House of Commons
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 3 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, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Northern Ireland protocol under the European Union withdrawal agreement applies the EU pet travel regulations for pet movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Great Britain has currently been listed by the EU in part 2 of the regulations, which requires some documentation. However, Great Britain and Ireland have a similarly very high health status, and we are discussing possible bilateral provisions with Ireland. In the meantime, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is taking a pragmatic approach in this initial period.
Claire Hanna [V]
I assume that the Secretary of State is aware of the challenges this causes for ordinary pet owners, but specifically can he advise what mitigations were anticipated and are being put in place for those who require assistance dogs to travel between Britain and Northern Ireland?
George Eustice
The primary purpose of the pet travel regulations is to control the spread of rabies, and both Ireland and Great Britain have very similar and very high health status on rabies, having not had it in dogs previously. We therefore think that there should be easement on the provision; we have argued with the Commission that we should be listed in part 1, but we are continuing to make those bilateral negotiations with Ireland a priority.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I understand that the Buckskin flood alleviation scheme became operational on 24 December, Christmas eve, reducing flood risk to 170 homes. Final minor works are now scheduled to be completed by the end of January 2021, and the scheme has been delivered within budget despite the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic.
Mrs Miller [V]
That is welcome news, because just a few years ago Buckskin was devastated by floods. My thoughts are with those who were flooded out last night in Greater Manchester, north Wales and Merseyside. No one can stop flooding completely, particularly groundwater flooding, so in addition to this very welcome flood scheme, what assurance can my hon. Friend give that homes affected by floods will still be able to get property insurance?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting that issue. The joint Government and industry Flood Re scheme was designed to help householders at high flood risk to access affordable insurance. Flood Re is available from more than 85 insurance brands now; more than 300,000 properties have benefited since its launch. Before Flood Re just 9% of households who had made flood claims could get quotes from two or more insurers, but in June 2020, 96% of households with prior flood claims could receive quotes from five or more, so I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that that is a hugely improved situation.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) [V]
Many parts of the country are currently facing severe flood warnings, and our thoughts are with those who have been flooded overnight. We need a proactive rather than a reactive approach to this crisis, so will the Minister today commit to holding an emergency flood summit that brings together agencies and regional leaders to make sure that we have a co-ordinated response to support local communities?
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We held a flood summit covering the south Yorkshire area shortly before Christmas later last year. I have also said that we want to hold a series of roundtable meetings around the country covering individual water catchments.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Last Thursday, the UK Government published the determination of fishing opportunities for British fishing boats covering the period to 31 March this year. Licences have been issued for 2,750 tonnes of cod in the waters around Svalbard, which result from arrangements between the UK and Norway. The UK’s first annual bilateral negotiations with Norway will also be relevant to distant waters fishing, in particular with regard to Arctic cod.
Emma Hardy [V]
Three weeks have passed since the transition ended and still the Hull trawler Kirkella is laid up in its home port unable to sail. The short licence the Secretary of State just mentioned to fish off Svalbard is for a fraction of the previous quota, which means it cannot operate viably, and still fishers’ jobs are at risk. We cannot lose Hull’s last link with its distant fleet fishing heritage, so I again ask: how much longer will they have to wait for a sensible and viable annual fishing quota for both the Norwegian zone and Svalbard?
George Eustice
It is not unusual for the annual fishing negotiations to go into January. This year, there has obviously been the very special circumstance that the withdrawal agreement came late, but in 2014 access was suspended while negotiations with Norway continued through January. We would anticipate that these negotiations would conclude within the next couple of weeks, and then access for Arctic cod, should that be agreed, could be resumed.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We have engaged extensively with industry to support trader readiness for new requirements for exporting to the EU. For those importing to the UK, we established a phased approach to border controls for the first period of 2021. We have supported exporters as they familiarise themselves with new processes around export health certificates and customs declarations, and we have liaised closely with EU states, such as France, that are also getting used to new processes at the border. Finally, we have worked closely with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure the rapid deployment of the covid-19 testing measures required by France.
Bambos Charalambous
Further to that, may I ask the Secretary of State what measures the Government are taking to prevent more border disruption and costly delays for food and drink exporters when the volumes of trade start to pick up again in the coming weeks? What assessment has he made of the impact on jobs if there are delays and disruption at the border?
George Eustice
The sector that has had greatest difficulty in these first few weeks has been the fishing sector, principally because it is a very time-critical, perishable product, but there are also some smaller businesses selling smaller consignments in mixed, grouped loads. Overall, the system is working well. We are issuing around 150 export health certificates per day. The volume of lorries through the short straits is back up to around 6,000 to 7,000 per day—still some way short of normal levels, but nevertheless it continues to grow.
Dr Huq
Dina Foods, which produces delicacies in Acton for supermarkets here and all over the EU, rejoiced at the Christmas eve miracle of no tariffs and no quotas, but it is drowning in paperwork for forward freight and it is experiencing crippling additional transportation costs and pallet requirements, and border delays for customs clearance. Goods loaded for Spain on the 8th still have not made it. Buyers are losing patience. The same is happening for those importing from everywhere; what took two weeks now takes three months. Will Ministers fix the rules of origin to stop battering British business?
George Eustice
Colleagues in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are looking at the specific issue around rules of origin, which does affect some sectors, but overall, flow at the border through the short straits has been good. More than 6,000 lorries per day are travelling. DFDS, which leads on fisheries distribution, now says that it is getting lorries to Boulogne within 24 hours. Goods are starting to flow, but unavoidably, as we leave both the customs union and the single market, there is of course some additional paperwork.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the work that he has put into getting the deal to work. We welcome the deal, but there are still lots of problems with people getting things through the border, and delays are reducing the value of fish especially. What compensation can be given to people, and what more can the Secretary of State do to get goods flowing through the borders—both at our end and, in particular, through French ports when there are problems at their customs?
George Eustice
Yesterday, we announced that we would offer one-to-one support for individual enterprises in the fishing sector that are struggling to get used to the new paperwork; that could be from HMRC or the Animal and Plant Health Agency. In addition, we work very closely with customs officials and Border Force officials in France to help improve the understanding at that level. We also announced a £23 million fund yesterday to help those fishing businesses that have struggled in these initial weeks.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]
I fear the Secretary of State is living in a parallel universe. He must have seen the headlines: “Pig Heads Are Rotting In Rotterdam As Brexit Delays Hit The British Meat Industry”. Nick Allen of the British Meat Processors Association understands that these problems are not teething problems; they are structural. He warns that the meat industry’s trade with the EU is in jeopardy. Is he right about that? What is the Secretary of State going to do about it—just suggest that farmers do something else?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Actually, goods are flowing, particularly lamb, which is our principal meat export. Dairy goods are also flowing. Yes, there are occasionally delays at the border, as border officials in France and the Netherlands get used to the new processes, but we are intervening in all such instances to help the businesses concerned.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Europe’s biggest fish market in Peterhead is empty. An industry has collapsed because this Government’s ideological blinkers meant they made a mess of the negotiations and Ministers think it is a teething problem or a paperwork problem or it is not their fault. Will Ministers tell us how they intend to sort this out? Will the Government go back to the EU to seek a grace period and new negotiations on market access, as many in the sector are asking for, even if that means accepting some regulatory alignment?
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The trade and co-operation agreement establishes tariff-free trade on fisheries exports to the EU and also establishes a five-and-a-half-year multiannual agreement on access and sharing arrangements for quota. Under the agreement, there are year-on-year transfers of fishing opportunities from EU fleets to the UK fleet. Overall, the EU relinquished 25% of the quota it had previously been allowed to catch in UK waters. There are gains, both in the North sea and in the west of Scotland.
Stuart C. McDonald [V]
Scotland’s high-quality seafood producers are warning that they are going out of business. They cannot have their products sitting in lorry parks in Kent waiting for customs clearance. Those products have to reach market fresh. What are the Government doing to change procedures and technology to ensure an entire industry is not destroyed? Will there be ongoing compensation offered to businesses until this is sorted, or was that offer a one-off? If the Minister could offer a slightly fuller response this time, that would be appreciated.
George Eustice
As I explained earlier, we have announced a £23 million fund to help exporters who struggled with the paperwork in the initial weeks. We have also been working daily with the fishing sector to tackle and iron out any particular issues it has encountered. Twice a week we hold long stakeholder calls with all businesses concerned. I have had personal conversations with organisations such as DFDS, which leads on distribution. We have given them all the support we can to help them iron out the teething issues they have been having.
Neil Gray [V]
This Government have followed up their sell-out of Scotland’s fishing communities with this £23 million insult. The industry is losing more than four times that every day. It is losing customers with it. And this was the one industry, we were told, that would benefit from Brexit. Why will the Government not act now, act quickly, eat some humble pie and re-establish barrier-free rapid access to the European market for this industry, so it can finally supply its customers again?
George Eustice
With the support we have given industry to iron out some of the issues it has been having, the flow of goods is now continuing. DFDS in particular has been very successful at transporting salmon to the European Union. This week, it resumed groupage systems to take smaller consignments. We know there are between 30 to 50 lorries of fish making their way to Boulogne each and every day.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The Government made a manifesto commitment to maintain the current annual budget to farmers. In England, we will be offering both transitional and productivity support from this year. Now we have left the EU, Wales, too, can shape its own agricultural policies.
Virginia Crosbie [V]
I thank the Minister for her answer. This week is Farmers’ Union Wales Farmhouse Breakfast Week. This morning my family tucked into a hearty breakfast of local produce from the butchers at Anglesey Fine Foods in Valley. Farmers in my constituency, such as Gerald Thomas and Brian Bown, grow and rear some of the finest foods in the UK. What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government to ensure they receive the same levels of support as English farmers now that they have left the EU? Does she also agree with me that Welsh farm sausage is the finest addition to any good breakfast?
Victoria Prentis
Well, a Welsh sausage is hard to beat, and I congratulate the Farmers’ Union of Wales on its excellent farmhouse breakfast campaign and my hon. Friend on sourcing and enjoying local produce with her family this morning. DEFRA works closely with the Welsh Government, and we have a shared commitment to promoting Welsh food.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care carried out a consultation on the proposal to restrict the promotion of foods high in fat, salt and sugar in stores. The Government’s response to the consultation and the impact assessment were published on 28 December 2020. This concluded that the benefits for the nation’s health and the reduction in cost on the NHS outweighed the costs.
Greg Smith
The inclusion of breakfast cereals in the proposals for restricting the promotion of these products is causing real concern to cereal growers in my constituency, such as Morris of Hoggeston, and the wider breakfast cereal industry. particularly as there is no allowance for the naturally occurring sugars and fats from the dried fruits and nuts often put with cereals such as granola, porridge and muesli. Will my right hon. Friend advise what assessment has been made of the impact on UK farmers of these proposals and work with colleagues, particularly in the Department of Health and Social Care, to see more common sense applied to breakfast cereals?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Cereals, such as those are grown in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are an important source of healthy food. Breakfast cereals will be captured by DHSC’s policy only if they are classified as high in salt, fat or sugar, and the nutrient profiling model used by Public Health England accounts for the nutritional benefits of cereals, fruits and nuts. I suggest that he raises his concerns with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but I would also be willing to engage in that discussion, given the particular concerns that he raised.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
We committed in our manifesto to increasing planting across the UK to 30,000 hectares, and we are working with the devolved Administrations to deliver that. We announced a £640 million nature for climate fund, a lot of which will contribute towards the tree planting, together with our green recovery challenge fund, and the skills required to plant these trees and look after them will all be part and parcel of this. We will be publishing our tree strategy with all the details later in the spring.
Harriett Baldwin
As communities along the River Severn catchment are facing flooding once again, I thank the Minister for all she has done to fund a hardening of flood defences along the River Severn. Will she say how tree planting is also effective at reducing the amount of floodwater that goes through the catchment and reducing the speed?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend very much for that question, and of course our sympathies go to anyone who has been flooded overnight. With the Environment Agency, we have a very big project on to oversee all that. We are absolutely committed to better protecting the country from flooding, and I thank her for her comments about what is happening in the Severn valley. Natural flood management, including tree planting, cannot solve the issues of conventional flooding, but it is part and parcel of the whole plan—the holistic plan—for dealing with flooding on a much wider and more comprehensive scale. Proposals to do that include flood-risk management options, which will include tree planting, improve water quality and enhance the environment. It will be an integrated approach and I very much look forward to hearing more about the plans for the Severn valley, which I know she is hugely behind.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
The Secretary of State regularly meets Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues, including air quality and planning issues. Air quality is a key consideration of local authority planning decisions, and there are strong protections in place to safeguard people from unacceptable risks from air pollution where development is proposed, and this is detailed in national planning policy.
Mr Sharma [V]
People living in my constituency feel choked by the fumes from the remediation of Southall gasworks, a project forced through against the wishes of local residents and local representatives by the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Will the Minister confirm that they will meet me and local residents to explain why they think this is acceptable and why the Government will not empower either the Environment Agency or Public Health England to act?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The redevelopment of the former gasworks site at Southall is a matter for the local authority and the Mayor of London, as I am sure he is well aware. Local authorities are required to review and assess local air quality and decide what monitoring is necessary in line with statutory duties. This Government are tackling air quality and taking it extremely seriously with their £3.8 billion project. If the hon. Gentleman wants to contact me with any details about this issue, I am happy to speak to him but I am not able to get involved in any way in particular planning issues.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Government have put in place a winter package to support the economically vulnerable. This includes a £170 million covid-19 winter support grant for local authorities to support households with food and other costs, and £16 million of funding for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to support charities with food redistribution to the vulnerable.
Kate Osamor [V]
Over the last five years, millions of families have experienced food insecurity, causing a 74% increase in food bank usage, yet the Government are refusing once again to extend free school meals over the February half-term, saying that councils have to cover the cost. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that every single child entitled to free school meals, including those with parents with no recourse to public funds restrictions, will receive the meals they need over the half-term?
George Eustice
While we have not extended the free school meals during the half-term period, we have announced a range of other interventions, including the holiday activities scheme that was announced late last year and also the grants that I have just announced that local authorities can use to help those in need.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The Government are committed to the animal welfare agenda. Currently, we are working on proposals to ban live exports for slaughter or fattening, banning primates as pets and introducing compulsory microchipping for cats. We will increase sentences for animal cruelty, enhance the welfare standards of farmed animals and bring forward proposals relating to animal sentience.
Dr Evans [V]
I thank the Minister for her answer, and I am grateful for all she is doing, but both the demand for puppies in the UK and their price have skyrocketed over lockdown. I declare an interest: I bought two of the same breed several months apart and saw a doubling in the price. I have been speaking to reputable breeders, and they are choosing not to breed their dogs because of concerns about welfare. What are the Government doing to ensure puppy welfare, clamp down on puppy farms and stop puppy profiteering?
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend raises an important question, which I know he has campaigned on before. Regulations in England require anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs to be licensed. Last year, we banned commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens, and also launched our national Petfished campaign to educate the public on how to source pets responsibly.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
DEFRA takes the trade in puppy smuggling seriously. We operate a rigorous checking regime, and the Animal and Plant Health Agency works collaboratively to share intelligence, disrupt illegal imports and seize animals where that is necessary. The end of the transition period has created new opportunities for cracking down on puppy smuggling, and we are considering a range of options to help with this.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
Every year thousands of puppies are still illegally smuggled across eastern Europe to be mis-sold to British dog lovers. Many suffer significant health problems and behavioural challenges and some do not survive. The Dogs Trust wants the Government to raise the minimum age for puppies to enter the UK to six months and to significantly increase penalties for smugglers. The Minister talked about the opportunities of the end of the transition period, so when are we going to get on with it?
Victoria Prentis
The Government are actively considering a range of opportunities to crack down on this abhorrent trade, as the hon. Gentleman says. We are listening to the views of a large number of stakeholders, including the Dogs Trust and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which have made useful comments in this space. I look forward to working with him and Members from across this House to take these proposals forward.
Topical Questions
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Over the past 48 hours, Storm Christoph has led to very high rainfall, leading to hundreds of flood warnings, particularly in areas around the north-west and Yorkshire, including in Chorley—your constituency, Mr Speaker. Four severe flood warnings have been issued, two in the Didsbury area of Manchester, and two in the Maghull area of Liverpool. Overnight, those in 200 hundred homes in Maghull and more than 2,000 homes in Didsbury were advised to evacuate. Water levels in the Didsbury flood basin have started to recede, but water will continue to work through the river systems in the north-west and Yorkshire in the coming days. More unsettled weather is expected next week, so we continue to prepare for further impacts.
Alex Davies-Jones [V]
The Secretary of State may not be aware that last night’s rainfall has caused another landslip on a former coal tip in Rhondda Cynon Taf. The long-term management of these tips is a UK Government responsibility. We all need to do what we can to protect our local environment, and coal tips are a major part of our heritage here in the Welsh valleys. Will he therefore commit to working with his colleagues in the Cabinet to publish a strategy outlining the Government’s long-term plan for managing these coal tips?
George Eustice
We have been working closely with both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Government on this challenge, which we all take seriously. I know that discussions have taken place in the past with the national Coal Authority on this matter as well, and we will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government on it.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
George Eustice
We all very much hope to be able to lift the restrictions of lockdown as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will be aware that in the first lockdown, we allowed zoos to open after we allowed parks to open. Zoos are outdoors, but people tend to follow the same routes, so the risk is judged by Public Health England to be higher. However, I have sympathy with the issues zoos face, and we want to get them open as soon as possible.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Each year, 40,000 people die from poor air quality. Labour has tabled an amendment to the Environment Bill, on which there will be a vote on Tuesday, to put the World Health Organisation air quality standards into law. Can the Secretary of State tell me why his Government plan to vote against that amendment?
George Eustice
We are working on the air quality targets that will form part of our targets under the Environment Bill. We are looking at population exposure, as well as an absolute concentration target, and we are working with experts to assess what that concentration target should be.
Luke Pollard
I do not think that answer was good enough, and it speaks to a larger concern: the Government seem to be rolling back hard-won environmental gains. It will not just be Britain watching the votes on the Environment Bill; it will also be the Biden-Harris Administration. If Labour’s amendment is voted down, although it would prevent the Government allowing bee-killing chemicals, loosening the chemicals regime, and having a weaker environmental watchdog than we had last year, what message does it send about how much we can trust the Prime Minister when he speaks about “building back better”?
George Eustice
We have not changed our regulations on neonicotinoids, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. In common with 10 other EU countries, we have granted an emergency authorisation, which is an integral part of the precautionary principle. We have done so for a non-flowering crop, and we have also made it clear that flowering crops cannot be grown there for at least three years.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
George Eustice
I remember very well that visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is always good to see such ambitious plans come into effect and start to take shape. I would be delighted to visit her constituency again, and to outline some of our plans to ensure better fishing opportunities for our inshore fleet.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) [V]
George Eustice
Floods have impacts on many communities —not only urban communities and households, but farmland, which can lead to the loss of crops. There is some weighting in the floods formula to protect farmland, and we have a number of schemes to help to remedy flood risks on agricultural land when flooding occurs.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) [V]
George Eustice
Late last year, we held a flood summit to discuss some of the particular challenges around the River Calder in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There have been a number of important projects around that area, including at Hebden Bridge, where I believe construction is well under way. Further projects are in the pipeline, and we continue to work with the Environment Agency to manage water catchments effectively.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) [V]
George Eustice
My hon. Friend’s constituency is in a unique area with a unique geography, as he knows, and it does face frequent flooding—it was among the worst-affected when we had the floods last year. We will shortly issue a consultation on changes to the flooding formula, and one thing that we want is for greater weight to be placed on frequently flooded communities.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
George Eustice
Of course they should, because in the white fish sector and the quota sector we have secured an uplift in quota that is front-loaded; the uplift is 15% next year. We will also have full regulatory autonomy on technical conservation measures, which gives us the ability to support the shellfish sector far better than we were able to in the European Union.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
I am delighted that Lichfield, Rochester, Blackburn and Salisbury cathedrals are among the church buildings being used as vaccination centres. As well as providing worship, prayer and community support, parishes have been providing food, medicine delivery, bereavement counselling and much more, serving the needs of everyone in their local communities.
Stephen Timms [V]
The “Keeping the Faith” report in November showed the remarkable extent to which local councils have turned to churches and other faith groups during the pandemic, especially for help in distributing food, and how positive an experience for councils this has proved to be. Will the Church of England urge Ministers to help these new partnerships with local councils continue beyond the pandemic?
Andrew Selous
Yes indeed, and I warmly commend the all-party group on faith and society for its research, as well as the Kruger review. I look forward to Colin Bloom’s report, commissioned by the Government, which assesses faith community engagement. I hope it will build on my right hon. Friend’s important and very welcome all-party group research.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Andrew Selous
I begin by very warmly welcoming the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion and belief. She has campaigned both knowledgeably and forensically on these issues for many years.
The Church is deeply concerned about the unravelling of the state security apparatus in Nigeria and the activity of non-state actors, which is politicising and polarising identity in Nigeria.
Janet Daby [V]
A recent Open Doors UK event highlighted that Christians are more likely to be tortured and murdered for their faith by Islamic militants in the north of Nigeria than in any other country. Persecution also includes denying Christians food, aid and treatment for covid-19. The UK Government need to place pressure on the Nigerian Government to defend and protect their Christian population. What is the Church of England’s involvement in supporting these persecuted Christians, and what relief work is it doing with Nigerian internally displaced people camps?
Andrew Selous
The Archbishop of Canterbury, who knows Nigeria well, is monitoring the recent violence and the kidnapping of 300 schoolboys. He and I have met the family of Leah Sharibu, who was kidnapped by Boko Haram in 2018, and who is still a prisoner, as she refuses to renounce Jesus. Clergy who have spoken out have been threatened by prominent civil society organisations, and the Church continues to stay closely involved.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The commission believes that it is an important democratic principle that elections should proceed as scheduled whenever possible. To ensure that can happen in May, the commission is working closely with electoral administrators, political parties and other campaigners to provide the necessary support and guidance, informed by the latest public health advice. The commission’s objective is for voters to be able to participate in the polls, campaigners and parties to be able to put their case to the electorate, and electoral administration staff to be able to run the polling stations and count centres safely and competently.
Mr Carmichael [V]
Looking at the electoral procedures to be followed, though, we can all see areas, such as the collection of nomination signatures, where there is potential for unnecessary face-to-face contact. Surely this is a moment when we can look at doing these things differently, but if we are to make any changes in time for May, that work would need to be done now. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether that work is being done by the commission?
Christian Matheson
The commission is undertaking work to ensure that the elections can proceed in May in as safe a way as possible, and is working with electoral administrators to achieve that. They will be following public health advice, but at this stage, as the elections are going ahead in May, there is little time to make changes to some of the procedures before those elections.
Wes Streeting [V]
Has the Electoral Commission looked at the possibility of having all-postal ballots, or, failing that, at least providing households with postal vote application forms and a freepost return service, so that anyone who wants to vote in May’s elections—as everyone should—is able to do so safely and without any financial barriers?
Christian Matheson
May I take this opportunity to wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday?
The commission has highlighted that there would be significant practical challenges in delivering an all-postal election in May. In particular, collecting personal identifiers from all eligible electors, which is a key part of important security checks, is not practicable in the time available. The commission considers that, where possible, voters should be able to choose how they wish to cast their vote, including having the option to do so in person. It will make available all options to proceed as safely as possible for the elections in May. Whether the elections continue in May is a matter for the UK Government and the Governments of the devolved Administrations.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church is grateful to the Government for not imposing another national closure of religious buildings. It is right that parishes take local decisions on what to offer. There were nearly 36 million viewings of the Church’s Christmas “Comfort and Joy” series. For those who prefer the telephone, the DailyHope worship has received 350,000 free calls.
Danny Kruger [V]
It is very encouraging to hear that. It is a matter of deep regret that churches were closed during the lockdowns last year. I very much appreciate that they are allowed to conduct services this time. Obviously we hope that we will all be out of restrictions soon, but there is always a danger of further restrictions. We worry a lot about the provision of online teaching in schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that the delivery of online live church services is enormously important, and—we must be frank—that this is not a skill that might come naturally to many vicars? Does he agree that the Church of England should make an absolute priority the provision of online resources, and the training of vicars and church teams to deliver them?
Andrew Selous
Indeed I do. Over 7,000 people have now attended the Church’s digital training, equipping parishes across the country to stream services on a variety of different platforms. My own rector has now been commended for her YouTube skills by eight-year-olds in her benefice.
Alexander Stafford [V]
Many churches in Rother Valley have adapted during these times by holding online services, such as the many wonderful services at the Wales parish church and St Joseph’s, Dinnington. However, Rother Valley’s churches have lost a great deal of income from the in-person offertory collections and fundraising events, putting church maintenance and repairs at risk, including the much-needed repairs to St Simon and St Jude church in Thurcroft. Does my hon. Friend share my concern regarding the black hole in local churches’ budgets and potential delays to repairs, and will he work with churches to ensure that they have what they need to survive?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I draw his attention to the Parish Giving Scheme, which people can do by direct debit, and to various online giving options. Of course, the commissioners have provided tens of millions of pounds to help churches. I would also say that perhaps people who are not paying for a season ticket might want to pay a little bit more to their local church, given that they have made a saving in that area.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) [V]
This is a vital issue. The programme is committed to improving accessibility in its detailed work on the outline business case, which will form the scope for the restoration and renewal project. It is engaging regularly on this issue with the House administrations, with representatives of staff with disabilities, and with independent accessibility and inclusion technical experts.
Florence Eshalomi [V]
I thank the right hon. Member for his answer. Our historic Houses of Parliament are rightly an attraction for visitors from all over the world, but they are also a place of work for thousands of employees, including MPs’ staff. My assistant, Harry, uses a motorised wheelchair, and I have seen at first hand how he is unable to navigate most of the building on his own, facing difficult doors, steps and other obstacles. Despite the best efforts of the House staff to mitigate these issues over the past seven months, he is still not able to move around the building independently. Will the right hon. Member agree to meet me and Harry to discuss the renovation project, and to ensure that additional views are taken into account to make our Parliament a truly modern workplace for everybody?
Damian Hinds
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue and Harry’s case. Of course I will be more than happy to meet both of them. The programme has established an accessibility and inclusion panel that meets monthly, with representation from both Houses’ diversity and inclusion teams and from ParliAble, which, as she will know, is the workplace equality network for parliamentary staff with disabilities. The recently established public engagement strategy identifies accessibility topics, and engaging with disabled people is a particular priority. Plans are also being developed to engage more broadly with all staff working in Parliament, including of course those with disabilities. But in the short term, I shall look forward to meeting her and Harry.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church speaks up on behalf of all those who are unable to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief. The Church of England is part of an international consortium that has just received £5.6 million from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to equip parliamentarians and religious leaders in eight countries in Africa and Asia to counter these challenges.
Taiwo Owatemi [V]
From Nigeria to Eritrea and Burkina Faso to India, Christians are facing grave persecution because of their faith. The persecution of Christians, particularly where they are a religious minority, is a matter of growing concern among my constituents, and this has been reflected in the casework I am receiving. What steps is the Anglican Communion taking to tackle persecution of Christians across the world? Is the hon. Gentleman able to provide me with information on what guidance and support he is offering to churches in the UK in helping those who have fled persecution?
Andrew Selous
As part of the new Foreign Office project, the Church and the other consortium members will be equipping parliamentarians and religious leaders with the technical assistance and other expertise they need to propose solutions in their own countries to these terrible human rights abuses.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Church Commissioners are undertaking a natural capital assessment to provide a baseline for our carbon outputs and to understand our ecosystem services. This will provide a plan to lower carbon outputs and inform our natural capital strategy. Where possible, our tenancies have clauses relating to good husbandry and the non-removal of topsoil, and with longer-term tenancies, soil analyses are carried out at the beginning and the end of leases to ensure that soil health is maintained to a good standard.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. The Church Commissioners own an estate of about 105,000 acres. What is the Church doing to help its tenant farmers to achieve sustainable farming, especially in the light of the current pressure that farmers face during coronavirus?
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in this important area. Over 60% of our agricultural land is let on secure agricultural tenancies and the remainder on more modern sorts of farm business tenancies. When new tenancies are granted, we encourage sustainable farming practices through our tenancy precedents. We will be reviewing this further in the light of our natural capital assessment results. We want to help our tenants to achieve both sustainable and profitable outcomes.
Jerome Mayhew [V]
The Church Commissioners’ ownership of a large amount of land—over 100,000 acres—gives us an opportunity to lead development of conservation agricultural farming techniques, improving soil health, reducing carbon inputs, and developing the evidence base on carbon sequestration. Does my hon. Friend agree that practitioners should approach management of their farming assets in the same way as they do with their other ethical investments?
Andrew Selous
As a leading global ethical investor, we regularly engage with all the businesses in which we are invested to improve best practice. While farming practices and management decisions are mainly taken by our agricultural tenants, we have some who do practice zero tillage, and we strongly encourage sustainable farming practices when new tenancies are granted.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Commissioners’ property assets are independently valued by third parties on an annual basis. The audited financial results for 2020 will be available later in the year and laid before Parliament once an annual general meeting is able to take place.
Mark Eastwood [V]
The recently appointed Archbishop of York has spoken in the past about the importance of caring for green spaces. In his enthronement sermon, he declared that
“we are at risk of separating ourselves from the planet itself, so obsessed have we become with the dangerous suppositions of our own importance and dominion.”
Can my hon. Friend encourage the archbishop to act on his words and impress upon the Church Commissioner landowners the need to have a rethink of their plan for the unjustifiable destruction of unspoilt countryside and farmland at Chidswell in Dewsbury?
Andrew Selous
I know that my hon. Friend works tirelessly for the people of Dewsbury. I and the staff of the Church Commissioners have met him to discuss this issue. Although the planning application is yet to be determined, it is in line with the strategic objectives of the Kirklees development plan. It will not only bring much-needed new homes to his area, but new employment opportunities and new public open space.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Andrew Selous
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for being one of three Members today to raise this vitally important issue. The Church is grateful for the Government’s continuing commitment to implement the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations on this issue. In this week of prayer for Christian unity, we need to be especially mindful of persecuted Christians all around the world.
Henry Smith [V]
What discussions has the Church of England had with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that covid-19 international assistance aid reaches all in need and is not abused by discrimination against Christians, which has appallingly occurred in some countries?
Andrew Selous
Last year, officials from the Church had regular meetings with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—both Ministers and staff—where concerns were raised that covid-19 was being politicised and that minority communities were indeed being discriminated against. Bishops regularly raise this issue in the other place as well, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Church will continue to engage with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as the need arises.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) [V]
The National Audit Office produced an important report examining the Ministry of Defence’s assessment of the affordability of the equipment plan for 2020 to 2030 and the management of equipment expenditure. It is the latest annual update on the financial pressures that the Ministry of Defence faces in developing its military capabilities. The Government will respond to the expected Public Accounts Committee report on the subject after it is published.
Mr Hollobone
In its devastating report, the NAO finds that the equipment plan
“remains unaffordable for the fourth successive year”,
that the budget gap is between £7 billion and £17 billion and that the MOD
“continues to make over-optimistic and inconsistent judgements when forecasting costs.”
What specific parliamentary scrutiny would my hon. Friend encourage to force the Government to address these very serious issues?
Mr Bacon
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his assiduous following of this issue. He asked me about this issue in September last year, after the National Audit Office report on Carrier Strike. We now have the new report, “The Equipment Plan 2020-2030”, published on 12 January, and I am pleased to tell him that the Public Accounts Committee will be taking evidence on that report on 4 February. I would also be happy to draw his interest in this matter to the attention of the Chair of the PAC, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier).
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Diocesan education teams and local churches have focused on supporting the wellbeing of students and staff through the ongoing provision of collective worship, by providing and distributing food for disadvantaged families and, in many cases, by renovating and distributing technology to enable online learning to supplement the Government’s provision.
Caroline Ansell [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Church leaders and congregations in Eastbourne and Willingdon at St Michael and All Angels and St John’s Meads have stepped into the digital divide by rallying round and providing laptops and devices for primary school children in their parishes. Will he join me in thanking them for their contribution, which complements the Government’s support in this vital area?
Andrew Selous
Of course I will do that. I am delighted to learn of the work of St Michael and All Angels and St John’s Meads. It is typical of what the Church is doing across the country to help not just schools but entire communiti-es.
Point of Order
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, preceding the Division on the Labour party’s motion on universal credit, a number of Opposition Members shouted “No”, seemingly to trigger a Division, but the Division resulted in zero No votes. I mistakenly believed that the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell) called “No” and subsequently voted Aye, meaning that his voice and vote would have been at variance, contrary to a settled principle of this House. It has been pointed out to me that this was not the case, and I would like to apologise to the right hon. Member unreservedly for that allegation. I have written to him to express my apology, and I would like to place it on the record of this House.
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his apology, which I, of course, accept. I am also grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for everything that you have done to help sort this matter out.
Mr Speaker
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is right that he should apologise unreservedly, and he has done so. The matter is now closed.
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next item of business to be made.
Vaccine Roll-out
(3 years, 3 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
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the covid-19 vaccine roll-out.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock) [V]
We are in the midst of one of the toughest periods of this pandemic. Yesterday saw 1,820 deaths, which is the highest toll since the crisis began. As we endure these dark days and the restrictions that we must all follow to save lives, we know that we have a way out, which is our vaccination programme. Thanks to the hard work of so many people, we now have an immense infrastructure in place, which day by day is protecting the most vulnerable and giving hope to us all.
I am glad to report to the House that we have now given more than 5 million doses of the vaccine across the UK to 4.6 million people. We are making good progress towards our goal of offering everyone in priority groups 1 to 4 their first dose by 15 February. That is a huge feat, and one in which we can all take pride. We are vaccinating at a greater daily rate than anywhere in Europe—twice the rate of France, Spain or Germany.
The first 5 million doses are only the beginning. We are opening more sites all the time in cathedrals, food courts, stadiums, conference centres, GP surgeries and many, many other places. Today, a cinema in Aylesbury, a mosque in Birmingham and a cricket club in Manchester have all come on board as part of 65 pharmacy-led sites across England that are joining our vaccination programme this week. That ongoing expansion will help us protect even more of the most vulnerable even quicker. From today, we will also publish more localised, granular data, broken down by NHS sustainability and transformation partnership area, as well as by region, so that the public have the best possible information about all this work.
This virus is a lethal threat to us all. As we respond through this huge endeavour, let us all take comfort in the fact that we are giving 200 vaccinations every minute. In the meantime, everyone must follow the rules to protect the NHS and save lives. We can do that safe in the knowledge that the tide will turn and that, with science, we will prevail.
Huw Merriman
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for granting this urgent question. I also thank the Secretary of State for his update and for all the time and devotion he gives to this matter, and the vaccines Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is doing an amazing job. Everyone is doing an amazing job across the country to roll out this vaccine, and I absolutely salute them all. They include my Westminster office manager, Iona Cullen-Stephenson, who has been vaccinating.
In my part of rural East Sussex, the vaccine has been slow to reach rural Rother, Battle and Heathfield residents. In the 200 square miles that I represent, only one surgery has been vaccinating. That has got better from this week, and I welcome that. I thank the Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust team. Adam Doyle and his team have been amazing to MPs.
I have three question to the Secretary of State about rural areas. First, can we draw up a new vaccine contract for GPs that guarantees that they will receive only AstraZeneca, and not Pfizer, which they find difficult to store? Many GPs in my area tell me that they will sign the contract if they can get AstraZeneca only, so it would be just like the pharmacy contract.
Secondly, we will soon have the welcome challenge of delivering the vaccine to priority groups 5 to 9. At the same time, we will have to deliver the second dose to the priority 1 to 4 cohort, who are more vulnerable. Can we ensure that the latter priority groups go to the hubs, because those groups will find it easier to travel, and that we use our local GP surgeries to re-dose priority groups 1 to 4?
Thirdly, I know that the Government rely on the manufacturers for supplies, but can we try to give more forward-looking supply levels to our county teams so that they have indicative estimates to enable them to plan better on the ground?
I welcome the statement from the Government. I would ask that colleagues be given an opportunity every week to question members of the Government. We receive updates from our own community teams, and it is surely right that we should be able to put the same questions and ideas to the Front Benchers.
Mr Speaker
Before I bring in the Secretary of State, I will just say that this is your UQ, rather than Government coming forward with a statement. We have had to ask for it.
Matt Hancock
On that last point, we typically do come forward with a statement at least once a week, and I am very happy to answer questions at any time.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just correct the Secretary of State? We have not had one for over a week.
Matt Hancock
Typically, I have come forward at least once a week, and I am very happy to do that and to respond to questions at any time. I am very glad that the technology is working and I can do that while self-isolating at home, as I am now.
On the substance of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the first thing I would say is that I am absolutely delighted that there are new centres opening in Sussex—in Ticehurst village hall this week—so that the roll-out can reach all parts. I will consider the point that he makes about cohorts 5 to 9, which will need the first dose of the vaccine at the same point as we start the second dose for those who have been vaccinated from the start of January. When we restart with the second doses, it will be important to make sure that they are available as close as possible to the largely elderly population who will need them, and I will take away the point that he raises.
The challenge on the contract is tied in with the first and third of my hon. Friend’s questions. The challenge is essentially that we have a lumpy supply. The manufacturers are working incredibly hard to deliver the supply as fast as possible, and I pay tribute to them and their work. It is challenging, however, and therefore it is not possible to give certainty as far out as many GPs and those who are delivering on the ground would like. The worst thing would be to give false certainty. We do try to give information about what is coming next week, but until the supply smooths out, as I am sure it will over time, going further out than that would give false certainty. The worst thing would be to have GPs across the country booking in large numbers of people and having to reschedule those appointments unnecessarily.
I will take into account the point that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is easier to deliver in rural areas, and the request for some people to be able to do that. At the moment, however, we must use the contract that we have.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday I visited the vaccination centre at Leicester racecourse, and it was inspirational to see the joy on the faces of those who were vaccinated and the pride of the staff and volunteers doing the vaccination. The figure of 4.6 million is indeed welcome, and it is a reminder that when the NHS is put in charge and tasked with implementing a large-scale project across our communities, it gets on with it and delivers. The Secretary of State has a target to vaccinate care home residents by the end of the week. Will he update us on progress towards that target?
Today we have had the latest Imperial survey, and the findings are alarming. It is especially concerning that infection rates are so high in London, and yet London and the east of England appear to be behind the rest of the country on vaccine roll-out. Will he tell us what action is being taken to speed up vaccination across London and the east of England? The Imperial survey also highlights the disproportionate infection rates among key workers and those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. Once the nine priority groups are vaccinated, is it the Secretary of State’s expectation that we will then move to prioritise key workers—teachers, police officers, firefighters, transport workers, supermarket staff—who are more exposed to the virus at the moment?
The Secretary of State will know that there are 11,000 community pharmacists. That could mean up to 30,000 pharmacists at the heart of delivering this vaccine. We should be using them not just because of the volumes of doses they can administer, but because they have years of experience of building trust and vaccine acceptability within hard-to-reach groups and minority ethnic communities. I was speaking to pharmacists this week in Dudley who were telling me this. They also, by the way, raised concerns about the wider supply of the consumables needed to administer the vaccine. Can he guarantee that there will be no delay or shortages in the delivery of this wider kit?
The new variants remind us that we have to go further and faster on vaccination and work harder to break transmission chains. Early analysis suggests the South African B1351 variant brings a reinfection risk that means vaccines may need to be redesigned. Has the Secretary of State got a contingency plan in place?
Finally, yesterday’s death numbers were truly horrific. Vaccination has to go hand in hand with measures to suppress this virus. That means further containment measures. Not everybody can work at home comfortably or isolate themselves. The system is still expecting families to go hungry to stop spreading infection. Can I urge the Secretary of State again to fix sick pay and give people proper financial support so that they can isolate and we can drive infection rates down?
Matt Hancock
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the NHS is doing a great job, supported by so many people. In particular, I want to thank the volunteers who have stepped forward—tens of thousands of them—and are now working to deliver the vaccination programme alongside NHS staff and, of course, members of our armed forces. In fact, there are several Members of this House who are, as we speak, supporting vaccination in vaccination centres, and some of them are doing vaccinations themselves. I am very grateful to all the volunteers.
The hon. Gentleman raises the question of pharmacies and, absolutely, pharmacies are going to be incredibly important, especially for reaching into those communities that may be otherwise harder to reach. The NHS as a whole is highly respected and trusted in all communities of this country so is well placed to do that, and pharmacy colleagues within the NHS particularly so, because they are often the closest to their communities. As I have set out, we have opened 65 vaccination centres that are pharmacy-led this week, with more to come.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the residents of elderly care homes. I am delighted to say that 63% of residents in elderly care homes have now received the vaccination. That is a really significant increase over the last week. We are on track to deliver on our goal of vaccinating elderly care home residents by the end of this month, and I hope sooner than that.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about the question of the need—potential need—for vaccine redesign if there is a new variant that is not effectively dealt with by these vaccines. Obviously, we are vigilant on that and keep it under close review. I am glad to say that the early indications are that the new variant is dealt with by the vaccine just as much as the old variant, but of course we are vigilant on the new variants we are seeing overseas. He mentioned the South Africa variant, and there is also a variant of concern that was first identified in Brazil, and of course we are vigilant on those matters, too.
What I would say in summary is that all of these things just support the need for everybody to follow the rules and stay at home. It is critical that everybody does their bit to try to stop the spread of this virus while we get the numbers under control and bring them down, thus protecting the NHS and getting this death toll down, because it is far too high.
Mr Speaker
Let us head to Surrey with the Chair of the Select Committee, Jeremy Hunt.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This week the Office for National Statistics said that prevalence rates nearly doubled during the November lockdown, and today’s REACT—real-time assessment of community transmission—study says that infections are still rising. Is not the reality that these new strains are massively more dangerous and harder to control than many realise? If we are going to bring down the horrific death rates that we are now seeing, should we not secure our border, with quarantine hotels, end household mixing outside bubbles, and follow Germany in mandating FFP2—filtering face piece—masks in shops and on public transport, to give better protection to wearers?
Matt Hancock
We have looked at the question of personal protective equipment with respect to the new variant, and the clinical advice I have received is that the current guidelines are right and appropriate. On international travel, as my right hon. Friend knows, we brought in significant measures last week to close the travel corridors, and we remain vigilant on what we need to do to guard against new variants coming in from abroad. The new variants do change this question, because it is about ensuring not just that we do not get extra cases coming in from abroad—in which case, if an area of a country has a lower case rate than us, there is no more risk than that of people staying in this country—but that new variants that might not be dealt with as effectively by the vaccine do not arrive and that we stop them coming. That is something on which have recently taken significant action, and of course we keep it under very close review.
Mr Speaker
We now head to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Martyn Day, who is participating virtually and has one minute.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. With supplies of the Pfizer vaccine expected to be temporarily lower for a few months, and with delivery of the Oxford-AstraZeneca supplies behind target, there are both public and professional concerns. What level of supplies can the Secretary of State guarantee over the coming weeks and months, so that health services can plan appropriately? Given that the UK has procured vaccines on behalf of the four nations, how much of this reduced supply will come to Scotland, and was knowledge of vaccine supply disruption behind the UK Government’s insistence on removal of supply numbers from the Scottish Government’s vaccine delivery plan?
Matt Hancock
As I have said many times, the supply of the vaccine is the rate-limiting factor for the roll-out, and we share that supply fairly and equally across the UK. There is a lumpy supply schedule and making this stuff is not easy; it is not just a chemical compound, as I have described many times. Ultimately, this is a UK programme delivered in the devolved nations by the NHS, which is doing brilliantly. A massive teamworking effort is trying to get out as much as possible, as fast as possible, and that teamwork is taking place not only across the four nations of the UK, but with the suppliers to make sure that we get as much supply as we can as quickly as we can.
Mr Speaker
Let us head to the Father of the House in Worthing, Sir Peter Bottomley.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) [V]
May I add to the good questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)? My question was raised, in effect, by Shelagh Fogarty of LBC in The Daily Telegraph today, who wrote about confusion regarding the housebound as well as the homebound. We know that people are going to be vaccinated in mass centres—I had the chance to see one yesterday—and in local hubs and at home, but too often people are sitting at home wondering which it is likely to be. Could the Secretary of State get the partnerships for integrated care—the sustainability and transformation partnerships—to make public how soon they expect to get to most of those who are over 80, especially in semi-rural constituencies?
Matt Hancock
I can answer my hon. Friend’s question: we will offer vaccination to everybody in the top four categories—the over-70s, the clinically extremely vulnerable and health and social care workers, including the residents in older people’s care homes—by 15 February. I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me and like many of us in this House, gets asked by constituents all the time, “When will the call come for me?” The answer is that we are working through that list and we will reach all those groups with an offer to be vaccinated on or before 15 February.
The exact order within that queue is for a local area to decide, and sometimes people might get invited to two different methods of vaccination, such as at one of the big sites and by their local GP, and for people who are housebound there are roving teams led by the local primary care networks to get out and vaccinate them. So the offer will come, and people should be assured that while, as of today, around two thirds of all over-80s have been vaccinated—which is very, very good progress—that means there is a third still to go, and we will get to everyone and make sure everyone gets that offer to be vaccinated by 15 Feb.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
Given the concerning data coming out of Israel regarding the efficacy of the first Pfizer dose, which may be quite a lot lower than first expected, are the Government planning to review their policy of delaying the second Pfizer dose by 12 weeks, and, specifically, will the Secretary of State consider giving healthcare workers, who are being exposed to the highest viral loads, an early second dose so that they get maximum protection, because that is as important as personal protective equipment?
Matt Hancock
I am glad to say that I can reassure the hon. Lady that, having looked into the data that underpins the article in The Guardian that I think she is referring to, it supports the data on which we have been basing our decision to move to a 12-week dosing schedule—12 weeks from the first to the second dose. The Government chief scientific adviser was asked about this by the media yesterday and explained clearly why we were able to make that decision, because around 89% efficacy comes from between days 14 and 21 after the first dose. Of course we are looking at this data, and we are in fact measuring the efficacy here at home by matching the data between those who have been vaccinated and those who test positive. We are monitoring that and will publish that data as soon as it is clinically valid. This is an important question, but I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Lady that the headlines that she read in The Guardian are not quite right.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) [V]
The NHS teams across North East Lincolnshire are working hard caring for patients with covid, and are now doing a fantastic job administering the much-welcomed vaccines. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating them, and does he have plans to introduce a personal vaccination record for travel and other purposes?
Matt Hancock
I am delighted that in the Humber, Coast and Vale NHS area 142,000 people have now been vaccinated, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and NHS colleagues and colleagues across the House for that huge effort. I congratulate the local NHS in North East Lincolnshire on the work they are doing in getting these vaccines out. I was also able to talk to some North Lincolnshire colleagues in the NHS who are doing a fantastic job, because they have managed to get to all their care homes, which is absolutely terrific. Lincolnshire is doing a great job with the vaccine roll-out.
On my hon. Friend’s specific question about travel and the link to vaccination, it is too early to have a firm view, because we have to see the impact of vaccination on the transmission of the disease. Obviously, when someone is vaccinated, that event goes into their health record, which is held by the NHS; it is recorded so they can demonstrate that they have been vaccinated if needs be. However, for the time being, we are being very cautious on travel because of the risk of new variants, especially if there are new variants where the efficacy of the vaccine is lower.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his regular updates. Will he outline what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that hospitals throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can avail themselves of the highly skilled workforce and the logistical expertise of the armed forces? For those who seem perplexed, will he outline the rationale for making use of this tremendous weapon in the arsenal in the fight against covid in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in saving lives? Will he also join me in thanking the Northern Ireland Executive for taking this step to save lives, regardless of any perceived political point that others may shamefully make?
Matt Hancock
The armed forces have been incredible in their support for the efforts that we have all had to go to nationally to tackle covid. That is also true with the vaccination programme—especially the logistical expertise that the hon. Gentleman refers to. This UK-wide vaccination effort has been supported enormously by the armed forces. I am very grateful to them for the work that they have done, really going the extra mile to help save lives.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I am very worried about domiciliary carers who might be employed privately or via an agency and how they will access the vaccine. It is very probable that their employment status is not known, yet they could be going into several homes per day, helping vulnerable people. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that these brilliant carers will not be forgotten?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely; that is incredibly important, and we are working to ensure that as many as possible are identified. Category 6 in the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation categorisation specifically identifies as part of the early vaccination effort those carers who may not be paid carers in a care home but nevertheless care for vulnerable people, because of the incredibly important work that they do.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am sure that every MP has families in their local community who have been shielding for almost a year now because they have family members who are clinically extremely vulnerable and, indeed, housebound. The Secretary of State said that everybody who is housebound should get a vaccination by 15 February, but as yet no one seems to have seen any of that start. Will he confirm when the Oxford vaccine will be given to those roving teams that he mentioned, and how many people in this country are housebound and are being identified as such to ensure that they do not miss out on the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely, that work is under way. In the hon. Lady’s constituency specifically, I am delighted that Michael Franklin chemist is starting its vaccination this week. It, along with the local primary care team, will be able to reach people who may not be able to travel. It is an incredibly important part of the vaccination roll-out to make sure that we take the vaccine to those who are housebound. Michael Franklin chemist will be using the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which of course is much easier to transport.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
So far, there are three vaccination centres up and running in High Peak. I pay tribute to all those who are working so hard to roll out the vaccine locally. However, currently the rate of the roll-out is being limited, not by the number of vaccination sites or trained vaccinators, but by the supply of doses coming from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he and his ministerial colleagues are taking to work with those pharmaceutical companies to help them ensure that the supply of vaccine continues to flow to High Peak as quickly as possible?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the rate-limiting step is the amount of supply. We are working closely with the two companies, which are doing a terrific job. We talk to them all the time, in trying to ensure that any blockages are removed. They are going as fast as they can in producing the vaccine, whether that is the Oxford vaccine, produced here in this country, or the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, produced in Belgium and supplied to us. Everybody is working as fast as we can, and I am delighted that the NHS is champing at the bit for more supply in order to deliver it.
Across Derbyshire there have been more 70,000 vaccinations—70,332, according to the latest data I have, as of 17 January. Derbyshire has vaccinated 65% of its over-80s, which is almost exactly the national average of 67%. Derbyshire is doing a great job; I congratulate those in the NHS in Derbyshire, and thank them for their efforts and their work. There is still a lot further to go, but almost two thirds of Derbyshire’s over-80s have been vaccinated. We have to keep at it and keep working hard to make sure that all the vulnerable are protected, and then move on to the rest of us.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
After questioning the Prime Minister last week, I am delighted that the first community pharmacies are now taking part in the vaccine roll-out, but just a few hundred of approximately 11,000 community pharmacies just does not seem enough—it is a tiny proportion, leaving vast potential untapped. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that all General Pharmaceutical Council-registered technicians will be allowed to administer vaccines, so that they are available where they are most needed, on every high street, in every community such as mine in east Hull? Witham pharmacy is ready and willing to start vaccinating now—let us get on with it.
Matt Hancock [V]
At heart, I agree with the instincts of the hon. Gentleman. The challenge is that we need to do this at scale. As supply is the rate-limiting factor, it is very important that any vaccination site can get enough people through to be able to use the vaccine in time—we do not want to leave stocks in the fridge. Pharmacists are experienced at vaccinating and pharmacy technicians can vaccinate, and they are a very important part of the programme. With pharmacies, we have started with the bigger sites that are able to achieve a higher throughput. It is because supply is the rate-limiting factor that we need to make sure that all supply is used up quickly from the point at which it is distributed. That is why we have taken that approach. I am thrilled that so many pharmacies are now coming on stream; there is lots more to do.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
I volunteered in one of the brilliant vaccination hubs in Ashfield and there is one thing that we are not short of: people turning up every single day to get the vaccine. We need more capacity, to win the war quicker and save more lives, so will my right hon. Friend please tell me what he is doing to ensure that the people of Ashfield and Eastwood get their vaccination as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
I am delighted that my hon. Friend is volunteering in a vaccination centre; that is terrific. This is a big national effort, and he is playing his part. Some 49,000 vaccinations had been done in Nottinghamshire as of 17 January. Clearly we still have to do more, but we are making very significant progress. As I said, the rate-limiting factor is the amount of supply that we get into the country, rather than, for instance, the enthusiasm of GPs in the NHS or, indeed, the number of volunteers who have stepped forward such as my hon. Friend.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
A constituent of mine, Mr Clive Tombs, recently reached out to me regarding the crisis facing the London ambulance service. He told me that no one he knows in the service has had a vaccine, despite their being on the frontline of exposure to the virus. At the same time, we have seen pictures of ambulances lined up for hours waiting to get into A&E departments. Clive suggested that, with some co-ordination from the Department, arrangements could be made for ambulance staff to receive vaccines from hospitals while they are waiting in the queue—if there is a surplus and to prevent wastage. Has the Secretary of State considered that possibility? Does he agree that that is a humble suggestion from Clive when, in fact, frontline ambulance staff should be prioritised for the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
Frontline ambulance staff absolutely are and should be prioritised for the vaccine. They are in category 2, and we have to make sure that that happens. I will take away Clive’s idea, work on it and get back to the hon. Lady to see what progress we can make.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
I welcome the opening of vaccination centres across the country, including one imminently at the Kassam stadium in Oxford, but at a meeting that I attended last night of community leaders in Oxfordshire, no one had an idea of when the vaccine centre at Harwell would become operational. Could the Secretary of State oblige?
Matt Hancock
[Inaudible.] the date when it will open. There is a huge amount of investment going into Harwell to make sure that we have cutting-edge vaccination manufacturing facilities for the future. The project is being led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so I will write to my hon. Friend with all the details.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I have serious concerns that, after people have had their first and, indeed, second vaccines, they will have a false sense of security about their level of immunity; we know that the efficacy even after two vaccines is not 100%. Will the Secretary of State ensure that it is communicated clearly that people will still need to follow the public health guidance of hands, face and space of at least 2 metres, even after two vaccines and until it is safe to do otherwise?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point: someone who has been vaccinated can still catch coronavirus for several weeks. It is really important that people know that. When people are vaccinated, they are told the time that it takes and the limit of the effectiveness, especially in that early period, and they are told very clearly that they still have to follow the rules. That is an important part, especially until we can measure the effectiveness of the vaccination programme on transmission. Only yesterday, I reviewed the communications that go to people when they have been vaccinated, and they are very clear and robust, but it is important that everybody, post-vaccination, continues to follow those rules, both to bring the number of cases down because of the impact on transmission and to protect themselves. The vaccine is the way out, but it does not work immediately, and people still need to be cautious.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
From policemen to teachers and shop workers to bus drivers, our key workers have been on the frontline in this pandemic, and we owe them so much. Once the most vulnerable in society have been vaccinated, will my right hon. Friend look to prioritise those who put themselves in harm’s way to help others?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes a characteristically astute point. The priority, of course, has to be those who are clinically most vulnerable, and after that we will make a decision. I have called for a national debate on who should go next. We will look at the data on transmission and who transmits most, and we will also consider key workers, who are often on the frontline, whether that is teachers, bus drivers or others. That is something that we are actively considering, and I will take his suggestion on board.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
The success of any vaccine roll-out relies on reaching every person who needs it. Research presented to SAGE—the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—worryingly found that just 28% of black, Asian and minority ethnic people intended to be vaccinated compared with 85% of white British people. That is a huge disparity. I asked this question on 11 January but got only a holding answer, so I will ask it again: what is the Secretary of State doing to work with the most vaccine-hesitant and vulnerable groups?
Matt Hancock
It is an incredibly important question. We are doing a huge amount of work on it. It is being led by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—the vaccines roll-out Minister—who I think is sitting on the Front Bench. The need to reach all communities is paramount and that is ongoing now.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
One of the sadnesses of the past year has been the way in which families have been unable to see relatives in care homes, often in the last few months of their lives. I commend the Secretary of State for his focus on vaccinating care home residents. All those families want visits to start again. What message can he give them about how quickly he can unlock care home visits again for those families? Will he also assure care homes that the Government still regard the lateral flow tests, which many want to use to vet potential visitors, as viable, reliable and able to be depended on to allow visits?
Matt Hancock
Yes. That last point is very important and we published extensive analysis that supports that view. On the broader point, we are going to look at the effectiveness in the real world of the vaccine as it is being rolled out and make sure that we look at who has been vaccinated and who is then testing positive in future to see the real-world effectiveness of the vaccine roll-out. Once we can see that effectiveness in the real world, we will then be able to consider all the different restrictions that are in place. Visiting care homes is obviously one of the restrictions that we had to bring in, but I entirely understand its consequences and the impact that it has on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
The UK has acquired the rights to vaccinate more than the entire population multiple times over, as have many other developed nations. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps the UK Government are taking to make sure that surplus doses of the vaccine are shared with less developed countries around the world, and will he encourage other countries to do likewise?
Matt Hancock
We have put more money into the international effort to ensure that everybody around the world can be vaccinated than any other country. That is not just more as a proportion of our GDP; it is more cash that has gone into these international efforts across the UK. We can do that because of the strength of our international commitment as a country, so I am very pleased that we have been able to do that. Turning that money into vaccinations is important and a huge amount of work is being done by COVAX to make that happen. The UK can be proud of the work that we have done to support access for the most vulnerable, both in terms of the cash that we have put in and because it is UK research, backed by the UK Government, that has led to the Oxford vaccine, which is one of the two most appropriate for use in the developing world.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
There has been some great vaccine stuff happening in North West Durham, with 98% of the care homes done and the housebound having been started from last week. I thank the people working in the Crook and Tanfield View vaccine centres locally. I have heard that the pharmacy down in Bishop Auckland that is helping some of my constituents has just got the vaccine. However, I have a big rural area, with some people more than 10 miles from a vaccine centre, so will the Secretary of State let us know when those small hubs are going to be started and when the smaller community pharmacies in my constituency will get the vaccine to help to ensure that everybody across the country gets it as quickly as possible?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is quite right to praise the teams across the north-east who have been doing an unbelievable job. The vaccination of 98% of residents in his area is something we should all celebrate. Making sure that everybody is within 10 miles of a vaccination centre is important. In the very rural areas that may include being 10 miles from a mobile site, because we will send in mobile sites to the most rural areas. Crucially, by 15 February everybody will have the offer of a vaccine. Sometimes they may get two offers. One might be to travel, for instance to go to Newcastle where there is a vaccination centre, but if they get that invitation they can still wait to have the more local offer of a jab from their primary care network. There are different ways to make it happen, but he is absolutely right on the importance of getting the vaccine available for all.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Without increasing the 2 million doses a week to 5 million, we are going to be administering the vaccine to the adult population until the end of the year. That causes great anxiety. People are confused and unclear about if and when they will get a dose, particularly informal carers who worry that they are not on anyone’s list. Will the Secretary of State consider requiring doctors and the NHS to text or write to all patients to outline where they are on the list, so that people have a better reasonable expectation of when they will be vaccinated? That would enable them to ensure their prioritisation is correct, and, actually, stop them phoning up surgeries and blocking up phone lines to ask questions about when they are going to get their vaccine.
Matt Hancock
All those who are over 70 or clinically extremely vulnerable will have that offer before 15 February. What that means in practice is that if you receive a letter when measures are put in place recommending that you shield—that letter comes from either me or the Communities Secretary—then you are on the list to be vaccinated before 15 February. After that, we will continue through the JCVI cohorts, which of course includes, in cohort six, those who are vulnerable but not in the clinically extremely vulnerable group. We will get there, and we will invite people according to their clinical need. My recommendation to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that they should wait for the NHS to get in contact with them. We have a programme to make sure that everybody is reached.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) [V]
I join my right hon. Friend in praising the vaccinators, pharmacists, armed forces, NHS staff, support staff and volunteers right across the country, including in my constituency, for the considerable contribution they have already made to the national vaccine roll-out effort. To continue that acceleration, what action is he taking to ensure that all elderly residents in the first priority groups are aware that if they have not already, they can get their jab administered locally in the next few weeks through contact from their own GP practice?
Matt Hancock
We have been in contact with all those who have been invited to come forward so far. For those who have not been yet invited to come forward and are in the top four groups, we will be in contact before 15 February. May I just add that my hon. Friend himself has been volunteering in his local vaccination centre, doing his part on the frontline? I think we should all thank him for that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I am very pleased that my mother, my aunt and my uncle are all having their vaccinations today, so it seems that the roll-out to the over-70s is going well in Bedfordshire at least. May I ask about young carers? We know that the 10 to 19-year-old group is at particular risk of transmitting covid, if not at risk of suffering badly from it. Many of them will be looking after people who are in the clinically vulnerable group, but at the moment it seems that they will not be prioritised for vaccination, just the people who have more professional caring responsibilities. Will the Secretary of State add young carers to his list of people who, for the sake of the people they care for, will be vaccinated early?
Matt Hancock
I will absolutely look into that. I join the hon. Lady in praising the roll-out in Bedfordshire, which is going well. It is wonderful to hear the personal stories of so many people whose vulnerable family members have been vaccinated. The vaccination programme is touching us all; we just have to get it done as quickly as possible to make people as safe as possible as fast as we possibly can.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Coronavirus deaths are 10% higher in areas with only slightly higher air pollution. Will the Secretary of State bear that in mind in respect of his priorities for the rolling out of the vaccine? More importantly, will he ensure that the World Health Organisation air-quality limits are introduced to the Environment Bill next week, so that they have immediate effect and are legally binding? That will save thousands of lives from coronavirus and prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution next year, given that as many people die from pollution every year as died from coronavirus last year.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is an irrepressible campaigner on tackling air pollution. There is a link between air pollution and a person’s risk of dying from covid, and I have been talking about that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) [V]
A large number of people in Sittingbourne and Sheppey who are over the age of 80 have not yet received their covid vaccinations—not because of a lack of will but because of a lack of vaccine. Let me give an example: on the Isle of Sheppey, which has a population of 40,000, local GPs need to vaccinate more than 1,000 people each week to reach the Government’s target of vaccinating every person in the first four priority groups by February. Last week, the Sheppey primary care network was promised 400 doses, but eventually received only 300. This week, it has been promised 1,200 doses, but local GPs worry that this quantity will be cut, too. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is constrained by the number of doses delivered by the suppliers, but what can he do to ensure that both my local primary care networks in Sittingbourne and Sheppey receive the quantity that they need to meet the Government’s target?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend asks an astute question which, in a way, demonstrates the challenge we have. There is a demand for more early information about when vaccine will arrive but, because of the lumpy supply, if we give too much prior notice, we sometimes have to make adjustments like the one my hon. Friend described. The good news is that we are on track to deliver the quadrupling of the amount of vaccine to the Isle of Sheppey that he describes. Like him, I very much hope that the full 1,200 doses will come.
We are sending more doses to the areas that have made the least progress so far, to make sure that by 15 February we get that offer to everybody equally, irrespective of where they live, across England for the English NHS and, indeed, we are working with the devolved Administrations to make sure that that offer is delivered fairly right across the UK. There is prioritisation of the areas that have made least progress so far, and I am working with NHS colleagues to make sure that that is done as fairly and effectively as possible.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for the support being given to the people of Northern Ireland. I know he will join me in thanking our frontline healthcare workers who are delivering the vaccine in our communities.
The Secretary of State will know that the key to maximising the uptake of a vaccine is the assurance of its efficacy, but also that if people take part, it will enable life to return to normal—it will enable schools and business to reopen and family life, particularly for elderly relatives either at home or in care homes, to be restored. The public need that hope, yet while we hear much positivity, we also hear of long-term restrictions of many aspects of what was, and should again be, normal life. Can the Health Secretary give an assurance that he will provide leadership on the public messaging and its tone, and set out a route map for the return of the liberty and freedoms that we once enjoyed, and want to enjoy again?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. We all want to enjoy those liberties again, and we want to do so safely. Balancing those two things is at the core of the conundrums of policy, and has been throughout this pandemic. The critical thing is to make sure we get this vaccine rolled out as fast as possible. That is at the centre of the route out, throughout these islands and, indeed, across the world. I understand the yearning for a clearer map out, but until we know the impact of the vaccine on transmission, it is hard to put timescales on that.
We have to watch the data. Of course I want to see the number of cases come down, but the reason why that matters so much is that we want to see the number of hospitalisations come down. We want fewer people to die each day from this dreadful disease. The numbers published yesterday—more than 1,800 people died—were truly terrible, and we need to make sure we protect life.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Anthony McKeever and his team on ensuring that people in Southend are vaccinated? Will he reassure me that Southend will receive its fair share of vaccines, that the four most vulnerable groups will all be vaccinated by the middle of February, and that people in their 80s and 90s will not be asked to travel long distances to a hub in Wickford?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is our goal. All those things are what we are aiming for. I am really grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. Eighty thousand people have now been vaccinated in his area of Mid and South Essex. We have made a whole load of progress, but there is much more to do to make sure the vaccine is fairly there for everyone.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
The flooding over the past few days has already displaced thousands from their homes, and threatens many more over the coming days. For those who are elderly or vulnerable, wondering how they are going to receive the coronavirus vaccine is an added worry that they do not need, especially if they have to move to other regions to stay with family or into temporary accommodation, which the Secretary of State knows can sometimes be for months. Can he tell us whether the Government have a plan for vaccinating people displaced due to flooding?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. Flooding brings additional challenges, but we will overcome them.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
The vaccination roll-out programme is a huge national success—well done! I thank everyone involved nationally and locally. However, my inbox is overflowing with messages from elderly residents desperately worried that, despite being over 80, 90 and even 100, they have still heard nothing from their GP. Given that other parts of the UK are currently vaccinating those who are significantly younger, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to my North Devon constituents?
Matt Hancock
The reassurance I can give to my hon. Friend and, more importantly, everybody living in North Devon, is that we will get there. We set the goal of 15 February for everybody in the four most vulnerable groups—the over-70s and others—to be vaccinated. They will have an offer of the vaccination arrive so that they can be vaccinated before 15 February. The reason we set that date is to make sure that everybody across the country gets it in a fair time. That is why we are putting more vaccine into the areas that have not made as much progress yet. However, across Devon, just under 100,000 people had been vaccinated by the 17th—a few days ago. By now, I am sure that more than 100,000 people have been vaccinated in Devon. That shows that the roll-out is happening, and we are absolutely determined to reach all parts.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
May I join my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), in thanking those working in primary care to roll out the vaccine in County Durham? They tell me that if they get the vaccine, they can get it out to those who need it. Last week, though, the primary care trust vaccine hub in Chester-le-Street had to be put on standby because there was no vaccine arrival. Today the Secretary of State has again announced new vaccine sites, and suggested that over-70s are going to get the vaccine. In my constituency, people over 80 are still waiting. Can I plead with the Secretary of State to stop the hype and spin, to just be honest with people and with primary care if there is a problem with supply, and to ensure that primary care has enough notice to be able to organise this process, because it is causing a huge deal of pressure on an already overworked system?
Matt Hancock
I am delighted to say that primary care—the GP surgeries across the country—are rising to the challenge brilliantly, especially in County Durham, which is doing an absolutely magnificent job. It is far ahead of the national averages in terms of the roll-out and is doing brilliantly. Of course there are challenges; as the supply comes in, we are getting it to the frontline as fast as we can, and that does mean some rapid turnaround times. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to cheer up and back his local team. Yes, it is difficult, but I know that we will get there.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend is engaged in a herculean task, and I think we all appreciate the work that he is doing. I know that he is aware of what he described as the “lumpy” delivery of vaccines, particularly in East Kent. The vaccines Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—is sitting on the Front Bench, and I hope that he is addressing that issue as we speak.
Let me turn to two further matters. Would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider ensuring that all hospitals be allowed to have supplies to vaccinate their employees, because at the moment national health service employees working in hospitals are still having to travel far too far to get vaccinated? And when the priority groups have been addressed, will my right hon. Friend give particular attention to the needs of teachers, so that they can get back to work, and to the police constabulary, who are exposed every day of their working lives?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue of getting supply out to East Kent. In fact, we are opening more centres just outside his patch, in Folkestone, next week. We are putting more vaccination into East Kent, and putting the support there to ensure that the vaccination roll-out can happen. I am glad to say that the majority of over-80s have now been vaccinated, but there is clearly still a lot of work to do. He is absolutely right to highlight the case that both teachers and police officers are understandably making— that, after we have got through the priority groups according to clinical need, we should consider their case for early vaccination.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
On Tuesday, the Education Committee heard from the deputy chief medical officer that schools were as safe for pupils and staff as anywhere else, but it now seems that this assertion was based on Office for National Statistics ad hoc survey data that appears to be three months out of date. The assertion about safety in schools was repeated by the Secretary of State on TV this morning. However, more evidence—from the Department for Education itself—shows that infection rates among school staff, teachers and support staff were significantly higher than among the working population as a whole in December. If the Government are determined to reopen schools—we all want that to be a major priority—surely school staff should be ramped up the vaccination priority list, based on this evidence?
Matt Hancock
We are very much open to the vaccination of teachers, and school staff more broadly, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, once we have got through those who are clinically most vulnerable. The vaccine programme has to be used to save lives, first and foremost; I think everybody agrees with that. Of course we look at all available data and information in forming that view.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
I welcome the opening today of the Weatherley Centre in Biggleswade, which fills a gap in delivery across Bedfordshire, but I wish to raise with the Minister another question that has arisen in Biggleswade and get some policy advice from him. Penrose Court, a residential care home in Biggleswade, has recorded positive cases among residents. The home was advised that there would therefore be a delay in the vaccinations. Today, I understand from the clinical commissioning group that those vaccinations are back on track, but can the Minister advise the House what the policy is on vaccination of residents in care homes where a recent positive case has been recorded?
Matt Hancock
That is a really important question. For the most part, even when there is an outbreak, a care home can offer vaccinations with its local primary care network to those residents who do not have covid. Of course, when this is done, very scrupulous infection control needs to be in place. For instance, many care homes have vaccinated in a garden hub to make sure that the vaccination is outside, which is, of course, so much safer if there is an ongoing outbreak. Sometimes, an outbreak in a care home is so significant that it has to wait, and that has happened in a couple of cases, but all these decisions should be based on the local clinical advice of the GPs who are in the lead on the roll-out of the vaccination to care homes. I am really glad that this situation has been resolved in Biggleswade, and, of course, I am delighted at the new pharmacy-led vaccination centre in Biggleswade, which, as my hon. Friend said, is plugging a gap. He will have heard colleagues across the House praising the roll-out of the vaccinations in Bedfordshire.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank the local NHS staff in my constituency for their hard work to vaccinate people. In the spirit of working together with them, I raised my concerns about the lack of vaccination sites, particularly around Greenford and Northolt in the northern part my borough, and they agreed with my suggestion that we ask Boots to consider opening a community pharmacy site at their Greenford Westway retail park store. I raised this plan with Boots, who were positive and helpful, and now we need support from NHS England. Will the Health Secretary please ask NHS England to look urgently at lending its support for this plan, so that we can move forward without delay?
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
I know that the Secretary of State will want to join me in praising the response of GPs, NHS and care staff and volunteers in Warrington, who, working at the two community hubs in the town, will have vaccinated, by the end of tomorrow, around 17,000 people from this area. Looking forward, can he tell the House what plans he has to open 24-hour vaccination centres in the north-west, so that anyone who, say, works shifts or has caring responsibilities can access a vaccination at a time when they might be available?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. We will pilot that approach and see how much demand there is for overnight vaccination. As my hon. Friend says, it could be particularly appropriate for shift workers, and of course the NHS runs shifts in every hospital because of the need to care for patients overnight, so that is a very important point that he raises. Let me also say how glad I am that we have been able to open the Imaan pharmacy in Bewsey in Warrington, further expanding the vaccine roll-out in his area.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) [V]
I commend everybody involved in the vaccine roll-out programme, as they have ensured that all care home residents in Slough have received their first dose. I also thank the Health and Social Care Secretary and his team for agreeing to site one of the mass-vaccination centres in my Slough constituency, which has been particularly hard-hit by the pandemic. Can the Secretary of State advise when detailed data will be published on the vaccine roll-out, so that local public health teams and others can identify issues, and will that data be by age, ethnicity, region and level of deprivation?
Matt Hancock
This afternoon, we will be publishing much more detailed local information, so that will be available, and as the roll-out continues, we will publish more and more granular information. The hon. Member is quite right about Slough—it has had a tough time in this pandemic—but it will get the vaccination centre, which is great. It was a real pleasure earlier in the week to have a Zoom with members of the Slough NHS team who have delivered this, with every single resident of a care home in Slough being vaccinated and getting their first jab. It is an absolutely terrific performance by the team in Slough, and I am glad that he is as proud of them as I am. They are a model that all can look to.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say to the Secretary of State that I am about to hand over to the Deputy Speaker?
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
First, can I praise and thank all the NHS staff in Dorset, who are doing a wonderful job fighting this pandemic? Secondly, we hear from some scientists that they want the country locked down until June, when 70% of the population will have been inoculated, and according to Sir Patrick Vallance, vaccines are not going to do all the “heavy lifting”, but what are we vaccinating for if we cannot begin to reopen our devastated economy and regain our freedoms? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is about risk mitigation, not elimination, and that a path out of this lockdown is a decision for politicians, not scientists and modellers?
Matt Hancock
The decisions that we take are decisions, rightly, for politicians, guided by the best possible science. The challenge is how to get back the freedoms my hon. Friend rightly refers to as quickly and as safely as possible. The safety element of that is paramount, as is the speed. The one thing that will help on both is to roll out the vaccines as quickly as possible and to monitor their roll-out very closely so that we can see the effect of the vaccine on transmission. As we see more and more information about that, we will be able to make clearer judgments about the release and when we are able to lift some of these restrictions under which we are all having to live.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
Clear and timely communications are vital in maximising the take-up of the vaccine. Where people have not responded to an invitation letter, I understand that they will receive a phone call and that phone calls will also be used to ensure that all appointment slots are used. Can the Secretary of State assure me that calls will be accompanied by SMS text messages to ensure that deaf people and those with a hearing loss are not left behind?
Matt Hancock
Wherever possible is the answer. The truth is that the NHS has not in the past collected people’s mobile numbers routinely or their email addresses, hence why this roll-out is primarily being done through invitations by letter. I hope that, actually as part of this roll-out, one of the things we will be able to do is make sure that the NHS can put people’s email addresses and mobile numbers on their clinical record, where people consent to that of course, because we have seen in other countries such as Israel that where a very large proportion of people have given their mobile number and their email to the health system, we can get in contact with people much more quickly. Having said all of that, some people will never have a mobile phone and some people will never have email, and this is a universal service—of course it is—so letters and texts to those who have poor sight, and ultimately phone calls, including on landlines, or teams going round to people’s doors, are all important to make sure that everybody gets access to the vaccine and can receive the invitation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call James Daly, I just want to say that I want to try to get everybody in, so we probably need to speed up a little bit.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Bury Council, our local CCG, NHS staff, medical practitioners and all those involved in the vaccine roll-out in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington? Approximately 19,000 vaccinations will have been given by the end of this week across the borough of Bury, and we are confident that all frontline workers and care home residents will be offered the vaccine by Sunday. It has been and continues to be a magnificent effort.
Matt Hancock
That is absolutely fantastic to hear. Across Greater Manchester as a whole, 187,947 vaccines have been done. It has been a huge effort, and I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s support.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Frustrations with the Welsh Government’s roll-out programme are well documented, and health boards in Wales have this week had to contend with some supply issues. Can the Minister reassure me that any supply issues are being addressed? Given that Wales has the largest proportion of people aged over 70 in the UK at over 17%, can he give us some reassurance that Wales will receive a vaccine allocation that reflects the level of relative need?
Matt Hancock
All the three devolved nations are getting their vaccine according to fair shares and at the same speed as England. While supply is the rate limiting factor across the board, the same supply is going in the right proportions across all four nations.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
Yesterday I visited the vaccination hubs at the civic centre in Folkestone and at Lydd airport, which along with the Oaklands surgery in Hythe are doing a great job in vaccinating the local community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Kent we also need to see the mass vaccination centres opening as soon as possible, which can process tens of thousands of people a week?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted to say that next week a new vaccination centre will open in Folkestone, serving the people not only of Folkestone, but of the wider area across parts of east Kent. That is in addition, of course, to the brilliant work that GPs are doing in his part of the world.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) [V]
Wakefield CCG decided not to provide information to local residents about the vaccination roll-out here. It said it feared it would lead to awkward questions from a sceptical public about differential treatment—a kind of postcode lottery for key workers, the elderly and the chronically sick. Can the Secretary of State confirm the comments he has made today, which I welcome, about the release of more granular data? However, they are to be provided by huge and remote sustainability and transformation partnerships, so will we know what is happening at the local level to maintain local public confidence? Finally, will he comment on reports in the Health Service Journal today that next week, the amount of vaccine will be cut by half in Yorkshire and the Humber?
Matt Hancock
I am delighted that across West Yorkshire and Harrogate as a whole, more than 150,000 vaccines have now been done. I would say to anybody that coming forward for a vaccination when invited by the NHS is the right thing to do. I am delighted to say that far from sceptical, the public are hugely enthusiastic about this vaccine programme, and we have seen that the public attitude and enthusiasm to be vaccinated has shot up since we started vaccinating on 8 December. People can see with their own eyes the positive impact that it is making.
We have to ensure that the vaccination programme is fair right across the UK. Some parts of the country, including parts of the north-east and Yorkshire, have gone really fast early on, which is terrific, but we have to make sure that the vaccination programme is fair everywhere, so that everyone in the top four groups can receive that offer of a vaccine by 15 February. We will deliver on that.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State speed up the delivery of vaccines to London, so that we can catch up with other areas? Will he also emphasise that while the vaccine gives us all hope for the future—hope that restrictions can start to be lifted—until that point we have to be cautious and stick to the rules, because the virus is lethal and is putting immense pressure on our hospitals, and sadly we are not out of the woods yet?
Matt Hancock
I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend said. I am really pleased that this week Brand Russell pharmacy in East Barnet is opening for vaccinations, and we are accelerating the amount of vaccinations in London, which is the region in England that has the most to do.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
I fully appreciate and respect that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has a very strict protocol for the roll-out of vaccines, but have it and the Secretary of State considered the notion that staff working to develop and produce vaccines, like those at Valneva in my constituency, should get a vaccination as soon as possible? Will he give some consideration to this and discuss it with the JCVI? I will be writing to him shortly.
Matt Hancock
I will consider that request given the importance of the vaccine supply, which is critical for everybody else to get their vaccinations too.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]
This morning Maidstone Hospital rather wonderfully did its 10,000th vaccination. Medway Maritime Hospital has done 5,000, Malling and Blackthorn primary care networks have pretty much completed the first priority groups, and Lordswood PCN, which is only two weeks old, is motoring along to deliver the vaccine to vulnerable groups in Chatham. This is all down the incredible work of all those involved, and I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in paying tribute to them. However, the one piece of feedback I repeatedly get across my constituency is the lack of consistency in supply, so will he reassure me that those who are delivering on target will not be penalised by their own success and that they will get the stock they need to continue to vaccinate priority groups on the list?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course, we have to make sure that the priority groups are all offered the vaccine everywhere in the country and are able to be vaccinated by 15 February. I totally agree with her about the great effort locally. Reaching 10,000 vaccinations is superb. I particularly want to thank Ritchie Chalmers, Cheryl Lee, John Weeks and the whole team at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. There have been very significant challenges in Kent over the past few months. Thankfully, the case rate appears to be coming down in Kent, which is very reassuring. We have to get this vaccine out as quickly as possible.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
In St Albans, our GP-led vaccination centre at Batchwood Hall is doing a brilliant job, but it only has enough vaccine supply for two days a week, not seven. Now we are hearing rumours that the NHS might set up a large hub in St Albans, which we would not need if our Batchwood Hall centre was getting the vaccines that it needs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the NHS will be putting all its efforts into helping to put the infrastructure in place in parts of the country that need to catch up, rather than dislocating infrastructure in areas that already have excellent centres but just need that extra vaccine?
Matt Hancock
The truth is that supply is the great limiting factor, so we do need to put the vaccination centres where they are most needed, and pharmacy has an important role right across the country. The hon. Lady is right that the great inhibiting factor is the amount of supply, and that is what we are constantly calibrating to get people as much supply, with as much notice, as we can, given the challenges that we all face.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I applaud my right hon. Friend and his colleagues across the NHS, especially here in Shropshire, for the massive effort by so many people to get this vaccination into those in the highest priority groups so quickly. However, there are still some parts of the country where only care homes and NHS frontline staff have been vaccinated, and in the South West Shropshire primary care network, no one in the community over 80 has yet received the vaccine, and none are expected to until late next week. May I ask my right hon. Friend, in common with the pleas made by a number of colleagues, to look at prioritising deliveries for those areas where the highest priority groups have yet to receive the vaccinations that they are being led to believe are now widely available?
Matt Hancock
Across Shropshire, and Telford and the Wrekin, 14,000 doses have been delivered to the over-80s. I will look into the specific question of the primary care network that my right hon. Friend raises, because I was not aware of that fact. Clearly, Shropshire is vaccinating the over-80s but I will look into that specific. It is true that, right across the country, the catch-up is absolutely vital in areas if they are behind, because it is right that this is done fairly across the country. I will get back to my right hon. Friend with the details of the individual case that he raises.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
Is it true, as has been reported, that up to a fifth of staff in some care homes have refused the vaccine? If so, does the Secretary of State have data on this and a plan to address it?
Matt Hancock
We are aware that there are some care homes in which the take-up by staff is not universal—not 100%—although I do not quite recognise the specific figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. I am glad to say that in some parts of the country where a team have gone into a care home and not all the staff have taken the vaccine, when they have returned a couple of weeks later they have been able to complete the roll-out to staff because the staff have been reassured, having seen the roll-out to their colleagues and residents, that it is okay to get the vaccine. The good news is that, overall, take-up and enthusiasm for take-up are very high. We have been hearing today of some cases where there has been a 100% take-up among residents of care homes, and I am really pleased about that. I am particularly pleased that the overall enthusiasm to get the vaccine among the population as a whole has risen quite substantially over the last six weeks. We have worked very hard on this. It is an incredibly important issue and we absolutely have a plan in place to address it.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
Can the Secretary of State confirm that people living with a terminal cancer diagnosis are to be included in the vulnerable groups for vaccination?
Matt Hancock
The vulnerable groups are set out clinically. Those who are clinically extremely vulnerable include those to whom we have written, in some cases regularly, during the pandemic. That is a clinical decision, and I think it is right that it should be a clinical decision.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
The vaccine roll-out in Peterborough is going well. Sites are open at the City Hospital and at a number of GP surgeries and medical centres across the city. I want to place on record my thanks to everyone working in these centres across Peterborough, but I still feel Peterborough needs a mass vaccination centre in our city centre. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are plans for a mass vaccination centre in Peterborough that will serve many thousands of people in my city?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are going to have a mass vaccination centre in Peterborough, alongside all the work that the GPs are doing, and we hope that it will be open next week. I want to thank the NHS in Peterborough for the work that it is doing and for getting this going.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I praise again the work of Cardiff and Vale University health board for its vaccine roll-out. Yesterday it delivered 10 times the number of vaccines in one day that it did on its first day of delivery of the programme; it is doing an incredible job. The Secretary of State rightly said that supply was the limiting factor, and this morning we heard that the Wockhardt factory in north Wales had been affected by flooding. Can he confirm whether any supplies have been damaged or affected? We have also heard that the Serum Institute of India factory has been affected by fire this morning. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that we have more manufacturing capacity and more fill and finish capacity, and that we have a back-up in case something goes wrong, which would be devastating for the supply of this critical vaccine?
Matt Hancock
We absolutely have plans to make sure that we can get the vaccine out, even with significant challenges. We do not take any supply from the Serum Institute of India; that supply is for the developing world. Wockhardt, the company that does fill and finish in Wrexham, has put out a statement around the serious rain and flooding that there has been in and around Wrexham over the last few days, and this is obviously a critical factor.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about ensuring that we have the manufacturing capability, we are investing in that capability for the medium term. We can make so much of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK right now because of the work that was done with the vaccine taskforce over the summer, getting in the capability and the manufacturing. Even when the vaccine was not the major topic of discussion, we were working incredibly hard to expand UK capabilities. We took the approach that we should buy from abroad and make it here at home. It is about getting vaccine into people’s arms, no matter where it comes from, so long as it is safe and effective and does the job. That is what is happening across the whole UK.
It is really good to finish with a question from a Welsh colleague, because it demonstrates that this is a programme that can, I hope, bring the whole country together. Everybody is on the same side trying to make it happen, and we will all keep working on it together. I thank everybody involved, and I thank all colleagues for their enthusiasm and support for the vaccine roll-out programme.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for responding to the urgent question. I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Business of the House
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 25 January will include:
Monday 25 January—Opposition day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion relating to council tax, followed by a debate on a motion relating to employment rights. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Tuesday 26 January—Remaining stages of the Environment Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 27 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill.
Thursday 28 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day 2021, followed by general debate on UN International Day of Education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 29 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 1 February will include:
Monday 1 February—Opposition day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 2 February—Second Reading of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 3 February—Motion to approve statutory instruments relating to sanctions, followed by motion to approve the draft Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to Acts of Parliament) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1544), followed by motion relating to the Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Thursday 4 February—General debate on the future of the UK space industry, followed by general debate on the Towns Fund. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 5 February—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving the business, and may I tell everyone exactly what the Opposition day motions are? The first is on the Prime Minister’s council tax hike, and the second is on the Government’s plan to weaken employment rights.
