just got an allocation from the new fund that the Government launched, and that will also help with jobs in that world. The forests will connect our communities to trees.
I want to touch on the net gain point that was raised. Developers will be responsible for maintaining the new woodlands that they create through the net gain process. Under the Environment Bill, every developer will have to put back 10% more nature than was there when it started and will have to look after it for 30 years.
The pandemic has highlighted more than ever the importance of nature to our health and wellbeing; many people in this Chamber have touched on that today. That, too, is recognised in our vision for trees, particularly through the community woodlands and the urban and peri-urban planting. As I have set out, we are supporting the existing Northern forest partnership of the community forest and the Woodland Trust. It is a brilliant partnership. The investment is funding the planting of at least 1.8 million new trees across the Northern forest. I applaud the hon. Member for Barnsley Central for being there at the start and then at the millionth tree. The Government are utterly committed to the project.
Hot on the heels of the Northern forest comes the new Northumberland forestry partnership, which will facilitate tree planting in Northumberland. I hope that will help to address the need for more trees in the north. We are doing that at pace. The new nature for climate fund announced £12 million for community forests. The new trees for climate programme will see more than 500 hectares of trees planted in 10 community forests across the country within the next so many months, so that is moving at pace.
Who will plant these new trees? We will need to inspire a generation of foresters. [Interruption.] The Chair is indicating that I need to wind up, so I will do so by answering a couple of questions. I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central for his letter to the Secretary of State; he will receive a reply. On the nine shovel-ready projects, I urge him to look at the £200 million innovation fund that opens in January, so will he please apply? Obviously, we will work with all those people to bring all that forward.
Ancient woodlands are hugely important to us, so we have given them extra protection. I had a great visit the other day in Fingle Woods, Dartmoor, where we have provided another fund to help manage that woodland and bring forward new skills to train foresters and sawmill owners, and to provide portable sawmills. There are all kinds of new opportunities in timber. Yes, we need to grow more at home, and yes, we need to use more at home.
I shall wind up, Mr Hollobone, because I know you want me to. I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central for securing this debate. There is a huge amount of synergy in the room. We are totally committed to our tree strategy. I am going home this weekend to plant an amelanchier—a beautiful garden tree that Lord Goldsmith gave me for my birthday. I am going to start this weekend, and I urge every Member to do the same, including the Chair. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Barnsley Central as a champion of COP26. I am sure there is a lot more that we will be able to discuss.
Dan Jarvis
This has been a really useful and constructive debate. I am grateful to all Members for their contributions. It has been great to hear about local environmental projects, and of course I am hugely encouraged by the support that exists for the Northern forest. The shadow Minister said that we are willing the Minister on, and we are. There is real agreement that planting trees is a key part of our efforts to address climate change in the biodiversity collapse. The England tree strategy represents an important opportunity to rethink our approach to planting trees and to tree cover.
On the point about targets, what gets measured gets done, so I encourage the Minister to be bold. Given the climate emergency that we all know we are living through, we need to get on with this. Ahead of the COP26 conference next year, there is a really important opportunity to champion nature-based solutions and to show real global leadership, so I hope the Government will meet the moment with the urgency it deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the National Tree Strategy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the sitting for two minutes. I urge hon. Members to leave by the exit door on the left as quickly as possible.
Walthamstow Toy Library Eviction: NHS Role
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the NHS’s role in the eviction of the Walthamstow Toy Library.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I want to start by saying that I am sorry that we must have this debate, because I know there are some incredibly serious issues facing our health service. All our communities are dealing with the consequences of the pandemic. I wish I were asking the Minister about that, because that should be his priority. However, under the cover of the pandemic, something is taking place in my community.
I am hoping this morning for a bit of a Christmas miracle and some positive news for my local community about something that hundreds of residents have expressed concern about, and I know many more will. It is the fate of our local toy library. The Walthamstow toy library has been there for more than 40 years, serving thousands of children and their families locally. It is vital community resource. It does not just loan toys, but helps with children’s social development and provides emotional support to parents in the ninth poorest community for child poverty in the country.
Its mission is to provide a safe and stimulating place for young children and their parents and carers to play, learn and interact. What does that mean in practice? It means a wealth of activities: help to support new mums to breastfeed, mental health support for those with post-natal depression, support for children with special educational needs, advice on healthy eating and living activities, and outreach, as well as the promotion of wider social objectives such as recycling and, of course, loaning toys and encouraging child development.
Do not take it from me, Minister—take it from the users of the service. Stacy, one of the many mums from Walthamstow on a low income, wrote to me:
“As a first time mum, I found the social aspect of motherhood very daunting. The thought of meeting other mothers whilst supporting my child to play and interact with other children seemed almost impossible! This was until I came across the Toy Library. You would assume such facilities and service wouldn’t be available to those who couldn’t financially afford it but this isn’t the case. The Toy Library doesn’t have such barriers in place, so it means if you are a parent who needs that financial support through borrowing of toys or affordable entry/membership it is available. I felt very supported and encouraged to become part of the Toy Library without being judged for my circumstances.”
The Minister might say to me, “That sounds all very nice, but what about health care?” That is ultimately his priority. I want to highlight that we have a very high level of challenge in my local community when it comes to child and maternal health. The World Health Organisation has a vaccination target of 95%. I am sorry to say that my borough does not meet that for any vaccine: under 30% of two to three-year-olds have had the flu jab in my borough this year. Our measles, mumps, rubella rates are well below the England average, with only 83% of children aged 24 months in Waltham Forest vaccinated. Our rates of childhood obesity are also above the national average.
The library supports not just children but their mums. During lockdown, my office has been inundated by mothers with post-natal depression who have had no support since health visitors were taken away. It has been the toy library that has offered vital help for those mums, too. Indeed, during the pandemic they stepped up to support many low income families in Walthamstow, offering one-to-one contact with 150 of them, providing activity ideas and helping to deal with the isolation that so many families have felt in the past months. They offered parents one-to-one support with a trained counsellor, renewed play sessions, when they could, and offered craft packs to nearly 1,000 local children. These are critical services that have never been more needed, which have a health outcome. They deal with mental health and mean we have a connection with some of the hardest-to-reach children in our community.
The Walthamstow toy library has just eight members of staff and an annual turnover of £85,000. That means that the work they do and the impact they have is all the more remarkable. They do not receive any public subsidy. Occasionally, they have a grant from the council, but they fund all their activities through relentless fundraising and a network of alumni, who recognise the value of their work to local children and the community. That is why I am asking for a Christmas miracle from Ministers today. We are in danger of losing this vital resource in Walthamstow, which, importantly, represents value for money.
Walthamstow toy library has been in the same building since 1986. It is a purpose-built building, on the site of the original toy library that was knocked down to make way for the Comely Bank campus, which is the space it is now in. The Comely Bank campus was a local improvement finance trust company initiative for the NHS, which is where the Minister starts to begin to take responsibility for this. The Minister should be worried not just about my local toy library, but about what this episode reveals for the wider NHS property account, for which he has responsibility.
LIFT was supposed to be the not-for-profit version of the private finance initiative—that old chestnut—helping to bring much-needed properties to the NHS, but it is clear that the company running this building is motivated by money, not the needs of my local community. When it was first built and run by the primary care trust, it was agreed that the toy library would have a peppercorn rent, so the toy library would be there, work with healthcare providers and provide all those services to the local community.
LIFTCos also meant that the NHS would have some control over GP services and primary care facilities in those buildings. Although the PCTs only had a small stake, they had some ability to determine how local facilities were built and used. Since PCTs were abolished and their stake referred to a company called Community Health Partnerships, all that local control has gone.
LIFTCo behaviour is now dominated by their private financers, often hidden from view, who are seeking to maximise their returns by charging extortionately high rents and service charges. As this case shows, the overriding drive of Community Health Partnerships is not what our community needs or wants, but how it can generate as much income as possible to pay back the debt and provide a return to its shareholders, known as RWF Health and Community Developers Ltd.
For eight years, and through multiple ownership structures of the building, including the eventual abolition of the PCT and then working with the NHS Waltham Forest Clinical Commissioning Group, the Walthamstow toy library has frankly been treated as a nuisance by the CCG and CHP. Those organisations have also failed to provide adequate healthcare services to my community. Indeed, the CCG is one of the services most complained about to my office.
For years, the volunteers who work at the Walthamstow toy library have been trying to sort out their lease, to work with the CCG and to be commissioned to provide services to help address issues such as the poor vaccination rate or childhood obesity. Frankly, the CCG has not just refused but has been point-blank rude about those offers, including to me and the volunteers. The volunteers have tried, in vain, because they know how much it means to the community and because they have suddenly started getting bills for hundreds of thousands of pounds for the building.
Suddenly, Waltham Forest CCG wished to claim that the cost of having a toy library there is around £60,000 a year. For property aficionados, let me be clear what we are talking about: it is 120 square metres, with a kitchen, two toilets and a garden. I know everybody thinks that Walthamstow village is fancy and expensive, but I have talked to local estate agents and even if it were the most swanky building, the most they think such a building should cost is £30,000 a year, with service charges. I thank community estate agents, such as Strettons, for helping us and for being so shocked for our community.
It is not just about the rent they are trying to charge. When we look at the amounts of money that the CCG and CHP seem to want, the toy library’s charges seem to have increased at a much higher rate than for the property as a whole: from £77,000 in 2019 to £102,000 in 2020-21—an annual increase of 32%—yet the overall lease for Comely Bank seems to have increased by only 2.8%. One might query why the toy library, a charitable organisation, is suddenly being asked to pay an excessive amount of rent and charges, compared with anyone in the rest of the building.
Leaving that aside, the CCG itself—it has not negotiated with the toy library but summarily issued documents—has agreed to pay for the presence of the toy library, honouring the original agreement for a peppercorn rent so that the toy library could be in Walthamstow. However, it should trouble the Minister, given the concern that I know he has for value for money, that any one side of the NHS should be charging another double the cost of a building, before service charges. I think that the honest truth is that that is why the CCG has refused to work with me and residents to try to save the toy library, and why, indeed, it is colluding in evicting it.
It should also trouble the Minister that Andrew Meakin, the regional property director for CHP, wrote to me threatening to send bailiffs to the toy library to recover nearly £200,000-worth of debt that he claimed it owed in building and service charges. He argued that CHP is a publicly-owned company and could not see any option except to progress debt collection through the usual channels, to recoup public funds. That was in October. Those were costs that the CCG had already claimed it would pay and, indeed, that CHP knew about and subsequently, mysteriously, issued credit notes for. However, one can imagine what it must feel like for volunteers to receive a bill for £200,000 from an organisation claiming to represent the NHS.
I draw to the Minister’s attention the detail of the coronavirus legislation that places a moratorium on commercial landlords evicting people. The current time of great uncertainty in funding and operations for the toy library means that it is hard for it to raise funds. Mr Meakin is acting as the Christmas Grinch in trying to chase revenue sources for which he has already been paid twice, to justify evicting the toy library. It gets worse, however. He demanded that the toy library should act as a commercial operator and charge fees for services that it does not provide, suggesting that its offering is less commercial than those of its rivals in my constituency, as though the building was a commercial one. The whole point about the service is that it is not commercial. It is open to everyone. That is the benefit.
It is interesting to me that CHP demands commercial behaviour and transparency from the toy library while it is unwilling to be honest about its own activities. Despite being a public sector body, it is wholly unaccountable about revealing how much it makes through charging such extortionate rents. For any other PFI deal I could go to the Treasury database and see the interest on the loan that is driving the situation, but it has refused to reveal that information, even with a freedom of information request, claiming that to do so would prejudice the commercial interests of CHP and its private developers, RWF Health and Community Developers Ltd. It then argues—this is surely meant to be ironic—that revealing how much money it is making would impact on its abilities in relation to services in areas of high social and health need, which I presume means areas such as my constituency.
I am not sure what the commercial interests are with respect to what is supposedly an NHS building, but I guess that some of them are overseas. In the FOI response it was claimed that there have been no subsequent sales of shares in the project since it was first commissioned. However, a look at the company accounts shows that the subsidiary and the ultimate parent company, HICL, have been part of nine different holding companies for the building. Indeed, Barclays sold its share in this LIFTCo to HICL in 2013. It is not clear how much Barclays sold the share for, but, as we have all seen with PFI, HICL was registered offshore in Guernsey at the time, and remained so until 2018.
It is also clear that around £3.2 million in management fees has been extracted from the subsidiary of the LIFTCo between 2007 and 2020. It looks as though that is in addition to the returns to shareholders and the interest on debt repayments. That sum would be more than enough to cover the alleged cost of having the Waltham Forest toy library in there for decades to come.
I ask the Minister, as a starting point—given that he is a stakeholder, and that ultimately CHP is owned by the Secretary of State—whether he can tell me what the internal rate of return is. I am sure that he would agree that it is in the public interest to know that. What does he think the commercial interests are? It is my understanding that the CCG is colluding with CHP to evict the Walthamstow toy library so that it can put another tenant in the building. However, that is the same CCG that will, I have no doubt, come to the Minister at some point for funding for property. Essentially, one side of the NHS is asking the other for over-inflated rents—robbing Peter to pay Paul. That would irk me less if the CCG had not presided over a building that has been under-occupied for years. The under-occupation rate has been 20% since 2016, and in the last year it has been 30%—all in a building whose lease finishes in less than 10 years.
In the absence of being able to hold CHP accountable, I have come to the Minister to ask for his help and to ask whether he believes that the decisions that are being taken square with his statutory duties under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to reduce inequalities and promote a comprehensive health service. It is not acceptable to say that these are just decisions for the local LIFTCo or CHP, when CHP is owned by the Secretary of State and it is refusing to answer questions. There is a vacuum in which the interests of private finance have come before the public in Walthamstow.
This is not just a constituency problem, because CHP manages 5% of the NHS property estate. If it is behaving in such ways in other parts of the country, other communities are also being overcharged for their properties. In other parts of the NHS, social prescribing has been the way forward, working with community organisations, such as at the Michael Burke Wellbeing Centre in Suffolk or Houghton Primary Care Centre in Houghton le Spring.
We know that PFI was the wrong move—Governments of all sides have recognised that—and we all want to sort it out, but LIFTCos have not had the same level of scrutiny. Can the Minister tell me who will own the building in less than 10 years’ time? Can he tell me how much it is costing us as taxpayers? Can he tell me whether he believes that in evicting the Walthamstow toy library, CHP is adhering to the original lease, as it is required to do, which talked about non-NHS use and working with local communities? Above all, can he offer me some advice and help on how I can support my local community, which is struggling in the pandemic, and those children who rely on the toy library, to make sure that we have a toy library for many years to come in Walthamstow?
I know the Minister has been told one thing by the CCG and CHP, but I would be happy to inform him of my experience of dealing with these organisations and the truth of the attempts at negotiation. With Christmas just a few days away, will he play Santa to the children of Walthamstow and commit today to supporting the Walthamstow toy library and helping us to save it?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 11.30. I call the Minister.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will endeavour not to qualify for the Grinch’s green suit in what I am about to say to the hon. Lady. I congratulate her on securing this debate. It is always a pleasure to appear opposite her and she has always been a strong and vocal champion for her constituents in this House.
The hon. Lady has raised a number of points, and I am grateful to her for highlighting in advance the outline and contours of the issue, which means that I have had an opportunity to look into some of it. I will come back to this point later, but I make the offer that I am very happy, as soon as we return after the Christmas recess, to meet her to go into more detail about the issues she has raised and some of the history and chronology of what has happened here, if that is helpful to her.
I know the hon. Lady has been an active supporter of and campaigner for the Walthamstow toy library, which is an important local charity, and she started the campaign to save it from possibly having to move from the current premises, as she has talked about today. As she highlighted, the building is owned by one of the NHS local improvement finance trust companies, CHP, and that is one of the companies that is managed by the Department for Health and Social Care, or owned by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. It is now the head tenant for the property, having taken over from the PCT in 2013, when PCTs were abolished. CHP sublet to GPs and other providers of NHS services that received the majority of their income from the local CCG.
I note at the outset that the hon. Lady may wish to challenge some of these points when we meet, as she has done today. As has been related to me, in 2005, the toy library was incentivised to relocate to the new building following the destruction, for want of a better way of putting it, of its old building, by being offered a lease at a peppercorn rent, with a small contribution towards running costs for 10 years, which started on 27 September 2005. It occupies about 9% of the building.
That original lease was between the PCT and the toy library, meaning the PCT bore the cost. In 2013, when the lease was transferred to CHP and the local CCG, they agreed to honour that previous subsidy. My understanding is that during 2015 there were extensive negotiations between CHP, the toy library, the CCG and Waltham Forest children’s services on the expiry of the lease. It was recognised then by the CCG that the toy library would at the very least need time to review the options available to it and to explore securing alternative accommodation, other funding sources to increase its income or, for example, a contract for commissioned services from the council in order to pay its rent. As such, the CCG agreed to subsidise the occupancy for a further three years, beginning on 1 April 2015, at a cost of £50,000 per annum, with contributions also coming from the LIFT company and CHP for the balance of that.
By 2018, my understanding is that no progress had been made in sourcing alternative accommodation, and that the CCG agreed to a further three years of subsidising the rent on similar terms, continuing to contribute £50,000 per annum to costs, with a continued contribution from the LIFT company. The position of the CCG and the LIFT company is that this was always intended to be an interim measure for three years. They state that they sent a clear message to the toy library that, by March 2021, it was expected to pay the full cost of occupancy if it was to remain a tenant. The hon. Lady has put on the record a different interpretation of that, which I am happy to explore with her. If she wants to intervene, I will happily allow it.
