House of Commons
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 2 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, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
During the consultation on duty free and tax-free goods carried by passengers in 2020, the Government engaged extensively with various stakeholders and carefully considered 73 consultation responses. I have continued to meet stakeholders, including retail and aviation representatives, following our announcement.
Gavin Newlands [V]
Given the deep trouble within retail and aviation, with Debenhams one of many chains disappearing from high streets with the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and, as the Minister will be aware with Stansted and its importance for employment in her constituency, aviation by and large grounded, does she not accept it was a mistake to scrap the VAT retail export scheme and the extra-statutory concessions, both of which brought much needed revenue to the retail sector at airports, which is now lost from the economy, possibly for good?
Kemi Badenoch
We do not accept that. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility set out its assessment of the fiscal impact of the withdrawal of the VAT RES scheme, factoring in a higher than usual elasticity to account for spending on luxury goods. Its estimate is that this will result in a significant Exchequer saving of about £400 million per year. On airports, we recognise the challenges the aviation sector is facing as it recovers from the impacts of covid-19. We have supported the sector throughout the pandemic and continue to do so. This includes the recently announced airport and ground operator support scheme, which will provide eligible firms with support of up to £8 million per claimant.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Since their introduction, the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme have been available to those unable to go to work because of caring responsibilities arising from covid-19, such as caring for a home schooling child or caring for a vulnerable individual. Those who are unable to work from home and have been told to shield have also been eligible for these support schemes, as well as for statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance.
Rachael Maskell [V]
The Chancellor has let the financial burden of covid-19 fall on women. They have undertaken twice as much home schooling as men. One in five have had to cut their hours. Some 78% of working mothers have not been offered furlough and 71% of those who asked for it have been refused. Will the Chancellor recognise that once again women have disproportionately paid the price of the inequality in his policies? Will he undertake an immediate equality impact assessment and set out in his Budget how he will offer redress for these widening gendered inequalities?
Jesse Norman
The truth is that this pandemic has had a desperately difficult effect for the whole of the UK economy, and for families and people across our country and regions. It is appropriate to recognise the totality of the difficulty we find ourselves in. It is true that many women have found themselves in the position of either caring for home schooling or vulnerable individuals. They are supported and protected through the schemes we have put in place. Of course, over and above those schemes, we have also put in place significant amounts of support for remote education, laptops and councils to help vulnerable individuals.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Earlier this month, the shadow Chancellor successfully called on the Chancellor to make it clear that working parents and others can be furloughed owing to childcare responsibilities. Most employers will want to do the right thing, but where an employer is refusing to follow the guidance and offer a parent furlough for childcare reasons, can the Minister tell me who the parent should report that to and what action will be taken?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Member will know, furlough is an arrangement reached between companies and their employees. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Government do not have direct involvement in that. What they say is that where an agreement can be reached between the two sides we will support them, as laid out in one of the most generous schemes available in any country around the world. As I said, that is just one part of a much wider panoply of support for people at risk through the pandemic.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Throughout the covid crisis, the Government have sought to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods, and support businesses and public services across the UK. We recognise that food and drink wholesalers have been severely impacted by the necessary action we have taken to control the virus, but those businesses have been eligible for a number of our economic support schemes, including the job retention scheme, VAT deferral and bounce back loans.
Carolyn Harris [V]
Food service wholesalers have again seen their trade drop by 95% with hospitality businesses closing, yet they continue to supply our hospitals, schools, care homes and prisons at a financial loss. Many now are on the brink of collapse. What more are the Government going to do to help the industry, which is suffering a double whammy of lost stock and ongoing fixed costs?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and, indeed, I met representatives of the sector in my constituency a few weeks ago. The Treasury is in regular discussion with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and they are assessing the systemic risks to the food supply chain of the fulfilment of those public sector contracts to schools, hospitals and prisons. We keep these matters under close review, but at the moment there is no threat to those supply chains and, as I referenced, the options that are available to those firms continue to be available.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Treasury Ministers regularly speak to their ministerial colleagues on all matters of public spending. Remediation of coal sites is a devolved policy and responsibility lies with the devolved Administration through their Barnett funding.
Chris Bryant [V]
Well, that was a depressing start, because the truth is that 40% of all the disused coal tips in the whole United Kingdom are in Wales, which is much higher than the Barnett formula would normally allow for. Ninety per cent. of all the disused coal tips in England and Wales are in the poorest communities, so if the Government really stick to this policy of “It’s down to the local authority, which has to find the funding for this”, they are going to see the poorest communities in Britain pay for the legacy of an industry that made this country rich. I urge the Minister, please, to think again about how we can make sure that communities are safe and that the money and the funding are there to make sure that the coal slides, which are likely to come more frequently, do not provide long-term financial and economic problems for those communities.
Steve Barclay
I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s response because the last time that he raised this issue at Treasury questions, the UK Government responded extremely constructively, with £31 million of financial support, including £22 million to address the flooding of coal sites and £9 million for coal tip repairs, which I thought he might at least have welcomed. Notwithstanding that, at the request of the Welsh Government, the Coal Authority is supporting work to undertake a safety review of all the small tips in Wales, regardless of ownership, but he should also recognise that it is a devolved matter.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Sport and wellbeing is of major importance to this Government as we manage the effects of the pandemic. That is why we announced the £300 million sport winter survival package to protect major spectator sports, why we have supported clubs through covid business support schemes, such as the furlough scheme, and why we have introduced the £100 million national leisure recovery fund to support publicly owned leisure facilities through this crisis.
Tracey Crouch [V]
The Chief Secretary shares my passion and enthusiasm for sport, and I know that he appreciates the consequences of good physical and mental health on the wellbeing of individuals, but he may also be aware that poor physical health and wellbeing cost the Treasury tens of billions of pounds per annum. Given that covid-19 has had a negative impact on both, does he agree that our recovery strategy should put sport, physical activity and wellbeing at its heart, and will he consider the merits of a wellbeing budget that looks at shifting the focus away from GDP as the only measure of economic growth?
Steve Barclay
I agree with my hon. Friend that sport and wellbeing should be at the heart of our recovery plans and pay tribute to the work that she has done not just on football but on sport and loneliness in championing these issues. There are lessons from other countries that we can look at as well. One of the areas that I am very keen to work with her on are the opportunities around social prescribing, where the role of sport and wellbeing—in terms of how we treat people with regard to mental health and recovery from covid—has a lot to offer, and I know that she will continue to champion that.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I have frequent discussions with the Scottish Government’s Finance Minister, and may I take this opportunity to add my congratulations on the announcement yesterday of her engagement?
Stuart C. McDonald [V]
I think every Member will join me in congratulating Scotland’s Finance Minister, Kate Forbes, on her happy news. A decade of UK austerity delivered unprecedented declines in living standards and incomes, especially to those already struggling. Now even the OECD says that making cuts instead of investment after the financial crisis was the wrong approach. With the Scottish Budget set for Thursday, will the Minister confirm that this time the UK Government will invest to stimulate economic recovery, or will more Tory cuts put Scotland’s recovery at risk?