I ask again about the Session because we need to know when we are likely to get our next Opposition day. I do not know whether the Leader of the House has seen the publication by the University College London constitution unit’s Professor Meg Russell and Daniel Gover of Queen Mary on taking back control? The forward was written by Sir David Natzler. One of the ruses the Government use is to prolong the Session: we only have a fixed date for our Opposition days, so we only get 17 even though the Session is longer.
I hope the Leader of the House will confirm that Budget day remains on 3 March, with the periodic Adjournment for Easter on 4 April. I think the Prime Minister has resolved—although he has not told the House—that the elections will take place on 6 May, which just leaves a short period as to when the Session ends.
Our shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), has said she cannot find the Chancellor, so can the Leader of the House confirm whether he is in Budget purdah now? I do not know whether the Leader of the House knows this, but my hon. Friend was the first woman ever to deliver the Mais lecture, and if anyone wants to read about fiscal responsibility, that is it.
The Education Secretary will make a statement later, but he has said nothing about testing in schools, which I think is part of the Moonshot programme. Apparently, that has been halted, so can he—or anyone—come to the House and explain what Operation Moonshot is?
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has not given an update on the NHS. Anyone who watched the BBC on Tuesday will have seen a woman in a morgue in tears, a consultant in tears, and a 28-year-old without underlying conditions taken into hospital with covid. We have had the highest rate of people who have died since the pandemic began; we need an update. A difficulty that I hope can be discussed is that while we have an Opposition day on Monday, we cannot have urgent questions that eat into our time. Is it possible to look at starting earlier so that we can have an update on the NHS crisis on Monday?
I want to put on record my congratulations to Richard Beeken at the Walsall Manor Hospital; it is a fantastic vaccination programme—17 minutes in and out, and at one stage it had the highest number of vaccinations in the country.
The Government need to be straight with us; no more Brexit promises. They are like piecrust promises—easily made, easily broken. We need the scrutiny Committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). We have musicians who cannot work and no visa-free access. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) asked for the publication of what the two sides said during the talks on the agreement. Can the Leader of the House ensure that we have that publication?
Our fishermen have had to perform the Monty Python fish-slapping dance in the Government’s face before the Government do anything. They have announced by press release the £23 million. Who is it for? How long will it take? Will it help the fishermen fill in the 400 pages that they need to fill in? We need a statement.
Worst of all, we have the news about a lorry park in Dover, in a village. This is being done without consultation and the Government are breaking the law again. Villagers are up in arms; this is in Dover, on agricultural land. May we have a statement on why the Government are breaking the law and upsetting local villagers?
I thank the Leader of the House for getting the Foreign Secretary to write to me, but he did not mention any of the dual nationals in his letter. Anoosheh Ashoori needs his diplomatic protection. Richard Ratcliffe and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) have asked what plans will be put in place for Nazanin’s and Anoosheh’s release. Luke Symons’ fate is still unknown.
Finally, I wish to congratulate President Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris on their historic inauguration. Liberty, equality, climate, economic and social justice, and democracy are their watchwords. We, in the Opposition, want to work very closely with them, and we wish them every success.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I join the right hon. Lady in congratulating President Biden and Vice-President Harris? I think we are both personally delighted that President Biden is the second Catholic, only, to be President of the United States; to have a fellow religionist in charge of the free world is very good news.
The Foreign Secretary pointed out in that letter the difficulties there are in dealing with dual nationals, because some countries do not recognise the concept of dual nationals, and that is particularly true of China and Iran. That was referred to in the letter and I will, of course, as I do every week, take up the points regarding the dual nationals who are held improperly in Iran.
To come to the right hon. Lady’s tease about the titles for the debates on Monday, let me say that council tax is a matter for local authorities, as she knows. The Government have provided many billions of pounds to local authorities during the pandemic, including £4.6 billion of un-ring-fenced money to help them deal with it. So the resources from the central taxpayer to help the local taxpayer have been enormous.
I am aware of the UCL report. I am afraid I think the idea of a House business Committee is cloud cuckoo land. We saw how unsatisfactory and divisive it was when this House did not have the Government able to organise the business during the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. It was chaotic for the Government and for Parliament, and it was very bad for the temper of political debate. A Government have the right to set the timetable in the House by virtue of the mandate they have got from the British voters, and then Members of the House have to be convinced on each individual issue that they wish to support the Government. I have to say that the right hon. Lady would be taking exactly that view if she were Leader of the House rather than shadow Leader of the House. I therefore think that a House business Committee would not be wise. I would be strongly opposed to it as I think it would lead to the sort of chaos and disruption we had in the last Parliament.
The right hon. Lady mentioned fiscal responsibility and the Labour party in the same sentence, which forgets the message left by a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury about there being “no money left”. The last time the Labour party was in government it ran out of money, and one should judge people by what they do rather than by what they say. What the Labour party does whenever it is in office is run out of money. The right hon. Lady then mentioned testing. Some 52 million people have been tested. That is a large number of people and a very large percentage of the population, although, obviously, that includes many people who have had more than one test. We are talking about 700,000 tests per day. She then mentioned musicians. The position on musicians is extraordinarily clear. Her Majesty’s Government have said that during the negotiations we made proposals that would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily without needing work permits. These were based on the input of the music bodies such as UK Music and the Musicians’ Union, but the EU rejected those proposals. Therefore, musicians are in the position they are in because the EU rejected those proposals.
The right hon. Lady then mentioned the fishing industry. There is £23 million in addition to the £100 million to help modernise fishing fleets, to recognise that any delays for the fishing industry are particularly difficult because of the short shelf life of fresh fish, and therefore the extra help is important. They have faced particular changes, but the advantages that our fishing industry will have are going to be reaped as the days and years go on. Already, we have an increase in the exclusive zone in which only UK boats can fish. We will have a 25% quota uplift at the end of five years, beginning at 15%. That will be very good for rejuvenating the fishing industry, and extra money is being provided to help ensure that that happens. It is a positive solution to help our very important fishing industry.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]
Is the Leader of the House aware that Morrisons and Aldi supermarkets have announced that they are to stock and sell more British goods in future? If we cannot have a debate on that, will he warmly welcome that initiative and encourage other retailers to follow suit? Does he agree that buying British is the practical and effective way to champion our local farmers and promote their produce?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Madam Deputy Speaker, normally it would be disorderly to have a prop, but on this occasion I have one that is a face mask, and as face masks are so strongly encouraged in the Chamber, I hope you will allow me a semi-prop face mask. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should try to buy British where we can. Of course, I am not in favour of protectionism, but the British produce some of the best goods in the world, and it has to be said that Morrisons often provides my joint for a Sunday lunch. Its beef is not only delicious but also good value. Good-value British products are what we want, and we want to eat more of them.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
May I add my congratulations to President Biden and Vice-President Harris? I hope that this Government will embrace the opportunities that their election offers.
After this week’s urgent question on the Government’s failure to maintain an EU visa exemption for performers, everyone must now be aware just how big a kick in the teeth this is for our music industry. The Minister for Digital and Culture wrung her hands but had nothing to say about rectifying the situation. When can we have a debate so that we can demand that the Government go back to the EU and negotiate a new scheme?
Keeping with the consequences of Brexit, let me turn again to fishing. Last week, the Leader of the House grabbed headlines with his jokes about happy fish. I hope he will now take it more seriously. We need an urgent debate on protecting our fish producers from Brexit red tape, including a six-month grace period and full compensation for the catches not landed and the lorry loads destroyed.
Earlier this week, the House voted overwhelmingly to reject the Government’s plan to cut universal credit by £20 a week. We know that there is deep disquiet within the Tory party about this, with many simply bewildered at the Government’s planned assault on the very poorest. Given the many billions that have been spent in the wake of covid, how can this clawback from the poor have any political or moral justification? We know that Opposition day debates do not change Government policy, so when will the Government put their proposals before the House, so that we can force them to do the right thing?
Finally, in a week when the 19th Scottish opinion poll reports majority support for independence, I ask again for a debate on this Parliament’s response. Yesterday George Osborne—a man whose intervention single-handedly boosted yes support in the last referendum—demanded that the Government ignore democratic decisions. He seems to believe that if this Union cannot be maintained by consent, it must be maintained by coercion. If that is becoming the Government’s view, surely this Parliament should discuss it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As regards the musicians’ requests, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the shadow Leader of the House. What the British Government asked for and offered was generous, and it was refused by the European Union.
As regards my comments last week, at least I did not joke about happy Members of the SNP, because that really would have been a joke too far; I do not think it has ever yet been achieved, but perhaps one day—we live in hope. I reiterate the £23 million of extra support for the fishing industry, the increased exclusive area for UK fishermen to use and the additional quota that is coming, with a 15% uplift already, going to 25% within five years. That is an enormous increase in our control of our fishing waters, which will ultimately repay the fishermen of the United Kingdom for the damage that was done to them when we joined the European Union. That is fundamentally important.
On universal credit, it was this Government, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who introduced universal credit, and this Government have allowed an extraordinary increase in support for the most vulnerable in society, including the £20 a week uplift. That is £1,000 a year, in addition to the £170 million winter grant scheme; £380 million in free school meal vouchers in the summer; increasing the national living wage; an extra £670 million for councils to help families pay their local bills; and supporting the most vulnerable families with £165 million for the troubled families programme. This Government have shown their absolute commitment to the least well-off in society and have done their best in these very difficult times to provide the support that is needed.
Ultimately, all the hon. Gentleman wants to do every week is moan about the devolution settlement. The referendum was won by the Unionists in 2014. It was accepted that it would be for a generation. A generation is not a mere six and a half years. The Scottish people made their choice, and he is still grumpy that they did not make the choice that he wanted. This Parliament respects the free choice that the Scottish people made more than he does. When the SNP is in such an awful muddle with its rows and disagreements, with Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon getting together and fighting like cats in a sack, it is a most disagreeable spectacle. That is why we should all support the Union and not leave it to the dangerous activities of the SNP.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
People voted to take back control so that the Government would use the new powers to make their lives better, so will the Government urgently make time available for the VAT cuts, the new enterprise zones, the freeports, the policies to increase our fishing fleet, the policies to boost our domestic food production and the so many other good ideas that Ministers should be queuing up to put through our House now we are an independent country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is not only right but he reads my mind. There are great opportunities: the new financial services regulation, which will encourage innovation and competition; the faster and more agile clinical and regulatory regime that is going through with the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill; a revolutionary approach to gene editing, on which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is consulting; freeports, on which the Treasury is consulting; and looking at public procurement differently. We are really taking back control and seeking the advantages, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will join in this enterprise and send a list of all his good ideas to every Minister so that we know there are more ideas bubbling away.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench Business debates next week and the week after. May I ask him again, though, whether on Thursday 28 January, when we have an important debate recognising Holocaust Memorial Day, which is the previous day, we could get some measure of protected time so that that debate can be heard in full? It will be very heavily subscribed and, as we know, urgent questions and statements eat into the time available for Backbench Business debates.
On 4 February, the two debates are a debate on the future of the UK space industry and a general debate on the towns fund. Those debates were previously scheduled for Westminster Hall but had to be rescheduled into the Chamber because of the closure of Westminster Hall.
I did not get in during the previous business—the urgent question on vaccination—to congratulate the directors of public health and all staff involved in the roll-out of vaccines here in Gateshead and across the north-east of England, but I hope that the Leader of the House will use his good offices to ensure that the region is not punished for the success of the roll-out here by having vaccines diverted to other parts of the country so that they can catch up.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not think the hon. Gentleman should use the second session of business to place the question he wishes he had asked in the first session of business, so I will come to the Backbench Business issues. There is always pressure on time, and it is a difficult balance. The debate on Holocaust Memorial Day is of fundamental importance. The Backbench Business Committee has of course decided to have two debates on that day, and that was a matter for it.
There are complications. I did my best today to protect time for Back-Bench business by discouraging my ministerial colleagues from making extra statements, including one from the Department of Health and Social Care, which then got an urgent question. It is not entirely under my control; it is between Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House’s office and what Back Benchers ask for as to how time will be divided up, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to lobby not just me but others who have influence in this area.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
A couple of weeks ago I told the Prime Minister that Somerset County Council is misusing covid funds and that it had a moral duty to ring-fence the money. He did not disagree. The council—surprise, surprise—denied everything, but yesterday it renamed the reserve fund where the cash has been hidden so that it is now called the “covid reserve fund”. Somerset does not trust Somerset County Council. Even its own experts cannot work out how much money it has been given—£32 million, £43 million or £60 million. We must see how the money is spent. We need a debate in the House. As the great King Alfred would have said:
“Ring out the narrowing lust of gold”,
and:
“Ring in the love of truth and right”.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Alfred the Great was, of course, a great educator and translator of works into English, to ensure a wider spread of appreciation of knowledge across his kingdom, and my hon. Friend is also seeking to increase knowledge across the kingdom. His point on the use of public funds is one of continuing importance in this House, which has always had a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that any money that is spent is audited and has an audit trail. Therefore, he is right to highlight this issue, and I hope that Somerset County Council will provide him with the answers he needs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Those are simply marvellous quotes, I am sure. I remind Back-Bench colleagues that we will have a ministerial statement before we get on to this afternoon’s Back-Bench business, so could they keep questions short and ask just one with perhaps not too many quotes? Equally, I ask the same of the responses.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
A study by the consumer organisation Which? has warned that the use of cash, on which many rely, is in danger. Thirty per cent. of Scots reported being unable to pay with cash at least once when trying to buy something since March. Last year the UK Government vowed to bring forward legislation to protect the cash network. Natalie Ceeney, chairman of the Access to Cash Review, has warned:
“We are sleepwalking into a cashless society”,
and time is running out. Will the Leader of the House therefore agree to speak with his colleagues in relevant Departments and ensure that the promised Bill is introduced in the coming months?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises a valid and important point. The elderly in particular rely on cash, which of course has the status of legal tender. Therefore, the refusal of cash raises interesting questions already, but I will of course take up her points with ministerial colleagues, as she asks.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]
I welcome that this Government believe that there is a crucial role for rail in the recovery from the pandemic, helping the levelling-up agenda, economic growth and decarbonisation. I have no doubt that having the right infrastructure is the catalyst to build back better. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend make time available to discuss the potential impact on the east midlands and Yorkshire if the eastern leg of HS2 is not delivered in full?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the Government’s infrastructure programme and the key to build back better. HS2 is a landmark infrastructure project, which will bring much needed extra capacity to our railways, increase connectivity between our great cities, and usher in an even higher speed economy than before. There will be an opportunity to raise this issue at Transport questions next Thursday, so I hope he will be lucky in that particular ballot.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]
The Government quite rightly extended the ban on evictions during this dangerous lockdown period. I have a constituent who has been made redundant after 17 years working for a faith organisation. Tia and her family have lived in a manse for that time, as part of her employment. She has to leave her home when her employment ends on 9 February. There is a loophole in the law: tied accommodation does not fall under the eviction ban. I think this is an oversight rather than intent, so will the Leader of the House confirm that the spirit and intention of the Government are that no one should be forced out of their home during this period, and could we find time in this place to rectify the legislation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to say that the aim of the Government was to prevent evictions during the pandemic, but also to ensure a proper and fair relationship in these difficult times between landlords and tenants. It is very difficult, from the Dispatch Box, to answer individual constituent concerns without notice, but I will undertake to take this matter up with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
I am chairman of the all-party group on microplastics and, working with colleagues from across the House and the wonderful National Federation of Women’s Institutes, we are considering the impact microfibres released from textiles in commercial and domestic wash cycles are having on our marine environment. The UK has taken a global lead on tackling microplastics in our oceans, including the introduction of the ban on microbeads in 2018, but does the Leader of the House agree that debating this issue in Parliament would help us all to understand the potential risks posed by plastic microfibres entering our marine environment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted to hear about the work of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, which does such important work across the country. My hon. Friend is right to say that the ban on microbeads in shower gel and other similar products has stopped billions of pieces of plastic from entering the marine environment. It is also right to say that more needs to be done to tackle other sources of microplastics. The Government have been engaging with industry to encourage businesses to do more, including signing up to Operation Clean Sweep to prevent pellet loss. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue his good work, though he may in the first instance want to seek an Adjournment debate.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
More than nine months on since the first lockdown, limited company directors remain without financial support to replace lost income. The Chancellor and his Ministers have been briefed about a costed proposal for a directors’ income support scheme, which would create such support. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time to allow Members to discuss the merits of this proposal?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government have provided enormous support, over £280 billion in total, of which £65 billion has been to protect over 12 million jobs and has helped both businesses and individuals through the furlough scheme, among other things. There have been difficulties with finding the support that the hon. Lady is asking for, but the Government are obviously sympathetic to people in that difficult position, who do have access to other forms of support from local council grants and, of course, from universal credit.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Everyone will recall the images from last summer of monuments being dragged into rivers and the statue of our greatest ever Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, vandalised by hooligans. I know my right hon. Friend will share my delight that the Government are introducing new legal safeguards to avoid pandering to the whims of the woke left in censoring our proud history. Will he therefore look to hold a debate in Government time on how we can look to further protect our history and our heritage from those who wish to revise our past and tear down statues and monuments?
Mr Rees-Mogg
In a funny way, the woke brigade have done the nation a service, because they have reminded people of the great heroes we have. With lots of statues that people used to walk past and not really notice, they suddenly think, “Gosh, that’s Gordon of Khartoum. He’s an interesting figure. I want to know more about him and what he did to put down the slave trade in the Sudan.” I think this has helped remind people of our history and that it is a history we can be enormously proud of. British people did great things in this country and across the globe. We see that, actually, in the United States. When the United States sought its freedom, it wanted to ensure it had the freedoms that the people of the United Kingdom were entitled to at home. It is a most fantastic history that we should be proud of and celebrate in our statues and in our education, so we should be grateful that the wokery classes have had the effect of improving our understanding of our noble history.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Minority groups have been historically under-represented in health research. That could now undermine trust in the safety of particular vaccines. A recent survey found that 72% of black people are unlikely or very unlikely to take up the covid vaccine. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister for Women and Equalities—so no pressure on the Department of Health and Social Care—to make a statement to the House about what her Department is doing to build trust and the uptake of the covid vaccine among ethnic minority groups, including promoting the voices of scientists from ethnic minority backgrounds?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are doing everything we can to encourage everybody who is eligible to receive the vaccine and we take this very seriously. It is important to deal with scare stories and errors, and remind people that having the vaccine is so much better than taking the risk of not having it. Covid is much more dangerous than having the vaccine is for anybody. The benefits of the vaccine are overwhelming, so we need to deal with misleading information.
I would also point out how well the newspapers are doing. A number of newspapers, including the Daily Mail in the last few days, have had detailed pieces by members of minority communities pointing out that the vaccine is safe. We need to encourage other opinion leaders, along with Her Majesty’s Government, to make the case and reassure people from all walks of life that the vaccine is safe and beneficial. Even our sovereign has had the vaccine. If it is good enough for the Queen, it is good enough for everybody.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government have had to introduce emergency legislation several times over the last year. We now have a convention that they bring it to the House as soon as possible when it relates to the pandemic. As we heard from the Health Secretary this morning, we have a much brighter future to look forward to with the vaccine roll-out. We all expect to see falls in case numbers and, more importantly, hospitalisations and deaths soon. So can the Leader of the House assure me and the rest of the House that the Government will act with the same sort of urgency in bringing back the necessary legislation to relax the covid measures as and when the data allows that to happen?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. His point is an important one. I remind him that the regulations lapse and have to be renewed, so any renewal of them will always require a debate and a vote in this House. But, as he said, a great deal has happened: 4.6 million people have had inoculations across the United Kingdom so far, and there are 1,000 vaccination sites already operating in England. Things are happening, as he says. In the meantime, we still have to maintain social distancing. We need to keep six and a half feet away from people. Think of me laid down flat: that is a bit short of the distance needed. We have to follow that, but as he says, we are making progress.
No one in the Government or this House wishes these restraints to remain a day longer than is necessary. No Government would wish to restrict these liberties. It has been done because of an emergency. There is no justification for having the restrictions beyond the point at which they are needed. That, I think, is a view held across the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The Leader of the House paints a tantalising picture.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Storm Christoph has brought with it widespread and severe flooding across Warrington North, with many residents having to be evacuated and devastating damage to homes. It has been heartbreaking to receive photos and videos from inside constituents’ homes in the worst-affected areas. I pay tribute to the work of the emergency services and Warrington Borough Council, which have been working throughout the night to keep residents safe. Given that flooding is likely to become an increasing issue due to the climate emergency and the fragmentation and continuing underfunding of risk management authorities with responsibility for flooding, can the Leader of the House please arrange for the House to debate the impact of Storm Christoph, which affects so many constituencies of hon. and right hon. Members across the House, and how we can build resilience to end the misery of persistent flooding in our communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, which is one of concern across the House; the seriousness of flooding and the effect that it has on families and businesses is very severe. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was here answering questions earlier and I know how hard he is working. As I walked to my office, I overheard him on the telephone, just before coming in to answer questions, trying to get more done to help people who are at risk of flooding. He is working tirelessly and the Government policy is there to help people. Some £5.2 billion will be spent on flood and coastal defences, which is double the previous amount, helping 336,000 properties over the next six years, in addition to the 300,000 properties that have been helped since 2015. I accept that if people have been flooded within the last 24 hours, the promise of £5.2 billion being spent is not a great comfort, but I can say that action is being taken to ensure that people will be safer in future.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
At six months old, Hurley is one of my youngest constituents, but he has PKU—phenylketonuria—a medical condition where his body cannot process protein, which severely restricts his diet. Most ordinary food will be off limits. There is a treatment available called Kuvan that can be transformative, and it is available in many other European countries but not here. Can we have some parliamentary time to debate the challenges facing those with PKU and how we can ensure that the one in 10,000 babies born with it get the best possible treatment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I say how much I sympathise with my hon. Friend? Just before I entered Government, I had a case of a young child who needed a very expensive and unusual drug, and I am very glad to say that, in the end, that child got it. I encourage my hon. Friend to use every parliamentary mechanism he can possibly think of to campaign for this child. It is so important that we help our young constituents, who have long lives ahead of them.
Such issues are decided by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is the independent body responsible for providing evidence-based guidance for the NHS on whether medicines represent a clinical and cost-effective use of resources. The NHS in England is legally required to fund medicines recommended through a NICE appraisal, usually within three months of final guidance. NICE is currently appraising Kuvan for PKU and aims to publish its recommendation in April. My hon. Friend may also wish to be aware that applications for generic versions of the drug may now be submitted.
Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is the UK’s stand-alone medicines regulator and has introduced an accelerated national assessment procedure. That is open to applications for generic medicines, as well as innovative medicines, and in a timeframe to reach a licensing decision in 150 days rather than the 200-day EU procedure. However, I have such sympathy with my hon. Friend and with the child and family in question, and I encourage him to keep knocking on everybody’s door.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]
I add my congratulations to President Biden and Vice-President Harris on their historic inauguration. Last week, the former US President Trump imposed deliberately stringent sanctions on the Houthis in Yemen that cannot easily be undone. Far from targeting individuals involved in acts of terror, this decision is a death sentence for millions who will now be cut off from life-saving aid in what is already the world’s gravest humanitarian emergency. Despite that, the Government have shown no leadership on this crucial issue, with no official response from the Foreign Secretary, and I am yet to receive a reply to my letter from 11 December. Can the Leader of the House please grant time for an urgent update on this critical matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have always said that I will try to achieve speedy replies for Members when they ask for them, and I will certainly take this up with the Foreign Secretary to get a response to the hon. Lady’s letter. The UK Government have been doing what they can in Yemen, both with funding and through diplomacy, to try to make a very, very difficult and sad situation better, but she is obviously right to try to seek further answers from the Foreign Office.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
This session finishes at nine minutes past 1, so I remind hon. Members to be as brief as possible.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome Government schemes such as the lifetime skills guarantee, which will help adults in Stoke-on-Trent to upskill and retrain, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be a challenge to encourage people to take up such opportunities? Will he therefore agree to a debate to highlight the benefits and help to encourage more people to take up such opportunities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will update on the House on the “Skills for Jobs” White Paper shortly after business questions. It is really important, and my hon. Friend is right, to highlight the fact that there will be new flexible training that will give people the higher level of skills they need for good jobs, through 12 to 16-week courses, including a fast-track to interview. From April 2021, we will be supporting any adult aged 24 and over who wants to achieve their first full level 3 qualification— equivalent to two A-levels or a technical certificate or diploma—to access nearly 400 fully-funded courses. Things are happening and my hon. Friend is right to highlight them, but I cannot promise him a debate.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
This week we got the disturbing news that the UK currently has the highest covid death rate in the whole world. Does the Leader of the House not have a sense of shame about his Government’s handling of this crisis? Will he allow a debate on the lessons we can learn from those countries—including New Zealand, Vietnam and others—that have, unlike ours, effectively eliminated the virus by following a zero-covid strategy? Will the Leader of the House apologise for his Government’s role in this human catastrophe?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is not helping matters. This is a global pandemic that has affected all countries. There has been a considerable spirit of co-operation between all parties in trying to tackle it, and trying to make party political points out of it is simply undignified.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Leader of the House may not have heard of a Teesside delicacy known as the chicken parmo, and may ask what it is. Well, I will tell him: a chicken parmo is a flattened chicken breast, covered in breadcrumbs, deep fried, covered in bechamel sauce and cheddar cheese, and served with chips, garlic sauce and, of course, a salad. Surely the Leader will agree with me that such a local delight, enjoyed by many throughout Redcar and Cleveland, including me, should not fall victim to any proposed junk-food ad bans. May we have a debate in Government time on online advertising for local food outlets?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Until my hon. Friend added the garlic sauce and the salad, I thought it sounded really rather delicious, but I am afraid I shall have to stick to my deep-fried Mars bar, which is free of garlic, which I have always thought the most ghastly stuff. There is a balance to be achieved: on the one hand, we need to reduce obesity in this country, and we know from covid how serious the obesity problem is; on the other hand, people have to be free to eat what they like—we are not going to have wartime rationing, telling people how much butter they can eat in a week or things like that. The Government are analysing the responses to the recent consultation, to which I am sure many MPs will have contributed. Of course, nothing can be done without the decision being made in this House.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
As the Leader of the House may be aware, I have been campaigning on the issue of fire and rehire since it arose with British Airways. We heard warm words then, and have done throughout the past months, from the Prime Minister and various Ministers, but there has been little action. Indeed, we hear that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is to review workers’ rights, and that existing protections are under threat. With strikes ongoing or potential action at British Gas, Heathrow airport, BA Cargo and Go North West buses, may we please have a statement from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on fire and rehire and his wider intentions on workers’ rights?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The UK has a record on workers’ rights of which it can be enormously proud, and there is every intention to maintain high workers’ rights, which have been something to which the Conservatives have been committed throughout their history. It was, of course, Lord Shaftesbury who, when a Member of this House representing a Dorset constituency, pushed through the Factory Act 1847 to improve conditions in factories, so the Conservatives have always been doing such things and will continue to do.
On fire and rehire specifically, the Government have made it clear that businesses should not use it as a mechanism for cutting costs, but there are circumstances in which employment situations change in response to economic conditions.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
Last week, I was appointed by the Prime Minister as the leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe. My right hon. Friend’s predecessor as Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), looked favourably on the idea of a regular debate to let people know what we are doing in the Council of Europe. May I push my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a little on whether that idea finds favour with him?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Madam Deputy Speaker, I join you in congratulating my hon. Friend on becoming leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, and helping in its important work promoting democracy. I look enormously favourably on a debate on the Council of Europe in Backbench Business time.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I am proud to have not one but three maintained nursery schools in my Stockport constituency. Hollywood Park, Lark Hill and Freshfield serve my constituency excellently, and families across our country benefit from our maintained nursery school system. However, research by the National Education Union reveals that there are only 389 such schools left in England, many of which are located in the most deprived areas of the country. Will the Leader of the House agree to hold a debate in Government time regarding maintained nursery schools and fair funding for them going forward?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always good to hear Members praising efficient organisations in their constituencies, and I hope that the three maintained nursery schools in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will note what he has said. There is obviously a variety of nursery provision, but I will happily pass this matter on to the Secretary of State for Education.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
This week is Cervical Cancer Prevention Week. As smear tests are the best protection against cervical cancer, the charity Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust is using this week to highlight with its #SmearForSmear campaign the importance of all women of all ages keeping up to date with their screening. Our outstanding NHS GPs and sexual health clinics remain open even during this pandemic, so will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust on its important campaign; urge women across the country to keep up to date with their cervical screening; and urge both men and women to keep up to date on their screening per se, and to ensure that they speak to their GP if they have any health concerns?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This has been a worrying time for women who have had to wait longer than expected for their screening appointment. As ever, if people are worried about cervical cancer or notice any unusual symptoms—be they men or women—they should contact their GP as soon as possible. The national guidance for cervical screening is clear that, as far as possible, these services should continue to be offered to anyone due for screening. I know that many are worried about whether it is safe to attend their screening appointment. Many precautionary measures have been put in place and everyone receiving an invitation for an appointment should attend. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust has been doing very good work to help communicate that, and our own “Help Us, Help You” campaign has been running all winter.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
The number of covid workplace outbreaks is higher this week than it has been during the whole pandemic. In a recent poll, only 49% of workers said that their employer has enabled social distancing, only 47% said that they have been provided with adequate PPE, and only 48% were certain that their employer has carried out a suitable risk assessment. Not a single employer has been prosecuted—not one. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss the lack of employee protection from covid-19 in the workplace, before more working people die needlessly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Ensuring that the workplace is covid secure is very important, and is a duty on employers—indeed, it is a legal responsibility. The Health and Safety Executive has powers to enforce, and local councils have certain powers of inspection. Companies have spent many millions of pounds to make their workplaces covid secure, and although nobody would say that this is perfect, I think that the work that has been done around our own workplace is a model for other employers.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Throughout the pandemic, rail use has been down. More significantly, it is widely projected to remain down. Yet, with increasing costs, destruction and disruption, High Speed 2 continues to be built. A new petition calling on this House to debate High Speed 2 in the light of the new circumstances reached over 100,000 signatures in just a few days. With Westminster Hall currently not operating, will my right hon. Friend provide time in this Chamber for that important debate?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will try to answer the broader question on Petitions Committee debates. I did undertake to try to find time for Petitions Committee debates, and that is a commitment I take seriously. I am liaising with others to try to find a suitable slot for that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
The Leader of the House will recall that my last question to him was in relation to the naming of an MP’s office after two IRA terrorists. While I thank him for his subsequent letter, I would appreciate a meeting with him to discuss his suggested way forward.
On the subject of the victims of terrorism, we currently have the shameful situation of troubles victims right across the United Kingdom—and they are right across the UK—being told they cannot receive their troubles pensions payment because of a dispute about where the funding for this scheme will come from. Would the Leader of the House agree that such a dispute between the Government and the Northern Ireland Finance Minister, who might I add is someone who does glorify terrorism, is only adding to the pain of victims and that a compromise agreement is needed soon? Would he agree to a debate on a range of support given by the Government to victims of terrorism right across the United Kingdom?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. She does raise the most important and troubling points at business questions, and this one is of particular concern. It is absolutely essential that those promised troubles pensions receive the support to which they are entitled. This year is the centenary of Northern Ireland, and we must use it to celebrate it as an essential part of United Kingdom and to toast 100 years more—at least. It is only right that we try to resolve this issue and bring solace to the victims of terror. I will of course take this up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I cannot promise a debate, although I think this is a subject very worthy of an Adjournment debate—not that it is for me to tell Mr Speaker how to set his Adjournment debate timetable.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
This morning, many of my constituents are dealing with flooding from the Rivers Usk and Wye, and I send my sympathies to all those who have been flooded, some for the second time in a year. The condition of the River Wye is a source of great concern to me and an issue I have been closely involved in, along with my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Could the Leader of the House grant time for a debate to ensure that this issue is properly aired and, most importantly, for an action plan to be agreed? We have been talking about this issue long enough, and rather than going around in a circle of blame, residents and farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire want to see the health of the river restored urgently, and so do I.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise this, and also to raise it with the bodies that are responsible for the maintenance of the river. I hope that they will see these exchanges to know how seriously Parliament takes these measures. I would reiterate, and my Friend knows very well, the amount of money that is being provided for flood support on protecting properties and to ensure that better flood defences are in place. However, there are responsible bodies, some of them independent from Government, and this may be exactly the sort of encouragement they need to know that they are being watched in the actions they take.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
Right now, for people involved in catching, rearing, processing, wholesaling or shipping fish from the UK to the EU, these last three weeks have been an unmitigated disaster. I know the Leader of the House himself quipped recently that fish in UK waters are now “happier”, and he did so at a time when the rural economy in Angus and across Scotland was reeling from this unrelenting crisis caused by his Government. Would the Leader of House like to retract his ill-judged comments, and can we have a debate on the inadequacy of the £23 million compensation finally offered to the fishing sector, but also on that sector’s need for ongoing compensation to mitigate the new costs of exporting its goods to the EU?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman mentions the general rural economy, and there was an interview in one of the Scottish agricultural publications recently saying that things seem to be improving. The price of lamb is up and beef prices are doing well, too, so there are signs of positivity within the rural economy. I would also point out the £23 million fund to help fishermen, in addition to the £100 million to provide modernisation of fishing fleets and to help the fish processing industry. However, the basic principle remains the same: our fishing waters are coming back to us in stages, and that will help our fishing community because the resource that the fish provide to the fishermen will be ours, rather than being taken by other people. This will lead to a resurgence in fishing, and the Government are providing the cash support to help that happen.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) [V]
The covid-19 pandemic has shown us why it is so important that we look after both our physical and mental health. To do that, we need a thriving health and fitness sector, and in Burnley and Padiham we have fantastic local businesses helping people to lead active, fit and healthier lifestyles. Businesses such as FX Fitness Experience run by Jamie and Josh help people not only get active but rehabilitate after injury. Will the Leader of the House join me in backing those businesses and facilitate a debate on how we can get them reopened and firing on all cylinders?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have four minutes to go. We have done quite well today. May I congratulate you on keeping business questions on schedule, which is a rare achievement—almost a unique achievement?
My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. It is essential that we continue to look after both our mental and physical wellbeing, especially during the pandemic. This week, I was really delighted to attend a Blue Monday virtual drop-in, as did many other Members from various parties, organised extraordinarily well by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is a dedicated volunteer for the Samaritans. The Government have continued to support businesses through the pandemic. We are giving businesses forced to close by restrictions a one-off grant of up to £9,000, benefiting more than 600,000 businesses, and, as more businesses have been forced to close by the new national lockdown, more will also receive the monthly grants worth up to £3,000. Current restrictions are under constant review, and, provided that everyone plays his or her part and follows the rules and death rates fall, we are hopeful that we will be able to move out of lockdown steadily and businesses such as these will be able to open once again. The mental health issues are important and, dare I say it, it is not only Government who have a role to play; we all have a role to play in speaking to friends and family who we may think are lonely and need support. I know that, in my own case, I could be a lot better at it than I actually am.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Leader of the House. I will suspend the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Skills for Jobs White Paper
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of a Skills for Jobs White Paper on the next steps for post-16 education reform.
Last October, I notified the House of our plans to introduce a dynamic programme of measures to reshape this country’s further and technical education landscape, which is a key part of our mission to empower everyone in this country and level up those areas that have been overlooked and under-resourced for too long.
I informed hon. and right hon. Members that the details of how we would do this would be spelled out in a White Paper, and I am pleased to announce its publication today.
The House needs no reminding that this country stands at a critical point in its history. We have some enormous challenges ahead. There is an urgent need to rebuild an economy injured by the covid pandemic. We have already outlined an unprecedented support package to protect jobs and offer retraining to those who have lost theirs due to covid-19, but beyond covid we must also forge a new identity as an independent trading nation. Both those challenges have exposed our need for a strong and flourishing technical education sector to fire up the jobs of the future.
This White Paper is our blueprint for that future. It will play a pivotal role in creating jobs and rebuilding our economy. Through the lifetime skills guarantee, we will help people train and retrain at any stage of their lives. Our new flexible digital skills bootcamp training will give people the technical skills they need for great jobs through 12 to 16-week courses, and those bootcamps will expand into other sectors, such as engineering. From this April, tens of thousands of adults will be able to benefit from almost 400 free courses, which will be the first phase in the lifetime skills guarantee. These fully funded courses, which range from engineering to healthcare and conservation, will be available to adults without a full qualification at A-level equivalent or above, to help them gain skills that are in demand and that will open up exciting job opportunities for them.
In April, we will also kickstart the expansion of higher technical education, as we work towards making it as easy to get a loan for an approved higher technical qualification as it is for a full-length degree. We will also introduce pilots to encourage more flexible and modular provision, so that courses are more accessible and convenient. Lifelong loan entitlement will be up and running from 2025 and will build on the changes we are bringing in through this White Paper. Learners will be able to fit study around work, family and personal commitments and retrain as their circumstances and the economy change.
This White Paper is going to put employers firmly at the centre of our local skills systems, working in partnership with colleges and key local stakeholders to shape technical skills provision, so that it better supports the local economy. It will introduce German-style local skills improvement plans, which will be led by business organisations such as local chambers of commerce. Those plans will identify the skills that an area needs and spell out what needs to change to make training more responsive to employers’ needs. In turn, our further education colleges will shape the courses they offer to meet those skills needs, and we will make strategic development funding available to help them do that. We will start the ball rolling with a small number of trailblazer areas this year, and we will pilot a strategic development fund of £65 million in 2021-22 to help providers reshape provision to meet local employers’ needs.
By putting the employer voice at the heart of skills provision, we will ensure that technical education and training gives people the skills they need to get great jobs in sectors that the economy needs and boost this country’s productivity. We will back this through £1.5 billion of capital funding to upgrade our further education colleges. Today we announced the next phase of the FE capital transformation fund, and last week we made the next wave of capital funding for T-level providers available, with £135 million available to those delivering them in September 2022.
As far as long-term plans are concerned, we are going to move to a more coherent, simpler funding model that we will design together with the sector, and we will consult on it later in the spring. It will ensure a far more focused approach to funding. The consultation will be guided by the principles of high value, greater flexibility for providers, and enhanced accountability, which will see providers taking greater responsibility for their results. By 2030, we expect nearly all technical courses to follow employer-led standards, so that we ensure that the education and training people receive are directly linked to the skills that they will need to get a job.
We will continue with our existing programme of reforms in areas such as employer-led apprenticeships and our T-level programme. All apprenticeship starts are now on employer-designed standards. We will support employers in making greater use of their levy contributions by improving the transfer system and having more flexible training models.
The White Paper will also extend our network of institutes of technology to every region of the country, and we will see a corresponding increase in higher-level technical skills in science, technology, engineering and maths. In this way, we will future-proof our workforce, so that we are ready to deal with a constantly evolving economic landscape.
All our reforms depend on our ability to recruit and retain top-quality teaching staff in the further education sector, so we will launch a national recruitment campaign for further education teachers, strengthen initial teacher education, improve the support that new teachers receive, and help to provide more opportunities for improved training and development, such as work experience, as part of our industry exchange programme.
When the Prime Minister announced the lifetime skills guarantee last year, he spoke of how we will align our further and higher education sectors. I can tell the House that we have published the interim conclusion of the review of post-18 education and funding, which addresses some of the key recommendations made by Dr Philip Augar in his report from 2019. I have laid copies of the report of Dame Shirley Pearce’s independent review of the teaching excellence and student outcomes framework, and the Government’s response, before both Houses of Parliament. Today I have also published the post-qualifications admission reform consultation, which seeks views on whether to change the system of higher education admissions and move to a system of post-qualification admissions.
Our proposed reform to the teaching grant for the academic year 2021-22 will allocate funding in a way that delivers value for money for students and the taxpayer, and increases support for strategic subjects such as engineering and medicine while slashing the taxpayer subsidy for such subjects as media studies. We want to ensure that our small and specialist providers, including some of our top music and arts providers, receive additional support, and that grant funding is used to support students effectively as well.
This spring, we will consult on further reforms to the higher education system, including the introduction of minimum entry requirements to higher education institutions and addressing the high cost of foundation years, before setting out a full response to the report, and a final conclusion to the review of post-18 education and funding, alongside the next comprehensive spending review.
The White Paper is a step change in how this country prepares people for their working lives. I know there is enormous cross-party consensus, and a real will on all sides of the House to make a real change in this sector—a change that has been needed for so long. I very much hope that all Members will work together to ensure that we can deliver on this. These proposals will ensure that people can learn the skills they need to get a great job, and have control over the means of ensuring a more fulfilling and productive life. This White Paper will be the lever to unleash our nation’s creativity and talents, and will make this country an economic force to be reckoned with. I commend this statement to the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Let me start by paying tribute to the learners and workers, unions and employers, and colleges and training providers who have done incredible work over many years in providing skills, jobs and opportunities in the face of a Government who, for the past 10 years, have been more interested in slashing the further education budget. I am glad that today, after a decade of cuts to funding and opportunities, the importance of further and technical education to our economy and people’s life chances has finally been recognised. But even when the Government get things right—and there are measures in this White Paper for which Labour has been calling for some time—they come too late for families, businesses and our country.
I support the principle of expanding the right to lifelong learning to include study for a level 3 qualification for those without one, but this will only serve to reverse the damage inflicted by years of Conservative Governments who cut learning entitlements and replaced them with loans, meaning that the number of adult learners plummeted. The Secretary of State said that he wants more talented individuals teaching in further education, but the cuts in FE funding over the past 10 years have led to huge cuts in real-terms wages, which is driving many talented teaching staff from the profession. While I welcome the principle of flexible funding to allow more learners to access the skills they need, the Secretary of State said that this will not be in place until 2025—years after those facing the risk of unemployment right now could have benefited. I am also concerned that the Government continue to pursue a system of loans that will plunge students into more debt and create barriers to learning.
On the lifetime skills guarantee, how did the Secretary of State decide which sectors would be included, and how many jobs in our economy are in sectors that have been omitted? Can the list of sectors change depending on the needs of individuals, employers and our wider economy? What conversations has he had with the metro Mayors and combined authorities about local skills needs? What support will be available to those who are not qualified to level 2, or are already qualified to level 3 but need to train for jobs in a new sector?
There is nothing here for community learning, English for speakers of other languages, or basic skills courses. What support will be available for these learners? What will be available to those who want to study towards higher technical qualifications other than new qualifications that are at least a year away from existing? Does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot have equality between further and higher education if only one of those routes benefits from maintenance support? When will the FE sector be given the long-term funding settlement that it deserves? Can he guarantee a sustainable settlement in the spending review this year?
We have already waited two years to get an interim response to the Augar review, and I remain concerned that the Secretary of State seems to be committed to a zero-sum game in which parts of HE have to lose—in funding, support or prestige—for others to gain. Does he agree that in fact the opposite is true—that we get the best results for individuals, communities and our country when they can get a world-class education by whatever route suits them, be it college, university or with an employer?On the teaching excellence framework, I am glad that the Secretary of State has finally abandoned the idea of a subject-level measure, as Universities UK, the University and College Union and Labour suggested he should, many months ago.
Most of all, the Secretary of State must surely realise that he has to act fast to address the disruption and uncertainty that our economy and labour market are experiencing. Almost one in 20 working-age people—1.7 million—are unemployed, and many more will feel their jobs are at risk. They are worried about paying the bills, about their jobs and about their future, yet what are they being told today by the Secretary of State? That they can access more training, but not for a few months; that they can access new qualifications, but not for a year; and that they can benefit from flexible finance, but not for five years. I urge him to go much faster in offering support to people who need it immediately. If we are to rebuild our economy from the ravages of the pandemic and secure people’s futures, we need action, and we need it urgently.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady raises a number of important points. I almost had the impression that she might even want to work together on a common cause, but we did not quite get to that point.
We recognise that we want to invest more in our further education estate. That is why we have put forward the £1.5 billion capital programme. We recognise that we want to put more into skills for all young people, and for people of all ages who recognise that they need to gain new skills to advance their prospects or enter a different place of work. That is why we put £2.5 billion behind the national skills fund. We recognise that we need to invest more in our colleges. That is why we have had record rises in 16-to-19 funding, not only last year but this year. We want to continue to work with the sector to strengthen it.
I certainly take on board a number of the challenges the hon. Lady throws down. I think there is a real appetite on both sides of the House to ensure that not just young people but people of every age have the flexibility to pick up the new skills required in such a rapidly changing economy. We always want to bring measures forward much faster than we can, and I am always happy to work with her to ensure that any changes we bring forward in this House have the enthusiastic support of Opposition. I note the Labour Deputy Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell), is in his place; I am sure he would be happy to facilitate that.
The measures will recast the post-16 education landscape. This is not about taking away from one to give to another; it is about making sure that all young people, whatever their choice, have a good choice. Our colleges are some of the greatest institutions in this country. They have such deep links with and roots in local communities, because so often they were forged out of those local communities by local businesses to satisfy local needs. We aim to bring those colleges back to the founding principles of further education and of their creation.
We want to deliver a revolution and reform of our college sector and our technical and vocational sector. Young people can achieve so much by having higher technical qualifications. For far too long, it has been felt that there is only one choice: to go to university. Actually, so often, taking a different route gives so much more to young people. We need to make sure that that message is out there. By taking it out there and making sure that colleges have the ability and support to deliver, we will literally change the future of hundreds of thousands of young lives, and the course of the lives of so many other people who need new skills to prosper and take on the new challenges they face.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we move on to the Chair of the Select Committee, I want to say that this statement will finish at 1.53 pm, so we will need brisk questions and brisk answers if we are to have any chance of getting through everybody.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
My first ever speech in the House of Commons was about apprenticeships and skills, so I give a huge welcome to the White Paper, and to Secretary of State’s passion for further education. The White Paper will help us to close our skills deficit and ensure that qualifications and training are led by employer needs. The lifetime skills guarantee and the flexible finance will allow disadvantaged people to climb the skills ladder of opportunity at any age.
I note that the White Paper says that young people tend to get careers advice from their family, but also that just 28% of parents are confident advising their children on apprenticeships. That plummets to 21% for technical and vocational options. It is therefore hugely welcome that the White Paper pledges to toughen up enforcement of the Baker clause, makes funding conditional on compliance, and lowers the age at which children must be offered independent careers advice at school, so that it is given to those in year 7. Will my right hon. Friend make it his mission to ensure that schools encourage skills, FE and apprenticeships as much as they do university, and will he consider establishing a real UCAS for FE and skills?
Gavin Williamson
I know that my right hon. Friend has championed this not just in his maiden speech, but the whole time he has been in the House of Commons. He is absolutely right that it is not adequate to expect family members to be able to give young people the advice they need. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Baker of Dorking, who did so much in moving the amendment.
We need to toughen this up. I want to see parity of esteem—people looking at the choices they can take, and not just immediately moving to university. I would like UCAS to demonstrate that by having a list of college courses available to students, especially if we move to a system of post-qualification application. I think that colleges and what they can provide could be a much more powerful offer for so many young people.
I will happily take up my right hon. Friend’s thought about having a parallel system to UCAS. It may also be worth looking at the options for bringing it together and making sure that UCAS includes college courses so that students can make the very best decisions for their futures.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
Young people in my constituency of Blaydon need to know that they will have training opportunities for the jobs of the future, as well as the jobs we have now. How does this White Paper align with wider Government policy on the industrial strategy, and how do we plan the skills for future jobs?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and that is why we set up the skills and productivity board to look at some of the challenges. For many businesses, one challenge is that they are not necessarily looking at taking people on through a graduate route, where someone has to learn skills over a three-year period; often, they are looking for much smaller, bite-sized training. That is why the boot camps that we are launching in areas such as digital training and advanced engineering are so incredibly important, to ensure that the sector has the responsiveness it needs to satisfy the skills needs that so many businesses in her constituency are crying out for.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
A transformed further education system has the potential to unlock opportunity for so many young people, both in Hyndburn and Haslingden and across the country, by equipping them with the skills and training that they need to secure the jobs they want for the future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we look towards our economic recovery, investing in further education has never been more important?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is so right, and many young people in her constituency will be looking for the opportunity to unlock their true potential. That will not always be through a university degree; so often, it is through our amazing further education colleges, which deliver for their communities. Making this investment and these reforms will enable them to go from strength to strength, while being absolutely rooted in the needs of the local economy. Let us make sure that we are training our young people with the skills that they need in order to get the jobs that are out there, as against skills that lead to no jobs.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
The rapidly changing workplace makes it vital that people can acquire new skills throughout their lifetime. However, we know that mature students are more averse to taking on debt, and they are often unable to take on long-term repayments if those repayments take them up to retirement. Instead of introducing a lifetime loan entitlement, will the Secretary of State look at introducing a lifetime grant, similar to the Liberal Democrat idea of a skills wallet, which would give every person up to £10,000 to spend on education and training throughout their lifetime?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady will see that this is an expansive package of support for people who want to get training and skills, which is very much designed and fit for the modern economy and responsive enough to shift with changing labour market needs.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I am blessed with ceramic manufacturing giants, such as Churchill China, that want to skill up locally, and exciting research and development companies such as Lucideon, which is hoping to open an advanced ceramics campus. A full-fibre academy is launching this year at Stoke-on-Trent College’s Burslem campus, paving the way to unleash silicon Stoke. Does my right hon. Friend agree that by ensuring that high-quality vocational courses are developed to employer-led standards, we can make sure they will deliver meaningful and tangible opportunities for young people?
Gavin Williamson
I know that my hon. Friend has been championing the concept of silicon Stoke and ensuring that Stoke-on-Trent has not only the inward investment that is vital for the revitalisation of that great city but investment in the human capital, talent and resources that it has always had but that need enhancing. I look forward to working with him to ensure that that happens and that investment comes to the great city of Stoke-on-Trent.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the move towards local planning, and I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to what is happening at Lancaster and Morecambe College, whose principal, Wes Johnson, is also a director of the local chamber of commerce. Every time I visit that fantastic local college, I am told that uncertainty caused by short-term funding methodologies can create uncertainty in planning strategies for meeting the longer-term need of the community. When can the further education sector expect a long-term funding settlement?
Gavin Williamson
As the hon. Lady is aware, we had a one-year funding round this year. Every Secretary of State always aspires to a multi-year funding round, and I think there is very much cross-party agreement on that. We were able to secure one for schools, and I very much hope that in the future we will be in a position to secure one for post-16 education.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) [V]
Boosting skills will be critical for levelling up counties such as mine, Lincolnshire. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and everyone in the Grantham and Stamford constituency that our local colleges will receive the resources they need to fully achieve our ambitions for young people?
Gavin Williamson
In my hon. Friend’s constituency of Grantham and Stamford, there is already great provision in colleges. We want to make it even greater and make sure they have the resources to grow what they are doing. We want to make sure they are truly linked in with the local economy, because where there are skills shortages in his constituency, colleges are the first place that businesses turn to plug the gap. We want to make sure the economy and business are growing strongly and creating the employment that we all want in his constituency and all our constituencies.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
The chief executive of City & Guilds, Kirstie Donnelly, says that it is a disappointment that today’s statement focuses on existing announcements, instead of a clear vision for how we can collectively reimagine further education for the future. She also says that the Government should devolve power to the regions. In the Liverpool city region, we are ready to deliver the skills needed for the recovery from the pandemic. Will the Education Secretary make at least one new announcement today, and commit to giving the authority and resources needed to the regions to develop the technical learning that is needed for the recovery and the future?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a reminder that we need very brief questions if we are going to get through everybody.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman obviously could not be bothered to actually read the White Paper, so I will send him a copy. He will notice that there have been lots of new announcements.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) [V]
I welcome what my right hon. Friend set out, including the essential role of industry and the extension of employer-led standards. Will he say more about how local skills improvement plans will work, with the right emphasis on the sectors and job roles of the future that he is talking about today, and versatile transferable skills to maximise opportunities and social mobility?
Gavin Williamson
I will take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for his work in enabling us to proceed with this skills for jobs White Paper. Without his commitment and dedication, including the odd skirmish with the Treasury, we would not have made the progress we have made with the institutes of technology, which are already starting to transform young people’s lives, and of course with T-levels.
On where we want to go, we really want business organisations to work with colleges, putting this on a statutory footing, very much like what we see in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, where they can co-design the qualifications they need and match the job needs of the local community. That will bring those businesses and the business sector into the heart of those colleges, ensuring that we drive employment and the right set of skills.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
West Thames College in Isleworth has a strong reputation, long developed, for providing courses across the range, including basic skills and English as a second language, but also locally specific courses developed in conjunction with employers, such as in aviation, hospitality and media. With so many people in my constituency losing their jobs at Heathrow and its supply chain, courses will have to re-orientate and colleges will have to provide retraining in other sectors. For people whose jobs will not come back for many years to come, will the training and retraining be available for colleges such as West Thames College, and will they be available to students on universal credit?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We must have shorter questions.
Gavin Williamson
I will complement that with a shorter answer. The answer is very much so. Colleges will play a really important role in retraining. Obviously, there will be a different set of skills and certain industries will have retracted, but it is about making sure that young people and people of all ages get the right skills for the economy.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I really welcome this forward-thinking skills for jobs statement from the Government. FE colleges play a huge role in levelling up rural communities such as mine. As my right hon. Friend knows, Newton Rigg College in Penrith, the only land-based college in Cumbria, is under strategic review by the FE commissioner as we seek to secure a new organisation to take it over. Will my right hon. Friend ask his Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work with stakeholders to secure the future of this vital college, and ensure that the review process and subsequent negotiations achieve a positive outcome and facilitate a smooth transition to a new provider?
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done with me and, of course, the Minister for skills and colleges. We have appreciated him highlighting the challenges faced by Newton Rigg. We and the whole Department will continue to work with him and do everything we can to secure a sustainable future for the college by working with local partners.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
As somebody who benefited from in-work technical education in my late teens, I appreciate the value of vocational qualifications, and I welcome much of this statement. However, if I understand the Secretary of State correctly, he has limited eligibility for the new courses to those with no qualifications at level 3. Cannot he see that many people qualified to that level could still need to retrain and may still need support? Will he consider making the system more flexible so that it genuinely meets the needs of working people?
Gavin Williamson
We will always, whether through the national skills fund or the lifetime skills guarantee, look at every measure that needs to be taken to maximise flexibility in the skills sector. These are important steps in the right direction. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words, but I take note of the fact that, quite understandably, he calls for us to go a little further, as I am sure all Opposition Members would always ask us to do.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both his statement and the White Paper, which addresses the challenges of enabling those of all ages to obtain the skills that will enable them to realise their ambitions and to fulfil their potential. As he has indicated, to ensure its success there is a need for colleges such as East Coast College to receive an enhanced, simplified and multi-year funding settlement. I would be most grateful if he could do all he can to ensure that that is provided in the forthcoming March Budget.
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the great work that East Coast College does. It is a brilliant example and has such a positive impact in serving its local community. It will be up to a comprehensive spending review to set any multi-year settlements—not the Budget, sadly—but we will be working on the simplification of budgets and the allocation of moneys, which will benefit and help many colleges in managing their finances.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thanks to HS2 and the work of the East Midlands Development Corporation, the outlook for the Nottingham economy is very bright indeed. We need to use the time available to ensure that our population will have the skills to access the tens of thousands of jobs that we will add to our local economy. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to our having local control over his plans to ensure that they fit in with the strategies already in place?
Gavin Williamson
We want to ensure that local communities benefit from the type of major infrastructure investments that we are making right across the country, whether that is HS2 or other infrastructure. When the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to go through the White Paper, he will clearly see that we want to put local business right at the heart of decision making. It is a model that has worked in countless countries, including Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, and we want to replicate it, because those businesses are the ones that are seeking the skills, and we think they should be a key part of determining what is needed locally.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I really welcome this skills announcement. It is so crucial for enabling people to realise their potential, for levelling up and for economic success. Will the Secretary of State promise that science and engineering, particularly in the computer and digital field, will be at the heart of his education reforms in this area?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is so important that our colleges are at the forefront of ensuring that we have the skills needed for the new technologies and new emerging markets, which will be so demanding for skills, whether that is in green energy, digital or cyber-security. Colleges can play a pivotal role in providing those skills swiftly and quickly for the market needs.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]
Part of the problem is that too few leaders have personal experience, understanding or, indeed, respect for the work of further education settings. City of Bristol College can, and it is ready to support economic development and pandemic recovery, but it needs secure funding, nationally and locally, now. Will the Secretary of State direct local businesses, and particularly the West of England Combined Authority, to put the college front and centre of their planning, particularly for skills levels 2 and 3?
Gavin Williamson
We certainly hope that right across the country, and not just in Bristol, everyone sees colleges as a vital lever in delivering economic growth through delivering skills.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
Level 4 apprentices go on to earn more than the average undergraduate. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 30% of undergraduate degrees lead to negative returns overall. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rebalancing the system towards our neglected technical education sector is the right thing for young people and the right thing for the country?
Gavin Williamson
I absolutely agree. It is a real Achilles heel of this country. In this country, 10% of the 18 to 65 workforce has higher technical qualifications, as compared with 20% in Germany and 34% in Canada.[Official Report, 27 January 2021, Vol. 688, c. 4MC.] We have to address that skills deficit. This is where there is so much demand for the type of skills that people and businesses want. Of course, the outcomes for people who get those skills and that training are incredibly positive, not least that they usually outperform graduates in earnings.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State has spoken passionately about the sector, but that is simply not borne out by what has happened over the past 10 years, which has been a story of cuts and lack of investment. What can he do to ensure that funding is guaranteed to continue into the future so that the sector can plan ahead?
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. This is something that I do care passionately about. Like so many Members in this House, I recognise that this debate should be about not just the 50% of youngsters who go to university, but the other 50% as well. We all recognise the importance of what our colleges provide. I recognise that there is a big task ahead and that there will be many demands. As I have touched on before, we have already delivered a £1.5 billion capital funding programme and a £2.5 billion national skills fund. We always need to go further with our colleges, but I recognise that substantial challenges remain. I can absolutely reassure the hon. Gentleman of my commitment to delivering for this incredibly important sector, because it really does change lives.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]
I know that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the great work that Keighley College, led by Steve Kelly, is doing in my constituency of building up a good working relationship between the education and business sectors. Does he agree that it is crucial that our businesses engage constructively and work together with colleges to ensure that we plug the local skills gaps? Can he set out how the Skills for Jobs White Paper will make that happen?
Gavin Williamson
I am very happy to pay tribute to Keighley College for the work that it does. Obviously, this is a college that was born out of the industry that made Keighley great. We want to see an incredibly close relationship between business and colleges. We want to see local businesses really driving the design of courses. We want to make sure that, by working with those colleges, there is clear understanding that it not only benefits the businesses by providing the highly skilled individuals that they need to prosper into the future, but benefits the colleges by having that business input. I wish to see more and more businesses lending some of their expertise to the colleges, making sure that both are prospering out of this incredibly important relationship that we will put into statute.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank both the Secretary of State for his statement and hon. and right hon. Members for their co-operation in making sure that we got everybody in within the time available. I am sorry that I had to push people, but we have two debates to follow this afternoon for which hon. Members will have been preparing. Thank you.
Point of Order
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I might seek your advice. During Women and Equalities questions last week, the Minister for Equalities told me that her first report
on the disproportionate impact of covid-19 on ethnic minority groups in October had concluded that there was no evidence suggesting that ethnicity itself is a risk factor. That is not correct and creates a false impression. The detail of workstream 3 of the four workstreams that form “Term of Reference 3” states:
“Further data, research and analysis on the above factors is needed to fully understand the disparities from COVID-19 to ethnic minorities.”
That is the point that I was making. It continues:
“In summary, the evidence shows an increased risk for Black and South Asian ethnic groups.”
How can the Minister correct the record in what is a really important area and a subject of great concern to many black and ethnic minority communities?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her point of order and for giving me notice of her intention to raise the matter. I understand that she has also given notice to the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch). I am sure that the hon. Lady was not implying in any way that there was any intention on the part of the Minister to give incorrect information. As she knows, I am not responsible for the accuracy or inaccuracy of anything that may have been said by Ministers from the Dispatch Box. I am sure that the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has had to say and that any Minister would come to the House as quickly as possible if they felt that any information had inadvertently been given that was inaccurate. She has made her concerns known to the House and I am sure that she will find other ways to pursue the matter as well.
I will suspend the House for two minutes to ensure that necessary arrangements are made for the next business.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Equitable Life
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House expresses grave concern regarding the Government’s continued inaction with respect to the injustice suffered by Equitable Life policyholders, the vast majority of whom have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses directly attributed to regulatory failures despite the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings to compensate victims in full in relation to the maladministration of Equitable Life; notes the concern previously expressed by the Public Accounts Committee on the transparency and accuracy of the payments being made to victims; further notes the Government’s failure to fulfil the Committee’s request to publish an intelligible and transparent explanation to policyholders on how to verify the correctness of the compensation they have received; notes examples of grossly inaccurate payments, adjusted only when identified by policyholders, gathered by the Equitable Members Action Group (EMAG); notes the Government’s continued insistence that there have been no mistakes in the methodology for calculating payments to policyholders; and therefore calls on the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to establish a joint inquiry into the accuracy of the payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal.
This debate has been delayed since 26 March 2020 because of the covid pandemic. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for it, and the Leader of the House and Mr Speaker for allowing us to participate virtually in debates so that we can explore these issues in some detail. I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders. I co-chair the group with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who sadly has a prior commitment and cannot be with us this afternoon. Our all-party group now has 289 members—almost a majority of the House—which demonstrates how important the issue is to all our constituents.
I want to set out several things during the debate and to frame it appropriately. The Equitable Life case is absolutely unique. There have been other failures of pension schemes and of financial institutions—failures that unfortunately happened, and where, quite rightly, the Government have not chosen to bail out the organisations. But this failure was unique. Back in the 1980s, Equitable Life started what can only be described as a Ponzi scheme. I distance the current Equitable Life board from what was going on in the 1980s, but the company then deliberately set out to create a scheme whereby it promised bonuses that could not be achieved and could not be sustained in the long term.
As a result, over 1 million people invested their money with Equitable Life, in the expectation that it was a safe and secure environment in which to hold their money. That led to a position in which it was all very well while the money was coming in, but when the money had to be paid out in such a way that the scheme was recognised as being unsustainable, action clearly had to be taken.
The Equitable Life case is unique because, of course, it was a conspiracy between Equitable Life, the regulator and the Government of the day. Equitable Life was considered too big to fail because if it did, the Government would have had to pick up the costs. The scandal went on, and the House of Lords was involved in setting aside the position way back in 1999, as a result of which Equitable Life closed to new business in 2000.
Some 10 and a half years ago, I was proud to stand and be elected on a manifesto—as was my hon. Friend the Minister—that promised full and proper compensation for the victims of the Equitable Life scam. Basically, people lost their livelihoods and the pension that they all looked forward to in their old age. It should be recognised that Equitable Life victims are typically retired nurses, teachers, civil servants and factory and shop workers, plus small business owners, who had no choice following the scandal but to set up a personal pension. The majority of those individuals had less than £20,000 in their pension pot.
In 2010, we promised the victims proper and full compensation, neither of which has been delivered. Almost 1 million pension savers have received just 22% of the losses they suffered following maladministration. It is worth reminding the House that way back in 2008 the parliamentary ombudsman ruled that this was the most severe case of maladministration ever seen and that the victims’ loss was directly attributable to a decade of serious, serial regulatory maladministration. It is therefore right that we set out to compensate the individuals affected.
So far, the Treasury has refused to disclose the full workings of the calculations of the payments that have been made. That can hardly be considered transparent. In 2010, we promised that victims’ losses amounted to £4.3 billion and that they would be provided with full compensation. The amount was later revised to £4.1 billion, but so far only £1.5 billion has been allocated for compensation. The Government allocated £620 million to those already receiving an annuity, leaving only £780 million to share among the 1 million other victims, plus £100 million of contingency. That has meant that the pension savers have received only 22.4% of the money that they lost as a consequence of a decade of failure by the Treasury and the financial regulators.
Let us be clear about what else has happened. For some bizarre reason that I have never been able to fathom, those people who were classified as the pre-1992 trapped annuitants—the most vulnerable and the oldest victims of this scam—were excluded from the scheme. It is true that we were able, through lobbying and the good work of Ministers, to ensure that those victims received a one-off payment of £5,000, increased to £10,000 if they were on pension credit. That went some way towards compensating them.
The reality is that to compensate the entirety of those pre-1992 victims would cost no more than £100 million. They were excluded because of the position on their having taken out their policy before 1 September 1992. The question of what happened between them taking out their policies and 1 September 1992 seems bizarre. The ruling seems to have been that they could not have known that this was a Ponzi scheme and they could not have known about the regulatory failure prior to 1 September 1992, so even though they were in ignorance, they should be excluded. In my view, that is an injustice that we need to put right.
In addition, we seek to achieve full payment for the 895,000 traced pension saver victims, which would finally settle the unpaid debts covering their losses that were incurred through no fault of their own. That would cost £2.6 billion and could be phased over time. We also want equality of treatment for the pre-1992 trapped annuitants, which could easily be met with the underspend of the £1.5 billion already allocated.
We need to see full transparency on the Treasury calculations. There remains serious doubt over the accuracy and reliability of the methodology that has been used by the Treasury to calculate moneys owed to qualifying Equitable Life policyholders as part of the compensation scheme that was established under the Equitable Life (Payments) Act 2010. The Treasury should disclose full details of how those calculations were made. The motion calls for the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to hold a joint inquiry into payment accuracy.
The Equitable Members Action Group, which represents the Equitable Life victims, has uncovered cases where policyholders were significantly undercompensated for their losses due to errors in the Treasury’s calculations. In those instances, no attempt was made by the Treasury to contact the policyholders, and cases were only revealed following appeals made to the independent review panel. In all cases of appeal to the independent review panel, the appeal was upheld and the panel made recalculations that resulted in increased payments made to the policyholder. Not a single appeal has failed to be upheld. The most extreme case brought to our attention so far is that of a policyholder whose losses were calculated as £17, when they were actually £8,661. He won on appeal. EMAG is calling for a joint inquiry into the accuracy of the payments made to victims of the scandal, which is something we all wish to see.
We are all living through an immensely challenging and unpredictable period due to covid and the current economic position. The virus has had a significant impact on people of all ages, but especially the elderly. Many Equitable Life victims are currently confined to their homes, increasingly vulnerable and worried for their futures, which makes the need for this issue to be settled all the more important. This, after all, is a debt of honour. Equitable Life victims were pushed to one side as a direct consequence of the timing of the 2008 financial crisis, which saw the UK’s banking corporations bailed out, while hard-working and responsible pension savers took the hit. The same must not happen again.
Equitable Life victims did the right thing and saved prudently for their retirement. The Government should now do the right thing by them. The current crisis has shown that money can be found when the political will exists. As I said, this is a debt of honour that must finally be paid. The compensation payments would be spent on or shared down the generations, and in doing so would be recycled in the economy, supporting the economic recovery that we all need.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to introduce the debate. I look forward to hearing contributions from Members on both sides of the House and to the response from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As colleagues will know, a large number of Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I will introduce an immediate four-minute time limit. When Members are speaking virtually, a clock will appear on the screens of Members participating virtually and the screens in the Chamber. For Members participating physically, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I know that he, alongside the Equitable Members Action Group, the APPG, of which I am a member, and others, has campaigned extensively on this issue for several years. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate.
This scandal will affect most, if not all, constituencies represented in this place. It has been, and continues to be, a long battle for justice and recompense for those affected. Many of the victims are now elderly and exhausted from this 20-year campaign. Some of them have sadly passed away. Many of them are former key workers—people whom we in the Opposition have always known are the backbone of our country: nurses, teachers, civil servants, factory and shop workers. They are hard-working people such as my constituent, Mr John Petty.
Mr Petty is 84 years old and a pharmacist. He was sold an Equitable Life pension plan. At the time, he felt it was a decent and reputable firm. After a career working 70-plus hours most weeks, he sold his pharmacy in 1996, looking forward to a happy retirement with his wife. However, soon after, without warning and through no fault of his own, he lost a considerable amount of his pension. At 59 years of age, he had to go back to work. Mr Petty now has to budget every year, as living costs continue to rise but his pension does not. He said: “This whole saga has been disturbing, to put it mildly.” He is not alone. There are nearly 900,000 people still waiting for their losses to be recovered in full.
I acknowledge that in 2010, the then Government accepted the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings in full —that, between 1992 and 2000, Government Departments and regulators were responsible for maladministration, and that victims should be returned to the position that they would have been in had that maladministration not taken place. The ombudsman also found that victims had lost £4.1 billion. However, having accepted the findings in full, the Government then failed to give adequate compensation, offering only £1.5 billion. That is the crux of today’s debate. All victims should be repaid in full, and there needs to be some transparency regarding how the Treasury calculated its payments.
I say politely to the Minister that, at a time when trust in the Government is low, the stubbornness displayed repeatedly by the Treasury in constantly dismissing requests makes it appear either to have a lack of care or to have something to hide. I and others simply cannot understand why, if the methodology used was sound and robust, it cannot be shared. Either way, it is not a good look for the Government. We call today for the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to establish a joint inquiry into the accuracy of the payments made to victims. Surely, if that would lead to a discovery that the methodology was flawed, it would save the Minister and the Government some embarrassment if they just showed transparency now.
We are not asking for much, but our asks would make an immeasurable difference to the victims. This is about fairness, transparency and trust. People who paid into their pensions in good faith should not be treated in this way. Those who are currently saving for their future need to know that their money is safe and that the Government will intervene if it is not. Just last year, the Chancellor said:
“We care very much about pensioners and making sure they have security and that’s indeed our policy.”
The Minister has an opportunity today to prove that those were not just empty words and that pensioners really are a priority. I sincerely hope he takes that opportunity.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for the way that he introduced the debate, and I am proud, with him, to be a sponsor of it.
This has turned into a saga, which has now been ongoing for decades. The facts of the original case are well known; we have seen them demonstrated again and again. There were dubious practices. This was a company that was too big to fail. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend said, there was a conspiracy to stop matters coming to light before they did. There was a culture of manipulation and concealment.
In addition to the Treasury’s own 2004 report, there have been other reports: the report from Lord Penrose in 2001, and a report from Ian Glick and Richard Snowden. All those showed lessons to be learned, both in terms of corporate culture in financial services and in terms of the state’s role in overseeing the sector sufficiently. Everyone acknowledges that the company was primarily at fault, but the state has a role and a responsibility in regulating financial services. All business today is conducted on the understanding that ultimately, the law and the state ensure an honest and transparent playing field.
More than a decade ago, in 2010, George Osborne announced a £1.5 billion package in compensation. These payments were to begin in mid-July of 2011, but by the end of 2011, many of my affected constituents had not received a penny. Not only were there delays in payments, but some payments were made for incorrect amounts—sometimes wildly inaccurate. These were caught not by the Treasury, but by policyholders themselves. There is also a lack of transparency over how policyholders can verify the amount they have received is correct.
The Equitable Members Action Group has pointed out:
“There is serious doubt over the accuracy and reliability of the methodology used by the Treasury to calculate what’s owed.”
The Treasury insists that there were no mistakes. If so, how can Government explain inaccurate payments? One hundred and sixty complaints of inaccuracy in payment were upheld, yet EMAG reports only eight received recalculations. The Minister needs to explain how this happened.
We must remember that many hundreds of thousands of policyholders were affected by this scandal. The Government scheme offered only partial compensation. I know that full compensation would be expensive, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, let justice be done and let there be full transparency. People need to save for their retirement. Living off their state pension affords little comfort, and most people do not realistically expect to be able to live off it. Very few young people even think about their retirement. But these policyholders did save for their retirement. They are now getting on, and they are elderly and often vulnerable.
Over the years, I have received terrible, sad letters from many of my constituents, some of them received as much as 10 years ago. Some of them will now, I am afraid, no longer be with us. As one said, and this was nearly 10 years ago:
“This is a matter of urgency.”
Another said:
“Sadly my husband died four years ago without the assurance that…he…would ever be recompensed.”
One wrote:
“I am 89 years old, now a widow.”
So I repeat the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East: let us have an inquiry from the PAC, let us have the full light of transparency on this and let justice be done for some of the most elderly and vulnerable—and responsible—in our community.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Campaigners have now been fighting for two decades for the compensation they are owed to cover pensions lost due to the collapse of Equitable Life and the UK Government’s administration of the pensions industry. My Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituents were first let down by their own then MP, one of my constituency predecessors, Mr Gordon Brown, when he served as Labour Chancellor and then Prime Minister. In 2010, as one of their first moves in office, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats promised that money would be forthcoming, but 10 years on, my constituents and up to 1 million more people across the UK are still waiting for that fair and transparent settlement they were promised.
Donald Scott, the east of Scotland regional representative of EMAG, represents dozens of local cases where people are having to work well into what should have been their well-earned retirement. Others have had to sell their homes because of the shortfall in their pensions. He described the Chadwick report as “discredited”, the financial offers made to date as “derisory” and rightly condemned the parliamentary ombudsman offer as a “pittance”. My constituents want to know: how can the Government condemn benefit cheats or abandon 3 million self-employed for fear of cheating, when Her Majesty’s Treasury continues to cheat the victims of its own maladministration?
The victims of this scandal have been cheated. According to Westminster Governments of every hue, they did the right thing and saved diligently for their retirement. The compensation offered to them amounts to 22%—often less—of the losses that they suffered. EMAG has identified cases of serious errors in the Treasury’s sums, such as calculating the loss of one pensioner at £58 who actually lost over £7,000, and another, which has already been mentioned, at £17 when the actual loss was over £8,500.
The party of Government agreed in 2010 to pay £1.5 billion in redress for this scandal, despite accounts estimating losses to be between £4 billion and £4.8 billion and EMAG claiming that the true figure of relative losses is probably in the order of £6 billion. It is no wonder then that nearly 1 million policyholders feel short-changed of their pension and of their retirement.
In 2005, Equitable Life victim Liz Kwantes was so angry at losing tens of thousands of pounds that she had saved to provide financial security in her retirement that she stood for election against Gordon Brown in his and now my home constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. She stood as an independent on that issue alone. While Mr Brown enjoys a gold-plated pension, she and so many others are still suffering because of the inaction of successive Westminster Governments. It cannot be difficult to imagine why this is causing some to question whether the delay is a cynical ploy to wait for those impacted on to die before receiving the compensation that they are due.
I can assure my constituents that they now have an MP who is firmly on their side, but, to date, that cannot be said of this Government. Last March, I was glad to be joined by 42 cross-party Members who signed my early-day motion, but that will be of little consequence until this Government honour their word and commit to increasing the available funding from £1.5 billion to the £4.1 billion required to cover the Treasury’s own calculation of the true costs of full compensation to all victims.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I am afraid we are all here again, having another debate about Equitable Life and the dreadful way that our constituents have been dealt with. To begin with, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my dear friend, for being so assiduous over this matter and for his continued chairmanship of the APPG. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on agreeing to have this debate today, even though it has been delayed for so long. However, I am very glad that we are here again—albeit unbelievably here again, and I see the poor Minister on the Front Bench yet again having to reply. We will hear some calm words from him later, I am sure.
The facts are so well known: 895,000 people have suffered dreadfully through no fault of their own, and the pre-1992 people are excluded as well. This is just a dreadful history of the bad leading the bad, and we hope that the good story that could come out of this really will be listened to by the Treasury. None of us is in a position to chuck money around, but ultimately, we all know that with these people, who are getting older, when the possibility of another £2 billion actually comes down to them and to their families, that money will be recycled straightaway into all our communities and the Treasury will get it back in VAT or whatever way possible.
I am not going to go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that lots of people want to speak. But on behalf of Michael, Colin, Tim, Kevin, Agnes and Peter, Tom, Patricia and Bob, Neville and Colin—dear constituents of mine who are suffering very, very badly—I really do want to see some wriggle room from our dear friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I sincerely hope that in the mix of conversations that are going on in the Treasury, particularly over the issues of these miscalculations, the fact that people had to appeal themselves, and the rise from 50-odd quid to 8,000 quid, it sees that it is a nonsense and that this pain needs to stop. I will finish there. The good people of South Derbyshire need to know that the Treasury is listening.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of the constituents who have contacted me over the years, having been victims of the Equitable Life scandal. As other Members have highlighted, almost 1 million pension savers have received back just 22% of the losses they suffered as a result of colossal maladministration. The Treasury has refused to disclose the full workings of the calculations behind the payments made to date, putting paid to the notion of a fair and transparent programme of compensation, which was promised to Equitable Life victims back in 2010.
The human impact of this scandal cannot be understated, and many of those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life are still bearing the costs of this injustice every day. As others have pointed out, Equitable Life victims are not individuals and families who can afford to write this scandal off as a kind of unfortunate administrative error. Typically, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, they are retired nurses, teachers, factory and shop workers, and small business owners with less than £20,000 in their pension pot. They put their hard-earned savings pension rights into what they understandably saw as an established, reputable and well-recognised provider, and they were badly let down.
My office has received harrowing accounts—others have said the same—from constituents in recent years, including, recently, from a woman writing on behalf of her husband, who is now 89 and living with dementia. He is one of many who lost thousands of pounds by putting the profits of his small business into an Equitable Life pension, as he was advised. Another constituent, one of the many who received only 22% of their losses, as calculated by the Treasury, describes it in painfully frank terms. He said:
“The amount I have lost would have enabled me and my family to enjoy more things such as holidays before I die.”
He added:
“I was amazed by the revelations that the successive governments had failed to regulate the Society properly. In such circumstances I expected government to ensure the losses sustained by policyholders were made good. I feel particularly incensed by the successive government administrations’ failure to accept the report and advice of their Parliamentary Ombudsman that policy holders should be put back in the position they would have been if the maladministration had not occurred. I am even more incensed by the excuses they have made over many years”.
That point about “many years” is worth emphasising. We are now 13 years on from the parliamentary ombudsman concluding that the victims’ loss was directly attributable to a decade of serious serial regulatory maladministration. We are 11 years on from Equitable Life victims being promised fair and transparent compensation and from the coalition Government accepting that the victims’ losses amounted to about £4.3 billion, before allocating only £1.5 billion for compensation. Many of those who were promised, who deserved and who indeed needed recompense are no longer with us, but the Government still owe it to those traced pension saver victims still with us to find a solution quickly. As one constituent put it to me, “It is a policy decision that is now delaying and preventing action.”
I urge the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to look carefully at the recommendations from the action group and the all-party parliamentary group as soon as possible. Every effort should be made to ensure that those who are owed compensation are identified and that the process of compensation is accurate and transparent. It is important that the Government, once and for all, get to the bottom of what happened, and we all look forward to the Public Accounts Committee and Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee responding to the proposal for a joint inquiry.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
I think I can be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there is no question: there is a huge and remarkable degree of cross-party agreement across the House. The question really is: what is the UK Government Minister going to do about it? I warmly praise the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing the debate forward, and I praise the Backbench Business Committee too. I commend him for a balanced and passionate speech, with which I would very much associate myself. I also congratulate the Equitable Members Action Group and pledge my continuing support for its efforts. It has been very tough in keeping this going and making sure that this injustice is not allowed to be put into the long grass forever.
This is a historic injustice, but there are daily consequences for hundreds of people across Stirling, thousands across Scotland and 890,000 people UK-wide. Sadly, a number of policyholders have died still suffering the losses that were not their fault. As we have heard, there were three interlocking failures in Equitable Life: the initial failure of management, in that they were selling products they should not have been; the failure of shareholder oversight of that corporate entity; and then sustained regulatory failure—arguably collusion—in terms of allowing these products to be sold when they should not have been. There was no failure on the part of the investors. I agree with those who have said that Equitable Life in those days was effectively running a Ponzi scheme, but it was not marketed as such; it was marketed as a sensible, prudent investment, and it was taken up by people who were doing the right thing to provide for their own futures and the futures of their families. They did not make a mistake; they did not invest in a get-rich-quick scheme. They invested in something that they thought was a very sensible thing to do.
The facts of this matter are really not in doubt; this issue has been investigated to death. The parliamentary ombudsman has produced a report on it, we have had the Penrose inquiry, and the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has also conducted a major inquiry—and all made the same recommendation that there was an injustice that should be rectified.
The findings have been well ventilated and the fact remains today that a settlement of 22.4% for the policyholders is unjust and unfair. It has daily consequences for hundreds of thousands of people across these islands, and it undermines trust and faith in the pensions sector going forward, so there are real-world policy implications right now. It is high time that the UK Government put this historical wrong to right, and I look forward to hearing some better news from the UK Minister today than we have heard from his predecessors.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
An 84-year-old widow in my constituency writes as follows:
“In the year 2000 our pension was £11,120, it is now £3,187. When my husband died in 2015 it was reduced by one third, so this accounts for some of the loss. It continues to go down annually. With inflation, of course, my loss is even greater than this. The state pension increases because of inflation, yet the Government give no consideration to EL annuitants who invested savings to ensure a decent standard of living in retirement.
When we heard that EL were having problems we were not that worried as we assumed the Government would step in. Why was not the same concern given to EL victims as to those now suffering financially because of the covid pandemic? The effect on us is just as great, and probably more long term. It is twenty years since this debacle began.
My life is very different to that we planned when we put our savings with EL: no holidays, no treats.”
This is the sort of issue that gets politics and politicians a bad name, although 280 Members of this House have been trying through the good auspices of the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders to put matters right.
In his able introduction to the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to the miscalculation for one pensioner who, it was said, was due £17 when the actual figure was over £8,500. He could also have referred to another mis-calculation discovered by the Equitable Members Action Group: £58 was awarded, instead of over £7,000.
When mistakes are being made on this scale and of this magnitude, it stands to reason that the Treasury should not be sheltering behind any sort of argument or excuse as to how these sums are calculated. The methodology should be out there, and it should be capable of objective independent verification; it should not be necessary for appeals of this sort to go forward. [Interruption.]
My hon. Friend the Minister, chuntering from a sedentary position, anticipates that I was about to come to him next, and despite his obvious dissatisfaction with the point I have just made, I would like to say that he is a very sincere and fair-minded fellow, but he is the latest in a long line of Ministers who have had to defend the indefensible.
On interrogating my own website, I find that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury in June 2010 was Mr David Gauke, and he said then:
“The coalition Government have pledged to make fair and transparent payment to Equitable Life policyholders, through an independently designed payment scheme, for their relative loss as a result of regulatory failure.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 167.]
I said to him at the time how glad I was that that was going to happen. A little later, however, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mark Hoban, had to defend the fact that it appeared that only a fraction of the losses were to be paid. I know that the ombudsman said that it would not be a matter of the entire sum being paid, but who can honestly believe that paying just 22% of a loss is a fair outcome? Both parties are to blame. Like me, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), was elected in 2010 on a manifesto pledge to settle this matter. It needs to be settled, and that has not yet happened.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Over the past few days, my constituents have contacted me about this issue and have expressed deep concern about the Government’s inaction and the injustice that Equitable Life policyholders have faced. Many policyholders have received only partial compensation and others have not received one penny. This debate is timely as it allows us to press the Government on the importance of pushing forward a full and proper consultation with policyholders and the Equitable Members Action Group to ensure that their concerns are raised, considered and addressed.
In 2010, Equitable Life victims were promised fair and transparent compensation. We have to remember that they were hard-working teachers, pharmacists, shop-floor workers and small business owners, many of whom spent their lives in service, caring for others. They have been short-changed, let down and swindled out of their hard-earned money. It is 21 years since the House of Lords ruled that the Equitable Life Assurance Society must close to new business due to being rendered financially unviable. Since then, more than 1 million people have been left with significant financial losses.
The parliamentary ombudsman concluded in 2008 that the victims’ loss was directly due to decades-worth of regulatory maladministration. In 2010, the coalition Government accepted those losses and allocated £1.5 billion for compensation. That was 11 years ago; 11 years later, victims in my constituency are still waiting for compensation. That is not good enough. In the process of seeking justice and compensation, they have been denied transparency over how their payments have been calculated. Her Majesty’s Treasury has refused time and time again to reveal the methodology that its advisers used to calculate payments.
The victims rightly feel as if they have been swindled out of their savings, and it is very hard to disagree with them. Only 22% has been rendered in compensation so far. That is not right or fair, so I ask the Government to consider the Equitable Members Action Group’s demands. The victims have waited long enough for justice and compensation.
The Government must commit to ensuring full payment to all 895,000 traced pension saver victims. They must commit to ensuring full Treasury transparency over the way repayments have been calculated. They must commit to a Public Accounts Committee and Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee joint inquiry into payment inaccuracies. Finally, they must commit to ensuring that the oldest and most vulnerable victims receive equality of treatment with regard to the with-profits annuity contracts from September 1992.
Victims of Equitable Life’s scandals have waited long enough. Now is the time for fair treatment in compensation. Now is the time to do right by them, so I hope the Government do the right thing.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I recognise the outstanding work that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has done not only in securing this debate but in his chairmanship of the APPG. Like every Member who has spoken so far, I have constituents who have been affected by this scandal. It is a scandal that people are fighting for what is rightly theirs. The Minister will not be immune to the fact that all contributors from across the parties are reiterating very similar points today, because the situation is affecting every part of the United Kingdom, and constituents are suffering as a result of it.
In advance of today’s debate, I was contacted by constituents who have been very affected. One wrote to me to say:
“My dear father put me into Equitable Life because in 1970 he thought they were the outstanding pensions company and with an honest reputation.”
The constituent went on to say:
“Luckily, he did not put all his eggs in one basket”—
they survived—
“but between himself and his wife they put in a substantial amount of money.”