Stella Creasy
It may be useful to clarify that at no point has the CCG told the toy library that it is to leave the building; indeed, the CCG keeps telling me that it is not evicting the toy library. More importantly, in the chronology that the Minister talks about, if the toy library had been told to find an alternative building, why was it working on commissioning services together with the CCG? I fear that the Minister has been sadly misled by Selina Douglas and the Waltham Forest CCG on this matter.
Edward Argar
I was about to make one final point, which is that I understand that a further three-month extension was agreed until 30 June 2021. However, I highlight what the hon. Lady said, not only just now but previously, which clearly suggests that a different complexion has been put on this issue. That is why my meeting her would be useful.
I will put on the record one or two points. It is important to note that the subsidy paid by the CCG is an arrangement that is not offered to any other charitable or voluntary group within the borough. I recognise, as the hon. Lady set out, the value that this charity brings. In my distant past when I was a Westminster city councillor, before I was a Leicestershire MP, I recognised the value that toy libraries and similar charities brought to the local community in London. I put that on the record because we must always remain conscious of fairness. There are specific circumstances, but I just wanted to highlight that point.
The hon. Lady talked about social prescribing, and she is absolutely right. That goes to my experience in seeing the huge value that charity facilities such as this can bring not only to those who are in need, but to others within the community more broadly who access the toy library and come together in that context. Such facilities are hugely important in the communities where they exist. They bring people together and provide mutual support, often to families and individuals who may not have a medical need, or who may not want their needs to be dealt with through medical means, but who find the support they need—help through a difficult time, or just more broadly—through such facilities. I recognise their value.
During the time that the toy library has been in this building, the CHP and the CCG suggest that a substantial debt for service charges and utility bills has accrued, which they assert that the toy library clearly agreed to pay as part of the original lease, separate from the rent. I see from the hon. Lady’s expression that that will feature in our discussion. I appreciate that there are different perspectives on the form that engagement has taken. CHP and the CCG have engaged with the toy library on a number of occasions to explore solutions to the issues that have arisen. Those solutions have included moving to a more sustainable business model, becoming a social enterprise or having the council commission services. They state that the toy library has been supported in those discussions to find alternative premises, with options explored including whether it could be relocated or co-located with other services for children and families.
The toy library of course has the first option on this space, certainly until the end of that period of extension, but I understand that, in the meantime, a feasibility study has been commissioned by the CCG on prioritising use of the building for health purposes. There are no signed agreements yet, but NHS parties state that they are reserving the right to reconfigure the building for what they deem to be its primary purpose: in their words, to get best value for the local health economy. However, to the hon. Lady’s point, we must always be conscious of the need to look at value not just in financial terms or in purely primary care terms, but in terms of broader health benefits and broader benefits to the community. Value, for want of a better way of putting it, takes many forms, not always with pound signs involved: there are broader, more intangible measures of value. Again, I am very happy to explore that aspect of the issue with her when we meet.
The view and perspective of CHP, the local CCG and the LIFT is that they have sought to engage constructively with the toy library since they first assumed that relationship—in 2013, if my memory of what I just said serves me—but they do need to look to the future. The suggestion of finding an alternative space at a similar peppercorn rent, for example, may be a way forward. However, I again note what the hon. Lady said: this is a purpose-built space for the toy library, and a shared space with others coming in and coming out would not necessarily work with the model for the services that are provided to the people who use it. I hope that as we look to the future, both the toy library and—equally, and hugely importantly—the CCG and CHP will try to engage, genuinely and openly, to explore options around either finance or genuinely viable alternative premises. I also hope that throughout, they will engage directly, and indeed courteously, with the hon. Lady as a representative of her constituents in this House.
The hon. Lady raised two specific points that I am happy to look at and discuss with her: one was about the IRR, and one was about levels of management fees. If she will permit me, I will take those away and look at them, and when we meet we can discuss those points.
This is a challenging situation, and clearly, some compromises may have to be made on both sides to move us forward. I have therefore already asked the CCG, CHP and the LIFT company to engage further with the toy library, openly and constructively, and to report back to me with a jointly agreed update on progress at the end of February. The hon. Lady has raised some significant issues, and I would hope to meet with her well before that stage, because I am keen to hear from her in a way that is not always possible in debates in this House. Although debates may raise the profile of an issue and highlight scrutiny of it, we can sometimes get into more detail in a private conversation. I am very happy to meet her and see whether we can find a constructive way forward that genuinely meets the needs of her community. Thank you, Mr Hollobone.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is not allowed a right of reply. Generously, I will allow her to intervene on the Minister, if he agrees that he has not finished his speech, but the intervention has to be brief.
Edward Argar
Apologies; when I said “Thank you, Mr Hollobone”, I thought that I had caught your eye and you were about to stand, so I sat down. If I may, I will finish my conclusion, and should the hon. Lady wish to intervene on me, I am happy to take that intervention.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for letting me intervene, and for the good Christmas cheer that he is bringing. Can I confirm that a side letter was sent by the CCG to the Walthamstow toy library in, I think, 2018, committing to paying all the costs of it being in the building? As such, the suggestion that charges were outstanding is another misleading statement. When he looks into the issue, could he also clarify who will own the building after 2030, when the original lease runs out? We are fewer than 10 years away, and surely any redevelopment of the building has to take place in that context.
I will very much take the Minister up on his offer of a meeting, because I think a way forward can be found to save the Walthamstow toy library where it is. I hope CHP and Waltham Forest CCG are listening very clearly, and that they will finally start to engage properly with my community. In view of that, I wish everybody a merry Christmas.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. If she is able and happy to forward me a copy of that letter—she may have to do so in confidence—I am very happy to look at it, because it will be useful for me to see it before we meet. She has raised a number of other questions; forgive me, because I did not pick up on that one when I answered. Again, in so far as I am able to discuss that issue with her, I will do so, and my office will get in touch with hers after this debate to try to get us a meeting in January. I hope that, as I say, we will be able to find a constructive and positive way forward that works for the NHS, for her community and for all parties involved, including the toy library.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Breast Cancer Screening
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered breast cancer screening.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
I am pleased to have secured this debate on a really important issue that affects so many people in the High Peak and across the country. I am glad to see the Minister in her place today and very grateful to her for meeting me to discuss this issue. I look forward to hearing her response to the debate, as well as the thoughts of colleagues who are in Westminster Hall today. I pay tribute to those colleagues who have worked so hard on this issue over many years, especially through the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), who led a debate on this issue just last month.
In my lifetime, we have come a long, long way on breast cancer research, treatment and survival rates. Despite that huge progress, breast cancer remains one of the biggest health challenges facing this country. Every year, one in seven women will develop breast cancer, which is 55,000 women. Also, 370 men will develop breast cancer every year; it is important that we do not forget them. Almost 1,000 women die from breast cancer every month and around 600,000 people are living with or after breast cancer, including 35,000 women living with secondary breast cancer. I will repeat those figures—almost 1,000 women die of breast cancer every month, which is around 11,500 women every year. Just in my small local area, an estimated 223 people develop breast cancer every year and 41 people die from it, almost all of them from secondary breast cancer. Those numbers cannot begin to convey the heartbreak caused to too many families, who grieve the loss of a mother, a sister, a daughter, a wife or a partner.
We know that early diagnosis is the best way of preventing these deaths and increasing the chances of survival. Around 186,000 women a month are screened in England, which prevents an estimated 1,300 deaths every year. However, although it is true that there has been increased uptake of screening nationally, that uptake has not been evenly spread across the country. Of the women aged between 50 and 70 invited for screening in my local area, 69.7% attended within six months. That is lower than the 72.4% average across England.
I fear that the situation in my area has been made worse by the recent commissioning decision by NHS Midlands to withdraw the breast cancer mobile screening unit from Buxton, Chapel-en-le-Frith and New Mills in the High Peak, citing covid as the reason. Instead, my constituents are being asked to travel to appointments at Bakewell in the Derbyshire dales.
I am very worried about the impact that decision is having. To be clear, this is no slight at all on Newholme Hospital in Bakewell and the fantastic staff there; I pay tribute to them and to all NHS staff working in breast cancer screening services. It is a question of accessibility. The Peak district is beautiful, but our transport links are poor, especially in the winter months, when road closures are common because of extreme weather. For example, driving from the village of Rowarth to Bakewell typically takes just under an hour and involves having to drive a good part of the way on single-track country lanes, which are often closed when there is snow or heavy rainfall. Public transport links between the High Peak and Bakewell are even more limited. The railway between Buxton and Bakewell closed in 1968, cutting off the High Peak from the rest of Derbyshire.
I am very worried about how many women in my area will be unable to make screening appointments, which is why I have been campaigning to get the mobile screening unit reinstated in the High Peak as a matter of urgency. In just a few weeks, over 2,000 local people have signed my petition calling for its reinstatement. I hope that the Government will listen and that the Minister can give my constituents good news today. I was very grateful to her for meeting me last week to discuss this issue, when she gave me positive news by assuring me that the current arrangement is temporary. However, it has often been said that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary Government measure, so I hope that she can be more specific today and that we can get a date for when we can expect these services to be reinstated to the High Peak.
More broadly, to help more people get a diagnosis early on, we need the capacity ready in our local health services. Breast Cancer Now found that 40% of hospital trusts and health boards—including Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Stepping Hill Hospital and so serves a large part of my constituency—could not say how many secondary breast cancer patients were under their care.
Coronavirus has placed immense pressure on our NHS workforce and infrastructure. It is essential that we keep the virus under control, but there is a heavy cost. In March, the breast cancer screening programme was officially paused in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and was paused in all but name in England. Screening has restarted, but access is not rising fast enough nationally, and it is falling in places such as High Peak. Breast cancer screening services in England are running at around 60% of normal capacity, according to Cancer Research UK. As a result, there was a 70% drop in all cancers being reported in some parts of the country, leading to nearly 107,000 fewer breast cancer referrals. Despite the fall in referrals, cancer waiting times have increased. In August, the rate of achieving the two-week wait target fell to 87.8% from 90% the previous month.
I am grateful to the digital engagement team and Breast Cancer Now for reaching out to people affected by breast cancer screening delays caused by covid. I thank everyone who responded ahead of the debate to share their experiences. For example, Gill said:
“My routine screening was rescheduled (twice) from April 2020 to Sep 2020. I was then diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer spread to a lot of lymph nodes. I can’t help but wonder how much better it would have been to have picked this up 6 months earlier.”
This has been happening to people across the country, with serious consequences that must be addressed. Breast Cancer Now estimates a backlog of nearly 1 million women requiring screening across the UK because of the pause in March. We do not know how long it will take to catch up. Around 8,600 of these women could have been living with undetected breast cancer.
As the general population ages and lives longer, the number of women and men developing breast cancer has increased. Of course, people younger than 50 can also develop breast cancer, and it is important that they also have access to screening. I take this chance to note that more than 13,000 people have signed an e-petition in support of lowering the age at which screening services are offered, including many in High Peak. We clearly need to ramp up capacity to meet the rising demand for screenings. Not doing so will put the NHS workforce infrastructure under incredible strain. I ask the Minister: what action are the Government taking to ensure that women respond to open invitations and make appointments for screening, and how many women have been screened this year compared with last year?
Managing demand for screenings as a result of increased uptake and the backlog created by covid requires a long-term strategy to raise capacity, with a strong focus on the NHS workforce. There is a serious worry of burnout among NHS workers due to the sustained physical, psychological and emotional pressure of this difficult year. A British Medical Association survey revealed that 28% of doctors have found non-covid demand to be higher than before the pandemic, with 58% saying that they are concerned about their ability to care for patients, 44% worried about plans to manage the huge backlog of patients and 65% saying that staffing shortages are the most pressing concern.
That is compounded by the fact that a considerable proportion of the breast cancer screening workforce is approaching retirement. Around half of all mammographers are aged 50 and likely to retire in five to 10 years. This has led to a rise in vacancies for crucial roles. Public Health England has reported a 15% vacancy rate for mammography; that only 18% of screening units are adequately resourced with radiotherapy staff; and that one in four trusts and health boards has at least one vacant consultant breast radiologist post. Ensuring that the breast imaging and diagnostic workforce is fully staffed and trained is critical to the delivery of the commitment in the NHS England long-term plan to ensure that the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 and 2 rises from around half to three quarters by 2028. I understand that the pandemic delayed the publication of the full implementation plan, but further detailed is needed.
NHS workforce development was not mentioned in the recent spending review, and there has not been a national NHS workforce strategy since 2003. We need to prioritise that work to be sure that the new NHS funding is being used in the best way possible. Long-term solutions cannot be sacrificed because of short-term pressures.
I am therefore glad that the Government asked Professor Sir Mike Richards to review screening programmes as part of the NHS long-term plan. The review concluded that the main obstacle to achieving the commitment on cancer diagnosis is the size of the workforce, and the equipment and facilities available to them. Professor Sir Mike Richards recommended that we recruit 2,000 additional radiologists and 4,000 radiographers, as well as other support staff, and replace outdated testing machines. Those recommendations ought to be a critical part of the next NHS people plan, setting out a long-term strategy for the NHS workforce. I hope that the Minister is able to update us on when she expects to publish a plan to implement the review. It will also be interesting to learn how the new National Institute for Health Protection will affect the breast cancer screening programme.
It is crucial that people are not discouraged from seeking help with a health problem. The NHS’s “Help Us Help You” campaign is a promising initiative that urges people to speak to their GP if they are worried about possible cancer symptoms. I understand that people feel reluctant to come forward, worried that they might catch the virus or be a burden on the health service, but it is more important than ever that women are able to have a regular screening check-up. If the campaign is successful, I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government expect the NHS workforce to cope with increased demand during the winter months.
The Government need to set out how capacity in the diagnostic workforce will be managed; provide funding to grow the workforce and ensure they are properly resourced; and increase the number of facilities where people can be diagnosed. That includes reinstating important services across the country, such as the mobile screening unit in High Peak. Failure to do so will reduce our chances of delivering the early diagnosis, treatment and care that could help thousands of people beat breast cancer.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for securing this important debate.
Finding breast cancer early will save lives—that is the bottom line and has always been the case. The earlier breast cancer is diagnosed, the more likely it is that treatment will be successful. That is the messaging that needs to be harnessed moving forward. Fifty-five thousand women and 370 men are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK per year. We are doing much better, but those figures are a stark reminder of the prevalence of this type of cancer in our communities.
In my local patch, West Bromwich East has about 141 per 10,000 people developing breast cancer, compared with 168 per 10,000 across England. That means 284 people in my constituency are diagnosed with breast cancer every year. In West Bromwich, 67.5% of women aged 50 to 70 are invited to attend a screening within six months—a figure that is significantly worse than the 72.4% across England. The uptake of screening appointment invitations is also significantly worse than the England average.
Aside from screening appointment uptake, we have a wider issue that affects the entire NHS. As an increased percentage of the population becomes eligible for breast cancer screening, the existing infrastructure needs to evolve to meet that demand, in terms of both a trained workforce and diagnosis machines. Indeed, Professor Sir Mike Richards’ independent review of adult screening programmes in England, which was committed to in the NHS long-term plan, made some incredibly interesting findings when it was published last year. Most strikingly, according to the review, screening programmes are constrained by the size and nature of their workforce and by the equipment and facilities available to them. That will act as a barrier to implementing the review’s recommendations.
The breast cancer screening workforce are being put under increasing strain as the populations eligible for breast screening increase. Creating the capacity for that change is key to ensuring that screening programmes are fit for the future. The Chancellor’s spending review announcement committing £325 million for the NHS to invest in new diagnostics machines such as MRI and CT scanners was clearly welcome, but that is only a short-term fix to address the current backlog. Ultimately, it comes down to education about the importance of the issue and of the process of getting women to be screened. We also need to move away from the idea that only the over-50s are diagnosed with breast cancer; young people are affected too.
Various online petitions to lower the age at which breast cancer screening services are offered outline a crucial point. Research shows that the X-ray mammogram test used in the breast cancer screening procedures, which can spot cancer when it is too small to see or feel, is much less effective in younger women due to their tissue density. Therefore, educating young women to check for anything abnormal in their body has never been more important, mainly because we know that they have a much higher chance of survival if it is caught early.
I ask the Minister to update us on the Government’s plans to lower the age at which breast screening services are offered and on what the Government plan to do to help younger people identify breast cancer sooner. The NHS has a serious job on its hands to break down these barriers, where people simply think it will be okay and do not get screened. We need to be proactive in encouraging people to take this seriously.
We have made amazing progress so far, but more can be done and early diagnosis is key. I can relate to that directly. Six months after my aunt passed away from secondary breast cancer, my mum—her sister—was also diagnosed. I advised her to be on the lookout for early signs, namely dimples. She is in full health now, but if I had not told her of the signs back then, things could have been different. My mum would not have gone to see her GP and she would not have known some of the lesser-known early warning signs of breast cancer.
The coronavirus pandemic has caused a backlog in screening and treatment. Breast Cancer Now estimates that a significant backlog of nearly 1 million women requiring screening built up across the UK in the course of this year. It is unclear how long it will take to catch up. Some measures have been taken to try to ensure attendance at the reduced number of appointments available. In England, from the end of September to the end of March 2021, women will be sent open invitations to call and make an appointment for screening, rather than a timed appointment.