Steve Barclay
It is a little odd, in a year when Scotland has received £44 billion through the Barnett formula, to be talking of cuts. The hon. Gentleman refers to the Scottish Budget, and he will be aware that there are opportunities with the powers that the Scottish Government have, whether that is to exercise their flexibilities on elements of universal credit, to top up benefits and create new ones, or to introduce new tax powers. The Scottish Parliament has powers, and we wait to see how the Scottish Government use them.
David Linden
In asking the public to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives, there must be an understanding that in doing so consumers are running up higher electricity and gas bills. Does the Minister understand that 2.1 million people are behind in their energy bills at the moment, and that one way to help them would be to reduce VAT temporarily on home energy bills?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point; there are household costs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, through the package of measures, has supported the incomes of the poorest. The distributional analysis from the Treasury shows that the poorest working households have benefited most from the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend. The best way of supporting those families is through schemes that the UK, through its broad shoulders, is able to offer, such as the furlough scheme and the self-employed income support scheme, which have supported so many jobs across Scotland.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
The Chancellor’s chaotic stop-start approach to furlough last autumn undoubtedly cost jobs. Failing to continue the £20 universal credit uplift and extend it to legacy benefits is set to plunge struggling families into hardship, and now the Conservatives are signalling tax rises and a return to austerity. To what extent does the Minister believe that that approach has contributed to 20 consecutive polls in favour of Scottish independence?
Steve Barclay
There is a factual error in the hon. Lady’s question, in saying that there was a stop-start approach to furlough—
Steve Barclay
It continued throughout; that is just a statement of fact. In terms of the wider package, I would refer the hon. Lady to the fact that the UK Government have provided £280 billion-worth of support and that bodies such as the International Monetary Fund have said that the UK’s economic response has been one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally. We are able to do that because we are working as one United Kingdom acting together and using the broad shoulders of the UK.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government recognise the significant impact of coronavirus on businesses across every region and nation of the United Kingdom, and that is why we have put in place an unprecedented series of measures to provide support, whether that is through the coronavirus job retention scheme, tax cuts, tax deferrals, Government-backed loans or cash grants.
Lucy Powell [V]
Business support that was originally designed for three months is now wholly inadequate for 12 or 18 months. Business debts and deferrals are mounting and now have to start being repaid, and the holidays are coming to an end, all at one big danger point in April. Cash grants are worth less and many still do not qualify for them. While the Chancellor might pat himself on the back, reports out this week show that nearly 250,000 businesses are likely to go bust this year, taking many jobs with them. Does he recognise that he cannot pull the plug all in one go in April, given that many businesses will not even have reopened at that point, and that with the effects of the vaccine around the corner, it makes no economic sense to allow businesses to go bust at this critical point, having supported them for so long?
Rishi Sunak
No one, least of all me, is patting themselves on the back while hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs and many businesses are seeing extreme dislocation as a result of what is happening in our economy. I have put in place a series of measures, but I have always said that we cannot protect or save every job and every business. The hon. Lady makes a fair point, which is why we have said that we will review all our economic measures to support people through coronavirus at the upcoming Budget, in the first week of March.
Joy Morrissey [V]
Many female business owners have found themselves working full-time jobs at home while bearing full-time responsibility for childcare and home schooling, all at the same time. May I thank my right hon. Friend for all the steps he is taking to alleviate the difficulties experienced by mothers who just want to work and contribute to the economy with their children safely back in school?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we owe mums everywhere an enormous debt of thanks for doing the enormously difficult job of juggling childcare and work at this tricky time. I know she will join me in being happy that early years settings have been open for a while, but she is right to say that the only way to sustainably solve this challenge is safely to reopen our schools as quickly as we can.
Caroline Ansell [V]
I have long believed that there was a compelling case for reducing VAT for the hospitality sector, and the pandemic-inspired cut helped to save the season between lockdowns. May I ask that my right hon. Friend, when he is looking at his Budget, considers making the cut permanent, to power the recovery across the UK, including in my destination town of Eastbourne, where one in four jobs depends on tourism?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is rightly a champion for her local tourism and hospitality businesses, and she is not alone; across the country, hundreds of thousands of these businesses employ 2 million people. Those businesses are particularly vital in constituencies such as hers, which is why we reduced the rate of VAT—it runs all the way through to the end of March. She will know that we have an upcoming Budget, where we plan to review all our measures of support.
Jake Berry [V]
As you know, Mr Speaker, many of our manufacturers here in Lancashire have worked through the pandemic. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate businesses such as J & J Ormerod plc, James Killelea and Co Ltd, WEC Group and Perspex, who not only have worked through the pandemic, but show that high-value manufacturing and the real economy need to be things the Chancellor fosters and supports in his forthcoming Budget?
Rishi Sunak
I am very happy to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the businesses he mentioned. We know that many manufacturers, especially those in his area, have worked very hard, particularly with regard to ventilators and personal protective equipment at a time of this country’s need. He is right to say that that should play a part in our recovery. One initiative I would point to, which I believe will be in and around his area, is the Made Smarter partnership between Government and high-value manufacturing, which seeks to foster innovation, digital adoption and the latest and greatest management processes. It seems to be working very well and I look forward to learning more about that initiative.
Mary Robinson [V]
Cheadle businesses that faced fines for failing to submit self-assessment returns by the end of this month will be relieved by yesterday’s announcement of an extension until the end of February, as that will remove a great deal of worry and anxiety from business owners who are already under great pressure. With the original deadline only a week away, what steps will the Department take to ensure that all businesses are aware of these changes?
Rishi Sunak
As an accountant herself, my hon. Friend knows all too well the fantastic job that these people are doing, under enormous strain, at this current time. I know that, as she said, she warmly welcomes the announcement yesterday by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to waive penalties until the end of February for late filers. She is right to say that we must make sure that everyone is aware of this, and we are doing everything we can, on all our channels of communication, to get this news to businesses. I ask other colleagues across this House to do exactly the same in their constituencies.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
There is a looming bloodbath for many businesses at the end of March, when the moratorium on commercial landlords taking action against tenants in arrears comes to an end. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that acute danger? What action might he consider taking to avoid it?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend knows that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is engaged with that issue and has worked with the industry to put in place various codes of practice to encourage good and constructive dialogue between landlords and tenants throughout a difficult situation. There are promising signs that that is happening.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The self-employment income support scheme is one of the most generous in the world and has received claims from almost 2.7 million people so far, totalling more than £18.5 billion. The amount of the scheme grant is determined based on the applicant’s average profits from self-employment in the previous three tax years, as reported through their tax returns. By calculating the grant on an average of three years of profits, the scheme supports people who saw a dip in profits for any reason, including pregnancy.
Stephen Kinnock [V]
The Chancellor likes to claim that the UK offers one of the most generous support schemes for self-employed people in the world, but self-employed women who have taken maternity leave in the past few years are not supported generously at all—in fact, they have received a lot less financial support than their peers who have not taken maternity leave. The charity Pregnant Then Screwed reported that around 75,000 self-employed women have been subject to— [Inaudible.]