He concluded by saying that he recalled
“clearly watching it all go wrong and being horrified about what happened. As a result his wife and he both joined EMAG to help fight our corner.”
That is a message I have heard time and time again.
Other hon. Members have suggested that the Government might be hoping that this will quietly go way—as people get older and sadly pass on, this issue will somehow be forgotten. It will not be. I have another constituent who has been working on this issue for his mother for the past 19 years since his father passed away. This issue affects people now and their families are not going to forget about it either.
As we have heard, there are opportunities in the motion today for two of Parliament’s Select Committees to work together to hold an inquiry. I hope they agree to do that and that we resolve some of the issues, but we need more than just another inquiry. The facts are the facts. They are very clear in this case. An inquiry would try to push the Government further, but I do not think that should be necessary. The previous coalition Government made it clear that an injustice had been served and that they were going to compensate people, but it is simply unacceptable that people have received just 22.4% of their claims. How would any of us feel if, at the end of the month, our salary was only 22.4% of what we expected it to be? These people put their faith and trust in a scheme, and, through no fault of their own, it has been devalued to such a level that the payments are simply unrecognisable in comparison with what they expected.
On behalf of my constituents here in Moray, and many people across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, I hope the Minister listens to what has been said in Parliament today. He knows I have corresponded with him on many occasions on behalf of local constituents. This issue is not going to go away. I know he is an excellent Minister who takes his job extremely seriously. I hope he will once again look at the issues put forward by hon. Members from across the House, so we can finally resolve this scandal and give closure to many of the people affected right across the United Kingdom.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and I applaud the efforts of the Equitable Members Action Group to date. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate.
One of the most rewarding parts of being a local MP is the ability to bring local issues that affect our constituents to the attention of Ministers. On a daily basis, I get to speak to members of the public, such as Harry Cruddace from School Aycliffe, who ask us, as their representatives, to support them. Harry represents the many other victims in Sedgefield and across the UK. While running his own successful business, he made financial decisions he thought would enable him to retire properly, including a pension fund with Equitable Life. As a result of its inability to deliver on its promises for Harry, he was forced to work for an extra six years to the age of 71. That took away a number of his best retirement years that he had planned to spend with his wife.
In 2010, Harry, along with about 1 million Equitable Life policyholders, was promised a fair and transparent compensation. Given the parliamentary ombudsman’s 2008 conclusion that the victims’ losses were directly attributable to a decade of regulatory maladministration, this was a welcome and much-needed Government intervention.
I am not going to reiterate all the details that have been so eloquently communicated by other Members, but the victims of Equitable Life’s inability to deliver on its promises included police officers, nurses and small business owners who were trying to invest prudently in a happy retirement with what was at the time a respected household name. I ask the Government to consider extending the financial support to fulfil the 2010 commitment to a fair compensation to Equitable Life victims, ensuring that pensioners have security in their retirement—something that the Chancellor reiterated on 6 October was a Government priority. The benefits of this would be twofold. First, as a Conservative, I believe that those who made the decision to invest in their and their family’s future, such as Harry, should benefit from that decision. Receiving the remaining 78% of compensation would afford many of the victims the ability to have the comfortable retirement that they had planned for decades ago. Secondly, Equitable Life policyholders receiving this compensation package could act as a much needed stimulus to the country. These are people who will spend this money when they get it; it is very unlikely to end up in savings. It can therefore stimulate part of the economic recovery by helping our small businesses, pubs and restaurants.
I ask that the Government commit urgently to the inquiries being proposed, but also that they put thought into how funds can be made forthcoming to the victims of this scandal as urgently as possible to give some relief to the people of Sedgefield and across the country who have been victims of this scandal.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a privilege, but not a pleasure, to take part in this debate, it being 20 years on from the moment when more than 1 million policyholders lost part of their pension savings. They are still waiting for full transparency about what happened and justice regarding the retirement they planned and thought they were saving for. They are victims of maladministration.
We have already heard how Equitable Life policyholders who did not have with-profits annuities have received compensation worth only about 22% of the loss they faced, how in 2008 the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have had, and how the coalition Government promised to do so. Numbers and statistics are an easy way for us to hide what that all really means. Hard-working people who have done nothing other than seek to provide for themselves and their families after years of work have had their lives turned upside down. Nurses, teachers and war veterans have all been left behind—and now, more than ever, we have seen exactly what being left behind can mean. Yesterday, in his inauguration speech, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden, asked Americans to walk in each other’s shoes. That is advice that we would do well to listen to in this place. We should put ourselves for a moment in the shoes of those whose lives are behind the statistics—pensioners whose lives have been affected.
I have personal experience of knowing how important retirement pots can be at any age. At the age of 45, my mother was suddenly alone with three daughters. She worked miracles for us, none of which would have been possible without my father’s pension pot. He was only 44, so it was not huge, but if it had been depleted by maladministration in the way that these pots have been, our lives would have been very different. Let us not forget that Equitable Life pensioners are not the only pensioners in this country who have been let down by successive Governments. I am sure that women who are approaching 70 and have had their state pensionable age changed feel a great deal of sympathy for the Equitable Life pensioners. There are so many in a generation who have been let down in their later years.
We must not now use covid or Brexit to shield us from the problems that still exist. They have not gone away, and, if anything, those involved will now feel further away from the Government than ever before. A constituent who wrote to me was one of the many people across the country who did not receive the full redress—in fact, less than a quarter of it. As grateful as they were, this is still a drastic depletion of their retirement funds. That is acknowledged by the Treasury but blamed on the state of the public purse—a bit much when we consider some of the spending decisions that have been made since.
Perhaps the worst thing in all these years, which have seen protests, lives lived and lives lost, is that this could have been avoided. No one should be penalised, particularly in their later years, for having done the right thing. The Treasury has not been transparent enough about how these payments came to be. It has not given this due diligence. Over 1 million people deserve better. Many people have had any semblance of financial stability whipped out from underneath them in what was and is one of our worst financial scandals. They deserve better. They deserve more than just another inquiry.
The coalition Government decided that people should be compensated. We must fulfil that now; it is our job in this place not to hinder it. We are duty-bound, morally bound, to help to fix this.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for the incredible campaign that he has been fighting for so many years to get justice for victims of a scandal that has caused so much pain to so many. We talk about numbers and sums of money, but this is about lives destroyed and dreams shattered—people who were responsible, and spent their lives saving for their and their families’ futures, only to have it stolen away from them. They say you cannot buy happiness and that money isn’t everything, but these are life-changing sums, years of work and saving, and there are huge impacts on people’s quality of life in later years.
I recently met a group of constituents who are affected by this issue. I was told that the last time they had met there had been many more of them, because for some of the victims who lived in my constituency it is already too late. They will never see their money; they will never know justice. One man shared his story with me. It is a story that I will never forget and one that he is happy for me to share with the House.
Tom Coulson was born in 1935 to a working-class family. The son of a furnaceman, he lived through the war and is a grafter; he worked hard and did the right thing, saving to provide for his family’s future. At 15, he got a job as an apprentice. At 28, after 10 years of night school, he qualified as a chartered mechanical engineer. At 39, he set up his own design and project management company, and began planning for his retirement at 60. At 56, his wife persuaded him to retire and put all the capital they could spare into an Equitable Life pension scheme. He is now 85 and life is not what he planned for, worked for, saved for, or deserves. Eighteen months ago his wife, Anne, was diagnosed with vascular dementia. She is wheelchair bound and living in a care home, reliant on funding from the local authority.
Tom has two assets. The first is his home. If he sells this, half will go to local authority assessment. He also has a joint life-assured investment plan, and any early withdrawal could see 50% taken into account by the local authority. Expenses on the upkeep of his home—and, for example, the £4,000 spent on skin cancer treatment last year—mean that he is now eating away at his working capital, promising future hardship, which could be prevented if the Government settled this obligation.
Tom’s losses would have been a life-changing amount over the years. If recovered now, those sums would make a huge difference to Anne and Tom’s life, allowing them to spend more time together, after 62 years of marriage. Mr and Mrs Coulson have lost a heartbreaking £264,000. I beg the Government to do justice: give these victims what they worked for, saved for, need and deserve.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
A scandal like the collapse of Equitable Life has unimaginable repercussions for the lives of the victims, many of whom live in my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside. Ten years ago, when the life insurance company collapsed, policyholders lost billions of pounds in total, and the Government were forced to pay more than £1 billion in compensation, but the cost to the lives of those affected was far greater: pensions wiped out; lives destroyed; thousands dying before they received justice. People who had strived all their lives to save for a comfortable retirement had their plans and dreams shattered overnight—a burning injustice and one that undermined the wider confidence in saving for retirement. Everyone has a fundamental right to grow old with dignity and security, to relax and enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of endeavour. These victims were robbed of that opportunity.
It was the Government’s maladministration that played a role in the collapse of Equitable Life, so it should be the duty of the Government to ensure that the victims are fully and fairly compensated, and that this never happens again. Every effort must be made to ensure that those owed compensation are identified, and that the process is accurate and transparent. The Equitable Members Action Group wants full payment for 895,000 traced pension saver victims, finally settling the unpaid debt covering their losses. Current levels of complaints and appeals clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of the system. A freedom of information response exposed that in every case where a complaint had been raised—[Inaudible]—victims of the Equitable Life scandal, it resulted in an increased payment to the policyholder.
On top of this, the scheme has been unable to trace over 100,000 policyholders who are eligible for reimbursement. Many of them will now be in their 80s and 90s. As such, I welcome the proposal for a joint inquiry into the accuracy of the payments made, and I look forward to the response to that proposal from the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Would the Government support such an inquiry?
A scandal such as Equitable Life should never be allowed to happen again, yet just last month the Government had to establish a new compensation scheme for London Capital & Finance investors, many of whom lost their entire life savings. Given the apparently flawed methodology behind compensating the victims of the Equitable Life scandal, what steps are the Government now taking to ensure that those eligible for compensation in the London Capital & Finance investor scheme are not short-changed and can have full faith in the compensation process? What action have the Government taken to make sure that such firms are properly regulated from now on, to ensure that such a devastating loss never happens again?
People approaching retirement deserve security and the peace of mind that they can grow old with dignity and comfort and that the savings they put away during decades of hard work will be safe. Flaws in our financial regulations have been exposed in such a disastrous way, and we cannot, a decade down the line, be found again to have been asleep at the wheel. We must tighten regulations, protect savings and uphold people’s right to dignity in old age, and we must ensure that the 2,000 victims of Equitable Life in Liverpool, Riverside receive fair and transparent compensation.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate and his many years of campaigning alongside the members of the Equitable Members Action Group and the APPG on justice for equitable life policyholders.
The Equitable Life scandal has deeply affected hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country and the lives of many of my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. As has been said, these people are not rich; they are typically hard-working retired nurses, teachers, civil servants and factory and shop workers. The majority of them had less than £20,000 in their pension pot, so the scandal has affected them deeply.
The scandal has rumbled on for decades without satisfactory conclusion. When the Equitable Life Assurance Society closed to new business in 2000, it left its 1 million policyholders with pensions that were worth far less than they had been told, resulting in significant suffering and financial losses. Many of the affected pensioners are elderly, and many have died or will die without ever having received adequate compensation, so the time for action is now.
One constituent of mine wrote to me in despair at how she had received only a quarter of her pension and was worried that, at 91 years old, there was not much time left for justice to be done for people like her. Last week, I met affected constituents, who said that they had invested in good faith—they had trusted and Equitable Life and the regulatory system, but have lost money that they need now more than ever.
Following investigations of the scandal, the parliamentary ombudsman ruled that the losses were directly attributable to a decade of regulatory maladministration, including by the Government Actuary’s Department in the Treasury. In 2010, the coalition Government accepted the ombudsman’s recommendations in full and announced the creation of the £1.5 billion scheme to pay compensation to Equitable Life policyholders. However, given that the losses were £4.3 billion, that amounted to just 22.4% of the losses of the 895,000 traced pension savers. All those victims should be repaid.
I know that money is tight at the moment, but that cannot be an excuse for not paying. As one of my constituents pointed out, the tax Department would not accept him saying, “Sorry, I can’t pay my taxes—it is too expensive,” but that is, in essence, what people feel the Treasury is telling them. There were errors in judgment in existing payments and, as has been said, all the appeals in that respect have been upheld, so it is time for a joint inquiry into the errors in payments.
Now is the time to settle this debt and right this wrong. We may be living in an economically tumultuous period, but the current crisis has shown us that money can be found when the political will exists. It has also shown us the value of stimulating the economy by putting money directly into people’s pockets when they need it the most. As one of my constituents said, “If you find something that is wrong, you should rectify it. This has undermined the whole system. Why would I tell my children to invest in pension schemes when this can just happen again?”
The Government owe it to the victims of the Equitable Life scandal in Putney and across the country to get this right, to fulfil the Government’s promises, and to compensate the victims at long last.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it, and on his co-chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, which I have been happy to join. He very eloquently set out the background to this matter in his opening speech, and I associate myself entirely with his comments. As he said, this situation has its origins in unique circumstances, and as the parliamentary ombudsman found in 2008, the victims’ losses have been directly attributable to a decade of serious and serial regulatory maladministration.
These matters have been well covered so far, but I would like to make three brief points. The Equitable Members Action Group has raised doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the Treasury’s methodology, and how it has been used to calculate the compensation payments made. I hope that can be addressed in the interests of open government, so that concerns in that area can be resolved. I also note the action group’s call for a joint inquiry on payment accuracy by the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I am a member of the latter Committee, and I note that call. I am sympathetic to it, so that this can be looked into further.
This is a very technical matter, but I think we should look at the human side of it as well. A recent Prime Minister said:
“The British people are decent, sensible, reasonable and they just want a government that supports the vulnerable, backs those who do the right thing and helps them get on in life.”
That really sums up some of the Equitable Life victims I have met in Gedling. I have met only a small handful of the 2,300 victims and their dependants in my constituency, but they come across as quiet, unassuming people who do not want to cause a fuss, and tried to do the right thing, work hard, and make the right preparations for their retirement. It is time that we tried to address their valid concerns. Equitable Life had a series of adverts in the early 1990s that traded on the solidity of its investments. A 1993 commercial finished with the slogan, “You profit from our principles”. That appears not to have occurred, and I hope this is something that we can finally begin to address.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I would like to try to give everybody on the list a chance to speak. Therefore, with apologies to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for giving him no notice whatsoever, I now have to impose a time limit of three minutes.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to take part in the debate, so absolutely no apology is necessary.
Here we go again. I think I have lost count—as you no doubt have, Madam Deputy Speaker—of the number of these debates we have had over the years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on obtaining the debate and on the work that he does with the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders. I hope that if those on the Treasury Bench take away no other message today, they will take away this one: this case is simply not going to go away. The number of people who are affected will undoubtedly dwindle over the years, but this case will not go away until their claims are met and justice is given to them.
Others have made points about the handling of claims, and constituents who are in touch with me tell very much the same story.
There is just one point on which I would like the House to focus this afternoon, and that is the need for transparency from the Treasury on the compensation that it has paid out. The principle was accepted right at the start, as far back as 2010—I was Minister in that Government, throughout the five years of the coalition—that there would be compensation for the maladministration. The source of the anger—as I say, it will not go away—is the fact that getting on for 11 years later, we have not seen full compensation.
The importance of this case goes beyond those who lost out under Equitable Life, because such treatment of people in similar cases continues to this day. Over the last few years, I have been working with constituents and other people throughout north-east Scotland who have lost money as a result of the fraud of Alistair Greig, director of Midas Financial Solutions in Scotland. He was eventually jailed for 14 years by the High Court in Scotland for running a Ponzi scheme. The financial services compensation scheme has started paying out compensation to the victims of that fraud, but let us just say that it did not do so willingly. My constituents and many others have had to put together and invest more than £2 million in legal fees to get the FSCS to the point where it was prepared to pay out.
That is the sort of situation that we find ourselves in when we have a culture—an attitude among regulators and others—in which it is okay to leave the little people, who have smaller claims, swinging in the wind. That is the attitude that has to change, and that is why Treasury transparency is crucial here.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate. The long-running Equitable Life scandal has impacted a tragically dwindling number of people in my constituency. When I was first elected in 2010, I would have had numerous emails in my inbox asking me to attend a debate such as this, and to speak up in favour of justice and fairness for Equitable pensioners. Now there are very few. Tragically, many have died, and others have simply given up—given up waiting and given up hope.
These are people who did the right thing, or thought they had. They invested for their retirement and saw their savings cruelly ripped away from them decades ago. Back in 2010, the Government pledged to sort the problem once and for all, and I am often reminded that that was the manifesto on which I stood. In my constituency, the retired nurses, teachers, shop workers and small businesspeople we have heard about this afternoon are still waiting. One of the things that they call for most is full transparency on the calculations done by the Treasury on the moneys that were owed to qualifying policyholders as part of the compensation scheme set up under the 2010 Act. There remains significant disquiet from a number of my lovely Equitable Life action group constituents as to how calculations about their entitlements were made. As we have heard repeatedly throughout this debate, there have been significant errors. A joint inquiry could well give my constituents, such as Reg, the answers that they want.
Little did I think when we passed this Act in 2010 that 11 years later, in 2021, we would still be fighting for justice for this small and, as I said, dwindling group of pensioners. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to do the right thing. He is a good Minister, and I hope that this afternoon he can give some hope to my constituents who are still waiting in hope that the Government will deliver on their 2010 commitment.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
So here we are again. First, I would like to endorse the calls for an inquiry on some of the wildly inaccurate payments received by Equitable Life pensioners. That transparency is needed by those who are dependent on what they get through the Equitable Life scheme run by the Government for any kind of income in retirement. That is so important.
This is a reminder of how Governments of various colours have let these people down. It is clear to me that the Government, in their failure to regulate Equitable Life, allowed people a false sense of security when investing and doing what Governments of all shapes, sizes and political hues had encouraged them to do: provide for their own retirement. Those people then discovered, to their horror, that their plans for retirement—often modest plans—had been destroyed.
The Government’s first response was to provide about half a million pounds of support. I am proud that my colleague Vince Cable was instrumental in ensuring that an additional £1 billion was provided in 2010, but even that is far short of the £4.5 billion that the independent ombudsman recognised was owed to the people who have been so cruelly hit by the Equitable Life crisis. People who have been encouraged to save and provide for themselves and their families in retirement, and who then dutifully take that advice, should not be punished and left to a retirement in penury because the Government of the day did not do their job in regulating Equitable Life properly.
In my community alone, 2,000 victims of the Equitable Life scandal are making the best they can of a reduced circumstances retirement. It seems to me that the Treasury is callously banking on the number of people in receipt and deserving of compensation reducing year on year. That is a tragedy, and the Government should step up right now. It is not only a historical injustice to the 2,000 people in my community who are Equitable Life pensioners that they have not been given their due payments and the retirement that they had saved and provided for. It is also damaging to our communities. Let us remember that if those 2,000 people in Westmorland and Lonsdale were to receive the payments they were due by this Government, it would make a big difference to our local economy. Morally and practically, it is right for this Government to do what the independent ombudsman called for some years ago and pay the full £4.5 billion to those pensioners.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate, and I take this opportunity to thank very much indeed my predecessor, Sir Oliver Letwin, for all the work that he did on behalf of West Dorset constituents on this matter.
What is before us today is, I am afraid, a shocking example of regulatory failure, and we need to make sure that it does not happen again. It is also about us in this place achieving justice and fairness for many hard-working constituents who have saved for much of their lives. When approximately 2,000 of my constituents began contributing to their pensions at the beginning of their working lives, never did they think that they would lose their savings due to the errors of a company to which they entrusted thousands of pounds. Approximately 500 of my constituents have not received compensation at all. Most people have received around 22% of their pensions, but when we consider that most had less than £20,000 in their pension fund, the desperate nature of this scandal is clear; 22% of £20,000 is £4,400, which is nowhere near enough to retire on.
My constituents affected by this scandal did not work hard to play hard. They worked hard to save hard, and those savings were for their pension. However, the loss of £30,000 from one constituent’s pension fund meant that he had to work right up to the point at which he was physically unable to do so anymore. His wife, sadly, passed away before this injustice was rectified, which I am very sorry to hear. Many other constituents have similar stories.
Equitable Life is not the only fund that has been mismanaged. I also have many constituents who were employees of AEA—Atomic Energy Authority—Technology. They were given incomplete information about the switching of their pensions from the UK AEA scheme, which was backed by the Treasury at the time, to the new scheme, which I am afraid was not. The AEAT went bust in 2012, and the pensions were transferred into the Pension Protection Fund in 2016. The difference in indexation for inflation has seen people’s pensions eroded greatly, and in some cases by up to 20%.
There is a clear need for the joint Committee inquiry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is proposing. I very much encourage the Minister and the Government to do all they can. Once again, it is important that we make sure that we focus on achieving fairness and justice for those constituents who have been wronged.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate, which was scheduled to take place early last year, but has been much delayed, and I think that delay is at the heart of this whole issue. We now find ourselves in a situation where many of the Equitable Life policyholders have been retired for some time. Sadly, as other Members have alluded to, many have died, particularly the older policyholders in the pre-September 1992 with-profits annuity group, who never received any compensation at all.
The last time that the hon. Member held a debate on this issue was in 2019, and it is a tragedy that each time a debate is held, the number of policyholders who would benefit from the compensation is decreasing. That is simply not right. Time is limited, yet there has likely never been a time when the compensation would make more difference than right now. I know that is the case for my constituents who were Equitable Life policyholders.
The coronavirus pandemic has placed an enormous strain on financial resources for many people, and we have never experienced an economic case like this one. One group who were particularly impacted by the Equitable Life scandal have also been largely left to face the full force of the economic impact of covid without support: small business owners.
I believe there are some common themes between successive Governments’ treatment of Equitable Life policyholders and the provisions and support for the self-employed and small business owners during covid. The first is arbitrariness. My constituents who were policyholders cannot understand why they should be merely given 22.4% compensation; they have been excluded. Secondly, there is the refusal to expand support, justified by reference to the public purse. When the Government have made a commitment to provide support, as they did when they accepted the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s findings to compensate victims in full, they must follow through on their word. Thirdly, there is the very large degree of cross-party support. According to the website of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, 282 Members of this place are members of that group. That is nearly a majority of the House, and plaudits for that should go to the determined campaigning of the APPG itself and EMAG.
Non-binding motions have previously been agreed by this House in debates just like this one, calling on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation, yet we find ourselves in the ludicrous position where, despite all that, there still appears to be no willingness from the Treasury to look again at the issue of compensation. How many more debates do we have to hold? How many more motions do we have to pass? How many more Members will have to join the APPG?
As I said earlier, delay is incredibly damaging, so I urge the Government to look again at the issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to him making a commitment to providing full compensation. The Government should do so now, because we clearly cannot afford to waste any further time. This compensation has never been more needed. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on setting the scene? With every one of these debates that I have attended, unfortunately there are fewer of my constituents who would receive the benefit. That is why today we again ask for the same thing.
In 2010, Equitable Life victims were promised fair and transparent compensation. To date, almost 1 million pension savers have received just 22% of the losses they suffered following the maladministration. That is hardly fair. Her Majesty’s Treasury has refused to disclose the full workings of its calculations of the payments that have been made, and that does not seem to meet the requirements that the Government set that all dealings must be open and transparent. I again call on the Minister and the Government, as he knows I often do, to make clear the method by which calculations are made, to ensure that victims do not continue to be left in the dark.
I have read of cases where policyholders were significantly undercompensated for their losses due to errors, yet I am given to understand that the Treasury made no attempt to contact those individuals. It is very frustrating. It is only upon appeal to the independent review panel that recalculations are made. What is of note to me is that every case has resulted in increased payments. Perhaps there is something there that the Minister could take on board. The process must be reassessed by the Treasury.
I have always found it difficult to reconcile the fact that, although losses were found to amount to £4.3 billion, only £1.5 billion was allocated for compensation for the victims. I have heard that the Government have allocated £620 million to those receiving annual payments, leaving only £708 million to share among 1 million other victims along with a contingency fund of £100 million. The working out of this has been explained to me: savers receive only an average of 22.4% of the money that they lost. Surely, Minister, we can and must do better. Those who have saved hard and consistently and prepared for their later life have been left disenfranchised. This is an issue for the Government and for the Minister directly to answer. Our constituents who contact us regularly have not forgotten about this. Their hard-earned savings have been lost.
The campaign has asked for numerous ways of helping victims, one of which is equality of treatment for those who took out with-profits annuity contracts before September 1992. They are the oldest and most vulnerable victims, and this could be easily met from the £140 million underspend of the £1.5 billion already allocated by Parliament.
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask again that this matter is considered by the Minister and his team. Society is always marked by how it treats those who are less well off. Here is a supreme example of those who have saved hard, worked hard and risk losing out. I ask the Minister to please look at this again.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
When people work hard and invest in their retirement, we praise them for doing the right thing. In so doing, these people tend to make fewer demands on the state in later life because of their financial independence. A constituent of mine has lost a small fortune because of the Equitable Life scandal. He received back only 22% of the sums he had invested, which will clearly negatively impact on his retirement.
I have been invited by my local EMAG group in Dudley to speak this afternoon. I have listened to and considered their concerns and, of course, I wish to represent them and support them as best I can, without ignoring just how generous the Chancellor has been in supporting the country through covid. I know that there are many competing priorities for the Treasury and that our public services are critical to tackle this dreadful pandemic. I am sure that Ministers and the Chancellor have enormous sympathy for those who have lost out because of the Equitable Life scandal. I understand that the Equitable Life payment scheme closed to claims in 2015. Taking into consideration the hardship that innocent members have suffered, I would welcome the thoughts of Ministers as to whether any consideration could be given to reopening the challenge mechanism. I ask this in the full knowledge of the financial predicament that we find ourselves in as a result of the pandemic.
People have been wronged, and my plea is that, when circumstances allow, we revisit the situation with a view to helping people who have still lost out. It would be very helpful if we could revisit the calculation of the compensation payments made, as concerns have been raised by the Public Accounts Committee. Moving forward, it is also important that future commissions of this sort are clearer and more transparent in publishing the calculation comparators that guide compensation payments.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his tireless campaign. I do not think that anybody participating in this debate could fail to be moved by the stories that we have heard today. As one of my constituents said:
“As time passes and age increases, the volume of our voices are decreasing, too, so we need to keep the volume of our situation loud and clear, and look to you being one of those who will raise yours.”
Quite literally, we have heard time and again of good, honest, decent people who, after saving diligently all their lives, have had that ruined. What is striking is that this is not just about a select few or the better off, but everyone in society being affected. A total of 900,000 people affected by maladministration received just 22% of their entitlement. We know the story, and we know that it is wrong. As the MP for North Norfolk, where many people have enjoyed, and are enjoying, their retirement, I am staggered by just how many constituents have been affected by this terrible situation. I have 2,800 policyholders and dependants in my area alone. Listening to their stories is heart breaking. Some have even given their permission for me to use their names.
Take Terry, who is 82. He retired as a plumber at 60 when his knees were too bad to continue working. He started saving for his retirement in 1979, diligently putting away, but today all those years of saving amount to virtually nothing given the collapse of Equitable. Terry told me that he cannot afford holidays and has not had a holiday abroad for 20 years. How can it be fair that we ask people in society to take responsibility for themselves, good people like Terry save for a pension, and then, through no fault of those people’s own, the pension company and the regulator fail in their duty to protect them?
We know that the Government accepted in 2010 that the victims’ losses were in the order of £4.3 billion, but the £1.3 billion set aside has not gone far enough for those constituents, such as mine, who are having their happy retirement wrecked. It is pretty clear not only that Equitable had been misleading customers with over-the-top returns and promises, but that the regulator had failed to protect customers, knowing quite well that the accumulated pension pots would not be worth what customers expected.
Let me quickly conclude with a heartbreaking story of another of my constituents. He too saved for years, but his pension is just a third of what it should have been, and it contracts every year. I will not reveal his name, but of all the stories, this encapsulates the dire situation that so many are left in. He said:
“I am sad that my wife died in 2007 but perversely, glad she hasn’t lived to see that all the sacrifices she made to allow our pension pot to grow have all been in vain. She gave up many of the more enjoyable things in life because I said we would benefit in retirement. I could cry when I think about it. But I live in the hope that one day soon justice will be done and the government will pay its debts. I very nearly didn’t make it a few weeks ago when the doctors thought I was to become another victim of Covid19. But I came through the night to everyone’s surprise and now I just want to have what is mine and live a few years longer and enjoy them.”
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this vital debate. Ever since my election to this place just over a year ago, I have been contacted by dozens of constituents from across Keighley and Ilkley asking for my support on this issue, and they have it. The Equitable Life scandal has gone on for far too long.
Fundamentally, this comes down to one simple principle: fairness. When we save for retirement, we expect the money that we invested to be there for us, but the customers of Equitable Life, even after compensation, have been left with just a fraction of what they were owed. The final report on the Equitable Life payment scheme in 2016 set out that compensation payments to policyholders equated to only 22.4% of their relative loss. Some victims have spent years campaigning for compensation. Very sadly, some people died before they could receive the compensation they were due.
In 2010, when the parliamentary ombudsman found in favour of savers, stating that there had been a decade of maladministration, many savers breathed a sigh of relief, expecting to be compensated for their losses. While I recognise that in 2010, the coalition Government took significant steps, despite tough economic circumstances, by delivering £1.5 billion in a compensation scheme, there were inherent unfairnesses in the way the scheme was administered. Some policyholders rightly received their full compensation, but others were unfairly excluded. These are people who have worked hard and form the backbone of our country.
I accept that this is not an easy position for the Government. Of course we have to strike a fair balance between the interests of policyholders and taxpayers. Our public finances, especially in the coming years, will be put under enormous strain as we recover from the terrible pandemic. But what better place to start building back better from the pandemic than delivering a fair and just outcome for these savers?
I know that the Government have already taken action to do all they can to prevent a scandal like this from happening again. I know that the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has worked hard as part of the Pension Schemes Bill to protect customers from reckless actions of pension bosses. But I urge the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to look at this again and see what more action can be taken to compensate those victims. Has he considered, for example, reopening the challenge mechanism, which allowed policyholders to identify errors? No one should be penalised for doing the right thing. We owe it to the Equitable Life generation to stand by them.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
This is an incredibly emotive and serious topic, and I wish to start in the only way possible, which is to thank EMAG for all the fantastic work it does, and also to commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for once again bringing this most important of issues to the Chamber, of course with the assistance of the Backbench Business Committee.
Almost immediately on my election to this place in 2019, I, like many others, received correspondence from constituents who had been impacted by this appalling scandal. I will be honest and say that I was not fully clued up on all the specifics; after all, I had barely started secondary school in the year 2000, when this issue really took hold. However, having trawled through the record books, it quickly became apparent to me just how much effort Members on all sides of the House have put into trying to gain justice for those impacted—in the Chamber or through the APPG—and it is safe to say that, since 2010, the hon. Member for Harrow East appears to have been in the vanguard of that charge.
To be absolutely clear, I could not be more emphatic in expressing that my colleagues and I on the SNP Benches believe that this UK Government have a moral obligation to provide full restitution to those people who were victims of this appalling scam. I say “scam” because that is clearly what it was—a scam that induced people to put their hard-earned life savings into a scheme that promised huge bonuses and pay-outs, neither of which could ever have been delivered. Teachers, nurses, shop workers, factory workers, engineers, small business owners—the list goes on, and each and every one of them was swindled by this dodgy deal.
Despite the fact that a lot of time has passed, there will of course be the cynics who say that when people invest, they have to face up to the risks, but these were not normal risks. This was not simply a case of the stock market ebbing and flowing; this was a scheme that could never have financed itself. It was a con—a scam—with real victims. The worst part is that the Treasury, the Government and, indeed, the regulator all appeared to know exactly what was going on. They knew, but they never put an immediate halt to it, and that is why there is a moral obligation on Government to provide the funds that people are due.
As Members are aware, and this has been mentioned across the House on numerous occasions today, the coalition did indeed put forward a £1.5 billion pot in 2010, but in reality, it does not even scratch the surface. We all know that about £4.1 billion was needed to fill the gap, and we all know that, as a result, some 895,000 policyholders have only got back about 22% of what they were owed. It is simply not good enough, particularly when we consider what the then Chancellor said in 2010:
“For 10 years the Equitable Life policyholders have fought for justice. For 10 years the last Government dithered, delayed and denied them that justice. It is time to right the wrong done to many thousands of people who did the right thing, saved for their future and tried not to depend on the state, and then were the innocent victims of a terrible failure of regulation.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 960.]
Well, make that 20 years of dithering, delay and denial.
Sadly, the intransigence on this issue from Government shows no sign of changing. Like others, I have written to them on many occasions, and the answer has been a flat no: “There is no money, and we consider the case closed”. In reality, that has meant that good, hard-working people never received the pension money they were due, and it means that many more, including many of my constituents, will never receive that to which they are entitled.
I have been fortunate enough to spend some time in this House opposite the Economic Secretary, and he seems to be one of the few of the Government’s Ministers who fall within the “reasonable” category. While I appreciate that he and his colleagues across the Treasury are under enormous pressure, I would simply say to him that where there is a will, there is a way. The dithering needs to end, the delaying needs to end and the denial needs to end. It is time to deliver what my constituents and so many others deserve.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, but, as I do so, my efforts and, indeed, those of all my SNP colleagues do not end here. We are proud to be members of the APPG and, working across this Chamber, we will not stop battling until those who are still without money gain the recompense they are due.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
As we have heard today, it has been more than 20 years since the House of Lords ruling rendered the Equitable Life Assurance Society financially unviable, and it has been over a decade since the then Chancellor announced the Equitable Life payment scheme to compensate policyholders who had lost out as a result of the scandal at that company, yet even after so many years, thousands of Equitable Life policyholders do not feel they have been treated fairly.
The Equitable Members Action Group continues to campaign tirelessly on their behalf, and during this afternoon’s debate—I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it—we have heard Members from all sides passionately setting out the injustice that so many policyholders feel. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) powerfully set out the upsetting case of the 84-year-old pharmacist she represents as an example of how the scandal has affected people living in constituencies across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke of the human impact on her constituent, an 89-year-old living with dementia, whose life has been hit by this scandal, alongside nurses, teachers, shop workers and so many others over many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) emphasised how long the scandal has been going on, and spoke about the crucial importance of transparency, which I will return to. The importance of transparency was also underscored by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who spoke about the costs of the scandal on the plans and dreams of those affected, and the ongoing impact of current cases such as London Capital & Finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) spoke about a 91-year-old in her constituency and others who invested in good faith but have gone for decades without a satisfactory conclusion.
It is crucial that we learn lessons from what happened at Equitable Life, including about the wider importance of having a well-regulated financial services sector, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said. In recent months, the cases we have seen at London Capital & Finance and Brewin Dolphin underline the importance of the Government’s doing more to ensure that people are well protected in the first place.
On Equitable Life itself, the issue at the heart of the disagreement over the past decade has been how the payments to the vast majority of its policyholders have been determined. As we know, that has generated intense disagreement with the Government over their approach, and as today’s motion makes clear, there is a further issue of transparency and trust. Many policyholders lack confidence that those payments have been calculated fairly.
In October 2020, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Chancellor, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking for the Treasury to set out clearly the basis on which it had calculated the payments that had been made to policyholders and to ask what assessment his officials had made of the overall accuracy of the scheme. In his reply, the Chancellor claimed that when the Equitable Life payment scheme was operational, it was fully transparent, and that its calculations methodology was published in full. He claimed that the Treasury had worked with the Equitable Members Action Group and others to produce a simplified explanation for policyholders.
Unfortunately for the Chancellor, the Equitable Members Action Group does not share his assessment. It contends that the Treasury refused full disclosure and hid behind commercial confidentiality. The group had to attempt to reverse-engineer the calculations, and it remains unsatisfied that payments can be shown to be accurate. It has presented cases of policyholders who received an amount substantially less than they were due. In one of the most extreme examples, which the hon. Member for Harrow East drew attention to, it quotes a case where the Treasury calculated a policyholder’s loss at £17, only for that to be revised to £8,661 when challenged. More widely, the group cites a freedom of information request that revealed that, where compensation had been recalculated following complaints, it resulted in an increased payment to the policyholder in every case—on average, by a factor of three.
A report of the Public Accounts Committee, under its former Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), concluded:
“Policyholders have struggled to understand how their payments have been calculated and cannot, therefore, check that the amount that they receive is correct.”
In a letter to the Committee’s current Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the permanent secretary to the Treasury restated the Government position. He said:
“no errors in the actual methodology have been found, including when the Equitable Members Action Group’s own actuary examined the methodology.”
Again, the group does not share the Treasury’s assessment. It contends that the actuary acting on its behalf was denied the information he needed to validate the methodology used, and he could not verify the calculations for one third of the sample policies studied.
It is the Government’s responsibility not only to do the right thing but to earn people’s trust that they will do so. It is clear from the continuing challenge presented by Members of Parliament on behalf of Equitable Life policyholders today that that is not yet the case. I find it hard to disagree with the Equitable Members Action Group’s view that the Treasury’s refusal to be fully transparent only increases suspicion that something is wrong.
After such a long-running disagreement, we believe that a transparent approach is the best way forward, and that it is the only way to find a way forward that is widely trusted and accepted. We therefore look forward to the response from the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on this important call to establish a joint inquiry into the accuracy of payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and apologise to him that the timer has been put on. Can the timer please be taken off by whoever is controlling it? It is very distracting and it was not fair to Mr Murray to have those numbers apparently telling him he had to stop when he did not have to stop. I am sorry for that, but these technical hitches sometimes just happen.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Let me start, as others have done, by acknowledging the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), his long-standing work on the issue and his success in securing the debate. I also need to declare an interest, as I did when I responded to the debate on 31 January 2019: my late father was an investor in Equitable Life and, therefore, I am keenly aware of the history and the importance of the issue to all concerned.
As we have heard and grasped again today, this is a complex and technical subject, the history of which has been very well documented over many years. I should also remind Members that the Equitable Life payment scheme closed to new claims over five years ago, so nothing has changed since that previous debate two years ago. Many of the speeches made today have covered the long and sad history of this matter. I do not propose to revisit all of that this afternoon. I do, however, want to remind hon. Members that the Government took more action than any of their predecessors to resolve this issue and committed significantly more funding than any other.
I appreciate that some investors remain disappointed by the steps that we took and would like to see further funds made available, but the Government have been clear and consistent in saying that this issue is closed and no further money will be paid out. This is in line with the ombudsman’s report, which was explicit about having no expectation of the full amount being paid.
John Glen
I will not, because of time. Indeed, the ombudsman wrote to the APPG to clarify that position. Today, we have heard additional representations on the transparency and accuracy of the payments made by the scheme. I heard very clearly that point from my right hon. Friend and his reference to me during the debate, and I shall respond to that now.
First, the Treasury published the calculation methodology in full in 2011, as well as a simplified explanation to assist members of the scheme who were anxious about how it would work, with worked examples of the calculation. These explain how every payment made by the scheme was calculated. In addition, the Treasury has also incurred actuarial fees well in excess of £100,000, answering the questions reasonably posed by the actuarial representative of the Equitable Members Action Group, in an effort to ensure that there was maximum transparency to that group and to those members who were concerned, but no errors were found in the methodology. The group confirmed to their members that the payments to annuitants were accurate, and all this was set out in detail to the Public Accounts Committee in 2018.
Some hon. Members have spoken about policyholders who have received increased payments from the scheme, but given the closure of the scheme to new claims, I can only assume that these are historical cases. The Treasury is not aware of any corrected payments having been made to policyholders since the scheme closed, but I recognise that it may be helpful to go into some more detail on this point. The most critical determinant of the value of any payment is the input data received from Equitable itself, including payments in, payments out and the type of policy bought. Actuaries checked this data carefully and made any obvious corrections automatically before payments were made. But then the scheme also gave policyholders the opportunity to verify their own input data, which would be a significant driver of any errors, and where an error was found, the scheme corrected it and recalculated the payment. That is likely to have been what happened in specific cases that Members have raised today, and I believe that they show that the system that the scheme established to ensure accurate payments worked well.
The Government have taken significant action to resolve this issue and to balance the expectations of the policyholder with the needs of the taxpayer. The scheme was fully transparent, as I have set out. We published the calculation methodology in full. We made significant resources available to explain it. And we put systems in place to ensure that where there were errors in that input data and, therefore, payments, they were remedied swiftly. I appreciate investors’ desire that the scheme should pay out more, but the Government’s position has always been clear and consistent, both since the original announcement back in 2010 and since the scheme was wound down over five years ago. I am afraid that that position remains and will not change.
Bob Blackman [V]
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank the, I think, 25 Back-Bench Members from five different political parties who have contributed to this debate. In direct answer to my hon. Friend the Minister, let us be clear: £280 billion has been found to shore up the economy because of covid; less than 1% of which would provide full compensation to the victims who have been waiting more than 20 years for it. Equally, had Equitable Life been allowed to fail, the people who lost their money would have been entitled to 90% compensation under the industry scheme, but they were denied access to that scheme because Equitable Life was too big to fail.
The reality, as has been mentioned, is that the Treasury has hidden behind commercial confidentiality in terms of displaying and disclosing the information necessary for individuals to calculate the compensation they were due, even under the reduced scheme. In addition, the pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who are the most vulnerable victims, were never singled out by any report until the Government laid legislation in 2010.
I ask that the House passes the motion by acclamation and that we get on with the inquiries. I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to do the right thing and ensure that full compensation is provided to the victims of this terrible scam.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Although I am, of course, impartial in all matters that happen here in the Chamber, I am an enthusiastic member of his all-party parliamentary group and most grateful to him for all the work he does.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House expresses grave concern regarding the Government’s continued inaction with respect to the injustice suffered by Equitable Life policyholders, the vast majority of whom have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses directly attributed to regulatory failures despite the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings to compensate victims in full in relation to the maladministration of Equitable Life; notes the concern previously expressed by the Public Accounts Committee on the transparency and accuracy of the payments being made to victims; further notes the Government’s failure to fulfil the Committee’s request to publish an intelligible and transparent explanation to policyholders on how to verify the correctness of the compensation they have received; notes examples of grossly inaccurate payments, adjusted only when identified by policyholders, gathered by the Equitable Members Action Group (EMAG); notes the Government’s continued insistence that there have been no mistakes in the methodology for calculating payments to policyholders; and therefore calls on the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to establish a joint inquiry into the accuracy of the payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for a few minutes, to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Covid-19: Child Maintenance Service
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the operation of the Child Maintenance Service during the covid-19 outbreak.
I will do my very best to keep my speech within that time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and all hon. and right hon. Members who signed my application and who are taking part today. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for attending today’s debate in place of Baroness Stedman-Scott, who sits in the other place.
The Child Maintenance Service has been, and still is, a fundamentally broken system that requires urgent action through a root-and-branch review. In spite of calls from across the Chamber, from One Parent Families Scotland and from Gingerbread, it is still to make the necessary changes. Nearly 750,000 children throughout the UK rely on the CMS. If the children of single parents who are in poverty and not receiving maintenance actually received the payment, it would lift 60% of all cases out of poverty.
The way in which the CMS has operated during this pandemic has simply exacerbated the existing problems. The whole of the Department for Work and Pensions has been under pressure during the pandemic, and staff have been working under incredible pressure to ensure that benefits are paid as quickly as possible. DWP staff have been rightly congratulated for what they have done, but the situation has affected the service from the CMS, which was failing many families even before covid-19 struck and staff were redeployed to help with universal credit and jobseeker’s allowance. The CMS is letting down parents with care and non-resident parents, but it is ultimately the children and young people the CMS is supposed to serve who are being deprived of the maintenance payments necessary for their upkeep.
Single parents are bearing the hidden costs of children being at home all day, with expenses for things such as extra heating, food and supplies for home-schooling. Some parents have needed to reduce paid work hours or stop employment completely during this period to care for their children. The financial impact means that many single parents are even more reliant on child maintenance payments. We need to see clear action from the UK Government to secure the financial support to which children in Scotland and across the rest of the UK are entitled.
The halting of the collection of CMS payments during the coronavirus lockdown has had a devastating impact on many single parents and their children, which is why the SNP has been calling on the UK Government to introduce a minimum maintenance payment to provide parents with care and their children a guaranteed income to prevent hardship and ensure a dignified standard of living. Our call has been backed by Gingerbread. In stark contrast, the Scottish Government are using their devolved powers to ensure that children and families are supported during this difficult time and to prevent them from being pushed into further hardship.
The SNP Government have led the way on tackling poverty this past year by introducing game-changing priorities such as the Scottish child payment, which is in addition to the Best Start grant, the baby box, free prescriptions and the mitigation of damaging Tory policies such as the bedroom tax. Westminster should be following Scotland’s lead by scrapping the poverty-inducing two-child limit and benefit cap and by keeping the £20 uplift to universal credit and working tax credit and extending it to legacy benefits. The Scottish Government provide free school meals during school holidays and look after children from poor backgrounds in school during lockdowns.
The amount collected through CMS enforcement has decreased markedly during the covid-19 outbreak, with many of the measures that the CMS normally uses to collect payment going unused as a result of the reduced service. Although compliance has apparently increased to 72% during the pandemic, this has been driven mainly by the significant influx of parents enrolling on to universal credit and having CMS payments deducted automatically. Following the halt on enforcement last year, the UK Government must now commit to the resumption of collections and the clearing of arrears accrued. I hope the Minister will explain how the CMS plans to maintain and increase compliance as and when parents are to re-enter the workforce.
The DWP’s own figures show that around 68% of parents on collect-and-pay contributed a form of payment in each quarter from December 2018 to March 2020. That was an increase on previous periods, but the figures must be treated with caution as they reflect only those who have paid some child maintenance in the past three months. Furthermore, every case under direct-pay arrangements is assumed to have paid the full amount; this prevents the DWP from providing an accurate reflection of just how high arrears have risen and by how much children are being deprived. The DWP’s own survey in 2016 found that only 49% of direct-pay cases had an effective arrangement after three months, so the arrears figure is likely to be much higher than the DWP’s figures show. Will the Minister agree to reconsider the CMS’s definition of compliance, to represent the reality of child maintenance payments?
As of September 2020, recorded arrears had accumulated to £379.2 million—9% of all maintenance that should have been paid. Arrears increased by more than £100 million between March 2019 and September 2020 alone. The UK Government need to get a stronger grip of this by focusing on not just current liabilities but clearing the increasing arrears.
I understand that many people’s incomes have been impacted by the lockdown. Many of those people are my constituents. A balance must be struck to protect children, which is why last year I called on the Work and Pensions Secretary to introduce a minimum maintenance payment where a parent with care is not receiving payments or where calculations have been reduced because a non-resident parent’s income has been cut. The UK Government must step in and provide minimum maintenance payments directly to ensure that each child is receiving a minimum amount. That was required last year, and because of covid-19, it is still required now. Will the Minister give his assessment of a minimum maintenance payment and commit to seriously investigate it?
Parents are so dissatisfied with the CMS that four parents, backed by Gingerbread, Mumsnet and the Good Law Project, are seeking a judicial review as part of the #FixTheCMS campaign. It is a poor reflection of this Government’s efforts and priorities that parents have had to resort to this course of action. For years, this Government have ignored warnings that the Child Maintenance Service is totally unfit for purpose.
The key way that the CMS can ensure proper payments and clear the arrears mountain is by using its enforcement powers. Since 2019, only three passports have been confiscated, and no driving licences have been suspended, despite persistent non-payment from tens of thousands of non-resident parents. Previous responses to my written questions have shown that the UK Government are not even recording how often maintenance debts are being referred to credit agencies. Will the Minister provide those figures and his evaluation of the use of the powers introduced in 2019? I hope the Minister will commit to renewed efforts on enforcement and explain how he plans to achieve that.
During the pandemic, children are experiencing greater hardship. The UK Government should be supporting them in whatever way they can, not pushing them further into poverty by taking 4% of maintenance received through the CMS system. Even victims of domestic violence who cannot come to a voluntary agreement are subject to this tax. From 2016 to 2019, the CMS taxed parents a total of £70 million, and in 2018-19 it taxed more than £33 million. There is no justification for that, and I hope the Minister will respond to the points I have made and commit to reviewing the 4% maintenance tax.
The current fee of £20 to open a child maintenance case is a punitive charge. Parents should make a voluntary arrangement where possible. However, if a parent with care is turning to the CMS, it means that the voluntary arrangements have failed. This is needlessly taking money from children. The CMS collected £1.5 million in application fees in 2017-18 alone. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on why the UK Government insist on continuing to collect this fee and commit to reviewing it. At the very least, I hope he will consider abolishing the fee for people in receipt of certain benefits, as the Government did for victims of domestic violence. The UK Government have options, and they must use them.
The CMS does not provide an accurate or fair reflection of non-resident parents’ income. Calculations are based on their apparent gross income. However, in many cases, some income is not even regarded as gross income and is not calculated. Parents must ask for a variation to include this, and it can only be asked for if a parent knows about it and if the income is at least £2,500. In 2017, the Government consultation proposed including unearned income in calculations, yet nothing has happened. In a written question in 2018, the Minister said that it required a change in primary legislation. Will the Minister confirm today that this amendment will be brought forward to ensure that calculations account for the total income of a non-resident parent? In addition, parents with care can no longer claim for a variation on the grounds of a lifestyle inconsistent with income—come on! These calls were backed by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2017 and by Gingerbread, so will the Minister agree to look into reintroducing those grounds for variation?
In a previous Parliament, my private Member’s Bill asked for the threshold for recalculation of maintenance to be lowered from 25%, so that calculations can be more accurate without adding to the CMS’s workload. Will the Minister agree today to conduct a review of the threshold, with a view to lowering it? The covid pandemic has exacerbated the problems, causing incalculable damage to children and young people because of the ineffectiveness of the CMS. It is more than time that the Government sorted this out, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will begin with a time limit for Back Benchers of four minutes, which might have to be reduced.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Minister for taking time earlier today to speak to me about some of the cases that are of concern to me in my constituency.
Once upon a time, I was the Minister with responsibility for the CMS, and my worry is that our debate will degenerate into an attack on the hard-working staff. I know from my own experience how diligent they are—sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances, trying to track down parents who refuse to pay and investigating those very difficult cases where people deliberately hide their income. I think there is a special place in hell for those who go out of their way to disguise income to prevent their former partner from being able to feed their children, or to buy school shoes or a new winter coat.
From the work that has been done by Gingerbread and others, I am conscious that single parents have been hit very hard during this pandemic, and we know that 80% of them are women. As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I am extremely interested in how well the CMS has coped with the many cases in which income has varied over the course of the pandemic. Of course, that means that variations will have to be efficient and quick. As parents come off furlough, it is possible for their income to go up as well as down.
We know that the strain on families during the pandemic has increased. I thank the Minister for the work that he is doing with victims of domestic abuse, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the priority that he has given to that. It is important to reflect on the fact that not all domestic abuse is physical. Some of it is financial, and I have heard numerous times from constituents over the last nine months about the financial abuse they have suffered at the hands of ex-partners, and how the CMS has been drawn into that as variation after variation is requested and income is disguised. I have been privy to the emails from parents threatening, “Unless you agree to this figure, I will just keep asking for a variation so you get nothing.”
I also heard this morning from a constituent who has been forced to contact her former partner’s employer herself, because the CMS has not been in a position to chase up the direct deduction from earnings order that she was entitled to. She feels very strongly, and she is right, that she should not be the one who has to chase it up. If the CMS has a deduction from earnings order in place, it should be contacting the employer when the money has not gone through.
Finally, I would like to raise the case of my constituent Stuart McAuliffe, whose issues with the CMS long predate the pandemic but have been exacerbated by it. Some of that is about the fact that CMS staff did not have access to records at the beginning of the pandemic, but for years he has been asking for a breakdown of the amount that he owes in arrears—the charges that he believes were wrongly levied as part of a collect and pay arrangement, when he had been on direct pay and had been paying regularly. He feels very strongly that he should never have been moved to collect and pay, and that those charges have been accrued wrongly.
My constituent has asked for a schedule of payments, but he has been told that that information is not available. Surely, it must be available. Anybody who is involved with the CMS should be entitled to look at a breakdown of what they have paid, what arrears there may be and what charges may be on their account. The only information that he gets from the CMS is that it cannot provide him with that detail. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister if he will look at the case personally so that my constituent can finally get some resolution.
I think it is crucial that we recognise that the CMS is working in incredibly difficult times, and that it has many challenges in front of it. However, it is critical that paying parents and parents with care are given the support that they need at this difficult time. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, no child should be going without and no child should be suffering because of the CMS.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this very important debate.
Given the immense pressure our welfare system has been under as a result of coronavirus, it is understandable that thousands of Child Maintenance Service staff were redeployed to help the team at the DWP to process universal credit applications and payments to meet the unprecedented demand during the pandemic. I thank them for all their hard work during this very difficult period. However, the Government neglected to consider the difficulties it would cause to single parent households. In reducing the CMS to skeleton staff, children and single parents, 90% of whom are women, were left without protection. Hundreds of thousands of receiving parents are being left to struggle with missed payments that are not being chased up. Missed payments are spiralling into hundreds of millions and many families are now struggling to cope. Can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to make up the backlog of receiving parents who have arrears owed to them, especially with the added financial difficulties due to the pandemic?
Last year, a survey of single parents conducted by leading charity Gingerbread uncovered that three quarters of single parents have had—[Inaudible.] to food banks or charities to survive. Only 16% had received the full amount of maintenance they were due each month. On average, single parents are owed more than £9,000 in back payments. The Government need to get a grip on this situation urgently and ensure that parents who owe child maintenance pay their fair share.
We must remember that these families are already among some of the worst off. They are now forced to deal with cuts to this vital lifeline, often alongside further loss of income due to the coronavirus. In my own constituency of Liverpool Riverside, a massive 40% of CMS cases in the collect and pay service are not currently in payment. This is broadly in proportion to the rest of the country, demonstrating a staggering shortfall in payments to single parents.
The situation has been worsened by coronavirus, but these issues run far deeper. In June last year, we saw four single mothers launch court action against the DWP to challenge the persistent failure of the Child Maintenance Service. At that time, £354 million was owed to single parents and only 10% had been recouped by the CMS through enforcement actions. It is a child’s legal right to be supported by both parents, but we have seen the service, designed to uphold that right, failing children and leaving many in poverty. Given that almost half of children living in single parent households already live in poverty, this triple whammy—of lost income due to covid, extra costs associated with looking after children not attending school and now losing out on vital child maintenance income—is leading to unimaginable hardship.
With the economic situation worsening every day, the Government need to take bold action now to avoid families being impoverished further by UK Government failure. Can the Minister tell us how the Department is working to reconcile staff shortages with a reduced assessment period of 12 weeks to two weeks for parents with a change in their earnings, particularly given the rise in unemployment? Will the Government consider offering direct payments to single parents not receiving maintenance without it having an impact on any of their other benefits?
These payments make the difference between a family keeping their heads above water and plunging into poverty. We need to see the Government commit serious funding to our welfare system, including CMS, to ensure that single parents and their children are protected at this time of crisis and into the future.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see the Minister back at the Dispatch Box.
I begin with some good news. As an MP of nearly 20 years’ service, I well remember the old unlamented Child Support Agency, which was cumbersome, bureau-cratic and highly formulaic. I remember receiving an absolute plethora of complaints from both mothers and fathers—I had people in my constituency in tears from both sides of the fence, if I can put it like that—because of the way the CSA worked, or rather, in many cases, the way it didn’t. If I speak as I find, I now receive far fewer complaints since the changeover from the Child Support Agency to the Child Maintenance Service. By and large, the CMS works far better than the CSA, not least because there is a different philosophy at work. Whereas the Child Support Agency compelled people to pay via a very strict and rigid formula, the philosophy with the Child Maintenance Service is, wherever possible, to encourage the people concerned to make arrangements between themselves for the benefit of their children. Most parents, even if their relationship has broken down, want to do their best for their children. The CMS encourages them to do exactly that, and in most cases it works well.
However, now for the less good news: where it goes wrong with the CMS, it goes horribly wrong. The CMS is particularly poor at pursuing parents—often, unfortunately, fathers—who wilfully refuse to pay. In many cases, they are not on a regular income under pay-as-you-earn, but adopt tactics such as becoming self-employed or registering as company directors in order deliberately to make their income as opaque as possible, not just to the taxman but to the Child Maintenance Service, so as to reduce their liability. I completely agree with the excellent Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who said, in effect, that that is utterly unacceptable.
I have a constituent, Miss Laura Panza, who has permitted me to raise her case in Parliament this afternoon, and with whom, I have to tell the Minister, I have been corresponding—having checked this morning—for almost six years. She is still owed arrears that total five figures. She has been fighting very hard for that money on behalf of her daughter to provide as best she can for her future, including her future education. I cannot possibly summarise such a complex case—the file is literally several inches thick—in four minutes; I probably could not do it in four hours. However, I can ask the Minister, on her behalf, if I could have a meeting with Baroness Stedman-Scott, the Minister in the other place, in order to raise Miss Panza’s case directly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am not the Minister directly responsible for this matter—that is the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott—but I speak on behalf of the DWP today, and I want to respond to his point and to colleagues who are going to make further such points. I can assure him and other colleagues that the Minister concerned will, within 28 days, meet all colleagues who are raising specific cases brought to her by individual MPs.
Mr Francois
The Minister has a deserved reputation in this place for being a thoroughly good chap. I am very grateful for that unequivocal answer. I shall certainly, on behalf of my constituent, take him up on his very kind offer, and then hopefully we can get justice for Miss Panza and her daughter.
Now that I have unmasked the problems of the CMS, I want to commend Gingerbread for all the very good work that it has done in campaigning to raise the profile of this issue for parents around the country who, for many years, have done nothing wrong—all they have done is to campaign to try to get the best for their children. In most cases, parents can sort these things out between themselves perfectly rationally, but where they cannot, and people wilfully refuse to pay, they need a more proactive and muscular CMS to hold those people to account. I hope that Gingerbread, by campaigning, can eventually bring that about. I am sure that the Minister will do whatever he can to facilitate it too.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I, too, begin by recognising the enormous challenges that have faced all parts of the DWP and, indeed, Government over the past 12 months. If ultimately more people in need got more help through redeployment, I can understand the difficulties that had to be faced. Like other MPs, I have been contacted by constituents who have experienced difficulties with reductions in payments. I welcome the commitment that calculations will be backdated. We must get back to normal service as soon as possible. I would like to make sure that the challenges and difficulties created by the pandemic do not mean that we forget the longer-term challenges, so, if I may, I will make some broader points.
We know that there are £350 million of arrears with the CMS, that £2.5 billion of Child Support Agency legacy debt is owed to children and that as much as £1.9 billion is due to be written off. Those figures alone tell us that we can and must do more. I do not know every single non-paying parent’s circumstances, but I am not willing to hold back on my criticism of parents who could pay but do not, for fear of upsetting those who cannot. Let me be clear that in my view not financially supporting your children when you could is completely and utterly reprehensible. If you do this, you are the lowest of the low, in my book.
I understand that various measures including imprisonment are available. We confiscate passports and deduct money from people’s wages, but the outstanding money shows that we need to go further. I want to pay tribute to the charity Gingerbread, which has worked and campaigned so hard on this issue. It says that in 2019 over 100,000 children went without payments while the Child Maintenance Service confiscated fewer than five passports and zero driving licences. I have heard from parents in my constituency who are not receiving the money their child is entitled to, and they have my full support. They want to see tougher action taken sooner, and so do I.
When it comes to arrears, I am afraid that we are much too quick to write off the debt. I seriously question the approach of writing debt off at all. That money is owed to a child, so what right does the state or even a parent have to say that they will forgive that debt? What kind of message does it send when we say, “You can be let off your obligations to a child”? In my view, we should never do that.
I want to finish by raising another area of consideration that I appreciate is full of potential unintended consequences and complexity. Why is it only up to one parent whether the other parent is pursued for the obligation in the first place? The state intruding uninvited into family arrangements should never be done lightly, but the financial circumstances of families with a parent wilfully failing to pay affects the finances of all families. It is not just a private matter. In effect, welfare and child benefit and the concept of parental responsibility and child maintenance operate entirely separately, but when it comes to poverty, hard-working families pay their taxes, making up the shortfall of the money not being provided by non-paying parents.
In the discussion on poverty and welfare, we hear again and again the scenario of the single parent struggling. Why are we told this about someone who is struggling? The implication is that they are struggling financially because they are a single parent raising their children on a single income. Quite rightly, taxpayers provide a safety net of support for children if that single income is not enough, but we should not forget that the first responsibility rests with the parent who is not contributing. As others have mentioned, research has found that in the UK, for the children of single parents who are in poverty and not receiving maintenance, maintenance payments being received would lift nearly 60% of them out of poverty. I wish the same amount of attention and publicity was given to the obligations of non-paying parents as is given to the obligations of taxpayers and the Government to step into their place.
I would like the Minister to give us his thoughts on how, when taxpayers are sharing the responsibility, our welfare system could reflect the implications of one parent choosing not to seek financial support from the other. I appreciate that we need to be mindful of domestic violence and other complexities in those scenarios, but we should not absolve an abusive parent of their obligations because they are an abusive parent. That would create a terrible perversion of the system. As far as I am concerned, not paying child support when you can is child neglect. If a parent who is looking after and caring for their child simply stops doing what we expect of them, we do not accept that. The state steps in, uninvited if necessary. That double standard is not right. I know that the Minister and the Department will rightly focus on the immediate challenges—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his time and he really must conclude.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak today, and I would like to thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing this necessary debate. The pandemic has had a detrimental impact on child maintenance payments to families in need. Despite the efforts of frontline Department for Work and Pensions staff to handle the increased demand for support, the disruption to the Child Maintenance Service due to the pandemic has been vast. It is increasingly concerning that the understaffing of the CMS has left families struggling. Lack of action on missed payments has left families pushed to the brink of poverty, unable to provide for their children. At a time when families have seen a decrease in their incomes across my constituency, it has been difficult for separated parents to support their children, especially with the ceasing of action to provide missed payments.
On top of this, it has emerged that some parents, when submitting evidence, are having trouble proving that they have lost their job and therefore their vital income. Many of them are unable to make their payments. This is a complete shame. The Government have yet another item to add to their growing list of failures and incompetence in handling services during this time, despite the efforts of the staff on the ground. I have heard testimonies of parents being told that their P45 does not provide evidence of their unemployment or their inability to make adequate child maintenance payments. I have heard from already struggling families in Coventry who have told me about the lack of enforcement, because of a pause in the programme at the start of the pandemic. That has meant that they have had little financial support to assist with the upbringing and wellbeing of these young families. I have been told about glitches in the system whereby the CMS has not been able to locate parents on the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs system, despite parents having used the system in the past. There have been failures after failures, and families are suffering and paying the price for ministerial incompetence.
Many of my constituents adversely affected by the management of the CMS want to do the right thing and they should not be punished further. They also want to know what plans are in place to rectify the faults in the system that allow delays in single parents updating their financial information and in reassessment so that they can begin receiving payments, which provides a lifeline for them. They also want to know what support is planned for families who are expecting reduced payments because of a loss of job and livelihood. My single parent constituents deserve better at a time like this, but it seems that with this Government the families simply come last. The process of child maintenance can already be distressing, so let us make things easier, not harder, for these families, who are already feeling the pinch from this relentless pandemic.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing today’s debate, and I was happy to support her application. It is clear from Members’ contributions so far that we all deal with a number of constituents’ cases regarding child maintenance payments. In just a year as an MP, I have dealt with several, so I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the functioning of the CMS in Parliament today.
It is particularly appropriate to recognise the pressures that have resulted from coronavirus. There are pressures on the hard-working CMS staff, to whom I pay tribute. Like so many of us around the country, they will have had to get used to new ways of working. There are also pressures on parents in receipt of child maintenance, mostly one-parent families, as the economic impact of the pandemic threatens the livelihoods of many. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s excellent “UK Poverty 2020/21” report, published last week, makes that clear. Even before covid, there were huge pressures on one-parent families. They had the highest in-work poverty rate and they are also one of the groups who are most likely to have been especially impacted by covid-19. Single parents are predominantly women and are more likely to work in the sectors hardest hit by covid. They are more reliant on local jobs and are more likely to have struggled with childcare during lockdown. Four in five people in one-parent families are in receipt of income-related benefits.
I mentioned constituency cases and I wanted to highlight one in particular. This constituent contacted me right at the start of my time as an MP, almost exactly a year ago, and her case is shocking. Her former husband had evaded making any financial contribution to help her raise her two sons over an 18-year period and she was owed almost £30,000 of unpaid child maintenance. I am not intending to go into a blow-by-blow account of her dealings with the CMS in the past year. Thankfully, the debt has now been paid, and I am very grateful to Baroness Stedman-Scott for meeting me twice in the autumn to try to resolve the case. However, a few things stood out to me, and to my constituent, throughout this process that I wanted to draw attention to.
The first was the sense of drift. I went to the CMS on several occasions asking what its next steps were and responses were forthcoming to me only after some chasing—my constituent had a similar experience. Months seemed to pass where very little progress was made, and just when we thought that the whole thing had been resolved it turned out that the old liability orders issued against her ex-husband had been lost in the transfer from the Child Support Agency to the CMS. In fairness, I should say that the CMS is replacing a discredited system; that, as I mentioned, coronavirus will have played a part, especially in the spring; and that by the autumn engagement has been good. But for my constituent, these delays have been incredibly frustrating. She told me:
“Any correspondence that I have had with Child Maintenance has been met with the same poor failures in service. Despite all of my efforts there appears to be a distinct lack of accountability to take positive action on my case.”
The second thing that struck me was the bureaucratic hoops that my constituent had to jump through in order for the money to be recovered. Her case had recently been transferred from the old CSA and, as a result, the CMS had in effect to start from scratch on trying to recover the money, even though it had been through the court order process previously. That meant more hoops to jump through, including two occasions when her ex-partner had the ability to launch a review of a decision that had been made by the CMS, which of course he did. All these served to do was to delay and frustrate the recovery of money that was already 18 years overdue. I understand why those safeguards are in place, but it is incredibly frustrating. My constituent felt that the CMS was being more responsive to her ex-partner than to her.
Thirdly, there is the fact that my constituent had to come to me for this to be unblocked. She was getting nowhere on her own. When I escalated the case, I was able to speak to the Minister and to the case manager, and that was a great help, but as is so often the case, as I have learned over the last year, it should not have to be that way. MPs are who people go to when they have exhausted every other option. It should not have to take significant and sustained engagement from me and my casework team to resolve issues. We have to start designing processes that work for people. The tragedy is that my constituent’s children are now adults. They have grown up, and they have missed out on the support they needed at the time they needed it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on setting the scene so well. It is a pleasure to see the Minister back in his place. I look forward very much to his response. He never lets us down—so there is no pressure on him to give us the answers that we need! I thank him so much.
The Child Maintenance Service is an extremely important service to the lives of so many children. It is always desirable for splits to be amicable and for parents to be able to make decisions on the division of time and finances. That is always the goal, but unfortunately it is not always reached. Too many times in my office, I see parents at the end of themselves due to a relationship breakdown, struggling financially while they await the involvement of the CMS to help resolve their dispute.
As other Members have done, I thank my local CMS team, who have worked with my office. They do their utmost to be open and transparent, and to get back to us urgently. Often, their hands are tied, because they are waiting for employers or accountants to come back to them. The process is long and difficult. Time prevents me from discussing today the many examples my office has seen of people who we would suggest are deliberately avoiding making payments. I think the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said that there was somewhere special for them; I cannot say, “That would be right,” but we do need them to respond quickly.
Add in the delays that the pandemic has introduced, with civil servants waiting for months to get the appropriate equipment, and cases being put on hold. Although this is understandable, as all our offices have had difficulties, it does not make the situation acceptable. For the parent left at home alone, holding the baby and waiting for financial help—with no way of increasing tax credits, which are reviewed annually—the stress of lockdown has been exacerbated by the lack of financial and emotional support. It is clear that the CMS system needs drastically to alter so that it can help in the short term, not just the long term.
Some parents have used the impact of furlough on wages as a reason to reassess their outgoings and cut payments for the maintenance of their children, and delays in the system have been made worse by the lack of equipment and staff. Press articles have told people to pay child maintenance as usual, and that amounts could be recalculated. Although this is understandable if a hairdresser or leisure centre worker has been precluded from working, the child still needs the same money to live. The Government could and should have made up the difference in the interim, and then worked out the longer-term repayments. That might be one thing that we learn from the process.
The number of food bank vouchers issued through my office has more than doubled, and many single parents have been devastated by the loss of payments, which were not made up for by tax credits or universal credit. We have to learn constructive lessons, so that we can address the essential issue of how we support children in poverty—those who need extra attention. They may be in worse-for-wear clothes or show other small signals of struggles, and yet have a parent who does their very best.
We have heard concerns expressed that these children do not have laptops at home. I am thankful to the Education Minister at home, who ensured that schools were able to take in children who do not have access to reliable internet or equipment. But we need to do more, and perhaps it would go a long way if all the Government Departments worked in tandem.
My heart is for children. The more I speak to those who work with them, the more I understand that there are so many homes with so many more difficulties in these worst of times. We in this place have not made the decisions that would have eased things for many. Getting it right through the CMS relieves financial and emotional pressures in the home. We must find a way of altering the CMS process to help people who are struggling, so that they can provide a steady life for their beloved child. We are in unprecedented times, and we now see the problems in the system and should learn from them. Let us take steps to rectify those problems, knowing that when we do, we will have a positive impact on the home lives and experiences of children, who need this more than ever.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
I must first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), not just for securing this debate, but for the tenacity she has shown in sticking with this issue for many years. I hope, however, that the strength of the arguments we have heard from colleagues across the House today will inspire the Government to take action. As the Minister has heard today, the SNP is calling for a minimum maintenance payment and a root-and-branch review of the Child Maintenance Service. I will not repeat the detail of the arguments, but I support them wholeheartedly and I hope he will listen.
One of my biggest concerns is that abusive ex-partners have effectively been given an even greater helping hand during the pandemic—inadvertently, of course, but when organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid, Gingerbread and Mumsnet, to name just a few, tell the Government this is happening, and they do nothing when they could do something, at some stage it stops being inadvertent.
A survey by Gingerbread and Mumsnet in August found that 86% of lone parents say the Child Maintenance Service has allowed their ex-partner to financially control or abuse them, post separation. Abusive partners are using the CMS as a weapon. Survivors and charities say that that has intensified during lockdown. This is deliberate domestic abuse. Given that the Government have been warned for months about that intensification, they and the CMS are responsible for its failure on enforcement. It is deliberate domestic abuse, and what is the Child Maintenance Service doing? Nothing—nothing but assisting the abuse.
Someone recently told me that her ex-partner takes his kids to all the burger, chicken and pizza places that most kids love. He also buys them all the sweets and fizzy drinks they want, and they come home saying, “Daddy said you should take us to nice places. Why don’t you, mum?” This is a mother who barely eats at times because he withholds the money—a mother who then has to cope with the impact of the sugar rush on her kids while trying to home-educate them during lockdown, with the guilt she feels for apparently not making her children happy, and with the misery of knowing that, despite finally managing to get away from him, he still has a hold on her. It has become so much worse during the pandemic because, as we have heard, the CMS is operating on a skeleton crew. It is despicable behaviour. I have no doubt that we all agree on that, but the Minister and the Government can do something about it.
The Scottish Parliament’s Equalities and Human Rights Committee recently held an inquiry on the pandemic. Scottish Women’s Aid reported that abusers are using the pandemic to increase their control of women’s movements; they are keeping them isolated, threatening to expose them to the virus, or discouraging them from seeking help by telling them that CMS services are not operating. We are supposed to be helping people in those circumstances. People need to know that the services are operating—that they and their children are a priority.
The Government must make that point loud and clear, but they cannot do that until they are sure that what they are saying is correct. The Department for Work and Pensions website talks of the need to focus on essential services and says that will impact services such as the CMS. I do not disagree with focusing, but is the CMS really classed as a non-essential service? We only have to ask the parents who use the CMS whether the Government have got it right to know the answer.
Gingerbread and Mumsnet did that in their survey of August last year. Just 11% of parents described their experience of using the CMS as positive, and a shocking 72% said that using the service had made their mental health and wellbeing worse. That is because the CMS, when it is working properly, is an essential service. Levels of dissatisfaction are so high that four parents, backed by Gingerbread, Mumsnet and the Good Law Project, have been forced to seek a judicial review of the service’s persistent failure to collect payments from absent parents. There is so much wrong with the CMS—not the staff, but the system—with or without a pandemic. We need that full review.
We know that the impact of covid-19 has been greatest on particular groups of people, single parents among them. Single parents are more likely to be women, working in a low-wage sector, working part time and facing huge restrictions because of transport and childcare. It was a choice to run the Child Maintenance Service on a skeleton staff last year, and there are still full-time employees of the service redeployed by the DWP. Why choose to make things more difficult for a group of people already facing more difficulties than most?
Another choice is to put the CMS right. Let us not forget that it was not right before the pandemic, which is why we are calling for a full review. During the pandemic, any measures that the Government take around covid restrictions or changes of service are supposed not to discriminate against any particular group, but in this case, as domestic abuse is gender-based and financial abuse is part of that, they are discriminatory. The Government have put money and extra staffing into other services, but why take money and staff away from this one?
I am hoping from some humility from the Government today. I welcome what the Minister said about the relevant Minister meeting us to look at individual cases, but the problems are systemic. If a politician holds their hands up and says, “We got it wrong, but we are ready to put it right,” nobody can argue with that. I can say on behalf of the SNP that if the Government are willing to put it right and have a root-and-branch review, we will support them.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) [V]
This has been a welcome, albeit brief, opportunity to consider an essential service, and I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing it. We have heard some important contributions, all of which stressed two critical things: first, our thanks to the staff who have continued to work hard during these challenging months to keep the show on the road; and, secondly, the critical, real-world experience of parents who are looking after their children in very difficult circumstances and on very low incomes.
We know only too well that the pandemic has had an impact on the delivery of a whole range of public services. Child maintenance is easily forgotten, but it is very important that we understand the scale of the impact and learn lessons from the experience of the past year, particularly—hon. Members reinforced this point—in the light of the predicted rise in unemployment, and the wider economic fallout from the pandemic, which will inevitably disrupt maintenance arrangements for some time to come.
The Child Maintenance Service manages more than half a million arrangements for child support, affecting three quarters of a million children. To underline the importance of that, I am happy to quote the words of the Minister in the other place, Baroness Stedman-Scott:
“It’s a truth not well known that the work of the Child Maintenance Service lifts hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty by making sure payments are made and received.”
Indeed, it is estimated that one in five single-parent families on benefits is lifted out of poverty by maintenance payments. That means that the redeployment of CMS staff to the processing of universal credit claims should not be seen as simply moving people from back-office functions to frontline services. I am sure the Minister will agree that ensuring that those obligations are met, and that parents who care receive the support to which they are entitled, is not a service that can be paused without immediate consequences for family incomes, especially at a time when, in thousands of cases, maintenance obligations are being impacted by sudden changes of circumstances.
The point has been well made by Gingerbread. The decision to run a skeleton service during the initial outbreak of covid-19 led to CMS allowing non-resident parents to reduce or withdraw their financial obligations to their children without any evidence. I therefore ask the Minister what assessment the Department has made of the impact of the pandemic on maintenance entitlements, and of the risk of paying parents evading their responsibilities due to the changes in evidence requirements.
This is a matter of priorities and also of resilience. Yes, the pandemic has required us to reprioritise in all sorts of ways, but the impact on services also depends on how resilient they were in the first place. If we cut services to the bone, we will be faced with even harder choices when the unexpected strikes. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that the CMS was already struggling to carry out its functions before the pandemic.
According to the National Audit Office, in 2011-12 the Department for Work and Pensions employed 100,250 people on a full-time equivalent basis. By the time the pandemic struck, the Government had cut DWP staff numbers by 28% to 72,186. The Government now find themselves scrambling to reverse the cuts to staff numbers that they made over the past 10 years, with 7,000 new recruits between April and August and a further 17,000 planned by March.
Child maintenance was not spared when the Government were cutting staff numbers. According to the Department’s workforce management statistics, in 2010-11 there were 8,246 full-time equivalent staff employed in child maintenance and enforcement. In February 2020, there were just 4,745. Nearly a third of those staff were then redeployed to manage the surge in universal credit claims. So by the time the pandemic struck the CMS was already trying to fulfil its mission with little more than half the staff complement in place 10 years earlier.
How well was the CMS performing? For collect and pay arrangements, despite the range of collection and enforcement powers available, compliance was only 68%, and the bar for compliance in the official statistics seems to be set pretty low, defined as paying some child maintenance over the previous three months. I recognise that the performance data show improvements in compliance since 2015, but these are improvements on a very poor baseline. Meanwhile, for direct pay arrangements, more than two thirds of caseload compliance is not even monitored by the Department. Research commissioned in 2016 showed that just under half of caring parents had an effective arrangement after three months, and this rose to only 53% after 13 months.
Ironically, the pandemic has led to an increase in compliance with collect and pay arrangements, but only because so many paying parents are now on benefits, making it easier for the CMS to deduct payment. It is striking and sobering to note that the percentage of collect and pay arrangements where the paying partner is on benefits rose from 21% to 40% from the start of the pandemic to September 2020.
I fully recognise that some of the impact of the pandemic has been unavoidable. It was inevitable that much enforcement activity would have to be paused given that courts were closed, but the pandemic does not explain why DWP staffing levels had been cut so much over the previous 10 years or why the performance of the CMS has for so long left much to be desired. Decisions taken years earlier made managing the impact of the pandemic harder than it needed to be both for the Department and for parents bringing up and looking after their children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important Backbench Business Committee debate and thank all colleagues who have participated. I repeat the point I made earlier that the Minister concerned, Baroness Stedman-Scott, will meet colleagues and raise individual cases, and I assure the hon. Lady that there will be a written response to all matters that I am unable to deal with in the limited time available for my responses today.
We know that the vast majority of separated parents, whether receiving parents or paying parents, take their responsibilities extremely seriously. Our aim is to help parents, and we are sensitive to the needs of both parties: the CMS is designed for the needs of both parties and designed to promote collaboration between parents, and it offers a statutory scheme where that is not possible. We do this fundamentally because the innocent parties in all of this are the children.
I do not have children myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suffered the loss of my children last year, and I know that any issue involving our children is an emotional and distressing and personal process, and I promise this House that the Government and all DWP staff are absolutely trying to handle this very, very difficult process in the most sensitive way possible.
We believe the CMS made a dramatic improvement in the immediate pre-covid period and the statistics support that. Last year, in 2019-20, over £1 billion was arranged through the direct pay and the collect and pay services. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) highlighted, in the last seven years the percentage of CMS cases where no maintenance is being paid has halved. CMS investigators have the power to deduct directly from earnings and to seize funds owed in child maintenance payments where requests for payments are consistently refused, and between 2018 and 2020 the compliance rate of parents on the CMS collect and pay service has increased by 8%.
But of course covid has had a significant impact. In March last year, the Department, along with much of Government, had to respond to an unprecedented situation; that meant working quickly to prioritise services and support for those who would be impacted by the particulars of the pandemic. As a result, we mobilised our frontline welfare system like never before with an injection of more than £7 billion into our welfare safety net and over 3 million more people claiming support through universal credit. To assist that, 1,500 CMS staff were redeployed to support the increase in the universal credit workload. I wish to put on record my thanks and the thanks of the Secretary of State to all the staff in the CMS and across the DWP who have worked so hard and so flexibly during the pandemic itself.
Despite our focus on protecting those most in need and on tackling the huge challenges over the past year, the principle that parents should be responsible for their children remains. Nobody should have exploited this crisis as a way not to fulfil their obligations to their children. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, that there is a special place for those who game the system and put their children’s welfare at risk.
On the issue of avoidance, I want to address the particular point that, as with all calculation decisions, clients can request a mandatory reconsideration, or appeal the decision. In the CMS, we have opened up our definition of income to deal with almost all additional sources of gross income captured by self-assessment. They include income from property, savings, investments and, indeed, dividends and other miscellaneous income. Where a person’s income appears suspicious in any way, the case can be referred to the financial investigations unit. I should add that, in respect of enforcement, like other Government services, the CMS introduced temporary changes at the start of the pandemic—for example, directing customers to use its online services in the first instance, which was available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Understandably, application processing times were impacted, and because the courts were closed, that meant that liability orders and sanctions work had to pause. Nevertheless, in the quarter to June 2020, compliance on the collect and pay service was at 74%, with £41.7 million paid. Throughout this pandemic, as colleagues have maintained very fairly, the Minister responsible for the CMS, Baroness Stedman-Scott, and her officials have regularly met not only parliamentary colleagues, but key stakeholders such as Gingerbread and Families Need Fathers, to understand both the ongoing problems and also the needs of the separated families.
The issue of domestic abuse was raised. In the circumstances that prevailed during the periods of lockdown it was, and it remains, vital to ensure that the CMS supports victims of domestic abuse in whatever way that manifests itself.
I want to turn now to the recovery of the CMS post July 2020. As the Government’s response to the pandemic adapted, so has the CMS been able to reinstate its core services.
For example, by the end of September, nearly 1,150 CMS staff had returned from the redeployment across the Department. The CMS has also stepped up efforts to pursue dedications and on the recovery and enforcement of outstanding arrears by reviewing all non-paying cases to make sure that each one is up to date, with outstanding changes, actions and arrears and balances being corrected.
On enforcement, the CMS has continued to enforce payments where possible throughout the pandemic in order to support children and is working to increase enforcement activity back to pre-crisis levels where possible. At the end of September last year, 43,000 paying parents on the collect and pay service had a deduction from earnings order in force, with £25.7 million being collected from those paying parents during the period 1 July to 30 September 2020. In the quarter to September 2020, the compliance rate on collect and pay was 72%, and £41.1 million was paid. In addition, £201.8 million was due to be paid through direct pay.
It is right to say that liability orders require the most court participation and remain the most difficult measure to restart while social distancing requirements remain in place. However, we are working with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice with regard to court hearings, and that work continues apace. As of 2021, the CMS has pretty much restored its full service and remains committed to making sure that everyone pays or receives the right amount of child maintenance. We continue to focus efforts on tackling non-payment of child maintenance and backdated income changes. New digital services have been introduced, and these are available 24/7 and allow greater flexibility for parents to contact the CMS. Ensuring that those payments are made to those who are owed them is the binding principle that drives forward the Child Maintenance Service. The difference it can make to a child’s life chances demonstrates the critical importance of paying child maintenance, and the Child Maintenance Service will not hesitate to use robust enforcement measures where someone consistently refuses to meet their obligations.
I thank all colleagues for their participation in this important debate. As usual, the praise of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is something that is rarely obtained, but always enjoyed. I assure the House that DWP Ministers and the Secretary of State, who is in the Chamber today, look forward to us continuing to work together to address the needs of separated parents and to produce better outcomes for children, because, after all, the children are what this is all about.
Marion Fellows [V]
I thank the Minister, especially for what he said at the end. I do not think any of us, whether or not we have taken part in this debate, does not believe that children are what matter in all of this. I can assure him that my office has already emailed Baroness Stedman-Scott, and we hope to continue a dialogue to improve the service in relation to those parents who do not keep up their obligations and those who refuse to take on board that when they have a child, that child is their responsibility—in my view, almost for life.
I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate for the wide range of topics that they brought to bear in the Chamber today. It is important for me and for everyone else that this debate continues to the betterment of children and their resident parents—to make their lives better, whether we are in a pandemic or not.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the operation of the Child Maintenance Service during the covid-19 outbreak.
Extradition Act 2003
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I remind all hon. Members that the judgment of a court earlier this month in the case of Julian Assange is the subject of an appeal, so matters considered in that case are sub judice and should not be referred to. The matter of criminal charges against Anne Sacoolas in connection with the death of Harry Dunn is also sub judice. I sincerely thank the right hon. Member for his courtesy in consulting in advance of this debate, and I remind any other Member who should seek to participate in this debate to be equally mindful of the sub judice resolution and matters that are still before the courts.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Before I enter into the subject, it was amusing to see the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) rush to his place. He is a friend, but he is also standing in for a great friend of mine, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is an old friend and old protégé of mine. As we all know, he is away ill, and I take this opportunity to wish him the best of luck in his treatment and a rapid return to the Chamber.
As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have consulted with the Clerks, and what I have to say will skirt very carefully around the sub judice rules.
Since we agreed the UK-US extradition treaty in 2003, it has been abundantly clear that the British Government of the day struck a truly dreadful deal. Asymmetric, ineffective and fundamentally unfair on British citizens, it is a terrible flaw in our own justice system. The previous Labour Administration approached the treaty as though their duty was first and foremost to support the wishes of our American friends, not to safeguard the rights of UK citizens.
Mr Davis
Perhaps that was understandable in the context of the terrorism sweeping the world at that time, but friends must be honest with each other, and now we must say, “Enough is enough.”
The 2003 treaty paved the way for British citizens to be handed over to the US authorities, with minimal safeguards against injustice. Numerous examples down the years have shown this, from the NatWest three to Christopher Tappin. The recent decision to block the extradition of Mr Assange did not add to the list. However, the judgment earlier this month was a human rather than a legal victory. Although we cannot, of course, discuss the substance of the Assange judgment here today, the House must note the worrying development more generally in our extradition arrangements—extradition for political offences. This stems from an erroneous interpretation of Parliament’s intention in 2003. This must now be clarified.