Research shows that the number of women making appointments is significantly lower than those who attend timed appointments. That could worsen the persistent decline that we have seen in the take-up of breast cancer screening in recent years. The impact this will have on groups among which the uptake is already low is particularly concerning—for example, women living in deprived areas and some black and minority ethnic groups. How can we reach these people, reassure them and encourage them to be screened? I would be grateful if the Minister has any ideas on this. Will she also confirm what action the Government are taking to ensure that women are sent open invitations to make an appointment for screening, and what success there has been in the take-up of open invitations?
Our NHS staff have worked tirelessly over the course of this dreadful pandemic and made sacrifices on an unimaginable scale. We need to back them in this place on breast cancer screening too. I passionately believe that it is everyone’s role to promote the importance of breast cancer screening and early diagnosis, and to ensure that we have the right number of women screened as early as possible. After covid-19 is over, this should be one of our new “saving lives” messages.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for securing this debate. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) made a remarkably good speech, citing her own family’s experience.
Both hon. Members have spoken about Breast Cancer Now’s assessment that almost 1 million women have missed a screening during this period. Its assessment is that that would mean 8,650 women may be out there with undetected breast cancer. Cancer Research UK assesses that screening services are running at 60% capacity. That means the situation is getting worse week by week. A hundred fewer women started treatment for breast cancer each day in May and June than during those months in 2019.
If we look beyond breast cancer, in my county of Cumbria there is a 17% reduction in the number of people starting cancer treatment this year compared to 2019. It is fair to assume, therefore, that roughly one in six people who would have been diagnosed with cancers of all kinds is out there undiagnosed. We know that for every four weeks treatment is delayed, for whatever reason, the chances one has of survival fall by 10%. That delay in treatment can be due to a delay in people coming forward, a delay in diagnosis and a delay in treatment.
Any Government of any combination of colours would have been thrown by the coronavirus. In those early months the messaging was really good and powerful: “Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives.” It often occurs to me that the position of the NHS in British society, the affection in which it is held, was a key driver. I suspect that in another country, where the message might have been, “Protect the expensive private healthcare that you use, through exorbitant insurance models,” would probably have been less compelling. The NHS was a key driver and the Government deployed it well.
Why were we protecting the NHS? We were doing so not only so that we could tackle covid, but so that the NHS could carry on its lifesaving work in every other area. People not coming forward for treatment, for reasons that have been mentioned, such as being scared of being infected or nervousness about being a burden and troubling staff, is a huge part of the reason why the backlog exists.
There were treatment cancellations for perfectly good clinical reasons, as well as those for not good clinical reasons. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, and Members would be staggered if I did not talk about radiotherapy as a treatment for breast cancer and other forms. Radiotherapy is the clean form of cancer treatment. It does not affect immunity and is not likely to open up someone to infection. The amount of radiotherapy being delivered during that period should not have been changed, because people are at no more risk of covid from taking it and, because it is a clean form of treatment, it should be substitutionary. It could be used, and in some cases has been, as a substitute for more risky forms of cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy and surgery, where that was necessary. In some cases, that has happened, which should be noted.
For example, bladder radiotherapy treatment is now at 160% of normal levels and capacity. In that area at least, we are using that clean technology to catch up with cancer in that area. The problem is that it is not the case across the board. We do not have figures since summer, but Public Health England has just released figures from April to the summer, which showed a 15% drop in radiotherapy treatments started during that time. That includes starting in April, so that cannot have been a response to fewer people coming through.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations and guidance at the beginning of coronavirus were to stop, postpone or delay radiotherapy treatment—for no clinical reason whatsoever. Some cancer centres followed that advice and people did not get treatment. We know what that means for people’s likelihood of surviving. That 15% drop in radiotherapy treatment will have cost lives. It was unnecessary and it means that the backlog is even greater than it would have been.
Cancer Research UK has estimated that we will unnecessarily lose 35,000 lives to cancer because of the crisis. The British Medical Journal published research a few weeks ago that showed we would lose, as a country, 60,000 additional years of life to cancer, because of the coronavirus crisis.
When breast cancer screening services are running at just 60% of capacity and we are witnessing a 50% reduction in the number of people starting radiotherapy treatment, we see a backlog that can only be getting worse as we speak. I want to endorse what has been said by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt)—that it will take NHS cancer screening, diagnostics and treatment services, as a piece, operating at 120%usb capacity for two solid years to catch up fully with the backlog, to catch up with cancer.
Members will have been as deeply moved as I was by the recent sad death of Sherwin Hall, a 27-year-old father of two, as a result of delayed treatment. His family have been supported by the Catch Up With Cancer campaign, launched by the family of Kelly Smith, who also died far too young as a result of delays to her treatment during this process. Catch Up With Cancer estimates that the backlog might be up to 100,000 people. This is a national crisis on the scale of covid—different, but on the same scale—and it needs a response as ambitious and as urgent as the NHS’s correct response to covid. However, in the comprehensive spending review there was just a single mention of cancer in the entire document.
There are three issues at play here, the first of which is people having the confidence and awareness to come forward, as has been mentioned. The second is the diagnostic process and the third is the treatment. Issue one, the issue of people being brought forward or encouraged to come forward for treatment, is about strong public health and public information messages, and all of us getting behind them and being open about the necessity—as was mentioned, rightly, by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East—for a person to come forward if they have the slightest hint of a doubt that something might be wrong or unusual with any part of their body.
Issues two and three, diagnostics and treatment, need more than an ad campaign. They need more than good public relations and public information: they need money. It has been mentioned that within the CSR, £325 million was set aside for diagnostic machines, but the CSR says that that is
“enough funding to replace over two thirds of imaging equipment that is over 10 years old.”
In other words, it is money to replace some of the stuff that ought to have already been replaced. It is not new—it is not expanded capacity—and yet, when it comes to treatment, we have not got even that.
This was the Government’s opportunity. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, along with the Catch Up With Cancer campaign and the all-party parliamentary group on cancer—which I am proud to also be a member of—we made a submission to the Department of Health and Social Care and to the Treasury, calling for an immediate fund to catch up with cancer. That did not arrive, and I am going to shock the Minister by reminding her of a promise that she made me in this place a couple of weeks ago—to meet me and the Catch Up With Cancer team before Christmas, to look at how we can get that urgently needed ring-fenced investment through the spending review and into additional cancer diagnosis and treatments. I would like to hold her to that promise, and I hope she will refer to it in her closing remarks.
Alongside covid, the early diagnosis of women with breast cancer, so that we can treat them and cure them, is an ongoing problem. The United Kingdom is towards the bottom of the league tables for most of the major cancers when it comes to survival. To the Government’s credit, they acknowledged that in the NHS long-term plan released two years ago. Its fundamental aim—the headline part of that NHS long-term plan—was to diagnose more people early with all cancers, including breast cancer, so that we could treat them and cure them, and so that survival rates would be far better than the terrible situation that we have for most cancers in this country now.
I say to the Minister that if we are successful in diagnosing more people sooner, earlier—and we must be successful—we will then need the capacity to treat those people, and we do not have that. Radiotherapy is part of the solution, so it is absolutely essential to invest now in the kit, the technology and—as has been mentioned—the workforce, in order to be able to deliver treatments to those people who have been diagnosed early. How tragic would it be to diagnose maybe tens of thousands more people earlier than we do at the moment, and then not have the kit, the capacity, the staff or the technology to treat them? That is a challenge that the Government can meet, and I hope the Minister will take that on board and do just that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Edward. First of all, I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) on the way that he set the scene. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for her contributions, as well as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and I also thank him for the leadership that he gives to the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy. I am a member of that APPG, but I know that the person who moves it and makes it happen is the hon. Gentleman, along with other colleagues who are trying to make this subject a focus for every one of us.
The statistics for breast cancer are horrifying. The hon. Member for High Peak set them out in his introduction, but I want to repeat them. It is salient and important to focus on the stats, because they are not just stats: they are a person’s life and they affect everybody around them. That is what I want to refer to. The breast cancer stats are clear: 55,000 women and 370 men are diagnosed every year in the UK. We sometimes overlook the fact that men can get breast cancer—not in the same numbers or percentages as ladies, but none the less it can develop in them.
One in seven women in the UK will develop breast cancer, and 35,000 women are living with incurable secondary breast cancer. Almost 1,000 die from breast cancer in the UK every month. Perhaps if they had screening, that would not have happened. That is 1,000 mothers, daughters, sisters—1,000 homes that will never recover from the loss. We must never underestimate the loss and hurt that people feel when someone they love is no longer there. We sometimes focus on the “if only”—we do not know what that “if only” would have done, but it does come into our minds and our questions.
About 600,000 people in the UK are living with or beyond breast cancer. Let us be honest: if it is caught in time and if the surgery and treatment go correctly, people can live for longer. We should perhaps not always focus on the negatives, although this debate is about breast cancer and is an opportunity to highlight the issues that we feel are important. Health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the Minister cannot answer for it—I am not asking her to—but I want to make a contribution to this debate because what happens here on the mainland will be replicated in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I said that it is not only the person who has breast cancer who suffers. We have to look at the families around them who also suffer—those who feel the pain of their partner or loved one who unfortunately has breast cancer and, in some cases, is still waiting for the treatment or screening that they need.
I am my party’s spokesman, and I have a deep interest in health matters. That is why I attend all health debates whenever I have the opportunity. I cannot get to them all, but I do my best to get to most of them. Back in Northern Ireland, I have had the opportunity over the years to get to know some of my constituents personally. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to two names. I never refer to names—they probably would not know who they are when they are referred to in this Chamber, but I do not do that because this is a very personal thing. It is a very physical problem that they have gone through. Some of those people have survived and some have not. As an elected representative and a person with compassion, as we all are in this House, my heart goes out to those who are in need of treatment and need it now.
We cannot neglect—I do not think there is an intention to do so—those with cancer, because time is of the essence and early diagnosis is needed. This is where we are. What I and other Members want is a different set of statistics for next year. We do not want to be referring to the 100,000 and some of the other stats that I will give in a few minutes. We want statistics that show more early diagnosis, more successful outcomes and—please, God—nowhere near 1,000 grieving loved ones. How do we achieve that? That is the key issue of this debate, and why we are here. I believe we all agree on this. It is simple: screening. Early screening, frequent screening, structured screening, simple screening—screening, screening, screening. We need to get that into our minds for how we deal with this. We are here today because we all have the same idea. That is how we get better outcomes.
In the media and the newspapers yesterday and every other day I can recall, we have had stats for cancer treatment. We cannot fail to be annoyed when we see the stats for the people who are waiting for treatment, diagnosis or screening. It has all been put on hold, and we need to look at that urgently. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to the Government response to covid-19. The Government responded in an excellent way. They made all the necessary resources available and they gave us hope, up to the stage where we are now, with the vaccine in place. That hope will lead us into next year. Perhaps by this time next year everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have had that vaccine; that would be our hope.
The coronavirus is the biggest crisis that breast cancer care has faced in decades. With every month that passes, more women with breast cancer could be missing the best possible chance of early diagnosis, which is key to preventing death from the disease. The breast screening programme was officially paused in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and effectively paused in England, in March. Screening has now restarted, although that has happened more quickly in some parts of the country than others.
Breast Cancer Now has estimated that a significant backlog of nearly a million women requiring screening built up across the UK during the first pause, which is a massive number. If a million ladies are waiting to have the screening, that underlines the importance of putting resources into that, to try and give people peace of mind. It is unclear how long it will take to catch up. Around 8,600 of those women could have been living with undetected breast cancer, which is a worry.
When my wife went to get the test, we got the results back quickly, but imagine what it would be like for someone waiting for the screening if they suspected something was wrong but were not sure. Sometimes the screening can diagnose at an early stage something that the individual was not aware of or might not see themselves. Can the Minister be so kind, during her closing remarks, to clarify what the Government mean when they say they have cleared the backlog on breast cancer screening? Does that mean that open invitations to breast screening have been sent, but not that the actual screening has happened? I have every confidence that the Minister’s response will answer those questions and give us the hope and reassurance that we need.
The expected increase in referrals and backlog of women waiting for breast screening will lead naturally to an increase in demand for diagnostic and imaging services in the coming months, threatening to overwhelm a workforce that was already stretched before the pandemic. Combined with a reduction in the number of people that services will be able to see, as a result of infection prevention and control measures, there is grave concern that that may lead to people waiting longer to be diagnosed and receive treatment. Again, we need reassurance.
A recent survey by the British Medical Association revealed that 28% of doctors—the people on the frontline, doing the work—have found non-covid demand higher than before the pandemic. They recognise a serious gap that needs to be filled. Moreover, 58% are concerned about their ability to care for non-covid patients, 44% are worried about the plans to manage the huge backlog of patients and 65% say staffing shortages are their most pressing concern. I understand those concerns, and I look genuinely and respectfully to the Minister for her answers.
The unprecedented pressures put on the NHS by the first wave of the pandemic, which have already had damaging impacts on diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer patients, are now being exacerbated by the second wave and the winter pressures, which we all know are coming to every region in the United Kingdom. Winter pressures come every year, but this year they will be greater because of the waiting lists and the ways we are dealing with that.
While it is great to see Health Education England receive an additional £260 million to train more staff in 2021-22, Cancer Research UK estimates that £140 million to £260 million is needed over the next 35 years to grow the cancer workforce alone. It is not only about responding to the current waiting lists, but how we deal with the growing number of those with cancer over the next few years. An additional £260 million for HEE’s total budget in 2021-22 should go some way to address that, but will not fill the gap.
I conclude by reflecting on the comment by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, because to me it is the key to the issue. The Government responded in an exceptional way to covid-19. They made the resources available. A strategy for something we had never dealt with before was difficult to get together, but they did it in a way we all welcomed—we give credit where it is due—until now we have the vaccine.
However, when it comes to cancer we need a similar policy and strategy, so that we can give peace of mind to all those people who have breast cancer, and have a worrying process to go through. The Government have shown they can do it, and I believe they, and the Minister, can again respond in a way that will show us we can deal with breast cancer. We need a dedicated strategy and long-term investment. I look to the Minister to hear how that can and will be provided, in the light of the additional covid-19 demands. Covid-19 is not over yet. I wish it was, but at least we are going the right way. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel and there is hope for the future, but we need the same hope for those with cancer.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for securing this important debate. It is also important to thank all the NHS staff who are working so hard to keep services running during this difficult time, and the cancer charities working to keep funds coming in and awareness high, and to support those living with a cancer diagnosis. High-profile breast cancer awareness events such as the “wear it pink” photocalls that we are all so used to were lost to the virus this year, so there is a lot of ground to make up to keep the UK’s fourth biggest killer high on the political agenda.
Thanks to a combination of advances in the medical sciences, treatments, early diagnosis and screening, breast cancer survival has doubled in the last 40 years, but the necessity of disrupting routine screenings has created a danger of progress taking a significant step backwards. There are immense challenges, now, for the NHS, in meeting an influx of demand, when we are clearly still in the teeth of the pandemic. As members of the Royal College of Radiologists report, challenges are made all the tougher by the extra infection control methods needed at screening centres, limited availability of space because of distancing, and, at times, staff and equipment shortages because of redeployment.
As other hon. Members have said, Breast Cancer Now estimates that nearly 1 million women in the UK missed potentially life-saving mammograms because of covid-19. There was also a marked fall in the number of urgent breast cancer referrals from GPs during the pandemic. That was due to a range of factors, including reluctance to take up the scheduled appointments, worry about catching the virus, or a lack of awareness that while routine screenings were paused the majority of cancer treatment services continued throughout. According to Macmillan Cancer Support, 100 fewer women started treatment for breast cancer each working day in May and June 2020, compared with a year ago. It estimates that there are 50,000 missing cancer diagnoses across the UK because of covid-19 disruption.
Those are serious causes for concern. Cancer patients cannot be allowed to be collateral damage as we struggle to fight the pandemic. All of us have a role to play in encouraging take-up of opportunities for screening, self-checks and getting out the message that the NHS is there for people if they are worried about cancer. Covid continues to dominate the headlines, but the NHS has never stopped prioritising cancer cases.
Governments also have a role in communicating about cancer services, and making sure that there is investment in facilities and staff in the NHS cancer workforce. As the RCR reports, the clinical radiology workforce was already under strain before the pandemic. One in four English trusts has at least one vacant consultant breast radiologist post, and the UK has fewer CT and MRI scanners than the majority of comparable OECD countries. Decisions about the NHS are made by the devolved Government in Scotland. Thankfully, the Scottish Government are working to minimise disruption in the face of the covid-19 challenges. They have invested an additional £10 million to support cancer treatment throughout the pandemic and beyond, in addition to purchasing six additional MRI scanners and three additional CT scanners to aid cancer diagnosis, at a cost of £5.6 million.
There is much to be done, but I welcome the fact that there has been an 89.6% increase in consultant oncologists in Scotland under the current SNP Administration and a 54.4% increase in consultant radiologists. Early detection will also be improved by more GPs. Scotland has 76 GPs per 100,000 population, compared with the UK average of just 60. There are also two new early cancer diagnostic centres, which will be opened in the spring of next year.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the request to extend screening to younger men and women in the petition that we are debating today. It is always heartbreaking to hear of cases that are not diagnosed early enough, leading to long battles to fight the disease and a greater chance of lives being lost too early. We know the risk is related to age and is highest in women over 50—they account for 80% of cases—but that is cold comfort to the 10,000 women under 50 and the 370 men in the UK who receive the dreaded diagnosis each year. Catching this disease early is essential to saving more lives. I would back screening for all in a heartbeat if it was justified clinically, but it is just one tool in the toolbox and it is not always the best one to use.