Jesse Norman
If I may just say, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are not talking about a claim that is not validated by third parties; it is understood internationally that the scheme is one of the most generous in the world. He will be aware that the issue is subject to legal challenge, which limits what I can say, but I can tell him that the Government are well aware that some self-employed people found that their eligibility for the scheme was affected if they had taken time out of their trade in 2018-19, which is why, in June last year, the scheme’s eligibility criteria were revised to ensure that people in that situation were able to claim self-employment income support.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the UK Government have consistently failed to prioritise support for women on maternity leave. Despite the issue being raised by me and a host of others repeatedly in this House, the UK Government were taken to judicial review last week by Joeli Brearley and the tireless campaigners at Pregnant Then Screwed. Do the UK Government now accept that it is not a sabbatical, sick leave or a holiday—it is maternity leave? Will they end their discrimination against 75,000 self-employed mothers?
Jesse Norman
I am not sure whether the sound system was working but, as the hon. Lady will know from my previous remarks, the issue is subject to legal challenge so I cannot discuss it. I will say, though, that I met maternity groups as part of the excluded in early December, and we have taken steps to remedy the situation, where we have been able to do so, in relation to those who took time out in the year 2018-19.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government are clear that we will drive growth by investing in infrastructure, innovation and skills. In doing so, we will build back better and greener as we recover from the economic impact of coronavirus, starting, of course, with the Prime Minister’s green 10-point plan.
Andrew Griffith [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the UK is exceptionally well positioned to prosper from the initiatives he referred to, and that this is another example of the Government’s unleashing Britain’s potential?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—our 10-point plan can create hundreds of thousands of jobs up and down the country. He is also right that we can lead the world in this journey. We have been one of the fastest countries to decarbonise over the past few years and are one of the leading countries not only in phasing out coal and internal combustion engine vehicles but in offshore wind and carbon capture and storage. Where Britain goes, hopefully the world can follow.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
This year, the UK Government have a chance to show global leadership on the climate emergency
as the host of the UN climate change conference in Glasgow. Green gilts will be a vital part of the transition to a clean economy. Last year, the Chancellor promised to launch the first ones this year. Will he tell us when and why not yet?
Rishi Sunak
We are doing the technical work required to make sure that the launch of our green gilts is successful. I hope to provide an update at the Budget, but the hon. Lady can rest assured that we are working very hard at it. As I said, this will be the first step in building out a green curve. By doing that and making sure that the curve has fidelity in terms of confidence in where the money is going, we can unlock investment for the private sector across the economy. I know that she will join me in welcoming that progress.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The self-employment income support scheme was designed to target support at those who most need it while protecting the taxpayer against error, fraud and abuse. The Government recognise that some of the rules and criteria that have been vital to ensuring that the scheme worked for the vast majority have meant that, in some cases, people were not able to qualify. This is one reason why the Government put in place a much wider £280 billion support package, including increased levels of universal credit, bounce back loans, tax, deferrals, rental support, mortgage holidays, self-isolation support payments and other business support grants.
Alex Norris [V]
It is understandable that, as support schemes were constructed at short notice, there would be gaps in them. It is less understandable why, a year later, those gaps have not been better closed. Many of my constituents are among the millions who have been excluded from support schemes so far, so, as we approach that anniversary, what message does the Minister have for them?
Jesse Norman
The message would be that the Treasury is doing everything it can to protect jobs, families and livelihoods in the face of the worst pandemic crisis that we have experienced in recorded history. It is important to say that, in the case of this scheme, we have spent considerable time engaging with groups that have brought forward potential ways of addressing some of the gaps in support that may exist. As I mentioned, we have had meetings in December and evaluated suggestions all the way through last year, including a concrete suggestion in relation to the directors income support scheme, so we are heavily leaning into this issue.
Mike Kane [V]
I want to raise the case of my constituent, Teresa McGeough, who is a newly self-employed special educational needs expert. She has not been eligible for any financial assistance during the pandemic. Does the Minister think that the Government are doing enough to help people such as Theresa and others?
Jesse Norman
As I have said, the Government are doing everything they can and have been working round the clock for a year to address the full needs of the country across all the different aspect of our economy and society, including through support for the self-employed.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
The self-employment income support scheme’s third grant closes this Friday. The crisis has not ended, but the Chancellor has not provided many details on the future of the scheme. Will the Minister explain why he thinks it is right that employees can be furloughed until 30 April but self-employed people have no clarity about the future of support beyond the end of this week?
Jesse Norman
I think that it is well-understood that the Chancellor will be setting out further plans in the March Budget. It is normal for this time of year for different decisions to be consolidated into that important fiscal event for well-known reasons.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Equivalence is an autonomous technical process that each side is undertaking separately. Officials have had a number of meetings with their counterparts in the Commission over the past 12 months to discuss each other’s processes, and we remain open and committed to continuing dialogue with the EU about its intentions for equivalence.
Stephen Hammond [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, it would be disappointing if the EU could not follow the UK’s offer on equivalence, given the relative starting positions. Will my hon. Friend comment on the Government’s ambitions with regard to mutual recognition of professional qualifications? What are those ambitions and does he hope that they will be achieved by the signing of the memorandum in March?
John Glen
My hon. Friend has a lot of expertise in this area. He will know that, alongside the trade and co-operation agreement, we had a joint declaration to establish a structured regulatory co-operation for financial services and to discuss a whole range of matters around equivalence determinations going forward. The memorandum of understanding will be agreed in discussions between the EU and UK by March 2021. That will establish a framework for that co-operation. It would not be appropriate for me to give a running commentary on that, but the plans will come to fruition over the coming weeks.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) [V]
The Brexit deal was, in effect, a no-deal outcome for financial services. Already some trade has moved, and there is big uncertainty hanging over access to European markets for this vital UK sector. Can the Minister confirm that it is in fact a Government negotiating aim to secure equivalence recognition for UK financial services in the memorandum of understanding being discussed between now and the end of March?
John Glen
To clarify for the right hon. Gentleman, the equivalence granting process is an autonomous, separate process from the MOU discussion. The MOU is about a framework to evaluate the future direction of financial services across the EU and UK. I remain very ambitious for the financial services sector. The Chancellor and I are continuing to have a dialogue—with roundtables with representatives of the sector this week and next week, as well as one-to-one meetings—to ensure that we listen to the sector, and respond appropriately and ambitiously for the future.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
We have secured an unprecedented free trade agreement with the European Union—the first free trade agreement that the EU has ever reached based on zero tariffs and zero quotas. Across sectors and regions, it is a good deal that will protect jobs and investment.
Paul Blomfield [V]
The assessment conducted by the Treasury in 2018 concluded that there would be significant regional variation in the impact of any Brexit deal. We are certainly seeing that, with fishing fleets grounded, manufacturers hit with extra costs, and the Department for International Trade apparently advising businesses to move parts of their operation to the EU to avoid problems. It is clear that there will be a significant regional impact. Does the Chancellor agree that he needs to redress that regional damage from the Brexit deal? Alternatively, does he agree with the new Business Secretary’s comments in “Britannia Unchained” that regional division is an “irrelevant” debate?