Article 4 of the UK-US extradition treaty provides that extradition will not be granted for political offences. In the UK, the treaty was implemented in the Extradition Act 2003. It has been claimed that, because the Act does not specifically refer to political offences, Parliament explicitly took the decision to remove the bar when passing the Act in 2003. That is not the case—Parliament had no such intention. Had it intended such a massive deviation from our centuries-long tradition of providing asylum, it would have been explicit.
When the Extradition Bill was debated in the Commons, Members raised concerns about extraditions in relation to political offences. In responding to those concerns, Minister Bob Ainsworth gave a clear and unequivocal answer:
“The Bill will ensure that no one can be extradited where the request is politically motivated”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 115.]
The Government today have also recognised that. In October 2019, the Home Office confirmed that such a bar was implicit in UK law and that it would be down to judges, on a case-by-case basis, to decide whether to apply the bar. However, recent cases before the courts have shown that an implicit bar is not enough. We must have clarity on this issue. It is vital that our extradition arrangements have appropriate protection for political offences, not least because political asylum seekers may seek the protection of British justice in the future.
But that is not all. When the 2003 extradition treaty was introduced, it was sold on the basis—I remember this because I was the shadow Home Secretary—that it would be used principally for paedophiles, murderers and terrorists. But the people we are extraditing to the US today are, mostly, white-collar businessmen who pose no physical danger to United Kingdom or US citizens. Between 2007 and 2019, the UK surrendered 135 individuals to the US, 99 of them for non-violent offences. Instead of seeking justice against dangerous criminals, the United States is seeking to be judge, jury and executioner for global commercial deals.
In 2012, the Select Committee on Home Affairs said that the US
“has the power to reach out around the world and—provided there is a very, very tenuous connection with the US—it generally has the power to prosecute.”
That has been shown in case after case, including those of Ian Norris the former head of Morgan Crucible, the NatWest three, Christopher Tappin and numerous others. Those cases all have common themes: they are all British citizens; the alleged crimes all took place on British soil; and the UK authorities did not see them as having a case to answer, but the UK system failed to protect them and the US authorities ultimately got their way.
Of course, people must be brought to justice when they break the law, but the problem at the heart of this extradition process is that it is fundamentally asymmetric and unbalanced in favour of the United States. This lopsided treaty allows US citizens to evade justice, while exposing UK citizens to miscarriages of justice.
In a 2011 report on our extradition arrangements, Lord Justice Scott Baker concluded that we did not need to change the rules to ensure that London-based offences are dealt with here in the UK. He was wrong. He failed to give enough weight to the US ambition to extend its extraterritorial jurisdiction of commercial crimes. He also made no allowance for the incredibly one-sided nature of prosecution and trial of foreign suspects in the US justice system. An American citizen facing extradition to the UK can challenge it in a US court on the basis that there is no “probable cause”, but a UK citizen facing extradition has no right to a reasonable grounds hearing. That is what the Joint Committee on Human Rights called in 2011 a
“lack of reciprocity in the Treaty”
when it called for reform of that treaty.
In the case of political offences, the treaty allows a US Executive to determine what is and is not a political offence. In the UK, we rightly leave this to the courts. What is more, the US Secretary of State has far greater discretion to refuse an extradition than our Home Secretary. The British Extradition Act states:
“The Secretary of State must issue a certificate”
for extradition. The equivalent US code states:
“The Secretary of State may order the person....to be tried”.
Such a seemingly minor change in language has a dramatic effect. With the US being a larger country, and with the UK being closer to the frontline on terrorism, we would expect the numbers being extradited from the United States to the UK to be greater than those going in the opposite direction. The reverse applies. The US has surrendered only 58 individuals to the United Kingdom since 2007, with only 11 of them American citizens, while 135 have gone the other way.
There is no starker example of the inequity and imbalance than the case that you mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, of Anne Sacoolas and the death of Harry Dunn. In that case, the US Secretary of State used the discretion afforded only to the US under the treaty to prevent extradition. The Prime Minister has recognised this imbalance. On 12 February last year, he said:
“I do think that elements of that relationship are unbalanced, and it is certainly worth looking at”—[Official Report, 12 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 846.]—
yet nearly a year on, we remain in the same position.
The courts may be starting to recognise the imbalance. In the wake of the decision to block Gary McKinnon’s extradition, UK courts were given the power to bar extradition on forum grounds so that crimes committed primarily in the UK against UK citizens could be tried in this country. The absence of the forum bar in the 2003 Act highlighted just how cavalier the Blair Administration were with the rights of British citizens. The safeguard had existed previously in the 1957 European convention on extradition, and citizens almost universally elsewhere in Europe could count on its protection.
Since 2018, in the cases of Lauri Love, Stuart Scott, Robert McDaid and Christopher Taylor, the courts have used this bar in a partial attempt to even up our extradition arrangements. This asymmetry is not an inevitable outcome of being an ally of the US. It is a policy choice. Countries such as France and Germany both refuse to allow their citizens to be extradited and for good reason.
David Bermingham, one of the NatWest three, described to the House of Lords how he and his co-defendants were extradited to Texas and
“put in…hand chains, foot chains”—
restraining “belts and everything else”, and then “strip-searched”. This is designed not only to intimidate the accused, but to score a PR victory for American prosecutors. Those extradited to the US face this treatment whenever they are dragged into and out of court in front of the television cameras and the paparazzi. All this comes at the expense of the presumption of innocence.
It is often the case that once extradited to America, the accused is refused bail. This is on the basis that they are a flight risk. The result is that they are thrown in a cell, often shared with a fellow inmate—possibly a hardened criminal—and their access to legal papers is massively restricted. Their ability to contribute meaningfully to their defence is totally handicapped. This is particularly damaging in all those white-collar cases, where the relevant evidence can stretch to millions of pages and the prosecution face no requirement to tell defendants which pieces of evidence they intend to rely on.
Defendants then face enormous pressure from the US authorities to agree a plea bargain. They are told that if they refuse a deal, they will be denied bail and face decades in a maximum-security prison, but if they plead guilty, they will receive a much lighter sentence in an open prison. They are also reminded of the huge financial cost in America of protracted and complex trials, often running into the millions or tens of millions. It takes a brave person to turn down the easy route.
David Bermingham has described how he had to negotiate his punishment before he had even settled on the crime he would be pleading guilty to. That is repeated across the US legal system, where a massive majority of cases are settled by a plea bargain—I think the number is 97%. Take the case of Jamie Olis, an employee of a US energy firm who stood accused of fraud. He refused a plea bargain and protested his innocence in court. He was handed a 24-year sentence. His boss at the firm—presumably more responsible—took the plea bargain route and co-operated with the Government. He was sentenced to just 15 months; 15 months for the boss and 24 years for the subordinate.
Plea bargains are just one of the tools used by US prosecutors to stack the deck against defendants. They also deliberately use the threat of prosecution to disable the defence’s witnesses. Witnesses willing to co-operate with the prosecution are given immunity, while witnesses who refuse to do so find themselves threatened with prosecution. For cases where the alleged crime is in Britain, no British defence witness is going to travel to a court in the US and risk being charged on arrival and never coming back. What is more, prosecutors label these witnesses as co-conspirators, which handicaps the defence’s ability but maximises the prosecution’s ability to use their evidence. These tactics are such a serious issue that in one American case—that of Mohammad Dolah—the judge described it as
“a fundamental unfairness that might well amount to a denial of due process.”
It is not just the prosecution inside the courtroom stacking the deck against the defendant. The first amendment to the American constitution allows the American media to print and broadcast sometimes frenzied coverage of trials, which inevitably prejudices their outcome. In effect, high-profile defendants in the US face trial by media, as well as trial by jury. That has been laid bare in a string of cases, most famously that of O. J. Simpson, but perhaps most perniciously in the case of the Central Park Five, which is not so well known here but is well known in the United States. That case led to a miscarriage of justice for 13 years—that person was in jail for 13 years, and he was eventually exonerated.
Let us compare that with the UK. As you reminded me at the beginning of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 safeguards the presumption of innocence by preventing anything from being published that prejudices ongoing trials. Indeed, it is those protections that prevent me from discussing cases relevant to the debate that are sub judice. My speech today is, entirely properly, sharply constrained to avoid mention of half a dozen extant cases in the interest of not biasing justice. The US justice system as applied to foreign suspects is not normal justice as we understand it here in the United Kingdom.
My argument to the Minister—and I am not expecting a great reply today—is that we must rethink the entire relationship with the United States on extradition. We must navigate a constructive path forward for both countries based on arrangements that are balanced, fair and reciprocal. We should remember that we are friends, not enemies; allies, not rivals. This is particularly important as we seek to embark on a new trading relationship. In the next decade, our two countries will develop even closer commercial relationships. Businesses developed by brilliant British inventors and scientists will look to merge and co-operate with or sell to big American companies in the bigger American market. If the current extradition treaty stands, every one of them could face American extraterritorial legal actions and a legal system stacked against them. In the interests of both countries, that must change.
The Extradition Act not only touches the lives of renowned political actors and international business executives; it also impacts families such as Harry Dunn’s. If the American Government insist on trying to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in their interest, perhaps we should mimic Israel and refuse to extradite British citizens for anything other than serious crimes of violence and terrorism. We must give our citizens the protection, certainty and justice that they deserve and that our judicial system has a proud history of upholding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said, I am here deputising for the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is awaiting treatment. I am sure the whole House will want to send him their warmest wishes for a speedy recovery to his duties at the Home Office, his duties in the House and his duties at this Dispatch Box, where he would unquestionably do a far better job than me. I wish him a rapid recovery and a rapid return.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate on extradition. It is a topic he has consistently raised in this House over a period of time. It has been part of his long-standing record as a champion of civil liberties in a whole range of areas. It is a great privilege to be here this evening responding to his speech.
I would start by saying that extradition arrangements are a vital part of the Government’s toolkit in combating crime. It clearly serves the interests of justice to be able to bring back to the United Kingdom people who have committed offences here, where we want to prosecute them, and similarly, where people in the UK have committed offences elsewhere, it is reasonable for them to face justice in the countries that legitimately want them. So I think the principles of reciprocal extradition treaties are an important part of our justice system.
In recent years, in relation to our extradition arrangements with the US, we have successfully managed to bring back into the UK under that agreement people who have committed very serious offences to stand trial here for those offences, including rape, murder, manslaughter and many child sexual offences. Clearly, it serves the interests of justice and public safety that those people are subject to prosecution.
It is worth mentioning that the Extradition Act 2003, the subject of this evening’s debate, is organised geographically in two parts. Part 1 provides arrangements for European Union countries and part 2 applies to all other countries where we have formal arrangements through the European convention on extradition, the Commonwealth scheme or a bilateral treaty. Requests from any other country where we do not have formal extradition relations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and as my right hon. Friend has said, where the UK considers a request by another country to extradite one of our citizens, the standard looked at is reasonable suspicion. That is the threshold applied in deciding whether or not an extradition request is reasonable.
On numbers, it is worth just pausing on this for a moment. On the part 1 extradition figures for the last financial year, 2019-20, EU countries requested 1,168 individuals who were physically present in the UK, of whom 689 were subsequently sent to one of those EU countries. Similarly, we wanted to get hold of 269 individuals who were somewhere in the EU, of whom 231 were brought into the UK.
The reason I mention those figures is by way of comparison with the US figures that my right hon. Friend mentioned. First, the numbers in relation to EU countries in both directions are far higher; the numbers I mentioned, which were for just a one-year period, were far higher—by a multiple—than the US figures. There is also the ratio: in relation to EU countries, far more people—about three times more people—were taken from the UK into European countries than the other way around. That ratio is very similar to the ratio in relation to the US. So the ratio is broadly similar, whether it is the US or the EU. Therefore, I would not take that disparity in itself to indicate that there is a fundamental problem, unless we are going to argue there is a similar problem in relation to the EU, which I do not think anyone has so far suggested.
I would like to try to address some of the most fundamental points my right hon. Friend made. Essentially, his central allegation was that there is an imbalance—an asymmetry—in the arrangements, whereby it is easier and it is faster for the United States to extradite UK citizens, or people in the UK, than vice versa. I would like to take each of the points in turn that might be cited in support of the suggestion that there is an imbalance.
One of the first points that often comes up is the evidential threshold: what standard or what threshold do we have to reach in order for an extradition request to be granted? In the United Kingdom, as we have discussed already, broadly speaking, the test is of reasonable suspicion. For a request in the other direction, where the UK is requesting the extradition of somebody in the US, then the standard is what essentially amounts to probable cause. The question is whether those standards are equivalent—is reasonable suspicion equivalent or not to probable cause? That question was considered in 2011 by Sir Scott Baker, a senior retired judge, who concluded that both tests are based on reasonableness, both have to be supported by equivalent documentation and both represent the standard of proof applied by police officers in both jurisdictions, and that in substance the threshold represented by those two tests is broadly the same.
The House of Lords looked at the matter in 2014. The Select Committee on Extradition Law took evidence and concluded that, although the tests are in some elements different,
“whether this difference has any practical effect is debatable.”
The Committee went on to say that the
“experience to date demonstrates that”
the argument that
“they are ‘functionally’ the same is persuasive.”
So, both Sir Scott Baker and the House of Lords Select Committee gave the opinion that in essence the thresholds applied in the two jurisdictions are, broadly speaking, equivalent.
The second area in which one might seek a divergence between the arrangements is on discretion, on which my right hon. Friend touched. He pointed out, quite correctly, that the US Secretary of State has a discretion to refuse an extradition request, whereas the Secretary of State here is under an obligation to grant one after the matter has been considered, if requested, by a court. We have seen a number of cases—including recent cases, one of which Madam Deputy Speaker referred to—in which the courts in the United Kingdom have refused an extradition request, so protection is provided by the courts. Moreover, there is a right of appeal, so if in the first instance the court grants an extradition request, there can be an appeal—in fact, there are probably two levels of appeal above the court of first instance. There is, then, substantial judicial intervention to protect the rights of UK citizens in the way that I have just described.
It is instructive to think about the numbers—how often our courts protect people in the UK who are subject to extradition versus how often the US Secretary of State exercises their unfettered discretion. The answer is starkly in favour of the United Kingdom: I am told that since the treaty was entered into, on 21 separate occasions, a few of which my right hon. Friend referred to—I am not sure if those 21 include the recent Assange case—the UK court has said that extradition may not occur. The courts have stopped extradition 21 times. Conversely, there has been only one occasion on which the US Secretary of State has exercised their discretion and declined one of our requests, and that is in respect of the Anne Sacoolas case, which we should not debate too much. That is the only occasion on which that discretion has been exercised. That gives us some sense that the matter is perhaps not as one-sided as is occasionally suggested.
There is a third argument, which my right hon. Friend advanced with his characteristic eloquence, passion and attention to detail: the question of whether crimes might be committed in the UK that have only a very tangential connection to the US but the US authorities can then reach into the UK and pluck out suspects who really have very little, if anything, to do with the United States. That is the substance of the suggestion.
My right hon. Friend referred to a 2012 Select Committee report that drew attention to such problems. It was partly in response to that Select Committee report, and in response to some of the cases in the first decade of this century to which he referred, that the 2003 Act was amended in October 2013, 10 years after it first came into force, and a new section 83A was introduced that gave the United Kingdom courts the ability to refuse extradition either when a substantial measure of the requested person’s relevant activity was performed in the UK—that is, their offences were mostly UK offences—or when extradition would be contrary to the interests of justice. At the time, the US embassy was not terribly happy about those changes. I think that amendment—new section 83A, introduced in 2013—goes a long way to making sure that people whose offences are only very loosely connected to the US, and the substance of which were allegedly committed in the UK, are afforded quite a good measure of protection from extradition to the United States. That was a very important change that I think goes quite a long way towards protecting UK citizens.
The courts have used that power, and they have also used human rights law, as my right hon. Friend has said, in cases such as those of Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love. The courts have used it more recently as well, as Madam Deputy Speaker said, where the prospective defendant has successfully argued before our courts that their human rights would be infringed in some way if the extradition proceeded, and our courts here in the United Kingdom have afforded that protection. I think that is a very significant point in our debate.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How does the Minister respond to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that an innocent person finding themselves on trial in the United States—our closest ally, as we all agree—would nevertheless be put under intolerable pressure to plead guilty, because if he gambles on proving his innocence and fails, he faces an enormous sentence, whereas if he confesses to a crime that he did not commit, he can get off with a few months in jail?
Chris Philp
The argument that my right hon. Friend advances is essentially that the US justice system is inherently not fit for purpose. Of course, the rules that he describes apply as much to US citizens as they do to anyone else. Although the practice of plea bargaining in the United States is not one that we have in this jurisdiction, I do not think I would agree with the general proposition that the US justice system is inherently unjust, and that it is so bad that we cannot allow anyone to be taken there from this jurisdiction because the system is so terrible that justice will not be done. I do not accept that characterisation.
Of course there are points of difference, as has been pointed out, but I do not think those points of difference are such that we should simply turn around and say, “We will have nothing to do with the United States at all.” That is not a conclusion that I share or concur with, and therefore I do not think it is a basis on which we would want to discontinue all extradition relations.
Mr David Davis
I had not intended to interfere with the Minister’s course, but since this point has been raised, I will say that the most fundamental thing under-pinning all extradition arrangements—whether they are with America, Europe or whatever—is a presumption that the justice systems are reasonably equivalent. This is where the weakness comes in.
Take the case of Christopher Tappin, who was extradited. He was somewhere in his 60s—65, maybe—and he was threatened with a 30-year sentence if he did not confess to a crime that he did not believe he had committed. That is an intolerable difference, and it is not just criticised here. As the Minister quite rightly says, it is the subject of massive criticism in the United States, but they are stuck with it until they change it. It seems to me that when we think about the treaties, not just for America but for other areas, we should consider trying to guarantee equivalence of justice in delivery, as well as in principle.
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The test is not that the justice systems are identical; it is that they are just. I do not think I would accept the argument that the American system is fundamentally unjust. However, if there are particular circumstances of a case—perhaps the case he mentions would have met that test, had he advanced that defence —where a grave injustice is threatened, then the UK courts, on human rights grounds, which include the right to a fair trial, can be invoked and a UK judge, or an English judge, can be invited to prevent extradition. It was on grounds, as I understand it, very similar to those that the recent case involved the judge making precisely that finding, so if a miscarriage of justice is threatened, an application can be made to an English judge to prevent the extradition using arguments not unlike those my right hon. Friend has just advanced.
I fear we are approaching the witching hour and I should therefore draw my remarks to a conclusion. The Government will, of course, keep this area under careful and vigilant review, prompted as ever by my right hon. Friend, to whom I am extremely grateful for raising this important matter this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Customs Miscellaneous Non-Fiscal Provisions and Amendments etc. (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing. There are clearly marked indications; where there is a tick, you can sit. On Mr Speaker’s advice, we must all wear masks in Committee when we are not speaking. Our Hansard colleagues would like any speeches to be sent to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Customs Miscellaneous Non-Fiscal Provisions and Amendments etc. (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1624).
What an unexpected pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I welcome you to the Panel of Chairs. The instrument came into force at the end of the transition period and is subject to the urgent made affirmative procedure. The instrument has already taken effect, but still requires approval by both Houses.
Under the European Union withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, certain provisions of EU law continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. In Great Britain, those provisions are modified to reflect the fact that the UK has left the EU. Previous amendments to the relevant legislation applied across the whole of the UK; however, further changes were needed to address the specific arrangements for Northern Ireland.
The instrument amends and modifies three areas of legislation. The first is legislation relating to customs safety and security procedures, including entry summary declarations and the registration of businesses for movements from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The second is the application of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979—CEMA—and the Finance Act 1994 to movements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain for non-duty purposes. Finally, the statutory instrument ensures that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can continue to collect and process trade statistics data in the same way as before the United Kingdom left the EU.
Entry summary declarations contain safety and security information about the movement of goods. Declarations need to be submitted to HMRC, and are then risk-assessed before the goods arrive at the border. Those assessments are used in conjunction with intelligence-led targeting by Border Force in order to protect the security of the UK. The instrument removes the requirement for an entry summary declaration for the movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, in line with the UK’s wider commitments on unfettered access.
The instrument also retains the requirement of an entry summary declaration for the movement of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. Non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods include those that are not in free circulation in Northern Ireland, such as those subject to customs procedures—for example, inward processing—and goods that are in duty suspension or in an authorised temporary storage facility before they are moved to Great Britain. It also includes the trade of goods subject to specific obligations binding on the United Kingdom and the EU, such as those on endangered species or conflict diamonds.
Those changes are necessary in order to allow safety and security declaration requirements to be maintained for non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods that move into Great Britain from Northern Ireland, while simultaneously allowing appropriate Northern Ireland traders to maintain unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom market. Anti-avoidance measures are also in place to deter businesses from re-routing goods via Northern Ireland, if they do so in order to avoid United Kingdom duty or import formalities.
In addition, the legislation states that for goods arriving by sea from Ireland, the Channel Islands or other nearby ports, where an entry summary declaration is required, that declaration must be submitted two hours before the vessel arrives at a port in Great Britain. Without that amendment, earlier submission would be required, which would be impractical given the relatively short duration of crossings. It also aligns the declaration time limits to those already in place for the same sea movements in the opposite direction.
Moreover, the instrument requires economic operators to obtain a UK economic operation registration and identification number, otherwise known as a UK EORI number, to move non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. An economic operator is a person who, through the course of their business, is involved in customs activity covered by customs legislation. It is necessary for those operators to have a UK EORI number starting with GB in order to make declarations or to get a customs decision in Great Britain. Registration is via a quick and simple process, and an EORI number will usually be issued straight away. This instrument also ensures that penalties apply to failures to comply with the requirements to submit an entry summary declaration, including the need to be registered for a UK EORI number.
I turn now to the second area of legislation covered by this statutory instrument, which is the regulations relating to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, otherwise known as CEMA, and the Finance Act 1994. CEMA is the principal Act covering enforcement provisions relating to customs.
First, CEMA provisions that relate to movements between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are revoked by this statutory instrument. That is because CEMA has already been amended to reflect the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, whereas EU rules concerning the movement of goods continue to apply to those movements under the Northern Ireland protocol.
Secondly, this instrument allows CEMA enforcement powers—for example, the ability to seize and detain goods—to be used for the purpose of enforcing prohibitions and restrictions on the movement of goods, people and vehicles, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where there is no connection to customs duty.
This instrument also ensures that the enforcement provisions at chapter III, part 1 of the Finance Act 1994 can be used in relation to the export of restricted or prohibited goods, as appropriate. Those include HMRC’s powers to require the production of documents, or to remove documents, or enter premises. That applies in Northern Ireland for the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
Finally, I turn to the area of trade statistics. This statutory instrument makes minor amendments to the law on statistical data collected on the trade of goods between the United Kingdom and members of the EU, in order to take account of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is important in order to meet international reporting requirements. The instrument ensures that the legislation works properly, both in Northern Ireland, where EU statistical rules will continue to apply as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, and in Great Britain, where they will not. As a result, HMRC will be able to continue to collect and process trade statistics in the same way as before the United Kingdom left the EU.
These are technical but important customs regulations. They help to ensure that goods can continue to move smoothly and safely between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and that matters related to those movements can continue as anticipated. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the customs regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Dr Huq.
Throughout all discussions of the arrangements to be in place following the end of the Brexit transition period, we in the Opposition have recognised that it is crucial to handle those that relate to Northern Ireland with care—to protect the protocol and the people of Northern Ireland. We have repeatedly called for any technical challenges that arise on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain to be dealt with through the EU-UK Joint Committee. We believe it is right for outstanding issues to be resolved in that way, and we therefore support today’s statutory instrument and the technical amendments it makes following decisions of the Joint Committee.
Such an approach stands in stark contrast to that which the Government followed in the latter months of last year, when Ministers threatened to act unilaterally, break international law and undermine the Northern Ireland protocol. It is hard to overstate the damage caused by the Government’s reckless behaviour, which undoubtedly damaged trust among our partners around the world, and suggested that Ministers were prepared to put narrow political considerations above our long-term obligations. Today, I would welcome the Minister confirming, and providing unqualified reassurance, that all future technical challenges posed on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, such as that which this SI deals with, will also be dealt with through the Joint Committee.
We support today’s SI, but its content suggests that some of the Prime Minister’s promises about how trade will operate after the end of the transition period have been exaggerated. That will not surprise many of us, who are used to the Prime Minister’s operating style. However, it has real implications for businesses, if they make preparations based on the Prime Minister’s promises that turn out not to match the reality of the situation.
On 8 November 2020, the Belfast Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister had told Northern Ireland businesses that they could put customs declarations forms “in the bin”, because there would be “no barriers”, of any kind, to trade across the Irish Sea. Yet the third regulation in today’s SI introduces a modification to ensure that an entry summary declaration will be required for the movement of goods from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, where those goods are subject to customs duty under section 30C of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. Will the Minister explain how that modification made by regulation 3 is consistent with the Prime Minister’s comments reported last November?
More broadly, it is worth pointing out that the SI impacts only trade moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and that trade in the opposite direction, coming from Great Britain, is now facing a whole suite of customs and regulatory checks that the Prime Minister promised no Government could ever accept. The Government should reflect on their shambolic approach, which has led to so many empty supermarket shelves and to Northern Irish lorries being stuck in Great Britain or returning empty.
Ministers knew that there would be difficulties—indeed, they established the Trader Support Service to guide businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland through any changes—but they have let businesses down. The Trader Support Service was supposed to have up to 70 staff answering queries, yet it appears to be overwhelmed. It apparently cost £355 million to set up, but the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard earlier this month that phones called by traders were being left to ring off the hook. That is clearly unacceptable, and my colleagues have written to the Cabinet Office Minister to demand that the Government get a grip. I ask this Minister, as he is responsible for HMRC, what commitment he can give to traders that the Trader Support Service will be fully staffed with trained customs experts to meet the demands that businesses are undoubtedly facing.
As the Minister will know, people in Northern Ireland already have half the discretionary income of households in Great Britain, and they now face both a lack of choice and price rises as a result of disruption to trade. That is unacceptable when the UK Government could step in to support supply chains and avoid disruption, so I urge the Minister to commit to doing so.
We in the Opposition are happy to support the content of today’s SI, but its context raises a number of important questions about trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I would welcome the Minister addressing them in his response.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South for her comments and also for her party’s support for this important legislation. She asked a question about the Joint Committee. As she will be aware, the present statutory instrument relates to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, which is a UK matter, but general relationships as regards the Northern Ireland protocol and the relationships with the EU in relation to that, are being handled by the Joint Committee, and I would expect them to continue to be handled in that way, and appropriately so—it seems that that mechanism is working well.
The hon. Member asked a question about, as it were, the level of regulation being applied to movements across the border. I can remind her—she knows—that the Government made a commitment to unfettered access, and unfettered access for qualifying goods, as discussed, is what we have. There are, of course, non-qualifying goods and goods in duty suspension, and it has always been understood that goods for which duty has not yet been collected are ones that will need to be covered. And of course there are other things—conflict diamonds and the rest—which are governed by international agreements that already exist and which are being honoured.
The hon. Member described the situation as regards Great Britain-Northern Ireland trade as “shambolic”. I do not think that is true at all. The picture so far, in these relatively early days, has been actually rather good. Goods are continuing to move effectively between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There are no significant queues at Northern Irish ports, and individual issues are being quickly addressed by UK authorities. The freight levels that are going into and out of Northern Ireland ports are good and are close to or at the normal levels pre-Christmas, and volumes remain significantly higher than on GB-Ireland routes. The grace periods for businesses that are operating are working well. And Northern Ireland retailers report broadly adequate stock levels.
The hon. Member mentioned the Trader Support Service. Of course concerns that she has and she raises here will be carefully attended to by HMRC and she is right to put those concerns on the public record. I will say to her that the Trader Support Service now has 28,000 businesses signed up. Of course, it largely handles trade going into Northern Ireland, which is outside the purview of this statutory instrument, but I can inform her that since 1 January more than 99% of Trader Support Service-processed declarations have been completed within 15 minutes. The vast majority of calls are answered within 30 seconds. And the service has directly supported more than 12,000 consignments. I do not think that is consistent with the picture that she paints. Of course, it is an evolving and dynamic situation, but I think we can say that so far the arrangements put in place have been effective and are working fairly well. With that, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford
Schools can decide whether to offer lunch parcels or local vouchers, or use the national voucher scheme. Some schools and parents prefer those parcels, because that helps them keep in contact at this challenging time. The all-party parliamentary group on school food recommends and supports the use of lunch parcels. That all-party group is chaired by a Labour MP.
[Official Report, 18 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 723.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Vicky Ford
Schools can decide whether to offer lunch parcels or local vouchers, or use the national voucher scheme. Some schools and parents prefer those parcels, because that helps them keep in contact at this challenging time. The all-party parliamentary group on school food urged the Department to encourage schools to use their catering teams as a first port of call to deliver free school meal provision during the lockdown. That all-party group is chaired by a Labour MP.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 21st January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 January 2021 - (21 Jan 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements.
Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. I am told here that I shall intervene if necessary to remind everyone. Mr Speaker has asked that Members wear masks in Committee, except when speaking. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. This shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. That is often confusing for Members, young and old alike. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
Clause 1
Duty to take security measures
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
“(ba) the presence in the network or service of supply chain components which represent a threat to national security;”.
This amendment would add the presence of supply chain components which represent a security threat to the list of “security compromises” which network and service providers must take security measures against. “Supply chain components” are defined by Amendment 8.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 1, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“‘supply chain components’ means the sequence of processes involved in the production, distribution and maintenance of networks and services.”
This amendment defines “supply chain components” for the purposes of Amendment 7.
Chi Onwurah
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone, and to see the Bill Committee present. I thank all its members for taking part, and I observe that the room is a lot warmer than it was in December, when the National Security and Investment Bill was in Committee. I hope that we will continue like that. I also thank the Clerks and all the members of House staff who have supported us with the amendments and on the Bill more generally.
I crave your indulgence, Mr Hollobone, to start with a few opening remarks that will be helpful in understanding the Opposition’s approach to this amendment and to the Bill as a whole. To give the context, I worked as an electrical engineer for 20 years before entering Parliament. I am still a chartered engineer and proud of that. As an engineer, I worked all over the world helping to build out the networks—fixed, wireless and mobile—that became the internet and on which this Bill is intimately focused.
I should also declare an interest. Many of the provisions of the Bill deal with the regulator, Ofcom, and I joined Ofcom in 2004, just a few weeks after it was born, when it was to be a light-touch regulator, small and nimble. Over the years, it has acquired responsibility for critical national infrastructure, the BBC, the Post Office, soon the entirety of online harms and now, it would appear, national security as well. I have been calling for greater security, in particular for our mobile networks, for many years now, so I and the Opposition welcome the aims of the Bill, and the Bill itself. However, many areas within it need to be addressed.
As I have declared my personal and professional interest in the telecoms network, Mr Hollobone, you will not be surprised to hear that I am thrilled that we will spend so many hours of our parliamentary democracy time here in this room, dedicated to debating our telecommunications infrastructure. But, to my regret, the Committee is not taking advantage of the very telecoms infrastructure with which it is dealing. I would like to place on the record that we believe holding this Bill Committee physically rather than virtually is putting Members of the House, Clerks and House staff at risk from the coronavirus pandemic, and we feel that it is our duty, as a reasonable and responsible Opposition, to ensure that that risk lasts for as short a time as possible. Therefore, we are going to crack on as quickly as possible through as many clauses as possible, while maintaining appropriate levels of scrutiny. I want to put the Government on notice that we expect as a consequence to have more time on the Floor of the House on Report to consider the Bill, because we do not feel that it would be wise to dwell on many of its important themes when we are meeting physically in one room at a time of national pandemic and lockdown.
To keep all Members and staff as safe as possible, we will have a laser-like focus on three primary areas. The first is national security. Labour prioritises national security, but failings in the Bill show the Government are taking risks with our security-critical national infrastructure and economic security, and we will highlight those failings constructively whenever we can. Secondly, the security of our networks depends on an effective plan to diversify the supply chain, which should include support for UK capability, and we are very concerned that the Bill short-changes both our national security and our telecoms infrastructure by not including more references to the Government’s diversification strategy; it is a weak strategy and we will try to overcome that. Thirdly, the Bill also gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and Ofcom, including sweeping powers over security. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said on Second Reading, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is not known for its understanding of or expertise on national security, and we want to take measures to address that.
Security is the primary concern of amendment 7, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. It seeks to add the presence of supply chain components that represent a security threat to the list of security compromises that network and service providers must take security measures against. Supply chain components are defined in amendment 8, for the purposes of amendment 7.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Amendment 7 refers to national security. I note that the Opposition have not tabled a definition of national security, which is an issue we have considered in other debates. Is there a reason why the hon. Lady now accepts that we should not define national security?
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which raises a really important point that I will say something about. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Hollobone, yesterday was the Third Reading of the National Security and Investment Bill. I refer Members to the report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, published on Tuesday, on the critical issue of national security and its definition. In fact, the Opposition sought to put into the National Security and Investment Bill not a definition of national security but a minimum standard of what national security should refer to. We wanted to include elements such as critical national infrastructure—of course, telecoms infrastructure is a part of that—and supply chains, which the amendment deals with, and also human rights. I do not want to anticipate what we might table in future, but one reason we have not so far tabled a framework for guidance in national security is that we had hoped that the Minister responsible would recognise both the advice of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee in giving greater guidance on what national security was, and that that was a better place for it.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The other opportunity for the definition to be addressed would be when the Government next produce their defence and security review, which comes out no more than every five years. They might address what national security is or whether it is indeed desirable, as my hon. Friend has said, to specify that in an ever-changing world.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time on the way in which national security should be defined, or guidance given, although it is relevant to the Bill. As my hon. Friend says, there are other places where a framework for understanding national security would be better placed. One of our concerns about this Bill is that, as I have alluded to, Ofcom and the Department are not experienced in security issues, and they are not the best organisations to make security decisions. Putting a framework to define national security in the Bill might not be as helpful, but if as our debates progress we see a need for greater clarity on guidance around national security, and it is not to be found anywhere else, we might take up his challenge, and I hope to have his support if that should happen.
With regard to the amendment, it is important that the supply chain components are understood. As we proceed through the Bill, we will come to understand better that the steps to remove high-risk vendors from UK networks that the Minister is in the process of taking are welcome, but that is not enough to secure our networks. We also need an effective diversification of our network supply chains. Part of the challenge here is that if we remove high-risk vendors, as the Bill enables, and leave only one or two approved vendors, our networks remain insecure because they are less resilient. In fact, they are not resilient at all. The loss of one vendor would mean that there would be only one vendor for our entire 5G network supply chain, as things stand.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I apologise for my late arrival, but I was asking a question of the Health Secretary on the vaccine roll-out. When we look back at the time before the pandemic, would we have thought that part of our critical national infrastructure would be vaccine production? As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, that is a good example of the changing nature of these things. Will the threats to telecoms change? Yes, they will. Last night we discussed the National Security and Investment Bill, which addresses some of the same issues.
I tabled the amendment to focus on and consider the supply chain. There has been much concentration, quite rightly, on Huawei—not just the history, but the threats. As the Minister knows, I was a keen supporter of the Government’s initial response to Huawei. From a technical point of view, I think allowing 35% and making sure that Huawei was not in the core network was the right response. That all changed with the US sanctions on semiconductor exports to China, which changed the security advice. Again, I agree with that.
It will be interesting to see whether, if President Biden were to change that, we would change the security advice back. Frankly, I doubt that because of the direction of travel. I do not think there will be great change in the new Administration’s approach to China. It might be more nuanced and less belligerent, but I do not think it will fundamentally change. I know from sitting on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and meeting fellow members from both sides of the House in the US Congress that there is a pretty unified bipartisan position on China.
The debate around Huawei has concentrated on the hardware. My amendment, which is a probing amendment, tries to see what coverage we will have in the telecoms network supply chain. There has been much talk about compromising the main components, but each of these networks are very complicated. We need only look at any electronic equipment used today, whether that is a telephone or a microwave oven, to see that they are very complex pieces of kit. The components are not all sourced here in this country—it would be impossible to do that—but are supplied from around the world. However, in terms of electronics, the major suppliers of a lot of these components are the Chinese, or Chinese companies that manufacture in different parts of south-east Asia, for example.
This is not just about how we get diversification in this sector, although trying to get some home-grown innovation is going to be important. To be honest, I think the opportunity is going to be in software and open RAN, because that is where we can get an advantage if we get our ducks in a row, not only through investment but through Government initiatives and other things. It is about trying to minimise the risk that will be there now that we are going to have two vendors. Now that Huawei is no longer in the network, we are going to have Ericsson and Nokia, both of which are going to be there for the foreseeable future. What will the regulator do to look at the supply chain around their components, for example? From the evidence we took from Dr Drew, it is quite clear that China is using not just these networks and the components that go into telecoms, but other things, including the belt and road initiative, for geopolitical purposes.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for the excellent points he is making. He mentioned the evidence we took in our session with Dr Drew. Is it not true that in those evidence sessions, we heard about the complexity of our networks and the extent to which network operators were not always aware of where their components were or, in this case, the level of components? Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend’s amendment will not only increase the visibility of the different components in the supply chain, but should help the Department and Ofcom understand where these components are, where they are going and the way they are changing through soft upgrades?
Mr Jones
I agree. The issue with both Ericsson and Nokia is that they will have Chinese components in their hardware. This is an incredibly complex situation, as my hon. Friend said: we are talking about not just one piece of kit that most of us have in our pockets, but hundreds of thousands of components, pieces of software and other things. What I am trying to put on the record, and what I want the Minister to respond to, is the question of how we get an understanding of any risks that are involved in that, and how the regulator and the Government are going to look at ways in which national security could be compromised, not by the main company being owned by a Chinese state entity, a Russian state entity or any actor that we feel is a threat to us, but by a key component.
I have not yet really understood how the regulator will look at that issue further down the supply chain, and whether it will ask a supplier of kit to the telecoms network, “What is the level of threshold or security that you need?” That is hard enough with hardware, but with open RAN and software—we are talking about bits of code—it is going to be incredibly difficult. One of the issues is around vulnerabilities, and various things have been said about the vulnerability that Huawei poses to our telecoms network. However, I suggest people read the Huawei assessment centre’s annual reports—I am rather sad, because I read such documents. One thing sticks out every single year, and it is not that the Chinese are doing anything nefarious. The reports are highly critical of Huawei for its shoddy workmanship and engineering, but that type of shoddy engineering and a lack of attention to security will lead to security concerns in our telecoms network.
Amendment 7 is designed to tease out from the Government their thinking about the supply chain. We do not want to be over-burdensome on it, because we want to get innovation in the supply chain. We do not want to suddenly give researchers and other people in the supply chain huge regulatory hurdles to jump over, because that would stifle the development that we are looking for. It is about how individual components and the overview of the supply chain will be regulated. I have tabled a later amendment about Ofcom, but again it comes back to the point I made yesterday about the National Security and Infrastructure Bill. What has to be at the heart of it all, every single time, is not to stifle innovation and prosperity, but what has to come first every time is national security.
As I say, amendment 7 is a probing amendment, and I want to understand where the Government are at in terms of the supply chain, the security they feel they need over the supply chain and, more importantly, the visibility of the supply chain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to you and the House staff for facilitating this Public Bill Committee. I also echo her praise for the temperature of the room and especially her commitment to crack on and not fill it with further hot air. That is to be welcomed.
Like the hon. Lady, I will briefly talk about the broader context of the Bill before I directly address this group of amendments. As we all know, security should be the first priority for any Government, and the Bill demonstrates this Government’s commitment to securing the UK’s telecoms networks.
Clauses 1 to 14 raise the bar for security across the whole telecoms sector, and the subsequent clauses—15 to 23— provide the mechanism for the Secretary of State to manage the role of high-risk vendors. The part that telecoms plays in our security is undeniable and has become even more evident in the midst of this global pandemic. At present, the internet provides absolutely everything for workplaces, schools, families and friends, and the Government are committed to improving that through our gigabit programme. New technologies have the potential to be transformative, but they have the opportunity to reach their full potential only if they are secure, and the Bill will ensure that.
Before I explain the Government’s response to amendments 7 and 8, it is necessary to explain briefly how they would interact with clause 1. New section 105A in clause 1 places a duty on providers to take “appropriate and proportionate” measures. Those measures oblige providers to identify and reduce the risks of security compromises and require them to prepare appropriately for those risks. New section 105A also addresses the interaction between the duty and the national security and law enforcement activity, such that these activities are appropriately excluded from the definition of a security compromise. I will return to new section 105A later—I know that will excite the Committee.
Alongside the overarching security duty in new section 105A, new section 105B gives the Secretary of State the powers to make regulations that impose duties to take specific security measures. Clause 1 creates a duty for providers to take “appropriate and proportionate” measures to protect their networks and services from security compromises. “Security compromise” is then defined in new section 105A.
Mr Jones
I would, and this is really a probing amendment to get an understanding of what the Government think, but may I ask the Minister a direct question about the national security bodies—GCHQ and others? If they came across a component or something that a supplier was producing that raised concerns, how would their concerns be translated into saying that a red warning should be put on a certain component in a supply chain?
Matt Warman
I simply say that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the NCSC and others already work very closely with the networks. What he seems to be talking about, in some ways, is a very day-to-day way of talking about security concerns. That happens a lot already, and what the codes of practice and other documents will do is set up the framework by which that is formalised. As he knows, that process of very quick action being taken as soon as something is spotted, both by the networks themselves and by our agencies, is already well established, and the Bill gives considerably greater force to it.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill is aimed at ensuring that providers take responsibility for the security of their networks and services in a way that has not happened, in legislative terms, in the past, and it then provides the Government with the powers that we need to enforce that. In so far as any supply chain components give rise to risks to the security of a network or service, new section 105A already requires providers to take appropriate action and proportionate measures to identify those risks. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but in a sense what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to do through it is already there, and it will be enforced in the documents, such as the code of practice, that I have mentioned.
Furthermore, the addition of the presence of a supply chain component as a security compromise would not be consistent with the security framework’s definition of a security compromise, but I do not think that we need to get into too much detail about that in the context of a probing amendment. The concept of a security compromise is used in other provisions in the Bill, and it is important that we are consistent.
More fundamentally, the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment would put the onus on providers, rather than the Government, to determine a national security risk, but, as he implied, it is absolutely down to the NCSC and, ultimately, the Government and agencies to make that definition. Placing the responsibility for determining what does and does not constitute a threat to national security on the shoulders of all individual providers is not the right thing to do, and I think, to be fair, the right hon. Gentleman is not really suggesting that it is, either.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for the way in which he is addressing these important proposals. I think that his concern is that this amendment would put the responsibility on the providers rather than the National Cyber Security Centre, and I understand that, but can he say a little about the following matter, because it is the providers that know their networks? The National Cyber Security Centre is excellent, and we have huge admiration for it, but in terms of the supply chains, changes to the supply chain and new components evolving, how does he envisage that, day to day, working effectively without an amendment of this kind to put this requirement on the providers?
Matt Warman
As I have said, new section 105A partly provides the legal basis that the right hon. Gentleman seeks, but in practice no one is suggesting—the Secretary of State talked about this on the Floor of the House—that it is solely the name on the box of a piece of kit that defines international security status. We are not naive to the possibility of the supply chain being another vector of attack. That would be reflected in codes of practice and elsewhere around the legislation.
Public telecoms providers can and should consider the security of the resilience of their networks and services throughout the supply chain in a sensible and proportionate way. National security considerations are inevitably much broader than the issues that can be addressed solely by private companies. I think that is reflected in the distinction drawn up in this Bill.
The amendment would have implications for Ofcom’s monitoring and enforcement of providers’ compliance. The Bill includes provisions for Ofcom to collect information on behalf of the Secretary of State in narrow and specific areas related to national security, but this amendment would require Ofcom more actively to take some of the compliance judgments. In the evidence session the right hon. Gentleman was keen to see that it was not asked to make those judgments.
Mr Jones
Clearly NCSC does a tremendous job in terms of education of members of the public and companies —as the Minister outlined, that is a key part of its role. Does he see, therefore, a role for Ofcom as part of that, in terms of ensuring that the supply chain and operators are aware of their responsibility not only under the Bill, but to ask the right questions about supply chains from what might be deemed as high-risk vendors?
Matt Warman
In so far as codes of practice will be published by Ofcom, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. The more nuanced answer is that it is a co-production between Ofcom, the Government, NCSC and others.
To conclude, the Government are immensely sympathetic to the issues that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady seek to probe, but we take the view that this amendment would do something that is, ultimately, already covered in the Bill. I hope that, in that spirit, she will withdraw the amendment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his response. I am concerned that there is not greater clarity on the role of the supply chain components and the supply chain more generally. We will come to that in further amendments. Given where we are and how we got here, we must take a forward-looking approach to future risks and vectors for risks. This amendment is important in probing that, but I do not seek to put it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 1, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a report on the specified measures.”
This amendment would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with any information relating to specified security measures which the Secretary of State requires the provider of a public electronic communications network or a public electronic communications service to take.
We are now going to have a debate reiterating a speech I gave yesterday on the National Security and Investment Bill, because it covers the same issues. I will go into the details in a minute, but the amendment attempts to ensure parliamentary oversight of the way in which this Bill will operate. Such scrutiny traditionally comes from the Select Committee that mirrors the Department —the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—but the decisions taken by the Government and the Secretary of State will be based on evidence that cannot be put into the public domain, because much of it is highly classified. In Parliament, only the Intelligence and Security Committee has the required STRAP clearance to see that evidence. It is important to ensure that the Executive is held to account for taking such decisions and for the public and Parliament to know that decisions have had parliamentary oversight from the ISC.
I do not want to give the impression that the ISC is looking for work, because I have been a member for a number of years and we are busy with a lot of inquiries—I have three to four hours’ reading every week looking through reports from the agencies. However, it is important that the ISC can at least look at the intelligence that lies behind decisions. The amendment does not propose that the ISC should have a veto or be a regulator, because that would not be correct. Decisions about high-risk vendors are for Ofcom and the Secretary of State.
We had the same debate yesterday on the National Security and Investment Bill, because the same issues come up there: decisions will be taken on national infrastructure, and the justification for them will be based on highly classified secret intelligence to which the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will not have access. People might say, “Isn’t this the ISC getting involved in the day-to-day work of the BEIS Committee?” No, it is not. The ISC already has such a responsibility for Defence Intelligence and the National Cyber Force—military cyber-security—and we stick just to that; we do not go into wider Defence policy issues. Likewise, we scrutinise MI6, whose home Department is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Again, we do not get into general foreign policy issues, which are rightly for the Foreign Affairs Committee. I do not think there is an easy way for the Government to provide for parliamentary scrutiny at the moment, but I want to go through and explain one.
I have some sympathy with the Minister, just like I had some sympathy with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy yesterday on the National Security and Investment Bill. I know exactly where the problem is, and it is not in the Minister’s Department or in BEIS: it is in the Cabinet Office, which seems to have an issue with the ISC and jealously guards anything that we ask for, ensuring we get only some information even though we are legally entitled to it under the Justice and Security Act 2013. There is usually a tug of war, and on every occasion I have seen it the ISC has won—it is legally allowed the information—but that does not stop the civil servants. I must say that this is not Ministers’ fault; it is the culture in the civil service.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Given that most MPs do not fully understand what the ISC does, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government are probably best placed to make the decision on this particular matter?
Mr Jones
No, I do not. I know the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and I actually quite like him, but what is he arguing for? A dictatorship? That the Executive should decide everything? Knowing you, Mr Hollobone, you would take a very dim view of that. You have form on holding the Executive to account—all Governments.
The ISC is there to look at information and provide parliamentary scrutiny. As for the nature of the information we receive, we have all the clearances from top secret going up to STRAP, including STRAP 3, which is intelligence that has a limited circulation and people have to be added to the list. We have access to that as well, which allows us to consider that information.
Our annual reports, which we supply to Parliament, can be debated by Parliament. We can produce reports. For example, most recently, there was the Russia report, which highlighted what the Government had not done rather than what it should have been doing. The contention from the Cabinet Office is that if information goes to the ISC, it is in the public domain. That is a little bit insulting. We do public reports, which have information that can be put into the public domain, but there are always secret annexes that go to the Prime Minister and are not made public, which allow us to question decisions and highlight issues that we think the Prime Minister should take notice of. It is a valuable mechanism for scrutiny.
The argument that will come from the Cabinet Office is that DCMS is not covered. It is. The memorandum of understanding says:
“The ISC is the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to protectively marked information that is sensitive for national security reasons: this means that only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of the Agencies and of those parts of”
the Government
“whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters.”
I accept that DCMS’s day-to-day work is not covered in the description of national security, whether or not this is an issue of concern to individuals. I think it is. There could be an argument as to why the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport got this legislation and whether it should perhaps be put in another Department. I do not agree with that, because I think the general issue of telecoms fits well into the Department’s wider briefs.
Increasingly, a number of Departments are getting involved in, or taking responsibility for, areas that involve national security. BEIS and the National Security and Investment Bill is a good example.
Chi Onwurah
My right hon. Friend is far too modest to set out his vast experience with and long-standing membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Does he agree that the geopolitical and technological shifts in the last decade in particular—perhaps the last two decades—have meant that the threats to our security come from a broader range and, more specifically in a more technologically-based range, and we have seen our defence requirements move to cyber-security? Therefore, as he said, the increased need of Departments to consider security issues means that the Intelligence and Security Committee’s ability to review items that require security clearance is important. Does he understand why the Government will not allow the Committee to do that?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend knows that modesty is one of my trademarks, but no, I do not—I do not understand it, nor do I understand where the Government are coming from. I do not think that the problem is with the Minister or his Secretary of State; I think it is the culture of the Cabinet Office, trying somehow to test the Justice and Security Act to destruction. Its argument, basically, is that DCMS is not on the list of organisations, but the Act and the memorandum of understanding are clear: we have jurisdiction over matters that relate to national security, which this clearly does.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for providing inspiration for a speech that I will make later, when I will make similar points on similar provisions. Listening to him and to the hon. and gallant Member for Bracknell—whom I also like, incidentally—talk about the alternatives, it strikes me that there are only three: to provide classified information to be laid before the whole House or the DCMS Committee; to do the right thing and to provide that classified information to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was surely established for exactly that purpose; or to have no scrutiny at all. It is one of those three alternatives. Surely the Government are not pushing for no scrutiny at all.
Mr Jones
I must say that this is the first time I have heard that one of my contributions to a Bill Committee is inspirational. I shall mark that as something to be remembered. However, my hon. Friend summarises the position very clearly: the DCMS Committee cannot deal with this, because the nature of the information garnered could not be shown to them, given its classification. We would not want to do that because this is highly sensitive information—meaning no disrespect to the members of that Select Committee. Some of it is not our intelligence; some of it will come from our Five Eyes partners, so it is about guarding not just our secrets, but theirs. Any leaking or compromise of that type of intelligence affects not only our ability with this type of work, but our relations with our Five Eyes partners. The next option, the ISC, is the obvious one. The third option means that the Government must put through a Bill that does not allow Parliament to scrutinise these matters at all. I do not think that that is what the Minister, or his counterparts in BEIS, believe. I think we will have a to and fro on this, and will get there eventually, but it will be hard work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester says, scrutiny is important in helping to ensure that there is not only public but parliamentary confidence that the decisions are at least being looked at. Some of the decisions will be very controversial and the Government need covering. Will that be onerous for the Department? No, because all it will entail is that the report should include the decisions taken and the reasons why. We can ask, and be supplied with that, and that, I think, is important.
Yesterday, speaking on the National Security and Investment Bill, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) said that the ISC can ask for the information and demand that the Secretary of State comes before it. There are two important points about that. First, yes, we could do that. However, and as I said yesterday I do not for one minute suggest that the Secretary of State or the Department would want to refuse, but there is no legal justification behind it. If a future Secretary of State said “No, I am not appearing or giving you the information,” there would be nothing at all that the ISC could do.
I remind the Committee as I reminded the two Ministers in yesterday’s debate that we are all, as the great Robin Day once said, “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians, so any legislation we pass here must be future-proofed. Not only must we be satisfied with it; it must go on. The other important aspect of what the Under-Secretary said was the recognition of the ISC’s role in asking for information in relation to the National Security and Investment Bill. However, if it is possible to ask for information a mechanism is needed to guarantee it. I think that is also the case for the Bill that we are considering.
It will be interesting to see how the Minister responds, and whether he really believes what he will tell me, but there is a mechanism available and it would be easy and not burdensome. I stress that not for one minute is it suggested that the ISC would veto decisions or have any involvement in them. As with much of our work, apart from certain issues, it would be retrospective, looking back at decisions that had been taken. If mistakes, issues and concerns are raised, we can raise those directly with the Prime Minister and Departments. That is another check and balance in the system, of which I think you, Mr Hollobone, would approve, in view of your vociferous wish, whatever the Government, to hold the Executive to account. The mechanism is pretty straightforward. Either we put it on the face of the Bill or we get it into the memorandum of understanding.
There is an increasing problem with the involvement of more and more Government agencies that are not traditionally involved in national security, such as the new Joint Biosecurity Centre, which falls within Department of Health and Social Care. All the information that they will get is classified, so how, again, will Parliament scrutinise it? That will be important.
Christian Matheson
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will reflect on a third issue. The Committee cannot ask for information if it does not know that it exists. If there is no obligation to report orders to the Committee there is no way for it to know that they have been made, and that it needs to scrutinise them.
Mr Jones
There is, but to give a bit of background, we are quite tenacious on the Committee and if we do not get what we ask for we usually keep on and get it eventually. Some of the agencies are better than others, but overall the working relationship with GCHQ has always been a very good one. The amendment would help the Bill, but I think we will to and fro on this.
Chi Onwurah
I will not detain the Committee long, given that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham made such excellent points. I will add one point of consideration, which again, his modesty may have forbidden him from making.
The amendment goes to the heart of our concerns about the scrutiny of the provisions in the Bill. I say again for the record that we support the wide-ranging powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State, but those powers must come with appropriate scrutiny, not because scrutiny is a “nice to have” or, as my right hon. Friend said, because the ISC needs further work, but because scrutiny of the provisions is essential to the good working of the legislation in practice.
Considering specifically the impact of the requirement to remove Huawei at this stage in our 5G roll-out—the economic impact, the cost to the providers and the cost to our economy—we recognise that it is the right thing to do, but we must also recognise the cost of doing it. Back in 2013, the ISC was one of the first parliamentary organisations to raise the issues around Huawei. I truly urge the Minister to accept this constructive amendment to support the appropriate provision of scrutiny.
My other point is more about the working of the clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require providers to take specified security measures. As we know, the telecoms security framework and telecoms security requirement, to which all providers must adhere, will be set out in delegated legislation. In his response, will the Minister give us some idea of why the Secretary of State might need to set out additional specified requirements that are not in the draft of the TSR that he has published? Is the intention of the clause to enable him to set out additional specified requirements, or is it to enable him to highlight particular specified requirements that he does not think the providers are meeting quickly enough? In either case, does that not suggest that there are particular security concerns, either about providers or about the circumstances, that require these specific security measures? To come back to my first point, does that not highlight for those concerns to receive parliamentary scrutiny, with the appropriate clearance, which is to say that of the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Matt Warman
I start by acknowledging the incredibly important work that the ISC does. Its role in overseeing the work of the UK intelligence community is vital to maintaining public trust, as the right hon. Member for North Durham described, and its members make important contributions to public debates on national security matters of all kinds. The right hon. Gentleman has done that for a number of years. Because he is a member of the ISC, he will know that I have proactively engaged with it on the substance of the Bill. I did so enthusiastically—if any Minister can ever regard a Select Committee appearance enthusiastically—and in recognition of the interest that I knew that Committee would have in the Bill. I will be writing again to the ISC on a number of matters raised in the Bill, and I have instructed officials from my Department to continue to engage with the ISC as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, building on the work that it has already done and on the transparency that we have already demonstrated by publishing the draft of the security framework regulations on 13 January, copies of which have been provided to the members of the ISC and a number of other interested Committees. I hope that all that demonstrates the Department’s commitment to working constructively with the ISC, despite the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, DDCMS does not normally fall within the ISC’s formal remit.
It is none the less important to acknowledge that the ISC is not the only legitimate avenue to scrutinise this framework. We fully intend to make use of all the appropriate parliamentary procedures.
The regulations and the explanatory memorandum accompanying them will all be there for the ISC to scrutinise. There is also further guidance to providers in connection with the measures specified in the regulations that can be provided in the code of practice, which must be published, with a copy laid before Parliament. Also, beyond the usual arrangements for secondary legislation, new section 105Z of the Communications Act 2003 provides for Ofcom to produce security reports. Clause 11 of the Bill enables those reports to be published by the Secretary of State, and clause 13 provides for a review of the effectiveness of the framework, including any regulations, after five years.
It is in that context that I point to the enthusiasm with which we have engaged with the ISC. We will continue to do so and ultimately—this is perhaps the reason why the right hon. Gentleman described this process as an ongoing campaign, rather than something that we should address piecemeal—the ISC is clearly defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013. I do not think it would be right to address the memorandum of understanding that he referred during our consideration of the Bill. We should not go at it in piecemeal fashion. The role of the ISC as set out in that MOU is to oversee the work of the security agencies, to provide oversight of certain intelligence or security matters within Government. Ultimately, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to change the MOU, that is a broader issue for him to take up. I note that he is not the only Member of this House to have made that point, but it is not my place to take a view on the role of the ISC; that should be for the ISC itself.
I am confident that we will continue to engage with the ISC; I personally will certainly do so. I know that the DCMS Committee will continue to take an interest, and I will simply say that we will co-operate as fully as possible. I will set out more in the letter I mentioned, and I look forward to the future salvos in the right hon. Gentleman’s campaign.
Mr Jones
I make no criticism of the Minister, because he has been very proactive, as has his Secretary of State. The problem is this: we have two pieces of legislation going through Parliament. We do not have security Bills very often in this place, and now we have two in a very short period of time. Both make eminent sense and I support them, but this is not something that comes up regularly.
In terms of the Minister’s co-operation, I have no complaints about the way he has operated, but he is not going to be there forever and neither is his Secretary of State, so we need to put in place something that will weather the passage of time, and create an arrangement whereby it will be seen that Parliament is scrutinising these measures. I do not know why the Government—I am sure it is not the Minister, or even his Secretary of State—are resisting this. Frankly, I am not really bothered whether it goes on the face of the Bill or in the MOU, but the Justice and Security Act 2013 is very clear that as a Committee, the ISC has the ability to look at this.
I accept that it would be wrong to get into issues around this Bill that are quite rightly, as the Minister said, for the relevant Select Committee—the Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—to deal with. We would never do that, so I will withdraw this probing amendment, but we will come back to this issue. I am not usually a betting man, but I suspect that by the time this Bill and the other Bill go through, we will have got to where both I and the Minister—I think, privately—think we should be. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 1, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (1) requiring providers of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services to carry out an audit of the goods, services and facilities supplied, provided or made available for the purposes of the provision of their network or service to ascertain whether they present a risk to the security of that network or service.”
This amendment is a probing amendment designed to learn how the Government plans to ensure network operators have a comprehensive audit of hardware of interest because, for example, it is manufactured by a designated or high-risk vendor.
The amendment goes to the heart of two of our key themes: the scrutiny of the powers in the Bill and the effectiveness of the accompanying diversification strategy. It is a probing amendment, designed to enable us to understand—or to have the Minister clarify—plans to ensure that network operators carry out a comprehensive audit of hardware that is relevant to the Bill because, for example, it is manufactured by a designated or high-risk vendor.
We tabled the amendment for a number of reasons. The first is the Government’s decision, which we welcome, to strip Huawei out of our telecommunications networks. There are questions about where that equipment is located, the level of software provision, and in particular the exact nature of the revision of the equipment within the network. In addition, the Government have not provided a plan for locating and removing Huawei from our networks; instead, they have opted to leave it entirely to private sector providers.
That might seem appropriate, but as someone with 20 years’ experience in the telecoms sector, I have to say that it is generally not the case—I am not insulting any individual provider—that providers know exactly where every bit of equipment is located and what level of software or build is associated with the equipment.
James Sunderland
Given that the Bill mandates that vendors could be fined up to 10% of annual turnover or £100,000 a day for violating the terms of their obligations, does the hon. Lady agree that a full audit of all goods and services supplied could be quite draconian and onerous?
Chi Onwurah
I am slightly confused, to be honest, because there was a contradiction there. It is a basic, inherent requirement under the Bill to understand the security implications of a network—the security implications, the security threat and future compromises. It goes to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. Given that different components might provide different threats, it is essential to understand the kit that is in the equipment in order to meet the requirements of the security framework. So no, I do not think it is draconian that there should be an audit of the equipment. Indeed, providers should have this information already, but I know from my own experience and the experience of those who gave evidence, which I will come to in a moment, that this is not always the case because networks are so complex, and because our networks today have built up over decades and decades. There is software running in some of our networks that has been around for 40 or 50 years, as well as copper lines that have been around for even longer. So it is not always the case that this information is known.
Christian Matheson
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that having the carrot of an audit might help firms to avoid the stick of a draconian fine that the hon. Member for Bracknell referred to?
Chi Onwurah
As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, the audit, which I agree is burdensome if the information is not already in the management systems, which it should be, would, I hope, be less burdensome than the potential fines for not meeting the basic requirements of knowing what is in the network and where it is. Also, that challenge has been made more complex by the subcontracting of different parts of the telecoms networks.
For example, network providers such as Vodafone or Three have primary vendors—currently Ericsson or Nokia—but there might be subcontractors who provide particular elements of the network and particular management elements. We hope that that will be increasingly the case as we seek to open up the supply chains and make them more diverse. A basic and critical requirement for the Bill to be effective is to have a more diversified supply chain. More suppliers go hand in hand with a diversified supply chain, and therefore different types of equipment, of which we will need to keep track.
Mr Jones
The hon. Member for Bracknell has argued that regulations are somehow burdensome on business and unnecessary. It is only when things go wrong that we look back and think, “Wait a minute. That regulation or audit, which was suggested in an amendment, was vitally important.” We must get the context right. These amendments are being tabled not for their own sake but to ensure that security is improved.
Chi Onwurah
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As someone who worked for a regulator for six years, I might be expected to agree with my right hon. Friend on the point of regulation; in this context, regulation should not be seen as a burden. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester set out, it should be seen as a carrot—an incentive—to get things right. Imagine we had known and been able to see how Huawei’s presence in BT’s network, over the last 15 years or so, would rise from small beginnings to becoming the principal vendor. That might have rung more alarm bells and been an incentive to have transparency.
Regulation is also about levelling the playing field and enabling more effective competition. The better providers will do that, but some providers may not. We want a level playing field, particularly because the 2019 UK Telecoms Supply Chain Review said that there was not an incentive for security in mobile networks. It concluded specifically that there was no incentive for security in mobile networks. Given that conclusion and some of the points provided in the evidence sessions, the Bill does not address incentives to ensure security by design in our mobile networks. It has burdens and fines for not doing that, but it does not have positive incentives.
Christian Matheson
Was not that exactly the problem with Huawei, which has undercut and undermined so much of the telecoms sector elsewhere, either on price or on shoddy workmanship, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said? This amendment addresses that issue. By raising standards, we help existing and future contributors to the sector to come in and address the problem that Huawei caused.
Chi Onwurah
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point with regard to the way in which Huawei grew in the telecoms sector. I do not want to detain the Committee on that history, but Huawei grew by under-cutting existing vendors, building up scale and making its profits by locking in network providers, despite issues with the quality of the equipment, which, as we have discussed, our security services identified.
Having visibility of network equipment, as well as the level of concentration of any one provider, will enable us, in part, not to get into such a situation of dependency in future. Again, I would emphasise that this is about incentivising what should happen but is unfortunately not always the case. That is not simply my view or that of the Labour party; it is the view of witnesses who participated in our evidence sessions. For example, Andrea Donà said:
“It is vital that the secondary legislation that accompanies the Bill clarifies assets in the telecoms network architecture that will be in scope of the security requirement, so that we can work knowing what we have audited, and knowing that the auditors always shared with NCSC. We need a clear understanding between Ofcom and us as providers before the legislation is enforced, so that we understand exactly the boundaries and the scope, and we all work together, having done the audits, to close any vulnerabilities that we might have.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 13-14, Q10.]
Dr Bennett said:
“I would hope that those at the top level are clear about it, but I would be surprised if there were not occasions when they had used subcontractors to do maintenance and the imperative had been to sort out the fault ASAP. Knowing precisely what components had gone in could be wrong, and that might come up in an audit. I think it becomes more important as you flow down the levels.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 49, Q62.]
Dr Bennett later said:
“I have said that audit is needed of the assets in the network. The costs of being audited and of dealing with audits are very high, and they are costs that small companies may not have the resources to meet.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 52, Q67.]
Ofcom said that it was more or less impossible to meet the requirements set out in the codes of practice for the operators, unless it had a detailed asset register of everything in its system. We will expect to see evidence of that, and we expect that it will be regularly checked, audited and so on. We recognise the potential costs of an audit, particularly for smaller providers, although most of them have newer networks and equipment and should have a lot of this information already available. Ofcom is anticipating that this is something it would need to have access to, yet there is no requirement in the Bill or, as far as I can see, in the delegated legislation that has been published to make that requirement.
I have mentioned that this is a probing amendment. I am not sure that it is necessary to have it on the face of the Bill, and it might be that it will be provided for in delegated legislation, but we need a clear and strong strategy for the detection and removal of high-risk components, vendor hardware and software. Otherwise, the Bill will not protect our national security effectively. I hope the Minister will give clarification on that.
The Chair
Order. Mr Jones wants to speak, but he will have to wait until this afternoon.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Maria Caulfield.)
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 21st January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 January 2021 - (21 Jan 2021)
The Chair
Before we resume, I have been asked by Mr Speaker to remind people that, when they are not speaking, they should wear a mask. I know this is extremely inconvenient for lots of people, not least me—my glasses steam up. I do not want to be taking names or issuing yellow cards, but may I ask you to try to be mindful of Mr Speaker’s concerns and do the best you can? Hopefully we will all be okay.
Clause 1
Duty to take security measures
Amendment proposed (this day): 21, in clause 1, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (1) requiring providers of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services to carry out an audit of the goods, services and facilities supplied, provided or made available for the purposes of the provision of their network or service to ascertain whether they present a risk to the security of that network or service.’.—(Chi Onwurah.)
This amendment is a probing amendment designed to learn how the Government plans to ensure network operators have a comprehensive audit of hardware of interest because, for example, it is manufactured by a designated or high-risk vendor.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am demasked. Welcome to the Chair, Mr McCabe. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The amendment’s intention is similar to that of new clause 7, which we spoke about earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central is trying to probe, like I was, how we get operators to ensure that there is a full audit of their telecoms networks. This is not an easy situation. I accept what the Minister said about trying to strike a balance between prosperity—not wanting to put undue burdens on operators—and ensuring security. As my hon. Friend said, with her huge expertise in the field, these networks are not static entities; they develop over time. The example that she cited was that some of the kit in networks is many years old, which may now create security issues that were not evident when the equipment was introduced.
We are not talking about too onerous a burden on the network operators, because they are large companies. I accept that they will be resistant to anything that adds cost because, at our insistence of wanting cheaper phone calls and mobile technology, prices are competitive between the various operators. My hon. Friend therefore makes a good point that there must be a clear level playing field between the operators.
The Bill will ensure that existing Huawei kit is taken out by 2027, even though the networks did nothing wrong by putting in that kit in the first place. Without wanting to carry on my campaign against the Cabinet Office, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2013 report “Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure” shows that the Cabinet Office was made aware of BT’s contract with the Chinese company Huawei in 2003. That the Cabinet Office felt it was not important enough to tell Ministers so until 2006 reinforces my point about its role. That brings me to Ofcom and its capacity, which I will come to later. If we want the most robust system, we will need a system by which we know what is in the network.
There are two issues. I think it is possibly easier for future deployments, because we know what we are putting in. In the debate around Huawei and the security risks, I think it has been very clear. Let us be honest: an operator would be very silly to put in a piece of equipment that was deemed to be high risk for any future roll-out. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is what is already in the network. We accept that some of that will be taken out as a result of the Huawei issue, but a huge amount of equipment will still be in there.
That is before we look at software. What saddens me about the entire debate around Huawei and the telecoms sector is that it has been very hardware-centric. We know that the risks to our network from software are greater in some respects; we have seen examples of where network compromise is easier, too. Again, how do we get a robust framework in terms of the audit around software—not just what has already been used, but what will be used in the future?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making some excellent comments. He has raised another issue, which I perhaps did not highlight in my speech, which is that there might be existing equipment that is not necessarily seen as having a security implication but that, as the network evolves, will pose a security threat in the future. I gave an example in the evidence sessions. Say Amazon Web Services was to be bought by a Chinese company. As our networks move the functionality into the software, that will be running in the cloud over the Amazon Web Services infrastructure, which would have a huge potential security impact. An effective audit of where that equipment is now would be critical to knowing the level of that threat.
Mr Jones
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. That is why we need to get into the idea of the audit. As I said earlier, we basically need a level playing field for operators; we do not want one to have an advantage over another. We also need a clear picture of what we are asking in terms of the audit. On the point she makes regarding web services and the cloud, there is an issue there that I think is worth referring to. It links today’s Bill with the National Security and Investment Bill, which we were discussing yesterday. There was a lot of discussion around what we define as critical—a point she has already raised.
For yesterday’s Bill, the question was what is critical to national infrastructure—for example, a company that is developing software that is then acquired by a state that we deem is a security risk to us. If that equipment or software is being used in our telecommunications network, does that mean that the network is compromised, and how do we guard against that? There are provisions in the National Security and Investment Bill that enable the Government to stop the acquisition of companies that we consider vital to our national security, but unless we know that in advance, how will we make that decision?
If we have a situation where a small company is providing software for part of our critical national infrastructure for telecoms, how will that be joined up? How will we be able to use the provisions in the National Security and Investment Bill, so that the Business Secretary can block the sale? Likewise, how do we get that connection? We can do that only by the Minister and Ofcom having a very clear indication from day one—I do not think it will be possible from day one, but from some time into it—what is in our network, not just now, but into the future. That will be important.
That brings us to the role of Ofcom. We have seen a development of regulators in this country. I am not a great fan of regulators, because I think it is a way for Ministers to palm off their responsibilities to third parties and then stand back and saying, “If it all goes wrong, it is nothing to do with me, guv—it is these independent organisations.” A long time ago—perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned—the General Post Office used to be responsible for this type of thing, and I am currently reading the excellent new history of GCHQ that has come out, which I recommend to everyone. It is fascinating to read about some of the challenges—things that apply to this Bill—such as, in the first world war, what was conceived as national security and who was responsible for it. Was it the GPO, the military or someone else?
How will Ofcom be able to look at a network and say, “Yes, we are satisfied that there is nothing in there that is a matter of national security”? They do not know. I do not think for one minute that we are going to have a situation whereby this Government or any future Government will suddenly throw so much money at Ofcom that a huge army of inspectors will be climbing up poles and going into operators’ offices to check source codes and so on. That is not going to happen.
From a practical point of view, the operators will have to be responsible for providing that information to Ofcom. Whether it is in the Bill or in the guidance, it must be clear what is expected of operators. It is no good looking back in hindsight and saying, “We should have done that,” when something happens. The operators will just say, “You did not tell us we had to do that,” or, “We didn’t know about that.” It has to be very clear, to prevent a competitive advantage between different companies, that there is one standard. They also have to know what we are asking for. Then, taking the telecoms hat off and putting the national security hat on, from the Government’s point of view, that needs to be very clear as well, because we need to be reassured that the components and software in those networks, now and in the future, are not a national security risk.
That brings us to an issue that I have already raised. I am not someone who thinks that every time we go to bed at night, we should look under the bed to see whether the Chinese are there, unlike some members of the China Research Group, but there is an issue about the way in which China will look at supply chains as a way of getting access, for two reasons. The first is national security. The second is commercial reasons—dominating the market, which is what China has done with Huawei. How will we identify that, without having some type of audit process? I do not think that everything to do with China is bad, but a huge number of the components in all our mobile phones in our pockets today will have come from China, including Ericsson and Nokia hardware.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s logic. He talks a lot of sense, which is great. I am really intrigued by his insistence that the Government place these obligations on the National Cyber Security Centre and Ofcom. In my humble view, and knowing how those organisations work, it is likely to be the case that the Joint Forces Intelligence Group, GCHQ or the National Cyber Security Centre inform Government where there have been transgressions of security and breaches. I am intrigued by the counter-logic with where I think we need to be.
Mr Jones
This is a remarkable day. This morning I was told that my contribution to the debate was inspiring, and now I am being told that I am talking sense—I thank the hon. Gentleman for making my day.
The hon. Gentleman is right, but he is also wrong. He is right in the sense that there are threats that will come through GCHQ and others—they will say to operators, “You’ve got to be careful of these things.” Where he is wrong, though, is with the idea that somehow GCHQ can take a guess at what is in the network. It does not have that capability. Going forward—the emphasis in this country, in the Bill, in terms of looking at telecoms security—yes, the bar has been raised substantially.
There will be occasions when GCHQ—it does it already —contacts operators and others to say, “Beware of this software or this thing.” I accept that as a proactive approach, but handling backwards will also be important. How do we have a gold-plated system, whereby we have GCHQ doing what the hon. Member for Bracknell suggested they are already doing, but one that also matches up with operators taking responsibility to say, “We have spotted something and are doing something about it”? It is pulling the two things together.
Chi Onwurah
Part of the challenge is that the operators do not know themselves and, as we have discussed, there are no incentives for them to find out. To give an example, Virgin Media took over from NTL, which I think took over from the 13 different cable providers in the franchises of the ’80s, and the BT mobile network was bought partially from EE—so there are takeovers and acquisitions, and partners may not know, and do not necessarily have an incentive to find out unless we put in a requirement.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes the point precisely: the way in which telecoms have developed in this country has been piecemeal, only developing now into the four main operators. I hope we will try to get others into the market.
We are to blame for that, as consumers, because we have demanded ever lower prices for our mobile services. Does that suggest that the operators have taken shortcuts? No, I am not suggesting that, but consumer preferences have driven down price, and therefore the costs of what those operators provide in delivering the services that we all take for granted. Let us be honest: the Chinese saw the opening door for Huawei—that is why they bought into and flooded the market, putting Government loans behind it. Can we blame the operators for saying, “Well, actually, this is a good deal—we can get good deals”? But they cannot.
I am interested to know from the Minister how, looking forward, we are going to do that. I accept that something will be done under the regulations that the Government will put out, but how will we look backwards as well? As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, there is a lot of legacy equipment there, and it is important for Ofcom to have a clear understanding of what is in the networks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
We are redefining UK telecoms security, but I worry that we are also redefining the aspiration of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to crack on, so I will try to be brief. The good news that I can deliver, briefly, is how the aspirations of both the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for North Durham are met in the legislation, and how we envisage those aspirations’ being implemented.As the Committee is aware, the Government have published an early draft of the security regulations. Certain draft requirements are relevant to the aims that we have talked about today. If hon. Members look at regulation 3(3)(a), with which they will be familiar if they are insomniacs, they will see a duty for network providers
“to identify, record and reduce the risks of security compromises to which the entire network and each particular function… of the network may be exposed”.
That is already there and key to the issues that hon. Members have been talking about.
Chi Onwurah
I had looked at those requirements. I appreciate that they are drafts, but they talk about identifying issues. They do not say “audit”.
Matt Warman
I think this would be impossible to identify without carrying out some kind of audit. There is a danger of a semantic argument, but I understand the point the hon. Lady is making. We want people to be in the position to make the kind of identifications that we are requiring. I do not see how they could do that without the records to which she refers, in terms of both the existing kit and future kit that they might put into their network.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
This is an important point. The criticism that I will articulate later is that too much of the Bill is based on an assumption that the players in the sector will automatically do the right thing. For example, there is an assumption of a dialogue between Ofcom and the major players. Will the Minister think about whether he is satisfied that an assumption goes far enough in something as important as this?
Matt Warman
The regulation that I cited is an example of the Government not relying on assumptions. It is an example of us publishing, in advance, exactly the sort of material that demonstrates that this is not assumptions, and that it is there in black and white. That is an important distinction and it demonstrates the cross-party consensus that we have had thus far. We continue to be on the same page in terms of the level of detail required.
The evidence sessions with industry demonstrated that national providers already maintain some asset registers. Witnesses were clear that those registers are maintained and updated as technologies are updated. That is an important part of the existing landscape, but our regulations will ensure this kind of best practice is extended across public telecoms providers.
In addition, the Bill contains measures with regard to the use of particular vendors’ equipment. Inspection notices under clause 19 enable Ofcom to carry out surveys of a specific network or service where Ofcom receives a monitoring direction from the Secretary of State to gather information on a provider’s compliance with a designated vendor direction. Alongside that, clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to require the provision of information about the use of goods, services or facilities supplied, provided or made available by a particular person. That could be used to require information about a provider’s use of a particular vendor’s equipment.
Taken together, the issues that have been raised are not only entirely legitimate, in the view of the Government, but are addressed in black and white already, both in the Bill itself and in the drafts that we have published. We are ensuring that “hardware of interest,” whatever that might be, is subject to proper oversight and monitoring. That objective does not need the approach that might come as a consequence of this amendment, because it is already there. For that reason, I welcome the probing nature of the amendment. I hope that my answer has satisfied some of the concerns, and I look forward to doing so further in future answers.
Chi Onwurah
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I thank the Minister for his comments. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester for their comments. This amendment is probing, so we will not push it to a Division. I would like to say two things to the Minister. Although it is true that the providers were confident that they had an asset anywhere their equipment was, other experts who gave testimony in the evidence sessions were not. My experience of networks is that there are multiple systems and this information is not easily accessible or searchable.
I am reassured by the Minister saying that his view is that these requirements could not be met without there having been some kind of audit, to have that information ready. I ask him to write to me, if possible, stating which provisions in the requirements set that out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Warman
It is good to reach this landmark point. I do not propose to go over all the ground we have covered, because we have already covered a large chunk of this in discussing the amendments.
As I mentioned, proposed new section 105A means that telecoms providers will need to take appropriate action to ensure adequate security standards and limit the damage caused by any breaches. To support that duty, the proposed new section will create a new definition of “security compromise”. The definition is purposely broad. It includes anything that compromises the availability, performance or functionality of a network or service, or that compromises the confidentiality of the signals conveyed by it. That addresses some of the points made by the right hon. Member for North Durham a moment ago. This is a comprehensive approach that will help to ensure providers protect their networks and services properly in the future.
Earlier, I mentioned law enforcement and national security. This part of the Bill excludes certain conduct that is required or authorised under national security legislation or for law enforcement from the definition of “security compromise” in subsections (3) and (4). Those subsections also clarify the fact that, for example, disruption of the use of unauthorised mobile phones in prisons would not be a security compromise.
Proposed new section 105B will give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing duties to take specific security measures. The power will enable more detailed requirements to be imposed on providers, further to the overarching duty set out in proposed new section 105A(1). This will give greater clarity to providers about the measures that they must take. It will also allow the legal framework to be adapted as new threats arise and technology changes.
These security requirements deliver on our commitment in the telecoms supply chain review to place targeted, actionable and proportionate requirements on a statutory footing. Taken together, the new overarching security duty and requirements will, in secondary legislation, make clear what the Government expect of public telecoms providers. The provisions in the clause are crucial for improving the security of our telecoms infrastructure.
Chi Onwurah
As the Minister says, reaching the end of consideration of clause 1 is a landmark. We are cracking on at a slower pace than anticipated, but it is important that we have rehearsed a number of the arguments that you will hear, Mr McCabe, throughout our detailed scrutiny of the Bill.
Those arguments relate to our concerns with regard to national security, which Labour prioritises, yet we do not see that priority recognised consistently in the Bill; the effective plan to diversify supply chains on which it depends, but which it does not mention; and the scrutiny of the sweeping powers that the Bill will give to the Secretary of State and Ofcom. Those issues all arise in the clause, although we welcome the Bill and the increased duties. Will the Minister clarify the relationship between proposed new section 105A and proposed new section 105B? If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will write to me.
Matt Warman
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady on the matter she has discussed. We anticipate draft directions in due course that will be network specific, because each network is different, but the overall tenor will be in the same direction. This is probably a matter that we can talk about outside the Committee in a bit more detail to make sure she gets the answers she wants.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Duty to take measures in response to security compromises
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Warman
We are one thirtieth of the way there. The clause will place a duty on providers to take measures in response to security compromises through proposed new section 105C. When managing security, providers should seek to reduce the risk of security compromises occurring under their duty in proposed new section 105A. As security threats and attacks evolve, it will never be possible for providers to reduce that risk to zero. Therefore, should a security compromise occur, it is crucial that providers take swift and effective action to mitigate its effects. Taking action quickly will also help to mitigate the risk of any further incidents.
Mirroring the approach taken in clause 1, the new duty in proposed new section 105C is overarching and sets out a general duty on providers. It is supported by proposed new section 105D, which will provide the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations requiring providers to take specific measures in response to security compromises of a description specified in regulations. Although it will clearly not be possible to anticipate every security compromise that might occur and to set out how providers should respond, this will enable more detailed provision to be made in appropriate cases. Measures can be specified in the regulations only where the Secretary of State considers those measures appropriate and proportionate.
In practice, the first set of requirements will be contained in a single set of regulations made under the powers of proposed new sections 105B and 105D. A draft of the regulations has already been made available to members of the Committee, and published on gov.uk. Regulations made using this power will give providers clarity about the measures that they need to take, and having those measures set out in secondary legislation has the benefit of allowing the regulations to be reviewed as technology and security threats change over time.
In summary, this duty on providers is an integral part of the new framework, which will ensure providers take control of the security of their networks and services at a time when the UK stands on the cusp of a 5G and full fibre revolution. We must keep those technologies secure to enjoy their full benefit, and the clause is essential to doing that.
Chi Onwurah
We are cracking on: clause 2 is taking but a few minutes. The Opposition recognise the critical importance of our network providers taking responsibility for the security of their networks, and that there can never be a zero-risk network. Given that network communications are ever present in almost every aspect of our life and of our nation’s economy and security, it is right and appropriate that the Bill should put requirements in place, both on the operators and in response to specific security compromises.
I should like to have better understood how we would expect network operators to respond to a compromise such as the SolarWinds one, for example, but I expect that the clause will at least place the right duties on network operators, and I am content that it should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
This must be down to that productivity seminar they sent me on. Still, nothing lasts forever.
Clause 3
Codes of practice about security measures etc
Mr Kevan Jones
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 3, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“(ia) the National Cyber Security Centre;”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the National Cyber Security Centre on any draft code of practice about security measures under new section 105E.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 3, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
“(iiia) the National Cyber Security Centre;”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the National Cyber Security Centre before issuing a code of practice about security measures.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 7, line 41, after “OFCOM”, insert—
“and the National Cyber Security Centre”.
This amendment would require providers to inform the National Cyber Security Centre, as well as OFCOM, of any security compromise.
Mr Jones
We are romping through the Bill, aren’t we? Two clauses in less than 15 minutes.
Again, these amendments are probing. I might sound like a broken record, but my aim with them is to ensure that national security and those who deal with national security decision making are at the centre of the decisions that are taken. Amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to
“consult the National Cyber Security Centre on any draft code of practice about security measures under new section 105E.”
The Minister will say, “Well, it is self-evident that they will do that,” but going back to my Robin Day analogy from this morning, legislation needs to survive him, me and everyone else. The guidance will change over time, and we have to ensure that whoever is sitting in the Minister’s seat in 10 years’ time—hopefully, it will not be the current Minister, not for any unfair reason, but because he has gone on to higher and better things—the onus is on the Secretary of State to consult. Having that on the face of the Bill, or at least some discussion about it, would reinforce that, because the Secretary of State will move on, and there will be new civil servants, who might not have as clear an indication as the Minister will give today, or perhaps a Minister who thinks that this is the key part.
It might be a bit anorak-ish, but the problem with the national security world, which I inhabit occasionally, is that people can see everything through the national security prism—although I am not sure that that is the case for everyone. It will be important to ensure that the individuals at the National Cyber Security Centre have a real input, and not just to say that they will be consulted. The NCSC, which was introduced at the tail end of the coalition Government, is the only positive thing I can think of that that Government did. We now have a world-beating centre that protects our national security and also does a very strange thing: it looks to the secret world, but also looks outwards, engaging with the industry and individual citizens, too.
That is now being replicated around the world. I chair the science and technology committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. On our visit to the UK the year before last, we visited the centre, and most of my parliamentary colleagues from across the world, including the US, were quite impressed with how it balanced complete secrecy about things that need to be kept secret and having that outward-looking approach. I am really just trying to see how we can ensure that going forward.
Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that the NCSC, as well as Ofcom, is informed of compromises and breaches. I am sure the Minister will tell me that Ofcom and the NCSC have such a symbiotic relationship that that information will automatically be transferred, but again we are assuming a lot about what will be done. It is important that this Committee at least discusses how we ensure that that continues. I will come to Ofcom personnel, but various comments have been made. I asked the head of Ofcom about Ofcom’s expertise in dealing with these issues, and this comes back to the point I made to that witness. This is about mindset. Whether we like it or not, people in the security world think differently from the rest of us in how they approach things. Ofcom will have a learning curve, not only in recruiting the individuals with the capability to do this work, but in ensuring the culture to react to these issues. My two amendments seek to ensure not only that national security is at the heart of the Bill, but that practitioners have a clear focus on national security risk.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to support my right hon. Friend’s excellent comments and to add a couple of points on amendment 10, which would require the Secretary of State to consult the National Cyber Security Centre before issuing a code of practice about security matters. My right hon. Friend spoke ably about the amendment’s intent to ensure security input on national security measures. That sounds basic, so I hope the Minister will explain why he feels it is unnecessary to make that explicit in the Bill. My right hon. Friend suggested that perhaps it should go without saying, but as we heard in the evidence sessions and have already discussed, the evolving security landscape and the change that the Bill represents, through the new powers for the Secretary of State and Ofcom, make it particularly important to set that out expressly.
The Bill looks at many issues to ensure the security of our networks from supply chains to requirements on network providers as well as raising technical issues, and Ofcom will need to do a lot specifically, so it is important to have a specific reference to the security function of the National Cyber Security Centre.
It came across clearly in the evidence sessions that Ofcom will not be making national security judgments. Lindsey Fussell said:
“It is important to say that, across the scope of the whole Bill, it is not Ofcom’s role to make national security judgments. That is really important. Clearly, that is the Government’s and the Secretary of State’s role, taking advice from the NCSC and the intelligence agencies.”—[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 89, Q113.]
In introducing the code of practice, it is essential to ensure that security input and expertise. I do not see why the Minister would object to including such a requirement in the Bill. Unfortunately, we are not always as joined up as we would like to be. There are numerous examples of issues that could have been prevented, had agencies of Government done what might have been expected of them and talked to teach other. As the Bill involves network operations and deep technical and security issues, a requirement to consult the NCSC is particularly important, and that is what the amendment would achieve.
Matt Warman
I apologise in advance, having said that we should crack on, for detaining the Committee for a few minutes on this group of amendments. They relate to clauses 3 and 4, which deal with the codes of practice for security measures and informing others of security compromises. Ultimately, the new telecoms framework comprises three layers. There are strengthened overarching security duties set out in the Bill, there are specific security requirements in secondary legislation, and there are detailed technical security measures in codes of practice. Clause 3 deals with the final layer of the new security framework. Specifically, it provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue and revise the codes of practice and sets out the legal effects of any published codes of practice.
Clause 4 addresses what would happen should there be a security compromise. It puts in place a process for users to be informed of significant risks of a security compromise. The clause also places a duty on public telecoms providers to inform Ofcom of any security compromises with significant impacts, and it creates the power for Ofcom to inform other persons in turn, including users.
I turn now to amendment 5, which seeks to ensure that the NCSC is also informed of security compromises. From a drafting point of view, the NCSC is part of GCHQ, and I take the amendment to refer to GCHQ in that sense. Within the new telecoms framework, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport will set the policy direction, Ofcom will regulate and the NCSC will provide technical and security advice. As the UK is an world-leading national authority on cyber-security, we expect the NSCS to share its expertise with Ofcom in order to support the implementation of a new telecoms security framework.
For that reason, the Government absolutely agree that it is crucial that the NCSC receives information about telecoms providers’ security. That is why such information-sharing provisions already exist. Under section 19 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Ofcom or the Secretary of State is able to share with the NCSC any information that would support the NCSC in carrying out its functions. That would of course include the passing on of details of security incidents. Under new section 105L of the Communications Act 2003, which this Bill inserts, Ofcom must report all serious security incidents to the Secretary and State and can pass on information about less serious incidents as well. On receiving such information, the Secretary of State can then share the information with the NCSC, as I have set out. Although these probing amendments are well-intentioned, it is obvious that the provisions are already there.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his response to the amendments. He is focusing on the fact that it is possible for information to be shared, but it is not required. I understand that the Bill as drafted, and preceding best practice, means that it is possible for information to be shared. My concern is that it is not required.
Matt Warman
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, and I will come to something that I think will address it in a moment. Before I do, I will speak to amendments 6 and 10, as they would be functionally identical amendments to new section 105F in clause 3.
New section 105F sets out the process for issuing a code of practice. It requires a statutory consultation on a draft code of practice with the providers to whom the code would apply, Ofcom and other persons such as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The amendments would apply an additional requirement to formally consult the NCSC when publishing a draft code of practice. I can reassure the Committee that we will continue to work closely with technical experts at the NCSC, as we have done over a number of years.
The telecoms supply chain review demonstrated the Department’s capability to work with our intelligence and security experts to produce sound recommendations, backed by the extensive and detailed security analysis that I know Members of all parties would like to see. That initiated the next phase of the collaborative work that culminated in the introduction of the Bill, and the codes of practice continue that theme. The purpose of such codes is to provide technical security guidance on the detailed measures that certain public telecoms providers should take to meet their legal obligations.
We have already been clear that NCSC guidance will form the basis of an initial DCMS-issued code of practice. The NCSC has already developed a set of technical measures that is in the process of being tested with the industry, and those technical measures have been refined and improved over the last two years. The NCSC will continue to update the measures to reflect any changes in the landscape of threats, as the right hon. Member for North Durham described, and the relationship between the work of the DCMS and that of the NCSC means that such changes would be reflected in the code of practice. Alongside the DCMS and Ofcom, the NCSC will play a key role in advising public telecoms providers on how to implement detailed codes of practice.
Mr Jones
I agree with the Minister, in the sense that I think he and the Secretary of State at the DCMS are committed to there being very close working, but as I said, he ain’t gonna last forever. An issue will come up —in fact, it came up last night on the National Security and Investment Bill—when operators and others say, “Actually, from a commercial point of view, this is more paramount,” or, “This is what we should be doing.” The Secretary of State will come under a lot of pressure to perhaps look at prosperity issues rather than security issues. I just wonder whether, without the relevant provision in this Bill, a future Secretary of State could say, “Well, I’m going to ignore that issue, because I want to pander to”—well, not pander to—“accept the commercial and prosperity arguments.”
Matt Warman
The right hon. Gentleman keeps going on about ministerial impermanence, but I will not take it personally.
Matt Warman
Too kind! The key part to this is that, obviously, Ofcom remains an independent regulator and will be working closely with others. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the inevitable balance between national security and a whole host of other issues, but ultimately that independence is absolutely essential. In the light of our long-standing and established working relationships across the DCMS, NCSC and Ofcom, it seems reasonable to say that there is a track record demonstrating what he has asked for. But given the Committee’s interest in the role of the NCSC in this regime, I will just make one last point. Its role is not explicitly described in the Bill, as the NCSC already has a statutory remit, as part of GCHQ, to provide technical security advice and to receive information on telecoms security for the purpose of exercising that function.
The NCSC and Ofcom will very soon publish a statement setting out how they will work together. I think that addresses some of what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central mentioned; I believe she has some familiarity with Ofcom. I think it is right, because they are independent, that that statement comes from them, as well as the Government expressing a view on this. The statement will include information on their respective roles and their approach to sharing information on telecoms security, and it should provide greater clarity, which hon. Members are entirely legitimately asking for, about the NCSC’s role, including how it will support Ofcom’s monitoring, assessment and enforcement of the new security framework.
I hope that the sorts of matters that I have talked about provide the kind of reassurance that Members have asked for.
Mr Jones
A statement is a welcome step forward, but—the Minister can write to me on this; he need not respond to me today—what is its legal weight? Again, I am not wanting to consider the Minister’s demise, but I would like to know that future Secretaries of State and Ministers will use it as the template and will not be able to say, “Well, we are going to ignore that statement.” That would be very welcome, because it would bind the two organisations together, which is important, and ensure that the security aspects were taken into consideration, but will the Minister just write to me, saying what weight the statement would have? I have to say that I sympathise; I do not like Christmas tree Bills that start having things added on. If it could be done in a complete way, I would be quite happy with that. The only thing that I want to know is, basically, what its status will be in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Warman
The Committee has already heard me talk about some of this, but I think it important to provide a little more detail. The code of practice, which we have discussed, is a fundamental building block of the regime and will contain more specific information on how telecoms providers can meet their legal duties. It will provide guidance on how, and to what timescale, certain public telecoms providers should comply with their legal obligations, and will be based on technical analysis by the NCSC. Individual measures will therefore reflect the best protections against the most pressing threats to network security. The code will, for example, set out the detailed technical measures that should be taken to segregate and control access to the areas of networks that process and manage customers’ data.
We recognise of course that different companies have different ways of setting up and running their networks, and because our telecoms market is dynamic and competitive, providers range in scale from multinational giants such as Vodafone down to innovative local start-ups. We want therefore to ensure that the code of practice is proportionate, and that public telecoms providers take appropriate security measures.
I will touch as briefly as I can on how we intend to achieve that proportionality through a tiered system. Tier 1 will contain the largest national-scale public telecoms providers. Should any of those providers have a significant security incident, it could bring down services to people and business across the UK. Those operators will have the greatest level of oversight and monitoring from Ofcom. Tier 2 will contain medium-sized public telecoms providers. Those providers may not be as large, but in many cases they are critical to regions and to business connectivity. They are expected to have more time to implement the security measures set out in the code of practice.
Tier 3 will contain the smallest public telecoms providers, including small businesses and micro-enterprises, which, of course, must also comply with the law. They are not anticipated to be subject to the measures in the code of practice, but will need to comply with their legal duties as set out in new sections 105A and 105C, and in any regulations. Our expectation is that Ofcom would regulate those providers more reactively.
New section 105F describes the process for issuing a code of practice. When the Government publish a draft code of practice, we will consult with industry, Ofcom and any other appropriate persons. Specifically, publishing the first code of practice will include consulting on the thresholds of each of the tiers that I have described and on the timings for their implementation. Following the consultation period, and once the code is finalised, it will be published and a copy will be laid before Parliament.
New section 105G gives the Secretary of State the power to withdraw a code of practice. Again, that will follow consultation with industry and Ofcom. A notice of withdrawal will be laid before Parliament. The legal effects of the code of practice are described in new section 105H. To be clear, the code of practice is guidance only; it is an important tool that operators should use to comply with their legal duties.
Matt Warman
The legislation places a duty on providers. Meeting the strictures of the code of practice would be the way of demonstrating that they were meeting that duty as an initial step, but of course, we see individual companies making decisions, for a host of reasons, to exceed codes of practice in every area of regulated life,
and I would expect that to continue in the area in question as well.
Where relevant, provisions in a code could be taken into account in legal proceedings before courts or tribunals, which I think gives some sense of their status. That would include any appeals against Ofcom’s regulatory decisions heard by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Ofcom will take account of the code of practice when carrying out its functions as required in new section 105H(3) in relation to telecoms security, as I have just described.
Under new section 105I, if Ofcom has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a telecoms provider is failing, or has failed, to act in accordance with a code, it can ask public telecoms providers to explain either how they meet the code of practice or, if they do not meet it, why. For example, if the network set-up of a particular telecoms provider meant that it could achieve a level of security equivalent to that in the code by other means, it could explain that in its statement responding to Ofcom. In such a case Ofcom might be satisfied that the provider was complying with its security details, but hon. Members will see that we are again trying to ensure a proportionate approach to the relevant part of the framework.
We believe that the code of practice will provide an appropriately flexible framework, which will be able to change as new security threats evolve, providing clarity for telecoms operators on what is required of them by this new telecoms security framework.
Chi Onwurah
I will not detain the Committee very long either, as we agree about the importance of codes of practice. I will not say that I am entirely reassured to hear of the statement being issued by Ofcom and the NCSC on how they will work together, but I certainly think that it is a positive development, and I hope we will be able to see it before the Bill progresses to the House.
On the codes of practice, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham set out, it is important that the sector should understand the standard to which it will be held. I have some concerns about the tiering system, because, as was made clear by a number of witnesses during the evidence sittings, all networks are joined up and we are only as secure as the weakest link. At the same time, it is important to have a proportional burden on new entrants as we indeed hope to diversify the supply chain.
I understand, although perhaps the Minister can clarify the point, that the codes of practice will not refer to the diversification of the supply chain, despite the fact that having a secure network—we shall debate this in more detail—is dependent on having a diverse supply chain. I have made the point a number of times, and will make it repeatedly, that the lack of linkage between the diversification strategy, implementation and the security of our networks is an ongoing cause for concern. However, having made those comments, I do not object to the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Informing others of security compromises
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Warman
As with clause 3, I have already spoken to clause 4, addressing an amendment on this issue. It will be crucial that we ensure that the Government, Ofcom, public telecoms providers and their customers have the information that they need to understand when security compromises have occurred, and then use the knowledge to prevent compromises in the future. New section 105J requires that providers inform their users of significant risks of security compromises and actions that they can take to avoid or mitigate any adverse consequences.
We want to ensure that this is done in a transparent and open way, so the clause specifies that telecoms users should be notified in clear and plain language, and given a named contact they can get in touch with if they have any further questions. Giving users that information will help to ensure that, where possible, they can take swift action to protect themselves and raise broader awareness.
New section 105K requires security compromises to be reported to Ofcom. That information will provide Ofcom with insight into the security of individual telecoms providers and security risks across the landscape, enabling us to target its regulatory action more effectively. The Bill also requires that providers report pre-positioning attacks on the network. These are attacks that do not affect the network or service at the time but allow access that could result in further security compromises. These attacks pose real risks but too often remain invisible to a regulator.
Finally, under new section 105L, Ofcom is required to share information about serious security compromises with the Government. It may also share information on less serious compromises if, for example, it would help the Government with developing telecoms policy and future regulation.
The clause explains how Ofcom can share information about security compromise with other groups and organisations, and the Bill allows information sharing at Ofcom’s discretion with overseas regulators, other providers, telecoms users and, where appropriate, the wider public. It allows Ofcom to advise network and service users of the measures that they should take to prevent, remedy or mitigate the effects of the security compromises, to direct providers to give such advice themselves.
The clause ensures that the regulator has access to the information that it needs, and will help to ensure that the entire industry is aware of new and evolving risks and can respond accordingly—be that a customer changing their password or an operator tightening its defences against a new attacker.
Matt Warman
I will pretend I have not finished, and give way to the hon. Lady.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister, as always, for graciously giving way. I will make this point later, but I want to give the Minister the opportunity to consider how the requirement for Ofcom to notify users might work with the Information Commissioner’s requirement on data controllers to also notify users when there is a data hack.
Matt Warman
Obviously, there could be an overlap in those notification requirements, but our expectation would not be that anyone would receive multiple notifications. That is why there is an emphasis on the nature of communications being clear and obvious to laypeople.
Mr Jones
Speaking gives me an opportunity to take my face mask off. I will make a few points about clause 4, which is broadly welcome because it clarifies for operators what their responsibilities are, not just from a national security point of view but from a consumer point of view. I think there is an issue, though, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central raised.
Again, I do not want the Minister to respond now, but I think the crossover with the Information Commissioner might be one area that we need some clarity on. Is there an example of this? Yes—the TalkTalk case. People might look at this Bill and think national security is about the Russians or the Chinese hacking, but that was a criminal act that led to a lot of people’s data being compromised. From a constituency point of view, as any Member of the House at that time will know, trying to get TalkTalk to do anything about that, in terms of the losses that people incurred, was virtually impossible. That is why these clauses are so important.
Chi Onwurah
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hack used by the young person had been around for longer than that young person had been alive? That is an indication of the low level of security TalkTalk had in their network; they had not been able to address a known hack that had existed for at least 16 years. The Bill aims, in part, to address that and the consequences of that lack of security for our constituents.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is correct. A lot of the debate has been about hardware, but the biggest threat to our national security, in terms of telecoms, is from hacking and cyber-attacks. The changing nature of the threat is interesting. There are state actors and there is organised crime, acting on of behalf of states, but there is also, as referred to by my hon. Friend, some poor teenager who thought it was a good idea. The TalkTalk case showed the emphasis they put on the security of their network. Not just clause 4, but the whole Bill, puts the onus on the operators, which is why it is so welcome. Never again could they be accused of not knowing their responsibilities.
New section 105J requires providers to take “reasonable” steps to inform users about the risk, the nature of the security compromise, the steps the user could take in response, and the name and details of the person to contact. That is fine, but how to respond might be a matter for Ofcom. That is important, because people might then quickly take steps to stop compromises to their security.
The Bill lays out penalties for telecoms operators, but what about the consumer and people who have lost money because of data breaches? Do I assume that the Bill does not change that? It beefs it up, but I assume that any mitigation or compensation that should be paid to individuals who have been compromised would be an issue for Ofcom. When we had the TalkTalk compromise, getting TalkTalk to do anything was like trying to get blood out of a stone. That is important from the point of view of consumers.
It is important that the Secretary of State is informed, but how will that be done? I presume GCHQ and others would do that. Would that lead to lessons learned or to a notice being given to other operators that that has happened? Would that be done by Ofcom, the National Cyber Security Centre or GCHQ, or would it be a combination of all of them? It comes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central: this is a risk and this clause puts the onus initially with the operators, where it should be.
Chi Onwurah
We are cracking on at such a pace that I lost my place somewhat. I had forgotten that we are now discussing clause 4. My apologies, Mr McCabe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has already addressed some of the points that I wanted to make, but let me say that we welcome the duty being placed on providers to report security incidents. I have long campaigned, in relation to cases such as the TalkTalk incident, to make that duty clearer and more comprehensive regarding the information that needs to be shared with users and those who are affected, and for them to have some kind of right of redress, which is effectively part of the Bill.
I welcome the requirement in clause 4 to inform others of security compromises, but will the Minister provide more clarity? There is some indication of the range of actors that the providers and Ofcom must inform, but I do not feel that there is an understanding of the level of information that will be shared with different actors. For example, if the public are to be informed of a security breach, compared with the requirement from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which, as I said, actually goes far enough, what level of information might be shared with other actors, such as other networks? My right hon. Friend talked about who else might be informed. It is also clear that the sharing of information will probably need to evolve over time, as the nature of compromises and their potential reach changes. I wonder how these requirements might be adapted to reflect that.
I will just say a little about the sharing of information with overseas regulators. If that is clearly set out in the Bill, I am unable to find it. Presumably, such data sharing will still have to conform with the requirements of our data protection legislation. Will it also reflect international data-sharing gateways for criminal prosecution purposes?
Those are just some general comments. We welcome the clause.
Matt Warman
I will reply briefly. On the point about compensation, essentially new section 105W of the Communications Act 2003, which is inserted by clause 8, covers the civil liability point, which I think opens the door that the right hon. Member for North Durham seeks to open. Then there are the notifications to industry of what is essentially best practice and recent threats. Of course, as he implied, there is a balance to be struck with the existing work of all those involved, but ultimately it would feed into the codes of practice, so there is both an informal and a formal mechanism, if I can put it like that.
On the hon. Lady’s final point about the international sharing of information, it would depend on the nature of the information, as she implied. Some of it would pertain to national security, and some of it would pertain to the kind of criminality that she has spoken about about, where there are existing provisions as well. In that sense, of course, it is all covered by our own data protection regime, which has the sorts of carve-outs I have just described but operates in that holistic framework.
Matt Warman
I am not sure I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
Mr Jones
I raised the point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, that we are asking operators to inform individuals about data compromises. That is welcome, but as my hon. Friend said, there might also be a breach of the Information Commissioner’s regulations, and we just wanted to get some idea of how the two would mesh together. I do not expect the Minister to know now, but could he write to us to say how the two would interact?
Matt Warman
As I said in response to the hon. Lady, there is obviously a potential overlap. The focus of this Bill is on clarity of communication to the consumer, but I am very happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman or the Committee with further details of that potential overlap.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister is being incredibly generous with his time. To clarify what we are hoping to receive, as he has indicated, we would not want the ICO to be sending out notifications to 2 million people who had been affected by a hack, and Ofcom to be doing that as well. We would expect there to be co-ordination in that regard, and we would just like to see that set out.
Matt Warman
I am very happy to do so. I think it is obvious that clarity of communication would be incompatible with duplication.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
General duty of OFCOM to ensure compliance with security duties
Christian Matheson
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 5, page 9, line 41, at end insert—
“(2) Providers of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services must notify Ofcom of any planned or actual changes to their network or service which might compromise their ability to comply with the duties imposed on them by or under sections 105A to 105D, 105J and 105K.”
This amendment would require providers of public electronic communications networks or services to notify Ofcom of any changes to their network or service which might compromise their ability to comply with their security duties.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. Since this is my first substantive contribution to the Committee, I pay tribute to the Front Benchers. It is nice to have a Minister who, I believe, was formerly a tech journalist specialising in telecoms, and who knows the subject well. Of course, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, was a telecoms engineer and an Ofcom regulator for many years, and I pay tribute to her and her staff. The Committee should know that in addition to running this Bill Committee from the Opposition’s side, she has also been working in the main Chamber this week on the National Security and Infrastructure Bill Committee. Juggling two Bills at once is no mean feat.
I have also greatly enjoyed the interplay between my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and the hon. and gallant Member for Bracknell, both of whom have considerable national security experience. I was intrigued by my right hon. Friend’s estimation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s intervention as Schrodinger’s intervention—one that managed to be simultaneously right and wrong. He has set a new standard there.
From listening to the debates on previous clauses, it is clear that a common thread passes through the Bill, which we in the Opposition have been hoping to link up. Partly, it is to do with the question we raised earlier about the assumption that everybody understands exactly what the intention in the Bill is, and that everything will be all right in the long term. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has talked about the importance of making things as clear as possible when it comes to responsibilities, because a future Minister might not be as adept in this subject as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, who currently occupies that position. In a sense, that is the heart of amendment 11.
Chi Onwurah
I rise simply to support the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. I thank him for his very kind words. In the amendment, he makes an important contribution in ensuring that Ofcom knows what it needs to know and in putting the onus more firmly on the network providers. I simply ask the Minister to respond to the points that my hon. Friend made in his concluding remarks about being forward-looking.
A challenge for us as a nation in securing our networks during such fast-paced technological change is looking backwards to the problems we have had rather than forwards to the evolving and new threats. During the evidence sessions, we were accused of fetishising 5G as if that was the only security challenge, because of the visible problem with Huawei, and that we were not looking more broadly. I admired Ofcom during my time there because it was set up to be a forward-looking regulator. To achieve that aim, when it comes to the sweeping new requirements around security that are placed on it under the Bill, it needs to be able to see what changes are happening and are likely to influence future evolving threats. To do that effectively, amendment 11 requires the network providers to notify Ofcom of planned or actual changes.
It is worth remembering that—I made this point earlier—if BT had been required to notify Ofcom or another body of changes to its network as Huawei moved to a greater and more dominant position in its network, that might have rung alarm bells more generally. We have also already mentioned the shift that we are seeing on the importance of software and software configuration and services in controlling the network. Requiring providers to notify Ofcom of planned or actual changes to the network would make that evolution more easily visible and therefore provide Ofcom with greater visibility of how all our networks are evolving and what new threats may arise as a consequence.
Matt Warman
The amendment would add to the general duty in clause 5 that places on Ofcom the duty to ensure that providers comply with their security duties. The duty as written in the Bill makes clear Ofcom’s increasing role. The duties imposed on public telecoms providers in the Bill are legally binding, so as the Bill is written providers should not be taking decisions that would prevent them from complying with those duties in the future. If they were not to comply, they would be in breach of their legal duties and liable for enforcement action, including the imposition of the significant penalties set out in the Bill.
The underlying purpose of the amendment—that Ofcom should take a proactive role in regulating the regime—is already core to what is in the Bill and the Government absolutely agree with the principle that the hon. Member for City of Chester set out. We need to ensure that Ofcom has the tools to be forward-looking so that, in a world of fast-changing technologies and threats, it can understand where operators are taking their networks and how that will affect their security. That is an absolutely essential part of the Bill.
James Sunderland
Does the Minister agree that the Bill in its current form is prescriptive enough already?
Matt Warman
I think the Bill is perfectly drafted down to every comma and punctuation mark. To be slightly more serious, what we have sought to do in the drafting is to strike the balance between proportionate regulations and the overarching requirements for national security. That is the balance that we have struck and it is exactly for that reason that we already do in the Bill what the hon. Member for City of Chester and the shadow Minister seek with the amendment.
In section 135 of the Communications Act 2003, as amended by clause 12, Ofcom is already allowed to require information from providers about the future development of networks and services that could have an impact on the security of the network or service they are providing. That would enable Ofcom, for instance, to assess the security risks arising from the deployment of a new technology or from the proposed deployment of a new technology. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Members are reassured not just that the Bill does what they seek, but that previous drafts of the Communications Act already did so.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way; in doing so, he shortens what I will say later. I think the Minister is saying that Ofcom has the power to require information, which is true, but the amendment is about providers proactively giving that information. Ofcom cannot request information about a change to the networks that it does not know is happening. I am hoping that perhaps what the Minister is implying is that he would expect Ofcom regularly to review what was changing in the networks and therefore make those requests for further information. Could he clarify that point?
Matt Warman
The sort of horizon scanning that the hon. Lady describes is core to all essential regulation, and the relationship that Ofcom has with those whom it regulates promotes the ability to have such conversations. But as I said, the key point is that an operator that proposes knowingly to introduce a risk into its network would clearly not be complying with the statutory provisions of the Bill. That is the essential nub of the issue.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful for the debate on the amendment. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister made the key point that Ofcom cannot be blamed for not enforcing something that it does not know anything about. The amendment’s intent was to encourage a sense of shared responsibility in what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham reminded us is still a competitive industry in which businesses might want to maintain a level of confidentiality about technological changes or the deals they are doing with suppliers. However, if the Minister is satisfied that that is covered in other parts of the legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Powers of OFCOM to assess compliance with security duties
Christian Matheson
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 6, page 10, line 12, at end insert—
“(3) In this section “another person” means a UK government agency or a person from a UK government agency.
(4) OFCOM may not incur costs exceeding £50,000 in carrying out, or arranging or another person to carry out, an assessment under this section.”.
This amendment restricts those who Ofcom may arrange to carry out an assessment under this section to a UK government agency or person from such an agency. It also caps the cost of an individual security assessment at £50,000 for Ofcom.
The desire of the Committee is to crack on, so I will not detain us for too long. The clause, which covers more than three pages of the Bill, is extensive in outlining the powers of Ofcom to assess compliance with security duties and will amend sections of the Communications Act 2003 to that end. The Opposition’s probing amendment intends to bring clarity in two areas in particular.
The clause will insert proposed new section 105N into the Communications Act to give authority to Ofcom or “another person” to undertake an assessment of whether a network or service provider is carrying out its duties—an inspection, spot check or audit, whatever you will, Mr McCabe. That is all fine, but the appointment of “another person” is far too vague and needs clarity. Since this is a matter of national security, we believe such an authority can be vested only in an agency or arm of the UK Government. It would be wholly inappropriate to outsource it to a telecoms, IT or other consultancy in part because of the need for full co-operation from the business being audited, which must have absolute confidence to be open and transparent and, therefore, must have confidence in the inspector. Ofcom therefore cannot appoint any Tom, Dick or Harry to do the job but only someone who rides above the industry and will not give the inspected business any reason to think that its commercial confidentiality is at stake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, with her extensive experience of the telecoms sector, has told me that it is a tight-knit industry in which everyone has worked for everyone else at some point. We got that impression from the oral evidence as a lot of the experts had worked with or knew one another. Perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that everyone has worked for everyone else, but it is illustrative of the nature of the sector, so there will be limits on who could be appointed. Does the Minister agree that the current suggestion of “another person” is too wide?
Chi Onwurah
The impression that I have given my hon. Friend about the telecoms sector being tight-knit is absolutely right. One concern that that brings is that there will therefore be conflicts of interest. Ofcom, as a public servant with the status of a quango, has rules and regulations for declaring interests that mean previous conflicts of interest will not weigh into its work. The concern that I have articulated to my hon. Friend in the past is that that would not apply to “other persons”, so broadly defined.
Christian Matheson
I am really grateful for that intervention—not just for the context that my hon. Friend gave, but for prompting me to think that having such a tight-knit sector, and the character of the sector, works both ways. Ofcom might appoint as an inspector to undertake one of the audits somebody who is on very good terms with the business or the provider. They will perhaps take their foot off the pedal and not do quite as thorough an investigation, because they know the business and trust them. As a result, the inspection would not be as thorough.
Mr Jones
My concern is also that the Government do not have a good track record on applying the standards that have been developed over many years to ensure proprieties in public appointments. No doubt somebody who would fit the bill for the role would be Dido Harding, who was responsible for TalkTalk and is now having huge success, as we have been told by the Prime Minister, with Test and Trace. She seems to have a common thread, but success does not seem to be part of that.
Christian Matheson
Who am I to disagree with my right hon. Friend and his years of experience? So far, we have been fairly consensual in this Committee, because we want the Bill to pass. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have seen a certain level of—
Christian Matheson
I was going to say cronyism, but chumocracy is a far nicer way to put it, and we have seen it in the way consultancy contracts have been dished out during the current crisis. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there can be as little scope as possible for people who are perhaps not quite as qualified as they should be to be given such jobs.
Chi Onwurah
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham raised the Test and Trace programme. I do not want to dwell on that, as it is not within the scope of the Bill, but it is important to understand the extent to which the programme has been used as a vehicle to privatise parts of the NHS by building up private sector skills as opposed to public sector skills. There must be some concern that the huge new powers for and requirements on Ofcom might effectively be used to privatise some of its duties.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend says that it is not in the scope of the Bill, but so wide is the definition of “another person” that, quite frankly, anything or anyone could be in the scope of the Bill. Again, the possibility is there, and it would not be down to the Minister. I know him—he is a friend and a man of integrity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said, however, the next Minister to come along, in this Government, at least, might not be. Who knows? In four years’ time, we might not have that problem.
This is an important aspect of national security, so I ask the Minister for clarity. It goes to the heart of the question of accountability—where responsibilities for inspections should lie. Similarly, in the second part of the amendment, we are seeking clarity on a limit on the amount that can be spent on inspection. We certainly do not want Ofcom to be swayed into decisions about whether inspections can go ahead based solely on fears that it might wrack up big costs. Nor can those costs be allowed to spiral if the first part of the amendment is not adopted and private contractors are brought in but abuse the system. I refer the Committee to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham a while ago—such abuse does happen.
It is often not helpful to put a financial cost limit on the face of the Bill, if only because it can become outdated over time. To be honest with you, Mr McCabe, the truth is that the £50,000 limit specified in the amendment is arbitrary. We plucked it out of thin air to illustrate a point.
Christian Matheson
Fortunately, we will not push the amendment to a vote, so we will not have to put that point to the test. It is an arbitrary figure and I hope the Minister will not fixate on it. It simply illustrates the point that there is a question of open-ended costs. We will not push the amendment to a vote, but we think there is a vagueness and a lack of clarity that needs addressing. I urge the Minister to consider these issues and whether Ofcom would be assisted by the greater clarity that these probing amendments would bring.
Chi Onwurah
Again, I rise mainly to support the excellent contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester in moving this amendment. I will raise a couple of points from my experience in this area.
As I said to my hon. Friend, having worked in telecoms for 20 years, when I joined Ofcom in 2004, I had worked with, or worked with someone who had worked with, just about every operator and network provider in the business. Those personal relationships can be helpful in ensuring quick, effective collaboration, but they can also bring about conflicts of interest. Ofcom, as a public body, has processes and procedures to address those conflicts of interest. However, the Bill makes no provision for that to be applied to whoever is “another person”.
It is also the case that, unfortunately, as a regulator, one can be subject to regulatory capture by those who are regulated. The large operators often have tens or, in some cases, hundreds of lawyers and public affairs spokespeople. However, the smaller operators, unfortunately, cannot afford to dedicate so much time and resource to engaging with the regulator. It is critical that this huge increase in new powers and work for Ofcom is carried out in the right way.
As my hon. Friend said, the £50,000 figure has not been calculated on the basis of the likely costs to Ofcom, because the impact assessment does not indicate what they could be. However, it is merely the cost of five consultants at £1,000 a day for 10 days. We know that hundreds of consultants have been hired as part of the Test and Trace programme at those sorts of prices. That likely cost is within scope of any programme that is to be carried out by bringing in large private sector organisations. I hope the Minister will reassure us that he is taking these considerations into account.
Finally—I think we will discuss this point in more detail—this is a huge additional requirement on Ofcom. In the evidence session, Ofcom said that it thought it would need to hire 50 or 60 people to address the requirements of the Bill. There is always going to be an inclination to reduce internal resources, especially if they are in short supply, such as those to do with network engineering resources and the current skill set. So it is really important that the Bill should have a better definition than it currently does of who may carry out the work.
Matt Warman
I enjoyed the semantic gymnastics by the hon. Member for City of Chester as he tried to expand the scope of the Bill, but I shall try to stick to what is in it. There is a lot of consensus across parties, so I shall resist the temptation of saying that £50,000 is a demonstration that Labour is willing to put a price on national security, which this party will never do, but I understand the points that he makes on both fronts.
The clause provides Ofcom with strengthened powers, including powers to give assessment notices to a provider, that are vital to enable it to fulfil its expanded and more active role. Assessment notices are an important new power in the regime that will give Ofcom tools to assess fully a provider’s security and the extent to which it complies with its security duties. It is Ofcom’s intention that when assessing a provider’s compliance, its first port of call would be to use its information-gathering powers under section 135 of the Communications Act 2003. Ofcom would then use its power to give an assessment notice if it wanted to check the veracity of the information or to follow up a security concern. While Ofcom will therefore use its powers in a targeted and proportionate way, it is also the case that a provider with good security practices would expect to be subject to a lighter-touch assessment. Providers’ duty to bear the costs of assessments will therefore have an incentivising effect.
The amendment would insert a new subsection into new section 105N, limiting the costs that Ofcom could incur in carrying out an assessment. Fundamentally, a hard cap of any sort will always be an arbitrary number which will potentially put an additional hurdle in place. It might be necessary for some of those tests to require genuinely extensive assessment—penetration testing, or red teaming, as exercises are sometimes called, where penetration tests mimic the action that an attacker might take to access the network. Those attacking actions may of course be from sophisticated sources, and the costs of mimicking them in an entirely legitimate way could be substantial; but it is right, in the interest of national security, that Ofcom does not reduce the quality of its testing. We would not seek to limit that either, notwithstanding its independence.
I can offer the Committee some reassurance, however, that Ofcom’s assessment costs will not be excessive. It has a general duty to act proportionately and to follow other principles representing regulatory best practice. Finally, a provider’s duty is to pay only such costs as are reasonably incurred by Ofcom in an assessment, so there is a balance there.
As to the proposed new subsection that would limit those able to carry out assessments to Ofcom or a UK Government agency, the assessments, as the hon. Member for City of Chester knows, may be complex and need specialist skills. Methods such as penetration testing might need specific technical skills and we should not limit Ofcom in that way. However, we should also bear in mind, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central mentioned, that the independence and expertise of Ofcom is the greatest bulwark against such entirely unfounded but legitimate concerns as those raised by the hon. Member for City of Chester, about who might be appointed by this or any Government to carry out a task in the national interest. None of us would want—and I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman is doing this—to get into the business of questioning Ofcom’s independence in performing the tasks in question.
Chi Onwurah
I am somewhat concerned at the implication of what the Minister says. We cannot put a price on national security, and Ofcom has a role. In an evidence session, Ofcom’s representatives said that although its role excludes any question of its making security decisions, it would ensure compliance, yet now the Minister seems to be saying that Ofcom will not have the skills to ensure compliance. I agree that there are specialised skills. Penetration testing, for example, is a specialised skill, but I would argue that it is a skill that Ofcom should take on as part of this new remit. I say again to the Minister that the skills needed to ensure compliance should be within Ofcom’s remit, or should be better defined.
Matt Warman
Ofcom itself is best placed to exercise discretion as to whether it should carry out those assessments in-house, or whether it should have the flexible capacity to have the capability brought in as necessary. Ultimately, I do not think that anyone would wish to prevent Ofcom from having the ability to do what it thinks necessary by forcing it to use in-house staff only, because we cannot predict the future, as Members on both sides of the Committee have highlighted. Although the cause that the hon. Member for City of Chester is pursuing is a noble one, its unintended consequence would be to constrain Ofcom in both the expertise that it has at its fingertips and the costs that it might incur. We would not want to limit Ofcom’s discretion to make those decisions as an independent organisation.
Chi Onwurah
Actually, the amendment would not limit Ofcom’s discretion to bring in additional resources or skills. It would limit Ofcom’s discretion to Government agencies or organisations within the public sector, which, on matters of national security, we should be able to do.
Matt Warman
If the hon. Lady were right, the only people from whom we would have heard evidence over the last few days would have been public sector employees. She knows just as well as I do that the cyber-security sector is a vast mesh of public and private expertise, which is inevitable given that we have private networks offering communications services. Although I understand her point, and I am all for Ofcom having as much expertise as it needs to do its job properly in-house, I simply do not think that we should constrain what it can access in the way that the amendment would.
On this, I think we probably agree on far more than we would perhaps like to admit, but the reason that this is a probing amendment, as the hon. Member for City of Chester said, is because imposing artificial constraints would not be beneficial to Ofcom’s work. We understand what he said, however, and in broad terms, the Government agree.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful for the debate and for the Minister’s response, but I do not intend to press the amendment any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 6, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
“(aa) provide a report on the diversity of their network’s supply chains;”
This amendment gives Ofcom the power to request a report from a network provider on the diversity of their supply chains for the purpose of assessing whether they are complying with the security duties placed on them by earlier sections of the Act.
It is a great pleasure to speak to this amendment, which goes to the absolute heart of one of our key concerns about the Bill—the lack of any reference to the diversification of our supply chain. That is absolutely critical and should be integral to our national security. Our amendment 13 affects clause 6, which we have already discussed. The objective of the amendment is to give Ofcom the power to
“request a report from a network provider on the diversity of their supply chains for the purpose of assessing whether they are complying with the security duties placed on them by earlier sections of the Act.”
As we have heard, clause 6 amends the Communications Act 2003 to insert section 105N, which gives Ofcom powers to assess compliance with the security duties set out in earlier sections, and section 105O, which gives Ofcom the power to impose on providers the duty to do any of a significant list of things, from (a) to (k)—to
“carry out specified tests or tests of a specified description…make arrangements of a specified description…direct an authorised person to documents on the premises…”
or
“assist an authorised person to view information”.
As I have said, this is an integral part of the Bill and requires some considerable debate, so it may detain the Committee for some time, but this debate can be continued at a later time if necessary. There is a long list of requirements that Ofcom might place on network providers, but nowhere is there a requirement for those providers to give a report on the diversity of their supply chains, yet the diversity of a network provider’s supply chains is absolutely integral to the security and resilience of that network provider.
We heard that very clearly during our evidence sessions. In particular, I asked Dr Drew:
“Is it possible for the UK to have secure networks without a diverse supply chain for them?”
Her answer was:
“That is a great question that comes with a very simple answer: no. The worst-case scenario for creating a risk in this sense is when monopoly meets supply chain—in secure supply chain in this case. Arguably, the reason why SolarWinds was so successful is that it provided the same service to so many different organisations and departments in the United States. Therefore, if you access one—SolarWinds—you access almost all. That is the risk.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 87, Q110.]
The reason I have highlighted that particular quote—there were a number of quotations supporting the diversification of supply chains—is that it sets out really well what might happen if a network provider has only one possible supplier. If every aspect of its network is supplied by, let us say, Ericsson, and Ericsson then has supply issues itself or is bought or acquired by another operator from a different country that we might not be so close to, or—I do not mean to imply that this is a possibility—should fail in some way, that network provider no longer has any support for their network and no longer has the ability to maintain it securely.
The dependence of our telecoms security on diversifying the supply chain was set out in the 2019 telecoms supply chain report; yet the Bill fails to mention it at all. The objective of the clause is really for Ofcom to assess how successful a network provider is in meeting our nation’s security requirements. My argument is that it is not possible to do that without understanding the diversity of that network provider’s supply chain; yet the clause as it stands makes no reference to that.
Matt Warman
I will go very briefly over the diversification strategy, which is essentially a £250-million initial tranche of investment to diversify the UK network, with a focus, to a certain extent, on open RAN, as the hon. Lady said. On the information that she would require, I agree with her so comprehensively that the provision is already in the Bill. Section 135 of the Communications Act 2003, as amended by clause 12—she is right that the provision is not in this clause—provides Ofcom with the power to gather information on diversification where Ofcom considers the information necessary for the purpose of carrying out its functions. Clause 12 specifically provides that such information can include information concerning future developments of a public electronic communications network or public electronic communications service that could impact on security. As I said, I agree with her so comprehensively that we had already foreseen the issue and the provision is already in clause 12. The addition of it to this clause would not change that fact. I hope that that provides—
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for those comments. He says that the provision is already in clause 12. This is obviously down to my lack of studying, and I thought that I had studied every line of the Bill, but where specifically does clause 12 refer to diversification of supply chains?
Matt Warman
The approach that we have adopted across the Bill is that powers such as those in clause 12 are more than wide enough to cover exactly what is needed. What I am essentially saying, I suppose, is that the legal interpretation of clause 12 absolutely does what the hon. Lady seeks, because it is an absolutely essential part of one of the purposes of the Bill. That is why I hope she can take the necessary comfort to withdraw her amendment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for that, but I am still puzzled as to where clause 12 says that Ofcom will collect data with regard to diversification of the networks. Ofcom is given the power to collect data with regard to the duties under the Bill, but there is not a duty under the Bill to diversify networks. I am trying to speed-read clauses and subsections; perhaps the Minister can direct me to a part of the clause that specifically requires information concerning. Clause 12 mentions
“information concerning future developments of a public electronic communications network or public electronic communications service that could have an impact on the security of the network or service.”
I agree that that could be liable to an interpretation that included diversification of the network, but given that the Bill does not anywhere mention diversification of the supply chain as being part of the security of the network, I am afraid I do not feel reassured.
Matt Warman
I am very happy to write to the hon. Lady to clarify why it is our belief that the Bill does that. What I would say is that the kind of specificity that she seeks would have the unintended consequence of narrowing what we do, rather than retaining the broad powers that we have in the Bill. As has been the case so often today, we do not disagree on the intent that she is seeking to obtain, and that is why the Bill is drafted as it is. As I say, I am very happy to write to her to try to clarify some of that.
Chi Onwurah
We all agree that the Minister is someone whom we like and who has the best intentions. On that basis, and on the basis that we can table further amendments at this stage or on Report if his letter of reassurance should not be sufficiently reassuring, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maria Caulfield.)
Written Statements
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020
(3 years, 3 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 European Union (Future Relationship) Act received Royal Assent on 31 December 2020 and the trade and co-operation agreement is now enshrined in UK law, a historic moment in our nation’s journey following the 2016 referendum.
The Government sought, in line with the Sewel convention, legislative consent from the devolved legislatures of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the future relationship Bill. The Scottish Parliament voted to withhold consent for the Bill. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Parliament did not hold a vote on a legislative consent motion for the Bill. The Northern Ireland Assembly voted for a motion, with a Social Democratic Labour party amendment, that called for the Assembly to decline legislative consent. The Welsh Parliament voted in favour of a motion to “note” the Bill, regretting that it was not in a position to determine legislative consent.
The Government respect the devolution settlements and the Sewel convention, and are committed to working with the devolved Administrations on the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement.
The convention holds that the UK Government will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the devolved legislatures, but the circumstances were not normal. The UK and EU needed to exchange notification of completion of procedures and complete other legal necessities, such as the UK's passing of legislation, early on 31 December to enable provisional application. If the Bill had not received Royal Assent in time, we would have been unable to exchange our notification by the morning of 31 December, the agreement could not have been provisionally applied, and the transition period would therefore have ended without a future UK-EU agreement in force.
We recognise that the expedited timescale was challenging, although the Bill was debated and voted on in Parliament by elected Members from across the UK. Taking the Bill to Royal Assent without the consent of the devolved legislatures was a significant decision. It is not one that was taken lightly. The circumstances of EU exit and the imperative of implementing the 2016 referendum constituted circumstances that were not normal.
While negotiations with the EU are a reserved matter, the UK Government are committed to continue working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that our future relationship with the EU works in the interests of citizens and businesses across the whole of the UK—something we demonstrated when engaging with the devolved Administrations in good faith throughout the negotiations.
[HCWS730]
Decriminalisation of TV Licence Evasion: Consultation Response
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Today, the Government published their response to the consultation on decriminalising TV licence evasion.
The consultation invited views on whether the Government should proceed with the decriminalisation of TV licence evasion by replacing the criminal sanction with an alternative civil enforcement scheme. It set out four criteria against which the issue of decriminalisation would be considered:
whether an alternative enforcement scheme is fairer and more proportionate;
the cost and difficulty to implement any alternative scheme;
the potential impact on licence fee payers, particularly the most vulnerable and those with protected characteristics; and
the overall impact on licence fee collection.
The consultation closed on 1 April 2020 after receiving 154,737 responses from individuals, campaign organisations and other stakeholders. A summary of the responses is included in today’s publication.
After carefully considering the responses received, the Government remain concerned that a criminal sanction for TV licence evasion is increasingly disproportionate and unfair in a modern public service broadcasting system. The consultation responses showed that a significant number of people oppose the criminal sanction with some highlighting the considerable stress and anxiety it can cause for individuals, including for the most vulnerable in society, such as older people.
However, the Government recognise that changing the sanction for TV licence evasion would have wide-ranging impacts for licence fee payers, including the potential for significantly higher fines and costs for individuals who evade the licence fee requirement under a civil regime. The consultation also highlighted significant impacts in terms of both the cost and implementation—particularly as the current system is very efficiently handled in the magistrates court—and challenges posed to the ongoing collection of the licence fee. The Government remain determined that any future change to the TV licence sanction or enforcement scheme should not be seen as an invitation to evade the TV licence requirement, nor should it privilege the rule-breaking minority over the rule-abiding majority.
The Government’s consultation response, which we publish today, therefore sets out that the issue of decriminalisation will remain under active consideration while more work is undertaken to understand the impact of alternative enforcement schemes.
In particular, a future decision on decriminalising TV licence evasion would benefit from consideration in the context of wider reform to the BBC. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has a roadmap for reform of the BBC and this provides critical context for any future decision on decriminalisation.
The Government will therefore take forward these considerations in the broader context of the next licence fee settlement, which will set the level of the licence fee for a period of at least five years from 2022, and where negotiations have recently formally begun.
A copy of the consultation response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-01-21/HCWS732/.
[HCWS732]
Mental Health In-patient Deaths in Essex: Independent Inquiry
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) published his report “Missed opportunities: What lessons can be learned from failings at the North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust” on 11 June 2019 which found that there were a series of significant failings in the care and treatment of two vulnerable young men who died shortly after being admitted to North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. I have previously announced my commitment to an inquiry into these tragic events.
Today, I am announcing the establishment of a non-statutory, independent inquiry into the circumstances of mental health in-patient deaths at the former North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, the former South Essex Partnership University Trust and the Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which took over responsibility for mental health services in Essex from 2017. This will cover the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2020.
In announcing this inquiry, I am mindful of the current, extraordinary demands on the NHS as it responds to the worst pandemic in living memory. The Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust was one of the first to declare a major incident and the inquiry will schedule its work in a way that is sensitive to these pressures.
I have also listened carefully to the arguments proposing a more formal, statutory inquiry into these events. I share the desire for a robust and independent process that will get to the truth and deliver the necessary learning. I remain convinced that a non-statutory, independent inquiry is the best way to do this and identify the necessary improvements in the timeliest way.
I have asked the distinguished psychiatrist Dr Geraldine Strathdee CBE to chair the inquiry and am delighted that she has agreed to take on this important role. Dr Strathdee worked for many years as a consultant psychiatrist in the NHS. She brings a wealth of experience in mental health policy, regulation and clinical management and is a co-founder of the Zero Suicides Alliance. Dr Strathdee is a person of the utmost integrity and I will expect her to conduct this inquiry without fear or favour. In order to ensure her independence, she will step down from her current role as a national professional adviser at the Care Quality Commission when her term ends in March of this year.
The chair will be supported by expert advisers, including a legal adviser.
The inquiry will consider issues including:
the key factors that led to the deaths of individual patients, whether issues of omission or commission;
aspects of culture and governance that inhibited the trust(s)’ ability to learn and take action following any breaches of safety;
the quality of any previous investigations by the trust(s), the conclusions and recommendations of those investigations and the subsequent actions;
the response of the wider system to these events and the actions taken by the trust(s) in response to investigations or reviews conducted by any other body; and
the further lessons for the Essex Partnership University Foundation NHS Trust and what actions are necessary for the new trust chief executive and its board to ensure that current and future patients receive sustainable safe care; and
further lessons arising for the mental health services, the NHS and the wider system.
The inquiry will not reopen the investigation of fixed potential ligature points that has given rise to the prosecution of Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust by the Health and Safety Executive but may consider the evidence in this area.
The inquiry will be able to interview witnesses to determine if there were failures in care, safety, governance or professional standards and will examine all relevant records to get to the truth. We owe the families nothing less.
My Department will co-operate fully with the inquiry’s investigation, including provision of any documents it might hold that are relevant to these issues and are requested by the inquiry.
Similarly, all NHS employees will be expected to give the inquiry their full co-operation.
I am moving forward with this important inquiry in order to shine a clear light on what happened at the trusts so that lessons can be learnt by the current trust and the NHS more widely. These lessons must be applied to the trust and the NHS to ensure that the provision of mental health services is improved and, critically, that lives are saved. This will require the investigation of some, possibly all, mental health in-patient deaths that occurred across the county between 2000 and 2020. Our focus must be on how we learn the lessons to improve services and prevent in-patient deaths in the future. The chair will want to consider what level of scrutiny of individual deaths is necessary to do this. However, there may be limits on the scrutiny that is possible of the earlier deaths that occurred during this period.
The chair will recommend a final terms of reference following consultation with the families and others affected by these events which I will communicate to Parliament in due course.
The inquiry will be formally established from April 2021 and will aim to report in the spring of 2023.
[HCWS729]
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority: Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The 2019-20 annual report and accounts for the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) is being laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be available in the Vote Office. I am pleased to note that the GLAA continued to make progress with its important work in 2019-20 with a 26% increase in GLAA-led investigations and nearly 1,000 gangmasters licensed.
[HCWS731]
HS2 East Leg Spot Safeguarding
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I am today publishing additional safeguarding directions for the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway for the west midlands to Leeds (known as the phase 2b eastern leg) section of the HS2 route to reflect the latest design of the HS2 railway. Please note that the final design of the HS2 phase 2b eastern leg and its integration with Northern Powerhouse Rail will be determined by the Government’s integrated rail plan, that I aim to publish early this year.
The latest safeguarding update includes a site east of Leeds. The site required by the HS2 rail project would support the potential integration between HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The developer of the site has been made aware of the safeguarding directions prior to their publication as has the local planning authority, Leeds City Council. By protecting the site now, the Government guard against potentially conflicting development, which could otherwise disrupt the construction of HS2, as well as the risk of increased costs of building the new railway. This protects the public’s interest in spending taxpayer money in a proportionate fashion.
The Government periodically review land requirements needed for the project and update the extent of safeguarding accordingly. It is anticipated that the land requirements for phase 2b of HS2 for the Crewe to Manchester (known as the phase 2b western leg) section of the route will be updated prior to the deposit of the relevant hybrid Bill.
A copy of the safeguarding directions will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses for record, and are publicly accessible online.
[HCWS727]
Dartford-Thurrock Crossing: Annual Accounts 2019-20
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) has made the following ministerial statement:
Under regulation 3 (1) (d) of the Trunk Road Charging Schemes (Bridges and Tunnels) (Keeping of Accounts) (England) Regulations 2003, annual accounts for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing charging scheme are published today. The accounts relate to financial year 2019-20 and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS728]
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Levy 2020-21
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Levy) Regulations 2014 require active employers’ liability insurers to pay an annual levy, based on their relative market share, for the purpose of meeting the costs of the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme (DMPS). This is in line with the insurance industry’s commitment to fund a scheme of last resort for sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma who have been unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer.
Today I can announce that the total amount of the levy to be charged for 2020-21, the seventh year of the DMPS, is £28.9 million. The amount will be payable by active insurers by the end of March 2021.
Individual active insurers will be notified in writing of their share of the levy, together with how the amount was calculated and the payment arrangements. Insurers should be aware that it is a legal requirement to pay the levy within the set timescales.
I am pleased that the DMPS has seen six successful years of operation, assisting many hundreds of sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma. The sixth annual report for the scheme, along with the annual statistics were published on 26 November 2020 and is available on the gov.uk website. I hope that members of both Houses will welcome this announcement and give the DMPS their continued support.
[HCWS726]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. A small number of Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask all Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. The time limit for the following debate is one hour, and before calling the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, with this number of speakers, and the difficulty of intervening remotely in Grand Committee, I kindly remind noble Lords to please stick to the speaking limit, which will enable the Minister to respond fully to the issues raised by noble Lords.
Rural Landlords and Land Letting: Reform
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their discussions with the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, what plans they have to reform (1) legislation, and (2) taxation, related to rural landlords and the letting of land.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a director of Wrackleford Farms, a tenanted farming business. I thank all noble Lords taking part in this important debate today, and greatly look forward to their contributions. I also thank my noble friend the Minister, who so recently took the then Agriculture Bill through this House. I was most encouraged by his supportive comments on the vital importance of agricultural tenants.
The tenanted sector of agriculture brings together those with assets—landowners—and those with entrepreneurial flair—tenants—to create sustainable and profitable businesses while providing landowners with a return through the payment of rent. The landlord and tenant system also provides liquidity to the most fixed factor of production in agriculture: land. Farm businesses looking to expand or contract can use the flexibility of the landlord and tenant system to meet those objectives. Also, agricultural tenancies remain the only viable route for many aspiring farmers to enter the sector.
It is disappointing that this important sector is adversely affected by short-term thinking. The introduction of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 represented a major deregulation of the legislative framework within which agricultural tenancies operate. A key change was to lengths of term. Prior to 1995, new tenancies could be let only for the lifetime of the tenant, whereas under the new legislation there was no minimum term. A major problem before 1995 was that landlords were reluctant to let farms, knowing that they would be let for a generation. As a result, the size of the tenanted sector was in decline. However, this legislation has allowed the pendulum to swing too far in the opposite direction and now the average length of term on new tenancies is, remarkably, under four years. This means that farm tenants cannot plan for the long term, either in relation to their agricultural activities or in their desire to take part in diversification and new agri-environment schemes such as the proposed ELM schemes.
The Tenant Farmers Association has long asserted that the best way to address this is through amendments to the taxation environment within which landlords make decisions about land use. To do this, it has proposed the following sensible changes to taxation: first, restricting the generous 100% relief from inheritance tax, currently available to all landlords regardless of the length of time they are prepared to let land, only to those prepared to let land for 10 years or more; secondly, restricting those landowners that use share farming, contract farming, share partnerships and grazing licences as thin facades of trading activity to gain tax advantage when in practice they take no risk, have no entrepreneurial input and lack any management control; thirdly, offering landlords who are prepared to let for 10 years or more the ability to declare their income as if it was trading income for taxation purposes; and finally, reforming stamp duty land tax to end the discrimination against longer tenancies. This is an area where there appears to be a consensus between those organisations representing landlords and those representing tenants. It seems odd that government policy is to encourage longer farm business tenancies on the one hand and then to penalise those long-term tenancies through the way that they are taxed through SDLT. I seek an assurance from the Government that this issue is reviewed. On taxation, while I appreciate that the Minister does not speak for Her Majesty’s Treasury, it would be instructive to hear whether his department supports these measures and whether he will discuss these matters with his Treasury colleagues.
I thank the Government for bringing into effect certain agricultural tenancy reforms through Schedule 3 to the Agriculture Act 2020. These changes followed a Defra consultation which covered a very much wider agenda of issues than were introduced. That consultation was a distillation of yet wider changes proposed by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, TRIG, which provided very detailed reports covering AHA tenancies, 1995 tenancies, taxation, county council smallholdings and issues around new entrants and retirement.
In its briefing for this debate, the Country Land and Business Association states that
“tenancy reform must be developed through consensus within TRIG.”
I consider this to be too narrow, but it does give this Government the green light to bring forward a Bill encompassing the full array of changes which TRIG proposed in its reports to Defra in 2017. However, the Government must not find themselves completely unable to make progress on wider areas of tenancy reform when a consensus cannot be found within TRIG due to the competing interests represented within it. This group should of course be a place to which the Government go for expert advice, but it should not decide policy. It is for the Government to decide how best to promote resilience and sustainability within the tenanted sector. During the debates on the various stages of the then Agriculture Bill in your Lordships’ House, we heard from many noble Lords from all quarters that we needed a specific piece of legislation for agricultural tenancies. When might we see a government Bill which picks up the issues identified by TRIG and the department’s own consultation?
One of the welcome changes in the Agriculture Act was the expansion of the franchise of organisations that can be used for the appointment of arbitrators for dispute resolution beyond RICS. Now we have the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers and the Agricultural Law Association. This is good news, as RICS had too much of a monopoly in this area, and its own governance issues. However, we must go much further on reforms to arbitration.
Here, I have to admit to first-hand experience of what an archaic process arbitration can be. My family has recently had to go through a difficult, lengthy and expensive arbitration process for the review of our farm rent. It is not a process that I would welcome having to repeat, although, sadly, it is the principal mechanism for resolving disputes that cannot otherwise be settled by agreement. Arbitration was intended to be a relatively straightforward and inexpensive process for resolving disputes. I can attest to the fact that it is anything but. As a family, we were disappointed with the way in which our case was handled in a number of ways.
Being able to learn lessons from this process is massively hampered by the fact that arbitration awards are required to be kept confidential between the parties. I contend that they should be publicly available and open to scrutiny, so that arbitrators can be held to account for the way in which they resolve cases. At the moment, there is little precedent or case law in this area. In addition, parties are left with an incredibly short period of time within which to appeal. A period of only 28 days is insufficient, particularly where the appeal has to be mounted in the majority of cases by a tenant farmer who can be daunted by the prospect of having to take matters to court. Overturning bad arbitration decisions is difficult and expensive and I believe that the whole process of dispute resolution needs to be fundamentally reviewed.
The CLA calls for a balance in landlord-tenant relationships and I wholeheartedly endorse this. However, it is patently obvious to any informed observer of the landlord-tenant system in agriculture that it favours the landlord. Short lengths of agreement, restrictive tenancy terms and high rents provide maximum benefit and flexibility to landlords and place additional burdens on existing and prospective tenants. The system needs to be levelled up. With more individuals looking for opportunities to take on tenancies in comparison to those offering land, it is clear that there is a market failure, which the Government need to step in to correct, both by considering sensible changes to legislation and the beneficial taxation environment within which landlords operate. It is obvious that the financial incentives are driving perverse behaviours that are in direct conflict with the good intentions of current legislation.
Agricultural tenancies are crucial to our farming industry, our farmed environment and our farming future. Reforms are vital. A specific agricultural tenancy Bill is essential and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that call.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for giving us this opportunity to debate this important issue. I began my working life on the fells of Cumbria and have maintained an interest in upland management ever since. The Government’s Agriculture Act 2020 potentially offers great opportunities for the upland, with public payment for public good—blending environmental, forestry and farming approaches —but there are challenges. In recent days, an issue has come to the fore in Cumbria that illustrates this.
For over a century, the Newton Rigg agricultural college has provided research, advice and education throughout the area, particularly in upland management as well as mixed dairy. Furthermore, it was the National School of Forestry for England—a highly respected college. About 10 years ago, Askham Bryan, a college in Yorkshire, acquired Newton Rigg for the token amount of, I believe, £1. Now, facing severe financial difficulties itself, it has put the assets of Newton Rigg up for sale. The tenants, Newton Rigg, obviously will lose their asset, which is their land. This is simply a piece of asset-stripping of the worst kind and it will remove a time-honoured source of advice to upland farmers in particular, when it is most needed. The move has caused great difficulties across Cumbria. Will the Minister heed our voices and, perhaps, help?
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I own two tenanted farms in north Northumberland, in the Redesdale valley, both of which are governed under the 1986 Act. The farms are family-run businesses that have passed down through the generations and hopefully will do so in the future.
Upland hill farming at present does not make much money; incomes are low and therefore farm rents are not high. When the necessary and growing legal responsibilities of landlords are included, such as the recent electricity safety regulations, there is the real possibility that landlords can make a loss year on year. In my case, I calculated that if I rented out the farmhouses as holiday cottages, I would make far more than I do at present renting out the entire farm, although I should stress that I have no intention of doing this.
I raise this issue because upland farm incomes are moving from being based on traditional intensive stock rearing to environmental improvement schemes. While this is an important transition, understanding how these schemes will affect farm income in the long run will be vital, as many of the schemes, such as tree planting, will be funded in the short term, but there needs to be consideration and clarity on how this will be sustainable in the longer term when the schemes end. The Government’s target for tree planting, for capturing carbon, will require vast areas of woodland to be planted. I have planted thousands of trees, which is great for biodiversity, but it is taking land out of grazing and therefore income from the farms in the longer term.
Predicting future income sources when the entire funding of farming is changing is difficult and will cause many disputes between landlords and tenants. Any certainty that the Government can give in a post- CAP world, especially on the longer-term income from environmental stewardship schemes, will be vital for the take-up and sustainability of those schemes.
A final point is that, before any further reforms are brought forward in legislation, the implications of the operation of the Agriculture Act 2020 need to be given time to be evaluated. I should also say that the TRIG has done excellent work in the past.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. Interestingly, they include having been both a landlord and a tenant, so I see both sides of this argument. I endorse a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has just said, particularly about finding more ground to plant trees. We have to approach these changes carefully. Noble Lords may recall the 1986 Act, which was intended to help young farmers. It was one of the best examples ever of the law of unintended consequences, in that no new farm tenancies were issued, as far as I know. However, I believe passionately that we need to make it easier for young people to get into farming. Unless you are very rich or you come from a landowning family, there is no chance whatsoever.
Looking at the whole question from the landowner’s point of view, again I think that we have to tread carefully, because people can be encumbered with families who do not farm well. If we extend things too far, you cannot get land back that you might want to use for your own family.
I would like to make one final point, which may not be raised by the other speakers. I feel, especially as we are now going to move to a new subsidy system, that we need to look carefully at how this is regulated and what clarity is given to it. For example, I have seen agreements where the landlord takes a subsidy and the tenant should pay slightly less, but it does not always work out that way. There have been problems on both sides—I am not blaming one or the other—but it would be useful to have clarity on this. That would help to remove issues that can cause conflict.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and to hear his interesting points. I also thank my noble friend Lady Rock for introducing this debate and setting out the important case for acting to help tenanted farms.
I want to express some concern about 1986 Act tenancies—that is, those granted before 1 September 1995 and hence still governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. About one-third of agricultural land is let. I am not sure what percentage is actually subject to the 1986 Act, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister, who is so adept in these areas, will be able to give that figure and also, perhaps, the number of farms in the country that we are talking about. But if he does not have that to hand—and I appreciate that these are relatively detailed points—perhaps he could write afterwards.
There often exists a problem with regard to succession rights for tenants under the 1986 Act. How can older tenants, with no immediate successor to whom they can transfer a tenancy, be encouraged to retire? I know that the Government considered extending succession rights to nieces, nephews and grandchildren but did not take up that proposal. Could my noble friend relook at that with the Government, because it seems a perfectly sensible proposal? I raise that point as there are limited options available to hand over to a new tenant when there are no immediate obvious successors.
I welcome much of what was done in the Agriculture Act 2020. However, as my noble friend Lady Rock pointed out, there are now problems with rather short leases. What are we doing to encourage landlords to let for longer periods? That is the only other issue that I wish to raise.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests, as set out in the register. This debate enables the airing of some important considerations in relation to tenancies and taxation. However, with the huge number of uncertainties facing farming now that the Agriculture Act has been passed, the timing is not right for further legislation. The Government have succeeded in abolishing the old agricultural system but have not announced in any depth what is the replacement.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We have to stop for five minutes while a Division takes place in the House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
That was not the Bell—it was the noble Lord’s phone.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I apologise to noble Lords—can the noble Lord resume, please?
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
I was saying that the Government have not announced in any detail what happens next, so farmers are unable to plan. This could involve both tenancy and tax matters. For example, let us suppose that they want to enter a tree-planting scheme under the ELMS, and their tenancy excludes silviculture, or the ELM scheme that they enter has a 25-year life, whereas their tenancy is a 10-year FBT, and so on. Details of ELMS may be unavailable until 2024. Those are the real issues that must be resolved by the TRIG.
The introduction of ELMS may have adverse tax consequences, as current tax rules operate as a disincentive to diversification in how they treat investment and trading activities differently. Leaving aside that information gap, I congratulate the Government on the reform measures in the Act, which were agreed by the whole industry, rather than spending time on divisive old chestnuts such as reform of AHA succession provisions. These restrictive tenancies, designed for issues of a different age, do not satisfy either landowners or succeeding tenants, who want the flexibility of an FBT where consensual terms are agreed. Other mooted changes such as introducing reasonableness tests and minimum tenure FBTs are unlikely to secure widespread industry support. I urge all reform to be on a consensual basis.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Please could the noble Lord draw his comments to a close, as there is a Division in the House?
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Rock gave a powerful speech in introducing this debate. I particularly support her comments on rogue landlords who are abusing the system and I hope that my noble friend the Minister and the Treasury will take note of that.
There are two different types of tenants. The Agricultural Holdings Act tenants, who farm about 1.3 million hectares, face the problem that most do not have any woodland in their tenancy—it was excluded when the tenancy was drawn up. What help will the Government give them with becoming more environmentally friendly, and with planting trees and understanding the possible difficulties?
The other group, the so-called farm business tenancies—they are not really tenancies, as my noble friend pointed out, because they are only about four years long—have a different problem. The dichotomy here is between the high rent demanded by landlords and the environmental obligations that the Government want all users of land to undertake. Landlords inevitably want the highest rent, but you cannot do that on a short tenancy. Furthermore, the farm business tenancies are having to plough up grassland and turn land over to maize for biodigestion in order to meet those high rents. Those landlords are irresponsible; they are not caring for the future of the land and are diminishing their assets. This will also thwart what the Government hope to achieve by the Agriculture Act that we have just passed. My noble friend must attack tenancies in two different ways, but what support—and what hope—can he give to make farm business tenancies more environmentally friendly?
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has really hit the nail on the head, as one of the major problems we will face with ELMS is introducing it on farms that are tenanted. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her excellent, comprehensive and succinct opening speech.
I thank the Tenant Farmers Association for its excellent briefing, which points out that short-term tenancies are holding back progression, investment and sustainable land use—which are exactly what will be needed in abundance if the environmental land management scheme is going to result in what we all want, particularly in the upland areas that the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, referred to. Whether people there are tenants or owners, they have to get an income from the farm. If a lot of that income comes in future from government grants and environmental schemes, the relationship between landlords, tenants and the grants will be crucial. Will the pilots and the national pilot devote sufficient attention to relatively small tenanted farms—or perhaps large farms with large amounts of grazing—in upland areas and how they will cope with doing everything that the Government want them to do?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, has sponsored this debate and introduced it so eloquently, but regret that we have only two minutes to speak.
I have farmed as a tenant farmer all my professional life under a variety of arrangements, from Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies to FBTs to a range of share-farming arrangements. At one point, I had four different landowners and six different arrangements. The time is right to review tenancy arrangements and the relationship between landlord and tenant. I have the added benefit of being able to view the world from both sides of the fence, having been a board member of the Crown Estate and, for the past 10 years, a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates. We need much more flexible arrangements between landlords and tenants, so reviewing legislation to try to achieve that would be really helpful.
The relationship between landlord and tenant needs to be much more of a partnership, whatever the legal arrangement. If we are to deliver improvements in soil health, restore habitats, improve biodiversity, reduce diffuse pollution and so on, short-term FBTs with often disengaged landlords will not achieve this. Landlords and tenants will need to agree plans, particularly in tier 3 of ELMS. This will challenge traditional arrangements.
Landlords should also take the opportunity to look at restructuring, as some tenants will inevitably retire as a result of the change in policy. If possible, they should provide rural housing for retiring farm tenants. I also make a plea to landowners that farms that may become available through retirement be let to young, new tenants if possible, rather than taking the easy, default option of merging with existing farms. The reduction in the number of farm holdings is a real concern. Landlords should be willing to take the risk with a number of their farms within their land holding to encourage new blood. The Minister may be aware that I have had conversations with his officials on this matter and I hope that the changes will result in new entrants to our sector.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord and I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. I pay tribute to all farmers, who have worked tirelessly through this pandemic to put food on our plates in extreme weathers, in England and Wales especially, and I pay regard to the fact that tenant farmers account for 30% of those who farm in England and Wales and nearer 48% in North Yorkshire.
My main concern reflects that of other noble Lords: tenants who occupy the land under farm business tenancies. They account for up to half the tenanted sector of agriculture in England and Wales, and the tenancies are characterised by short-term lets and restrictive clauses. There is unfinished business from the Agriculture Act 2020 and I seek an assurance from the Minister today that these tenants, particularly FBT holders, will not be excluded from new government schemes replacing the CAP or indeed from any private arrangements for the better environmental management of the land. Will my noble friend therefore confirm that the beneficiaries of the new schemes will be the economic operators, those taking the entrepreneurial decisions and the tenant who actively farms, not the landlord, as that would be singularly inappropriate if they are not actively managing and farming the land?
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer, landlord and past tenant farmer.
In haste—if we want our agricultural productivity to compete with other nations’, we need fresh blood and, for agricultural tenancies to proliferate, to bring that fresh blood in we need to have a system that encourages both sides to get involved. Tenants need the incentive to invest in their soil and infrastructure. In my view, no tenancy should be for less than seven years and, if possible, it should be renewed for a further seven years unless there are good reasons not to, which could include, for instance, the landlord having a family who want to farm, or even wanting to sell the holding. However, a second term should be the norm.
Extending succession provisions of older tenancies to wider members of the family would not help. Interfering in existing contracts sends all the wrong messages to landlords and it would not open up our farms to all our best students, who do not happen to have a sitting tenant as a relative. Succession tenants are not necessarily the most able and, for our agriculture to catch up with others’, we must ensure that all of our very best can have their chance.
Equally, to encourage more lettings, HMRC needs to recognise the concept of the rural business unit, whereby you can have different enterprises operating on a holding but treated as one business for the purposes of tax. One of those permitted enterprises should be long-term agricultural tenancies. If that were to happen, long-term tenancies would flourish. Incidentally, agricultural tenancies themselves should be able to include a variety of enterprises, especially and including ELMS.
I stress again that, for agricultural tenancies to proliferate, the motivations of both landlords and tenants must be accommodated.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my landowning and farming interests and my other declarations in the register and join the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, as a fellow Cumbrian and chairman of the Cumbria LEP, in respect of his comments about Newton Rigg College.
The recent debates on the Agriculture Act 2020 in your Lordships’ House showed the interest in and the disagreements about the future of agriculture, otherwise known as rural England. Changes are afoot across the land. For the past two or three generations, buttressed by town and country planning legislation, the countryside has been almost exclusively a focus for farming and forestry. We need to be clear that upland and lowland farming and animal and arable farming are different. Indeed, in some ways, forestry is a form of arable farming. Living we do as in a country where the landlord and tenant system is prevalent in all kinds of different forms across all urban and rural Britain, how then should arrangements work, especially at a time of change?
Too much current discussion is focused on today and the existing legislation when a new look is required right across the piece. I believe that ad hoc tinkering is likely to lead to muddle and injustice. What is the role of contract and what is the role of legislation, be it hard or soft law? Everyone knows that change always costs money, but agriculture’s economics have been battered and the national finances are under the cosh. We have to be clear that working capital must be retained in the sector because, if it is not, constructive change will be paralysed. This is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, the long-standing ideas of the CLA about the rural business unit have found their time. It is completely self-evident that bringing about change needs a complementary tax regime that does not haemorrhage working capital from the sector.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, tenant farmers have more effect on lives than may be appreciated. My experience came from when I was a parliamentary candidate in Cornwall and had a home there for a number of years afterwards. The farmland was occupied by a tenant farmer whose three daughters almost matched my three daughters—the benefits to all six were remarkable. The Cornish girls took my girls down to the brooks, the milking shed and the wonderful spots and showed them a bit of what farm work was like. The three Cornish girls had new “virtual” lessons. As adults, the eldest married and went to South Africa, where she runs a successful hotel business, and the second went to Australia, where she holds a major office in the Queensland police, but the third one was the really big surprise. Everyone was worried because she had poor eyesight and thought that that would hold her back terribly, but she achieved a remarkable thing for a Cornish girl: she ran the patisserie in Harrods. I met her again there many times.
The farmer with a short lease needs to be supported, because why would you put in a huge effort for someone then to grab the land away from you? That would be very wrong. I am pleased to support the idea put forward by the agricultural people.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for calling this key debate. I note my interests and the fact that I speak with modest experience as the co-chair of a local agricultural tenancies working group.
Given that tenants farm one-third of the agricultural land in England and Wales, tenancy reform will undoubtedly have a large impact, but that impact pales in comparison to that of the Agriculture Act and the introduction of ELMS. I therefore urge caution against a rush to further immediate reform and suggest that we need time to understand ELMS and farmers’ new role as environmental land managers before enacting further change. In an ideal world, TRIG would continue its excellent, consensus-driven work during the agricultural transition period before recommending a comprehensive reform that will complement ELMS and improve farming.
FBTs were introduced to increase new entrants and improve productivity, as we heard, yet the average age of farmers remains over 60 and productivity has flatlined. The fact that the average farm business tenancy lasts for only about three years is a complete failure. Such short-termism may be profitable, but it is a disaster for our soil. From personal experience, I know that it can take years and considerable cost to build organic matter in soil, so why would a tenant farmer do that with only a three-year tenure? Equally, how does a landlord implement a long-term stewardship vision for land without a long-term relationship with those who farm it? Can the Minister therefore explain how ELMS payments might work within the current agricultural tenancies structure, what payments will be the landlord’s and what will be the tenant’s, and whether that will vary with length of tenure? Finally, with the Environment Bill looming, can the Minister please explain how conservation covenants will work within the existing agricultural tenancies structure?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Whips for organising my participation after an administrative snafu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for calling this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. We share many concerns, although on this occasion my perspective is different.
I begin with the observation from Defra’s consultation feedback analysis report that tenancies reform is not adequate to tackle the many ills of our current system. It is treating the symptoms of a disease, not the disease itself, which is our acute concentration of land ownership. A lightning recap: half of the land is owned by 1% of the people; much land ownership is not recorded or publicly available; and the vast majority of people cannot get access to land to grow food. A handful of NGOs, including the Kindling Trust and the Biodynamic Land Trust, go to great lengths to get land for a small percentage of the huge numbers of people who would like to start businesses on it.
Your Lordships’ House is often accused of being medieval, as it sometimes can be, but the very nature of our proceedings demonstrates how fast a change is possible. We need an even larger-scale reform of land ownership and access to land to get us out of the medieval relic that is our 21st-century reality.
I have one specific question for the Minister and one suggestion. In the past, the Government have sought to use policy to achieve consolidation of land ownership. The clear view has been that the increasing size of farms is inevitable and even desirable. That has been hugely destructive to the environment, productivity and public health, with the focus being on grain and oil production rather than vegetables and fruit. It has also led to the hollowing out and ageing of rural communities. Have the Government abandoned this ideological position? Are they looking to increase the number of growers and farmers in the UK, and to reduce the average size of growing and farm businesses? My suggestion is for the Minister to read, or get one of his officials to read, a quite short book: Miraculous Abundance: One Quarter Acre, Two French Farmers, and Enough Food to Feed the World.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, these Benches support many of the proposals and share the concerns articulated this afternoon, particularly the idea that we now need some reforms as a matter of urgency. TRIG has done some great work in pointing the way to the most urgent of those. The fact is that the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 has not achieved what it set out to do to improve the land; nor has it brought in a new generation of farmers.
It is clear that landlords and tenants should be free to exercise a degree of reasonable flexibility where change can lead to more efficient and effective farming of the holding. It is essential for farmers to be able, within reason, to extend their activities to become more viable.
Many noble Lords have expressed concerns about the lack of information on how the new agriculture regime will play out in the relationship between tenants and landowners. Those concerns were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Greaves, and others. It is also clear that we need a more open, less confrontational and faster system of dispute resolution, ideally based on real understanding and collaboration between landlords and their tenants.
I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about close relatives. We should give some consideration to extending this. It might be more likely that farmers will retire if they think someone close to them will take over the holding. We run the risk of missing chances to bring new people in.
We support the extension of the tenancies and hope that the Minister will respond positively to many of the suggestions that have come forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for tabling the debate and to all noble Lords who have spoken—far too many to mention individually. The overarching message has been the need to complete the unfinished business of agriculture tenancy reform. I pay tribute to the Tenant Farmers Association in particular for continuing to press this case.
As the Minister said during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, we all want a thriving tenanted sector and an environment in which all types of tenure run strong businesses. But to achieve this we need to address the critical issues that remain to be resolved. In particular, we need to ensure parity between tenants under the 1986 and the 1995 legislation to be able to object to a landlord’s refusal to enter a financial assistance scheme, along with new rights to invest in and improve the productivity of a holding.
I hope the Minister will agree that it is vital that all types of farming operation can participate in ELMS and make their contribution to environmentally sustainable agriculture. Could he also update the Committee on the Government’s plans to bring newer, younger entrants into the sector—those with the energy to drive forward the changes needed in this new era? A number of noble Lords raised that point.
Can the Minister update the Committee on progress since the Agriculture Bill received Royal Assent? Can he confirm that the regulations needed to implement the changes already agreed have now been laid? Are interim non-legislative measures being contemplated? When do the Government hope to bring forward a more substantial piece of primary legislation to address the outstanding issues?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by declaring my farming interests as set out in the register. With agricultural tenancy matters being devolved, I speak from an English perspective. I express my gratitude, along with other noble Lords, to my noble friend Lady Rock for raising this matter for debate as we start the transition towards a new domestic agriculture policy—a transition that we believe will help our farmers to stay competitive and produce high-quality food, for which they are renowned, while protecting and enhancing the environment, on which a sustainable and productive future depends.
To put the importance of the debate in context, as has been said, a third of all farmland in England is tenanted, with 13% of farms wholly tenanted and 33% with a mixed tenure, both owning and renting land. This variety in land tenure and the ability to rent land flexibly is important, because it enables tenants and owners to expand, responding to market changes by renting out additional parcels of land. It also provides a route into farming for new entrants, bringing new skills and ideas into the sector.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood that I am fully seized of the points made about Newton Rigg. I am in dialogue with the Department for Education and I understand that feelings are running high in Cumbria.
The Government believe that a vibrant and flourishing tenant farming sector is vital. The legislative framework for agricultural tenancies must enable the development of successful farm businesses for tenants and an appropriate rental return for owners. This is how we will maintain confidence in the let sector and ensure ongoing opportunities for tenants and new entrants to land.
As many will recall, we discussed during the passage of the Agriculture Bill the importance of new entrants and the role that renting land through the county farm system has played in facilitating that. In the agricultural transition plan, the Government have set out plans for a new funding scheme to create lasting opportunities for new entrants to access land, infrastructure and support to establish successful and innovative businesses, working with county farm estates and other landowners. We have started work to develop this new entrants scheme through a co-design process, with the aim to provide further details by September and introduce the scheme in 2022.
My noble friend Lady Rock highlighted the role of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. Defra has regular meetings with TRIG to discuss tenancy policy and legislation. I express my personal thanks to all TRIG members for their work over many years in providing expert insights and advice, but it is the responsibility of government to decide policy.
I hope everyone would agree that developing consensus is the best way forward. A number of points have been made on this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Curry, raised partnership. No contractual arrangement flourishes if one or both parties are unhappy. That is why having the confidence to let more land is key to the route to getting more entrants into the let farming sector. If confidence is undermined, what is to prevent owners withdrawing let land and reducing the opportunities we all dearly want for existing and future tenants to come into the sector?
The tenancy reforms the Government delivered through the Agriculture Act 2020 had widespread support from TRIG and other respondents to our 2019 public consultation. These reforms have helped to modernise and update the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. They give tenants greater flexibility on when to apply for succession on retirement, modernise the suitability test for incoming tenants, and provide a balanced dispute process for tenants who would be unreasonably prevented from varying outdated, restrictive terms that might be a barrier to entering into future schemes.
The focus of these tenancy reforms is specifically on the older, 1986 legislation, not on the more modern farm business tenancies. This is because agreements under the 1986 Act were negotiated more than 30 to 40 years ago in a very different commercial and policy environment. My understanding is that, with 19,400 AHA holdings and 17,600 FBT holdings, we are seeing a reduction in AHA holdings and an increase in FBT holdings. Of course, we want modern commercial agreements, which the FBTs can provide, negotiated more recently with freedom of contract. They are reviewed more regularly, giving tenants the opportunity to renegotiate terms if that is deemed necessary. That is why the responses to our public consultation, in terms of reform of dispute provisions, for example, were very much concentrated on AHA holdings tenancies.
The Government are working with TRIG to develop the supporting regulations to implement the 1986 Act dispute reforms and to modernise the suitability test criteria for tenants who apply for succession. This will make sure that a fair dispute process is put in place that considers the interests of the tenant and the landlord and that incoming succession tenants show that they have the farming and business skills needed to build viable businesses in future. Following two recent constructive meetings with TRIG, we are making good progress with developing these regulations and, subject to parliamentary time, we intend to implement them later this year. When this focused work on the new tenancy regulations is completed, we will continue our engagement with TRIG to explore whether there is industry consensus on the need for further legislative reform and to consider whether non-legislative options might be effective.
I turn to taxation. One of the first things that I was told when I went on the Front Bench was, “Be very cautious if engaging in taxation matters and always say, ‘This is a matter for the Chancellor’”. I would say to noble Lords that, in my briefing for this debate, I was very pleased to be joined by, as well as my officials, Treasury officials. I will be passing back to the Treasury and assessing the points that have been made in this debate on taxation and I am grateful to all noble Lords for raising those matters. I recognise that the fiscal framework plays an essential role in owners’ decisions whether to let land and on the length of tenancy terms offered. However, I think that other factors are important, too, such as the size, quality and location of the land and personal motivations for owning it.
I am aware of the work that TRIG has done to investigate tax issues, suggesting that tax changes might help to incentivise the letting of agricultural land and encourage longer-term tenancies—for example, through limited income tax relief on farmland rents. The Government are committed to a fair and sustainable tax system and keep all taxes under review as a matter of course—that is the Treasury bit. The impact and potential unintended consequences of tax reform need careful analysis, as I hope everyone would agree.
For example, the proposal from the Tenant Farmers Association to limit the availability of agricultural property relief to owners who let land for 10 years or longer could result in owners instead using other ways—for instance, contract farming or taking the land back in hand—to retain the benefits of that relief. I am mindful of wanting to have the right climate for owners—I think particularly of smaller parcels of land. Unfortunately, there is a historical feeling that this is always about the big estates and small tenant farmers. I think that the opportunities for more land coming on to let will be from medium and smaller-size farmers who no longer want to farm and want to have someone, possibly a neighbour or a new entrant, coming into the industry. Relationships are again essential.
I understand the point made by many noble Lords about longer-term tenancies. It is recognised that they provide security for many tenants to invest and grow their businesses. It is also important to understand that shorter-term tenancies can sometimes be more suitable for businesses—I have heard that from certain quarters, including my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who is engaged in a number of these matters. Short-term lets may be more appropriate for some new entrants looking to rent land on a short-term basis to gain experience without committing to long-term potential risks. Short-term lets can also be more suitable for some seasonal horticultural businesses. The flexibility over the length of tenancy and maintaining owners’ confidence in the let sector can only encourage more agricultural land into the let sector. However, I understand the points that have been made about longer tenancies and their dynamic.
Turning to ELM, raised by many noble Lords—my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Redesdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, among others—what we are doing here is co-designing. It is essential that we work across the piece with tenant farmers and those working on common land. As part of our co-design process with industry, we are considering questions about the need for landlord consent to tenants entering schemes and the length of scheme agreements to ensure that our future schemes are broadly accessible, as well as providing the stability needed to support the delivery of public goods, such as environmental improvements. Indeed, one of the tests and trials includes six areas where landowners and tenants are working together. An example is an estate in County Durham and North Yorkshire covering an area of more than 7,000 acres. This is about a collaborative system of planning and delivering environmental management on land that encompasses a variety of farming systems and a tapestry of habitats. We want to ensure that the collaboration between tenants and owners can be supported and incentivised.
Many noble Lords asked about further legislation. I would not be straightforward with your Lordships if I did not say that the pressure on primary legislation at the moment across Whitehall is intense. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to make a promise to my noble friend Lady Rock on the timing of any further legislative proposals. We want to get through what we have said we will do with the Agriculture Act 2020 and see how that works. We want to work with TRIG and all interested parties to see how we can have a dynamic tenanted relationship and system. It would be wrong of me to say that I can promise primary legislation in the foreseeable future. I say that candidly because I simply do not have command of the legislative programme. We want to find ways to resolve the points that have been raised today so that there is a genuinely benign and dynamic relationship between owners and what I hope will be an increasing number of new entrants. That is why the work that we are doing with the county farms is so important.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of trees. Obviously, we want to ensure, whether on owned or tenanted land, that it is the person engaged in the outcome of this, whether the tenant or the landlord, and the person who will be undertaking the work who should have the reward. Where tenants are undertaking that, of course they should be rewarded.