There are harms as well as benefits to getting mammograms, and decisions on routine screening programmes are all about getting the balance right. The four nations of the UK all take advice on screening from medical experts at the UK National Screening Committee and the Scottish Government concur with the points made in the UK Government’s response to the petition.
If there is one thing that the pandemic should have taught politicians—perhaps even the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—it is that we should be listening to experts. Their views are so important. It is the scientists and clinicians who are guiding us through the pandemic and providing hope for a solution through their incredible efforts to find treatments and vaccines. So, too, should we trust evidence on screening. The Marmot review of the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening identified overdiagnosis as one of the dangers, stating:
“The consequences of overdiagnosis matter, women are turned into patients unnecessarily, surgery and other forms of cancer treatment are undertaken, and quality of life and psychological well being are adversely affected.”
Only 1% of cases involve men. There is a need for us to focus on messaging and spread the awareness that breast cancer is possible for both sexes, although at a far lower risk for men. Perhaps we all need to do that bit more to highlight that point, to make sure that men self-check and seek treatment where necessary.
Although there is largely consensus on the science, there is perhaps more divergence on these isles about the resources needed. Warm words about tackling cancer are easy, but they need to be backed up by sustained and substantial further investment. Ahead of November’s comprehensive spending review, the SNP called on the Government to increase funding for NHS England to match per capita spending in Scotland. That would have amounted to a £35 billion increase by 2023-24. The £3 billion offered for the next year is only a third of what we have been calling for on a yearly basis. After a decade of austerity, the sum is not even enough to cover the cost of outstanding hospital repairs in England, let alone recover from the coronavirus and deliver decent cancer care moving forwards.
I urge the UK Government to do all they can—to “build back better”, to borrow their phrase—and to properly and genuinely invest in the NHS to save lives.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for securing this important debate and for his introductory speech. It is clear that he feels very passionately about improving access to breast cancer screening for his constituents. He was right that tremendous progress has been made in tackling this awful disease in recent years, but there is still an awful long way to go, as we have heard today.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of screening, as most Members did. I was very sorry to hear that the mobile screening service in his constituency has been temporarily halted. I hope it is a temporary halt and the Minister is able to give us some good news when she responds. It is particularly disappointing because the hon. Member spoke very highly of that service in the last debate we had on this matter, only last month. He certainly set out very clearly why moving to the system that we have at the moment is presenting a particular challenge to his constituents. He also gave some very personal testimony about the consequences of a delay in screening, showing why, of course, access is important.
We have heard some other excellent contributions this afternoon. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) cited her local area’s statistics to point out that the figure for screening appointments in her constituency was lower than the national average; clearly, such a situation is something that all Members can play a role in remedying. She was right to say that the key to all this is being proactive and encouraging people to seek screening and early diagnosis. She gave a very personal example of how that approach had made a real difference to someone very close to her.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) extrapolated from his local statistics to state that about one in six people who would ordinarily have received treatment this year are not receiving it. He mentioned his work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy and I commend him for his consistent work in that particular forum. He referred, quite rightly, to the 15% drop in the use of radiotherapy treatment, which is of particular concern. He said that he does not believe that there were good medical reasons for that reduction, so there is a challenge for the Minister to go back to trusts to see whether there are reasons beyond medical reasons why these treatments are not taking place. He described the situation as a crisis on the scale of covid and said that it needs a Government response on that scale to tackle the issues that we have discussed today.
Those sentiments were also expressed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who gave a typically passionate and well-informed speech. I am sure that we all agreed with him when he said that he would like to read out a different set of statistics in a debate on this issue next year. Like all the hon. Members who have spoken today, he very clearly set out the importance of screening. He also raised a number of other issues, which I will touch on in my remarks.
This is the second Westminster Hall debate on breast cancer in as many months, which reflects the importance of this subject. On both occasions, it has been evident from the testimonies of Members how many people have had their own lives touched by breast cancer. Debates such as this one are important because, as many Members have mentioned, the various statistics out there show that there are very few people whose lives are not touched by this issue in some way. As we have heard from many Members, one in seven women in the UK will develop breast cancer during their lifetime—on average, that is 55,000 women, as well as 370 men, every year. Around 600,000 people in the UK are living with or beyond breast cancer, and, sadly, around 35,000 people have incurable secondary breast cancer.
As the hon. Members for High Peak and for Strangford both said, almost 1,000 women die from breast cancer in the UK every month, almost all of them from secondary breast cancer. The hon. Member for Strangford put things very well when he reminded us that these statistics are about real people and real homes, which may never recover from such a tragic loss. We must never forget the human tragedy behind these figures when we read them out in debates such as this one.
This very important issue affects so many people, but there are also many people who are united in their desire to do all they can to beat this disease. I pay tribute to all the dedicated campaigners, ambassadors and charities, who all do their bit to make life a little bit easier for those suffering with cancer. We must, of course, pay tribute to the NHS staff for everything that they do, not just this year—the most difficult of years—but every year, in the fight against cancer. I also thank Breast Cancer Now for its continuing support for all politicians from all parties in the House and, most importantly, the support it gives to those living with or affected by breast cancer, because, as we have heard, more women, thankfully, are now surviving breast cancer than ever before.
As many Members have already said, the key to that is screening, because we know that the earlier a cancer is diagnosed, the more likely it is that treatment will be successful. We also know that currently around 95% of women diagnosed will survive for more than one year and more than 80% for more than five years.
In the debate on this issue last month, I touched on the impact of coronavirus on early diagnosis, as most Members have today. Cancer Research UK estimates that around 3 million people are waiting for breast, bowel or cervical screening, and Macmillan estimates that there are currently around 50,000 missing diagnoses from this year compared to last year. This is the biggest crisis that cancer has faced in decades.
Breast Cancer Now estimates a significant backlog of nearly 1 million women requiring screening has built up during this year. Among the women still waiting for their screening, we know from the statistics that there will be around 8,600 who do have breast cancer, but it remains undetected. As Members have set out, the reasons for that backlog are numerous. Social distancing and infection control means that many cancer services can operate only at about 60% of their capacity. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale pointed out, that means the situation might get worse rather than better. Services were already under severe strain during the first few months of this year, and we know about the unprecedented steps that the NHS has had to take to deal with the large influx of covid-19 patients, which has led to an effective pausing of breast screening in England.
Of course, not only the screening programme was affected. Breast Cancer Now has also reported that the number of people referred to see a specialist with suspected cancer declined dramatically during the peak of the coronavirus outbreak in April. It estimates that across the UK there are likely to be nearly 107,000 fewer breast cancer referrals. Some of those women could be living with undetected breast cancer, and with every month that passes more women will be missing that early diagnosis that we have all heard today is the key to preventing death.
Although screening programmes have now restarted, we have heard that that has happened more quickly in some parts of the country. Breast cancer charities have raised concerns about the current strategy that has been adopted to clear the backlog, with the plan to send women open invitations to call and make an appointment from September this year to the end of March. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich East said, research has shown that the number of women who make appointments is sometimes lower than the number of women who actually attend for a timed appointment.
Breast Cancer Now fears the strategy could worsen the persistent decline that we have seen in the uptake of screening in recent years. It has also raised concerns, as did the hon. Member for West Bromwich East, about the impact on groups, among which uptake is already low, such as those who live in deprived areas and those from black and minority ethnic groups. This is particularly important at a time when surveys have shown that people are reluctant to come forward with symptoms due to concerns about catching coronavirus and giving it to the family, and putting pressure on an already very busy NHS. When the Minister responds, will she tell us a little more about what steps the Government can take to ensure that the women who have received open invitations for screening are able to take those up in the coming months?
It is very welcome that October’s NHS breast cancer waiting times showed an increase in referrals for people with potential symptoms of breast cancer to see a specialist. However, the crucial targets for women to be seen within two weeks was missed. There are immense pressures on our health service at the moment, but before the pandemic the breast imaging and diagnostic work was already overstretched and under severe pressure because of increased demand on their services—and that of course has been compounded, as many Members have referred to, by the shortages and vacancies in the workforce.
As the hon. Member for High Peak mentioned, Public Health England has previously reported a vacancy rate of 15% for mammography staff. About half of all mammographers are aged 50 or over and therefore likely to retire in the next 10 to 15 years. That is very concerning, given the importance of mammograms in detecting breast cancer.
Of equal concern is what Breast Cancer Now tells us: only 18% of breast screening units are adequately resourced with radiography staff in line with breast screening uptake demand in their area, and one in four trusts and health boards across the UK has at least one vacant consultant breast radiologist post. Sadly, that situation is unlikely to improve any time soon as vacancies are set to increase with about a quarter of breast radiologists forecast to retire over the next five years.
A recent analysis of NHS trust risk registers showed that 83% of trusts surveyed reported a workforce risk, including not having enough staff to manage cancer care, showing the NHS entering the pandemic with huge holes in the workforce.
The Government commissioned reviews that have highlighted some concerns. We heard from the hon. Member for High Peak and various other Members about the independent review of adult screening programmes in England, which found that such programmes are constrained by the size and nature of their workforce and by the equipment and facilities available to them. As we heard, Professor Sir Mike Richards’s review, which was commissioned by Sir Simon Stevens, found that significant investment in facilities, equipment and workforce was needed. That means replacing outdated testing machines and expanding the imaging workforce by about 2,000 additional radiologists and 4,000 radiographers, as well as support staff.
In September, a Public Accounts Committee report called on the Government urgently to prioritise publication of the long-term workforce plan. Unfortunately, that exposed the lack of long-term thinking in the current approach to the NHS workforce. Such thinking is vital if we are to see the NHS perform at the level we all want it to. We need to see a full five-year people plan, with costed actions within it.
The pandemic has shown, as other Members said, just how valuable and appreciated NHS staff are, but it has also highlighted the unaddressed long-term issues of excessive workload, burn-out and the inequalities experienced by staff. The rhetoric on support for our NHS staff needs to be matched by action. As we have heard today, that commitment is vital to ensuring that breast cancer services can safely continue to give all those affected by breast cancer the very best chances of survival. I hope that we will hear from the Minister about how that ambition, which we all share, will be delivered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for securing this important debate. As he and many Members know, breast health—diagnosis, treatment and research, as well as screening—is a matter that is close to my heart. I am honoured to respond on this important issue on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of women and the 3% of men who are diagnosed with breast cancer every year.
I want to state clearly that screening services are back up and that the availability of breast screening to everyone who needs it is there. However, the recovery of those services from the disruption this year is not only a priority for me, but an enormous challenge, for exactly the reasons that have been laid out so eloquently by all contributors to the debate. We know that our cancer workforce had challenges before we went into the pandemic.
Let me remind Members of something that only the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly referred to: yesterday, 506 families lost a loved one to covid. It is still with us. We are in a covid-tinged world, and that affects how quickly we can drive other services. However, the resumption of cancer services across the piece—be they treatment, diagnosis or screening—has been the No. 1 priority for me from the time we understood and were able to drive those things in.
I am glad that hon. Members who have taken part in the debate recognise the importance of breast screening in the early detection of breast cancer. As with any diagnosis of cancer, early detection gives people a better chance. The simple fact is that screening saves lives.
I very gently take the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to task on the statistic that every four weeks represents a 10% lower chance of survival. Cancers, as he well knows, vary enormously in type, grade and everything else. I do not want people not to come forward for screening, diagnosis or treatment because they feel that any loss of time will have had a negative impact. It has to be that as soon as you have a symptom, you come forward. Campaigns such as “Be Clear on Cancer” and “Help Us Help You” are driving at giving people confidence.
We have ensured that services are safe, and our aim is for people to be able to access them as quickly as possible, secure in the knowledge that they are safe. I will cover this later, but while I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) were saying, the whole point of open appointments is to maximise the use of available capacity versus fixed-time appointments. A health inequality impact assessment has been done to try to make sure that nobody is disproportionately impacted, and I have asked for a specific eye to be kept on that. Now, if you like—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. As a matter of courtesy, it is normal for Ministers to address the Chair.
Jo Churchill
I am so sorry, Sir Edward. As I was saying, the challenge is that there is variation in the system. That variation occurs for a plethora of reasons, not only those that are covered by an impact assessment on accessibility via open appointments. It is important to keep an eye on all the data.
I am proud that we have a national breast screening programme that offers every woman between the ages of 50 and 70 an appointment every three years. We will strain every sinew to ensure that nobody waits longer than 36 months. We will not step back from that, even with the challenge of driving the backlog down. The programme reaches millions of women and detects approximately 20,000 cancers each year. I recognise the challenge, but every single individual provider has been asked to produce a recovery plan, which should help us to understand the variation. I recognise that about half a million women are waiting, but there are also 500,000 women who have not replied. They will need to be re-approached and encouraged into the system. It is incumbent on everyone to give women the confidence to come forward.
We have also had to look at making sure that women are asked to come forward in accordance with priority by targeting the women who are most likely to have an occurrence of breast cancer. High-risk women will not have open appointments; they will be called immediately. We will then screen positive women in the pathway, followed by screening results that have not been processed, routine open episodes, those who have previously been invited but not screened, and the delays. It is important that we prioritise, so that we target the women we are most worried about.
I am aware that this year, the national breast screening programme could not maintain the service that it normally provides. In March, as the NHS responded to one of the biggest challenges that has faced our healthcare system in a generation, many local providers made the decision to pause appointments so that arrangements could be put in place to protect staff and patients from covid-19. We were unaware at that point what we were dealing with. Staff and facilities were redeployed to tackle the outbreak of the pandemic, but as soon as it was possible to do so, it was made an absolute priority that they were brought back in to do the job that we need them to do.
I am sure that there is not a single Member in this Chamber, or indeed the House, who does not pay tribute to the hard work of all NHS staff. Cancer staff and their teams have done a particularly incredible job of making sure that people across the cancer family have received treatment. Earlier today, I talked to a young man about the treatment he has had, and I talked to a young woman who experienced chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment earlier this year. The redeployment of staff left a shortfall in the breast screening programme, and screening appointments for many women have been delayed. I know that that wait, and the anxiety it drives, is incredibly difficult. For those who are looking for reassurance from their routine screen, or who are waiting to receive an all-clear or an early warning that something is wrong, this is undoubtedly a challenging time. However, I want to be absolutely clear that no woman has been left behind, and no woman ever will be. It is a priority to ensure that services are there. Improvements are being driven by the heroic efforts of staff, who have been working longer days and over weekends. They have gone above and beyond to schedule as many appointments as possible to help to drive down the backlog that was created earlier this year.
The first priority is to screen women aged 53 who have not yet had their first screening appointment; those who have passed their 71st birthday and have not yet received their final breast screen; those at very high risk of breast cancer, as I said; and those who have been identified for further treatment. I am pleased to say that the tremendous efforts of screening staff—the nurses, the radiographers and the whole team—are succeeding and the backlog is steadily reducing. The number of women waiting for screening, having received an invitation prior to the first wave, decreased by 98% between 1 June and 4 November.
Screening has been made a clear priority this winter and NHS commissioners have been instructed, where humanly possible, not to redeploy their staff or their facilities away from screening services. It is a priority, and that is absolutely the right approach. My message to everyone is that breast screening services are running, they are safe, they will continue to run through the winter and they are standing up to the increased capacity that is coming towards them.
When people receive an appointment to attend, I urge them to go. “Do not attends” are so frustrating. Those appointments could be taken by a woman who—although she would not want a diagnosis—might get into the stream quicker.
Jim Shannon
I suspect that on some occasions, ladies are not attending because of the fear of catching covid-19 at the hospital. I have spoken to some ladies back home and that was one of their concerns. How can we address that?
Jo Churchill
Essentially, by constantly reassuring them that the reason why we can do elective operations, have out-patient clinics open and carry on doing some of the business as usual is because heroic efforts have been made to make sure that there are safe places. I pay tribute to Dame Cally Palmer, who has made sure that rapid diagnostic centres have been stood up to ensure that patients can access care safely. We had 17 at the start of the pandemic, and we now have 45. The cancer alliances have worked extremely hard in all our regions. There is no one silver bullet, but it is important that we do what we can for patients.
If people have any concerns or notice any abnormal changes in their breasts, they should contact their GP. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, and I am pleased that her mum is now in good health. CoppaFeel! is a great charity and its website shows how to do a good check. Breast Cancer Awareness Month still went on—I did wear it pink—although it did not quite have the same profile as usual. It is every woman’s responsibility to make sure that they check their breasts monthly. If they see anything unusual that they are concerned about, such as puckering or discharge from the nipple, GPs are open and there to help women.
One thing that can help is to make sure that people go, but we are here to talk predominantly about screening services. Cancer diagnostics and treatments are back on track. The latest official data for October 2020 suggests that GP referrals are back to almost 85% of pre-pandemic levels, compared with August 2019. I appreciate that that leaves a lag, but we are heading in the right direction.