Rishi Sunak
No one can doubt the Government’s commitment to uniting and levelling up across our United Kingdom, with an unprecedented infrastructure investment programme. Notably in the spending review, we announced something called the levelling-up fund, which will fund the infrastructure of everyday life in communities up and down the country, on top of our once-in-a-generation increase in infrastructure investment in road, rail and broadband that will benefit equally all parts of our United Kingdom.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The consultation on aviation tax reform has been delayed in recognition of the unprecedented circumstances that the aviation industry is currently facing. However, I will update hon. Members on the timing of the consultation in due course.
Henry Smith [V]
The United Kingdom charges the highest air passenger duty of any country in the developed world. Now that we have left the EU, domestic air passenger duty is something that we can alter. As we seek to recover from the covid-19 pandemic and take the advantages of a global Britain, can we have an early review of this tax, which is a pressure on our industry?
Kemi Badenoch
The Government recognise the important role that the aviation sector plays in the UK economy. The sector can draw on the wide range of support measures available, including the recently announced airport and ground operations support scheme, which will provide eligible firms with support of up to £8 million per claimant. However, I reassure my hon. Friend that we remain committed to delivering the consultation, and will look to proceed once the challenging circumstances that the sector is currently facing have eased.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
As healthcare is devolved, it is for the Welsh Government to ensure that the NHS in Wales has enough funding, using the over £20 billion of funding they receive from the UK Government through the Barnett formula.
Mr Jones [V]
The covid-19 vaccination programme in Wales is unfortunately lagging behind England, but despite that, the Welsh First Minister has announced that he intends to slow the release of vaccine to avoid, as he puts it, vaccinators
“standing around with nothing to do”.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no financial constraints that he is aware of that would justify this perverse and irrational policy decision or prevent the Welsh Government from deploying the vaccine as quickly in Wales as in any part of the country?
Steve Barclay
I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that there are not financial constraints. The UK Government have guaranteed that the Welsh Government will receive at least £5.2 billion in additional resource to deliver their coronavirus response, including the vaccine deployment activities.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government recognise the significant impact of covid-19 on every region and nation of the UK. I can assure hon. Members across the House that levelling up remains a key priority for the Government. That is why the spending review also announced longer-term measures to support every region and nation, including a new £4 billion levelling-up fund to invest in local infrastructure priorities.
Graham Stringer
It is good to hear that the Government are still committed to levelling up, but all the academic studies that have been done have shown that covid has disproportionately affected the regional economies, with Greater Manchester the third most badly affected region in the country. Those regions need more support, but Transport for the North and Northern Powerhouse Rail are being cut; is that not going in exactly the opposite direction?
Kemi Badenoch
I would dispute the hon. Gentleman’s claims. We have taken unprecedented steps to support people and businesses around the country. We have supported 19,100 jobs in his constituency through the coronavirus job retention scheme. Greater Manchester Combined Authority has been allocated £54.2 million from the Getting Building fund for a wide-ranging package of projects. We have also provided over £170 million for the Greater Manchester-Preston city region and Liverpool city region to improve public transport. We have also supported the regeneration of 33 towns in the north-west through the towns fund. There is a lot that is happening on levelling up. If he would like me to write to him to explain everything that we have done in his region, I am happy to do so.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The impact of tax and welfare policy is best analysed at the whole-household level. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, because most people live in households with others and we do not know how incomes are shared, it is very hard to look at effects separately for many men and women. That is why the Government support has been targeted at the most vulnerable. Our distributional analysis published last year shows that the Government’s covid-19 financial support protected the poorest households’ incomes the most as a proportion of their income.
Mrs Miller [V]
The pandemic has been a difficult time for pregnant women in work, and one in four have faced discrimination, including being unlawfully singled out for redundancy—a problem not confined to the pandemic. Will my hon. Friend look again at how other countries tackle this problem and consider adopting Germany’s approach of protecting pregnant women from redundancy, which would also give families much-needed financial stability at what can be a very challenging time?
Kemi Badenoch
We are aware of the difficulties that families are experiencing during the pandemic and we have put many measures in place to look at this, but if my right hon. Friend has examples of specific schemes happening across the world that she would like me to look at, I am happy to do so within my other role as Minister for Equalities.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government have committed more than £10 billion to support local authorities in dealing with covid in this financial year and the next, including an unprecedented guarantee to compensate them for their income losses as a result of the pandemic.
Craig Tracey [V]
I welcome the considerable support that has already been given to local councils during the pandemic. However, I recently had discussions with leaders of North Warwickshire Borough Council, which is an incredibly well-run council, and they are still finding a shortfall of about half a million pounds against an annual budget of £10 million, due to a mix of lost revenue and providing additional services to residents, such as extra home waste collection services. What more can be done to ensure that we give councils the full backing they need to continue providing services?
Steve Barclay
North Warwickshire has received more than £1 million to meet its expenditure pressures this year, exceeding the expenditure pressures that it has reported to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I urge my hon. Friend to express any further concerns to MHCLG at the earliest opportunity. As he recognises, a comprehensive package of support has already been provided, and that support continues.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Throughout this crisis, our overriding economic priority has been to support people’s jobs and businesses through a range of measures worth more than £280 billion, including the furlough scheme, tax cuts, tax deferrals, loans and grants. There will be a Budget on 3 March, when we will set out the next steps in our economic response to coronavirus.
Tracy Brabin [V]
Last week the Chancellor received a detailed and costed policy proposal for a targeted income grant scheme, written by Rebecca Seeley Harris and supported by the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group. That scheme would be a vital first step in giving meaningful financial support to many of the millions who have been locked out of the current schemes and who are desperate, after nearly a year of the covid pandemic. Can the Chancellor tell us today whether he plans to progress with that proposal, or does he have another scheme in mind for the millions in need of support?
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury met the authors of the report back in December and is considering it alongside all the other submissions that we receive at the Treasury.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right about needing the private sector to drive growth and create jobs. I am pleased to tell him that the Prime Minister and I chaired the first meeting of the Build Back Better Business Council, where we outlined our plans to invest in infrastructure, innovation and skills alongside businesses. We have also established a new Office for Investment, led by Lord Grimstone, which is charged with securing high-value investment opportunities, and I look forward to hearing from him ideas that we can productively take forward.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In recent days, the Treasury has been at loggerheads with the Department for Work and Pensions, insisting on taking £20 a week from the pockets of 6 million families. It has also been at loggerheads with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, by claiming that financial hardship is not inhibiting self-isolation. Why is the Treasury putting our economic and health recovery at risk in this way?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady should not believe everything she reads in the newspapers. The Treasury and this Government have put in place a comprehensive and generous set of support to help people get through this crisis, and the results show that we have protected those on the lowest incomes the most.
Anneliese Dodds
I was actually following the words of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and of SAGE, but I appreciate the Chancellor’s response. The kickstart scheme was much heralded, but yesterday we learned that it appears to be missing out around 99 of every 100 young jobseekers. What does the Chancellor say to them today?