I am starting to get messages of concern from our gallant Whip about the time that I am taking. I assure all noble Lords that these matters are current and live. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important matter, as reflected by the considerable number of your Lordships who have participated in the debate, and I will follow it up with a letter in the usual manner to cover some of these important points in further detail.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
As this debate has now concluded, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind Members to ensure that they have sanitised their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
British Armed Forces: Global Britain
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role the British Armed Forces are playing in support of the “Global Britain” agenda.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Army Reserve. On 19 November, the Prime Minister said:
“Everything we do in this country—every job, every business, even how we shop and what we eat—depends on a basic minimum of global security.”
Our people are sustained by
“a web of feed pipes, of oxygen pipes, that must be kept open: shipping lanes, a functioning internet, safe air corridors, reliable undersea cables, and tranquillity in distant straits.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 488.]
This, in a nutshell, sums up defence’s contribution to global Britain. But global Britain is also about reinvesting in our relationships, championing the rules-based international order and demonstrating that the UK is open, outward-looking and confident on the world stage. As we await the publication of the integrated review, a subject to which I will return in a moment, I want to start by highlighting just some of the contributions our Armed Forces have made in recent times.
Our Armed Forces are a force for good in the world, providing international security, coming to the aid of the most vulnerable, providing direct humanitarian assistance, delivering aid and peacekeeping. The UK has a proud track record of being on the front line of every major international humanitarian disaster of the last decade. But with a spate of emergencies in the Caribbean in recent years, our ability to respond has been helped by the fact that the Royal Navy maintains a forward presence in central America to ensure that we can always be on hand whenever disaster strikes, particularly in the hurricane season.
In November 2020, more than 80 personnel assisted Belize with disaster relief in the wake of Storm Eta by providing planning and medical advice, moving vulnerable people to safety, distributing food and water and building flood defences. The year before, RFA Mounts Bay delivered essential aid to the Bahamas, which had been devastated by Hurricane Dorian, and in 2017 more than 2,000 Armed Forces personnel provided humanitarian and disaster relief to the Caribbean islands left devasted by Hurricane Irma. They distributed 135 tonnes of aid, provided 10 million gallons of safe water and supplied 500,000 water purification tablets, as well as sharing skills and lending equipment to repair infrastructure.
But it is not just in the Caribbean that UK military forces have been providing support. In west Africa, since June 2020 we have transported vital supplies to communities struggling against Covid-19, through RAF transport flights. In particular, we delivered the components for a field hospital to Ghana to treat victims of Covid-19.
Our reputation in the region as a partner of choice has grown following our provision of long-term support on the ground during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, where we built new medical facilities and provided additional medical support. In the Mediterranean last summer, the UK deployed HMS “Enterprise” to Beirut to deliver supplies and provide vital survey data that allowed the port to return to normal operations after the explosion. We also provided supplies to house and feed up to 500 soldiers from the Lebanese Armed Forces who were working on the relief operation. Even further afield, in the last few years we have delivered support such as shelter kits, solar lanterns and water purifiers to Indonesia and Vanuatu in the South Pacific, following natural disasters, and deployed teams from the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers to help support their fellow nationals in Nepal in the aftermath of devastating earthquakes.
In 2021, as we become a truly global nation, I seek the Minister’s assurance that with such a strong track record of humanitarian support, we will continue to prioritise our defence assets to support the safety of communities around the world. Of course, the principal role of the military is to deliver security, and I am pleased that recent years have witnessed an increase in the UK contribution to international peacekeeping. I have been part of NATO missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, so the subject is close to my heart.
I have been fortunate to visit two recent success stories. First was the deployment of personnel to support UN, African Union and EU peacekeeping missions to counter al-Shabaab in Somalia. Indeed, in March last year, the first 400 Somali National Army soldiers graduated from a new UK-supported training facility in Baidoa. The second was equally impressive: our contribution to the UN mission in South Sudan, where we have deployed a regiment of Royal Engineers and, for a period, a field hospital. UK service personnel also undertook a wide range of educational support to civilians, including English language and computer training, as well as practical skills such as carpentry and mechanics.
Bringing us completely up to date, the recent deployment of 300 UK military personnel to the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali, where they will help to promote peace and counter instability, is in addition to the three RAF Chinooks and their teams that have been supporting the French counterinsurgency operations in the region since 2018. As we look forward to an ever increasingly global Britain with trade at its heart, it is worth recognising that, since the 1980s, we have maintained a long-standing maritime presence in the Gulf and Indian Ocean, now known as Operation Kipion, to ensure the safe flow of trade and oil, while also promoting peace and stability in the region. While not wishing to be fixed in any particular mission, can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that the overall recent increase in support to UN missions will persist?
In addition to humanitarian relief and security, the other key element of defence’s potential contribution to delivering a global Britain will undoubtedly be our ability to assist our allies with training. Training support comes in two forms. Examples of international training are the UK’s ongoing contribution to peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where we are providing training on human security, including gender advisory work to promote stabilisation, and in Iraq, where over 6,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have now been trained by UK soldiers. Training is also delivered here in the UK through a variety of courses for all ranks, from junior commanders to the world-famous Royal College of Defence Studies, aimed at nations’ future leaders. I highlight the MoD’s internationally renowned defence human security advisor course, which covers topics including women, peace and security and has trained 20 international personnel a year since November 2018. One often-overlooked fact, however, is that the extensive network of defence attachés and regional-based training teams means that the MoD has a larger international footprint that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
I have always been deeply impressed by the MoD’s defence engagement strategy and am delighted that this is now firmly a mainstream career option for our service personnel. It is also a key component of the UK’s soft power along with, for example, the BBC World Service. Can the Minister tell us what plans there are to have a genuinely comprehensive cross-government approach to prioritising and delivering soft power influence?
Looking to the future, we await the publication next month of the integrated review, which should deliver, in the language of the grand strategic approach, the ends, ways and means of the Government’s future ambitions. However, it is worth noting that the MoD has already quietly published some of the detail of the ways, or how, it intends to operate, in the Integrated Operating Concept 2025—the IOpC—last September. This sets out a new approach to how we will use our armed forces in an era of persistent competition and the rapidly changing nature of warfare. Representing the most significant evolution of UK military thought in several generations, it will lead to a fundamental transformation not only of the UK military, but how we use it.
It articulates a clear distinction between operating and warfighting, and reasons that while ultimately we need a contingent capability for our military to defend the nation and fight a war, our military should also be out and about in the world, operating—namely doing useful things, helping to build alliances and responding to crisis—rather than simply training as a contingent force. This is good news, as it implies that the MoD will be encouraged to do even more of the sorts of tasks with partner nations that I have highlighted in support of global Britain. Can the Minister confirm that this will be the case?
The IOpC also makes clear that we must be prepared to be enduring in our commitment and forward deploy our Armed Forces. There is no better example of this than the recent forward deployment of HMS “Montrose” to Bahrain. I hope that in the coming years, further Royal Naval assets, including offshore patrol vessels, frigates and future commando elements, will also be persistently forward deployed. I was fortunate, as Minister for the Armed Forces, to travel to 58 partnering nations. The one consistent message that I received was that, while the training and support that we offered were viewed as some of the best in the world, we would be there one minute and gone the next, which is why this move to persistent engagement will be the key for defence’s contribution to global Britain.
I end by highlighting that, in May, a carrier strike group led by HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will undertake our most ambitious deployment for two decades, encompassing the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and east Asia. If the security of our nation is where defence meets prosperity meets global influence, then this deployment, and those global deployments that will follow, will be flagship events for defence’s contribution to global Britain.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for securing this debate. There is of course a UK and NATO defence base on Gibraltar, with important facilities and which is strategically placed at the entrance to the Mediterranean, which I visited as a Minister in 2001. I therefore welcome the joint announcement on 31 December 2020 by the UK and Spain that they had reached agreement on a “political framework” to form the basis of a separate treaty between the UK and the EU regarding Gibraltar, under what Spain’s Europe Minister called “co-responsibility”.
The agreement eliminates any physical checks at the land border with Spain, bringing Gibraltar within the Schengen zone, the customs union and the single market. This seems a common-sense outcome that will secure UK defence and other interests, lift the shadow of historic Spanish restrictions over the rock and offer citizens of Gibraltar and Andalucia the basis for a positive stable relationship, based upon future co-operation rather than historic confrontation.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for introducing this debate, but I fear that much of the British public sees global Britain as involving the British Council rather than the British Army, and certainly not the intractable problem of Mali, currently the most dangerous of all United Nations peacekeeping missions. The humanitarian achievements of our armed services are legion and demonstrate in a very practical way their capacity for dealing with the unexpected, but if the Army is to be deployed on missions such as Mali, the criteria for doing so must be spelled out clearly in public, and must include the possibility of mission creep.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, all Members of this House recognise that the Armed Forces already convey an excellent image for the United Kingdom whenever and wherever they deploy, and that in so doing, they help the Government to meet their aspiration to be a global force for good. To paraphrase the Prime Minister, our Armed Forces are one pillar of the Government’s ambition to safeguard Britain’s interests and values by strengthening our global influence. This entails having a United Kingdom presence that can be seen and felt physically on a worldwide basis, capable of exerting soft or, if necessary, hard power, at any time, and wherever it might be needed on any continent or ocean.
A maritime strategy that involves forward deployment is fundamental to this, and such a strategy is in place today, embodied by the carrier strike group deployment later this year. It will be enhanced by the emphasis given to the importance of a strong Navy by the Prime Minister in his speech on defence in November, a sentiment that I commend to your Lordships.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, our International Relations and Defence Committee report on the UK and Afghanistan, published this month, demonstrates the important role that our Armed Forces play in supporting global Britain. We welcome the significant part that the UK has played in NATO’s resolute support mission. In particular, our establishment of the Afghan National Army Officer Academy in Qargha, colloquially known as “Sandhurst in the sand”, has trained and improved the leadership capability of a generation of Afghan national defence and security forces, which face the challenges of the Taliban insurgency. Several alumni occupy senior positions in the Afghan Government, which has helped to build closer ties between the UK and Afghanistan. The initial UK training agreement was for 10 years. Does my noble friend agree that this programme is valuable for the global Britain agenda and should continue to be funded?
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth [V]
My Lords, if the Armed Forces are to continue to promote global Britain, we must look after them and fulfil our obligations under the Armed Forces covenant. Research by the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland points to the difficulties that veterans are encountering in getting benefits assessors to understand post-traumatic stress disorder when scoring health assessments for disability benefits. One stated that:
“I supplied a consultant psychiatrist’s letter stating all my mental health conditions. I scored zero. This is laughable”.
I agree. A government spokesman has said that the report would be given careful consideration, but consideration must be given both carefully and urgently if we are to continue to promote global Britain.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have a disgracefully short time in which to debate a vital topic. I agree with virtually everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said in his introduction. My fear is that the promotion of global Britain gives us back the idea that we are somehow a global great power. We have to recognise that we are not. We should not go back to the decision to withdraw east of Suez that we took in 1968. We have plenty of interests in Europe and its neighbourhood, where we have to play a vital role, given the Balkan tinderbox, the dangers of Russian revanchism, tensions in the Mediterranean and the north African problems to which other noble Lords have referred. We must avoid overreach. I support a stronger defence budget, but we must not imagine that we are what we were.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. I put down peacekeeping and training as the main thrust, or a very large part, of what any modern force should be doing. As the noble Lord has covered that, I limit myself to a couple of questions.
If the Army, Navy and Air Force are all going to be taking part in this, what will be the spending commitments and procurement process that place it on an even keel, with major battle-fighting capacity, compared with other nations of our status or bigger? Do these things feature in the planning? Defence spending has a habit of getting sucked into big projects, with egos involved. Are we going to take some steps against that? Are we going to include the police in any form of training going forward, as well as the Armed Forces?
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, some might thing that the UK, in claiming for itself the title “global Britain”, was being more than a little pretentious. The challenge is to substantiate the claim, and the route to that substantiation is the gaining of influence in the world, a reasonable ambition in the post-Brexit era. The real influence comes through a combination of the UK’s hard and soft power, a true integration of the skills of our diplomats, the strength and versatility of our Armed Forces and the correct focusing of our international development budget.
While I applaud the recent and significant increase in our defence budget, a welcome addition to our hard power, I am utterly dismayed—along with former Prime Minister Theresa May, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and others—by the decrease from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP in our international development budget. In the overall context of the Chancellor’s fiscal challenge, this £4 billion saving is tiny, but the damage that it does to the global Britain aspiration and our international reputation is huge. Would the Minister like to comment on whether this truly awful decision will either be reversed shortly or maintained solely for one year?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, we must strive to be the foremost player in European defence by bolstering NATO and playing a constructive and key role in European security. Further afield, with China having proved willing to announce the new Hong Kong security law and the detention of Uighur Muslims, we see passions run strong. The careful meshing of foreign policy, trade and defence interests against a backlash in public opinion over relations with China will provide an early and stern test for the British Government’s definition of global Britain. A strong defence policy will have a key role to play in the recalibration of Britain’s influence in the world, best delivered through an integrated and synthesised approach to security, defence, development and foreign policy, with a growing role in peacekeeping and humanitarian work. The welcome defence spending increase over the next four years will provide a real opportunity for global Britain to deliver and influence outcomes. In such uncertain times, that should be welcomed.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I must admit to fearing that our Armed Forces are currently too small to satisfy the Government’s aspirations for us to be global Britain after Brexit or the CDS’s vision of a more forward-deployed military. The Army certainly has no surplus after those required to help with the pandemic have been removed—plus its contributions to NATO’s enhanced forward presence and UN peacekeeping operations in Cyprus and Mali. The realisation of the Government’s aspirations is therefore very much resource related.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, global Britain will only progress in alliance with our key allies, be it the US, France and so on. Of course, I welcome the increased funding and the four-year settlement, but hard choices remain. We have to ask ourselves whether we, as a middle-sized country, can do everything across the spectrum with excellence, as the Defence Secretary claims. Can we be everywhere, in all the theatres, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, implies? I reflect that the increase in funding and presence worldwide took place at a time when we were a member of the European Union. Nevertheless, we took important and sovereign decisions. Was EU membership in any way a constraint on our defence posture in terms of procurement or deployment?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nick Carter, has repeatedly called for a multiyear defence settlement to enable the military to invest in constructing a modern defence capability. I echo that plea. If the military is to be able to deliver the integrated operating concept, a pivotal strategy for global Britain, with its emphasis on continuing cyberwar against authoritarian states, it needs long-term investment in technology.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, spoke of the horrors continuing in Mali. Some 220 UN peacekeepers have been killed there since 2013, eight of them in the last four weeks. Our UK mission there is under-resourced; it needs helicopters —absolutely essential for providing crucial casualty evacuation—and it does not have them. Would the Minister examine that situation?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has withdrawn, so the next speaker is the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, our Armed Forces are a shining example of how to teach, learn and use foreign language skills. The Defence Centre for Languages and Culture teaches 40 different languages. Will the Minister confirm that its funding is secure? Local interpreters are vital, but lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan led to a step change in our own language training, essential also for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and humanitarian aid. Language skills are required for promotion, conform to NATO proficiency standards, and attract a financial reward. Will the Minister ensure that this best practice is more vigorously disseminated to promote more widespread cultural change under the banner of global Britain, including throughout the Civil Service? Our Armed Forces show that multilingualism is not just useful but valued—a really important part of what global Britain should look like.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I am not terribly keen on the term “global Britain”, but some Members have already pointed out the necessity to join up our activities. Embassies need to ensure that they have economic as well as diplomatic and military representation, because it is entirely the bringing together and integration of these services that enables us to promote our interests and those of the wider security of the world. Our Armed Forces have been underfunded for many years, particularly our Navy. We also have to pay attention to Africa, which will be the great powerhouse of the future, with a growing population. We should be able to capitalise on our historical connections there, and I strongly urge the Minister to do so.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I will always remember the support of our Armed Forces for the people of Kosovo 20 years ago. Our soldiers did a lot of humanitarian work at that time; in fact, they acted as aid workers alongside the UN. The reverse is sometimes true as well—that aid workers have to defend themselves, and staff are casualties, often unreported. Those soldiers were carrying out a mission under the UN principle of R2P, responsibility to protect, and my question to the Minister is: does that principle still hold good in defence circles, because we seem to hear less about it? The Conflict, Stability and Security Fund combines the skills of DfID and the MoD. As we have heard, we have sent 300 Light Dragoons and others out to Mali, adding to 100 already taking part in the French-led Operation Barkhane. I know the region, and I can only wish our soldiers and aid workers well. As has been said, this is a dangerous area where men of violence occupy places where government fears to tread.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for introducing this short defence debate, so necessary in these perilous times. We have left the European Union but not Europe, and with the major new extra funding for our Armed Forces, together with transformation and innovation, we are by far the strongest member of NATO in Europe. President Biden will undoubtedly need help to inspire the democratic allies of the United States, of which we should be far the closest. Statecraft and networking has always been one of our special strengths; we are recognised as one of the best in the world at it. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will play key roles in helping and influencing the President accordingly, while developing our own urgently needed long-term foreign policy. Con Coughlin’s excellent article in yesterday’s Telegraph is a key geo-assessment of how dangerous the world has become, suggesting that Beijing, Moscow and Tehran represent by far the most dangerous totalitarian states. I totally agree.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK has one of the strongest and most powerful combinations of hard and soft power in the world. Our Armed Forces are respected around the world as the best of the best; in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, mentioned soft power in his opening speech. I am an honorary group captain in 601 Squadron of the Royal Air Force, and the announcement of the new Space Command is a major development given the increasing threat in space and the need to prioritise this capability and ramp it up at speed. Does the Minister agree that our Armed Forces should continue to build closer links, with joint exercises and exchanges of personnel, with other countries such as India? Our Armed Forces are truly a crucial and prominent part of global Britain.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is hugely welcome that the Government define global Britain as a commitment to uphold the international rules-based system. That is not a given, as it might have seemed only a decade ago. There are daunting and growing challenges on that front. The Armed Forces’ capability is vital, so all eyes are on the integrated review, particularly the ability to project a naval and cyber deterrent into the Indo-Asia-Pacific region in the decades ahead. What is important is not simply the Armed Forces’ capability, however; this is about the will to act. Recent episodes such as Syria have shown that, if that is not there from the United Kingdom, we can allow nations with far inferior capability to become dominant. Global Britain must be about being a committed, enduring global leader, right from the very top.
Lord Mountevans (CB) [V]
The increasing challenges that Britain and our friends face in the world are very real. While commercial shipping demand grows inexorably, climate change is opening up new trade routes. The challenges multiply. The need to influence, to project our values and, where necessary, to compete—all those factors are focused on the world’s oceans. We should look to support our friends and partners where appropriate and able. Britain’s forthcoming new investments in maritime defence assets is not unique. It is to be seen also in other navies such as Australia, Canada, Japan, India, France and the USA. I draw attention to the calibre of our people. Their dedication, professionalism and can-do spirit are truly remarkable. At a time of profound national challenge and change, they have a special power to inspire us all, at home and around the world—soft power.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, we all await the delayed integrated review. I too welcome the extra £24 billion for defence and our Armed Forces, but think it somewhat perverse to allocate the extra funds before working out the detailed strategy that they are meant to underpin. Should not Her Majesty’s Government work out the strategy first and then commit the necessary funds to achieve it? We need a coherent and comprehensive defence strategy if the funding is to be effective. Can the Minister confirm that, as part of the global Britain agenda, Her Majesty’s Government will strengthen their “east of Suez” strategy—for example, working with our regional allies to better protect freedom of navigation in the South China Sea in particular and the western Pacific in general?
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, in my one minute, I make an impassioned plea for Britain to be less global in strutting its military might across the world. We already have a military presence on 145 sites in 45 countries. If other members of our so-called Security Council were to follow our example, our fragile world would become even more dangerously unstable. Does the Minister agree with the words of former Prime Minister Theresa May that we should stop acting as the world’s policeman?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to our Armed Forces’ regulars and reserves for the work they do internationally and at home: dealing with Covid, the floods and now trying to play a key role in global Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, urged the Minister to say that the Government would keep up the major humanitarian efforts, but he also noted that the problem is that the UK is seen as here today and gone tomorrow, or here one minute and gone the next. That reflects the danger of Prime Ministers—David Cameron did this quite often—and others going somewhere and making a commitment without necessarily a clear strategic objective. Could the Minister clarify what the strategy behind global Britain will be and reassure us that it will not cause overstretch, further damaging our Armed Forces’ morale?
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
Britain’s Armed Forces are renowned for their dedication, professionalism and excellence. Labour stands four-square behind them, their families and our veterans. Today Britain faces a diverse array of threats: adversaries investing heavily in their military, a global pandemic, economic uncertainty, autonomous weapons, and a climate emergency. But uncertain times provide an opportunity to outline a new vision of our place in the world, and the Armed Forces should have a key role in that.
We have been here before: after the Second World War, the leadership of Clem Attlee and Ernie Bevin was instrumental in setting up NATO, but the Government cannot say how the Armed Forces will contribute to global Britain if we still do not know what is going to happen with the integrated review. When will it be published? There is much ground to make up. Two defence reviews cut spending by £8 billion and reduced the forces by 40,000. The recently announced increase in capital spend was matched by a real-terms cut in revenue.
We need an ambitious strategy for our Armed Forces to develop new international relationships and protect our country against serious threats. We need a coherent vision of Britain as a moral force for good in the world, which places the Armed Forces squarely within that. When will this Government show some leadership? Are they capable of showing us a vision of a new global Britain, as Attlee and Bevin did all those years ago?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lancaster on securing this valuable debate and thank your Lordships for a stimulating discussion. I know your Lordships felt constrained by time, and trying to listen to your excellent contributions was rather like listening to a constantly beating staccato drum—so, if I do not manage to include everyone in my remarks, I apologise.
My noble friend laid out very well the extraordinary contribution that our Armed Forces make to the security and influence of the UK, not least our support of humanitarian and peacekeeping work and training. Globally, the Armed Forces truly are ambassadors and defenders of the UK’s values, prosperity and security. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, both acknowledged and paid tribute to that, for which I thank him. Particularly, he asked that we build closer links with friends and allies. I agree and confirm that India is indeed a valued ally.
To illustrate the range of activity I can report that, over the festive period alone, more than 6,000 military personnel were deployed on 39 operations in 46 countries. That eloquently underpins the concept of global Britain. As global competition deepens, as the challenges of Covid-19 put strain on the international system, as nations seek to find an edge—through fair means and foul—we face an unprecedented and accelerating challenge. While the Armed Forces already make an indispensable contribution to our security, prosperity and values, and to global Britain, we can and will do more. We shall be more globally engaged: actively competing and collaborating to defeat and deter our adversaries, working ever more closely with allies old and new, extending our reach to new theatres and domains, and tackling global challenges to our safety and prosperity. That is why the Prime Minister announced more than £24 billion for next-generation military capability, cementing our place as a leader in NATO, defending our people from new and evolving threats, operating globally, protecting the world’s most vulnerable, and bringing jobs and prosperity to every part of the United Kingdom. That is something of which we can all be proud; it means that global Britain is not some empty piece of rhetoric but a very solid concept. The MoD and our Armed Forces are certainly demonstrating —dramatically—just how solid a concept that is and how valuable it is to the rest of the world.
My noble friend Lord Lancaster raised a number of important issues that were echoed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and many others. I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, that humanitarian response and United Nation peacekeeping will continue to be an important component of the MoD’s engagement activity. As my noble friend is right to point out, the integrated review proposes a transformation in the Armed Forces to increase our presence and engagement across the world. Two important components of this will be agility and persistence. It is vital that the Armed Forces are flexibly deployed into the situations where they can deliver the greatest value, whether this be supporting United Nations peacekeeping and French counterterrorism operations in Mali, or delivering humanitarian aid to the Caribbean. The Armed Forces will do more to deliver this Government’s integrated approach to foreign policy and soft power, a point that my noble friend specifically mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, in connection with current and recent issues, raised the very important matter of Gibraltar—a key defence base that occupies a special place in our affections. As he pointed out, it is of huge strategic importance. Around 440 military personnel, from all three services, are supporting Gibraltar. We are pleased that they can look to the future with greater certainty as a consequence of the outlined agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, raised Mali and mission creep. I seek to reassure him that the terms of deployment are clearly defined and they are over a specific time. Mission creep is not something that we would ever want. He is right to raise that prospect because there have been painful lessons in the past, but we are very cognisant of how these deployments must be closely described, defined and monitored. Indeed, in Africa, some 300 British troops and RAF Chinook helicopters are working alongside French and United Nations colleagues to support counterterrorism operations and a United Nations peacekeeping mission. In Somalia, 65 British service personnel support peacekeeping and training missions with Somali forces. As my noble friend Lord Lancaster said, that is another indication of the dimension and the broad spectrum of the support we can give.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised languages. I totally agree with her: it is an essential support that we value. I did not make a detailed note of the point she raised, but I will look at Hansard and endeavour to respond to her.
Many of your Lordships raised the broader questions of international security, international influence, how we deploy our resources and what our objectives are. In among all that, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, raised international aid. As I said, the Government are committed to our aid and support role, and our Armed Forces play an important role in the discharge of that obligation.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and other noble Lords raised the issue of activities and influence, the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned south-east Asia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about coherent activity. The best illustration of that is possibly the carrier strike group, which I feel illustrates the point well. The United Kingdom reached a major milestone in December, when it declared that its carrier strike programme had achieved initial operating capability. The Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, and the US acting Secretary of Defense, Christopher C Miller, co-signed the UK-US joint declaration for the carrier strike group 2021 deployment. This declaration paves the way for a successful inaugural operational deployment of the UK carrier strike group alongside its allies. The joint declaration supports the UK carrier strike group, led by the UK’s aircraft carrier HMS “Queen Elizabeth” on its inaugural deployment later this year.
This deployment embodies the strength of our bilateral ties and reflects the depth and breadth of this vital defence security partnership. It will include the Indo-Pacific region working together with allies to send a clear signal of our commitment to the region. But this will not be a flash-in-the-pan activity, as some of your Lordships, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were concerned about; it is all part of a coherent approach. The deployment supports the UK’s deep and enduring defence relationships, such as the vital Five Eyes partnership, our ongoing commitment to supporting United Nations operations in the region and our desire to advance bilateral security co-operation with ASEAN nations.
My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns raised the important matter of Afghanistan, as did a number of your Lordships, and I will just cover the points that she raised. She referred to her committee’s work on the recent publication of the International Relations and Defence Committee report, The UK and Afghanistan. I pay tribute to my noble friend and her committee for a very useful report. It seemed a most comprehensive review of everything that has happened, with some very useful pointers as to where we ought to be looking. I reassure her that we remain committed to supporting Afghanistan in its journey towards lasting stability and security. The United Kingdom is the third-largest troop contributor to the Resolute Support Mission, with around 850 personnel deployed. We remain committed to building Afghanistan’s stability and security, committing £70 million in military funding and £155 million in development funding for 2021. Again, that is a useful indicator of the Government’s intention relating to their overseas responsibilities.
Our valued contributions make us well placed to influence our NATO allies and our partners, including the new United States Administration. We look forward to engaging with President Biden and his Administration. It is already clear that the United Kingdom and United States have much in common on a range of issues. I reassure my noble friend that we will seek that engagement at the earliest opportunity to reiterate our continued commitment to Afghanistan.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Touhig, Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised the integrated review and the issue of defence spending and budget. We are increasing defence spending by an additional £16.5 billion over the next four years—the biggest investment in the UK’s Armed Forces since the end of the Cold War. That marks the first outcome of the integrated review. It will enable modernisation of the UK Armed Forces, with at least £6.6 billion for research and development. The full conclusion of the integrated review will be announced in the coming months.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth raised the matter of our veterans—a matter dear to the hearts of us all. We offer support and advice across a range of areas through the Office of Veterans Affairs and our support for veterans’ charities. The case that he referred to was troubling and, if he wishes to provide me with more information, I shall investigate.
This has been an excellent debate. It has highlighted the broad contributions of the Armed Forces to global Britain. The value of the defence contribution to global Britain, as I have already said, cannot be overstated. This year will be a turning point: not only will it see the inaugural deployment of the carrier strike group, to which I referred; it will be a demonstration of the United Kingdom’s technological and industrial prowess, and a sign of our enduring commitment to allies across the world. It will also see the publication of the integrated review—a very important development, setting in motion the transformation of the reach and impact of our Armed Forces across the world and delivering a global Armed Forces ready for a global Britain.
I thank my noble friend for calling this debate and all noble Lords for their very interesting and thought-provoking contributions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit is one hour.
Anti-Semitism: University Campus Incidents
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Community Security Trust Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2018–2020, published on 17 December, and in particular, the finding that the number of anti-Semitic incidents in universities has increased.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am particularly pleased to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, to his new post in the Ministry of Justice. The noble Lord comes to us garlanded with the highest praises that the Bar can bestow. Like other well-known public figures, he was once a prolific Twitterer, and showed a great sense of humour and a rare knack for conciliating different points of view. All those qualities will stand him in good stead here. We wish him well and look forward to meeting in person.
I have spoken about campus anti-Semitism on previous occasions and sadly there is a great deal more to report. It is equally sad that an organisation such as the Community Security Trust, whose report we are debating, should have to exist at all. It is a charity that protects British Jews from anti-Semitism and provides security. How regrettable it is that every Jewish building and every Jewish gathering has to be protected by CST guards. I take this opportunity to thank the Government for the funding they provide to help the CST to continue to provide safeguards for the Jewish community.
The CST report uncovered the highest number of university anti-Semitic incidents ever recorded, notably online. Shockingly, they included anti-Semitic action by university staff—the very people who should be teaching students to reason and tolerate. Nothing leaves a Jewish student more unprotected than to find that the anti-Semitism he or she faces is from his or her lecturer, and that the panel set up by the authorities to investigate it is peopled by colleagues and devoid of Jewish members.
The treatment meted out, the failure to discipline and the reaction would not be tolerated for a moment by other ethnic minorities. But somehow racist and religious prejudice against Jews is given short shrift, and its specific nature glossed over. Just as Jeremy Corbyn’s response to allegations of anti-Semitism was that he was anti-racist, ergo could not be guilty, so the university authorities and Universities UK are trying to disguise this prejudice by folding it up into other racisms. In November, UUK put out a report on anti-racism in universities, but relegated anti-Semitism to a passing mention in a footnote.
The situation is not all bad. There is light at the end of the tunnel, as under the exceptional leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, more universities—about 51—are adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which has the effect of concentrating minds on its expression as well as its definition. But first I will give noble Lords just a very few examples of the sort of behaviour taking place in our universities. These are the young people who will be our leaders in due course.
At Warwick University a student complained about a lecturer who dismissed the notion that the Labour Party could be anti-Semitic as an attempt to discredit it by the so-called Israel lobby. That lecturer emailed the whole class to suggest that claims of anti-Semitism against Labour are orchestrated. Amazingly, it was the student who was then investigated by the university at length. Although that came to nothing, what a deterrent effect that will have on any other Jewish student thinking of complaining. It was the victim who was put on the stand.
The School of Oriental and African Studies maintains its poisonous reputation for Jewish students. A Canadian student was forced to abandon his studies there because of the toxic atmosphere. He was branded a Nazi supremacist for disclosing his support for Israel and was refunded his £15,000 fees. At SOAS, others complained, being Jewish means you are called fascist. The Malaysian Prime Minister was invited to speak at both the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, was openly anti-Semitic and was greeted with laughter.
Lecturers have spontaneously called the Holocaust “too Jewish” or indulged in the old slander of over-powerful conspiring Zionists. How ironic that the practice of no-platforming is so acceptable in universities but not when it comes to anti-Semitic speech. What an indictment of the failure to deal with the problem, that some Jewish students choose a university not by the course content or the quality of teaching but by the extent of anti-Semitism that they might encounter. Some academic staff have been shown to work together to foster an atmosphere inimical to Jewish students and teach and supervise others handing on the same antagonism to the next generation.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism helpfully draws the distinction between legitimate criticism of the Israeli Government, like any other Government, and anti-Semitic calls for Israel to be destroyed or compared to a Nazi regime. Legitimate criticism of Israel is to anti-Zionism what literary criticism is to book burning. I mention the Israel element because of the wise observations of the late Lord Sacks. Antisemitism, he said, mutates like a virus. It used to manifest itself as religious discrimination, then it was racial, and now it focuses on attacking the self-determination of the Jews in their only, tiny, state.
The IHRA definition is not intended to be legally binding but to help perception and eradication of anti-Semitic activity. Why then is it not more widely adopted and why have some academics pushed back at it in a way that undermines their students’ protection? Notable among those is University College London. An academic board was set up there to try to reverse the college’s adoption of the definition which did not even include a Jewish student; can one imagine today a panel about campus racism without a black student? It argued against protection of Jewish students by saying that to define anti-Semitism is exceptionalism and blocks free speech. But anti-Semitism is exceptional in its length and breadth. As for blocking free speech about Israel, there are no examples ever of the definition having resulted in any reduction in academic freedom or research. Hardly any other country is so widely discussed. The definition is unequivocal about free speech. The irony is that the rejectionists are the ones seeking to stop Israel-connected speakers and to block academic research co-operation. What is to be done about this?
Holocaust education, which is compulsory for schoolchildren, sadly has not worked. How is it possible that an entire generation who has studied the holocaust can arrive at university and behave in the ways I have outlined? It is because they have studied the Holocaust in a vacuum, as an example of generalised hate, and have resigned it to history. They have learned nothing about the contribution of Jews to civilisation, about the millennia of persecution, and how that, and religious teaching, led to genocide; they have not learned of the overwhelming need for a safe haven and how Jewish self-determination in Israel is the best protection against genocide in the modern world. All they learn is that Jews were killed in their millions and all they see is pictures of death camps and bodies. It is not surprising that the brute reaction of some is to replicate Nazi slogans when they vent their hatred at universities. There is a need to widen Holocaust education into education about Jewish history. That is why the planned Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, at a cost of over £100 million and a destroyed park, is such a wasted effort. It will present the Holocaust again as something in the past, something over there, not here. It will enable alleged anti-Semites to continue to pay their respects to 6 million dead Jews, badge themselves as anti-racist and then carry on attacking Jews of today and their only state, Israel. How much easier it is to mourn the lost generation than to respect the living Jews of today. It will give the impression of “job done”.
So will the Minister take steps to ensure that more universities adopt the IHRA definition and incorporate it in their codes of conduct? Will he also promote a complete overhaul of Holocaust education so that students learn about Jewish history, why Jews were persecuted and how unwarranted are attacks on today’s community?
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, alarming levels of anti-Semitism on campus are not new. It has been a profound problem since the mid-1970s. When I was a student in the 1980s, Jewish societies were being banned, at the instigation of those who saw themselves as progressive and liberal. These things—and many of the same people—played a central role more recently when my own party, the Labour Party, went through its shameful period. The problem on campus is more pronounced and, as the report attests, illustrates that for too long too little has been done to tackle students being radicalised and recruited to extremist ideas and politics with anti-Semitism at their centre, and the increasing role that academics play in propagation and denial of the problem. We need a more profound focus on the roots of such extremism and a more comprehensive view on how we tackle it. Will the Minister, whom I welcome and whose maiden speech I look forward to, consider asking the Commission for Countering Extremism to look into this, with a view to developing effective tools and techniques to guarantee the safety of Jewish students and stop a new generation of anti-Semites graduating from our colleges and universities?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that all Back-Bench speeches are limited to one minute.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this discussion. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on getting the debate. All forms of discrimination on the basis of identity are wrong. Some have greater resonance than others; quite clearly, for all the historical and present-day reasons we know, anti-Semitism is up there with the worst of them. However, it is simply one of the evils we have in today’s world as a result of the increasing manifestation of politics of identity which are outward-looking and hostile towards individuals and groups. It results in people being disrespected, discriminated against and attacked. It must be wiped out.
Lord Polak (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this debate and to Gerald Ronson, the founder, driving force and inspiration of the Community Security Trust. I welcome my noble friend Lord Wolfson to the House and to the Front Bench. We both attended King David High School in Liverpool, where we learned tolerance and understanding. I am sure that he will be pleased to note that, along with other clubs, our beloved Liverpool Football Club has adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
Jewish students up and down the country need our support because, in the words of the late Lord Sacks:
“A society … that tolerates anti-Semitism—that tolerates any hate—has forfeited all moral credibility.”—[Official Report, 20/6/19; col. 868.]
This certainly applies to universities in particular; I support the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for all institutes of higher education to adopt the IHRA definition. I am certain that Jewish students up and down the country will take some comfort from today’s debate—although I am unsure how a one-minute contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, will be sufficient to put right a career of repeating old, medieval tropes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is no doubt that this report has been a wake-up call to universities. The CST acknowledges, quite fairly, that its drive to encourage greater reporting among Jewish students has helped to increase reported incidents, but the fact is that there has been a substantial increase. Much work has already been done in institutions on different forms of harassment and discrimination but Universities UK, representing all universities, accepts that more can always be done and that institutions should act swiftly on any reports of anti-Semitism. UUK’s Changing the Culture and Tackling Racial Harassment aim to galvanise the whole sector into thinking differently—less defensively and more proactively—about its approaches and policies that need to change. I am on the board of Nottingham Trent; I declare that interest. We have adopted IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, but I hope that we can go beyond debates about words and focus on the excellent work that UUK is encouraging through empowering Jewish students and creating an environment where they feel confident to come forward. What are the Government are doing to encourage reporting of any harassment?
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register and warmly welcome my noble friend Lord Wolfson to his ministerial role. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing the debate and the CST on the report we are debating. I highlight the excellent work of the CST, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Union of Jewish Students in their constructive engagement with universities on anti-Semitism.
In my one minute, I will focus on the need to improve university complaints procedures, which too often discourage students from reporting racism. Does my noble friend share my support for the CST report’s recommendations, such as the need for independent oversight of complaints of discrimination so that experts involved in this area can be brought in, for complaints to be responded to in a reasonable timeframe, and to ask universities to permit third parties such as the UJS or CST to submit complaints on behalf of students?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
I too add my very warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I commend the Community Security Trust for the great work it does year in, year out and for this report in particular. It is very disturbing that we find ourselves in 2021 with the number of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in our universities higher than ever before. I am particularly concerned about reports of anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated by academic staff, as has been mentioned, as well as by student union officers or student societies. Every student, regardless of background, is entitled to a rich and fulfilling university experience. It is vital that universities are made to act on the report’s findings and recommendations. University complaints processes must be made fit for purpose as soon as possible so that incidents are dealt with appropriately, swiftly and in a way that instils confidence in, and gives proper redress to, those making the complaints.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to see the growing number of universities that have adopted the IHRA definition of modern anti-Semitism. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for his encouragement of this endeavour. As the UK head of delegation to IHRA who persuaded the Prime Minister to adopt the definition, I am concerned that this non-legally-binding definition should be maliciously misrepresented as a constraint on either academic freedom or free speech. The definition expressly states that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. If academics cannot find a way to criticise the Israeli Government without having to resort to anti-Semitic tropes, it speaks volumes to both their paucity of language and their real motivation.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for this debate, and the CST, along with the Union of Jewish Students, for preparing this important and distressing report. It is intolerable that students—or, of course, any Jewish person—should be subjected to anti-Semitic abuse. One of the issues highlighted is the flaws and lack of consistency in some universities’ complaints procedures. Some have given strong support, but others have not investigated or adjudicated complaints promptly, thoroughly or fairly. In that context, it is disappointing that only around 40 or 50 of over 130 universities have adopted the full IHRA definition and examples. Only if they do so can they recognise anti-Semitic discrimination, prejudice or abuse based on an appropriate, complete standard that is commonly accepted. I am sorry to see my alma mater, the LSE, missing from the list I saw. What are the results of the Minister’s department’s engagement with universities on adoption of the IHRA definition and best practice complaint procedures? I look forward to hearing his response and I welcome him to the Dispatch Box.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I make it clear that I speak in a personal capacity.
I and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, set up something called the Coexistence Trust some dozen years ago to combat anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiment at universities, and I deeply regret that the curse of this is still ongoing. However, I am afraid that I do not support the call for an IHRA definition: it is extremely poorly worded and probably unactionable in law. The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has just said that it is not meant to be legally enforceable. It directly conflicts with the duty on universities to protect free speech. But there is a further danger in this: when universities adopt this definition, the pressure on them increases also to adopt the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia’s extremely badly worded definition of Islamophobia. The end route, if we go down this road, is that there is no space left where students may learn to disagree with each other respectfully, something that I am sure no noble Lord would want.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Community Security Trust for producing this timely report and for its ongoing efforts to tackle anti-Semitism. As a former lecturer, I am concerned at the findings, which revealed a steady rise of reported acts of anti-Semitism at universities. I find the CST’s recommendations reasonable and support suggestions of an independent process for reporting alleged anti-Semitism and recognising the IHRA definition.
As the approach for tackling this issue is so varied across institutions, has Her Majesty’s Government had discussions with Universities UK about developing overarching guidance for its members? I strongly believe in building interfaith harmony, which is why I successfully took action when I was accused of anti-Semitism by Associated Newspapers last year. Discrimination against one group of people should be viewed as an attack on our community as a whole. We must all stand together to combat any form of racism.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I must adjourn the Committee for the next five minutes, as there is a Division.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we will now resume. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Council of Europe, the European Union, the British police for the last nine years, Chelsea Football Club for the last two years, and universities, some for three years, have not just thought about the IHRA definition; they have used it. There are no examples of it restricting free speech in any way. Every one of the examples cited by some maverick academics is an embellished falsehood, but do not take my word for it. This week, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, in its training document, stated that there are no such examples.
The IHRA creates a framework for democratic debate. We are the ones in favour of democratic debate and academic research, not those who are against it. Jewish students have a right to be themselves on a university campus. That is what the IHRA gives us. I look forward to more information and announcements next week, as this spreads worldwide. I call on the Government to give it maximum support, not least in allowing me and others to have proper dialogue with the new Biden Administration, to ensure that they are at the heart of getting this success into American universities.
Lord Wasserman (Con) [V]
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing time for this debate. I also look forward very much to the maiden speech of my noble friend the Minister, whom I hope to meet in person soon.
We have all been sent some excellent material for this debate, full of interesting suggestions about how to tackle anti-Semitism on UK campuses. I want to focus not on ways of tackling anti-Semitism on campus but on ways of helping Jewish students to live with it. I want to do this because I believe that, as our late colleague Lord Sacks used to say, anti-Semitism is a virus which has been around for thousands of years and is unlikely to disappear any time soon, whether from our universities or elsewhere. That is why I believe that we must do whatever we can to make Jewish students in the UK feel secure and respected, so that when they graduate they will want to devote their talents and energy to making this country more prosperous and civilised.
The University Jewish Chaplaincy has been doing precisely this for over 50 years. I urge the Government to support this charity so that it can continue to do its work effectively for at least another half century.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for drawing our attention to this report. To have 123 incidents—and increasing—in two years is serious, and I must say I was shocked when I read the nature of the abuse.
What is missing, however, is any investigation into why these incidents are increasing. The graph in the report is very interesting, because it shows a sharp increase after the deadly attacks on Gaza in 2008-09 and 2014. Since then, with increasing violence in the West Bank and Gaza, the expansion of settlements and the occupation of east Jerusalem, anti-Semitic incidents have continued to rise.
Whenever I suggest a connection between the two, I am told this is “victim blame”, which it is not. The victims are innocent Jewish people—students, in this case. They are victims because of the illegal actions of the Israeli Government. Please will our Government investigate the connection?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the most egregious aspects of the indisputable rise of anti-Semitism on campus has been the way that elements of the left have exploited the well-meaning, progressive and radical instincts of so many students to deploy anti-Semitic myths. Whether it is the crass critique of capitalist injustice, with its gross, caricatured cabals of big bankers or, more pertinently, in the name of protecting oppressed groups, censorship is used to de-platform and disrupt Israeli speakers, to argue for academic boycotts or even, through the prism of identity politics, to treat all Jewish students as an undifferentiated blob representing privileged oppressors to be silenced.
Can the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who I of course welcome, assure us that when tackling this urgent matter, there will be no attempt at mirroring this censorious cancel-culture approach by, for example, no-platforming external speakers or clamping down on student societies, however unpalatably anti-Semitic their views? As Deborah Lipstadt reminds us in her brilliant book, Anti-Semitism: Here and Now, we need to strike a balance between warning and overreacting. It can backfire if we ourselves become intolerant. Free speech is an ally in fighting campus anti-Semitism, and shining a light on prejudice and bigotry, even in this House, is far more effective than bans.
Lord Gold (Con) [V]
I congratulate both the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on joining your Lordships’ House and look forward to his maiden speech.
If university leaders truly want to stamp out anti-Semitism, they must take ownership of the problem. The tone from the top is key, but there must be actions, not just words. First, leaders must adopt the IHRA definition, now universally accepted, of antisemitism. Next, they must ensure that clear rules are in place which are enforced through a strong disciplinary process, and those breaching the rules must be disciplined—whether students or members of faculty. Importantly, disciplinary decisions must be promulgated widely as an example to others, making it clear that anti-Semitic acts will not be tolerated. Finally, there must be a safe environment for students to come forward and report problems, knowing that there is no risk of retribution for so doing.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con) [V]
I refer your Lordships to my register of interests. I was especially interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, would have to say in this debate, given her form on anti-Semitism. I have to say that it was predictable.
Criticism of Israel is usually healthy, especially in Israel itself. But there is a distinction between fair criticism and criticism that crosses that shocking line into race hate. Those across campuses who repeatedly voice their contempt for Israel and all it stands for reveal their prejudice by refusing ever to acknowledge any context.
Israel is the only fully-fledged democracy in the Middle East. The country itself is threatened daily by Hezbollah, Hamas and Iranian-sponsored terrorism—never mentioned. Israel’s regard for constitutional and civil human rights—never mentioned. Israel has many times been poised to conclude a two-state peace treaty with the Palestinians only to be thwarted by the extremists who prefer terror to peace—never mentioned. Criticism that ignores this context is nothing but a thin veil to hide deep seated and ill-disguised hatred of the Jewish state and all Jews. Anti-Semitism has no place anywhere in Britain, but most especially in places of learning.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to the CST for its crucial work in combating anti-Semitism. Its report’s most worrying aspect is staff making allegedly anti-Semitic comments, the impact on students they teach and on students who are too scared to complain. I would like the Government to consider five specific questions. First, what will the Minister do to prevent academics spreading conspiracy theories and ensure that publicly funded universities recognised this problem and deal with it? Secondly, will they look at the contents of the report about Professor Miller and take this up with Bristol? What assessment has been made of how universities handle complaints, such as Warwick, and what discussions will they have with the vice-chancellor about it? What will they do about the obsession on campuses about Israel and the so-called Israel apartheid week, which is an insult not just to the Middle East’s only democracy but to black South Africans who suffered under apartheid? Finally, it is completely wrong for the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, to blame racism against Jewish people in Britain not on the racists responsible but on Israel.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I warmly welcome my noble friend Lord Wolfson to our House and look forward to his maiden speech. I declare my interests as I hold a number of positions in the Jewish community and that I have two daughters at university right now. How depressing to learn that they are facing anti-Semitism as I did 40 years ago; in those days, all the talk was about “Perdition” and, of course, anti-Israel rhetoric.
I welcome the CST report, but we have to recognise that it covers only reported anti-Semitism, not the huge amount of non-reported anti-Semitism, much of it online and some of it well away from campus, but which still affects the mental health of Jewish students, with torrents of vile extreme right and left-wing material. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that higher education does not follow where the Labour Party went and even some parliamentarians seem to be going, of attacking Israel as a proxy for anti-Semitism?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for initiating this very much-needed debate. Perhaps I speak for everybody in saying that it should have been a three-hour debate. I compliment the CST on the work it does; I should declare that I am on its advisory board.
In this minute I shall comment on some of the speeches. For the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, there are no excuses for anti-Semitism. My noble friend Lady Ludford is right to ask the Minister about the lack of consistency in universities, and my noble friend Lord Greaves made an overriding comment about the evils in the world today. However, I must also comment, and I am shocked, that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, says that she is against the IHRA definition. I trust that that is not the view of the body that she chairs.
In the seconds available to me, I will revert back to comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. Few Jews today attend SOAS University of London because they know they would face a hostile environment where anti-Zionism often tips over into anti-Semitism. It is shameful that anyone should experience this in a UK university.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing forward the debate and the CST for its report. The vital issues the debate has raised are the welfare of Jewish students, the need for accessible, responsive reporting mechanisms online and in person, and the need to recognise this as part of a broader social problem.
With my minute, I ask the Minister: are universities that demonstrate best practice in dealing with complaints being encouraged to share that best practice? I think they should.
I welcome the work the Labour leadership is doing to rebuild the trust of the Jewish community and tackle anti-Semitism after the quite shameful findings of the ECHR report. As a party, we look forward to working with others to tackle this problem in our universities and across civic life, using the influence and insight which we have in tackling discrimination, injustice and hate crimes.
Finally, like all other colleagues, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and give him the very best regards for his maiden speech, which I, and everyone else who has taken part in this debate, look forward to hearing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
It gives me pleasure now to welcome the Minister, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for his maiden speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to make my maiden speech. It is a privilege to do so from this somewhat virtual Front Bench. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating this short but important debate.
I begin with a series of thank yous. While traditional, they are no less heartfelt. I thank Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments for their help and advice, and the doorkeepers, who, in the short time since my introduction, have helped me find my way when I was lost, and my iPad when it was lost. I am also grateful to my introducers: my noble friend Lord Faulks, a previous holder of my ministerial position; and my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who, since I first met him at university, has devoted his talents to the governance of this magnificent city—and now also the country.
As this is my maiden speech, I hope noble Lords will permit me to speak to the question a little more personally than might otherwise be expected. Four generations ago, my family came to this country, seeking refuge from hatred abroad and the hope of a better life. Like many families, then and now, education and, in particular, going to university and getting a degree was my family’s way out of an economic if not physical ghetto.
We were fortunate to come to a genuinely tolerant and welcoming country. The late Lord Sacks of blessed memory, already invoked by several speakers, would surely have contributed his wisdom to this debate as he enhanced so many deliberations of your Lordships’ House. He used to say that this country is, in the traditional phrase, a “malkhut shel chessed”: a kingdom of kindness. I hope that my deviation from English in that sentence complied with the rule found in paragraph 4.39 of the Companion, being both, if a Minister is still permitted to use this phrase, limited and specific.
The importance of ensuring that our universities are free, so far as possible, from the scourge of anti-Semitism is something to which the Government give, as any Government must, the highest importance. I said “so far as possible” deliberately, because I recognise that, as we fight against all forms of discrimination, the battle against anti-Semitism may never be finally won.
While this country is indeed a kingdom of kindness and of tolerance, we must be on our guard against anti-Semitism. That especially applies to universities, which play such a crucial role in our cultural and intellectual life. Universities should be at the forefront of tackling anti-Semitism, which manifests itself both as religious hatred and as racism. Their duty is to ensure that higher education is a genuinely fulfilling and welcoming experience for all.
The fight against racism, against antisemitism, is reflected in my own family’s history and in my choice of Tredegar. In the latter part of the 19th century and the first couple of decades of the 20th, Jewish immigrants were drawn to south Wales and Tredegar by a thriving economy based on coal and generally found there a tolerant and welcoming society—a shared love of, we might say, the Hebrew Bible. The fact that both the largely Methodist local community and the Jewish immigrants were, in the terminology of the day, nonconformists. But shortly before midnight on 19 August 1911, a mob began to roam the streets of Tredegar. Over the ensuing hours, what started small turned into an anti-Jewish riot, resurrecting a racism most had thought long dead. In the middle of the riot, my great Uncle Jack was born and became the first in the family to gain a title. He was also known as Jack the riot baby. My family remembers that riot precisely because it was so unusual. Tredegar was overwhelmingly a community that gave immigrants a home, so much so that my paternal grandfather grew up trilingual—a remarkable combination of English, Yiddish and Welsh.
I am a Minister in the Ministry of Justice. This debate, and the characteristically thoughtful contributions of many noble Lords, highlights three important features of what justice means and ultimately what a just society is. To illustrate those three qualities and, although I sit in your Lordships’ House as a Lord temporal and not a Lord spiritual, I again turn to the writings of Lord Sacks. Lord Sacks recounted the first recorded conversation between the Almighty and one of the patriarchs. It is a famous bargaining session between God and Abraham. God is determined to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham is equally determined to save them. Like any good lawyer, he bargains God down, from his opening bid that the presence of 50 righteous people would justify mercy. Eventually God agrees that if there are even 10 righteous people living in those cities, then the cities will be spared. I take three points from that story. First, as Lord Sacks explained, justice is the supreme virtue. Abraham’s question to the Almighty, to which there was no answer because there is no answer, was this: shall the Lord of all the earth not do justice? That question had no answer because justice is at the heart of a civilised society. Justice and the rule of law enable people of all backgrounds, and of different beliefs and of none, to live together under the law and in harmony.
The simple reason why antisemitism is wrong—and this goes for all forms of racism—is because it is unjust. That is why this Government expects higher education providers and their leaders to take a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism. Providers must have procedures in place to ensure that they comply with the law. Where providers have failed in their duty to investigate and adjudicate complaints about antisemitism fairly and consistently, as my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, have mentioned, that is unacceptable. Universities and other higher education providers are independent and autonomous, but their independence and autonomy does not mean they are unaccountable. It means that they are responsible for the management of their own affairs and for meeting their duties under the law—including those relating to freedom of expression and equalities. It has been extremely disappointing to hear that some providers have failed in their duty to have robust policies and procedures in place. This is unacceptable and must cease; it is simply unjust, and justice is the supreme virtue. That is the first point I take from the story.
The second point is this: when it comes to the hard work of creating a society based on justice, all can contribute. The Almighty was prepared to have a debate with a mere mortal about what justice required. We, then, can surely find it within ourselves to debate with each other. So, in my work as a Minister in your Lordships’ House, my door will always be open to everyone. Debate with others, with whom you might disagree, is not only good manners. Thoughtful and tolerant debate is the way to achieve the most just society that we can.
Racism is the antithesis of debate. An anti-Semite does not want to hear what you say; when anti-Semitism goes unchecked at a university, it means a young person’s voice is silenced. I therefore welcome the report’s recommendation that providers adopt the working definition of anti-Semitism set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Indeed, when I was at the Bar I authored a legal opinion commending that definition. This Government have taken decisive action in encouraging its adoption; since October, when the Secretary of State for Education wrote to all providers in England to encourage them to adopt it, at least 27 additional institutions have done so.
I shall make two other points. First, in urging providers to adopt this definition, as my noble friend Lord Pickles explained, the Government are not impinging on their autonomy; it is their decision how to fulfil their duties under the law. However, if institutions do not demonstrate that they are taking their responsibilities seriously, we will consider going further to ensure that all providers are tackling anti-Semitism. Secondly, this Government support free speech. The right to discuss all kinds of issues, including those that might be uncomfortable or even offensive to some, is an integral part of higher education. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, to that extent. However, freedom of speech protections can never justify a lack of action from providers in confronting racism and anti-Semitism on campus. That is my second point from this story: the importance of debate.
The third point is an insight from my father. The people whose presence might save the cities are not described in the biblical text as being merely “righteous”; they are referred to as righteous people “living in the city”. Living a good life is not just being a good citizen; it means playing your part in society and in the life of the nation, as my family has always sought to do. More than this, a just society is one which makes room for all. A society built on justice is an inclusive society. As a Justice Minister, I will seek to play my part in building a society based on justice and the rule of law, because that is a society to which everyone can contribute. Universities are the place where young women and men start to make their own independent way into society. Racism of any kind will not be tolerated anywhere in society; it is especially important that it is drummed out of our universities. That is my third and final point: a just society is an inclusive society—a society in which anti-Semitism has no place.
I again congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this important question and will write to noble Lords, with a copy placed in the Library, on those contributions which the time allotted for my maiden speech did not allow me specifically to respond to. I welcome the findings of the CST’s report. Many institutions have provided strong support to Jewish students, who also benefit, as has been mentioned, from the sterling work of the University Jewish Chaplaincy. However, the report demonstrates that, despite all our efforts over many years, anti-Semitism persists in our higher education system. The number of anti-Semitic incidents in our universities has become a real cause for concern. Therefore, we again call on leaders across the sector to do more to ensure a zero-tolerance approach is now taken.
I know from my family’s history, with its roots in Tredegar, that universities have great potential to change lives for the better. I feel sure that universities are serious in their commitment to tackling racism, which includes anti-Semitism, but much work remains to be done.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I apologise for my original pronunciation of Tredegar—that is one mistake I will not make again.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear face coverings, except when seated at their desks, to speak sitting down, and to wipe their desks, chairs and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit is one hour.
Tax: Church Action for Tax Justice Reports
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reports by Church Action for Tax Justice (1) Tax for the Common Good, published in February 2019, and (2) Fair Tax Now, published on 4 January 2021.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank all those speaking in this evening’s debate. I am no expert on tax, but it does not take an expert to see that there are some deeply entrenched tax inequalities. This 2019 report by Church Action for Tax Justice, and its 2021 report, Fair Tax Now, are more relevant than ever, not least with the financial impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic being felt in all parts of society, and with Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to “levelling up”.
The proposals laid out by Church Action for Tax Justice seek not to harm wealth generation, but to level the playing field and facilitate a fairer tax system that ensures that those with the deepest pockets do their duty to the societies that provided the context in which they were able to amass their wealth. This is a vast topic, so I will make a couple of preliminary comments and then suggest four of the most important areas that must be addressed.
Democracies rely on the population accepting that taxes are broadly equitable, yet there is now a consensus that, for example, many international online companies are not paying their fair share of taxes in this country. At the same time, there is a delicate balance between encouraging the generation of wealth and ensuring that the burden of social costs is shared as equitably as possible.
Of the four most important areas to be addressed, the first is tax havens. For the United Kingdom, tax avoidance remains a major problem, with the annual tax gap estimated at £31 billion per annum. However, even more damaging is the infrastructure enabled by the UK that allows tax avoidance on a global scale. The presence of tax havens, whether they be British Overseas Territories or Crown dependencies, combined with their close connection to the financial might of the City of London, facilitates an international network that syphons money out of nations and into these jurisdictions, with their low tax, weak legislation and easily exploitable loopholes. Noble Lords may recall that the British Virgin Islands was the most popular tax haven mentioned in the Panama papers.
While I am pleased that the British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies have all committed to publish public registers of beneficial ownership by 2023, these territories will remain lucrative places to those seeking to avoid paying tax. According to the 2019 corporate tax haven index, four of the top 10 havens globally were UK associated territories: the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Jersey. The 2023 changes may go some way towards reducing their use, but the reality is that the City of London and the UK’s associated territories will continue to be at the centre of a network for international tax avoidance. Furthermore, should the Government choose to move ahead with free ports, and essentially create onshore tax havens within the UK, a corporate tax rate race to the bottom may be unleashed.
Secondly, I have some comments about income tax and national insurance. Domestically, we face structural problems in our tax system. It simply cannot be right that, when all tax is taken into account, the bottom 10% of people pay 42% of their income while the top 10% pay just 34.3%. Without doubt, part of the problem is that we have a progressive tax in income tax, along with a regressive tax in national insurance. Rolling up both of those into a single standardised progressive income tax would reduce bureaucracy and contribute towards rebalancing the percentage of income paid in tax. That would only partially solve the issue; it is the lower rates of capital gains tax, most beneficial to those with assets, that reduce the overall tax rate of the wealthiest. Whether by the incorporation of capital gains tax into a single progressive tax or by making capital gains more progressive and in line with general income tax, the current system requires reform to equalise the tax across wealth brackets.
Thirdly, there is council tax, which also fails accurately to account for the financial conditions of those who pay it. I think that a tax based on property valuations from 1991 is parochial and antiquated. The highest tax band, for properties worth £320,000 or more in 1991, fails to take into account changes to regional house prices since then and creates no differentiation between any properties worth more than £320,000: a property now worth £3 million pays equal council tax to a property worth £350,000. Furthermore, it is again designed as a regressive tax that results in the poorest paying a higher proportion of their income on council tax than those who are wealthier. Those on the highest incomes pay just 1% of their income on council tax; the lowest decile, conversely, pays 9%. According to Citizens Advice, it is the most common debt problem faced by families in the UK. At a minimum, it needs updating to reflect modern house prices, alongside the addition of a new higher bracket. Ideally, though, it should go further to better account for income disparities and to equalise contributions.
Lastly, I will say a word about corporation tax and VAT. Over the past 30 years the taxes that impact the poorest have steadily increased, such as VAT or council tax, while those that impact the wealthiest have gone down—for example, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Between 1975 and 2020 the relationship between VAT and corporation tax has virtually inversely correlated, with VAT going up and corporation tax going down. Although the EU set a base standard rate of 15% VAT, the UK has had 20% VAT since 2011, while continually reducing corporation tax during the same period. Now that we are no longer subject to the EU’s VAT requirements, perhaps the Government might consider slightly rebalancing corporation tax and VAT to deliver a fairer settlement to citizens and business alike.
I hope I have laid out quite clearly that, far from being some radically redistributionist document, the proposals from Church Action for Tax Justice seek only to induce fairness in the tax system and prevent the heaviest burden falling on the poorest. Much is said about the future now that we have left the EU. Some of us fear that it may give licence to people to change in ways that further divide our country in terms of people’s wealth. My hope is that we will take a lead in our world to think how we can use this opportunity creatively, so that everyone in our society has fair responsibilities and fair rewards for all that they do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. Lord McKenzie? No? We will move on to the next speaker, and if we can reconnect with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, we will bring him back in after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, tax, a temporary aberration, has proven more than somewhat sticky. Of itself, this is neither positive nor negative. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing it, and welcome the two reports from Church Action for Tax Justice. Indeed, tax for the common good has to be what we are aiming at.
The Covid crisis has affected the relationship between citizen and state—taxpayer and tax collector—as with so much else in society and our economy, with HMRC being an effective means of financial support for many people. There is a real opportunity here to reimagine tax: real time, data-based, embedded far more in our daily experience, rather than something mysterious and distant, with the constant fear of the crown-embossed envelope landing on the doormat.
Many of us are used to dealing and interacting with our banks and grocers digitally, often via apps—why not similarly deal with the tax man? In saying this, I am in no sense undermining the significance of the pernicious forces of digital and financial exclusion, which need to be urgently addressed. But imagine a trader coming out of Covid. If HMRC reverses too quickly from financial support to debt collector, what should she do when faced with her VAT and other bills or paying the electric? As with any other debt, it should start with an effective relationship and connection, maybe via an app, with understanding and flexibility on both sides.
All the data already exists in our current banking and payment system to be able to operate a taxation system in real time for the benefit of all. It is encouraging that the Chancellor of Exchequer has nodded his support towards stablecoins and, indeed, central bank digital currency. Imagine central bank digital currency which could carry with it its taxation status, effortlessly operating an efficient, effective tax system for the whole UK. We could potentially have an effortless domestic and international, cross-border taxation system. When added to smart ledgers and DLT, the opportunity is extraordinary. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that, when it comes to tax transformation and tax for the common good, we not only have the technology but that tax in this new, transformed, technology-driven world does not need to be taxing?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I will try the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, again. Lord McKenzie?
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are asked to join a big conversation on tax, focusing on the unfairness of much of our current system. We have heard about some of that, including some of the international dimensions. Our starting point at this juncture is that taxation is, or should be, about a common good—not a necessary evil. Judgments about fairness are not just about tax rates; they are about accessibility of the benefits in the tax system and for whom they were designed. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has just published its practical steps, which note that tax and associated social security systems could be made to work better for those on low incomes.
The church reports are right to identify as unfair the benefits for those who can, depending on the circumstances, organise their income in such a way as to take advantage of a capital gains regime or, indeed, a more favourable income regime, with deferral in appropriate circumstances. In introducing this debate, the right reverend Prelate focused on council tax, and I agree entirely about the nature of its unfairness. I wonder whether the hangover from the poll tax is an inhibiting factor in addressing it more rigorously.
Inheritance tax has become virtually voluntary. At a time when the national finances have been laid bare by the pandemic, with an expected deficit of something like £400 billion, surely it is time to consider a wealth tax, about which we have now heard from the Wealth Tax Commission, the governing body.
The Tax Justice Network Briefing describes circumstances in which, through technicalities, taxpayers are able to minimise and lower taxation charges that operate internationally and in overseas jurisdictions. It is suggested that the benefits of doing so could amount to something like $500 billion, although that seems a somewhat simplistic figure. This can involve the use, as described, of tax haven jurisdictions, taking advantage of financial secrecy and helping to mask the true ownership of funds. We are told—we have heard it again this evening—that the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are up to their necks in these activities and are central to tax avoidance and evasion. I think that the Minister has committed to making some changes—
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
I am sorry but perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the three-minute speaking limit.
Lord Field of Birkenhead (CB)
My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for securing this debate—it could not be better timed—and for the work that Church Action for Tax Justice has done and for the way it is establishing a new agenda here. However, to be reminded that we have three minutes rather puts me in mind of Dr Johnson—I mean Dr Johnson and not our current Prime Minister—saying that to be hung in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully.
I have three points to make, besides endorsing all the comments, bar one, of the right reverend Prelate. Might I please caution not to easily roll up national insurance with income tax? National insurance needs to be reformed. It needs to be made progressive, along the lines that the right reverend Prelate spoke of, but it is a means by which people can feel that they contribute to their welfare state. It gives them a sense of ownership, which crediting people does not.
I turn to the three issues that I would like to raise. One reinforces the point that I have already made: it could not be a better time for this debate. At the last election, where I fought to be returned again in Birkenhead, I quietly said to myself—and rejoiced—that the Government’s main driving force would be the levelling-up programme. But that cannot be taken seriously unless we look at all, or practically all, of the Government’s domestic programme. I think that the job of the Government—and if not them, then us—is to bring together a comprehensive programme of reform for levelling up, but that cannot be done without considering taxation, both direct and indirect.
Secondly, I make a plea for gaining flexibility to vary tax rates. When I was part of the Blair Government —for that short but happy period of time—the Government took powers to allow them to experiment with welfare reforms. They did not have to be national; they could be regional or local. I say that merely to remind the Government that that might well be an approach that they would wish to see in the areas that they are most anxious to level up.
In doing that, immediate things come to mind. Would variations in various tax rates encourage employers to take on more people? The question should be: how do we gain that? Thirdly, what are the general tax principles we might bring to bear on this subject matter? I suggest two. One is to ask: is it proper, fair and just to levy direct taxation on incomes below the level that the Government believe is the minimum necessary to keep body and soul together? The second is to ask, as the right reverend Prelate did: how do we make sure that indirect taxation does not wipe out any other good that Governments try to do?
I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate, but I hope very much that it is the first of a whole series.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth [V]
My Lords, I am delighted that my good friend and close colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans secured this debate. I congratulate him on bringing these reports from Church Action for Tax Justice to wider attention. I urge the Government to assess and act on them.
I particularly endorse the right reverend Prelate’s drawing attention to the often pernicious interaction of income tax and national insurance so-called contributions. The reality is that such “contributions” are no such thing. These are two direct tax systems working alongside each other, but crucially not together, and often unfairly. This is exacerbated when the impact of other taxes, such as council tax, is factored in.
I cannot claim now, as my time as an economist is long past, anything other than an amateur understanding of the economic impact of direct taxation. However, it is abundantly clear that, whatever the very modest merits claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Field, the interaction of these taxes—some progressive and others regressive, with varying conditions—causes a confusing and inequitable impact on the take-home earnings of those on low and modest incomes. This is an impact on those who can least afford it and are least able to absorb it.
The report Fair Tax Now illustrates this by powerfully comparing how the average tax on income borne by an NHS nurse and a person earning £10 million a year favours the multi-millionaire. However, there is also very significant unfairness in the tax treatment of those on low and very modest incomes, particularly in the marginal tax rates they face. No payments of national insurance and income taxes are paid on earnings up to £9,500 a year, so then a 12% national insurance rate kicks in. Income tax at the basic rate of 20% is added above £12,500 a year, giving a marginal tax rate of 32%. If you are fortunate enough to earn more than £50,000 then income tax rises to 40%, but the national insurance component of direct tax on income falls to 2%. The marginal tax rate on income of 50% and above is not an extra 20% as popularly claimed, but only an extra 10%. There are many other injustices and there is not nearly enough clarity. We need less inequality and injustice. I urge the Government to address this urgently.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this debate. I wholeheartedly endorse the reports Tax for the Common Good and Fair Tax Now. If we are to rebuild a sustainable and just economy and end the blight of inequality, the evil of tax-dodging by powerful corporations, facilitated by accountants and lawyers, must be ended. For the reasons set out in those reports and by other noble Members in this debate, we need to make taxes of all kinds less regressive and to tax wealth, property and inherited income properly. We need to work internationally to prevent national competition on low taxation and end the blight of tax havens.
One thing that Covid-19 has shown those of us who, unlike the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, are not economists is that Governments are not dependent on tax income to balance public expenditure in a notional account book. It is now clear that they have other sources of spending for the public good, especially in times of low inflation. But tax has functions beyond simply raising revenue for the Government. Most particularly, it is a means to reduce inequality—the most appalling blight on our society, as the reports make clear. The consequences of economic inequality on every aspect of life were drawn to our attention a decade ago in the work of Wilkinson and Pickett, and are strikingly reiterated in the latest of the reviews by Sir Michael Marmot and his team, Build Back Fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot Review. The adverse impact of inequality on the economies of the world has been pointed out time and again by the OECD and the International Labour Organization.
In the UK, the share of national income going to workers has been relentlessly declining for 40 years, as company profits and dividends to shareholders increase at the expense of wages and salaries. In 1976, 65.1% of gross domestic product went to wage earners; by 2019, wage share had slumped to 49.2%. After a year of lockdown, we can be sure that the scales have tipped yet further against—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I think we had some interference on the noble Lord, Lord Hendy.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible]—I am ending now—forward to redress the growing and dangerous levels of inequality in the UK and across the world. I ask Church Action for Tax Justice to keep up the good work.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent opening speech. Most people recognise that a system of incentives is both inevitable and right. If a person works hard, they should be rewarded for that work. If they work over many years to obtain qualifications, it should be reflected in their salary. Most people also recognise that there is an element of sheer luck in human life which cannot be eliminated. But what people deeply resent at the moment is not inequality as such, but the gross and growing inequality that is such a sharp feature of the modern world.
When someone gets a bonus that is more than an average person’s lifetime earnings; when they get that bonus even when their company has failed; when they employ a battery of lawyers to find a way of not paying their taxes; when they quickly switch their money from one tax haven to another, people feel that there is something fundamentally wrong and unfair. Over 80% of the British public believe that legal tax avoidance is morally wrong. I shall put it in a sentence: it undermines social solidarity. Let us be clear: a tax system that works depends on that sense of solidarity.
The amount of money hidden away is absolutely enormous. Between $8 trillion and $35 trillion sits offshore, enabling its wealthy owners to avoid paying tax. Developing countries, which face problems from Covid-19 on a scale unimaginable in the richer nations, are deprived of up to $200 billion every year by tax avoidance. The Danish, Polish and French Governments have refused corporate bailouts for corporations registered in tax havens. Could the Minister say whether Her Majesty’s Government have taken, or are contemplating, any similar steps?
Following on from that, will the Government commit themselves, working with the new US Government, to prioritise low-income countries in the base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, initiative of the OECD/G20 countries to reform global tax rules? At the moment, low-income countries are the biggest losers of tax revenue as a result of profit shifting by multinational corporations, losing 9% of total revenue as opposed to only 3% for high and middle-income countries. Will the Government commit themselves to a stance at the BEPS discussions which would prioritise low-income countries and encourage the new US Administration to do so? To that end, would they be prepared to offer technical assistance to those low-income countries in the analysis of their income and tax data to explore approaches that might best help them? I know that the Tax Justice Network stands ready to undertake such work if commissioned to do so. Would the Minister at least be prepared to look at what it proposes?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this important debate.
There is absolutely no doubt that there are major tax and welfare inequalities. If the Government are serious about their levelling-up agenda, to minimise and eliminate those inequalities they need urgently to look at tax reform, to ensure that it is less regressive and more progressive, and at welfare reform, to ensure that the current inequalities are eliminated, with a particular focus on universal credit.
I also commend the campaign organisation Church Action for Tax Justice, which published two reports containing proposals on creating a fairer tax system, many of which I find myself in total agreement with.
This debate is very apposite at the moment, in that the whole Covid pandemic has compounded the situation, with rising levels of poverty, the growing use of food banks and many people out of work, and the uncertainty of whether that work will exist several months down the road, whenever we are on the other side of the vaccination implementation programme and, we hope, the pandemic withers away. However, there is absolutely no doubt that those inequalities have to be addressed through reform of the taxation system and of welfare. Both go hand in hand.
Other organisations as well as Church Action for Tax Justice have referred to these issues. Only last week, in its most recent report, the Commons Public Accounts Committee stated that
“Quirks in the tax system”
have meant that groups of workers, including freelancers and self-employed people who recently moved on to company payrolls or who work on a series of short-term employment contracts with gaps in between, have been ineligible for furlough payments, and thus that needs to be looked at as well. The chair of the committee, Meg Hillier, asserts that
“out-of-date tax systems are one of the barriers to getting help to a significant number of struggling taxpayers who should be entitled to support.”
In conclusion, can the Minister advise us when the Government will hold the consultation on tax evasion measures this year, which was promised by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in July 2020?
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for initiating this debate. I support the reports by Church Action for Tax Justice.
Curbing tax avoidance and evasion is vital for building a just society. The Government talk about it, but have delivered far too little. HMRC has stated that, during the last decade, it failed to collect around £350 billion in taxes because of avoidance, evasion and errors. Other models of the tax gap estimate the amount to be between £58.6 billion and £122 billion a year—that is around £1 trillion over a decade.
One explanation is that the Government are too soft on the tax avoidance industry. On numerous occasions, courts have adjudged tax avoidance schemes, manufactured by big accounting firms, to be unlawful. For example, the Supreme Court, in the case of HMRC v Pendragon plc, considered a KPMG mass-marketed avoidance scheme as “an abuse of law”. Despite strong judgments, no big accounting firm has been investigated, fined or prosecuted, although they are awarded plenty of taxpayer-funded contracts. Can the Minister tell us why these firms continue to be indulged? Can she name even one instance where the Government have fined or prosecuted any big accounting firm for peddling unlawful tax avoidance schemes?
There is little transparency in tax avoidance. Company accounts are often opaque and there are no disclosures about the use of avoidance schemes to artificially reduce tax obligations, even though this harms stakeholders. For more than a century, Companies Acts have been used to redraw the boundaries between public and private information. Not so long ago, turnover, gross profit, reserves, director remuneration, audit reports, fees paid to auditors for non-audit work—and much more—were considered secret.
Despite opposition from big business, legislators sought to curb darker practices through transparency. However, this logic has not been applied to tax avoidance. Large companies should be required to file their tax returns and related documents at Companies House. The cleansing effect of public sunlight can curb some of the darker practices and empower citizens to take action and selectively boycott businesses engaged in rapacious practices. Surely the Minister is not going to oppose transparency—or is she?
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, Church Action for Tax Justice campaigns for taxation reforms. In its 2019 report, Tax for the Common Good, it argued that the current tax system was not being used to its full potential as a tool to improve fairness in society. It also argued tax should be perceived as a public benefit rather than as a burden on taxpayers, saying that:
“Growing levels of inequality and the threat of climate change are among the greatest challenges faced by today’s world, while the UK still lives with austerity measures which have seen living standards plummet and undermined trust in our economic system. Responding to these crises requires public spending … and it requires that we rethink our use of natural resources.
Yet in rich and poor countries alike, it is still too easy for large companies and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax. And too often, tax is seen as negative: a burden to be minimised. We can tell a different story about tax: that it allows us to contribute to services and infrastructure shared by all, and that paying it is not just a duty but a privilege.”
The report proposes several reforms of the tax system, including increasing taxes on wealth and reforms to inheritance tax. It also argues that the Government should consider replacing council tax and business rates based on the value of property with a new tax based on the value of the land the property is built on; changing the way businesses are taxed through increasing corporation tax; creating a financial transaction tax; creating a new tax targeted at the providers of digital services, such as Amazon; and using taxation as a means of addressing climate change, such as through new taxes targeting carbon consumption. The report also suggested the introduction of taxes on other resources, such as plastics used in packaging.
The report also recommended that the UK should co-operate with other countries on the issue of tax avoidance, including through establishing an automatic information exchange to enable tax authorities in different countries to better share information on income-generating assets held by foreign citizens holding companies within their jurisdiction. There should be country-by-country reporting of financial information, requiring companies to state where their economic activity occurs, and public registers of beneficial ownership for all jurisdictions, including the UK Crown dependencies. The report argues that this would ensure that the ultimate owners of shell companies are identified and required to pay the right amount of tax. The United Nations should get global taxation rules so that all nations are involved in decisions—
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord of the three-minute speaking limit.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, Tax for the Common Good is a great analysis of the nature of taxes in the UK, and if it does not prick consciences, it should. Time restricts me to two areas in which I have been active. On page 4, we are reminded that tax is to provide revenue which funds quality public services and infrastructure for everyone.
We have been through a time of austerity that has cut deeply and unfairly into social funding, and we do not have the quality of services we should. I do not underestimate the terror that Treasury folk faced at the time of the financial crisis—I was looking into the abyss, too, so I know how it feels now as well—but we cannot forget the poorest people because they have less voice. And, although welcome, it is regrettable that universal credit seemed to get a temporary boost only when new, better-off cohorts of people became reliant on it because of the pandemic. It is the unanimous conclusion of the Lords Economic Affairs Committee report into universal credit—not a soft-touch committee —that cuts went too far. The biggest shame is how we can ever say that the future is being taken care of when one-third of children live in poverty: it is cruel, short-sighted and not the path to prosperity.
My second point is that we should stop hiding corporate activity and wealth. Page 7 reminds us about automatic information exchange, country-by-country reporting, public registers of beneficial owners and OECD rules, including BEPS. These are measures I have fought over many years to get this far, first in the EU and recently in your Lordships’ House, and I am bitterly disappointed that further steps are always delayed or thwarted, with corporate interests rallying threats about how disasters will befall if information is made available—almost always without real evidence. It is not evidence just because someone says it in a consultation reply, or bends the ear of Ministers or Commissioners. I took on corporate excuses in the final negotiations to get country-by-country reporting for banks into EU legislation, forcing through a sunrise clause that took effect unless harm was proven by a certain date—and harm was not demonstrated.
So, as these issues come around again, call the bluff, switch the burdens of proof and let us make progress. Will the Government do that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for opening this debate so well and noble Lords for some cracking short speeches. I thank Church Action for Tax Justice for both reports. As an Anglican priest, the first report got me at the introduction by referring to the hard time that tax collectors get in the Bible. To be fair, in New Testament times tax collectors were more like a cross between gangsters and wartime collaborators.
It is now time to rehabilitate those who collect tax, and to make the case for taxation as a mark and means of our shared common life and our willingness to be responsible, one for another. Rehabilitation depends on taxation being fair and being seen to be fair. I cannot do domestic taxation in three minutes, so I will say two quick things. Levelling up has to address income and wealth, and you cannot look at personal tax without also looking at social security.
I will make four quick points from the reports. First, we need to be willing to call out unscrupulous corporate tax practices. The 2021 report calls for:
“The implementation of the provisions in the 2016 Finance Act that would enable public country by country reporting, plus the UK no longer blocking the OECD from publishing aggregate country by country data”.
Can the Minister respond to that, please?
Secondly, the tax system needs to be fair to all types of trader. The UK now has a digital services tax, but big firms are simply passing on the extra charges to customers, such as advertisers or marketplace sellers. Ministers see the DST as a stopgap measure until the OECD agrees a global solution, but that is not happening tomorrow. When do the Government plan to review the DST and will they commit to closing the loopholes that have been found?
Thirdly, there needs to be action on environmental taxes. These can be key to tackling the climate emergency. What work has been done in government to assess the different options? Is this something that is likely to feature on the agendas of our G7 and COP meetings later this year?
Finally, there is the matter of international tax rules and how and where they should be agreed. My noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury is leading a review of the UK’s policy in and towards the UN and its committees and subsidiaries. However, even without major reform, the UK could wield huge influence on international tax co-operation and many other issues. We were a founding member of the OECD, have a leading role at the UN and have some of the highest allocation of voting powers of the financial institutions. Despite that global Britain mantra, too often the UK is absent from the world stage at the moment. What steps will the Government take to seek better and swifter action on international tax co-operation? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this important debate and thank noble Lords who have spoken for their thoughtful contributions. From listening to those contributions it is clear that many noble Lords agree that resilient, fair and responsive taxation is an essential public good. I am glad to have this opportunity to update the Committee on the Government’s work to ensure that our tax system continues fully to serve society.
However, I will start by saying a few words on the impact of Covid-19. The pandemic has affected tax revenues, but it has also highlighted the agility of our tax system to cope with unprecedented circumstances. Businesses in sectors worst affected by the crisis have benefited from VAT cuts and a business rates holiday, while our time to pay system has given financially distressed individuals the opportunity to postpone tax deadlines. The Chancellor will, in due course, take a decision on any role tax may play in returning the public finances to a sustainable footing at the Budget on 3 March. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will understand that I cannot speak any further on that today.
However, I will say a few words about the philosophy that underpins our wider tax policy. At last year’s Budget the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s ambition to build an even fairer and more sustainable tax system that helps people and families with the cost of living, funds the first-class public services they expect and creates an environment for business to succeed. However, when designing future tax policy we need to remember that the UK economy of tomorrow will be different from that of today. That is why, over the course of this Parliament, the Government are also focused on creating a tax system that is better prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
I will talk briefly about the Government’s work on this front, particularly in relation to areas covered by the Tax for the Common Good report. First, I turn to tax avoidance, which was raised by many noble Lords. This is an issue that is quite rightly highlighted in this document, and it is a scourge on our society, which is why we are taking significant action to ensure that companies pay the right amount of tax on their UK profits. In fact, noble Lords may recall that, at last year’s Budget, we announced a new strategy to tackle unscrupulous promoters of tax avoidance schemes. I remind noble Lords that, at 4.7%, the tax gap in the UK is at its lowest ever recorded rate, falling from 7.5% since 2005-06.
However, we also recognise that tax avoidance is a global problem, with global implications. As a result, the UK has also been helping to lead international efforts to address gaps and mismatches in the global tax system. This includes our work at the forefront of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which seeks to prevent company profits being transferred to low- or no-tax locations. I reassure the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, that a key part of that work is ensuring that low- and middle-income countries benefit from the steps taken, not just OECD members.
I will correct a concern of the right reverend Prelate about free ports: rather than a race to the bottom, the tax offer that has been designed for them will drive growth and investment, advancing the levelling-up agenda across all four nations of the UK that noble Lords will have heard the Government talk so much about.
I will respond to the issue, raised by the right reverend Prelate, of overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which have full control over their own fiscal matters. They have the right to set their own policy to support their economies within international standards, and they have the right to determine their own tax rates. However, all Crown dependencies and overseas territories with a financial centre have made commitments to implement global standards on tax transparency.
There is no doubt that digitisation is a tax challenge for every nation. We are working hard to find a global solution through the adoption of many of the BEPS recommendations, such as corporation interest restriction rules, which raise approximately £1 billion a year, and hybrid mismatch rules, which are expected to raise £900 million between 2016-17 and 2020-21. At home, we are examining how we can ensure that high street businesses are not left at an unfair disadvantage by the switch to online payments through a review of the business rates system. On digitisation in relation to operating our own tax system, as raised by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, I totally agree with him. In our recently published 10-year tax administration strategy, we set out our plans to make a fully digital tax system that operates in as close to real time as possible.
We have heard from a number of noble Lords about the role of taxes on earnings, such as income tax and national insurance, and taxes on wealth, such as capital gains tax, as well as the interaction between those different systems. Noble Lords are correct that individuals can be subject to different tax treatments depending on whether they are employed, self-employed or working through a company structure. The OBR has noted the implications of these differences in tax treatments for individuals, who can pay very different amounts of tax while doing similar work. The Government have already taken action to reduce this disparity of treatment; for example, by reforming the taxation of dividend income, including by reducing the dividend allowance to £2,000 from £5,000. Furthermore, corporation tax has remained at 19%, rather than being reduced to 17% from April 2020, as had previously been planned.
Our approach to taxing income, earnings and wealth is an incredibly important question that we will continue to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Field, made an important point on the wider role that different taxes can play and the link between contributions and public services, as well as the public’s view of that wider link. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who said that tax is not an important part of funding our public services; I think it remains an essential part of that part of government.
The Government are committed to a fair tax system in which those with the most contribute the most. That is why the income tax system consists of three progressive rates of tax, which sit above an internationally high personal allowance. The income tax system is highly progressive: the top 1% of taxpayers are projected to pay over 29% of all income tax in 2019-20.
The Government are also proud of their record of reducing tax for working people. The personal allowance has increased by more than 90% in less than a decade, which means that a typical, basic-rate taxpayer pays over £1,200 less in income tax compared to 2010-11. As with all aspects of the tax system, the Government will keep income tax policy under review and any decisions on future changes will be taken as part of the annual budget process, in the context of the wider public finances.
Further, on the point of the progressivity of the system, in 2020-21, households in the lowest income decile will receive more than £4 in public spending for every £1 they pay in tax on average. In addition to the above changes, in April 2020 the Government increased the national insurance contribution primary threshold and lower-profits limit to £9,500, which will benefit 31 million individuals. The combined impact of income tax and NICs changes between 2010-11 and 2021 means that a typical basic-rate employee is over £1,600 better off, as I have said.