Urgent referrals were 156% higher in October than in April, which is when they were most affected. That shows that we are not only getting there, but beginning to go beyond. Nearly 88% of cancer patients saw a specialist within two weeks following their referral, and nearly 96% of patients received their treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat. In October, 83.5% of breast cancer patients received their first treatment within 62 days, and breast cancer treatment activity was at 101% of last year’s levels. However, these figures do not hide the fact that there is a backlog and we have to work as hard as we can to address that. The “Help Us Help You” campaign, launched in October, is a key part of this and reinforces that message of seeking help. We will closely monitor the effect of covid restrictions on referral rates to ensure that the number of people coming forward with symptoms remains high, because it is about confidence. Some pathways are more problematic than others, but the important thing is to make sure that we get as many people as possible through the pathway.
I turn to the theme of breast screening for younger women. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has said, this has been found not to be evidenced-based. There is a risk in referring women for unnecessary tests, in over-treatment, and in operating on women who have diseases that mean that that is likely to cause harm. Women with a very high risk of breast cancer, such as those with a family history, may well be offered screening earlier and more frequently. Sometimes, in life, we just have to ask a question, and I recently asked a breast cancer specialist about this. My hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the former Members for Dewsbury and for Eddisbury, all of whom are in the younger age group, are going through treatment—I think one of them is post treatment—and I was their age when I was diagnosed. Just because something looks right, it does not necessarily mean that it is, and we have to act on the evidence. That is where we are at the moment for young women.
We published the people plan in July, and I recognise, as Sir Mike Richards did, that the screening workforce is a challenge and it is important that we drive more individuals into the areas of radiography, mammography, pathology, nursing and cancer specialist nursing. The spending review provided another £260 million to continue to grow the workforce and support those commitments, which were so important in the NHS long-term plan.
Health Education England has also provided £5 million to support training and development programmes through the National Breast Imaging Academy, which aims to improve breast screening recruitment targets and early diagnosis. It has already made significant progress, launching the mammography level 4 apprenticeship; recruiting the first of the NBIA radiology fellows, who will benefit from specialist training in breast radiology; and developing e-learning for health programmes on the breast.
To improve screening uptake, we need to work with cancer alliances, primary care networks and the regional teams to promote the uptake of breast screening and to get to as many people as possible. As I said, the open appointments systems is something that we are looking at, and we hope that the result will be that we get more women through. The national cancer recovery plan was released this week. It is a joint effort from cancer charities, royal colleges, national teams and patient voices, and it was led by the national clinical director for cancer, Professor Peter Johnson. Its whole ethos is to outline the actions that need to be taken to restore demand to at least pre-pandemic levels by raising national public awareness through campaigns; ensuring that there are efficient routes into the NHS for people who are at risk of cancer; improving referral management practice in primary and secondary care; and setting out immediate steps to reduce the number of people who wait more than 62 days from urgent referral, so that patients are seen as quickly and safely as possible. Finally, it ensures sufficient capacity to meet demand through maximising the use of available capacity in both symptomatic and screening pathways, which both feed into the same funnel, optimising the use of the available independent sector capacity, enabling the restoration of other services, and protecting service recovery during winter.
This is an excellent plan, which will work towards the long-term plan ambitions for cancer services to continue during the pandemic. I am fully committed to seeing it through and working with Dame Cally Palmer and all the others to ensure that we can get to a better place. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, there have been some remarkable changes to treatments with radiography and other treatments in cancer. We must take those silver linings where we can.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak for coming to me to say that High Peak was special due to its geography, and he did not want the women he serves in his constituency to be disadvantaged in any way by a loss of service. I understand that the decision to put breast screening services into static positions was taken to maximise capacity. I was quite amazed that, pre pandemic, 70% to 80% of screening happened in mobile units. They are particularly helpful in dispersed rural areas, but with some of the challenges of providing covid-secure spaces—some of those units did not even have running water—a decision was made to bring them back to a static site. The static units can stay open longer and at the weekend, making about 1,000 more appointments possible in a three-month period, so a lot more women can be seen.
Although I take on board the point about travel, I am asking women to bear with us—to work with us. These are temporary changes, but they are a vital measure in the recovery of breast cancer screening services, allowing more women to be seen, particularly those who may have missed an appointment this year. I know that longer travel times are difficult. I know that those beautiful hills that my hon. Friend’s constituency is blessed with do not have particularly good bus services either. This is not always an easy proposition, but it was decided that, for now at least, optimising the service to see as many people as possible should take priority over optimising a mobile service.
When my hon. Friend came and met me, I could not give him any assurance, and he has pressed me again today. I assure him that this is a short-term measure. The increase of appointment availability will assist us in in being able to resume mobile screening for High Peak, safety permitting, by July 2021. I have been reassured by the Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS trust that it is monitoring attendance, that this compromise is temporary, while services recover, and that the usual screening locations will be reinstated in the longer term to ease access. I take this opportunity to stress that the screening services are safe to attend and a range of measures have been put in place to ensure that people go.
I thank my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members who have participated today. I pay tribute to all the incredible staff across the country who are working so hard on the backlog and to make sure that cancer services stand up and catch up over the winter period. Hon. Members have my absolute commitment that we are focused not only on the short-term recovery of screening services, but on their long-term improvement too. Prevention, public health and early diagnosis continue to be a huge priority for me. We will continue to bear down on screening services, making sure we have the right kit in the right place and that we are delivering the different parts of the cancer pathway for men and women to have the best treatment.
Robert Largan
It is a pleasure to sum up this debate. It has been very constructive, with a lot of agreement. I appreciate the speeches from both the Opposition speakers, who made a lot of important points in a constructive manner, striking the right tone. I would like to highlight the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), who talked of her family’s personal experience. She is a fantastic champion for her constituency.
I would also mention the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). We represent similar constituencies; he represents the Lake district and I represent the Peak district. I am sure we could argue all day about which is better, but they face similar challenges. I am a big admirer of his knowledge of the subject and the work he has done over the years. I must, of course, mention the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who is always an assiduous attendee in this place. He made an important speech, with lots of very good points.
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I have listened to her speak before about her personal experience. I know there is no one more committed to this issue. I am reassured that we have such a diligent and committed Minister working for us on this subject. I am pleased with the news that the breast cancer screening service mobile unit will be reinstated to High Peak. I hope the Minister understands that I will be holding her feet to the fire, and making certain that the date is brought forward to be as soon as possible, so that we can get the mobile unit back to New Mills, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Buxton and the rest of the High Peak.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered breast cancer screening.
Defence Manufacturing and Procurement: Shropshire
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered defence manufacturing and procurement in Shropshire.
I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to bring this issue to the House’s attention. I am particularly pleased that the Minister of State is in his place, and look forward to his response to today’s debate.
Shropshire, and Telford and Wrekin, are fast becoming a crucial defence hub. Of course, there is a lot of defence history in Shropshire, which many Members will know about, but on the manufacturing side Shropshire, and Telford and Wrekin, are very much becoming a geographical engineering cluster that feeds not only the UK defence market, but the wider European defence manufacturing and procurement sector. I am proud that Shropshire continues to play its part in UK defence manufacturing, with existing contracts for Boxer and Warrior vehicles, and hopefully the Challenger 2 life extension programme.
The defence sector, locally and nationally, continues to grow under a Conservative Government. We should not ignore that material fact, for as you know, Mrs Miller, it is only with a strong defence that any country can have a strong peace. Defence manufacturing is an important part of the UK’s strong defence, and I am pleased that on 19 November, the Prime Minister committed the UK to increasing its defence budget—the largest boost in the nation’s defence for the past 30 years, and indeed the biggest increase post world war two—investing an extra £24 billion in our national security and sustaining and creating thousands of jobs across the UK, including in Shropshire. It is the biggest investment in the nation’s defence since the end of the cold war, which is fantastic news for the nation as a whole, and specifically for my constituents in The Wrekin.
The Minister will know that BAE Systems employs 300 people in Telford, and spends more than £6 million in the midlands supply chain and in the region as a whole, based at Hadley Castle Works. I am grateful that he took the time to visit my constituency some months ago and meet with many of these dedicated engineers, as well as those who manage the business. Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land is a very welcome joint venture between Rheinmetall and BAE Systems, designing, manufacturing and maintaining combat vehicles at Hadley Castle Works, with Rheinmetall owning a 55% stake in the joint venture and BAE Systems owning 45%. That joint venture will sustain a skilled workforce of about 450 employees across the UK, including those engineers based at RBSL in Telford. General Dynamics Land Systems—Force Protection Europe’s manufacturing spares facility is also based in my constituency.
Then, of course, there is GKN, a manufacturer of off-highway wheels also based at Hadley Castle Works. GKN has had some challenges in recent years, but I hope that, whether it is under the current ownership of GKN or a future, different ownership, that site and the skill set there will be retained, not only for Shropshire but for the UK defence sector as a whole. It is important that GKN is supported, too. We also have Lockheed Martin, currently delivering the Warrior capability sustainment programme—the demonstration contract, that is—and that is welcome too. Babcock International, the defence engineering business, has a site in Donnington, and in April Babcock was awarded a contract to manufacture 10,000 ventilators to help to control the covid-19 pandemic. I pay tribute to all the workforce there and to the wider MOD staff at all those facilities—whether civilian or non-civilian, uniform or non-uniform —at MOD Donnington and RAF Cosford, as well as the private sector companies I have mentioned.
I want to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who quite rightly is a champion of Caterpillar Defence, based in Shrewsbury, which as the Minister knows specialises in the design and development of engine and drivetrain packages to meet the needs of many of the tracked and wheeled military vehicles that the MOD uses. Of course, there are myriad local supply chains and small and medium-sized enterprises, and I am delighted that the Government have committed to getting more small businesses into defence supply chains.
We have had very welcome news about Boxer. It is designed to transport troops to the frontline and was described as a “leader in its field” by the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, and of course he is absolutely right. Over the next 10 years, RBSL will build 260 Boxer vehicles—almost half the British Army’s fleet, I hasten to add—in Telford at the Hadley site. That contract, worth £860 million, will create and sustain 200-plus skilled jobs in the area, and probably more. RBSL officially received its manufacturing subcontract just a few weeks ago. That was a very welcome pre-Christmas present, but the real Christmas present would be if the Minister were to announce today that the life extension of Challenger 2 is going ahead, and that much of that programme will be required to be delivered in my constituency.
Of course, we have the integrated review at the moment, and it is important that we have it to look at the whole piece, covering defence, foreign policy, diplomacy and intelligence—the whole gamut of how Governments protect themselves and project their own values and interests around the world. Hybrid warfare, information technology, the National Cyber Force, which is now public, and unmanned aerial vehicles are all vital, but at the end of the day there is still a requirement for hard kit—not just boots on the ground, but metal on the ground too. I hope that that is metal in the form of Challenger having its life extended and being delivered in, of course, Shropshire. The Boxer vehicles will be delivered in 2023, so the timeframe is quite short, but I have absolutely no doubt that they will be delivered on time.
The contract has been secured for RBSL’s main upcoming programme—the mechanised infantry vehicle programme—and I understand from the research done by my office that the Challenger 2 life extension programme will support 60 local suppliers. Covid has had an impact, albeit at the moment not a huge impact, but every job lost in my constituency is a job loss too many. There have been job losses since March. We have seen an upward tick in job losses in the constituency, and it would be great to have new job announcements to fight those unemployment figures.
Lockheed Martin is in charge of Warrior, the fighting vehicle capability and sustainment programme. Locally, we are seeing more and more people in our universities, including Wolverhampton and the new university campus in Shrewsbury—not so much Harper Adams, because that is mostly agritech—and more young people in the region being interested in defence manufacturing and a career in defence. Another fresh, good announcement would help a lot of those young people to make the right career choice.
The life extension programme is a UK MOD programme to deliver the next generation of heavy armoured capability. It is important to put that the record, but I know the Minister knows that. The programme will deliver Challenger 3, a network-enabled digital main battle tank that will reinvigorate the UK’s and Shropshire’s design and engineering skills. That digital element is critical and feeds into other Government streams of thinking. As I am sure the British Army would say, it will deliver a world-class capability, generating significant export opportunities and support for global Britain, and the UK’s wider economic growth. The maintenance of Challenger 2 will be carried out by Babcock Defence Support Group, which supports my constituents.
The Minister kindly answered a question that I put to him at the last Defence questions. I will quote it back to him, which is always a novelty. He said:
“The proposition is now being worked up prior to a decision being taken on the investment case.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 557.]
I understand that we are in the midst of the timetable where such decisions are being made. I am pretty sure that this debate is being held after some of those important decisions, rather than before. Perhaps the timing of this debate is purely coincidental, but I would proffer that it is not. I hope the Minister is therefore in a position to enlighten the Chamber today on the progress of the life extension programme.
As the Minister will be aware, RBSL won the contract for the Fuchs chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear reconnaissance vehicles and training simulator earlier this year. It will sustain the British Army’s fleet of reconnaissance vehicles and the training simulator. The contract has been awarded. Again, Hadley is playing its part, sustaining hundreds of jobs. That vehicle, with its built-in detection equipment for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, is absolutely critical.
I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond. Of course, every Member of Parliament rightly defends and speaks out for their constituency, but it is a matter of fact that the defence engineering skill set and the geographical cluster of those skills—to use management speak—in Telford and Wrekin in Shropshire is there for everybody to see. It does not make sense, whatever advocacy make take place for other parts of the country, for this work to go elsewhere, only for companies to struggle to recruit or relocate a workforce.
I put the case that if the Ministry of Defence wants to move quickly on a programme that is vital for the UK armed forces and the British Army, which will be the user, it makes sense to deliver it where the skills are, where the workforce is committed and where there is a history of dedication to Her Majesty’s armed forces, both in uniform and out of uniform.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for calling this debate. He is an assiduous constituency MP. He is one of those people, to whom he referred, who will always advocate the cause of their constituency, but he is also one of my hon. Friends who serves on the Intelligence and Security Committee. He had a previous role with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and therefore knows the threats that we face, and the capabilities we need to meet those threats and deter them, both now and into the future.
It is a huge boon to my hon. Friend that he knows about the threats and capabilities, and that so many deterrents to them can be produced in the heart of Shropshire and in his constituency in particular, which combines great companies with tremendous skills, and an enthusiasm for embracing and supporting our armed forces in all their endeavours.
My hon. Friend referred to Boxer vehicles and the capabilities that they produce, which are just one good example. We look forward to bringing them into our armoury and helping to export them around the world. He touched on that, and we recognise it as a way we can help to drive forward the success of our sector in the future. We are currently the second biggest defence exporter in the world. We need to maintain that position to help ensure that we maintain research and development in our country, so that we continue to get the capabilities we need and to enhance those capabilities for the future.
My hon. Friend referred to the ventilator challenge and the work performed in his constituency. I recognise the fantastic achievements of the whole of the defence supply chain in supporting our great NHS throughout the pandemic. I highlight the work of everyone at the Defence Fulfilment Centre at Donnington in his constituency. I know that he knows it well. It has been the nerve centre and at the forefront of the logistics effort to provide vital equipment in support of the Department of Health and Social Care, including the supply of ventilators, to which he referred, and other critical medical equipment to the frontline.
The figures are astounding. Over the past seven months to November, more than 3.8 million items were handled by the defence supply chain, with the vast majority passing through Donnington. That includes over 20,000 ventilators, 70,000 pieces of equipment and over 3.7 million consumables. Those vital items have been moved and delivered across the length and breadth of the British Isles, from Belfast to Great Yarmouth, from Guernsey to NHS National Services Scotland. This has been a truly great endeavour in the face of adversity. I commend those people in defence across Shropshire, the west midlands and beyond who have risen to that vital challenge.
Donnington is just one of the valuable contributions Shropshire makes to defence. In addition to providing a central role in our pandemic response, the team at Donnington has continued, as has the rest of the defence team, to do the day job, processing 1.5 million requests, 135,000 trade receipts and 110,000 customer returns in the last 12 months for millions of items in support of our armed forces worldwide—a truly exceptional performance.
My hon. Friend referred to the broader footprint. The Royal Air Force has a significant footprint through its stations and operations at RAF Shawbury and RAF Cosford. That includes training around 200 personnel a year in basic and advanced rotary wing flying as part of the UK Military Flying Training System at Shawbury and the provision of world-class aeronautical engineering training to RAF and international students at RAF Cosford.
The school offers an extensive range of advanced apprenticeships spanning mechanical, avionics, weapons and survival equipment disciplines, from which around 2,000 aircraft engineers graduate each year. This investment in our people not only benefits defence, but sustains jobs and supports the local and wider regional economies. This is a classic example of how defence—in this case through its training school in Shropshire—provides vital skills to support our research and industrial base of the future.
More broadly, in 2018-19 we spent some £583 million in the west midlands, sustaining around 4,300 jobs, and Shropshire plays a vital role. In addition to the good work being undertaken by Kuehne+Nagel and Team Leidos at Donnington, Babcock Defence Support Group provides vital maintenance, overhaul and engineering support for our Warrior infantry fighting vehicles and other military vehicles at the Donnington site.
I would also highlight, as did my hon. Friend, the work being undertaken by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land—RBSL—at Telford in support of the Challenger 2 life extension programme and congratulate it on the recent award of a contract of £860 million to manufacture more than 260 Boxer vehicles at its Telford facility, as part of the £2.3 billion mechanised infantry vehicle programme, to deliver a state-of-the-art capability to equip the Army’s strike brigades. It is also under contract to modernise and support the British Army’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear reconnaissance vehicles.