Rishi Sunak
I am not entirely sure I know the figures that the hon. Lady is referring to. What I can say is that, since this scheme was announced at the beginning of July and opened for applications in September, it has created over 120,000 jobs for young people. That is, I think, an extraordinary achievement. I pay tribute to the team at the DWP for doing that. I am grateful to the thousands of businesses that are taking part in the scheme. They are working with us to provide hope and opportunity to a generation of young people so that they are not scarred by coronavirus, but can look forward to a brighter future.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend will I hope appreciate that the various things he just mentioned total about, I think, £20 billion or £30 billion, so he will understand it is reasonable that we consider all these things in the round at Budget, when we will set out the next stage in our economic response to coronavirus.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that HMRC will forgo around £800 million in customs income and VAT over the next year. Some is deferred, but much is forgone. Will the Chancellor tell us what he is doing to make sure that that number shrinks and that revenue comes in at a time when the Exchequer needs it really very badly?
Rishi Sunak
I will have to go and check the exact figures, if the hon. Lady will forgive me for not knowing the specific paragraph that she refers to. In general HMRC is providing easements over the next few months as we transition to a new set of trading relationships, but she can rest assured that we are always mindful of the impact on revenue and intend fully—very much so—to have a robust set of mechanisms in place. As she will know, there is a phased response for getting to that point between now and July, and hopefully we can work with her to make sure that that path is as seamless as possible.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, which tempts me into indiscretion. He may be aware of this, but HMRC publishes annual estimates to illustrate the impact of changes in tax rates in a document sexily entitled “Direct effects of illustrative tax changes”. It is worth saying, however, that these estimates are themselves uncertain, because of different levels of behavioural response to tax changes, the potential for wider macroeconomic impacts and, of course, the interaction with other measures.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
It is absolutely right that businesses get the funds as quickly as possible. What I would say is that central Government have disbursed that funding to local councils across the country, so it is actually for businesses to take up with their local authority why they have not received the money. There are two sets of grants: there are of course our monthly grants, which have been going for a while now, and the one-off payments of up to £9,000 that we announced earlier this year. But the hon. Gentleman is right to urge urgency. I know my colleagues in the Business Department are doing exactly that with local councils, but ultimately the responsibility will lie with individual councils.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a doughty champion for his region and he should know that we remain focused on the commitment we made at Budget 2020 to have 750 roles across the economic campus by the end of the Parliament. The Treasury is still considering a range of location options for the new campus. We want to ensure that the chosen location supports our wider levelling up agenda, but we will certainly take his comments and representations into account.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the commitment the Government have made to infrastructure, including in the forthcoming integration infrastructure plan, but the levelling up is not just about rail, as the Chancellor said; it is also about the £4 billion levelling up fund and, most importantly, about the review of the Green Book. As Lord O’Neill and others have commented, that ensures that a whole range of projects better address the levelling up alongside the significant investment in rail and other transport infrastructure.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
The Government understand that this is a very challenging time for the UK hospitality sector, and we are constantly reviewing the package of covid-19 support. In order to ensure that decisions are made to meet these challenges, we will outline plans for 2021-22 business rates relief early this year, but my hon. Friend should let her constituents know that for existing tax liabilities the VAT deferral new payments scheme will allow businesses with deferred VAT to spread their payments over up to 11 equal payments to 31 March 2022 interest-free.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to look at the specific question the hon. Lady raises, but she will know that in the last Budget we introduced a manifesto commitment to bring in neonatal leave, which was warmly welcomed and many had campaigned for, and I know will make a difference to families up and down the country.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend raises a point mentioned by several Members about the difficulties businesses in the hospitality sector and their supply chain have faced during the pandemic. He can tell his constituents that £1.6 billion is being made available for local authorities to support businesses that are ineligible for closed business grants but that may still be impacted by restrictions, and local authorities have discretion to determine how much funding to provide to businesses and the flexibility to target local businesses that are important to their local economies, which could include businesses in the supply chains for retail, hospitality and leisure.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman can write to me with the specific issue he has with the guidance, but in general the grants have been functioning, I think, very well and local authorities are getting them out to businesses. They also have access to discretionary funding. As the name suggests, although there are broad guidelines, ultimately that funding is to be at the discretion of individual local authorities.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend says, and I thank him for it, the temporary reduced rate of VAT was introduced to support the cash flow and the viability of over 150,000 businesses and to protect 2.4 million jobs in the hospitality and tourism sectors. It was extended in September and extended again, and will now run until 31 March of this year. But the relief comes at a significant cost, and while the Government keep taxes under review, we have no current plans to extend it further. I remind my hon. Friend that there are many other aspects of our financial support that may be of assistance to his constituents.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) [V]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Across the pandemic, the Government have created a number of innovative responses, like Eat out to Help Out. We will continue to examine very carefully what package of measures we need to intervene with, and the Chancellor has indicated that he will be coming forward at the Budget with an update to the House on that package in due course.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Given the current imperative to forge new trade deals worldwide, and also to make the new EU trade deal work, what incentives are being considered by the Treasury to both attract new companies to the UK and retain those that are already here?
Steve Barclay
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out a moment ago, the Office for Investment, led by Lord Grimstone, is focused on exactly that issue, working in tandem with the Build Back Better Business Council, which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor chair.
Mr Speaker
Order. I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Petition
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
I present this petition on behalf of the residents on Enfield North to register their deep concerns about the planned Highways England works on the planned M25 junction 25 scheme.
The petition states
The petition of residents of the constituency of Enfield North,
Declares that the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme proposed by Highways England…poses many problems for the local community.
It further declares that the proposals set out by Highways England are flawed, and completely lack safeguards to protect schoolchildren and other road users from increased toxic air pollution and road accidents. It goes on to say:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to assess thoroughly the impact of the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme on the surrounding neighbourhoods and the environment, and to introduce effective measures to ensure that air pollution is mitigated and the road is safe for residents, school children and other road users.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Enfield North,
Declares that the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme proposed by Highways England has been approved and planned works are due to begin in March 2021 but the scheme poses many problems for the local community; further declares that the proposals set out by Highways England overlook the impact of increased traffic flows and speeding along the route which is through residential neighbourhoods and school precincts; notes that the scheme will increase the presence of HGVs which is a safety concern for the three schools along the route and thousands of children who use the route to and from school; further notes that there have been 13 motor accidents involving HGVs on this route since 2015 and two fatal accidents involving HGVs since this scheme was introduced in 2001; and further declares that the proposals set out by Highways England present a serious lack of measures to mitigate air pollution and ensure that the road is safe for residents, school children and other road users.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to assess thoroughly the impact of the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme on the surrounding neighbourhoods and the environment, and to introduce effective measures to ensure that air pollution is mitigated and the road is safe for residents, school children and other road users.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002645]
UK Border: Covid Protections
(3 years, 2 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
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on Covid protections at the UK border.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
From January 2020, the Government have had a comprehensive strategy for public health measures at the border. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office swiftly discouraged all but essential travel to China and announced that anybody entering the UK from Wuhan should self-isolate for 14 days.
In February, advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies recommended that those from Thailand, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and Macau, and those who were symptomatic, should also self-isolate, and regulations were introduced to allow officers to detain and direct individuals. In March, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advised against all non-essential travel, initially for 30 days. On 23 March, the Prime Minister advised that everyone should stay at home and travel only for essential purposes.