Noble Lords also touched on the issue of climate change. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, will be aware, the Treasury is carrying out a review into the transition to a net-zero economy. As a part of this work, we are exploring how we can harness the taxation system in the fight against global warming. In December, we published an interim report exploring the fiscal implications of the switch to net zero. This analysis will inform the final review document, which is due to be published later this year.
I hope that I have communicated some of this Government’s work to create a fairer and more sustainable tax system. It was a wide-ranging debate, covering work at home and internationally. We are committed to a tax system that helps people and families with the cost of living, funds first-class public services, and creates an environment for businesses to thrive. I am sure noble Lords will agree that these are laudable goals, and we are making strong progress towards them.
I finish by reassuring the right reverend Prelate on his fears on our path having left the EU. I think those fears are unfounded, and instead I endorse some of the hopes that he expressed for our path in coming years. Having left the EU, this Government’s core agenda is about levelling up across the UK. A well-functioning, fair tax system will be a key part of that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
G7 Summit
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what outcomes they hope to achieve at the G7 Summit due to be held in the United Kingdom in 2021.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have developed an ambitious agenda for the UK’s G7 presidency, which focuses on building back better for all. The Prime Minister will welcome the leaders of the world’s leading democracies in June to address shared challenges, from beating coronavirus and tackling climate change to ensuring that people everywhere can benefit from open trade, technological change and scientific discovery.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hope that today we are all celebrating President Biden’s decision to sign up again to the Paris Agreement on climate change. I hope that the Government recognise the critical importance of the G7 summit, building towards COP 26 in November and decisive action on climate change. Do the Government also recognise that the best global businesses are crying out for leadership on the sustainable development goals, the framework that provides us with the opportunity to genuinely build back better? Will the Government ensure that those goals are on the agenda for the G7?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, certainly, one of the key declared aims of the G7 presidency is tackling climate change and preserving the planet’s biodiversity, as I stated. I can certainly tell the noble Lord that we very much welcome the prospect of bringing the COP 26 UN climate conference to Glasgow, to Scotland, in November and will be working on the important agenda that the noble Lord outlines.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
Following the question of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I was going to ask about the climate emergency. However, following the Minister’s answer, it is also important to ask: will the Government also focus on the social elements of our sustainable development goals, such as ending poverty and hunger, and dealing with inequality?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, obviously those objectives are encompassed in the agenda set out by the Prime Minister. Promoting future prosperity for all is vital. Incidentally, I am certain that the noble Baroness will welcome the invitation to the Government of Australia to participate.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, on Tuesday, President Biden announced the formation of a White House gender policy council and committed to restoring America as a champion of women and girls, which is welcome news. I fully support the Prime Minister’s continued focus on girls’ education but can my noble friend the Minister tell me how the UK will work with the United States and other partners to ensure that the wider issue of gender inequality, which has of course been exacerbated by Covid-19, will be properly addressed at the G7 summit?
Lord True (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her important question. The Prime Minister has agreed to convene a gender equality advisory council that will report to the G7 leaders and drive an ambitious agenda to ensure that the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on women is recognised and the importance of gender equality is at the heart of an inclusive recovery. I thank my noble friend for her work and leadership in this area. The council will be part of her legacy.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests and very much endorse the Minister’s reply to his noble friend Lady Sugg and his comments about her. I also welcome his response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, with which I totally agree. I welcome the emphasis that the Government are putting on beating the pandemic and future pandemic planning. However, does the Minister accept that we must recognise the importance of continuing support for ongoing global health programmes—such as that on malaria, where the UK has been a world leader—not only because they save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children every year but because they provide vital health infrastructure for the fight against future diseases?
Lord True (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness with her great experience for her kind comments. I can assure her that the United Kingdom remains committed to the research and development needed to fight all pandemics worldwide. One of the highest moments of my lifetime was the eradication of smallpox, and I am certain that the eradication of these great diseases, one of which the noble Baroness referred to, will remain an objective for all of us.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish the Government well in their participation in the summit. What new ideas do they intend to put forward in view of the increasing awareness of climate change? Will we suggest any positive steps that President Biden could now take, having overturned Trump’s policies?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it would be slightly impertinent of me on President Biden’s first day in office to set out an agenda for him. I think we all look forward to hearing that. I say again that we look forward to the COP 26 conference in Scotland. Within the G7 period and leading up to it, we will keep tackling climate change and preserving biodiversity will be at the heart of our efforts.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
Does the Minister believe that the Government’s decision to refuse full diplomatic status to the EU ambassador to the UK will help or hinder our ability to build the consensus needed for a successful G7 summit? While he is at it, will he explain why the UK, uniquely in the world, would take such a staggeringly petty, pointless and self-harming decision?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we have slightly moved away from the rather positive and optimistic approach of this discussion so far. The G7 will embrace the presence of the EU, as always, and of major democracies in the European Union.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has set a priority for the G7 to develop manufacturing capacity for treatments and vaccines to prevent future pandemics, and that is very welcome. However, there is an existing pandemic other than Covid—tuberculosis—which still kills 1.5 million people a year and for which there is no effective adult vaccine. That is why research and development investment to develop new tools is so important. Will my noble friend commit to protecting that investment, particularly that made by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, despite the regrettable cut in the ODA budget?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, having not ventured to offer an agenda to President Biden, I am certainly not going to offer one to the Chancellor. As with the answer on malaria earlier, obviously, fighting a key disease is a vital common international task. The United Kingdom has been one of the biggest donors to the World Health Organization and one of the biggest supporters of vaccine development.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this week, Theresa May said that we must bring people together in common cause, but to lead we must live up to our values. She regretted the UK abandoning its 0.7% commitment. Will the Minister detail the Government’s strategy for engaging members in the coming months to ensure that the UK summit turns the tide and brings leaders behind a common message on the post-Covid recovery?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I know the noble Lord’s personal commitment to some of the causes set out in the G7 agenda. I think there is a wide area of agreement here. I understand the points made about overseas aid, but we will still be allocating £10,000 million to overseas aid. Based on the latest OECD data, the UK will remain the second-highest donor in the G7.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, since the UK is a world leader in setting targets, will the Prime Minister urge the G7 countries, as part of their climate agenda, to set targets for developing countries to step up investment in clean energy and green technology, and to provide technical assistance in developing their non-oil private sector?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, of course, one hopes that all nations will assent to these high ideals, including, for example, China.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, this follows on from what my noble friend has just said. To build better societies and economies, we need to ensure that all have the opportunity to thrive, free from persecution. In light of the United States recognition of the persecution of Uighurs in China as genocide, will my noble friend confirm that the UK will raise this as an issue for discussion and ask for a co-ordinated response at the G7?
Lord True (Con)
I strongly support what my noble friend said and pay tribute to her work in fighting international injustice. Anyone who read my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s Statement to the other place on 12 January in response to human rights violations in Xinjiang against the Uighur people will understand this country’s resolve. We call on other nations to show the same resolve on this deeply troubling question.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Heritage Organisations: Coal Supplies
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that heritage organisations have access to sufficient supplies of locally produced coal to continue operating after 2021.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—of the heritage sector. The legislation, which will come into force from May 2021, will end the sale of bituminous coal to households in England and lead to significant health benefits. While we acknowledge the indirect impact that this may have on the supply of coal to businesses, it is vital that the Government and the sector continue to work together to transition to cleaner alternatives.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the Minister appreciates the value of the heritage rail sector, but how does he envisage that heritage steam will continue to have access to high-quality bituminous coal if no UK-mined coal is available after next year? Transporting coal great distances from countries such as Russia or Australia adds to CO2 emissions and is expensive. Would it not make more sense for the mining of modest amounts of steam coal to continue in areas such as the north-east and south Wales?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the legislation that Defra is bringing forward relates to households, and therefore we are working with the sector. It is important that we work with it not only through policy development but in looking at alternatives. Also, I understand that heritage rail has taken steps to improve efficiency and mitigate emissions. Therefore, as I said in my earlier reply, it is important that we work together on this, but this legislation relates to domestic consumption.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as someone from whose land in Northumberland coal was being extracted until last year, including for heritage railways. The Minister will know that the Government refused permission for a further surface mine at Highthorn in Northumberland, disagreeing in the process with the county council, the planning inspector and the courts. I had no interest in that project, but I know some of the men who lost their jobs as a result. Given that this country has a continuing need for 5 million tonnes of coal a year, mostly for the cement and steel industries, as well as for the heritage rail industry, and that more of it now comes from Russia than any other country, with a far higher carbon footprint, why do the Government prefer to give jobs to people in western Siberia and take them away from people in Northumberland, and to increase emissions as a result while rewarding the persecutors of Alexei Navalny and Sergei Skripal?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that planning permission should not be granted for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable or, if it is not environmentally acceptable, provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts. Clearly we are moving into a situation where in this country we are reducing the use of coal for the very important reason of human health.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft. Craft industries have long prided themselves on their commitment to a green economy. However, coal is required for the firing of certain heritage bricks which have a unique quality. Does the Minister agree that such uses, including coal for steam, are the exceptions proving the rule for the future green economy, and are necessary if we are to preserve our industrial and architectural heritage?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, again, we are working across departments with the heritage sector, because we want to have a long-term future for it. However, we need to find alternative ways of securing the heritage sector while having a cleaner and greener economy and reducing emissions, which are making a significant impact on people’s health.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have heard concerns about the importation of coal, and I understand that some heritage rail organisations are currently importing coal, including from Germany. Can the Minister clarify how much coal is currently imported for this purpose, whether the amount is expected to increase, and what the impact of new border controls will be now that we have left the European Union?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My understanding is that, of the 26,000 tonnes of coal used for heritage rail, 90% comes from four British open-cast mines, and therefore any requirements will be about negotiating a suitable ongoing domestic supply. As I said, we want to work with the heritage sector on these matters. My understanding is also that coal imports are overwhelmingly not from EU countries.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the Great Little Trains of Wales, Snowdonia, Talyllyn, Llangollen and others, are critical for the hospitality offer, yet heritage trains as a whole emit only just about half of the CO2 that people use in their domestic barbeque charcoal briquettes. The challenge is to find a solution to this problem to keep the trains running. I note that in his responses so far the Minister has not yet offered what the potential solutions might be. So will he support research into this matter and, in particular, into whether the residue steam coal in our unsafe, above-ground coal tips can be manufactured into the lump coal needed to ensure that these trains and the jobs they support survive into the future?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have been very clear that we are working with the heritage sector. Indeed, the legislation that relates to domestic consumption is being phased in so that we can work not only with consumers but with the heritage sector. So I reject the tone of the noble Lord’s question, because this is an area we want to work on. I remind your Lordships that we are doing this because fine particulate matter is very damaging to people whose health is vulnerable. To work on a cleaner health agenda, we need to apply our minds to how we can find alternatives.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Has the Minister ever travelled behind a steam locomotive? Has he no sense of soul about Britain’s steam heritage? Is he not aware that steam locomotives are temperamental creatures that depend on a certain supply of bituminous coal to work effectively and efficiently? Is he, as a member of a Government who have frozen fuel duties for the past 11 years and done far more damage to the environment than any steam locomotive, really trying to tell us that 35,000 tonnes of coal will damage the environment to such an extent?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord heard my first reply. This legislation is about domestic consumption. In people’s houses the increase in fine particulate matter from domestic consumption has caused concern, and we will not meet our legal and binding obligations unless we attend to this. I should also say that two villages away from where I am sitting is the Mid-Suffolk Light Railway, affectionally known as the “Middy”. I am well aware of it, I have travelled on it and I enjoy it very much, but we need to work across the heritage sector, not only with the rail sector, because this is a very important health issue.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, while I have genuine sympathy with heritage railways and others, such as the owners of traction engines and the like, does my noble friend agree that this should certainly not be a reason for opening any new coal mines in this country while importing the type of coal required is still possible? As my noble friend said, it is worth reminding other noble Lords that this is being done for health reasons.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
I have said what the National Planning Policy Framework states, and I agree with my noble friend on why we need to do this and why we also need to work with the heritage sector.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Does the Minister not realise that if you go to places such as the north of England on a weekend and see thousands of people stood around, waiting, you know that a steam locomotive is going to be travelling through and people are waiting to view it? Does the Minister agree that there is no finer sight in this country than such a vision? Will he guarantee that it will be there for my grandchildren?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, that is absolutely what we are working on with the heritage sector because we want a viable future for these great heritage assets of our country. However, I go back to the fact that this is legislation reducing and changing our requirements for domestic consumption. I fear that some noble Lords are misinterpreting that. We are working with the heritage sector because we want a long-term, viable future for it.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to those noble Lords I was unable to call. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been clear that they will not sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We do not believe that this treaty will bring us closer to a world without such weapons. The Government believe that the best way to achieve our collective goal of a world without nuclear weapons is through gradual multilateral disarmament, negotiated using a step-by-step approach. We must take account of the international security environment and work under the framework of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply. Nevertheless, as of tomorrow the TPNW will be no less a reality for the UK than for countries that support it. It will be no less a reality for states that possess nuclear weapons than for those that do not. The UN Secretary-General has described this new treaty as
“a further pillar of the disarmament regime”
and therefore fully compatible with the NPT. I ask the Minister, since the new treaty and its underlying humanitarian motivations will loom large over any future discussion of our non-proliferation responsibilities, what preparations are being made by the Government to engage with it constructively? Will they commit to attend, as an observer state, the first meeting of states party to the treaty, as Sweden and Switzerland are doing?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the right reverend Prelate says but, to be clear, the United Kingdom will not support, sign or ratify the TPNW. The reasons are very clear to us: it fails to offer a realistic path to global nuclear disarmament and, importantly, risks undermining the effective non-proliferation and disarmament architecture that we already have in place, in particular the work that has already been achieved with key partners on the NPT.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
I declare my interest as in the register. I am compelled to repeat the question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. Given the global importance of this treaty, will the Government consider sending in an observer capacity a delegation when the treaty parties convene later this year, whether in person or virtually? Clearly, in observer status the Government might learn something of interest.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we are fully aware of the challenges that currently confront us on the global stage and the importance of ensuring that we see non-proliferation. There are major challenges with this treaty, including the fact that it does not look at the existing security architecture, including our obligations to NATO. It does not look at how we deal with the threats from nations such as the DPRK. My Answer was very clear about what our belief is on the treaty. If parties to that treaty engage with us bilaterally, of course, we will continue to engage with them on wide range of matters.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
The Minister is being characteristically courteous but does he not agree that every Member of this House, not least the right reverend Prelate, has a responsibility not to deceive themselves that this treaty could be an effective mechanism for achieving our shared goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons? Indeed, suggesting that it is undermines that very goal.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have to disagree with the noble Lord. I accept that the treaty the right reverend Prelate talks about has noble intent but there are existing mechanisms, treaties and obligations that have ensured the decline in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, with the treaties that we are part of and the partnerships that we have forged, since the end of the Cold War we have seen a 50% reduction in our own arsenal. While respecting the right reverend Prelate—and, of course, all noble Lords in this House—on this occasion I do not hold the same view.
Lord Bates (Con)
I welcome my noble friend’s confirmation that it has never been the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to have the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons but to seek a world free from all nuclear weapons. This is stated in the national security strategy, set out in pillar 2 of the non-proliferation treaty and stated in the first resolution of the UN General Assembly, held 75 years ago this weekend across the road in the Methodist Central Hall. How could my noble friend use this anniversary to advance our declared ambition of the complete elimination of all these weapons of mass destruction before it is too late?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend, who speaks with a great deal of insight and expertise in this area, that we remain very much committed. Our commitment to our obligations and our adherence to the rules-based system of international law and the treaties that we are part of will ensure the very objective he seeks and I seek as well.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, one of the key aspects of non-proliferation in recent years has been the JCPOA. The UK has been involved in this but under President Trump the US pulled out. What are her Majesty’s Government doing about talking to President Biden about re-engaging in the JCPOA?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we look forward to fruitful discussions with the United States on a range of issues and look forward to working with it on this important priority as well.
Lord Polak (Con)
Following on from that question, only this week Her Majesty’s Government stated as part of the E3 that they are deeply concerned by Iran’s announcement that is producing uranium metal. There is no credible civilian use for uranium. Will my noble friend the Minister take the earliest opportunity to discuss with his new counterpart in the Biden Administration how to strengthen any deals with Iran to ensure the disbanding of its nuclear programme in its entirety and, at the same time, stop its destabilising behaviour in the region?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure my noble friend that on both his points we will be engaging constructively with the United States and other allies in this respect.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, Iran has incrementally violated the JCPOA. It would be delusional to return to it and to drop sanctions. Iran has achieved uranium enrichment levels of 20%. What are the Government doing to ensure that Iran halts this dangerous escalation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that Iran’s continued non-compliance with its nuclear commitments is deeply concerning and seriously undermines the non-proliferation benefits of the agreement. Iran faces a stark choice—to continue on its current path and face growing isolation or to come back to the negotiating table. We hope it will choose the latter course.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that any advance that has been made in any of the conventions on nuclear weapons so far has been achieved in the context of firm undertaking by nuclear powers, including us, to steadily reduce the number of nuclear weapons at their disposal? There seems to be quite a lot of room for doubt about the commitment of some nuclear powers at the moment. Is it not a priority for the British Government to get together with the new Administration in the United States, and indeed with the French, to discuss how we should be carrying the new situation forward?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to engage with the US and with the P5 process. As he will be aware, we led on that last year. We will work very constructively with the French, who lead on the P5 this year.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]
My Lords, for the purposes of investment, this treaty puts nuclear weapons clearly in the category of controversial weapons. Does the Minister agree that investment in such weapons by responsible and ethical pension funds and other investors will quickly become completely unacceptable?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the nuclear industry and its wider energy benefits are also part of the debate. We remain very committed to a minimum but credible independent nuclear deterrent.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, are the Government aware of the European Leadership Network’s call for a sustained, open-ended and regular panel on strategic nuclear risk reduction?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will respond to the noble Lord in writing once I understand the full context of his question. However, as I have already articulated, we are working with key P5 partners—including the key European partner in this respect, the French.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We come to the fourth Oral Question.
Alexei Navalny
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Russia about the arrest of Alexei Navalny.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by extending my best wishes and those of your Lordships’ House for health and happiness to the noble Lord, who I understand is 79 years young today.
It is appalling that Alexei Navalny has been detained on arbitrary charges. We raise his case regularly and directly with the Russian Government. On 15 January, immediately prior to his return, the United Kingdom’s ambassador to Moscow raised our concerns with the Russian foreign ministry. My colleague, Minister Morton, who is responsible for our relations, also raised this issue with her Russian counterpart in November 2020. As the noble Lord will know, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement on 18 January calling for Mr Navalny’s immediate and unconditional release.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
First, I thank the Minister for his very kind words. Returning to the subject, does he not agree that Alexei Navalny has shown tremendous bravery by returning to Russia after the assassination attempt? Will the Minister agree that the Government might show support for his release, backing it up by increasing sanctions against the Putin-supporting oligarchs based in London in relation to their investments, property purchases and travel to the United Kingdom? That would show some real support in trying to get Alexei Navalny out of prison.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I agree with his sentiments, and I look forward to working with him in this respect. Of course, we keep further sanctions under review but, as he will know, following the poisoning of Alexei Navalny last year, we issued proscriptions against six individuals and the State Scientific-Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, Mr Putin constantly challenges the global risk-based order and his behaviour is erratic, whether it is attempts to kill political opponents, such as Navalny, a WMD attack on our nation’s soil, a stream of outrageous damaging global cyberattacks, provoking flights into our airspace, a build-up of nuclear submarines threatening our deterrent, or actions in Ukraine, et cetera. It is difficult to know what he hopes to achieve, but it is certain that there is an increasing risk of miscalculation, which is highly dangerous and could lead to hostilities. Is the Minister concerned about this risk, and should there not be urgent action to rejuvenate arms control agreements, military-to-military dialogue and confidence-building measures, such as New START and the open skies agreement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great expertise and insight; I agree with the thrust of what he proposes and the specifics that he mentioned. We want to work with Russia and other partners on the very objectives that he has outlined, but the detention of the main opposition leader demonstrates a continuing decrease in democracy and human rights in Russia, and we will continue to hold it accountable for that.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords,
“Confident political leaders do not fear competing voices, nor”
see the need,
“to commit violence against or wrongfully detain political opponents.”
Those are not my words but those of Mr Mike Pompeo, the outgoing United States Secretary of State, with whom I rarely agree. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I do agree with former Secretary of State Pompeo’s words. That is why we work very closely with the United States in dealing with the issues and challenges that Russia brings to the world.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
Alexei Navalny’s latest investigation into what he has called the world’s “biggest bribe”—Putin’s sprawling palace at the Black Sea—is a reminder that corruption is endemic in autocracy and that tackling it undermines the rule of strong men such as Putin. With that in mind, will the Government continue to encourage greater transparency over Russian financial activities around the world, including in the United Kingdom, and take steps to combat money laundering? Can my noble friend the Minister update us on the progress that has been made on this since the Intelligence and Security Committee published its report last year?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I apologise: some of my noble friend’s questions were not quite clear. However, I believe that she referred to the ISC report on Russia. As she will know, the Government’s response was published immediately after its release. Russia is a top national security priority for the Government, and we will introduce new legislation concerning the security services and law enforcement. As she will be aware, the Government are currently looking at how our sanctions regime can be further extended to deal with corruption and illicit financing.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, having worked in a Russian ministry in Moscow for three years in the early 1990s, I am hugely aware of the impact on the Russian people of the appalling treatment of the extraordinarily brave Mr Navalny. How on earth he brings himself to go back to Russia, I do not understand. Will the Government support a statement from our Parliament to the Russian Parliament expressing our strong support for the fundamental rights of Mr Navalny and the Russian people to free speech and freedom of assembly?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the principle that the noble Baroness raises, it is absolutely for Parliament to decide on issuing such statements. However, she will have seen the strong statement that we issued with partners on this very issue.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government were keeping matters under review. Returning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, it is now 15 months since the publication of the Russia report and the Government have yet to implement even one of the 21 recommendations. There are enormous concerns that the City of London is still acting as a haven for dark money connected to human rights abuses in Russia. What steps will the Government take to ensure that UK businesses are not complicit in human rights violations in Russia?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe that I have already addressed, in part, the issues of human rights and sanctions, and of course I will be talking to the noble Lord as we bring forward some of the broader sanction applications. On the report, we have acted. I have already alluded to legislation, and we continue to step up our activity, both domestically and internationally, to tackle illicit finance. The National Crime Agency has increased the number of investigations into corrupt leads and, among other things, the UK has used existing immigration powers in dozens of cases relating to hostile state activity. We will also review all tier 1 investor visas granted before 5 April 2015.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, we all recognise that the UK, as a democracy, is far more open to Russian influence than Russia is to British. Does the Minister agree that Russian interference, including finance in British politics, is at least as severe a threat to UK sovereignty as the European Court of Justice? Does he accept that the Government’s response to the ISC report is widely considered to have been “defensive and uninformative”? Can the Government assure us that they are working actively to tighten the law on foreign agents in British politics, on financial contributions from abroad to political parties and on espionage?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. On the question of interference in elections, he will be aware that various legal matters are already under way, so I cannot speak specifically to those. On the other matters that he raised, I have already said that we are acting, and will be responding, and have already taken steps, as our response to the ISC report has demonstrated.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, Russia, at its own request, rejoined the Council of Europe a few months ago but does not seem to have grasped the fundamental values of that council. Sanctions are really water off the duck’s back. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, came a lot nearer to the truth as to what we need to do if we are going to have an effective impact. Does the Minister agree that we need to join Berlin and Paris in encouraging Russia to follow the principles inherent in democratic societies and the underlying principles of the Council of Europe, which it was so keen to rejoin?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in the interest of time, I totally agree with my noble friend, and we will work closely with Germany and France in that respect.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Russian Federation has failed to respond to the overwhelming evidence that it poisoned the opposition leader using Novichok, for which of course it has previous form. Addressing the EU last year, Alexei Navalny said that sanctions should target the money of the oligarchs who hold Putin’s assets. This lack of adherence to a rules-based international order has gone on for too long. Does the Minister agree now that there should be direct consequences, as suggested by Mr Navalny, for this outrageous breach of all the norms of civilised states, all of which is compounded by the subsequent arrest and jailing of Mr Navalny on his return to his own country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, suffice to say that I agree with the noble Lord. I add that we have already taken quite specific actions, both through multilateral organisations such as the OPCW and specifically on issues of sanctions related directly to the Novichok poisoning of Mr Navalny. We will continue to work with partners and see what further steps we can take. As those come to bear, I will of course share them with your Lordships’ House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Overseas Development Aid: Covid-19 Vaccination
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sarfraz
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that access to Covid-19 vaccination is available as part of their overseas development aid work to vulnerable people in less economically developed countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has committed £548 million to the COVAX Advance Market Commitment, the AMC, which is the international initiative to support global equitable access to vaccines. Through match funding the commitment was leveraged to encourage other donors to commit $1 billion in 2020. The commitment will support access to Covid-19 vaccines for up to 92 developing countries by contributing to the supply of 1 billion doses, with deliveries set to begin in the first quarter of 2021.
Lord Sarfraz (Con) [V]
My Lords, while the United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of the COVAX Facility, the director-general of the WHO has raised fresh concerns about developing countries being left behind. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider approaches to supplement COVAX using our own economic development institutions? For example, could we make UK export finance easily available to countries importing the Oxford vaccine, and could we encourage the CDC to urgently support local vaccine supply chains?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend makes two very practical points, especially that on the CDC. I will certainly look at what we can do. To be absolutely clear, we remain committed to the COVAX Facility. We want to provide clarity to all that we will continue to support that facility, which we believe has the infrastructure to ensure the best, most equitable and fastest distribution to the most vulnerable around the world. However, my noble friend makes some practical points and I will certainly explore those further.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree that, while priority must be given to vaccinating as many people in the United Kingdom as possible, it is also vital to help protect less developed countries, which may develop other strains of Covid-19 as we have already witnessed? Can the Minister assure the House that the UK Government will not seek any payment for vaccinations or equipment from those countries? Will the Government support them to develop and deploy the skills and expertise that have been developed by our own dedicated scientists and doctors in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that, as vaccine distribution picks up pace and other vaccines come online, we remain committed to the COVAX Facility. The noble Baroness puts forward some practical points about British expertise and how this can be further leveraged in terms of support. Regarding specific charges that may be levied, let me assure her that the whole basis of the AMC within the COVAX Facility is to ensure that the most vulnerable are not prohibited from or limited in their access to the vaccine because of a lack of money.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, last week Dr Anthony Fauci from the US National Institutes of Health endorsed the WHO’s Covid-19 Technology Access Pool, the C-TAP. This is a key mechanism to support efforts to scale up the manufacture of vaccines for all. We are currently not supporting it. Considering the urgent need to respond to new variants of the virus, will the UK Government follow Dr Fauci’s lead?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I understand from reports coming from the United States that Dr Fauci’s expertise will be fully leveraged within the World Health Organization, as he will be leading the United States delegation now that the US has rejoined the World Health Organization, which we welcome. As details of the Covid-19 Technology Access Pool emerge from the WHO, our Government are committed to assessing how it could add value to existing innovation and access infrastructure such as the Medicines Patent Pool, which we helped to set up 10 years ago. We are looking at it very carefully. We will work closely with the United States and, importantly, the World Health Organization in this respect.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Baroness Manningham-Buller. No? I call the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Archbishop of Canterbury [V]
My Lords, we must welcome warmly the exceptional moral leadership in this remarkable donation to the COVAX programme, which I think is the largest of any country. However, in order to make the money work, and to follow up what the British ambassador, Julian Braithwaite, said at the WHO, we need a global vaccination campaign if we are to overcome this global pandemic. There are three particular obstructions to overcome. One relates to the use of surplus supplies of vaccine; for example, Canada has ordered more than five times what it needs for its population. The second is misinformation, mythical dangers or false stories being deliberately spread about the vaccines. Thirdly, in many parts of the countries that will need the vaccine, there are immense logistical difficulties in distributing it. To make the most of the financial leadership we have set and given our expertise, experience and success in the rollout in this country, what will the Government do to validate that gift by overcoming these three challenges?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the most reverend Primate makes some very pertinent and important points. On the issue of countries which have oversubscribed, some countries have already announced plans for that. We are not in that position, but others have announced how they will look at distribution. We would implore them to consider that the most equitable way to support that distribution is through the COVAX Facility and the AMC, for the very reasons that have been put forward; namely, that they have the most effective infrastructure and networks to allow for equitable and fast distribution of the vaccine as it is rolled out.
I take fully the most reverend Primate’s point on misinformation. At a time when people are concerned and worried, it is highly regrettable that some in the world are putting out misinformation on vaccines which have already gone through all stages of testing and have been approved. We must come together to tackle that and provide proper information.
The most reverend Primate’s point on logistics was well made. As vaccine distribution continues, we will work through our networks within the FCDO and the UN to further strengthen NGOs; for example, with training and by ensuring that front-line healthcare workers in the field in developing parts of the world are vaccinated first.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend for the assurances he has given the House about his department. Will he ensure that every effort is made to focus medical help to Africa on preventive vaccines, but not only against Covid-19? Can use be made of the Virtual Doctors organisation, which can assist in setting up a preventive system in African countries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is currently on a visit to Africa, where issues concerning Covid-19 and the vaccine will be addressed directly, as they will be by the Minister for Africa. In her latter point, my noble friend also makes a practical suggestion about distribution. As more vaccines become readily available and distribution evolves, we will take this forward as part of our planning and share it with other partners as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the great news from Washington this morning is that the US is joining the COVAX facility. I hope this will lead to many more opportunities. Last Friday, I met representatives of the Africa CDC who have more recent experience and expertise in conducting mass public vaccination programmes than do we in the UK. What discussions has the Minister’s department had with organisations in the global south, so that we can learn from them? They also highlighted the secondary economic impacts through healthcare and gender inequality. What preparations is the FCDO making to prevent there being a development mountain to climb after the pandemic subsides?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second question, he will appreciate that at the Gavi summit we saw a real commitment by the world community, led by the United Kingdom, not just to deal with the global pandemic but to ensure that the other challenges we face—particularly on vaccine distribution, including against polio and cholera—are not forgotten. These remain live challenges in many parts of the world. That underlines our commitment to ensuring that such challenges remain very much on the priority radar. Covid-19 vaccines and their distribution are our primary focus. I agree that we should be looking at the experience of all our partners. There are NGOs working throughout Africa that have real experience of dealing with the Ebola outbreak. We should learn from that. I have spoken to leading scientists in Pakistan who are still dealing with polio, both there and in Afghanistan. They were able to deploy quickly certain measures to deal with Covid-19 when it happened. This is a learning curve, and we must work together to ensure optimum outcomes not just for one country, but for us all.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
The UK is rightly proud of the leadership of many Governments over many years in Gavi. It was alarming to hear on the “Today” programme yesterday that only 25 vaccine injections had been delivered into arms so far in developing countries. Can the Minister reassure the House that the UK’s extra orders for the Pfizer and AZ vaccines have not caused any delays in the urgent rollout of the Gavi orders?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I, too, heard that announcement. As Minister for South Asia, I know that there are large parts of India, for example, where the population is highly vulnerable and suffers extreme poverty. The Indian authorities are part of the rollout. I have also heard that the vaccine is now being delivered to Bangladesh. The Government are stressing to all our partners that support for the COVAX facility, particularly the AMC, is a key part of ensuring equitable distribution for all.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their vaccination record. I am about to have mine, so I thank them. The Big Issue works with people on the streets all over the world—and here I declare an interest. Vaccinating street dwellers against Covid is very important, but they also need nutrition and support beyond that. Can the Minister’s department indicate whether anything might be added to the Covid vaccine that could keep these people healthy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, helping people not just in the United Kingdom but across the world. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and look forward to practical suggestions from him for how we can further strengthen our work in this area. I can assure him that we are looking particularly at famine and nutrition in fragile states. This is very much part of the development elements with which the FCDO is engaged.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, given the devastating impact of Covid-19 on low and middle-income countries, the need and the demand for overseas development assistance has never been greater. This is one of many reasons why the cut to the 0.7% is so regrettable. Can the Minister reassure me that spending on health infrastructure and on, for example, data systems, cold chain storage and the training of healthcare workers will be protected from the aid cuts? It is crucial in the fight against this and future pandemics around the world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, answering my noble friend presents me with a bit of a challenge because, not so long ago, she was leading on this area, but I hope I can provide her with practical information in every sense. I look forward to working with her further on the prioritisations within ODA. My noble friend knows better than most the challenges that this has presented. I can assure her that global health remains a top priority for the United Kingdom. We are focused on overcoming Covid-19, as well as on supporting more resilient and healthier populations in developing countries. I currently have wider responsibilities within the FCDO. We are looking specifically at country plans to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected and that other issues such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on famine, do not present additional problems as we challenge the pandemic. We will ensure that the principles close to my noble friend’s heart continue to guide our work within the FCDO.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed. I apologise to noble Lords whom it has not been possible to call.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
The Earl of Courtown
That the Regulations laid before the House on 1, 9 and 22 December 2020 be approved.
Relevant documents: 38th, 40th and 41st Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 January.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
The Earl of Courtown
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 4, Clauses 7 to 19, Schedule 5, Clauses 20 and 21, Schedule 6, Clauses 22 and 23, Schedule 7, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 8, Clauses 26 and 27, Schedule 9, Clause 28, Schedule 10, Clauses 29 to 36, Schedule 11, Clauses 37 to 45, Schedule 12, Clauses 46 to 48, Schedule 13, Clauses 49 to 53, Title.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed in today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on the group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. We will now begin.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Thursday 21st January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 163-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (18 Jan 2021)
Lord Sharkey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct the drafting.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 1 to 8, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jolly, are to correct drafting. None of them, individually or collectively, alters the meaning or substance of the parts of the Bill that they would amend. I beg to move Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made his points cogently on Report. We do not intend to oppose the amendments on the Marshalled List, as they are technical tidying amendments, consequential on those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that were passed on Report.
Lord Sharkey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct the drafting.
Lord Sharkey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct the drafting.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct the drafting.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct the drafting.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct the drafting.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct the drafting.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct the drafting.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Bill before us is quite different from the one we started with, but it is no doubt much better. That is entirely because of the huge value of your Lordships’ challenge and scrutiny. We have held over 50 meetings and considered 249 amendments, and the result is a tribute to the care and patience of noble Lords, for which I give profound thanks. It is also, if I may say so, a tribute to the workings of the hybrid House, which have kept legislation moving under difficult circumstances.
We would not have reached this position without the thoughtful, collaborative and constructive input of noble Lords, to whom, I pay tribute—in particular, to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Wheeler, on the Opposition Front Bench, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I also thank, from the Cross Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. They have all brought their immense experience and wisdom to our debates, to improve this legislation. And when it comes to wisdom and experience, I must also pay tribute to those from these Benches, especially my noble friend Lord Lansley, my predecessor, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who have all been of enormous help in enabling us to arrive at a consensus across the House. My noble friend Lord Howe has been a generous mentor, and my noble friend Lady Penn is a superlative Whip, both shepherding the process charmingly, discreetly and effectively.
I thank most emphatically my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She has spoken of the importance of compassion, of the voices she has listened to, and of the paramount importance of patient safety. I have heard her, and I support her endeavour. She has the support of the House in her efforts, and we have collectively made significant progress towards her admirable goal.
I also thank officials on the Bill team, particularly Alice Clouter, and those in my private office, particularly Tilly McEwan. They have all worked tirelessly and expertly. I cannot give thanks to all the other champions in the House who have made influential interventions, but I am definitely very grateful to them.
I cannot hide my excitement about the future. While the Bill process is near its conclusion, we are at the end of the beginning of an exciting new regulatory system—a system that protects patients and enables innovation. It is with that vision of the future, as well as my gratitude to all, that I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at this stage of the Bill, we take a few moments to congratulate ourselves and thank those who have made it possible to get this far. First, I thank my own Bill team, who have worked so hard, particularly Rhian Copple in the Lords Opposition office, and my noble friends Lady Wheeler and Lord Hunt—and, indeed, my noble friend Lady Andrews and others, who popped up here and there to support us.
We should all congratulate ourselves because, despite the conditions in which we have worked this autumn and winter, we have managed to build effective communications which have made it possible to make considerable progress in improving the Bill in many ways, as the Minister said. I think we can say that we did our job, as the revising Chamber.
The fact that we ended up with only three Divisions on Report is a testimony to way in which the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, his Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and his adviser, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the very hard-working Bill team led by Alice Clouter, handled the Bill. They listened, they discussed, they considered and they revised, which is really all that one can ask. This is the Minister’s first Bill, and I congratulate him on leading his team and handling what is always a baptism of fire for any Minister.
I am delighted to agree with the Minister and say that we are sending back a very different, and much improved, Bill. We have managed to address many of the big-ticket items, ranging from data sharing to human tissue, and, ultimately, patient safety. I thank participants across the House. Like the Minister, I mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I also thank everybody else who has taken part in the many discussions and given us the benefit of their wisdom, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord O’Shaughnessy.
First Do No Harm paved the way for the creation of an independent patient safety commissioner, and I think that changed the way in which the Bill was handled, because it is now, as it should be, a patient safety Bill. For that, I really wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
Finally, I want to thank the organisations who have given us their support and expertise, which is particularly important for those of us in opposition. I am very grateful to the DPRR and Constitution Committees for their insightful scrutiny, which sometimes is painful for the Government but is almost always helpful to us; the Lords Library; and, for us, the University of Birmingham, the British Dietetic Association, Advanced Accelerator Applications, the Association of British HealthTech Industries, Cancer Research UK and, in particular, the BMA. I am very grateful for the expert briefs that they have given us.
Stakeholder engagement will remain key for many years to come, for while the Bill will soon pass—as the Minister said—the task of creating a post-Brexit medicines and medical devices regulatory regime is far from finished. I look forward to working with stakeholders and the Minister to make sure that we move forward in the best possible fashion. We have given ourselves a good start.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, Bills come and go. This Bill started its life as one to tidy up regulatory issues to do with the new post-EU world. In 10 years’ time, the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill is one I may not list as one of the most important I have worked on; I hope that the forthcoming mental health Bill will fit that spot. If remembered at all, it will be for the introduction of a commissioner for patient safety, born out of the First Do No Harm report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
There will need to be changes in the House of Commons to make the Bill really fit for purpose. The Minister has indicated the Government’s intention to lay amendments, and I am grateful to him for involving Peers in that process. When does he anticipate Second Reading in the Commons?
As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, many people make a Bill, and they do not all sit in the Chamber. In particular, I thank both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for giving us time to talk to the Bill team and allow them to explain new government amendments. Of course, I should not forget the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and her team; the noble Lord, Lord Patel; my noble friend Lord Sharkey; staff in opposition offices; and others who certainly made the Bill better, turning it into a workable piece of primary legislation.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, I could not let this opportunity pass without expressing my gratitude to all those who have played such a vital part in drafting, scrutinising and improving this important Bill. I know that it will now return to the other place. I wish it a fair wind and hope that we will soon see it enacted.
Throughout, noble Lords from all sides of the House have, quite rightly, focused on using the Bill to strengthen patient safety. Safety is now threaded throughout the Bill. I do so welcome that; it is something that the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, have both just mentioned. We have enshrined a very important safety recommendation in the Bill: we will now have a proper database to record the medical devices that are used and on which we and patients will be able to track their outcomes and detect safety more quickly. I cannot overstate just how important that is. Without this data, the healthcare system has been flying blind.
I have been very touched by the kind and thoughtful expressions of support from so many noble Lords in general debates and, in particular, for my amendments, which were triggered by the recommendations in First Do No Harm. The report enshrined in me that, at every opportunity, we must be reminded that the NHS is run for the people and is paid for by the people. Right now, the NHS is demonstrating a total commitment to saving lives and defeating this deadly virus—a virus that, as it sweeps around the world, devastates lives, livelihoods, education, personal budgets and a national aspiration for a better world.
In the dark days of the Second World War, Beveridge was preparing for a better Britain. In these dark days, there is a need to make plans—not just to return to what was there before but to look forward to something better. I believe that the patient safety commissioner will provide something better and will improve patient safety and healthcare as a whole. I was thrilled that so many of your Lordships lent me their support in calling for this; I know that their voices made all the difference. I thank the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, for their generous remarks today.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Cumberlege; I pay fulsome tribute to her and the team that, through her leadership, produced the report, First Do No Harm, from which we see this Bill. I would like to join her and others in paying tribute to my noble friends Lord Bethell, Lady Penn and Lord Howe, who I had the honour to work with, as a humble bag carrier, in the other place.
In recalling my interest with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, I would like to make one plea to the Minister as this Bill proceeds to the other place. For clinical trials and patient safety, which is the focus of the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support, we need to rely on patients making their data available and giving consent for it to be used for clinical purposes. During the passage of the Bill, I raised what has now been seen in Denmark—a huge reaction against patient data having been abused and used for commercial purposes against the wishes, and without the consent, of patients. Were that to happen here, it would detract from the fundamental good of this Bill and the wider public benefit to the NHS and future patients of sharing the clinical data that permeates this Bill. I urge the Minister, therefore, to look seriously at the practical question that remains of how patient consent will be obtained and confidentiality respected, particularly in meeting the requirements of clinical need. But I am delighted to have played even a small part in the passage of this Bill, and we look forward to its passage through the other place.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to express my thanks to the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and all the other noble Lords who have been taking part in this legislation, in particular those who spoke to and supported my amendments from all sides of the House.
Much has already been said about what we have achieved. I know that time is running short, so I will try and be brief. Of course I congratulate, first and foremost, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for achieving what I had tried before—getting patient safety on statute. I did not have her tenacity or clout. So, many congratulations to her and, I believe, the commissioner for patient safety, who will make patient safety stronger in the whole of the health service.
I am very grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the many meetings they arranged with us to hear our concerns and find solutions. I know it is a privilege for me to speak in person, but I hope all my colleagues on the Cross Benches—more than 12 of them—who took part in the Bill will feel I can speak on their behalf to thank Ministers and all other noble Lords.
I am also grateful to members of the Bill team, who were very helpful at the many meetings that the Minister arranged. And I am grateful to outsiders, in particular the University of Birmingham faculty of law, which worked very hard to produce the details of the legislation. Thank you all.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is not much more to say that has not already been said by other noble Lords. I just wanted to use this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to particular groups. The Bill team and private office, which have worked so hard to produce this legislation, are amazing in what they do and often unsung. It is important we recognise them.
Secondly, I thank those patients and patient groups who have provided so much moving information and testimony that has informed our work. After all, we serve them, and I hope and believe that we have served them through improving this Bill in this House in the way we have.
Thirdly, I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. When I was in government and we commissioned her report, I could not have dreamed that she would have done such a thorough job and carried it with her customary tenacity, to the point where we have, on statute, the commitment to a patient safety commissioner. It is such an important step forward and it will make a massive difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in this country. For that, we should all be proud of this step—and she in particular should be.
Finally, I thank the Minister—my noble friend Lord Bethell—the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but particularly the Minister; he has performed with absolute aplomb in the difficult 10 months since he became a Minister. He has so much on his plate, yet throughout this process he has listened, engaged and acted in a way that does him enormous credit, and I really want to pay tribute to him for everything he has done.
I share the Minister’s optimism that, having produced this Bill, we can produce a regulatory system for the UK outside Europe that is the envy of the world, that makes sure that every company, every charity and every researcher who wants to bring a transformative therapy into a health system will come to us because of what we are able to do and how we are able to bring them through into mainstream treatment, just as we are doing with vaccines and have done with the recovery trial. That is the template, and I look forward to working with my noble friends and other noble Lords to make that happen in the months to come.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely touched by the kind words of noble Lords and pay tribute once again to the hard work of all those concerned. I look forward to the future—to, as my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, the opportunity for patient safety and innovation to be enhanced by this Bill. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order given in Today’s List. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on a group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
Thursday 21st January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 View all Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 161-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (18 Jan 2021)
14:52 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness Jones’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 29 / Noes: 440 - Baroness Jones’s amendment disagreed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am required to inform the House that the Scottish Government informed the UK Government that they would be unable to recommend legislative consent for the devolved elements of this Bill, and we have tabled amendments in advance of this debate that remove from the Bill provisions that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The content of the Bill does not invoke the legislative consent process in Wales or Northern Ireland.
We have engaged closely with the Scottish Government over many months, during the drafting of the legislation and throughout its passage. Where the Scottish Government have identified concerns, we have sought to remedy them. An example of that is an agreement from operational agencies to discuss a memorandum of understanding with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to provide the Lord Advocate with visibility of criminal conduct in Scotland.
The Scottish Government, however, required further amendments to the Bill in areas which the Government cannot support; namely, placing express limits on the face of the Bill. The Government’s position throughout this process has been based on advice from operational partners to ensure that the Bill is workable in practice and has no unintended consequences for the safety of the public, or a CHIS, and we have had clear advice from operational partners in all parts of the UK that placing limits on the face of the Bill will lead to CHIS testing and increased initiation tests. We remain open to further discussion with the Scottish Government, to ensure that operational agencies continue to have access to the tools required to keep us safe.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the Minister to make a Statement on legislative consent.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have just done that.
Clause 4: Corresponding provision for Scotland
Amendment 1
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, these amendments remove from the Bill the ability to authorise participation in criminal conduct for devolved purposes in Scotland. I have just outlined why we have tabled these amendments: they are in response to the decision of the Scottish Government that they cannot recommend legislative consent. The amendments, therefore, respect the Sewel convention.
Authorisations necessary for the purpose of national security or the economic well-being of the United Kingdom relate to reserved matters, and public authorities will still be able to grant authorisations for these purposes for activity in Scotland. An authorisation necessary for preventing and detecting crime, or preventing disorder, is not in itself reserved. An authorisation granted for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime, or preventing disorder, may, therefore, relate to devolved matters, and it will be these matters to which the Bill will not apply.
In the immediate term, public authorities will need to continue to rely on existing legal bases for such authorisations in Scotland. Were these bases to change—I note the legal challenge currently before the Court of Appeal in relation to MI5’s existing legal basis for this activity—it would be for the Scottish Government to bring forward their own legislation to place this conduct on the clear and consistent statutory basis that the Bill delivers. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, of course, we do not intend to oppose the government amendments —the devolution settlement is to be respected. However, I have some questions, the answer to which at least one of which I can work out from the Minister’s introduction to the amendment. She has had my notes, so I will go through the points that occurred to me.
First, can the Government say anything about their assessment of the impact of what the Minister has just explained? In Committee, she referred to minimising the “immediate operational impact”. It appears to be acknowledged, therefore, that there is some impact. What happens if Scotland legislates differently? The Minister’s letter to noble Lords of 13 January explains one of the issues, which I take to be the major issue, about which the Scottish Government was concerned: an amendment to the limits to conduct that can be authorised; that is, whether specific listed crimes should be excluded. The House has debated that point and I am not seeking to reopen the matter.
In Committee, the Minister reminded us that national security and economic well-being are reserved, not devolved; she has just repeated that. In that case, could there be challenges—it seems to me that there could be—as to whether certain conduct is merely, if that is the right word, a crime? It is not merely a crime, but the House will understand that I am referring to a crime that does not fall within the other categories. The Minister also said that public authorities will continue to rely, in the immediate term, on the existing basis for an authorisation—which, I take it from what she said, is the non-statutory basis.
How, then, does Clause 8 work? That clause says that the Bill extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland, save that Acts of the Scottish Parliament are not amended. The Minister has introduced Amendment 7 —as well as Amendment 8—which amends Schedule 2, the list of consequential amendments. This provides that there may not be a criminal conduct authorisation if
“all or some of the conduct … is likely to take place in Scotland.”
If some of the conduct is in Scotland and the rest in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, does that mean there have to be parallel authorisations, one statutory and one non-statutory? Or do I understand from what the Minister said that the Government in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will proceed on the non-statutory basis so it will be aligned with the authorisation in Scotland? A criminal conduct authorisation prompted by an ordinary crime, if I can call it that, cannot extend across the border but, of course, the crime may well do so.
Finally, the Minister may or may not be able to say whether the issue is wider than the Bill. We will be in Committee next week on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill and I gather from government amendments that there is an issue there—but is it an even wider issue on legislation? I hope the Minister can help with my questions, which I have tabled in order to understand how the Bill will operate in this circumstance.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of these government amendments and for her letter of 13 January explaining the position in the light of the confirmation from the Scottish Government that they are unable to recommend consent for devolved provisions within the Bill. We understand why the Government have brought forward these amendments today and accept the need for them. Our key concern is whether the situation that has now been reached will have any adverse impact at all on national security and economic well-being, UK-wide, and it would be helpful if the Government could confirm, as I think the Minister has sought to indicate, that there will be no such adverse impact.
The letter from the Minister of 13 January states that the Scottish Government
“require further amendment to the Bill in relation to limits to the conduct which can be authorised under the Bill.”
As this House has now added those limits to the Bill, are the Government minded to change their stance on that issue and accept the amendment concerned?
Finally—I appreciate that this is a matter to which the Minister has also made reference—will the Government say what the impact will be, first in Scotland, to which she referred, and also in the UK as a whole, if the present legal basis for authorising criminal conduct changes, based on the outcome of the current, ongoing court case?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for raising those points. On the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on what happens if the law changes in relation to the court case, clearly the court case is ongoing, we await the findings of it and, in a sense pre-empting the court case, the Government have seen fit to put on to a statutory footing that which was never on a statutory footing. So I hope that, without in any way pre-empting the court case, this will satisfy the courts.
Obviously, the Government are disappointed that we are having to bring forward these amendments. We made it clear that a UK Bill was and remains our preference, and we have worked hard to try to accommodate that. But we have to ensure the workability of the Bill as our primary consideration, and on those grounds we could not provide the amendment necessary to ensure the support of the Scottish Government. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about limits, we will not accept any change to what we have put forward because it would completely undermine the operational capabilities that the Bill provides for. I have been through the arguments about the safeguards on human rights that are provided in the Bill and, of course, the Children Act when it comes to children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the Government’s assessment of impact. She will appreciate that we do not want to provide sensitive operational detail, but operational partners are considering how to manage any impact of the decision of the Scottish Government. In the immediate term, public authorities will need to consider any existing legal basis for an authorisation, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right to acknowledge that these organisations will not be able to rely on the clear statutory basis provided by the Bill. If there is operational or legal risk in the future, it will be for the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation for devolved activity. It will be in their gift to decide on the safeguards attached to that legislation, and I would hope and expect them to be driven by the expert advice of operational partners, as we have been.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
“(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(5) No person may grant or renew a section 29B(5)(b) authorisation if it appears to the person that all or some of the conduct authorised by the section 29B(5)(b) authorisation is likely to take place in Scotland.(6) But subsection (5) does not apply if the grant or renewal of the section 29B(5)(b) authorisation is for a purpose relating to a reserved matter (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998).(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6),“a section 29B(5)(b) authorisation” means an authorisation under section 29B in so far as it is granted or, as the case may be, renewed on the grounds that it is necessary on grounds falling within section 29B(5)(b).””Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
“Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to allow the bill to pass because the bill (1) grants blanket prior legal immunity for otherwise criminal conduct without sufficient safeguards or oversight, (2) provides no system of prior judicial authorisation, (3) does not recover profits obtained under a Criminal Conduct Authorisation which could include proceeds from the sale of drugs, weapons, human trafficking and slavery, (4) fails to provide compensation to victims of crimes authorised under the bill, and (5) represents a significant expansion of undercover policing despite, and without regard to, the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, noble Lords can imagine that there is a lot of legislation going through this House that I oppose. In the past, I have exercised restraint and have not been disruptive with procedural Motions, but there are times when we all need to make a stand, and this Bill, for me, is one of those situations. It is a terrible piece of legislation and I cannot be complicit in it, nor in future acts of state oppression that will be the result of our passing it, and I will, therefore, divide the House.
Noble Lords have spent many days trying to improve the Bill, and we have made a few positive steps, but even if the other place does not remove most of those amendments, the Bill is still so fundamentally flawed that it should not be allowed to pass. Scotland has had the sense to refuse the Bill and I wish that we would do the same. I was subject to police surveillance for more than a decade. I did not know about it, it did not affect me, and even when I found out, it really did not affect me very much—but others in your Lordships’ House were subject to similar but much worse surveillance, and many will not even know whether they were observed and under surveillance or not. The Bill does nothing to improve that situation; in fact, it will make things worse by granting total legal immunity to undercover officers, spies and informants.
There is also the fact that the Bill has been brought forward while the Undercover Policing Inquiry is still going on. Not far from here, that inquiry is hearing evidence about police infiltration of peaceful campaign groups and unions, and undercover officers forming sexual relationships with women. The Bill learns no lessons from that inquiry and does nothing to support the victims. It actually grants much broader legal immunity to the wrongdoers.
I am also concerned that I did not get a proper answer to my repeated questions about the proceeds of crimes authorised under the Bill. My conclusion is that the police will be able to authorise people to profit from criminal activities, and that there is no way for the state to recover those profits. I hope there will not be too many miscarriages of justice and abuses of power before we revisit and repeal this legislation. With all that in mind, I am sad that I am in a minority in opposing the Bill, but I cannot in conscience abstain and accept its passage. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, as one of the many Cross-Benchers who has applied themselves to this Bill, I record my thanks to the Minister for her explanations and for the discussions with her, which I have enjoyed—no 48-hour weeks for her—and James Brokenshire, who continues to have all our good wishes; to the Bill team; to the police and MI5; to IPCO, whose monitoring function is so vital; and to the NGOs and individuals who campaign on these issues and do their best to keep us all honest. I am particularly grateful to those who brought the Third Direction case. There are issues of great public concern which simply do not come to the attention of Parliament without the spur of litigation, and this is one of them. I have also appreciated not only the speeches of other noble Lords but my informal dialogue with them, intensive at times, which in my experience can be achieved just as easily, if not quite so pleasurably, in a virtual House as in a physical one.
This Bill was not widely consulted on and went from Committee stage to Third Reading in the other place during a single day. It needed the time we were able to give it, and I believe that after seven days of debate we have achieved significant improvement and clarification. I thank the Minister in particular for working with me on real-time notification. I hope we can achieve a satisfactory result on the other excellent amendments that we have passed, including those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which improve notification and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on juvenile CHIS, while still enabling the Bill to be enacted by the start of the Court of Appeal hearing on 28 January, which I know is the Government’s ambition.
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and understand her regrets, which are underlined by the withholding of consent by the Scottish Government, but I will not be voting for her amendment to the Motion. For all its difficult and controversial features, the Bill is a clear improvement on the opaque and poorly safeguarded arrangements that preceded it, and it has my support.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have bled your Lordships’ ears over this Bill long enough, so I can be short. I thank the Minister for her patience and fortitude but my profound fears about this legislation will continue for a very long time, until it is amended or repealed. My concerns are about the signal that it sends but, even more, about the serious human rights abuses that it will herald. It is, quite simply, the most constitutionally dangerous legislation that I have seen presented in this country in my working life.
I am rather ashamed not to have been able to persuade more of your Lordships of the profound dangers of allowing the Executive to grant advance immunity for criminal actions to a whole raft of their agents—not just the brave security services or the hard-pressed police but many other government agencies and quangos, and the members of our communities who inform for or work for them, including even children. It will not even be with prior judicial warrant. This legislation does not put current arrangements on a statutory footing, so it does not merely respond to the litigation mentioned by the previous speaker. As for that litigation, there may be a lesson here for those of us who at times have dabbled in test-case legislation: to be careful what we wish for when provoking the might of the state in this fashion.
Just as our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic are beginning to rebuild their own bedrock of the rule of law, it will take a little longer in our own jurisdiction. A lot is said of patriotism these days. My patriotism is not the love of a flag but, in a nutshell, a love of the NHS and the rule of law. This Bill abrogates the vital principle of equality before the law, which I think all people well understand. It is a very sad day for me. For the moment, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I can only bear witness for the record—but that I must do. I cannot in good conscience support the Bill being passed off as law.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, always expresses herself firmly and persuasively. That said, I am afraid I could not agree with her less about this legislation. I support the passage of the Bill and want to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has been both consultative and a very good listener. She has also shown that she is prepared to move on important issues. Far from what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, the Bill puts CHIS on a solid, statutory footing.
It has improved the way in which CHIS are to be dealt with by creating a clear process, all of which is legally enforceable and accountable. The code of practice has been mentioned less frequently in our debates than it deserved. It is absolutely required reading for all who are involved, or perhaps even interested, in how CHIS are handled in this country. One thing to be emphasised about the code of practice is that because it is a code rather than an Act of Parliament, although it has the force of law, it is a living instrument which can be changed as needs must.
The Bill will make a beneficial difference for the authorities, for the CHIS themselves and for public safety. With the changes that have been made, which have been difficult and creative at times, I commend it to the House.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is my particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, although it is a particular discomfort to me to disagree with him on this occasion. The Bill proposes that the state should have the power to grant immunity for crimes committed in the future by agents on its behalf. I believe that the grant of such immunity is contrary to the rule of law, which prescribes that all are bound equally to observe the law, not least the criminal law. The fact that such immunity will derive from legislation if the Bill becomes law does not alter my belief.
Giving the state the power to exempt prospectively its agents from criminal law is the antithesis of this fundamental principle. A decision to prosecute or not should be granted only retrospectively, when all the facts and circumstances of the conduct at issue are known, including the nature of any authorisation and, above all, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. The CPS makes such decisions all the time; that is compatible with the rule of law and equality before the law. This arrangement, as far as is known, has worked perfectly satisfactorily for the last 200 years. Instead, the Bill overturns this status quo, challenges the rule of law and gives the state unparalleled powers. I regret that on this occasion I cannot follow the advice of my noble friends on my party’s Front Bench and, as a matter of conscience, I am obliged to vote against the Bill.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for all the consultation she has gone through, and the Government for their flexibility in adjusting the Bill to the stage it has reached. I am also always pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and find that I think along the same lines as him, as I did when I was the Government’s Security Minister and he was outside the box, looking in to make sure that we behaved.
I am speaking against the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, albeit that she put it eloquently. We should be proud of the Bill. Putting our covert human intelligence agents’ behaviour on a statutory basis is to be praised. As I have said, agents save lives. In working under cover, CHIS need to be trusted by those on whom they are reporting. Put simply, if they are to be believed to be a gang member, they need to act like one. If they do not, it is no exaggeration to say that they could be killed. Their handlers must be able to authorise them to break the law in certain circumstances and subject to specific safeguards. This has been strengthened in our debates and we should be proud of that. The ISC believes that there is a need for such authorisations. It also supports the Government’s decision not to place limits on criminal conduct in the Bill itself for the reasons that were debated.
I have thought long and hard about the use of children and I have to say that, initially, I was very concerned about it. As an aside, I do not consider 16 to 18 year-olds children, but that is a different issue. As regards the use of those aged below 16, I now believe that they should be used in exceptional circumstances, and appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that that can be done to maximum gain and with minimum risk.
In summary, as I say, we should be proud that we have put this issue on a statutory basis. The Bill is a necessary and useful piece of legislation.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, in nearly 30 years in your Lordships’ House, I have never seen a piece of legislation that has made me more uneasy than this Bill. To me it is counterintuitive to give anyone the power to pre-empt the application of the criminal law .
I of course support the need to do all that is necessary to protect our national security and to detect and prevent serious crime, but it should have been possible to find other means. To choose this moment to extend in legislation the legality of law-breaking seems most unwise. This, after all, is a time when Russia is without compunction using, both at home and abroad, deadly poisons to eliminate its enemies. When it succeeds, it denies it. When it fails, its leader blithely explains that when it wants to kill, it succeeds.
I give one simple and deliberately irrelevant example. If a burglar is killed by a householder protecting himself or his family, it is unlikely that a jury will convict him of murder or even manslaughter. That does not mean, however, that we should legislate to give ex-ante immunity to householders who kill burglars.
I have one more word on journalists. I tried to persuade your Lordships to require judicial authorisation for any requirement to force journalists to reveal their sources in cases covered by the Bill. The amendment was defeated by seven votes but I was comforted by the fact that three former Cabinet Secretaries voted for it.
The Bill will now pass, and I shall vote for it, but let us agree, at least informally, that its implementation should be monitored with rigour. All societies must defend their security but open societies must take especial care of how they do so. Yesterday, President Biden told the American people that
“we’ll lead not merely by the example of our power but the power of our example.”
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is absolutely right to bring forward her amendment to the Motion. I might want to criticise the details, which I do not intend to do, but she is right to do so. In fact, it would have been inconsistent with her rigid approach to the Bill for her not to do so. So, to that extent, I support her right to table the amendment; there is no question whatever about that. It gives me an opportunity to further vote for the Bill because I will not support the amendment to the Motion.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, just made a point about the open society. This is a problem and there is a disquiet here. As an open society, we need to protect our openness. However, when that openness is the very thing used to undermine and smash our open society, we have to say no. We have to have a process that defends our open society and is consistent with the rule of law. The Bill is perfect for that. I have no doubt that in future the Bill will be amended, but the language that has been used about it is extravagant and misleading.
I see that on Twitter it is described as the “Spy Cops Bill”. It has nothing to do with spy cops. It is completely different and that can be misleading. If I was a CHIS in Scotland, I would be a bit concerned at the moment about becoming a whistleblower because I am not sure whether the Scottish Government are fully behind the process.
Perhaps I may briefly also express thanks. I have not been involved in the detail but I took up the Minister’s opportunity for a discussion with the Bill team and some of the advisers, which I found useful. Indeed, as a result, they published more information. The case studies, which I used extensively on Report, should have been deployed even more. There has been a communication issue regarding the Bill, which I find a fault because the Government have not defended and promoted some of its practical aspects as much as they could have.
The Bill protects covert human intelligence sources. It makes sure that they are not put at risk by being tested by the criminal gangs they may have been sucked into involuntarily, as mentioned in some of the examples used in the case studies. It is not the case that all people knowingly go down that route; they get sucked in by their employers. As a non-expert in this area, I found the newly published guidance incredibly helpful.
My final point is on the pejorative language used, such as when quangos are dismissed as not important. Most of the quangos listed in the Bill are non-ministerial government departments and should not be dismissed by saying, “Oh, it doesn’t matter”. I find that kind of language unacceptable among parliamentarians because it deliberately seeks to mislead the public regarding what the Bill is about. It should stop.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have a lot of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and we support the spirit of her amendment to the Motion to the extent that we oppose the granting of legal immunity. We believe that the Bill undermines the rule of law—that is, the principle whereby all members of a society are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. As a result of the Bill, that is called into question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, have said.
Where a police officer or member of the security services tasks a covert human intelligence source to commit an act defined in law as a crime, the person tasked will no longer be subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. An existing system that has worked effectively for decades, whereby informants and agents are tasked to commit crime and the decision, almost without exception, not to prosecute is taken by the relevant prosecuting authority, after considering all the facts, will be swept aside.
It is to be replaced with what we consider an unsafe and undesirable power, vested in the hands of the police, the security services and numerous other public authorities, to grant legal immunity with no prior judicial authority. The main issue is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, says in her amendment to the Motion, that there are insufficient safeguards or oversight, although this is arguably true. It is the fact that immunity can be granted at all, making the illegal legal. That is the fundamental issue for us on these Benches. I expect the legality of this aspect of the Bill to be challenged in the courts. That said, the House fully debated this aspect of the Bill, and without the support of the Labour Party leadership, we on these Benches were unable to remove it.
Contrary to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, this House has clarified the existing position and improved the Bill, to ensure that innocent victims of crimes committed by those instructed to do so by state agents can seek compensation. Contrary to her amendment to the Motion, undercover policing is not being expanded by the Bill, although the Bill has shone more light on this aspect of policing. The number of public authorities that can deploy covert human intelligence sources has been reduced by the Bill. The directed criminal activity of those informants and agents has been placed on a statutory footing, rather than the Bill enabling it to increase.
From the start, we recognised the need to place the tasking of covert human intelligence sources to commit crime on a statutory basis, which this Bill does. We have improved the Bill in some important respects—the safeguards for children and vulnerable adults, for example, despite our fundamental misgivings over immunity. Therefore, with regret, we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment to the Motion.
I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their work on the Bill; our Labour colleagues and their staff for their assistance and co-operation on those aspects that we were able to agree on; and those on the Cross Benches who have liaised with us. I also thank my staff and colleagues for their help with what has been a very difficult Bill for me, personally, because of my previous professional experience of this difficult area of policing and because of my knowledge of the very real opportunities that the Bill presents for corruption and malpractice. The amendments that this House has introduced are the very minimum required and we will resist any attempt to remove any of them.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we do not support the amendment to the Motion. This unelected House does not vote down Bills. Our role is that of a revising Chamber. Through making amendments to Bills, we invite the House of Commons to reconsider its position on specific aspects of legislation. That is what we have done with this Bill.
We have debated amendments to the Bill. Some have been agreed by this House, and some have not had its support. From our point of view, we have not won the support of this House for everything we wanted, but important amendments have been agreed and we want the Bill with those amendments to go back to the House of Commons for consideration. This amendment to the Motion, if carried, would thwart that objective and accordingly we shall vote against it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment to the Motion. I join other noble Lords in thanking the police, MI5 and other operational partners who will now, I hope, have a clear statutory framework and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says, the accompanying code of practice, which will also have the full force of law in which to operate.
I hope that the Government have put forward their case, in spite of some of the unique challenges relating to the sensitivity of this tactic and that noble Lords are reassured that I have been listening and will continue to listen to the strength of views that have been put forward on certain issues. I am happy to discuss any issue further and urge noble Lords to take that course of action if they have any remaining concerns, rather than support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which would cause the Bill to fall.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford talked about the implementation being monitored with rigour and I totally agree. Any legislation brought before Parliament must have that rigorous monitoring behind it. Every time the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has spoken on the Bill, I felt like saying, “I refer noble Lords to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker”. He talked about the case studies which were much asked for at the beginning of the debates on the Bill and, once forthcoming, as the noble Lord said, almost forgotten about.
It is also worth considering that, without the power or activity that the Bill provides for, the NCA would have been unable to take almost 60 firearms off the street in 2018 alone and the Metropolitan Police would have been unable to seize more than 400 kilograms of class A drugs between November 2018 and November 2019. MI5 and CT policing would also have been impacted in their ability to thwart some 27 terror attacks since March 2017. I do not think that any noble Lord would want to prevent this criminality being stopped in future, which is what the amendment would do.
I acknowledge the important principles behind much of our debate on the Bill—Parliament needs to reassure itself that there is suitable oversight in place, and we have really interrogated that. While strong and differing opinions have been expressed on how to legislate for this activity, I pay tribute to the quality of the debate, despite fundamental differences, and the passionate and articulate way in which noble Lords have relayed their views.
I hope that, during the course of the debates, I have demonstrated the significant safeguards that exist and some of the additional ones that, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others have said, have now been inserted. Highly trained and experienced authorising officers must assess that an authorisation is necessary and proportionate. That authorisation must be compliant with the Human Rights Act, including the right to life and the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The authorisation is then overseen by the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who reports his findings in his annual report and, thanks to amendments supported by noble Lords, will now consider each and every authorisation within seven days of it being granted. The IPT then offers an entirely independent judicial mechanism for anyone who is concerned that they have been subjected to improper action by any user of an investigatory power.
I hope that the Division that I know the noble Baroness is going to call will not succeed, and I hope that the Bill will now go back to the other place so that it can consider the amendments that noble Lords supported on Report. The Government are committed to providing any additional reassurance to command the support of Parliament and, of course, to keep the public and CHIS safe.
I will conclude there because I realise that we have combined speeches from the debate on the amendment with the final concluding remarks, but I join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in thanking the Opposition Front Benches, everyone who has contributed to these debates and all the staff who support us. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, but I suspect that that is not about to happen.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I also thank the eight or nine Peers I passed as I came into the House, all of whom gave me the benefit of their views on this Bill and my amendment—some were positive.
It seemed to me that this Bill was the worst I had ever seen in your Lordships’ House until yesterday, when we had the overseas operations Bill, which is even worse. Luckily, there appears to be more opposition to that; I look forward to joining in. I have been in your Lordships’ House for seven and a half years, and, to the best of my recollection—which is not always the best—I have only ever pressed one vote to a Division. Today’s will be the second. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding. It is not possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. Participants who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. In putting the question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Thursday 21st January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 View all Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 98-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (18 Jan 2021)
17:21 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 274 - Amendment 14 disagreed.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“General duty
The Secretary of State must exercise his or her functions under this Part in accordance with the general duty under section 1 of the Transport Act 2000.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 1
“would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.”
Amendment 10 is complementary to this amendment.
Amendment 2 would ensure that
“the Secretary of State must, before making a direction requiring a person to progress an airspace change, consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy and is reasonably practicable to comply with.”
Amendment 5 would ensure that, before making direction requiring a person to co-operate in an air- space change, the Secretary of State must consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that it is reasonably practical for the recipient of the direction to comply with it.
Amendment 8 would align the test for the variation of the direction with that applicable to making a direction. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any direction to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal or variations or revocations of such direction made under this part. Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy and related reports.
Amendment 13 concerns the report on general aviation. General aviation—this was the case in my day, which is now some decades ago, but I think it still persists—particularly light general aviation, is essentially where all our airline pilots are initially trained; that is how they come into the profession and so on. It is important that it is properly facilitated with respect to airspace changes and development. Fortunately, from conversations with the Minister, I believe that she shares that view, and I hope that, in her response, she will set out the Government’s support for general aviation and how its interests will be taken account of in the developing airspace debate. Hopefully, this will leave general aviation properly provided for and, almost as important, feeling that it has been properly consulted in the development.
In summary, this group of amendments seeks to clarify the role of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a role that is related to the CAA in various processes. It is not entirely clear who is in charge. The Bill as written gives the Secretary of State and the CAA the powers to achieve airspace change, but it is not clear who is actually responsible for getting it done. I would like to hear from the Minister that it is clear that the achievement of improvements and a new airspace capability is down to the Secretary of State, answerable to Parliament, and that his relationship with the CAA may be a partnership but he is the person in the partnership who is held accountable for execution and success.
The rest of the amendments are about requiring appropriate relationships between the parties and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the Bill, but I must use this opportunity to say that it is a bit of a mess. That is not surprising, because it has such a long history: the Bill itself is the result of attempts over several years to get legislation of this nature, and of course we had the Committee stage over a year ago.
Since then, there has been a dramatic reversal in the fortunes of the aviation industry—one that we would never have foreseen at the time when we spoke about this last. The impact of coronavirus has undermined all branches of aviation. In addition, of course, since we last spoke we have left the transition period following Brexit, but we are still at the point where we have to adhere to international norms and regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for tabling these amendments. I hope to set out the Government’s rationale for why we believe they are not necessary. I do not expect to speak at length on all groups, but for this group specifically it is important to put on record some commitments that the Government are willing to make and the rationale for them. I will return to the financial concerns of airports, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in the next group.
Amendments 1 and 10 seek to require the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority to act in accordance with the general duty set out in Sections 1 and 2 of the Transport Act 2000 respectively. These duties apply only to the provision of air traffic services and set out various matters to be considered in the exercise of the relevant functions. This includes the words
“to secure that licence holders will not find it unduly difficult to finance activities authorised by their licences”,
which in effect refers solely to NATS (En Route) plc, or NERL, as the UK’s only licence holder. I understand that NERL would like to ensure that the specific duty on the Secretary of State and the CAA is considered when directing NERL with an airspace change proposal, or ACP. It is already a requirement for the Secretary of State and the CAA to consider any licence conditions relating to NERL’s role in airspace modernisation through the lens of its statutory duties under the Transport Act 2000. As with any proposed recipient of a direction, if the licence holder has financial concerns in progressing an ACP then we expect that the CAA’s oversight team will seek to assist in finding potential solutions, such as sharing costs or expertise with other airport operators or assisting the proposed recipient in applying for funding from other sources.
The noble Lord’s amendment would extend the duties of the CAA and the Secretary of State in the Transport Act 2000 to cover other sponsors of airspace change; for example, airports. Relevant duties already apply to air navigation functions which the Secretary of State directs the CAA to carry out. Section 66 of the Transport Act 2000 enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the CAA regarding air navigation, and Section 70 sets out the CAA’s general duty in relation to its air navigation functions.
The amendment would be likely to cause a legislative conflict because, when determining whether to make directions using the powers in the Bill, the Secretary of State will consider advice from the CAA. This advice will take into account how critical the airspace change in question is in contributing to overall airspace modernisation, and the ability of the proposed recipient to progress the change, including the proposed recipient’s financial and other resources.
I turn to Amendments 2, 5, 8 and 9. The purpose of Amendments 2 and 5 is to require the Secretary of State to have regard to representations made by any person involved in airspace change before issuing a direction in order to be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA airspace strategy and that it is reasonably practicable to comply with. Amendments 8 and 9 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the same considerations applied if the Secretary of State varied a direction and that the reasons for the variation were published. I reassure noble Lords that appropriate conditions are already written into the Bill.
Clause 2(3) states that, before giving a direction, the Secretary of State must consult its proposed recipient. Clause 2(4) states that the Secretary of State may give a direction only if he or she is of the view that it
“will assist in the delivery of the CAA’s airspace strategy.”
Clause 3(2) states that the Secretary of State must consult both the proposed recipient of the direction and
“the person with whom co-operation would be directed.”
On Amendments 8 and 9, Clause 4 requires that directions, and any notice of variation or revocation, given by the Secretary of State under Clauses 2 and 3 are given in writing and are published. As with directions given under Clauses 2 or 3, any variation of a direction must assist in the delivery of the airspace strategy. We also expect the Secretary of State to consider how critical the ACP is and the ability of the sponsor to progress it. Before varying a direction, prior consultation with the relevant parties would be required. The same factors considered when giving a direction would be considered before varying or revoking a direction.
The requirement to consult before giving or varying a direction would inevitably require the Secretary of State to provide reasons for giving or varying a direction and to take advice from the CAA to ensure that the direction or its variation is required to assist in the delivery of the CAA’s strategy. We would expect the reasons for the direction, or variation or revocation, to be given and published alongside the direction or notice of variation or revocation, rather than in the direction or notice of variation itself, although the Bill is not prescriptive on that point.
In the unlikely event that a direction or variation were given where it was not reasonably practicable for the sponsor to carry it out, the sponsor would be able to use its right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, under Schedule 1, if the decision was wrong on one or more of the following grounds; namely, if it was based on an error of fact or was wrong in law, or an error was made in the exercise of a discretion.
Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy. It would also require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a Statement setting out progress towards the implementation of the strategy within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and to lay further reports covering every subsequent 12-month period within six months of those periods ending.
The Civil Aviation Authority (Air Navigation) Directions 2017, issued to the CAA under Section 66(1) of the Transport Act 2000, directs the CAA to
“prepare and maintain a co-ordinated strategy and plan for the use of UK airspace for air navigation up to 2040, including for the modernisation of the use of such airspace.”
This places responsibility on the CAA for preparing the strategy, in consultation with the Secretary of State, and to report annually on the delivery of that strategy, which the CAA does through its airspace modernisation strategy—AMS. However, although the CAA and the DfT, as co-sponsors, are jointly responsible for the programme and for setting out the framework within which modernisation happens, airspace modernisation will ultimately be delivered by aviation stakeholders. Therefore, the legislation makes it clear that the CAA is required by the Secretary of State to prepare and maintain an airspace strategy and publish an annual report on it, and that the Secretary of State will hold the CAA accountable for this.
With regard to the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a Statement on the CAA’s progress against the strategy, as I mentioned previously, the CAA is already required to publish an annual report on progress against the AMS through the directions made by the Transport Secretary under the air navigation directions 2017. The latest report was published on 22 December 2020. It is worth noting that an amendment of this nature would widen the scope of the Bill, which provides the Secretary of State with specific powers with regard to airspace change proposals, not responsibility for the AMS as a whole, which is covered by Section 66 of the Transport Act 2000.
Finally, Amendment 13, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of Parts 1 and 2 on the general aviation—GA—sector. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his constructive engagement on this issue since Committee; his insight and experience have been most welcome.
GA is a key part of the aviation sector and is an important source of pilots, engineers and technicians, who, in turn, contribute to the success of commercial aviation, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The Government support GA, and we will continue to ensure that its needs are not overlooked at both local and national level when it comes to airspace modernisation.
However, I do not believe that it would benefit the AMS to place a reporting burden on the Secretary of State within 12 months of the Bill becoming an Act, for two reasons. First, Part 1 provides the Secretary of State with powers of direction relating to ACPs. Initially, we intend to use the powers in the Bill only on ACPs that are part of the master plan which is being developed by the Airspace Change Organising Group—ACOG—and formally accepted into the AMS. However, due to the impacts of Covid-19 on the modernisation programme —notably, the financial impacts on industry—the next iteration of the master plan will now not be delivered until later in 2021. That means it is very unlikely that within the 12-month period laid out in Amendment 13 a sponsor would have been directed to undertake an airspace change. If the powers in Part 1 are not used in this timeframe, there will be no impact on GA to be assessed and reported.
Secondly, Part 2 relates to NERL’s licence. NERL is responsible for upper airspace, where GA aircraft, other than business jets, do not routinely fly. An impact assessment, relating to Part 2, of the effects on GA would be very limited in content. The Secretary of State is aware that ACPs can have both positive and negative effects on stakeholders, including the GA community. If an individual ACP were directed, the impacts on GA would be set out in the CAP1616 process and GA bodies would be consulted if there were impacts.
I will revisit some of the things that the Government already do to ensure that the GA sector is fully represented at every level of the airspace modernisation governance structure. First, the Government are grateful to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation for sharing the findings of the inquiry into UK lower airspace led by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope. The Government will continue to consider these recommendations during future updates to the AMS.
Secondly, CAP1711b, the governance annexe of the AMS, lists all the organisations that must be engaged in airspace modernisation. For example, ACOG is required to demonstrate how it has engaged with GA bodies such as the General and Business Aviation Strategic Forum in order for the master plan to be accepted by the CAA. To further strengthen ACOG, two GA representatives now sit on its steering committee.
Additionally, and following the Kirkhope inquiry, the Secretary of State has amended the air navigation directions to require the CAA to undertake a review, in consultation with airspace users, of airspace classification. The review will identify volumes of controlled airspace where the classification could be amended to better reflect the needs of all airspace users. The Secretary of State has also directed the CAA to prioritise ACPs from GA aerodromes relating to global navigation satellite systems—GNSS—approaches.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There are no questions for the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In light of the assurances she has given us, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 1 and send this Bill to the other end, where they will no doubt consider her response in great depth. I shall also not be moving the rest of the amendments in my name in this group.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 3
Lord Tunnicliffe
“( ) If a direction given to a person under subsection (1) is predominantly or wholly to enable the air change proposals of a third party to be completed as part of the masterplan for airspace modernisation and not an airspace change proposal of the person itself and would lead to adverse financial impacts for that person, the Secretary of State may compensate that person and may recover the cost of compensation wholly or in part from the third party.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
I move Amendment 3 and I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 3 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts. Amendment 4 would empower the Secretary of State to provide that a person who is directed to progress an airspace change is fairly compensated for doing so, and that the compensation can be recovered from another person involved in airspace change where appropriate. Amendment 6 would empower the Secretary of State to require a person involved in airspace change to compensate another person who had been directed to progress an airspace change. Amendment 7 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.
One of the problems of getting organisations to co-operate is that some parties are unwilling to do so and they will use the financial impact on them as their excuse, particularly if one party is required to co-ordinate the activity and invest considerable work but is not likely to gain financially from the changes it is developing. Then it will be reluctant to move. Efforts to improve airflow planning over south-east England have been going on for at least a decade. It is important that, if it is a matter of financial limitations, the Bill allows appropriate mechanisms for money to flow between parties and perhaps from government.
This is important between big players, such as the airports and NATS. It is also important in the case of small airports or airfields on the periphery of the controlled airspace, where small changes may have significant adverse effects on them and they are not equipped—particularly financially—to mount a proper representation to have their voices heard without some recognition of the financial burden on them. Clearly, the movement of monies between the parties as allowed for in this group of amendments may not be necessary, but since we are creating a Bill to address all eventualities in the development of modern airspace it is important at this stage to make sure that there are facilities for money to move about and, in extremis, for government perhaps to finance parts of that development. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, our airspace modernisation is a complex but necessary process. It is necessary in the modern world because it enables environmental gains in an industry increasingly under fire for its emissions and where the technological solutions are much more long term than they are in the case of, for example, road vehicles. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has just pointed out, one person’s gain is often another person’s loss. These are useful amendments because there is a real fear of a potential conflict between airports as the modernisation process goes forward.
In Committee, I mentioned that Stansted and Luton airports, for example, are very close geographically. It is not impossible to imagine that what would help Stansted might deprive Luton; for example, a potential airspace route that would cost it money in terms of potential for new services. Since the Committee stage, airports have found themselves in great financial difficulty because of travel restrictions. These amendments are therefore designed to ensure what I assume is an even-handed approach from the Secretary of State down through the CAA and the Airspace Change Organising Group.
The Airport Operators Association remains concerned about the funding of this issue—I raised that in the last group and was delighted to hear that the Minister has agreed to deal with it in her response here. When this matter was raised previously by the Airport Operators Association, the Aviation Minister suggested three sources of funding in a situation where one airport was going to win at the expense of another. The first suggestion was that alternative sponsors might pay. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly what is intended with that proposal.
The second suggestion from the Aviation Minister was that funding might come from the £10-million airspace modernisation fund. That sounds fine but it is actually a relatively small sum so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is a fixed sum or extra funding would potentially be available.
Thirdly, there was a suggestion of government funding on a case-by-case basis. If the Government have any further thoughts on this, it would be really good to hear them at this stage. I hope that the Minister can put the Government’s intentions on record today to clarify these issues.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is to enable compensation for the recipient of a direction if the airspace change is predominantly or wholly for the benefit of a third party and if issuing a direction would lead to adverse financial impacts. Amendments 3 and 7 would also allow the Secretary of State to recover the cost of the compensation from the third party.
It is important for me to be clear up front that, while we recognise the severe impact that Covid-19 is having on the aviation sector, the “user pays” policy principle is an important one: those who stand to benefit from airspace change should pay for the costs of such a change. In the light of the pandemic and its effects on the aviation industry, most airports have paused their work on airspace change. However, airspace modernisation remains critical to deliver additional capacity and improve access to airspace for different users; it also brings environmental benefits by reducing emissions.
Therefore, the Government have asked the Airspace Change Organising Group—ACOG—to revisit the master plan for airspace change in this light to ensure that the benefits of the programme are realised and that the investment already made is not lost. In July last year, ACOG published a report on remobilising airspace change. It included 10 recommendations aiming to ensure that the programme advances, while recognising the financial pressures faced by airports and the industry.
The DfT and the CAA immediately accepted recommendations 1, 2 and 4. First, we will ask ACOG to establish clear protocols for the airports that are able to resume work on airspace change, how we engage with those where work has paused and the exit process for those that decide to opt out of the programme, subject to their criticality to the programme as a whole. Secondly, we will ask NERL and ACOG to work together to re-evaluate NERL’s 2018 feasibility report into airspace modernisation to identify the core set of airport-led airspace changes that will be required in the post-Covid world. Lastly, in the short term, the CAA will work with ACOG to ensure that work on airspace change that can still progress does not conflict with or constrain the broader programme.
Officials continue to work closely with the CAA to consider the remaining seven recommendations. One of these includes funding to tackle the short-term airspace change proposal—ACP—funding gaps potentially created by Covid-19. In the light of the pandemic, we recognise that the timescales in which airspace modernisation will take place will necessarily change. ACOG therefore plans to develop the future iteration of the airspace modernisation master plan in 2021.
The powers in the Bill are tied to the airspace modernisation strategy—the AMS—and the master plan. The Secretary of State could make a direction only to persons involved in airspace change based on this strategy. Therefore, it follows that there are no plans to use these powers in the near future while the industry recovers from the pandemic. As I have said, the need to modernise the UK’s airspace has not changed. We will need these powers in future once the master plan has been developed and the modernisation programme has been restarted to ensure that the strategy can be implemented in the years to come.
The Government recognise that there may be occasions when a small airport, or another person involved in airspace change, may require financial assistance to carry out some aspects of an ACP. We expect the CAA’s oversight team to work with the potential sponsor before recommending that the Secretary of State uses the powers to direct an ACP. At this early stage, if the potential sponsor expressed concerns that it did not have sufficient funding to proceed with a particular ACP, we would expect the oversight team to work with the potential sponsor to suggest alternative solutions.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation and for placing it on the record. I note that the Government are not entirely closed to the idea that financial considerations may be important, and that they may have to act to ease the burden on one party against another or make some arrangement, even if it is not a direction. I found the answers useful; unfortunately, I would have found an answer where she agreed with me entirely more useful. Nevertheless, I think that this has gone far enough for me to be happy to withdraw the amendment, and I give notice that I do not intend to move the other amendments in this group.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 10: Air traffic services licensed under Part 1 of the Transport Act 2020: enforcement
Amendment 12
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“(5A) In section 34 (investigations), for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—“(1) A person may make a representation to the CAA about an alleged or apprehended contravention of a section 8 duty or a licence condition.(2) Where a representation is made to the CAA, the CAA may— (a) consider the representation;(b) investigate the alleged or apprehended contravention.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides the Civil Aviation Authority with discretion over whether to investigate alleged or apprehended contraventions of section 8 duties or licence conditions by air traffic services licence holders. This discretionary power would replace the current requirement for the CAA to investigate alleged or apprehended contraventions in certain circumstances.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, NATS and the CAA for their very constructive engagement on this issue, which has resulted in these government amendments. In moving Amendment 12 I will speak also to Amendment 21.