My first industrial engagement as Minister for Defence Procurement was a pre-lockdown visit to RBSL in March this year. I was very impressed by the professionalism and dedication of the workforce in delivering for defence. I was especially delighted to meet RBSL apprentices, who showed real enthusiasm for their work in supporting our defence programmes. It is vital that we continue to seek to empower future generations through science, technology, engineering and mathematics to grow a dynamic, innovative economy.
Our investment in the UK defence industry is allowing us to do just that. Within RBSL, in addition to the excellent work of the STEM ambassador scheme, the Boxer vehicle sub-contract award will allow the company to provide work and training opportunities to more than 60 apprentices over the next five years, and may also provide further opportunities throughout the supply chain. RBSL’s £20 million investment in its Telford site will not only provide state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities, but support the company’s apprenticeship schemes by delivering a high standard of training, enabling apprentices to benefit from work-based learning and paths to formal qualifications. Those schemes and other similar initiatives will help to grow and sustain engineering and manufacturing skills in Shropshire and across the UK, ensuring that we can deliver for defence now and in the future.
My hon. Friend referred to other companies, which are there in legion, be it Caterpillar or GKN, supporting us directly or through the wider supply chain doing vital work such as that on the F-35, for which we are the only tier 1 partner of our American allies. I also recognise the work of small and medium-sized enterprises, who play a vital role in the UK defence industrial base. We want to harness their ingenuity and niche capabilities in providing and supporting battle-winning capabilities for our armed forces.
In 2019, we published an SME action plan and, to support that commitment, appointed SME champions at senior level within our 19 strategic suppliers. We are targeting 25% of our procurement spend to be with SMEs by 2022. We are making progress. SMEs accounted for over 19% of the MOD’s procurement spend in 2018-19, representing some £3.9 billion, which was a significant increase on the previous year and the third year in a row in which the proportion of funds going to SMEs rose.
SMEs working in Shropshire provide valuable support to a varied range of defence activities. Air Covers Ltd is manufacturing and supplying canopy covers for the Typhoon combat aircraft fleet and Skylaunch Ltd is providing glider winches for our air cadets, among many others. Alongside our support to SMEs, we continue our internal programmes of transformation and reform, allowing us to work better with the defence industry to deliver what defence needs now and in the future. That includes leading the cross-Government review of the UK’s defence and security sectors, continued investment to manage and enhance the resilience of our supply chains, and improving the pace and agility of our acquisition processes. We are also taking the opportunity offered by our departure from the EU to develop defence and security procurement regulations tailored to better meet the UK’s needs.
We can be positive about the future, underpinned by the huge boost to defence recently announced by the Prime Minister. The four-year settlement to which my hon. Friend made reference amounts to an extra £24 billion —including at least £6.6 billion for R&D—and provides us with the opportunity to modernise and compete effectively in the digitised battlefield and, above all, deter. As one of the biggest defence spenders in the world, our investment already injects over £19 billion into our industry every year right the way across the United Kingdom, securing thousands of jobs and growing opportunities across the whole nation. The settlement will allow us to build on that and provide new opportunities across the supply chain, helping the country to build back better from the pandemic by supporting UK skills, jobs and industry.
It came as no surprise that, on the back of the Prime Minister’s excellent announcement of a multi-year spending review, my hon. Friend inquired about specific procurement exercises that I know from his previous questions are at the front of his mind and are of interest more broadly in Shropshire. On his ask for an early Christmas present, I am afraid it will come as a disappointment—but probably no surprise—that I cannot be drawn on those specific issues at this time. However, I am aware of both the capability enhancements and prosperity benefits elucidated. I am grateful to him for giving us yet another opportunity to raise them in the House, and I look forward to being able to say more in due course.
Defence is part of the fabric of the UK. Through our defence industries both big and small, the UK supports our armed forces with the equipment they need to get the job done, provide our security and keep us safe. I am convinced that the Government’s funding commitment to defence will secure the long-term future of our defence industry both in Shropshire and across all the regions and all four nations of the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Winter Homelessness Support
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the homeless during the winter months.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I am grateful that I have been able to secure this debate to discuss support for the homeless as we head into Christmas and the winter months. I am delighted that so many hon. Members are keen to take part in the debate and represent their constituents’ concerns. I hope that I speak for us all, no matter what our political affiliation, when I say that we want the issues of rough sleeping and homelessness to be solved. We all aspire to the same end goal—to see homelessness assigned to the history books.
I am extremely proud that one of the Government’s main priorities is to end rough sleeping by 2024. As hon. Members will be aware, the issues surrounding rough sleeping and homelessness are acute in central London, and particularly in my constituency. We need only step outside this building to witness the problems, and the scale of the challenge that we face. I receive regular correspondence from businesses and residents who are concerned for the welfare of rough sleepers, so today I want to focus my concern on the first stages of supporting those who sleep rough on the streets into a bed and the right support environment. Other colleagues may want to discuss later stages of the journey, such as moving individuals into settled accommodation, but for me and my constituents the major concern is to support people off the streets in the first place.
It is important that we understand the different cohorts of rough sleepers on the streets. Today I am speaking specifically about Westminster, which has more rough sleepers than any borough in the country. The latest overnight count in Westminster took place in November. It provided a snapshot of the night-time street population. On count night, Westminster found 242 people sleeping rough. Of those, just under half were UK or Irish nationals. The rest represented a wide range of nationalities, but substantially the remainder were eastern European. Beyond nationality there are many underlying causes for people finding themselves on the street.
From my previous experience of being responsible for rough sleeping policy in Westminster, and my long association with charities such as St Mungo’s and The Passage, there are generally three main cohorts of rough sleepers in Westminster. First, there are those suffering with acute mental health or addiction issues. They are often mistrustful of the support that is offered, having been let down by society throughout their life, and refuse to engage with outreach teams. The second cohort is economic migrants, who may choose to sleep outside or in a tent in order to save their earnings, which they send back to their families. They often have no recourse to public funds, owing to their nationality, so help from local authorities eludes them anyway. The third cohort is those who are suffering at the hands of gangmasters as modern-day slaves. Some will have been brought here against their will to beg, to be forced into prostitution or to commit crime. Many are brought here under false pretences with promises of accommodation, only for that not to materialise.
Allow me to outline what support I believe should be considered if we are to end rough sleeping for good. First, for those suffering from mental health and addiction issues the answer is clear. We need to offer greater social care and specialist medical support alongside the safety of a bed. I am proud that Westminster City Council has more than 400 beds for rough sleepers on any given night. However, I have spoken in depth with the council and the charities involved, and it is now clear to me that what is needed is sustained and long-term support, attached to that bed—an addiction counsellor, psychiatric help and medical support for those who have suffered after years of sleeping rough.
The current pandemic has shown that when central and local government works together, much can be achieved. During the first lockdown, the Everyone In strategy saw 90% of those on the street brought in. With integrated services available, many accepted the mental health and addiction help provided as part of the covid-19 support. A bed is one thing, but without the support services attached, it will not change much for those in desperate need.
I am therefore delighted that the Government clearly understand the importance of tackling mental health and addiction. The extra help for rough sleepers with dependency issues announced this week, including £1.1 million to Westminster for addiction support, clearly shows that Ministers now understand the importance of tackling the causes—why so many find themselves on the street. If we are to end rough sleeping, however, that funding must continue. Tackling the causes of rough sleeping takes long-term, sustainable funding.
Secondly, if the Government are to achieve their goal of ending rough sleeping, they must also repeal the Vagrancy Act. Much has been spoken about repealing that out-of-date legislation, but it is now time for action. The Vagrancy Act, passed in 1824, is simply not fit for purpose. It fails to address the acute 21st-century problems that public sector agencies and charities work tirelessly to deal with among the street population.
Rather than seek to help those on the street, the Vagrancy Act criminalises them. Sadly, in some desperate cases, the Vagrancy Act is the last resort to take people off the street and into the support that they need, albeit that requires police intervention. In place of the Act, I would like to see legislation that allows for assertive outreach that puts protection, not criminality, at its heart. So many on the street present with complex needs and do not have the mental health capacity to make the decision, for their own wellbeing, to accept the help on offer.
Does the woman sleeping in an underpass not far from here, with maggots growing out of her leg but consistently refusing help to come inside, really have the mental capacity? Has the time come to overhaul the mental health threshold for those on the street, to allow outreach workers to make the decision on their behalf? The alternative is the status quo, which allows people to remain on the street, failing to address their serious mental health problems. I am not a great believer in state intervention, but were my son or daughter on the street with serious addiction or mental health problems, I would want to know that society has the levers available to make the decision for them, for their own wellbeing, and possibly to save their life.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I recall sitting outside Charing Cross station watching a guy drink water from a puddle like a dog, and up to several thousand people passed him before anyone did anything about it. Likewise, kids in the summer have a bit of a party and take loads of drugs, but the weather changes and they are addicted. They need to be got off the streets before what started as a party ends as a nightmare. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Nickie Aiken
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
As I want to ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak in this debate, I do not have time to go into the detail that discussion of the other issues faced by economic migrants and modern-day slaves who find themselves on the street would deserve, but I will turn to them briefly. Their issues are as complex as those of people dealing with health and addiction issues, especially as agencies are often hampered in the support that they can offer because foreign nationals may not have access to public funds.
To help those cohorts requires much greater co-ordination across government, between the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local authorities. In the case of modern-day slaves, those people desperately need our support, but the difficulty in law is how to criminalise their gangmasters without criminalising those who have been trafficked on to our streets. What support or help should we offer them? Would they like to return home? Should we help them return home? Such matters can only be truly addressed by a deeper and honest conversation across Government, local authorities and the charity sector.
For too long the elephant in the room has been the issue of the “no recourse to public funds” category and whether to suspend it—a difficult decision, I recognise, but one that does need addressing. As I have highlighted, the issues around rough sleeping are complex and there are no easy answers. If we are to achieve the Government’s laudable aim to end rough sleeping, greater support for health and addiction issues, and a reassessment of both the Vagrancy Act and the no recourse to public funds rules are all required.
I recognise and welcome the increased focus and funding that the Government have provided to local authorities to support rough sleeping this year. The Government are clearly determined to end rough sleeping and I look forward to providing support to Ministers to achieve our shared goal. I look forward to the contributions of Members and the Minister’s response.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind all right hon. and hon. Members to respect the one-way system, to sanitise microphones using the cleaning materials, and to dispose of the materials in the bin. I think we have enough room so that people can sit in the horseshoe. I suggest a four-minute time limit, so that everybody can come in. I will call the wind-ups just before 10 past 5, if that is all right. I call Stephen Timms.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing the debate, and I agree with a great deal of what she had to say. Like her, I see what is happening around Westminster. I came in via the Embankment this morning and it is impossible to miss the tents under Hungerford bridge, where a growing number of people seem to be making their homes. It shames all of us that in this city so many are sleeping rough in that way.
The one policy that could deal with that effectively is a substantial programme of investment in social housing. I recognise that Ministers are sincere in wanting to end the scourge of rough sleeping, and I acknowledge the commitment that the Government have made. In reality, we are not going to end rough sleeping without a substantial programme of new social house building. I see no sign of that happening. Without it, we are not going to end rough sleeping.
I particularly want to pay tribute to the network of church-based homelessness night shelters in London that operate in winter. At least one has been set up in every London borough. Seven or 14 churches take it in turns to gather volunteers to provide a hot meal, a bed and some breakfast to rough sleepers, one night per week. In past years, for hundreds of people it has been the only alternative to sleeping rough. I pay tribute to Housing Justice, which supports their work and liaises between them and the Mayor of London.
I welcome the imaginative support that the Minister’s Department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has been providing to that network lately. This year the network are working on alternative covid-safe provision. Unavoidably, that means less capacity. I think the Department has provided about £2 million to support their work, to enable them to operate in a covid-safe way. I commend the Department and the night shelters. Last February, St Paul’s Cathedral hosted a service to celebrate their work and to thank the hundreds of volunteers who keep them going. Everybody there will have agreed with the Bishop of Edmonton, the chair of Housing Justice, who was the preacher, that volunteers should not have to do that work.
I want to refer to a point that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster highlighted in her opening speech about people with leave to remain in the UK but no recourse to public funds. The Local Government Association brief for this debate highlights the large number seen by councils who, their work stopped because of the pandemic, are unable to claim benefits because of the no recourse to public funds condition, and who face homelessness and destitution. Expectations on councils to support people with NRPF have changed during the pandemic. Councils are obliged in law to support families and adults with care and support needs, but not others. Local welfare funds, provided through councils, are not available to those with NRPF.
The Minister’s Department rightly made it clear at the outset that councils should provide shelter for people sleeping rough, even if those people had no recourse to public funds. However, the legal unclarity has made matters harder, and sadly the enlightenment of the Minister’s Department has not been emulated by the Home Office. Government guidance has not been updated on what assistance can be accessed by people with no recourse to public funds. So, will the Minister press her colleagues in the Home Office to do what the Women and Equalities Committee—a Committee chaired by a former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)— recommended unanimously in its report published yesterday, and suspend the no recourse to public funds restriction for the duration of the pandemic?
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing the debate. She actually knows what she is talking about in this regard, having grappled with the centre of gravity for street homelessness in our national life.
What is street homelessness? To me, street homelessness has almost nothing to do with housing. In my experience—I have got some; I reckon that I have spent four and a half to five months of my life living on the streets of various cities, here and in the United States—street homelessness is actually a health issue. We are only ever going to deal with the problem if the Government understand that, and if the fabulous Minister present today were to spend most of her time in the Department of Health.
Street homelessness is about mental health or about addiction, and very often a combination of the two. I know that the media and lots of us in all parties in the House like to present homelessness as the fault of the evil Government of x hue or y hue, and of the evil bedroom tax, and benefit cuts, or whatever else. In my experience, there are people on the streets who would fit into that category, and I am in no doubt that there are tens of thousands of homeless people in the so-called sofa-surfing arena, but of the street homeless people, only a tiny number fit in that category. Everybody else is drug-addicted or mentally ill.
Actually, I would add a new thing that had not occurred to me until the Minister mentioned state intervention just now, because there is another thing that the street homeless have in common—including the lady with maggots, who I have not met yet but will seek out—and that is that they no longer have family or friends who are interested in them.
I am all for the small state, but I actually agree with the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the state has got to take a bigger role in the lives of this really relatively small number of people—possibly 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 people nationally, but obviously that figure twirls around. I think we need to ensure that.
The other observation that I will make—again I agree with the right hon. Member for East Ham—is that ultimately, of course, lack of housing is going to impact the people at the very, very bottom, and we need to sort that out; but we should also be mindful that we are increasing our population, and we still are under this Government, to the tune of 1 million people every three years.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing today’s debate. I absolutely agree with everything that she and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said about social housing need. Investment in social housing is absolutely imperative.
A year ago, I was elected on a promise to end rough sleeping in Hastings and Rye by the end of this Parliament, and to prevent homelessness—a promise to local residents that I intend to keep. I am pleased that although we have been battered and bashed by covid-19, the Government have not lost sight of their desire to ensure that we support the most vulnerable and eradicate rough sleeping once and for all. The determination to live up to that promise is clear in the actions that have been taken throughout the covid-19 pandemic to help and support rough sleepers and the homeless.
There was the initial funding of £3.2 million given to local authorities in March for the Everyone In campaign to help get rough sleepers off the streets as coronavirus spread. To ensure that rough sleepers do not return to the streets after the pandemic, the Government launched the Next Steps accommodation programme, which provides funding of more than £250 million to local authorities and their partners in 2020-21 for short and medium-term accommodation solutions, and also more than £150 million to 276 schemes for longer-term accommodation solutions.
This winter the Government have announced masses of funding and a welcome package to protect rough sleepers over the winter months. All told, over this pandemic and into the winter, the Government have allocated more than £700 million in ring-fenced funding to support rough sleepers and those at risk of rough sleeping. In Hastings we have an acute issue with rough sleeping. The local authority has one of the highest rates of rough sleeping in our region, having increased from three in 2010 to 48 people sleeping on the streets in 2018. That increase is deeply concerning, but it is not just the raw numbers that alarm me; it is also the way in which we approach the issue.
The best thing we can do is to offer rough sleepers and those registered as homeless Housing First with full wraparound support. Too often, I have heard of cases of rough sleepers being taken off the streets and put into temporary, insecure and poor quality accommodation and simply left there. I want to see a proper series of interventions that provide more secure quality accommodation, access to health services to deal with any addictions, health concerns or mental illness, and also support with skills training and employability advice to help sustain tenancies and get rough sleepers off the cold, wintry streets and back on their feet, standing tall with a future to look on with hope and pride.
Too often we have sought quick wins in short-term solutions. We need to make sure that we have a long-term plan with the funding. I am pleased with the support and the emphasis that the Government have put on supporting local authorities and organisations to help the most vulnerable, but, going forward, we need a more holistic approach to tackling the underlying causes of rough sleeping to really give these people a fresh start.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this important debate.
In January, I delivered my maiden speech on homelessness, and it seems appropriate to return to the subject for what is likely to be my final contribution of 2020. Much has changed since then. The country has found itself under attack from an invisible and previously unknown enemy. While the public were urged to stay at home, local authorities and third sector organisations leapt into action to ensure that no one was left on the streets. Thanks to their tireless efforts, countless lives were saved, but the Government failed to capitalise on that success. Decisive action was needed to end the scourge of homelessness forever. Instead, the funding dried up and people were sent back on to the streets once again.