A raft of measures followed in May, including 14 days’ self-isolation, passenger locator forms and fines for those who failed to comply with those mandatory conditions. In July, the Government announced the introduction of the international travel corridors. The countries on those travel corridor lists were kept under constant review and removed as the risk of importing covid-19 increased.
However, as the safeguarding of the vaccine roll-out has become the Government’s priority, we have introduced stricter controls. In December, following the identification of the new variant of the virus, we introduced a travel ban on arrivals from South Africa, later extending to a ban on South America and Portugal. We suspended travel corridors and required all passengers to show proof of a negative coronavirus test before they embark on their journey to the UK. Anyone arriving must also self-isolate for 10 days.
Those new measures are being robustly enforced to keep the public safe. Passengers must continue to fill in a passenger locator form, and those who fail to comply face a £500 fine. Carriers are under a legal obligation to check that each passenger has proof of a negative test, and are liable for a fine of £2,000 for not complying. To date, Border Force has checked an estimated 3.7 million passenger locator forms, issued more than 2,300 fixed penalty notices and referred more than 22,000 cases to the police.
The UK has a world-leading vaccination programme that should all be proud of. It is therefore right that the Government continue to do everything we can to protect the roll-out of the vaccine from new strains of the virus. We keep all measures under review and will not hesitate to take further action to protect the public.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and to the Home Secretary for her response. It is good to see her in her place, and I hope we will see her there again to answer questions about how 400,000 police records were deleted and give us the promised update on that matter.
The efforts of the British people and the hopes of the vaccine are being undermined by the Government’s inability to secure our borders against covid. Conservative incompetence is putting our country at risk. Labour is calling for a comprehensive hotel quarantine system, with protections to secure us against new strains. It cannot be restricted to only a handful of countries, leaving gaping holes in our defences against different strains of the virus emerging around the world. The Government must also announce a sector support package for aviation.
The Government’s proposals being briefed to the press are half-baked and will be ineffective. As ever, it is too little, too late. From the start of the pandemic, the Government’s handling of measures at the border has been chaotic. There has not been a comprehensive strategy as the Home Secretary suggested. Indeed, from January last year to 23 March, only 273 people were formally quarantined. I wrote to the Home Secretary in April and asked her to learn the lessons of that, but still by May the UK was an international outlier, with virtually no travel controls.
When formal quarantining was introduced in June, the policy was so badly handled that it was ineffective. It is not being properly enforced, and the Government’s own figures show that only 3% of people are being successfully contacted to ensure that they are observing the quarantine. Even the introduction of mandatory testing was delayed because the Government could not get the structures in place.
On the briefed plans for hotel quarantine, can the Home Secretary confirm when formal plans will be introduced? Will they be comprehensive or limited to a few countries? If they are limited, how will that be acceptable when the quarantining system is in such disarray? Put simply, what confidence can the public have in the Government on this issue if Ministers are not prepared to learn from their own mistakes?
Priti Patel
Let me begin by saying that I welcome the hon. Gentleman giving us a chance to discuss these measures. He has also mentioned the police national computer, about which we will provide an update in due course; I can give him that reassurance.
There has been a comprehensive strategy across Government, and it dates back to 27 January last year. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware and sighted of that. It started with travel advice from the FCO, followed by guidance from SAGE from 10 February last year. New statutory instruments, including regulations, were introduced, and there were new powers for the medical profession and the police to detain individuals carrying symptoms of coronavirus. Guidance was issued to airports in February last year around how to handle coronavirus, and there was a flurry of travel advice. That was supported by self-isolation measures and, in March, the Coronavirus Act 2020. There was a parcel of mandatory quarantine, passenger locator forms, shutting the border with Denmark when the new strain was identified, test and release, banning flights from South Africa, pre-travel tests and carrier liability.
This is a comprehensive approach and strategy. It is important to note that throughout, when it comes to coronavirus and measures at the border that involve other Departments, the measures set out have naturally come with logistical and operational challenges. I take this opportunity to thank our operational partners—our airports, in particular, and Border Force, which has been on the frontline day in and day out, checking passengers. I mentioned earlier the number of checks, and Border Force is now checking 100% of passengers arriving in the UK. We have the isolation assurance service, which is increasing the number of checks to 5,000 a day. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is already surging capacity to provide those checks.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to newspaper reports and speculation. It would be wrong of me to speculate about any measures that are not in place right now, as policy is being developed. He spoke about quarantining, and he claims that the Labour party has been calling for tougher restrictions. If I may say so, his party should reflect on its position. In August last year, the hon. Gentleman himself called quarantine “a blunt tool”. In July, the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), said that quarantine measures should be “lessened”. In June last year, the Leader of the Opposition also said that the system was “a blunt instrument”.
Measures are always under review, and it is right that the Government review all measures. As I have said, we have a world-leading vaccination programme. We are proud of that programme, and the Government will do everything that they can to protect that vaccine from new strains of the virus.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) [V]
I commend my right hon. Friend for her unwavering commitment to keeping our borders secure. In that context, she will know that in Kent we of course support that, but we also support the free flow of legitimate haulage traffic across the channel not just for the sake of the national economy but to keep our local roads flowing freely as well. Can she assure me that any new measures will not impede the flow of freight traffic through the tunnel and across the channel?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank him, as a Kent MP, for the work he has been doing, particularly on flow and hauliers. We absolutely have throughout the last 12 months—through difficulties as well, if we recall back in December—protected the flow of freight and critical supplies. That will continue.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
It is simply not accurate to say that there has been a comprehensive strategy in place since January 2020, and it is really quite extraordinary that a Home Secretary previously so obsessed with stopping people from entering the country and deporting those already here should have taken so long to properly address covid protections at the UK border.
As the Home Secretary knows, in April and May last year I wrote to her asking for comprehensive health protections at the border, and I referred to the measures that had been introduced in other countries in Europe and across the world. Last week, the Home Secretary admitted that we should have closed our borders earlier, so why did she fail to take precautions that she knew were needed? What stopped her? Was it her Cabinet colleagues? If so, why did she not resign and speak out, given the risk of increased transmission from people entering the country?
Finally, it is good that four-nations discussions are now taking place, but it is the Home Office that collects and holds passenger data, and the UK Border Force, as the Home Secretary explained, reports to the Home Office, a UK Government Department. Can she confirm that all proper co-operation will be afforded to the devolved Governments going forward?