Amendment 12 seeks to amend Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000 to give the CAA greater flexibility to consider representations about an alleged or apprehended contravention—or a complaint—and to ensure that resources are used effectively. Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000 currently places an obligation on the CAA to investigate a complaint if the representation is made by—or on behalf of—a person who appears to have an interest. While this obligation does not apply if the representation appears to the CAA to be frivolous or vexatious, in practice this section as currently worded gives the CAA little discretion not to commence formal investigations. As a result, the licence holder and CAA may be presented with a considerable burden when engaging with an investigation which could potentially have serious resource implications, even where the CAA then decides not to take further enforcement action.
Amendment 12 will provide clarity and flexibility for the CAA and stakeholders as to when investigations should be commenced. This will reduce the potential for unnecessary investigations which have no material effect—or which result in no enforcement action being taken—without watering down the CAA’s powers, or the ability of parties to raise a complaint. The CAA will publish updated enforcement guidance, which can refer to the application of Section 34.
Amendment 21 is a minor, consequential amendment. The Bill already makes a consequential amendment to Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000. That provision would have changed the current reference in Section 34 from “condition of a licence” to “licence condition”. As Section 34 is being amended more substantively, that consequential amendment is no longer required.
I turn briefly to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I am grateful to the noble Lord for engaging with this. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the CAA would impose penalties on the licence holder, NERL, only where the contravention of the licence or Section 8 duty is serious, and it was deemed proportionate to do so. Following extensive engagement with NERL and detailed consideration, the Government are of the view that this amendment is not necessary. There are already sufficient legal checks and balances contained in the Bill, as well as through policy and guidance, to prevent disproportionate fines being levied on a licence holder.
The proposed amendment would also depart from the approach taken in the equivalent provision in the Civil Aviation Act 2012, meaning that the threshold for imposing a penalty relating to NERL would be higher than that for an airport’s economic licence. This would create a disparity in CAA enforcement across the sector. I do, however, appreciate the importance of considering the seriousness of the contravention, along with the proportionality of imposing a fine, and I will take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords of what provision has already been made.
First, the power of the CAA to impose a penalty is discretionary, and it would do so only for the most serious contraventions or as a matter of last resort. All regulators, including the CAA, are already required to consider the better regulation agenda—as well as the Macrory principles of better enforcement—in exercising their regulatory and enforcement functions. The Macrory principles explicitly state that enforcement must be proportionate to the nature of the offence and to the harm caused. In practice, proportionality will be considered at every stage of a stepped process to enforcement, which will be set out in the CAA’s enforcement guidance and statement of policy on penalties. The CAA is required to consult relevant stakeholders on the latter. The CAA will decide whether to impose a penalty, and the level of penalty, by assessing the seriousness and harm caused to users by the contravention, through the lens of its statutory duties under the Transport Act 2000.
If the CAA were to propose a penalty on the licence holder, the Bill contains procedural safeguards, in the form of consultation with the licence holder, before the penalty could be imposed. This would give the licence holder the opportunity to highlight the steps it is taking to mitigate the contravention. The CAA would consider all stakeholder representations ahead of imposing a penalty. If the licence holder were to disagree with an imposed penalty, they could appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would have to have regard to the financeability duty imposed on the CAA under Section 2 of the Transport Act 2000. This approach is broadly aligned with equivalent provisions in the Civil Aviation Act 2012. The Government’s decision to modernise the air traffic licensing regime recognised that appropriate alignment with similar regulatory regimes would provide stakeholders with greater clarity and certainty and assist the CAA in exercising its regulatory functions and statutory duties in a more effective manner.
Turning to Amendment 20, I think we are agreed that the CAA should have a discretionary power to investigate complaints under Section 34, as set out in Amendment 12. It would therefore be inconsistent to narrow the power for the CAA to obtain information in relation to Section 34. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, these amendments relate to the CAA’s function to investigate complaints over breaches of licence conditions. Since the CAA has considerable powers, any limitation of those powers needs to be carefully balanced. There are concerns within various parts of the aviation industry about how the dual role of the CAA effectively operates in relation to these issues.
I regret that I am speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because I want to listen carefully to the thoughts behind his amendments. It is important to fully understand the purpose of Amendment 20 in narrowing the power to obtain information. I believe it is in the spirit of the other limitations within this group of amendments, which seem entirely sensible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we fully support Amendments 12 and 21. We put forward amendments in Committee, in the light of conversations with the CAA, which we felt made some good points. We put these to the Government, who said, as Governments always do, “We don’t think much of your amendments but we agree with what you’re trying to do. Can we do it our way?” And my view is, yes, we can do it in the way they wish to draft it.
I turn to Amendment 19. In many ways, the Minister has answered the question: will the CAA behave in a responsible and proportionate way? She has basically assured us that it will, and that it is implied in general legislation.
On Amendment 20, we felt that the CAA’s powers were overly wide. I do not have a more specific reason for tabling the amendment, other than that the two concepts in Amendments 19 and 20 stood together.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for a brief and constructive discussion. This is the culmination of many discussions of these issues, and we were very keen to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we recognised his concerns. We did—in typical government fashion—decide that our amendment was better than his, for which I apologise, but I suspect we were probably right. I am very grateful that the noble Lord is supporting the amendments. I tried very hard to set out exactly what we would expect the CAA to do in relation to his Amendment 19, and I am pleased that I have reassured him.
On Amendment 20, we felt that it would be inconsistent to narrow the power for the CAA to obtain information in relation to Section 34, because the Bill currently includes the power for the CAA
“to obtain information for … carrying out its functions under section 34 and Schedule B1”.
This covers documents or information that the person has or are under their control. It is important to note that:
“The CAA may give a notice under this paragraph only in respect of information or documents that it reasonably requires”—
I suspect that is a bit of narrowing—
“for the purpose of carrying out its functions under section 34 or Schedule B1.”
Therefore, we do not feel that it is necessary to limit the power, as we believe that the Bill is already appropriately drafted. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 12A
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“Airport slot allocation(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at United Kingdom airports is amended as follows.(2) After Article 10a insert—“Article 10aaTemporary power to make regulations about airport slot allocation1 The Secretary of State may by regulations amend or modify this Regulation or the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/2665) to make provision about the allocation of airport slots to air carriers in respect of specified periods.2 The Secretary of State may make regulations under this Article only if the Secretary of State considers that as a result of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2—(a) there has been a reduction in the level of air traffic in a period compared to the corresponding period in a relevant previous year, and(b) the reduction is likely to persist.3 The power to make regulations under this Article may not be exercised—(a) after 24 August 2024, or(b) in respect of a period after the winter season following 24 August 2024.4 Regulations under this Article may, in particular, make provision—(a) requiring coordinators to consider slots allocated for a specified period as having been operated by the air carrier to which they were initially allocated, subject to any conditions as may be specified in the regulations being met;(b) modifying Articles 8(2), 10(2) and (4) and 14(6) of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if they contained different percentage figures, subject to any conditions as may be specified in the regulations being met;(c) modifying Article 10(4) of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if it included additional reasons on the basis of which non-utilisation of slots by an air carrier can be justified;(d) modifying Article 14 of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if it included a power for the coordinator to withdraw slots from an air carrier for the remainder of a scheduling period where the coordinator determines that the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned and is no longer able to operate the slots allocated to it;(e) about enforcement of any provision made under this Article, including modifying for a specified period Article 14 of this Regulation or regulations 14 to 19 of the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006;(f) modifying for a specified period any provision of this Regulation relating to the allocation of slots to new entrants (including the definition of new entrant);(g) modifying for a specified period any provision of this Regulation relating to coordination parameters. 5 In paragraph 2(a) “relevant previous year” means any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of comparing levels of air traffic.”(3) In Article 13 (regulations)—(a) after paragraph 1 insert—1a A statutory instrument containing regulations under Article 10aa may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”;(b) in paragraph 2, for “Regulations” substitute “Any other regulations”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide the Secretary of State with a temporary power to amend the airport slot allocation provisions in Council Regulation 95/93 and the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 where, due to coronavirus, there has been a reduction in the level of air traffic that is likely to persist.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 12A, 18A, 18B and 44 are a series of government amendments to provide temporary powers for the alleviation of airport slot usage rules. This will amend retained EU regulation 95/93, which governs the allocation of UK airport slots.
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the 80:20 rule—or the so-called use it or lose it rule—encouraged the efficient use of scarce airport capacity, while allowing airlines a degree of flexibility in their operations. There are eight slot-constrained airports in the UK to which the 80:20 rule applies: Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Luton, Stansted, Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. The 80:20 rule mandates that, provided an airline has used its airport capacity at least 80% of the time in the preceding scheduling period—either winter or summer—it is entitled to those slots in the upcoming equivalent period.
Due to the unprecedented impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, in March last year the EU Commission took the decision to waive the 80:20 rule. Airport co-ordinators were instructed, when determining slot allocations for the upcoming summer season, to consider slots as having been operated regardless of whether they were actually used. This waiver covered the summer 2020 season and was subsequently extended to cover winter 2020-21. The UK supported the EU’s position.
Without alleviation, airlines may have incurred significant financial costs by operating flights at low load factors merely to retain their slots. Alleviation has helped to protect future connectivity and airline finances and reduced the risk of ghost flights being run to retain slots.
We anticipate that the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the aviation industry will continue for some time. Passenger demand is not predicted to return to 2019 levels until at least 2024-25. After we exited the UK-EU transition period on 31 December, regulation 95/93 was retained in UK law. However, when it was retained, the powers of the Commission to extend the period of alleviation from the 80:20 rule—which are being transferred to the Secretary of State—were expressly limited to 2 April 2021. As we expect disruption to air travel to continue for several years, it is therefore imperative that the UK has the necessary powers at its disposal to provide alleviation beyond the summer 2021 season should the evidence suggest that it is warranted.
Amendment 12A inserts a new clause after Clause 11 in Part 2 of the Bill. The new clause would insert a new Article 10aa into retained Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at United Kingdom airports. This would provide the Secretary of State with a power, exercisable until 24 August 2024 and not in respect of a scheduling period after winter 2024-25, to provide air carriers with alleviation from the requirement to operate airport slots allocated to them 80% of the time in order to retain the slots for the next equivalent scheduling period.
To allow for flexibility, this amendment also includes powers to modify the 80% requirement relating to slots usage. This will be an alternative to applying a full alleviation of the 80:20 rule for a specified scheduling period or season. This recognises that there could be alternative ratios, not 80:20, which could be applied to ensure the efficient use of slots. It will also allow the Secretary of State to apply conditions to an alleviation of the 80:20 rule, such as by setting a deadline for the return of slots not intended for operation, or that a waiver will not apply to a series of slots of an airline that, for example, ceases to operate at an airport.
The amendment also allows the Government to make other changes to the operation of the rules relating to the allocation of slots under this regulation for the duration of the relevant scheduling period. For example, the Government could change co-ordination parameters to reflect partial closures of airports, adopt temporary rules for the most efficient allocation of unused slots, and give the slot co-ordinator enforcement powers—for example, where unused slots are not returned with sufficient time to enable them to be effectively reallocated to other carriers. Having the powers to vary the 80:20 ratio and apply conditions to be in place on application of the rule will allow appropriate measures to support the sector’s recovery as passenger demand returns.
The use of this power will require secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure, for any applicable scheduling period in which evidence supports the conclusion that relaxation of the 80:20 rule is appropriate. The nature and extent of any relaxation will be subject to targeted consultation and, of course, there will be a debate in both Houses.
This approach will allow us to use current data and evidence, as well as to consult stakeholders, to make judgments on whether alleviations are required for each period and, if so, to what extent. We will also assess other institutions’ analysis and recommendations on slots usage rules for future seasons, including the Worldwide Airport Slot Board, and proposals from other areas, such as the European Union and the United States.
Amendment 18A is a consequential amendment to Clause 19 to reflect that the new clause on airport slot allocation extends to England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland, where aerodromes are a matter reserved for the devolved Assembly. As noted, however, all slot co-ordinated airports in the United Kingdom are currently in England.
Amendment 18B is a consequential amendment to Clause 20 and provides for the new clause to come into force immediately when the Bill is passed and becomes an Act. This amendment ensures that regulations could be made under the new Clause 11A, relating to airport slot allocation, following Royal Assent, so that they are ready to come into force as soon as appropriate thereafter.
Amendment 44 amends the long title of the Bill to include reference to airport slot allocation. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these amendments and her explanation of the background. I should explain to the House that for most of my time as a Member of the other House I represented Aberdeen Airport; I say “most of my time” not because the airport relocated, but because my constituency boundaries changed. As a result of that, and of the fact that I commuted weekly by air to Parliament for decades—until lockdown last March, I continued to do so—I have taken an interest in aviation. Until lockdown I was also a frequent traveller around Europe and the rest of the world, and have experience of a variety of airlines and airports, large and small.
The allocation of airline landing slots is controversial, in terms of competition and commercial opportunity, as well as of access from feeder airports to the co-ordinated airports—a particular concern of mine. I completely understand the reason for the current waiver of the 80:20 “use it or lose it” rule, in the present climate. As the Minister said, we are following the same measures as the EU. Since she touched on this, does she foresee any circumstances in which the UK would, or should, take a different approach—for example, in how the proportions are reallocated? What would be the criteria or the conditions for that to happen?
I understand the complexity of managing slots, especially when airlines have seen their incomes decimated, and the fact that, as the Minister said, the predictions are for a long, slow period of recovery. At the same time, airport managers understandably wish to maximise traffic through their airports and resent it if airlines retain slots that they do not use, especially if other airlines are seeking additional slots with the intention of building a service. Given the need to maintain good relations with its airline clients, an airport may be unwilling to express its frustration. Clear, legally enforceable rules would be helpful, so does the Minister think that legal enforceability of the slots rules should be considered?
Access to services to and from London airports is especially critical for Scottish and Northern Ireland airports, both for access to London and for connections to Europe and the rest of the world. Of course services are driven by demand and commercial reality, but it is acknowledged that wider economic consideration for linkages is also important. That was demonstrated by the Government’s intervention on the collapse of Flybe, in relation to certain regional services.
Leaving aside the case for subsidies—I am not engaging with that in this debate, even for lifeline services, as it seems an important but separate issue—there has been a belief among many airport users that feeder routes to London may be profitable, but that the slots could be more profitably used for long-haul routes. The feeder routes were not necessarily uncommercial, but perhaps less profitable. Control and possible hoarding of slots by the larger airlines restricts competition and makes it difficult for other airlines to develop alternative services.
At the height of oil and gas activity in Aberdeen, we had daily flights to not only Heathrow but Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted; more recently Loganair trialled a service to Southend, but that did not last long. British Airways pulled out of providing a service to Gatwick and London City years ago. I found that hard to understand, as many of the airline’s holiday flights operate from Gatwick and transfers from Heathrow to Gatwick are not relaxing. EasyJet pulled the last Gatwick link, and Flybe and Eastern ended the City flights. Flybe and Virgin both attempted to offer a Heathrow service but neither became established, although it was Flybe’s demise that ended its Heathrow link.
As of this week, because of the pandemic, we have one or two return flights a day to Heathrow, compared with the six or seven we would expect in normal times. EasyJet will start providing daily flights to Luton from March, and—hallelujah—to Gatwick from May, Covid permitting. No doubt users of Belfast Airport will have a similar story, while Inverness has had to fight to retain links to London. Indeed, the reduction in services to London has seen business switch to Amsterdam and Paris, to which we have direct services, although those services, too, are currently limited.
As has been said, airlines’ recovery post-pandemic is likely to be slow but could also be ruthlessly competitive. Will the Government consider how the allocation of slots can be managed to ensure that it works in the best interests of all stakeholders, including the flying customers and feeder airports? Can airlines be prevented from hoarding routes they do not use, if that keeps out feeder routes or newcomers?
What steps can be taken to ensure that the allocation of slots takes into account the economic and social needs of remote communities, which are by definition more dependent on air links? Just for the record, the train journey from Aberdeen to London takes a minimum of seven hours, and at the moment we have only one direct service without changes; the others take longer. For people living in such areas, flying is not a luxury but an essential part of life.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is part two of a discussion that we started earlier this week on the SI on this subject, which gave the Government temporary powers. Since Committee stage, a year ago, we have had the impact of the pandemic and the EU has waived the usual 80:20 rules on slot usage. That was welcome because it avoids ghost flights—empty flights, just to keep slots.
In the amendments the Government are giving themselves powers until 2024 to continue to waive the rules altogether or to vary them, possibly by varying the percentages. That is a whole new issue to have entered the Bill—something that was simply not there a year ago. I wondered about the 2024 date and whether the period was a tad lengthy but time and time again in this pandemic, things have taken much longer to play out than we thought they would. On reflection, 2024 seems to allow a reasonable period ahead to give a level of certainty.
Because we did not have these substantial amendments prior to Report today, however, I have some questions for the Minister. First, Amendment 12A involves temporary powers to make regulations about slot allocation. Paragraph 4(d) of the new article it inserts would allow the co-ordinator to “withdraw slots” from a carrier where it is determined that
“the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned”.
My question to the Minister is: how would that be determined? I have in mind a question similar to the one I asked earlier in the week about Gatwick. Virgin has announced that it will not fly from Gatwick in future and will no longer have a base there. Indeed, it no longer does have a base there—but it retains its slots. Slots are a very valuable commodity, so how is such a situation likely to be approached in future?
My second question is on the same amendment. Paragraph 2(a) refers to “a relevant previous year”, which is later defined as:
“any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for … comparing levels of … traffic.”
That is an extraordinarily broad and vague definition, as levels of traffic vary dramatically according to the make-up of carriers from specific airports—with new ones coming and going—and to their commercial decisions. It also uses the term of a year, while slot waivers work in seasons to reflect the patterns of demand, which vary from season to season. Can the Minister confirm that the year as a whole will be the point of comparison?
Another point that I raised in our debate earlier this week is that the number of available slots currently greatly outweighs the capacity of the airlines to fill them, because as the pandemic has progressed they have greatly reduced their staff and the number of planes that they own or rent. How do the Government intend to approach this problem, whereby the number of slots cannot be filled by the current capacity of airlines?
Slot hoarding has to be tackled. The 80:20 rule is designed to maintain the competitiveness of the industry, which means fair ticket prices for passengers. If the waiver is exploited it will be bad for new entrants to the market, bad for passengers, and bad for airports. The powers or conditions that the Government have included here, therefore, and the potential to vary the 80:20 ratio, seem a sensible and welcome approach to the situation that we face, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanations.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we generally support these four amendments, and we thank the Minister for tabling them for our examination. Nevertheless, one must recognise that the dilemma brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his contribution, is a real one. It is important to see these amendments as quite separate from the general problem. Can the Minister tell the House what examination of this problem the Government expect to conduct in the future?
I know from my own experience, which goes back to the 1980s, that slot allocation is a very difficult and challenging problem in the airline industry. One of the problems in life is that when there are many parties to finding an overall solution to the distribution of a scarce resource the solutions you get become very difficult to change: creating a level of change that would address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would be in the best “Yes Minister” category—very brave. I hope, nevertheless, that the Minister can lay out some of the plans for addressing this issue.
On the amendments as a whole, I have a few questions. The Minister may have answered them—I was slightly distracted, so I hope the House will forgive me if we go over old ground.
First, my understanding is that each season’s solution, under these amendments, will be subject to an affirmative order. I would value a simple assurance on that.
Secondly, the Heathrow authorities told us that in their view the agreements that were being developed through the Worldwide Airport Slot Board were more optimal than the solution we have had to adopt for the summer of 2021. Should, therefore, the parties—the airlines, airports and other stakeholders—come to a worldwide agreement on slot allocation? These things are co-ordinated on a worldwide basis. Certainly, when I was a senior executive the most important date of my year was the IATA timetable conference in October, which addressed the following summer’s slots. If the airlines and airports produce an overall solution, is there enough flexibility in this proposed solution to allow the Secretary of State—I stress allow, not require—to endorse such a comprehensive, multiagency agreement?
Finally, can the Minister assure the House—and the industry—that there will be adequate consultation with all stakeholders for each season that is managed under these amendments?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments, and I recognise that it is far from ideal to bring them to the House on Report. It is simply the nature of the beast and the situation that we are in: these amendments relate to the Covid-19 pandemic and our hoped-for recovery from it.
I will first address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He set out many of the challenges faced by the Government—both the short-term task of building back our aviation industry, and the longer-term strategy for the sector. I recognise that slot allocation is a challenge. I would not say it is controversial—it is just one of the challenges that one has to deal with.
The Government have recognised that this is an issue and carried out a consultation on it, alongside, I think, the consultation on the aviation strategy—which was a little while ago, in perhaps 2018 or 2019. We did, therefore, recognise the issue, and we asked the industry and other parties with an interest in the aviation sector how we might reform slot allocation. It remains the Government’s intention to do a piece of work on the long-term reform of slot allocation. But that is not for now. Now, we have to deal with the current situation by making amendments that are not minor but do not amount to an overhaul of the entire slot allocation process.
We do take into account the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised. The noble Lord asked whether we would take a different approach to the EU, and I suspect that we will, but not that we necessarily will—it depends on the EU’s approach to the periods after summer 2021. We will, however, certainly be looking at other percentages in relation to a waiver, and considering very carefully the conditions that we attach to the regulations.
The noble Lord also mentioned enforcement powers, and I think that I said, in my opening remarks, that we would consider them. There are probably at least three key elements to the way in which we will take this forward. We need to think about: new entrants and whether they are able to get into the market; the needs of passengers, which is a critical element; and—as the noble Lord pointed out to great effect—regional connectivity, particularly to places, such as Aberdeen, where the alternative is very long. Being on a train for seven hours does not sound like huge fun.
I think we will return to many of the points the noble Lord raised when we discuss the regulations that will be put before your Lordships’ House. I look forward to those debates; I think they will be quite challenging, and we will be able to have discussions on all the elements he mentioned.
Turning to issues raised the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am pleased that she agrees with 2024. Would it not be nice if we did not have to do anything until 2024? But I suspect we may need to be doing something by then, so we are just future-proofing the amendments. The noble Baroness had a number of quite detailed questions about how one, for example, determines that an operator has ceased operations. Those are exactly the things we are asking the sector at the moment. The consultation, as the noble Baroness knows, started right at the end of December—a three-week targeted consultation to try to get to the bottom of these very knotty problems.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14, and I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 14
Baroness Randerson
“Review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft, and whether it provides sufficient protection to individuals.(2) The review should make reference to, but is not limited to—(a) whether privacy legislation is sufficient to cover threats posed to personal privacy by unmanned aircraft;(b) the merits of introducing mandatory remote identification;(c) the merits of introducing mandatory geo-fencing;(d) whether criminal law sufficiently protects against—(i) the modification of unmanned aircraft; and (ii) the weaponisation of unmanned aircraft;(e) whether there should be a minimum age for the purchase and operation of unmanned aircraft, and what the appropriate age would be;(f) whether the CAA’s system for registering operators of unmanned aircraft ensures sufficient supervision for those who are under the age of 18 operating unmanned aircraft;(g) whether a licensing requirement should be introduced for unmanned aircraft above a certain weight;(h) the Government’s strategy for managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas.(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in the light of its findings.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a further review in the same terms every 12 months after the review under subsection (1).”
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 14 and give notice that I am minded to put it to a vote at the end of the debate. As I said earlier, this Bill is a bit of a mess—through no fault of the Minister; it is simply the passage of time, and time has definitely taken its toll. This applies in particular to the clauses on unmanned aircraft.
Since 2016, I have been urging the Government to bring forward legislation on drones. The Minister reminds us from time to time that unmanned aircraft include model aircraft, but I am concerned here solely with drones. In the five years since I first addressed this issue, drone technology has been transformed, and so has the number of drones in operation. They are of massive importance to our military, to the police and other emergency services, and to countless businesses across the UK. It is wonderful, transformative technology; it is also very worrying technology. In the wrong hands, drones carry illegal drugs, take illicit mobile phones into prisons and threaten major loss of life by interfering with flights, as we saw at Gatwick in 2019. “Wrong hands” obviously includes criminals, but also careless and untrained hands.
Since we started this Bill in 2019, EU legislation has been updated, and that is reflected in the details of the amendments here today. But they do not reflect the broader approach that is now needed. The Bill is a wasted opportunity, because it is largely a list of additional powers for the police. That approach is unsatisfactorily narrow, and my amendment outlines the broad approach that I believe needs to be taken. It needs to address the serious concerns of BALPA, the Airport Operators Association and many airlines about safety and security risks from drones. I have specified the range of issues I am worried about, but I do not believe it is an exclusive list. Some of them relate to technical advances, such as the availability of geofencing and remote ID. Others relate to possible shortcomings in criminal law in relation to the deliberate weaponisation of drones. Potential risks from overseas exist now that the technology allows longer-distance flying.
The amendment in this group in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, also raises important issues about commercially used drones, which are often specialist and valuable. My amendment addresses the issue of the appropriate minimum age to be in charge of a drone. EU legislation allows a minimum age of 14, and the Government have supported this. But that is a minimum: it does not have to be that low within the EU rules, and, in any event, we have of course left the EU. Legislation allows drones to be registered to anyone over 18, but they can be flown by people younger than this, and there is no requirement for the registered owner to be present and in the line of sight of the person flying the drone. So, the question is whether this is sufficient supervision.
In preparation for this debate, I spent a long time online looking at adverts for drones, from under £100 to thousands of pounds. In all the adverts I looked at, I saw no reference at all to the rules on registration and supervision, line of sight, heights for flight and so on. Presumably, all that comes with the instructions in the box. But I am not entirely sure that everyone reads the instructions in the box carefully.
Also untouched by this Bill is the issue of privacy. There are serious concerns that drones can allow invasions of privacy. I said earlier that the Bill concentrates on police powers, but police use drones as a tool themselves, and they are a very useful tool in fighting crime. The vast majority of police forces now use drones, but there appears to be no overall dedicated guidance for police on the way in which they are to be deployed, or provision of information on how they should be used. This is a potentially controversial area, as we saw when Derbyshire police used drones at the start of the pandemic to watch walkers in the countryside, with the potential to levy fines on them.
This is a fast-developing technology, and my amendment recognises that by seeking a review of the legislation within six months, and every year thereafter, to ensure that it is, and remains, fit for purpose. I am not prescribing solutions, just outlining issues to be addressed and asking for a more comprehensive and effective approach to the whole issue of drones.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 14 and shall speak to Amendment 15, which stands in my name. It is a probing amendment and I shall not divide the House on it.
After Committee, I was informed that unmanned aircraft and drone operators holding CAA permission for commercial operation—PfCOs—were concerned about the scale of the police powers introduced by the Bill. Recent changes to the ANO 2016 affecting the use of unmanned aircraft have dispensed with PfCOs and new categories for unmanned aircraft operations are provided for all users. The concern is that use of the police powers designed principally for recreational users or potential criminal use could cause commercial operators loss of time or money, or even cause them to fail to meet a contract.
For example, a building inspection by a drone operator might involve manoeuvres putting the drone closer to the structure than would be acceptable for a hobby user. Were the police to order the immediate grounding of a drone in such a CAA-approved use or, looking to the future, of a drone with CAA operational authorisation for beyond visual sight, extended visual sight or even swarm flights, this could lead to business disruption and loss. Would the police consider a complaint from the public reasonable grounds to order grounding? Would the police authority be responsible for such a commercial loss? I expect not, but serious cases might lead to some form of claim by insurers or the operators themselves, so it is reasonable to suggest that, for flights with CAA operational authorisation, the most the police might be required to do would be to seek presentation of the CAA approval licence, as new Schedule 9 envisages. If still concerned, the police should report the operator to the CAA, which already has extensive statutory powers for investigation and sanction.
As the Minister informed me in an exchange of letters we have had about this amendment, new risk-based categories apply to all UA activities, but this does not seem to be any reason for commercial operators, however approved or risk-assessed by the CAA, to be less concerned about the difficulties they might face if the police powers were to be exercised in ways that, maybe inadvertently, were to delay or interfere with the approved use which the CAA had given to the commercial operator.
These operators are further concerned about the level of knowledge of the relevant extensive ANO and CAP 722 publications required of regional police forces to deal with unmanned aircraft operating commercially and whether their increased workload will be funded, particularly as this activity expands. No one would welcome a breach of trust between the police and commercial businesses if police involvement were to be disruptive to commercial use. In further exchanges with the Minister—I thank her for her engagement with me over these concerns—I have not been given sufficient reassurance about the way police powers in this Bill will be used so as not to lead to potentially harmful outcomes for the commercial operator.
There is considerable growth potential in the commercial use of UAs and, indeed, in the market globally for such remotely controlled devices. The Government quote an addition of £42 billion and more than 600,000 jobs by 2030. The Bill provides an opportunity to show that such commercial users are recognised and being supported by statute and regulation specifically designed to deal with, but not onerously restrict, their activities.
A further consideration is whether some statutory approved way to claim for loss, disruption or damage to the business of the commercial operator—for example, if its unmanned aircraft was incorrectly impounded by the police—should be provided. Would this too be by means of secondary legislation, as envisaged for appeals against fixed penalty fines?
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the probing amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, to insert a new clause. I will not repeat what he just said, but I underline its importance. If we go back in time a little, the Minister may recall that, when she first took office on drones, we—the UK—were a bit behind the curve compared to France, Ireland and Canada. Now, we have an opportunity to take the lead, which is what this new clause is partially about. I want to re-emphasise to Her Majesty’s Government that this industry, in particular, is here to develop commercial distribution and to function at all, the police should not be involved. It should be left to the CAA. It is fair to be open and say to my noble friend that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and I have been in discussions with the industry—particularly with its legal representative, Richard Ryan, who is a well-known and very well-qualified barrister.
I shall give a couple of practical examples. I have been involved with drones almost since the day they were invented. If you have a situation with a constable—let us say in Sandy, where I live—who, under Schedule 9, is simply asking for reasonable grounds for belief, which may be founded on a complaint by a passer-by, the consequence is quite significant for a commercial operator as the constable will have the power to request information while the flight is taking place. I do not know whether the Minister has had a go at flying these things—I hope that she has—but they are not that easy; I speak as a former pilot and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is a very experienced pilot. Anyway, the flight is still taking place, and the operator is being interrupted. Currently, under Part 1 of Schedule 9, paragraph (1)(a) states that while
“a flight by a small unmanned aircraft is taking place”,
the constable may, as paragraph 2(1)(a)(ii) states, require the person to provide
“information that would assist … the constable to verify that … that flight”
is valid. The issue with this is: who takes responsibility for the flight when the pilot is being interrupted by the constable? What if the drone switches out of GPS mode and into attitude mode? It then clearly requires more care and attention with respect to carrying out flight safety under Article 241 of the ANO 2016. I know that my noble friend has all these details at her fingertips, but I remind her that Article 241 clearly states:
“A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.”
I have a couple of other points, which are perfectly practical as well. The amendments to Schedule 9 rely on the fact that a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened, as well as other aspects. How would the constable know at that time what precise provision of the ANO 2016 was being contravened? In practical terms, this is unachievable, due to the complexity of the legislation and/or further amendments to the ANO, leading ultimately to a possible miscarriage of justice.
My next point is very relevant to what is happening in the Covid world at the moment. What is the position if a remote pilot is conducting numerous flights at the same time, whether it is at a drone lightshow or transporting medical supplies on behalf of the NHS at scale? Some of these flights could be beyond the line of sight. This is relevant because, when we start operating at scale, the police will have significant powers which can harm the industry, create unnecessary reputational damage and be of significant cost and disruption to the whole unmanned aviation supply chain.
I have half a dozen other examples, but I do not think that the Minister wants to hear them this evening, although I would be more than happy to supply them. I ask her to reflect that this is a new industry that can and will create many jobs, increase skills and set the UK up as a leading pioneer in unmanned aviation. A system that confronts companies with such onerous terms in the legislation, that captures absolutely all operators, is, in my and my noble friend’s judgment, flawed. We have a situation where the Government have taken a view. We have looked at other jurisdictions, such as Canada—a country I know quite well—where the legislation is about half the scale of ours.
My final thought is that the potential for the loss of income, innovation and opportunity will be significant if this law applies to commercial operations, or those with an operational authorisation, especially in the short term. There is significant reliance on a constable knowing all the relevant aviation laws that apply. This is no good when a drone operator, for example, has a roof survey the next day which he cannot perform because his equipment has been appropriated by the constable in lieu of an investigation with no time limit.
Here is a wonderful potential industry. We need to make sure that, yes, there is control, but that can be done by the CAA, an organisation for which I have had the greatest respect as a pilot myself. Leave it to the CAA—that is what should happen. I hope my noble friend will reflect on some of the evidence that we have managed to produce this afternoon.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have heard a very powerful case from the previous speaker. I see no reason for me to detain the House unreasonably and will speak briefly, principally to Amendment 15. My concerns in Committee centred on what I saw as the need to isolate potentially irresponsible non-commercial users of drones from those who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, seek to exploit commercially this new and innovative use of the technology.
During the debate on 27 January last year, I raised the issue of the confiscation of equipment. On 12 February, I raised the same issue, in particular where rogue operators breached the rules. There has to be a procedure in place which more clearly separates and differentiates the potential rogue operator from the legitimate commercial operation. Fines are too often no deterrent. We know from government stats that there is a high incidence of non-payment among those who have little respect for the law. We need a separate, more vigorously enforced regime for rogue drone operators. We cannot treat CAA-authorised operations in a way which appears similar to that in which we treat recreational users.
The danger in the Government’s approach is that the recreational user will be the beneficiary of the developing, lighter-touch regime that will ultimately and inevitably have to apply to commercial drone operations. This is inevitable as commercial operators exert increasing pressure for the introduction of such a regime to protect commercial viability. Alternatively, if this does not happen, commercial operators will be penalised by the more vigorous approach that will inevitably have to apply to the recreational user. The systems proposed are flawed.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has valiantly sought to convince the department and Ministers of the dangers, but has received little reassurance to date by way of response. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, can clearly see the writing on the wall and therefore seeks a review of the new regime at a later stage. She is to be congratulated on the persistent way in which she has pursued these matters over a number of years. Either way, the system when tested will need to be reviewed. We need two, distinct sets of rules and regimes; a separate regime that is fair to all.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my role as president of BALPA. I thank the Department for Transport for its constructive engagement with officers from BALPA in getting this far—goodness knows, we have spent a long time getting this far with this Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that rogue drone operators are clearly very different to the responsible drone operator that we wish to deal with. However, I am not sure that supporting this amendment is the right way forward. The Bill is not the right vehicle to include a requirement to review unmanned aircraft legislation. It cannot just be left to the CAA, as has been suggested, because if there were a major incident, government would be expected to have a role and to respond. At the same time, the development of drones is proceeding at an enormously fast pace. Will the Minister reassure us that a system of regular review will be put in place?
The serious concerns of BALPA are not limited to where we are today but look to where we might be tomorrow. We hear, for instance, about the problems with multiple use of drones, where one person controls more than one drone. The first instinct is to say, “That’s terrible, isn’t it? We really should have only one person per drone,” but let me put another scenario to the House. If someone is lost at sea, or there is an air crash, you may well want to have a swarm of drones covering a wide area. For that to be effective, you would need one central person to be in control so as to investigate what was beneath, and being observed by, a number of drones. It is not quite as simple as some people seem to imagine.
I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be a regular review, and that she will come back to the House at an appropriate time, possibly in answer to a Question, or put something in the Library, outlining the principles which could follow that review. It is no good saying that we want one every five years or every two years; we need to be able to respond fairly quickly to matters as they come up. I will certainly not be supporting a Division, as passing this clause would not take us forward at all. However, my hope is that some of the principles contained therein are the sort that should be borne in mind in developing the policies that we want to see for the effective and reasonable control of drones, commercially and privately.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is a real and strong disagreement within your Lordships’ House. There are those whom I would call almost the “free enterprise at all costs” people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. They would have very little and ineffective regulation of the system. Then there are those who are being cautious about the fact that this is a rapidly developing industry, while we know that some part of the industry is in the hands of the most unscrupulous people.
I do not accept the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that a police constable is going to interfere with people whom he knows are legitimately carrying out proper business of this sort, such as looking at bridges or buildings. These people will, or should, be registered in a separate register of those who have legitimate reasons to fly drones. Those who do not have a legitimate reason should, in many cases, be subject to the full force of the law because much of what they are doing is illegal.
The other thing is that drones can be a big nuisance factor. We will come on to that in a later amendment, when we talk about areas of outstanding natural beauty. But in her approach to this, the Minister should think about people who are legitimate drone owners—those who are licensed and registered with the CAA, and presumably the local police or enforcing authority—and those who probably should not be let near drones, and are using them for nefarious or criminal activities. However, in considering this amendment, it is important to say that this industry is developing very quickly. The thought of it proceeding on its way with a formal system of being able to review the way it is turning out, probably fairly often, seems a sensible precaution.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I will direct my comments to Amendment 14 but will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to all the points made in respect of Amendment 15.
Amendment 14, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft and whether it provides sufficient protection to individuals. The amendment also sets out a number of issues to which such a review should refer but to which it should not be restricted. The review would be required to make a recommendation on whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in the light of its findings.
Unmanned aircraft—drone—technology is developing fast, and the Government need to ensure that they are proactive, not reactive, when it comes to legislating, where necessary, to reflect developments in this technology and the expansion in the use of drones in the public services, by the Armed Forces and in both the commercial and leisure sectors, as well as by those whose priority may not be operating drones safely and responsibly.
As has been said, unmanned aircraft offer great benefits to society but can also lead to significant areas of concern. Emergency services are utilising drones to save lives, and parcel and freight companies, for example, look to use drones to deliver vital medical supplies as well as day-to-day purchases. Unmanned aircraft are now used in many industries to carry out work that is potentially hazardous for human beings or can be done much more quickly or thoroughly by the use of drones. They are also used by the police, as we have seen during the current Covid-19 crisis and the associated lockdowns—an aspect to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred.
However, there is another side, as we saw from the drone sightings at Gatwick Airport not so long ago, which resulted in flight cancellations and diversions affecting many thousands of passengers. It led, I believe, to a COBRA meeting being convened and the Army being called in, and it also highlighted the urgent need for this Bill, which nevertheless has been going through this House at a snail’s pace and still has to go through the Commons.
We have to be in a position to be sure that legislation keeps pace with developments in the increasing use, and, most importantly, potential misuse, of unmanned aircraft, as they become more sophisticated and powerful in what they can do and for how long—as well as in their range and areas of activity, not least the monitoring of civilians, and in relation to who uses them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also said, drones are used for criminal activity as well.
There is a need to ensure that legislation continues to provide sufficient protection to individuals and that this does not get overlooked in this developing field of technology. There needs to be a mechanism for ensuring the continued adequacy and appropriateness of existing legislation, including this Bill, in a field of activity that is expanding and moving forward and will continue to do so with some rapidity.
It is not sufficient to say that legislation will be kept under review: there are so many areas nowadays, across so many departments, where the Government tell us that legislation is kept under continuous review. We need something in the Bill to ensure that, in such a fast-developing field as unmanned aircraft and the uses to which they are put, regular reviews of legislation take place, covering, but not limited to, the specific points referred to in the amendment. It is equally important that Parliament has a clear role in the review process, which is also provided for in this amendment. Amendment 14 has our support.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. I will take each amendment in this group in turn, starting with Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which the Government believe is neither necessary nor appropriate.
The purpose of Part 3 is to attach police powers to offences in a separate piece of legislation—the Air Navigation Order 2016—and to other offences. Therefore, this Bill is not the appropriate place for a requirement to review unmanned aircraft legislation. Furthermore, a number of reviews are already due to take place. I hope this will satisfy the noble Baroness that her amendment is not necessary.
The ANO 2016 is the legislation that currently sets out offences that are specific to unmanned aircraft. Article 275 of the ANO 2016 states that it must be reviewed every five years, and its first statutory review is due to be completed by August 2021. This review will assess the extent to which the law surrounding unmanned aircraft, in so far as it is laid down in that instrument, is operating effectively to achieve its objectives. Of course, this may well be within the noble Baroness’s six-month timeframe.
As the impact assessment for the Bill states, this legislation will be kept under continuous review to ensure that it achieves its objectives: to address the key gaps identified from the 2018 consultation on the future of drones in the UK and to improve the ability of the police to respond to UA misuse, thereby reducing the irresponsible and malicious use of UA. This is in line with the Government’s practice of keeping all UA legislation under review, regardless of whether there is a legislative requirement to do so.
Moreover, ordinarily, a five-year timeframe applies to post-implementation reviews of legislation. This is recommended in the Government’s better regulation framework and the requirements of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, in relation to new measures adopted in secondary legislation regulating business and the voluntary sector. Furthermore, the Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy, published in October 2019, commits the Government to continuing to develop proposals for inclusion in future legislation, so that the legal framework within which operational responders must operate does not become obsolete or hamper their ability to respond to and investigate malicious drone activity. I am very much hoping that these forthcoming reviews will reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the Government take our ability to legislate for the fast-moving world of the unmanned aircraft sector very seriously indeed, and we have work ongoing to make sure that our legislation is up to date.
The noble Baroness briefly mentioned the use of drones by the police. We have had a few conversations about this issue. It might be worth reassuring her that the police have to abide by the same laws as everybody else. Drones are incredibly helpful to police forces and can often be used in places where there is risk to life or where a helicopter might be too expensive or not as efficient. The police have to act within the same laws as everybody else and have operational procedures that overlay those laws in terms of the right way and right circumstances in which to use drones. Decisions for their use are put into place by each police force, which has clear guidance on how they are to be used.
Responsible use is of course really important—for example, on the collection and use of video footage, again, unsurprisingly, the police have to follow the same laws as everybody else. There is also a legal position on public bodies’ use of video footage that is well regulated by directed surveillance authorities. The police are responsible for ensuring that data is collected, processed and stored in accordance with the law. In terms of the safe operation of a drone, the police must do so in accordance with the Air Navigation Order 2016 and, where needed, if the operation is slightly riskier, they will have to apply to CAA for operational authorisation —as, indeed, does anyone else. If any individual has concerns about the use of drones by police, of course they can make a complaint to the police and crime commissioner or the mayor, where appropriate.
I turn to the amendment tabled by noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, which generated an interesting and lively discussion on permissions for commercial operators. Now that the implementing regulation is in place, there is no difference in the requirement to obtain a permission for a commercial or a recreational operator. I will call them “recreational operators” but there are all sorts of different operators. That is absolutely right, because I do not subscribe to the view that “commercial” is good and “recreational” is necessarily bad. Creating that false dichotomy is not really helpful.
It is down to risk, rather than who the person is with their hands on the control. So the implementing regulation draws no distinction between commercial and recreational flights and the ANO has already been amended to reflect that. Of course, the offences that noble Lords are discussing today relate to that ANO but do not amend the ANO itself. So the need to obtain a permission for a purely commercial operation has now been revoked—but, of course, that could be a good thing. Many commercial operators will now be very pleased, because they will not need to apply for a licence to fly a drone which a recreational operator standing right next to them could fly without a licence.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate; it has been very interesting. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support, for signing the amendment and for his clear explanation of his position.
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that she has not reassured me. There has been a very interesting range of views, but the Bill is just a start. My contacts with the drone industry indicate that it believes that a modern, strong legislative framework would be helpful to the industry and not a constraint. I know of several organisations that retain very serious concerns about drones and their operation in the modern world, and about their safety and the societal impact of, for example, illegal activity.
The Minister very fully outlined the Government’s approach, saying that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to have the reviews that I suggest. She referred to the ANO 2016 and the statutory review this year, which she has referred to in previous conversations. I looked at that review, but it does not have the breadth of the one that I am calling for and is not in line with the scope of the amendment that I have tabled. I am afraid that, without a commitment from the Minister to the kind of comprehensive approach that I have in mind, I feel compelled to call a vote on this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 16. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and Minister may speak once only and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 17: Part 3: interpretation
Amendment 16
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This would change the definition of “subordinate legislation” to catch instruments made under retained direct EU legislation on or after “IP completion day”. Retained direct EU legislation came into existence then and it is therefore when powers conferred by the legislation became exercisable.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, the Government made a series of amendments to the ANO 2016 by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020, which came into force on 31 December 2020. Those amendments were mainly necessary because implementing regulation 2019/947, or the IR, became applicable on 31 December 2020.
The IR was retained in UK law on 31 December 2020 and establishes a framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft to ensure that they are used safely. This includes requirements relating to registration, competency testing, authorisations for higher-risk flights, as well as provision for the creation of geographical zones in which UA use is restricted.
As the IR makes provision for some of the same subject matter as the previous requirements relating to small unmanned aircraft in the ANO, it was necessary to make amendments to the ANO, including removing provisions, to ensure that the two sets of legislative provisions interact correctly, without duplication or contradiction. The amendments to the ANO also create offences for breaches of the requirements of the IR. Those amendments mean that many of the references within the Bill to articles of the ANO, and therefore offences, are now out of date. It is therefore necessary to amend them to ensure that the powers in the Bill continue to function. This and other government amendments to Part 3 do not change the policy intention of the Bill.
The government amendment to Clause 17 is simple and technical. It ensures that the Bill refers to the end of the transition period by changing “exit day” to “IP completion day”, which means the implementation completion date.
Clause 18 deals with regulations made under this Act, and the government amendment to it is consequential to one of the amendments to Schedule 11. The amendment specifies which regulations made under Schedule 11 will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The current draft of the Bill lists regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 11. However, paragraph 4 is removed by an amendment to Schedule 11 and the regulation-making power is set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 instead.
I turn to the government amendments to Schedule 8. This Schedule gives the police the powers to require a UA to be grounded and, in certain circumstances, to stop and search persons and vehicles and to enter and search premises under warrant.
Schedule 8 also amends Section 93 of the Police Act 1997, so that counter-UA measures that involve interference with property or wireless telegraphy can be authorised, and so that the use of these measures in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and custodial institutions can be authorised within those organisations and bodies.
The amendments to Schedule 8 remove the incorrect references to offences and replace them with references to the closest equivalents and offences relating to requirements of the IR of a similar nature among the new corresponding offences in the ANO. For example, once amended, Schedule 8 will enable a police constable to stop and search a UAS operator or remote pilot who may not be complying with specific aspects of the IR’s risk-based operational framework—one example would be failing to obtain an operational authorisation to fly outside of the “open category”.
The list of offences to which the amendment to Section 93 of the Police Act 1997 applies has also been amended to include, for example, offences relating to the contravention of specified requirements in the IR. As with the other powers in this schedule, the offences to which the amendment to the Police Act will apply are only those that could constitute a serious safety or security risk if, for example, committed near certain sites, such as prisons. Without these amendments, the ability to protect the public, our critical national infrastructure and prisons from unlawful behaviour involving the use of unmanned aircraft would be limited.
I now turn to the amendments to Schedule 9. The purpose of Schedule 9 is to enable constables to obtain information from UAS operators or remote pilots about the lawful basis of a UA flight, for those flights that require a prior step to be lawful; for example, by registering or obtaining a permission. It is necessary to amend the powers in this schedule in light of the ANO amendment, including the circumstances in which the powers can be exercised. Under the IR, there is a wider range of circumstances in which a UAS operator must register, more gradations in levels of remote pilot competency and a number of new ways in which the CAA might grant its consent for a UAS operator to undertake higher-risk operations. It has therefore been necessary to substitute the schedule entirely. However, the policy intention of the schedule remains the same.
The Government consider that the powers in Schedule 9 need to be exercisable where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting, rather than believing, that a particular requirement applies. We believe this is necessary to ensure the purpose of the provisions is not defeated as the rules in the IR are more complex. It is necessary to amend some of the terminology to reflect the scope of the IR and the related terminology. The terms “small unmanned aircraft” and “SUA operator” are no longer used in the ANO, which now refers to “unmanned aircraft” and “UAS operator”. The Bill now refers to “relevant consent” to encompass the broader range of approvals, such as permissions, operational authorisations and certifications, that can now be issued by the CAA.
Schedule 9 is amended so that the powers that the police have in relation to the registration and competency requirements and related offences apply to the new registration and competency offences in the ANO and to the requirements for tethered small UA that the ANO amendment introduced. This means that, in the context of registration and competency, the police can still require a remote pilot to provide evidence of competency and give certain information about the operator, while a UAS operator can be required to provide evidence of registration and give information about the remote pilot.
The amendment also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out additional types of information and evidence which a constable could require a remote pilot or UAS operator to produce provided that the constable considered it would be reasonable to do so. Schedule 9 is also amended so that the powers that the police have in relation to provision of evidence of relevant consents for certain flights also apply to the new offences brought in by the ANO amendment. For example, the requirement to have an operational authorisation when flying in the specific category.
The power for a constable to inspect a UA has also been amended. The power, if enacted, would previously have been able to be used to ascertain whether registration and competency requirements were applicable to that particular flight and whether the UA had the UAS operator’s registration number displayed on it. Under the proposed amendment, a constable would be able to inspect a UA to ascertain whether any of the other powers in Schedule 9 were exercisable. This will still include circumstances where it is necessary to gain a more accurate assessment of the aircraft’s mass or to see whether the UAS operator’s registration number is displayed. It will now also include, for example, circumstances where a constable needs to check the class marking of a UA. EU Delegated Regulation 2019/945 requires UA put on the market from 1 January 2023 to meet certain product standards and bear markings that indicate which class the aircraft is in. This will, in time, assist a constable to ascertain whether the operation that has been undertaken using the aircraft was permitted under a particular category or subcategory of operation of the IR and to determine whether any further investigation is necessary or whether an offence has been committed.
I once again reassure noble Lords that the amendments to Schedule 9 are essential to ensure it functions as intended in light of the changes flowing from the IR becoming applicable and the changes made to the ANO by the ANO amendment.
Schedule 10 makes provision about fixed penalties for certain offences relating to UA. A minor and technical amendment has been made to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 10 to change where the new provision created by that paragraph will appear in the ANO. This is necessary because the recent ANO amendment has added more provisions after Article 265 of the ANO.
Finally, Schedule 11 currently contains powers that allow for amendments to Schedule 8 and to Section 13 and Schedule 9 to the Bill—once it is an Act—in light of changes to the ANO, the creation of a new ANO or regulations made under the Act to provide for offences relating to EU-derived legislation. This means that the police powers in this Bill can be used to enforce any new unmanned aircraft offences brought in by any of the above.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I am speaking to this general set of amendments, but I want to speak particularly on disabled safety features on drones. The Bill should make it illegal to fly a drone if any safety features are inoperable or have been disabled. My noble friend Lord Whitty tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee. The Minister’s assurance then was that the safety feature that could be referred to would be electronic conspicuity, the disabling of which would be covered under other provisions. That, we believe, is not the case. Lights, geo-awareness and geo-fencing, software functions that limit altitude, remote ID and various redundancy measures could all be covered under this provision. There are technical requirements for certain systems whereby the user cannot modify them—for example, data associated with remote ID. However, this does not protect against deliberate hacking or intentional disabling of systems. A provision that makes these acts illegal is therefore relevant.
BALPA has engaged directly with staff at the DfT on this point and we are grateful to the Minister’s officials for doing so. We note that the Government believe that sufficient safeguards are already available in the Air Navigation Order to cover this matter, but, overall, we still believe that a specific and separate offence should be created in the Bill. I make these points for the Minister to take on board, as it is highly likely that this sensible and proportionate amendment may be urged when the matter is considered in the other place. I hope the Minister can take this back to the department and reflect on it as the Bill proceeds further.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister on her spirited 12-minute speech, which covered all these amendments.
In the heady days of the 1960s, I went to university for three years. Her Majesty was good enough to teach me to fly in the Royal Air Force. At university, I ran the college bar and happened to get a maths degree. It was useful training, which led me into an airline career. Running the college bar gave me first-hand experience in line management, and I am afraid that the only effect of the maths degree was to make me even more pedantic than I was naturally.
Accordingly, when the Minister was kind enough to send a letter setting out these amendments and where they were, I read it and alighted on some of the words used. She wrote to clarify that these were “largely” technical changes, saying that it is important to note that these amendments, if accepted, will not change the policy intention of the Bill and are, “in most cases”, just making minor but essential changes. Either the words are careless, and the changes are wholly technical—though I believe that there is no such thing in most cases—or some of these amendments are not technical in nature. In her response, can the Minister tell me which of these many amendments is not a technical change but has some substance? Or can she assure me that the words “largely” and “in most cases” should have been omitted from her letter and that all the changes are technical?
I ask for this assurance because we do not have the resources to work through such a large number of amendments. We made an attempt—and I commend our adviser, Ben, who worked through them. He could not find anything that was not minor and technical, but I would value the Minister enlightening me and satisfying my pedantic approach.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I have grappled with all these amendments. I wondered whether what seemed minor and technical to me might seem very significant to someone working in the industry. I thank the Minister and her officials for their thorough briefings. However, this all shines a light on the unsatisfactory situation with this Bill—a major tranche of amendments has been produced because of the time that has elapsed.
I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. They underline the need for a much more comprehensive approach and review. Although my amendment was narrowly lost, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the points I have made and the need to look more comprehensively at this in the near future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, as ever, the views of BALPA must hold great weight. It is important that safety is at the forefront of our minds, on all these issues. But because this is a diverse, complex and fast-changing subject, only people actually working in the industry are able to spot the problems when they first appear.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I cannot see anything here which is not detailed and technical. Therefore, I have no objections to the amendments.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their short interventions on this debate. Turning first to the comments of my noble friend Lord Balfe, I will, of course, take them back to the department and consider them further.
Turning to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—I see his maths degree and I raise him an engineering degree. And I am the ultimate pedant. However, what is minor and technical to one person is not minor and technical to another; indeed, that was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. When it comes to my letter to him, where I said “in most cases” and “largely”, I think I was just trying to cover my bases. The reality is that they are minor and technical. Where they are slightly not minor and technical—perhaps a bit borderline—I tried to bring that out in my 12-minute speech, particularly where there have been changes. For example, the implementing regulation has introduced some changes from the status quo ante; it is a slightly different regime. I suppose that, although they are technical amendments to make it all match up, perhaps they may be on the large end of minor. But I reassure him that I too have found nothing that I could not describe as minor or technical and, on that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 17
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Prohibiting aircraft noise over designated sites
Civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet over landscapes designated as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are prohibited, except—(a) any civil aviation aircraft landing at or taking off from civil airports or airfields, and(b) civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet for safety reasons.”
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by apologising to noble Lords and my noble friend the Minister, as I was unable to take part at Second Reading or in Committee. I have, of course, read the Hansard reports of both previous stages.
In moving Amendment 17, standing in my name, let me say at the outset that I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division, and I can see the potential problems if my amendment was actually inserted into the Bill. Nevertheless, I feel the issue merits a short debate.
Aircraft noise caused by low-flying aircraft, particularly if it is frequent, is a major disruption, and, indeed, can be a health issue. Those who live near airports and aerodromes get used to it—not that they can ever ignore it. However, my concern, one that is shared by many who enjoy the pleasures and tranquillity of our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, is that, from time to time, that very peace and quiet is shattered by excessive aircraft noise. This amendment would prohibit civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet over landscapes designated as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, except for any civil aviation aircraft landing at or taking off from civil airports or airfields and civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet for safety reasons. I have chosen 7,000 feet because that is the point at which noise is considered by the CAA to be a pertinent consideration when designing flight paths.
My honourable friend Mr Philip Dunne, the chair of the Environmental Audit Select Committee in the other place, has taken a keen interest in this matter and has asked several Parliamentary Questions exploring the issue. In March last year, he asked
“what provisions are included in the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill … to protect national parks and AONBs from aircraft noise.”
In reply, my honourable friend the Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, said:
“The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an airport, air navigation service provider or another body to take forward an airspace change that is considered necessary for the delivery of the Civil Aviation Authority’s … Airspace Modernisation Strategy.
Any Airspace Change Proposals that are taken forward as a result will be covered by the department’s existing Air Navigation Guidance which is reflected in the CAA’s airspace change process. The guidance for this process states that, where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty … and National Parks.”
That Answer states “where practicable” and “it is desirable”, but I am afraid that that sounds a little weak to me.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has raised this matter, because it is of considerable concern to many people—those who enjoy areas of outstanding natural beauty and, for example, those who run the National Trust. I, too, would like to know what sanctions are available to people who own such areas of land if it becomes apparent that aircraft are not keeping to the guidance provided by the various air traffic orders.
Therefore, I intervene simply to second what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has said. I believe that the mechanisms are there, but what I really want to know is what happens if the rules are not obeyed and what can be done about it.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the raising of this fresh issue. I have had representations from residents in Shropshire about a sudden unexplained increase in aircraft noise in their area. In this case the noise was undoubtedly caused by civilian flights. People who suddenly find themselves underneath flights by the Air Force and the military often understand the need for those, but they may be more concerned about civilian commercial flights.
Even the local councillors could not find the cause. They could not discover where the flights were coming from, or why there had been a sudden increase. Was a new airline operating from a nearby airport? Were the schedules, or the destinations, different? They could not find the answer, and then along came the pandemic, and there was no longer a problem. However, that does not mean that the problem has disappeared for ever, or that it will not be back in the reasonably near future.
Even if that problem does not return in Shropshire, that would not undermine the important principle behind the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for tabling it. Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks are subject to numerous protections in terms of planning, the natural environment, and the agriculture that can take place within them, but, as I understand it, there is no protection from aircraft noise.
The Bill threatens to make the present vulnerability of such places worse, because airports will now be required to surrender their spare airspace. There might be an airport very close to an AONB but not operating over it simply because there is no commercial incentive to use that route. But now airports are to be asked to give up their spare airspace for use by general aviation, which means that our skies will be even more crowded.
This is an interesting development, at a time when the Government are keen to burnish their environmental credentials. I recommend that they look into this and see whether they can use their new powers to deal with the problem of noise. I urge the Minister to take seriously the suggestion in the amendment that flights below 7,000 feet should be controlled, and allowed only in certain situations.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for his amendment, which, as he said, provides us with an opportunity to debate aircraft noise. I am sure that in her response, the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that. I certainly would not claim to know what all their objectives are on aircraft noise, but I do remember one, although it is unrelated to the specific issue covered in the amendment.
Following the 2017 public consultation on Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the Government said that their objective was to
“limit or reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise at night, including through encouraging the use of quieter aircraft, while maintaining the existing benefits of night flights.”
As we are discussing aircraft noise, it might be interesting if the Minister could provide some information on the specific certifiable progress that has already been made towards achieving that stated government objective, and what specific further objectives and targets the Government have set themselves for the next three years so as to deliver on the objective to which I referred.
On the specific issue raised in this amendment, I am sure that a great many people who visit national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have, at times, been conscious of aircraft flying low overhead. An interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about all the other types of protection that already exist for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In that context, she asked why the goal and objective set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, might not also offer a further protection, in view of how aircraft noise can, at times, diminish the enjoyment that people expect when visiting national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment refers specifically to civil aircraft, but presumably there could be an issue with military aircraft in this context as well.
I support the basic objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks with his amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will set out the Government’s thinking on aircraft noise, not least on the specific circumstances covered by this amendment and the goals, objectives and targets that the Government have set in this regard.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall for tabling this amendment. When we debated this in Committee, noise did not particularly come up. I hope that one of the benefits of airspace modernisation is noise reducing. I am unable to set out in full the Government’s position on noise at airports; if there are any detailed questions, I will write.
However, I want to address the points made and the issues relevant to the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Randall. He is absolutely right, and he read out lots of responses from the Aviation Minister to questions on airspace change proposals, which are covered by the air navigation guidance. Indeed, the guidance states that
“where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks”.
There was a question about sanctions. Obviously, some airports have no option but to send flights over AONBs and national parks. For example, Gatwick is surrounded by them. We are lucky in our country, in that there are a significant number of these things and they are wonderful, but it is simply not possible for them not to be overflown. One might narrow it down to those operating below 7,000 feet, but nearly all commercial aircraft operating below 7,000 feet are taking off or landing. Again, with airspace change proposals, we expect to see the trajectory of both landing and taking off become steeper, which will again reduce noise and limit their impact.
The amendment is unlikely to have a significant impact on the volume of such flights because they are taking off and landing, but it would have a significant impact on general aviation, which would be unable to overfly vast swathes of the UK. Noble Lords will have heard today support for general aviation in government and parts of your Lordships’ House. There is lots to consider about this. It does not mean that the Government want AONBs and national parks to be overflown; we certainly do not. We expect everybody to behave sensibly when flying over such parks.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank other noble Lords for joining in on this short but important debate: the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, hit on the point that has not, perhaps, been completely answered by my noble friend, which is that there has seemingly been a change in overflying at lower heights. It is something that people notice. I live near Heathrow. We do not get much overflying, but we did notice last year, before the pandemic, that there seemed to be a change in patterns. My amendment would have tried to stop not overflying per se but flying below 7,000 feet.
My other concern is the fact that there is no way of registering such low flying and no sanctions that can be applied to an aeroplane that, for whatever reason, flies lower than it should. Clearly, there might be a safety issue or whatever, and I also take the point about take-off and landing, but I do not think that those are the cases that people complain about.
Having listened to the previous debate, as someone with a degree in Serbo-Croat I do not think that I could match the academic qualities of my noble friend, and I would certainly not dream of teaching her to suck eggs. I suggest, however, that when this goes to the other place there will be Members there whose constituents will contact them, and those Members may want answers to some of those questions. I say that as someone who knows that this is the sort of thing that really gets constituents going.
I will leave it at that. I am grateful for my noble friend’s answer. It was not quite as full as I had hoped for, but I am never really disappointed by her answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be consequential on the removal of paragraph 4 of Schedule 11, and its replacement by paragraph 1 of Schedule 11, which would result from other amendments standing in my name. It provides for the cases when draft affirmative Parliamentary procedure is to apply to the exercise of the power in paragraph 1 by regulations under the Act.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would provide that the new Clause extends to England and Wales and Scotland only.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“(aa) section (Airport slot allocation);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would provide that the new Clause would come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 10 that inserts a new subsection (5A)(which amends section 34 of the Transport Act 2000).
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this Amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Schedule 8: General police powers and prison powers relating to unmanned aircraft
Amendment 22
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 22, in simple terms, allows an appropriate authority to destroy a drone. The Minister has been kind enough to debate this at some length and wrote me a letter on 11 January setting out three points. First, legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists. Secondly, operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable. Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary. I am not being pedantic here, but the words in the last two points, particularly, are of a partial kind. The Minister does not really need to debate reasons two and three with me. When it comes to the third, I know that “existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary”, but it may be necessary. I accept that, “operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable”, as all sorts of second-order effects would have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the only point I wish to debate is that, “legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists”. In her response, I would like the Minister to convince me of that.
I am aware, through my previous responsibilities, of the impact that can be made with two kilos of Semtex. The potential for a determined terrorist to use a UA for malicious terrorism is real. Such a terrorist coming from a sophisticated organisation would, of course, not have a drone with all the protective devices that a commercially applied drone has. The Gatwick incident showed that the police were then powerless, probably for technical reasons, to stop massive disruption taking place by the use of a drone. It seems to me that if a serious terrorist-like incident were developing, one would want a clear power for the authorities to destroy a drone. The burden rests with the Minister to convince us that the powers that exist are genuinely sufficient to make sure that the authorities, in appropriate circumstances, could destroy a drone in the interests of safety and limiting damage or massive destruction. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but this is my application to join the pedants’ club, which was advertised somewhat earlier.
The amendment says
“insert ‘destroy the aircraft or’”.
The clause would then read:
“The constable may destroy the aircraft or require a person to ground the aircraft”.
I thought that this was a sort of “Derbyshire Constabulary amendment”, where they go chasing round after people—a constable cannot destroy an aircraft. What would we have? Would we have Derbyshire police with a popgun? I am afraid that it just will not work.
I can see what is meant but I can also see that we need to think this through a bit more thoroughly, particularly the attendant risks that might arise. The power conveyed in this Act could almost certainly be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I speak as a long-standing alternate member of the Council of Europe, and, indeed, as someone who was for some time a chair of its committee on implementation of judgments of the court. Even if the wording were sound, I am not sure that the principle is. You would need a proper judicial process in order to destroy a drone, and you would not be able to do it as an either/or—we will either destroy the drone or make you land it and then we will talk to you. I suggest that the amendment is well meaning but, unfortunately, defective.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, destroying a drone or an unmanned aircraft is a vital mechanism, particularly for dealing with terrorism. The incident at Gatwick at the end of 2019 illustrated for us all that dealing with an intruder drone is a highly complex issue. I invite noble Lords to think back to that and to the discussions that took place in the media, and, much more importantly, behind the scenes, on exactly how to deal with a drone that was causing millions of pounds of economic damage. It was damaging the economy and causing huge individual damage to those unable to fly, yet people were paralysed into inactivity, not least because there was a lack of certainty about powers. There was also a lack of certainty about the ability to destroy the drone effectively and the safety of doing it. All those things were being taken into account.
However, there would be circumstances where destroying a drone would be the simple and clear answer to a threat. I welcome this as an interesting, probing amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I shall listen carefully to the Minister.
Going back to the Gatwick situation, I remind noble Lords that days were spent deciding how to deal with that drone. To this day, we do not know who was flying it. Therefore, the situation was never satisfactorily resolved.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his amendment, which gives the police the power to destroy a UA if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that it has been, or is likely to be, used in the commission of an offence. We have had many a thought-provoking discussion on this, both inside and outside the Chamber. If he will forgive me, I will set out the Government’s stall in full, even though I am aware that he accepts two of the arguments that I am about to put forward.
While I understand the intention behind this amendment, it is critical that all powers in this Bill are necessary and proportionate, and we have worked very hard with the Home Office and the police to ensure that this is the case. Our aspiration for this Bill has always been to ensure that we provide the police with the powers necessary to effectively respond to UA incidents, while ensuring that we do not inadvertently discourage positive UA use in the UK.
I will set out the three key reasons as to why the Government are of the view that this amendment is not required. First—I think that this is the point that the noble Lord needs to be convinced on—from a legal standpoint, the powers to destroy a UA already exist. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967—the CLA—allows the reasonable use of force in the prevention of crime. This is not police-specific legislation, but it is legislation that the police can, and do, rely on in circumstances where force is required. It would allow a police officer to destroy a UA in extremis if it were deemed necessary, subject to risk assessments.
The powers in this Bill must be necessary and proportionate, and the police assess that Section 3 of the CLA 1967 is sufficient and proportionate in the case of a UA, in line with other areas of policing. This legislation is used for other aspects of policing that require force in the prevention of crime, such as the use of police batons. Therefore, there is no legal requirement to provide for this power in the Bill. Indeed, doing so would set an unusual precedent: why would we specify a drone and not anything else? This could be taken to undermine reliance on the CLA 1967 in other areas.
Secondly, destroying a UA is not generally operationally desirable because there is a need to maintain presentable evidence as part of a police investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. Destroying a UA could render digital and forensic examinations impossible, potentially compromising an investigation.
Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is also often unnecessary. The Government’s counter-unmanned aircraft strategy committed to the creation of a new national police counter-unmanned aircraft capability in the UK. This capability makes use of technology that is more sophisticated and does not by necessity result in the destruction of the UA. It relies on defeat countermeasures, known as “effectors” or “jammers”, which have a number of impacts on the UA, such as causing it to return home, landing it or forcing it to hover—the specific outcome depends on the UA programming. These effectors defeat the UA and prevent whatever malicious action it was going to take in a way that is more proportionate, easier for the operator to use and less likely to cause unwarranted collateral damage than the use of technology that destroys the UA.
The noble Lord previously raised a concern that the Bill and the package of related counter-UA measures we are taking would not be impactful in a high-threat UA incident. I will now set out why I believe that the Bill, alongside these other measures, would have sufficient impact. First, our operating procedures across a range of critical national infrastructure sites, such as airports and other key sites such as prisons, are constantly evolving and have significantly improved since the Gatwick 2018 drone incursion. This allows for a faster, more effective response by both the site and the police. The Bill supplements this as it extends the range of public authorities that can be given authorisations to make lawful the use of jamming equipment to counter UA.
Secondly, as I mentioned, the police have new capabilities and counter-UA measures available to them, which provide a step change in our ability to respond to UA incidents, compared to Gatwick 2018. The Bill supplements this by providing the necessary powers for the police to use this capability to its fullest extent.
Thirdly, if an incident occurs that cannot be stopped by either our operating procedures or our police capability, we can use Section 3 of the CLA 1967 to use necessary reasonable force to stop or, where absolutely necessary and proportionate, damage or even destroy the UA.
I hope that, based on the reassurances I have given, noble Lords will be satisfied that this Bill provides the police with sufficient powers to deal with UA offences, and that there are existing powers in law under which the destruction of a UA is, and can be, justified, where it is absolutely necessary in the circumstances. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I listened to that explanation and remain unconvinced that it will not cause significant delay in what would be a fast-moving event and that the police or other appropriate authority would not, in fact, be more effective if they had the power to destroy a drone in a serious emergency situation. However, I have a difficult problem in pressing this any further in that the Minister arranged a meeting with senior Home Office and police people who said that they did not want the power, and if they are not attracted to having it, it would be unreasonable of me to press this further, having failed to convince the Government.
Before I finish, I note that we have done Report in three hours and 30 minutes. An observer of our normal proceedings might say that we have not taken this Bill seriously. In fact, we have taken it very seriously, and I commend the Minister and her people for the enormous amount of time, effort and letter writing they have put in to responding to the many questions and concerns we have put to them. Accordingly, I can assure society in general and anybody watching this event that opposition scrutiny and, as far as I can tell, Liberal Democrat scrutiny of the Bill have been very thorough indeed and very efficiently handled by the Minister and her people, and I thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
(i) an offence under article”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a reference to an offence which is revoked by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
“(ii) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016, or(iii) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
(a) an offence under any of these provisions of the ANO 2016—(i) article 94A (certain unmanned aircraft: permission for flights over or near aerodromes);(ii) article 239(4) (prohibited or restricted flying);(iii) article 240 (endangering safety of an aircraft);(iv) article 265A(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to UAS operators);(v) article 265B(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to remote pilots);(b) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016;(c) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016; or (d) a relevant prison offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the use of the defined term “relevant ANO offence” from paragraph 2(6) and instead list the offences to be covered. That list includes some new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove sub-paragraph (7) because the interpretation provision would be contained in the new paragraphs 4A to 4F proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” by the new paragraph 4A proposed in another amendment standing in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” by the new paragraph 4A proposed in another amendment standing in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
“Meaning of “relevant unmanned aircraft offence”
4A_ In this Schedule “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” means—(a) an offence under this Act;(b) any of these offences under the ANO 2016—(i) an offence under article 94A(1), 239(4), 265A(2) or 265B(2) of the ANO 2016;(ii) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016;(iii) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016;(c) an offence under any of these provisions—(i) section 40C(2) or (3) of the Prison Act 1952;(ii) section 34B(2) or (3) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953;(iii) section 41 or 41ZA of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989;(d) a Scottish common law prison offence.Meaning of “relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016”
4B_ In this Schedule “relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016” means an offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265B(5)(a), (h), (i) or (j);(b) article 265B(6);(c) article 265B(7)(e), but only insofar as that requirement (to comply with authorised limitations and conditions) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight;(d) article 265B(7)(f), (g) or (i); (e) article 265B(8), but only insofar as that requirement (conditions under which operations in the framework of the model aircraft clubs or associations may be conducted) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight.Meaning of “relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016”
4C_ In this Schedule “relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016” means an offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265E(2)(a)(vi), (vii) or (viii);(b) article 265E(2)(b)(ix), (x) or (xi);(c) article 265E(5)(a);(d) article 265E(6).Meaning of “relevant prison offence”
4D_ In this Schedule “relevant prison offence” means—(a) an offence under any of these provisions of the Prison Act 1952—(i) section 39 (assisting a prisoner to escape);(ii) section 40B (conveyance etc of List A articles into or out of prison);(iii) section 40C (conveyance etc of List B or C articles into or out of prison);(iv) section 40CB (throwing articles into prison);(b) an offence under any of these provisions of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953—(i) section 29(1) (assisting escape from lawful custody);(ii) section 33 (facilitating escape by conveying things into prison);(iii) section 34A (conveyance etc of List A articles into or out of prison);(iv) section 34B (conveyance etc of List B or C articles into or out of prison);(c) an offence under either of these provisions of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989—(i) section 41 (unlawful introduction of proscribed articles into a prison);(ii) section 41ZA (provision to and use by prisoners of personal communication devices);(d) a Scottish common law prison offence.Meaning of “Scottish common law prison offence”
4E_(1) In this Schedule “Scottish common law prison offence” means—(a) an offence at common law in Scotland committed by assisting a prisoner in a penal institution in Scotland in escaping or attempting to escape from the institution;(b) an offence at common law in Scotland committed by, intending to facilitate the escape of a prisoner from a penal institution in Scotland, doing any of the following things—(i) bringing, throwing or otherwise conveying anything into the institution;(ii) causing another person to bring, throw or otherwise convey anything into the institution;(iii) giving anything to a prisoner or leaving anything in any place (whether inside or outside the institution).(2) In this paragraph—“penal institution” has the meaning given by section 108 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016;“prisoner” means a person who is detained or imprisoned in such an institution. Other interpretation
4F_(1) In this Schedule—“article associated with an unmanned aircraft” includes—(a) any component, part or product of an unmanned aircraft, and(b) any equipment, including an electronic device, relating to an unmanned aircraft;“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—(a) any vehicle;(b) any offshore installation;(c) any renewable energy installation (that expression having the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004);(d) any tent or movable structure;“property” includes land and buildings;“vehicle” includes any vessel, aircraft (whether or not an unmanned aircraft) or hovercraft.(2) A reference in this Schedule to a provision of subordinate legislation (whenever the reference is passed or made) is a reference to that provision as it has effect from time to time.(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to any contrary provision made in subordinate legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would bring together all of the interpretation provision relating to paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Schedule (including some new interpretation provision) and locate it immediately after paragraph 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would update the reference to the title of article 94A to reflect the change made by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
“(v) article 265A(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to UAS operators);(vi) article 265B(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to remote pilots);(h) an offence under article 265B(3) of the Air Navigation Order 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of that Order—(i) article 265B(5)(a), (h), (i) or (j);(ii) article 265B(6);(iii) article 265B(7)(e), but only insofar as that requirement (to comply with authorised limitations and conditions) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight;(iv) article 265B(7)(f), (g) or (i);(v) article 265B(8), but only insofar as that requirement (conditions under which operations in the framework of the model aircraft clubs or associations may be conducted) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove paragraph 7 because the interpretation provision would be contained in the new paragraphs 4A to 4F proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“SCHEDULEUNMANNED AIRCRAFT: POWERS OF POLICE OFFICERS RELATING TO ANO 2016Provision by remote pilots of evidence of competency
1_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of P’s compliance, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, with a relevant competency requirement.(3) In this paragraph “relevant competency requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265B(5)(b) (open category: having the appropriate competency in the intended sub-category of flight);(b) article 265B(5)(c) (open category: carrying proof of competency);(c) article 265B(7)(b) (specific category: having the appropriate competency);(d) article 265B(7)(c) (specific category: carrying proof of competency);(e) article 265B(8) (specific category: having the appropriate competency specified in the authorisation relating to the flight);(f) article 265E(2)(b)(ii) (tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more: competency).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide evidence of P’s compliance, as respects an unmanned aircraft and a flight, with a relevant competency requirement,(b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators
2_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable— (a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of—(a) the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or(b) the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P.(3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265A(5)(a) (open category: registration of UAS operator);(b) article 265A(5)(b) (open category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(c) article 265A(6)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(d) article 265A(6)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(e) article 265A(7)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(f) article 265A(7)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(g) article 265A(9)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(h) article 265A(9)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(i) article 265E(1)(a) (registration of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more);(j) article 265E(1)(b) (display of registration number of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, information as to the identity of a person,(b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,(c) the relevant registration requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and(d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by UAS operators of evidence of registration
3_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and (ii) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of P’s compliance, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, with a relevant registration requirement.(3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” has the same meaning as in paragraph 2.(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide evidence of P’s compliance, as respects the flight, with a relevant registration requirement,(b) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by UAS operators of information about remote pilots
4_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of the person or persons who are or were the remote pilot or remote pilots of the unmanned aircraft for the flight.(3) In this paragraph “relevant competency requirement” has the same meaning as in paragraph 1.(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide information as to the identity of a person,(b) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,(c) the relevant competency requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and(d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by remote pilots or UAS operators of other information etc
5_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that— (a) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information, documentation or evidence that is of a specified description as the constable considers reasonable.(3) In this paragraph “specified description” means a description specified by the Secretary of State by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.(4) Regulations under this paragraph that specify a description of information, documentation or evidence may provide for conditions that must be met before a constable may require P to provide information, documentation or evidence that is within that description.(5) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide information, documentation or evidence,(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information, documentation or evidence of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(7) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision of evidence of consents for certain flights
6_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened unless a relevant consent is or was applicable as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of a relevant consent.(3) In this paragraph “relevant consent” means a permission, operational authorisation, LUC, authorisation or certification required by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 94A (permission for flights over or near aerodromes);(b) article 265A(1)(b) (operational authorisation, LUC with appropriate privileges, or authorisation);(c) article 265A(1)(c) (certification of UAS and UAS operator);(d) article 265B(1)(b) (operational authorisation, LUC with appropriate privileges, or authorisation);(e) article 265B(1)(c) (certification of UAS and UAS operator);(f) article 265E(3) (tethered small unmanned aircraft: permission from CAA).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, evidence of a relevant consent, (b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant consent is or was applicable as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision of evidence of exemptions for certain flights
7_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was, as respects the flight, the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened unless an ANO exemption is or was applicable as respects—(i) a person and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or(ii) the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of an ANO exemption.(3) In this paragraph “ANO exemption” means an exemption under article 266 of the ANO 2016.(4) The evidence which a constable may require a person to provide under this paragraph includes evidence of the applicability of an ANO exemption to a person, or the unmanned aircraft, as respects the flight.(5) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, evidence of an ANO exemption,(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the ANO exemption is or was applicable as respects—(i) P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or(ii) the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(7) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Power to inspect unmanned aircraft in connection with other powers
8_(1) A constable may require a person in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether a power conferred by any of paragraphs 1 to 7 is exercisable.(2) A constable may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by this paragraph.(3) A person who fails to comply with a requirement imposed under this paragraph is guilty of an offence.(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.Offence of providing false or misleading information etc
9_(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) anything that the person provides under this Schedule is false or misleading in a material respect, and(b) the person either—(i) knows that it is false or misleading, or(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false or misleading.(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.Provision of information etc at a police station
10_(1) A person (P) may comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under any of paragraphs 1 to 7 by providing what the constable required at a police station specified by P at the time when the constable imposed the requirement (the “nominated police station”)—(a) within seven days beginning with the day after which the constable imposed the requirement, or(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so within that seven day period, as soon after the end of that period as is reasonably practicable.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any of paragraphs 1 to 7 in respect of a failure to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to provide what the constable required at the nominated police station before the day on which the proceedings were commenced.(3) For that purpose, the proceedings against a person for an offence are commenced when—(a) in the case of proceedings in England and Wales—(i) an information is laid for the offence,(ii) the person is charged with the offence under Part 4 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or(iii) a written charge is issued against the person for the offence under section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;(b) in the case of proceedings in Scotland, a complaint is served on the person in respect of the offence;(c) in the case of proceedings in Northern Ireland—(i) a summons or warrant is issued under Article 20 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 in respect of the person and the offence,(ii) a summons is issued under section 93 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 in respect of the person and the offence, or(iii) the person is charged with the offence after being taken into custody without a warrant.Interpretation
11_(1) In this Schedule the following expressions have the same meanings as in the ANO 2016 (see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016)—“remote pilot”;“UAS operator”.(2) A reference in this Schedule to a provision of subordinate legislation (whenever the reference is passed or made) is a reference to that provision as it has effect from time to time.(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to any contrary provision made in subordinate legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace Schedule 9 with a new Schedule. A new regulatory regime for unmanned aircraft under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 has come into effect. The police powers in Schedule 9 now need to relate to that regime. Since this amendment was originally tabled, paragraph 7 has been altered (by the addition of paragraph (5)(c)).
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“(3) After article 265F of the ANO 2016 insert—“Fixed penalty offences265G. In the case of an offence under any provision of”Member’s explanatory statement
The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020 includes provision adding into the ANO 2016 new provisions which provide for offences. This amendment would move the new provision made by paragraph 2(3) so that it comes after those new offences.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make any amendment of this Act which is authorised by sub-paragraph (3) or (4).(3) The Order in Council or regulations may make such amendments of Schedule 8 as the appropriate authority considers appropriate for or in connection with—(a) maintaining the effect of a provision of that Schedule in a case where it would otherwise cease to be effective because of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation; or(b) extending a provision of that Schedule to apply to an offence relating to unmanned aircraft under relevant subordinate legislation to which the provision does not already apply.(4) The Order in Council or regulations may make such amendments of section 13 and Schedule 9 as the appropriate authority considers appropriate for or in connection with—(a) maintaining the effect of a provision of that section or Schedule in a case where it would otherwise cease to be effective because of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation;(b) extending a provision of that section or Schedule to apply to an offence relating to unmanned aircraft under relevant subordinate legislation to which the provision does not already apply; or(c) conferring, in consequence of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation, a police power that corresponds to a power conferred by Schedule 9 as enacted.(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(c) each of the following police powers “corresponds to a power conferred by Schedule 9 as enacted”—(a) a power to require a person who the constable has reasonable grounds for believing is or was the remote pilot of an unmanned aircraft for a flight (“A”)—(i) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to A’s compliance with any requirement relating to A’s competency to be the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight; (ii) to provide information relating to the identity of a person who is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft, or made the unmanned aircraft available to A, for the flight;(iii) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the existence of a consent which is or was required for the flight; or(iv) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the application to the flight of an exemption from a requirement which would otherwise be applicable to the flight;(b) a power to require a person who the constable has reasonable grounds for believing is or was the UAS operator of an unmanned aircraft for a flight (“B”)—(i) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to B’s compliance, as respects the flight, with any requirement relating to registration of B as the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft;(ii) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to B’s compliance, as respects the flight, with any requirement relating to registration of the unmanned aircraft;(iii) to provide information relating to the identity of a person who is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight;(iv) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the existence of a consent which is or was required for the flight;(v) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the application to the flight of an exemption from a requirement which would otherwise be applicable to the flight;(c) a power to require a person who is in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it—(i) if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether any other power conferred by Schedule 9 is exercisable;(ii) for the purpose of checking whether a requirement to display any number, mark or information on the unmanned aircraft is being complied with.(6) The provision that may be made under sub-paragraph (4)(c) in connection with conferring a police power includes—(a) provision authorising a constable to use reasonable force in the exercise of the power;(b) provision for a person to be guilty of an offence if the person—(i) does not comply with a requirement imposed by a constable in the exercise of the power, or(ii) knowingly or recklessly provides a constable exercising the power with information, documentation or evidence that is false or misleading in a material respect.(7) In this paragraph—“appropriate authority” means—(a) Her Majesty, in relation to an Air Navigation Order;(b) the Secretary of State, in relation to regulations;“relevant subordinate legislation” means—(a) an Air Navigation Order;(b) regulations made under paragraph 3 of this Schedule;(c) regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation;(d) regulations made under Article 15 of the UK Implementing Regulation;“remote pilot”, in relation to an unmanned aircraft, means a person (however described) conducting the flight of the unmanned aircraft (including a person who is a remote pilot within the meaning of the ANO 2016 — see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016);“UAS operator”, in relation to an unmanned aircraft, means a person (however described) who is the operator of the unmanned aircraft (including a person who is a UAS operator within the meaning of the ANO 2016 — see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a single power in place of the powers currently in paragraphs 1 and 4. That single power would be wider than the current Bill powers insofar as it can be used to amend Schedule 9. It would allow the police powers there to be replaced with new powers of the same kind (eg. if the regulatory regime relating to unmanned aircraft is replaced).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be consequential on the changes to paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 made by the amendment standing in my name. It provides for the cases when draft affirmative Parliamentary procedure is to apply to the exercise of the power in paragraph 1 in an Air Navigation Order.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out sub-paragraph (7), because an equivalent power is already available under paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
(b) the UK Implementing Regulation or provision made under that Regulation;(c) regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for the creation of offences or civil penalties to enforce compliance with requirements imposed by regulations made under the UK Delegated or Implementing Regulation or regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would remove paragraph 4 because it is replaced by paragraph 1 as amended by the amendment standing in my name.
““UK Basic Regulation” means Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/ 2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts the definition of “UK Basic Regulation”.
“and a reference to the UK Basic Regulation, the UK Delegated Regulation or the UK Implementing Regulation is to that Regulation as it forms part of domestic law on and after IP completion day and as amended from time to time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that references to these three instruments will be “ambulatory”— that is, the references will catch any amendments made to those instruments in their “domesticated” form as retained EU law.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would amend the long title of the Bill to additionally include a reference to airport slot allocation.