As we draw closer to the longest night of the year with the temperatures set to plummet, we find ourselves once again debating support for homeless people. The scale of the crisis was demonstrated by the recent news that 778 homeless people died in 2019. That was a 7% increase on the year before and the highest number since the Office for National Statistics began to monitor cases in 2013.
Every single one of those deaths is a tragedy, and those of us who have the great privilege of serving here must ensure that that awful death toll is never repeated. Local authorities must be given the resources that they need to provide rough sleepers with safe, self-contained accommodation this winter. I am deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to reopen communal night shelters over the Christmas period, a decision that has been criticised by Crisis and more than 16 other housing and health charities.
Homeless people are far more likely to suffer from underlying health conditions that make them more vulnerable to covid-19. They should not be forced to choose between spending a night freezing on the streets or jeopardising their health in communal accommodation. We also need to take steps to prevent people driven into poverty by the combined threat of deprivation and covid from becoming yet more involuntary recruits to the ranks of the homeless this winter and every winter to come.
I welcome the Government’s decision to extend the ban on evictions until 11 January, but with cases rising across the country and joblessness soaring, it is imperative that the ban is extended until we have decisively won the war on covid. I also urge the Government to listen to leading housing charities and remove the benefit cap, end the freeze on local housing allowance and strengthen financial support for those at risk of homelessness. Support must be made available for everyone who needs it, regardless of nationality or immigration status. That means ending once and for all the punitive and discriminatory policy of no recourse to public funds.
The housing crisis must be tackled head on. For far too long, successive Governments have failed to address the pressing need to build secure and affordable housing. There are more than 1.2 million people on the waiting list for social housing, but a mere 5,000 new homes were built last year. That has left millions of people in precarious housing situations, paying sky-high rents that spiral ever upwards while wages spiral down.
Today, almost half of private renters are just one pay cheque away from homelessness. That has to change. More than ever, we need an ambitious house building programme that delivers the high-quality, affordable housing stock that our country desperately needs. We need to end the disastrous right to buy programme, which for decades has prevented local authorities from building much-needed council houses. I believe that council house building on a scale similar to that of the post-war years is the best way to end the scourge of homelessness and the shameful shortage of decent homes.
Our ambition should match the needs of our country. Our reward will be more stable and prosperous communities, homes to be proud of and an end to the tragedy of human beings being forced to live their lives on the streets and taking shelter beneath cardboard boxes.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to join this debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness, I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate.
A year ago, the Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to end rough sleeping in this Parliament. That is a welcome and ambitious agenda. This year, they could go some way to meeting that target through Everyone In, which is estimated to have helped 30,000 people.
We should put on the record our gratitude to charities such as St Mungo’s, which operates in Southwark, and councils such as the London borough of Southwark for all the support they have given in this difficult period. Southwark has helped 799 people, and at one point was providing help to more than one third of all those accommodated in the entire capital city.
That 30,000 figure follows the Government claim in January that there were only 5,000 rough sleepers in the country. My first question to the Minister is: when will the Government implement a new, robust measurement, rather than that finger-in-the-air approach? During Everyone In, Combined Homelessness and Information Network stats showed that there were still 3,500 people sleeping on the streets from July, so has the Minister done an assessment of why that was happening that can be shared with the House?
One of the reasons that has been identified today is no recourse to public funds. The Government simply are not funding everyone. Ten per cent. of those helped in the London borough of Southwark had no recourse to public funds. Is that figure the same nationally, Minister? Will the Government fix the misnomer of Everyone In and actually fund everyone? Will the Minister acknowledge that it is cheaper to cancel the no recourse to public funds restrictions than to require councils, using public money, to spend more on emergency accommodation?
We should recognise that Everyone In has saved lives. One study published in The Lancet suggested that 266 deaths, more than 21,000 infections and more than 1,000 hospital admissions had been avoided, so it has saved lives and saved the NHS from being overwhelmed. That safety-first approach needs to continue.
Southwark is using the Robes Project—a fantastic organisation—to provide self-contained rooms this winter, because communal shelters cannot operate due to the risk of covid. Will the Government also commit to funding safe accommodation for everyone this winter? I ask that because their cold weather fund, which has already been announced, is £3 million lower this year than it was last year, despite the covid risks, the higher costs and the growing risk of not just becoming homeless but being homeless.
We have just heard about the ONS figures, which were published on Monday, that show that there is a greater risk of dying on our streets. It was 778 last year—up 7% on the previous year. An extra person every week dies on our streets. That is the highest ever figure. It rose last year and is very likely to jump again in 2021 if the Government do not act now. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what specific measures are being adopted to tackle the problem of people dying on our streets.
That is a legitimate question. Look at the situation we face: not just covid, but the rise in unemployment, the return of evictions and the continued lack of support for people facing hostile environment policies. To put some numbers on that, nearly 67,000 people approached English local authorities for homelessness assistance between April and June this year. That figure is likely to rise further in the next statistics. The Government need to recognise the scale of the problem, and fully resource councils to respond to and manage the volume they are seeing. A failure to act will mean not just a missed manifesto target, but that councils and charities are overwhelmed, that covid infections will rise, and that there will be more deaths on our streets. That will be the brutal reality if the Government fail to act.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Miller, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate.
I cannot think of many things worse than being homeless. Maybe it is not surprising that homeless people are three and a half times more likely to commit suicide than the general population. The suicide rate among rough sleepers is estimated to have increased by 30% in just 12 months, and Birmingham has recorded 25 homeless deaths over a 12-month period—not all of them suicides, but that is the second highest rate in the country. More people will almost certainly perish on our streets this winter. In Birmingham, over 3,500 house- holds are homeless, living in temporary accommodation, which includes bed and breakfasts and some pretty grim hotels. Some 16,000 households are on the Birmingham housing register.
It is not a lack of will that causes these problems. We saw during the Everyone In programme what can be achieved, and I really admire the energy and determination of Birmingham Councillor Sharon Thompson in trying to make a difference. However, we need a more joined-up response, and we need to agree that homelessness is as much of an evil as hunger or disease. I do not wish to strike a discordant note in this debate, but I was slightly surprised by the emphasis that the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster and for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) placed on people’s social problems, at a time when so many prominent voices in the Tory party have been promoting Housing First as a policy. I would be really interested to hear from the Minister whether there is a view on that.
Birmingham is a generous city, and The Birmingham Mail’s #BrumWish campaign has raised money from its readers for more than 2,000 presents for children living in homeless accommodation this Christmas. However, we cannot solve homelessness with donations: we need action to address the lack of affordable housing. Private rents in Birmingham are already too high, and with the economic uncertainty that lies ahead, there will be a further increase in homelessness unless some practical measures to address exorbitant rents are introduced.
Adam Holloway
I totally get the hon. Gentleman’s point about 60,000 people on waiting lists, emergency accommodation and everything else, but this is what we always do. We are always conflating the homelessness of the sorts of people the hon. Gentleman is talking about with the street homeless, who are sometimes used as a thing to batter Government with. I think there is a very big difference between the entrenched street homeless and the sorts of people that the hon. Gentleman is describing. They are different, and we will not help the street homeless or our cohorts unless we accept that there is a difference between the two groups.
Steve McCabe
I guess my point is that we should be helping both. I would say it is as simple as that: I do not really want to divide and separate these people, but to help both groups.
We also need strengthened arrangements to prevent developers wriggling out of obligations to provide affordable housing by fiddling figures to disguise their real profit margins at the expense of homeless people. That is what is happening in my city, and I will wager that it is happening up and down the country. As the Minister will know, too many people in Birmingham and elsewhere are placed in expensive and dodgy exempt accommodation, draining the public purse of money that could be put to much better use in tackling homelessness on both of these fronts. We should be dealing with the people on the streets, but if a child is sharing a bed with their three sisters and mother in a bed-and-breakfast house in Birmingham, they do not have much of a future, either.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this very important debate.
The covid-19 pandemic has hugely impacted so much of our lives. Many people are now facing redundancy and financial hardship. This public health crisis proves now more than ever that ending homelessness and rough sleeping should be a priority. Obviously, housing and homelessness is a devolved topic, but by virtue of our third party obligations here, we are compelled to take part in the debates. This has been an interesting debate, and I want to offer just a few thoughts on what happens in Scotland—and not by any means to say that we are doing this better, because I think that homelessness is a blight on all of us. I do not think any of us would disagree that one person homeless is one too many. But certainly in Scotland, the SNP has ensured that Scots have some of the strongest homelessness rights in the world. They mean that anyone who is experiencing or even at risk of homelessness is entitled to receive help from the local authority, including accommodation.
The SNP is clear on the fact that a settled home is vital in supporting people to have a happy and healthy life. That is why the Scottish Government are investing £32.5 million, which is more than half their £50-million Ending Homelessness Together fund, to support local authorities to prioritise settled accommodation for all.
In addition to more investment, this year the Scottish Government, along with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, published an updated “Ending Homelessness Together” action plan, and one of the most significant recommendations in the action plan is the phasing out of night shelters in Scotland. Night shelters will be replaced with rehousing welcome centres for people who would otherwise be sleeping rough this winter. The centres will provide emergency accommodation, and people using the centres will be offered targeted support, including for wellbeing, health and social care issues, legal rights, employment and welfare. I think that that will be life changing for people experiencing homelessness.
The Scottish Government have also announced a £100-million package of further measures to alleviate the social harms caused by the covid-19 pandemic. That includes £5 million to help those at risk of homelessness to find a settled home. As part of the £100 million, Scotland’s winter plan for social protection includes £15 million of flexible funding for local authorities entering covid-19 protection level 4, which Glasgow has just been in. That can be used to pay for food and essentials.
It is clear that UK Home Office policies are causing people to face destitution and homelessness over the winter months. My party and I remain very concerned that the Home Office plans to deport non-UK nationals who are sleeping rough. That is clearly a very inhumane and backward policy. I am afraid that those actions will undermine the UK Government’s commitment to end rough sleeping in England, alongside undermining the vital work of the devolved Administrations to help those most vulnerable during the pandemic.
The issue of no recourse to public funds has come up this afternoon. Likewise, the SNP Government have repeatedly called on the UK Government to suspend the no-recourse-to-public-funds policy and enable people to access public services, including health advice, during the coronavirus pandemic. The Scottish Government will continue to extend support to people with no recourse to public funds where possible, but it would be good to have action by the UK Government on that as well.
On 16 November, the Scottish Government announced a further £278,000 of funding for six organisations supporting people subject to NRPF. The grants will support projects in Edinburgh and Glasgow that are helping people subject to the UK Government’s policy, which imposes conditions on someone because of their immigration status and restricts access to welfare, housing and financial support. I think we would all agree that coronavirus is not something that respects people’s immigration status—I will leave the Minister to reflect on that.
Despite the measures put in place by the Scottish Government, this area of work and pensions policy is clearly reserved to Westminster, and I think that that brings us to the crux of the issue, because until Scotland is an independent country, it is an inescapable reality that—
Neil Coyle
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming on to this, but perhaps he could outline what the SNP Government are doing to tackle drug deaths in Scotland, given the alarming figures that we have seen for Scotland—they are higher than average—and given the prevalence of such deaths in the homeless community.
David Linden
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I am a Glasgow MP and the drug death figures in Scotland are totally and utterly unacceptable. More action is needed on that and I will not hide from that fact. If the UK Government are unwilling to take action on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, they should devolve those powers to the Scottish Parliament—that would be very helpful.
Politicians not just in Scotland, but right across the UK, have got to have a very difficult conversation. It is a brave thing for politicians to stand up and say, “Perhaps look at moving to safe consumption rooms, as they have done in many parts of the world.” If we want to tackle the drugs issue, it should be above party politics. UK Government Ministers are going to have to come to the very difficult decision about something like what we see in Portugal, Australia and Germany. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) is right to put that on the record. The drugs death issue has been forgotten about during this public health crisis.
The covid-19 pandemic has proven to us all just how utterly tragic this Government have been at handling a crisis. With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit on the horizon, I dread to think how much worse it could get for the poorest people in our society.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on her commitment to ending homelessness and on the skills and knowledge evident in her speech. We have had a thorough and impassioned debate, rightly so, but I hardly know where to start. We have had these debates before and I am sure the Minister can already guess some of the things I am going to say—but I think they bear repetition.
Government MPs made my point for me when they called for better funding for mental health and for drug and alcohol addiction services. The fact that those services are lacking and that we need to fund them is a sign of what has happened over the last 10 years. It is also an illustration of the fact that acts have consequences. When Governments take decisions in—let’s just pick a year at random—2010, the consequences can be felt 10 years on. They still are. They are outside the door here and they are on the streets of Bristol, Rochester and Strood and Westminster. They are on the streets in all our constituencies, but they are also—it is related—in temporary accommodation across the country. The two things are related; it should not be either/or.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said, living in temporary accommodation is a bad way to live. It is bad for children and it is bad for children’s education. Across the country today, 130,000 children will be living in a place where there is not only usually nowhere suitable to cook a safe, healthy meal, let alone a celebratory one, but where there is no way to do homework, where there is no wi-fi signal, where they will fall behind in school. That will hurt us all.
That child who is falling behind in school because of their time in temporary accommodation could be the child that develops a cure for cancer, or comes up with some radical way of improving environmental cleanliness, or something—anything. We are going to lose out on their potential, because they are falling behind because they are homeless. That is a consequence of Government decision making.
I will touch briefly on rough sleeping and then on other forms of homelessness. First, I have some questions for the Minister. How much exactly of the Protect programme and the cold weather fund has made it out of the door, as of today? As I understand it, although the £15 million Protect programme was announced and a £10 million cold weather fund was announced, on Monday only £9.8 million of the Protect programme had been allocated. Why not the rest of the money—the other £5.2 million?
Have councils actually got the cold weather fund in their hands? It is cold already. The Government worked well with councils and charities in March to bring everybody in, but it is colder now and there is less money, and my council and councillors across the country are telling us of their struggle to keep going.
Rough sleeping is the tip of an iceberg; I know the Minister will expect me to say this, but I believe it to be true—it is the sharp end of a broken housing system with escalating private rents, widening inequality of income and people in insecure jobs who get into difficulties the minute disaster strikes because they have never been able to save money because their income is so unstable.
There is a chronic lack of supply. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned, there is no way of solving homelessness without addressing supply and, equally, there is no way of addressing supply without addressing social housing—truly affordable housing, council housing or housing association housing, with support. The system we have at the moment is being exploited in cities across the country, where exempt accommodation, although sometimes run very well, is often run badly. It is paid for from the public purse. This is not just an issue of morality. There is also the issue of cost.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am very aware of time, because I know the Minister has a lot to say. I will continue, if the hon. Member will allow; he has intervened on various speakers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) rightly highlighted the number of people who die while homeless. Pioneering work in my city of Bristol by the journalist Michael Yong showed the humanity behind every one of those stories as well as, I am afraid to say, showing that they were preventable deaths. A policy failure lay behind almost every case.
Too often homelessness, particularly street homelessness, is seen as a sad but inevitable fact of life or a moral failing on the part of the person who is homeless, and it is neither. It is a consequence of decisions taken by Governments. It can go up, but it can also go down. We must make it go down and end it. I am talking about not just street homelessness, but making sure that the underlying causes of wider homelessness are tackled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to her work and passion in this area, which I have felt strongly in the couple of months that I have been in post. I also pay tribute to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), whose direct experience in the area—he probably has more than many hon. Members present—and long-standing passion to target work on the issue is inspirational.
I thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for his work with the APPG. As he knows, I look forward to working with him on some of the challenges. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken the time to speak on behalf of their constituents for the passion with which they have made their arguments, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), with whom I have had several conversations already about a number of issues. Again, I commit to working with him on the things that concern him.
I know that many of these issues are close to hon. Members’ hearts. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) rightly highlighted the release on Monday of death stats of people who have sadly and tragically died in emergency accommodation or on the streets. Today’s debate is key because in 2019, two in five of those poor individuals, which equates to 289 people, lost their lives due to drug poisoning, and 112 people lost their lives due to suicide. I will not name the individual, because I have not checked with his mother before speaking, but I lost a primary school friend last year for that reason. For many years, he had been part of the rough sleeping fraternity in my community that I have worked with. I am not ignorant of the challenges that those individuals face on the streets, which is why I am pleased to be in this role in Government.
It is unacceptable that people should be without a roof over their head during the cold winter months. Winter poses a number of new challenges for rough sleepers and for those who work tirelessly to support them. That is why we have put in place measures to ensure that local authorities can protect vulnerable people this winter and meet the challenges of the coming months.
In October, we announced a comprehensive winter support package for rough sleepers, which gives local areas the tools that they need to protect individuals from life-threatening cold weather and covid. It included the £10 million winter fund, which is available to all local authorities to protect rough sleepers. Those vital funds are being used to bring forward self-contained accommodation to support rough sleepers off the streets.
We understand the role that faith and community-led accommodation plays in local authority pathways out of homelessness during winter. Like the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and others, I pay tribute to the voluntary sector and our faith and community-led organisations that do so much to support the work of Government and that work directly with those individuals. That is why we have been working with Public Health England to provide the operating principles that enable shelters to open as safely as possible. We have been clear, however, that night shelters should be used only where absolutely necessary—based on a detailed covid-19 risk assessment, to protect against the risk to health and life of individuals remaining on the streets—and when there is no alternative: in cold weather, for example.