Priti Patel
I think it is fair to say that the hon. and learned Lady and I will disagree on a number of things, including her opening remarks on the Government’s strategy. I have already outlined them, so I do not need to run through the range of measures that have been undertaken, but I would just like to reflect on a point she made about co-operation across the four nations. She will be very well aware that co-operation has taken place from the outset through the introduction of travel corridors and through the work of the UK Border Force across the United Kingdom. If I may say so, it does that incredibly well at our ports and airports across the UK. In fact, earlier last year I visited many of our Border Force officers in Scotland, both at Edinburgh and Glasgow. The co-operation is incredibly strong. The dialogue always continues and does exist. That will continue as, potentially, measures may change, as they have done throughout the coronavirus pandemic.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement on the work being done by our Border Force. Does she agree that while our efforts to contain the original coronavirus strain were working, because of the increased transmissibility of the new strains it is right that we re-evaluate the work being done at our borders?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Throughout the pandemic, we should all reflect on the way in which it has changed all our lives, but also on how it has touched our lives in many, many ways, and sad ways. All our measures have been under review, and that will continue at the border and with regard to the vaccine roll-out, as my hon. Friend points out.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
The Home Secretary lifted all the self-isolation rules for travellers on 13 March last year. In the following 10 days, up to 10,000 people with covid arrived in the UK, making the pandemic worse. Lessons must be learnt this time. Further delays in strengthening quarantine and testing are a serious problem. Can she tell me why we saw crowded scenes at Heathrow on Friday at the UK border—the very opposite of quarantine? Is it true that for months people have been waiting for hours in those queues in unsafe circumstances? Is it true that the Border Force lifted some of the checks that she just said were being applied to 100% of passengers, because those queues were unsafe?
Priti Patel
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee will be aware, with regard to her comments about last year, that the advice from Government was to stay at home, and clearly the point of that was not to travel. She asked, rightly, about the scenes at Heathrow airport at the weekend, and the fact is that those queues materialised because of the compliance checks that Border Force had put in place. I would like to thank Heathrow airport, because, as she will also be aware, we—colleagues in Border Force—work with the airport operators on social distancing measures at the airport. That is a joint piece of work that takes place, and all airports take responsibility for their work and how they manage their flows. Border Force, in particular, is there to enforce the checks, as it does now, achieving 100% coverage. It is also now working with London Heathrow airport’s assistant organisation—its contractors—HAL, which is also working as a triage function to make sure that people are being checked. I think the British public and the travelling public would just like that reassurance and that welcome news that checks are in place. If that means queues, obviously, we are working with airport operators in terms of how they are supported and triaged as arrivals come into the airport.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
Given the nature of the new variant and the unique challenges that it has presented, I am pleased that new measures have been introduced, such as covid testing at the border, to help keep people safe as we continue our excellent efforts in the vaccination roll-out. Does my right hon. Friend agree that of course it is right that border measures are kept under constant review as we battle this fast-changing virus, and that it is much easier to be in Opposition making loud and sometimes conflicting suggestions with the benefit of hindsight?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Again, it is worth reflecting on the fact that we are in a global health pandemic and all measures must always be under review. She made the point as well about Opposition parties and the flip-flopping. At the end of the day, the Government have to make difficult decisions and choices, working with operational partners, and that is exactly what we have done from day one throughout this pandemic.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
Hundreds of asylum seekers are being housed in decommissioned Army barracks in Kent and Wales. Locked in, residents of the Napier barracks camp in Kent are forced to sleep in dormitories of 28 people. Social distancing and self-isolation are therefore impossible. One hundred people in the camp—that is, one in four—have tested positive for covid. One in 20 are on suicide watch. These are disgraceful, inhumane conditions, and the Home Office has now belatedly said that it will move those with covid out of the Napier camp. Will the Home Secretary now respect the rights and dignity of these people, close these camps and provide good, safe and liveable housing instead?
Priti Patel
It is important for the hon. Member to understand that the accommodation facilities that we are using are military bases that are of a very high standard—so much so that they were housing and accommodating our service personnel, men and women, prior to the base being made available to asylum seekers. The reason the base was made available is that in line with Public Health England guidelines, because of coronavirus, we need space for social distancing, which has been absolutely in place. These accommodation sites are in line with PHE guidance—we have always checked guidance and worked with PHE throughout coronavirus when it comes to accommodation. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Lady shaking her head—perhaps she would like to listen to the facts and not some of the jaded views that she may hold herself. Alongside that, the reason we have removed a number of asylum seekers over the weekend is actually to protect others from catching coronavirus. That is absolutely the right thing to do, because public health and public safety are important, and that, of course, is in line with PHE guidance.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to secure our borders. Given the current situation with a new, more transmissible virus, can I ask whether she agrees that we need to look again at our rules and guidance with regard to borders to make sure that we are limiting the amount of virus that comes through them?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely correct. We have an amazing vaccine programme. As we all know, the world is speaking about our vaccine roll-out programme, and we should be very proud about that. None the less, until the roll-out is advancing in the way that we would like it to, we need to take measures, and, as the House has heard me say several times now, all measures that we take throughout this pandemic are under review.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
Measures of this sort have been a feature of all the systems that have been most effective in tackling coronavirus around the world, so the question that most people will want to hear answered today is, why did it take so long to get here? Will the Home Secretary do a bit to bolster public confidence in her decision making by publishing the evidence on which she has based the day’s decision, as well as the evidence that she has relied on to make different decisions hitherto?
Priti Patel
Throughout the pandemic, all decisions have been made by looking at scientific advice, and the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware of that, and it is no different when it comes to protective measures at the border. He heard me speak about shutting the border when the mutant strain from Denmark was prevalent, and taking action around flights from South Africa and other countries, which was absolutely right. That was based on scientific advice, much of which has also been put out in the public domain.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I recognise that the Home Secretary cannot talk about measures that are being discussed at the moment, but I hope that she can assure the House that, if decisions are taken today, as we expect, a Minister will be appearing at the Dispatch Box tomorrow to update the House on those measures. May I just ask her this: given that the chief scientific adviser has said that coronavirus will be with us “forever”, are the measures that are being contemplated expected to be permanent to deal with that permanent risk of a mutating variant of the virus that the vaccine cannot deal with, or temporary?
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important question. First, all announcements were made both in the conventional way and to the House, as Mr Speaker would expect. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend will understand, measures are always under review. Decisions will be taken through the consultative process within Government based on evidence, based on discussions and based on a number of facts. The virus, of course, is changing, although it is still with us. The vaccine roll-out is a new element, a new consideration, in terms of the nature of the measures that are being taken. It is fair to say that there has been a layered approach with these measures. As we have seen, there has been escalation and de-escalation. Right now, we have escalated the measures through the banning of the travel corridors, so these measures will be under review. Naturally, as the roll-out progresses, new strains may or may not materialise internationally. We will obviously have to take everything into consideration when it comes to permanency or the timetabling of the application of certain measures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers today to the urgent question. She will be aware of the substantial concerns that exist around the Northern Ireland border with the Republic of Ireland as pertains to covid travel. Further to the announcement from the Republic of Ireland, can the Secretary of State confirm what, if any, contact has been made to ascertain the current situation and to share information regarding passengers’ travel to the Republic of Ireland and, potentially, to Northern Ireland, which should not have been withheld at any stage? Furthermore, what steps will be taken to save lives by being sensible about our shared border?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. First of all, the advice is not to travel. It is to stay at home for the very reason that he has given: we are in a pandemic and we need to protect public health. He has highlighted some of the things that are taking place right now. Secondly, it is important for me to emphasise that this is a joint effort. Collaboration takes place in relation to the common travel area, the sharing of information and the sharing of data around passengers and flows. That has always been the case, and that will continue. None the less, I still emphasise that there is no need for individuals to travel. When it comes to the CTA and to the areas to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, we are also thinking predominantly about the movement of goods and hauliers, and, of course, there are checks in place for those particular examples.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
Can my right hon. Friend outline what support the Government will be providing to regional airports such as Teesside International to assist with these measures?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, we are speaking about current measures that are in place right now and have been put in place by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is working constantly with airports across the country in constructive dialogue in terms of the measures, the impact on flow and changes in flow. Again I would like to emphasise, recognising that these are difficult times of course, that people should really not be travelling unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
I also wrote to the Home Secretary in April on covid border measures, and the reply on her behalf from her Home Office colleague, Baroness Williams, said that
“we have brought in the right measures at the right time”,
but we now know that the Home Secretary did not believe that, because she recently said publicly that she had wanted the borders closed. Is it not the case that it is not only my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) who believes that these new measures are too late, but that by her own admission she believes that herself?