Local authorities and shelter providers have been working together to offer self-contained accommodation options to users. We expect to see a reduced number of shelters opening this year. To address that, we have created the £2 million homelessness winter transformation fund, to help the faith, community and voluntary sector groups move away from their traditional communal models. They have been providing more innovative solutions, and I am pleased to update Members about how there have been some innovative and exciting bids from the voluntary, faith and community sector. Homeless Link has also been able to add £1.3 million to the fund from the national lottery and Comic Relief, increasing the budget to meet demands. The successful applicants will get notice of their grants ahead of Christmas.
In response to national restrictions, the Protect programme was launched. It provides £50 million in targeted support to address the housing and health needs of rough sleepers during the winter months. Local authorities are already delivering those key services. The Protect programme involves intensive work with a number of local authorities, including Westminster and the Greater London Authority. The additional funding is bringing forward new provision, including additional off-the-street emergency accommodation and a pan-London covid-care facility, which will save lives.
To answer the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) directly about allocations and whether those funds are with authorities, I should say that we are working with the areas in most need. We are working with them to agree forward plans, and those funds will be issued as soon as we are able. Ultimately, however, the authorities that we are having those conversations and agreeing those plans with have the assurance of the delivery of that work. We are working with councils up and down the country. We have asked local areas to update their rough sleeping and severe weather plans, so that the measures will ensure that the wider sector has the resource to protect rough sleepers not only from severe cold weather but from the risks of covid.
I remind Members that such programmes do not sit in isolation. Many have mentioned the success of the Everyone In campaign, so I will not restate the figures, but we supported more than 29,000 vulnerable people during it.
Kelly Tolhurst
Sorry, but I want to make some progress and tackle some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol West.
In October, we announced allocations to local partners for move-on accommodation—3,300 new long-term homes—building on the assets of local councils to deliver accommodation into the future. That is part of a broader package to deliver 6,000 homes.
As has rightly been mentioned today, rough sleepers require specialised wrap-around support, with stable accommodation on top of that. That is why on Monday I announced the allocation to the substance misuse programme, which will deliver £23 million to the 43 priority areas with the highest level of need, including three pan-London projects. Those vital funds will provide the specialist support needed to enable people sleeping rough with substance misuse to rebuild their lives off the street and to move towards longer-term accommodation.
Here, I will say that I absolutely understand the link between mental health and substance misuse with regards to dealing with the impact on some of our most entrenched rough sleepers, and the challenges not only for the people who work with rough sleepers but, obviously, to the long-term success of being able to get those individuals into accommodation. That is why I am pleased with the work, and looking forward to the outcomes, of the Housing First pilots, which are operating around the country, and their continuation. We hope to build the strong argument in this country in order to make that argument across Government, so that we can roll out as much of it as we can.
I will speak quickly about no recourse to public funds. Obviously, we know that rough sleepers’ immigration status is an issue. The rules in relation to the legal position have not changed. Local authorities must use their judgment in assessing what support they may lawfully give to each person on an individual basis, considering the person’s specific needs and circumstances. We know that local authorities regularly make such judgments on accommodating individuals, when, for example, there is extreme weather or a risk to life. Of course, I understand that that is an issue for many local authorities and for hon. Members. I have had conversations already with the leader of Westminster City Council in relation to this particular challenge, and they are continuing. I am also speaking to the Home Office, and will continue to work to build clarity in the system for councils.
I want to touch quickly on substance misuse. I sent a “Dear colleague” letter to colleagues across the House on Monday, including the results of a survey on rough sleepers—the first of its kind, where we got data directly from rough sleepers. It showed that 82% have a mental health vulnerability, and 60% are affected by substance misuse. Obviously, that is not a complete picture, but it is the first data that we have had directly from the individuals who are suffering.
We announced the £23 million on Monday, but next year that will be supported by £52 million. I absolutely understand the link between rough sleeping and some of the health challenges, and in my role I cannot say I have all the answers now, but I can give a commitment to work across Government with colleagues to tackle some of the issues. Mental health is a major part of that, and obviously we already have £30 million of funding for mental health services that is being delivered by the Department of Health and Social Care.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 is a complex issue, of concern to many Members. We know from our engagement with stakeholders that there are diverging views about the necessity for and relevance of the Act, which is why the Government believe a review is the right course of action. We are looking at options including retention, repeal, replacement and amendment. I have already started to look at the issue in detail, but at the heart of the review will be the experiences and perceptions of a range of stakeholders, including the homelessness sector, the police, local authorities and business representatives. Work is ongoing, and the Government will be giving updates on the findings in due course. I look forward to working with Members, but I reiterate that the Government continue to be clear that we will not criminalise, and do not want to criminalise, individuals who are rough sleeping. We understand the complex individual circumstances that can lead to rough sleeping.
If I have a couple of minutes, I would like quickly to touch on social housing. It is absolutely something that the Government care about, and that is why we have launched the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme. It is true that we need to move on temporary accommodation and that is why we have the Next Steps funding. That is exactly what we are doing about getting individuals moving on from Everyone In.
I am running out of time. I shall write to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark about the data, because it is too complex to talk about now.
Nickie Aiken
I thank all the hon. Members who took part in this vital debate. We have heard from Members representing places across the country how homelessness can affect our constituencies.
I take the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made about Housing First. We could have spoken for hours about that, but it is the entrenched rough sleepers who concern me more, because I do not believe that they have the mental capacity to respond to the outreach work that we offer.
I thank the Minister for her pledge on the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the fact that we will be looking at welfare rather than criminalisation. The word “vagrancy” should be taken out of the Act, anyway. I thank everyone, and hope we can work together to end rough sleeping.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for the homeless during the winter months.
Written Statements
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The next meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee will take place on 17 December 2020, by video conference, hosted by the EU.
The meeting will be co-chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Vice-President of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič.
The agenda will include four items:
1- Introduction and opening remarks from co-chairs:
Stocktake of Specialised Committee activity
Future Specialised Committee meetings.
2 - Update on Withdrawal Agreement Implementation:
Citizens’ rights
Second joint report on residency
Joint Committee decision on triangulation
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
Joint Committee decisions foreseen by the protocol
Joint Committee decision on correction of errors and omissions
Unilateral declarations
Dispute settlement—Joint Committee decision on the establishment of a list of arbitrators.
3 - AOB.
4 - Concluding remarks.
The UK delegation will include:
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Michael Gove MP
The Paymaster General, the right hon. Penny Mordaunt MP
Representatives from the Northern Ireland Executive have been invited to form part of the UK delegation.
[HCWS659]
National Insurance Contributions Re-rating 2021-22
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
In line with the approach set out in the spending review document on 25 November (CP 330), the Government will use the September consumer prices index (CPI) figure (0.5%) as the basis for setting all national insurance limits and thresholds, and the rates of class 2 and class 3 national insurance contributions, for 2021-22. A table of these 2021-22 national insurance rates and thresholds will be placed in the Library of both Houses.
[HCWS657]
Follower Notices and Penalties
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government introduced the follower notice regime in Finance Act 2014, following a consultation titled “Raising the Stakes on Tax Avoidance”. The Government consider that the follower notice regime is an important element in the legal framework available to HMRC to tackle tax avoidance.
In December 2018 the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published its report “The Powers of HMRC: Treating Taxpayers Fairly”. In that report, the Committee recommended that the penalties associated with follower notices be abolished. The Government rejected the recommendation to abolish follower notice penalties as this would render the regime ineffective. However, I said in testimony to the Committee that HMRC would examine the possibility of providing greater judicial oversight of the follower notice safeguards.
The Government understand the concerns that have been raised about follower notices, but it has not been possible to identify any effective means of providing greater judicial oversight of the follower notice regime which would not re-introduce, or even worsen, the delays in settlement and payment of disputed tax which the regime was designed to address. However, the Government have also taken the opportunity to look closely at other options to ensure the follower notice regime can best achieve its objectives. They accept that a better balance can be found between encouraging taxpayers who have used tax avoidance schemes which have been defeated in the courts, to reach agreement with HMRC; and allowing those who genuinely believe their case is different from that heard by the courts, to continue their dispute. This can best be achieved with a stronger focus on those whose continuation of their dispute, even once they have received a follower notice, is without merit.
Therefore, I am announcing publication today of a consultation document “Follower Notices and Penalties”. This consultation proposes to reduce the level of penalty for a taxpayer not acting in response to a follower notice from 50% of the disputed tax to 30%. A further penalty of 20% would be chargeable only in cases where those receiving follower notices continue their disputes to litigation, and the tax tribunal rules that it was not reasonable for them to have done so.
The Government are committed to tackling all aspects of the avoidance market, including those who promote tax avoidance schemes. The Government announced measures in July and November aimed at strengthening HMRC’s ability to tackle those who sell avoidance schemes.
The consultation has been published here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/follower-notices-and-penalties. It will run to Wednesday 27 January.
[HCWS661]
Independent Commission for Aid Impact: FCDO Review
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
On 29 August, shortly before the inauguration of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I announced that I wanted to reinforce the Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s role in helping Government deliver maximum impact for UK aid spending. I commissioned a review to ensure ICAI’s remit, methodology and operating model focus on maximising the impact of UK overseas development assistance, support lesson-learning, and are in line with the aims of the FCDO and our broader strategic framework for UK ODA, which I set out to the House on 26 November. Today I am publishing that review. The review did not assess ICAI’s status as a non-departmental public body.
The review concludes that ICAI provides strong external scrutiny of UK ODA and offers excellent support to Parliament in its role in holding the Government to account. This must continue. ICAI has an important role in driving learning and focused action as well as providing assurance to UK taxpayers and Parliament. Its formal remit should therefore include lesson learning as well as scrutiny and evaluation to enable its recommendations to lead to real change.
The review makes a number of recommendations to increase ICAI’s impact on ODA spending and to ensure that it delivers practical recommendations. These include focusing its remit to support Government learning as well as independent evaluation and scrutiny, and ensuring reviews contribute to a wider body of best practice.
There are also several recommendations for the FCDO to improve its own role in the scrutiny process, including supporting and responding to ICAI’s reviews and helping ICAI in its work with other ODA-spending departments. The FCDO should also be willing to discuss ICAI’s forward workplan, mindful that decisions on review topics will remain with ICAI Commissioners.
The review consulted a broad range of parliamentary, civil society and Government stakeholders, including ICAI itself, through a series of interviews and roundtables. The review also took into account written contributions, including from members of the public. I am grateful for all of their valuable contributions.
The Government will now discuss the content of this review with ICAI’s commissioners and work with them to implement the recommendations.
A copy of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS658]
Housing
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Today the Government are publishing the response to the consultation on the standard method for assessing local housing need and setting out further steps in our plan to increase housing delivery as we recover from the covid-19 pandemic.
Our manifesto set out that we would deliver a million homes over the course of this Parliament and that we would seek to increase house building towards 300,000 new homes a year. We have made strong progress towards this goal, with more homes built in the last year than at any time since 1987, taking the total delivered since 2010 to over 1.8 million. We want to build more homes as a matter of social justice, of inter-generational fairness and as one of the best proven ways of creating jobs and economic growth.
The Government “Planning for the Future” White Paper published on 6 August outlined a set of reforms that are intended to lay the foundations for future house building and economic development, while meeting our commitments to the environment and climate. These reforms will create a planning system that is simpler and more certain, and that supports more homes to be built and drives a more diverse and competitive housing sector. As more homes are delivered under the new system, they will be built to higher standards, putting an emphasis on design, beauty, heritage and sustainability at the heart of the planning system. And that system will be a digital one that is more accessible and understandable for citizens and developers alike. We are currently analysing the 40,000 consultation responses and will publish a response in the spring which will set out our decisions on the proposed way forward, including to prepare for legislation, should we so decide, in the autumn.
In August, we also set out a proposal for a new standard method for assessing local housing need to ensure that all local authorities were planning to build enough new homes.
There were many consultation responses which did not fully recognise that the standard method does not present a “target” in plan-making, but instead provides a starting point for determining the level of need for housing in an area. It is only after consideration of this, alongside what constraints areas face, such as the green belt, and the land that is actually available for development, that the decision on how many homes should be planned for is made. It is crucial that planning is more certain and more transparent, so we will explore how we can make this clearer through our longer-term planning reforms, including considering the right name for this approach.
There is widespread support for ensuring enough homes are built across England to ensure the needs of our communities are met. We heard clearly through the consultation that the building of these homes should not come at the expense of harming our precious green spaces. We also heard views that this need can be better met in existing urban areas.
There are good reasons for this. First, our urban centres are the best served by existing infrastructure, with schools, shops and medical facilities.
Secondly, building more homes in our cities and urban centres will mean making the best use of brownfield land, of which many cities and urban centres continue to have large quantities, and protecting our countryside as much as possible.
Thirdly, building homes around our transport hubs will help us to deliver our ambition to tackle climate change by offering greater access to more sustainable forms of transport and reducing unnecessary journeys.
In the months since we consulted, the profound impact of covid-19 on our towns and cities has become even clearer. It has magnified and accelerated patterns that already existed and while it is too soon to know for certain the scale of the long-term impact, it is very likely to present a generational challenge and opportunity to repurpose more commercial centres, offices and retail spaces into housing and mixed uses.
We recognised these changes in the summer when we brought forward reforms to the use classes order and new permitted development rights to regenerate vacant buildings, to provide the greatest flexibility possible to meet this moment and to repurpose and recycle buildings for public good. These significant changes were enacted at pace and are now available for use by individuals and businesses.
This Government were elected on a pledge to level up all parts of the country. It was clear from the responses that people supported this ambition and wanted to see housing delivery play a significant part in achieving this goal. We want to see more public and, in particular, private sector investment in housing in our nation’s great cities, regenerating these areas, improving the quality of housing stock and driving up living standards. This is vital for ensuring a better quality of life for existing residents and for attracting and retaining aspirational families.
We want to play our part in realising these goals by building more homes in cities and urban centres, encouraging interest by developers and institutional investors in these places, setting them on a path to greater prosperity and to a more economically balanced country, and providing the certainty that is needed to support areas to recover after covid-19.
For this reason, we plan to leave the standard method as it was created in 2017 for the majority of the country. We have seen that these levels are beginning to create ambitious plans in many parts of the country, which we expect to drive housing delivery beyond its current near record levels. It is also clear that the standard method does not act as a ceiling for the ambitions of some local authorities, with some planning to exceed their local figures to meet the needs of their residents, create jobs and drive economic growth in their areas. We strongly welcome this ambition and will support these local authorities to achieve their goals, including through specifically directing public investment to them through the £7.1 billion national home building fund we are establishing.
We recognise that we need to go further than the previous standard method to achieve the ambition to build more in urban areas. So we will be increasing local housing need above current levels by 35% for authorities which contain the largest proportion of the 20 most populated cities and urban centres in England.
Many of these places are already delivering or have a plan to deliver at or around this level. For example, Nottingham, Hull, Liverpool, Newcastle and Stoke have all delivered more homes on average across the last three years than the revised standard method assesses their annual need to be. But others will need to go further than they do today.
They will not be alone in this task. To help support our cities and urban centres we are announcing several measures. First, we are establishing an urban centres recovery taskforce, which will bring together the leading experts in the field, like Sir Howard Bernstein, Sir George Iacobescu and Dame Alison Nimmo, to consider what actions the Government could take to support urban centres as they recover from covid-19.
Second, we intend to revise the current“80:20” rule which guides how much Government housing infrastructure funding is available in all parts of the country, so that it is at the service of the most ambitious local authorities and those who want to tackle unaffordability. This will establish a new principle that helps to better support our levelling up and home-building objectives.
Third, we will invest public funds to support areas to regenerate brownfield land. We are establishing a £7.1 billion national home building fund: brownfield remediation, urban regeneration and infrastructure for housing will be the significant components of its mission. Today, we are announcing £67 million of funding from this to help the west midlands and Greater Manchester mayoral combined authorities to deliver new homes on brownfield land, helping to breathe new life into sites such as Longbridge in Birmingham. And we have launched a new £100 million brownfield land release fund for local authorities to encourage similar ambitions.
We recognise that to meet the housing needs of the country, London needs to build more homes. Delivery in the capital remains far too low, creating acute affordability changes for its residents, as well as putting severe pressure on the wider south-east.
In the short term we expect to agree the London plan with the Mayor early in the new year which will set his plan for, amongst other things, meeting London’s housing need. This will support greater ambition in London, but alone will not go nearly far enough to meet need in London. We now need to focus on the medium and long term and create a plan to better address London’s housing needs, while protecting the character of London’s communities, particularly in outer London, and London as a place for families.
We will consider how Homes England can play an active role in London, working with the GLA and directly with ambitious London boroughs for the first time. There are clear areas for development in London, including Nine Elms, Old Oak Common and more broadly in inner east London where there is significant brownfield land for development. A new role for Homes England will ensure robust bids are prepared for the national home building fund and the right types of homes are built in the right places.
We hope that this approach will find broad support. We want to make sure that all areas of the country take seriously the need to build more homes and we will focus public funding on supporting our aspirations for home building, whilst also supporting a renewed national effort to regenerate and level up by increasing housing delivery and private sector investment in our cities. There is now an opportunity for a new trajectory for our great cities. We hope that these changes will mark the first step along the path to forging a new country beyond covid-19, which is healthier, more beautiful, more sustainable and more neighbourly, and one in which more of our fellow citizens, regardless of age or wealth, enjoy the dignity and security of a home of their own.
[HCWS660]