Priti Patel
I have already outlined the comprehensive package of measures that we brought in from January last year. It is all very well to talk with hindsight about measures in the past, but there were many discussions that took place. Alongside that, the measures are clear on testing, on test to release, and now on banning various flights and on carrier liabilities. These measures are in place and they will continue to be in place, but as I have said, as evidence changes, the situation changes. The measures are under review and changes will be announced in due course.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is it usual to bill prisoners for the cost of their incarceration?
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
As an island nation, there is absolutely no reason why we could not follow the lead of countries such as New Zealand, which had strict border measures in place from the start of the pandemic and where normal life has been able to resume. That is something that we are all watching with envy from lockdown 3. As we approach a year since the first covid case in the UK, can the Home Secretary tell the House why it has taken her so long to put in an effective strategy to stop covid—particularly the new strains of covid—entering the country, and what steps will be taken to prevent travellers from circumventing travel restrictions by flying through countries with no restrictions?
Priti Patel
I am intrigued by this new hindsight that everybody seems to have adopted rather quickly, when I have already outlined the position of the Opposition earlier in my remarks. The hon. Lady has heard my comments around the comprehensive approach, the list of measures that have been put in place, and the people that we have worked with in Government and out of Government in terms of operational partners. We have a comprehensive strategy that has been in place since January last year, but as I have said repeatedly, the measures will be under review as they have been throughout the entire pandemic, including health measures at the border.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what she has been doing. Will she strengthen the law against people trafficking, which remains a worrying danger? Can she also ensure that the necessary travel controls do not stop essential work travel?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, on people trafficking, he has been assiduous on this and he has heard me speak a number of times about the measures that we are bringing forward in terms of legislation and plans around tackling people trafficking and smugglers. We have some good reports on the criminal penalties and sanctions that have been levelled against individuals. Secondly, he is absolutely right about the fines that we are putting in place and the exemptions that are required in key areas such as goods, in particular, coming into the country.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Pacific countries that controlled their borders have suffered less economic harm from covid. With evidence growing that the South African and other variants are resistant to antibodies, which could undermine the vaccine programme, when will the Government introduce this more rigorous quarantine, and how will they support the aviation sector through 2021, when these measures are likely to be needed?
Priti Patel
I refer the hon. Lady to my statement and the comments I have made about measures being under review and announcements being forthcoming. It is not for me to give a timetable for what is taking place, because obviously there is a lot of work that takes place day in, day out across Government around border measures and the overall approach with regard to coronavirus.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I welcome these proposed measures; clearly, at times of highest risk, we need the strongest measures. Will the Secretary of State agree to be transparent and publish the criteria that the Government will use for deciding which measures will be in place at what time between quarantine, self-isolation and travel corridors being allowed?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not want to speculate about new measures; he will bear with me, as he has heard me say this a number of times. There are processes around making decisions, and clearly, when changes come forward, the Government will announce the details in due course.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
It is not hindsight. The Home Secretary knows that the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, took evidence from New Zealand and Singapore last year about what they were doing to successfully apply effective covid controls at the border. Ten months on, it feels that the Home Secretary is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I simply ask her this: why did our measures not work? Did they not go far enough, and does she take any responsibility for that?
Priti Patel
As a member of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in April last year, we discussed at the Select Committee health measures at the border and the work of the Government. In terms of the effectiveness of the measures, he will be very familiar with all the measures—the statutory instruments, the regulations and the directions to airports, Border Force and the ports. As I and other members of the Government have said throughout, and particularly today, all measures are under review, and that is the right thing to do.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
The Home Secretary will be aware that the aviation sector has been one of the most adversely affected by the pandemic. While it is right that the Government take all appropriate steps to protect public health, she will also be aware that any further restrictions will have a damaging impact on the sector. Can she reassure me that if any new restrictions on travel are brought in, they will only be in place for as long as necessary? Will the Government work with airports and airlines to find ways to safely allow flights to recommence as soon as possible?
Priti Patel
Let me give hon. Friend reassurance about the way in which the Government across the board have worked with the aviation sector. He is right about the impact that coronavirus has had on global travel, airlines and the people who work in the sector. Government will continue to work with stakeholders and partners in the sector. They are our operational partners. We work with them every single day at our key airports and our ports, and that will continue.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
I understand that the Home Secretary does not want to comment on any measures that are still to be confirmed, but if people are required to self-isolate on entering the UK, will the Government consider putting support in place to help those who cannot afford to finance their own quarantine but may be travelling due to, for example, a family emergency or bereavement?
Priti Patel
If I may, I will restate the point that I made earlier: I am not going to comment on speculation. All Members will have to be a little bit more patient and wait for formal details as and when announcements are made.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that returning British citizens need certainty about what to expect at the border. Can she assure me that advance information to travellers will be as explicit as possible, so that nobody can turn up at the airport claiming that they did not know which test to get or when and what documentation they would need to prove it?
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right of course. The role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for Transport throughout this pandemic has been very clear in terms of advice, and that will continue.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
Will the Home Secretary indicate whether she thinks it is appropriate that the isolation assurance service has been checking just three out of 100 people on quarantine compliance? Surely she realises that that is totally unsatisfactory and falls far short of what is required to keep our country safe.
Priti Patel
First, I pay tribute to our colleagues who are working on checks. The isolation assurance service has, throughout, increased its checks, and those numbers are wrong. It is right and vital to point out that the collaboration that takes place with not only the IAS and Border Force, but the police and others is right and vital—and it is working. As an organisation, the IAS has been stepping up the checks it has been undertaking.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
As the MP for Redcar and Cleveland, I represent many of Teesside’s offshore oil and gas workers. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if any additional border restrictions are put in place, that important part of our economy will not be negatively affected?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is, rightly, a strong advocate for his constituency and this important sector in his constituency. There have been certain limited and restricted exemptions, but I repeat that if he bears with us on this and has patience, he will find that announcements will come in due course. He is, however, right to highlight his constituency interest.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As is the case in relation to any covid restriction, what businesses, operators and the public want and need is clarity, certainty and notice. So if the Government are going down the route of border closures, and I note what the Secretary of State has said already, will she provide an indication as to how long any restrictions are likely to last and provide reassurance that the Government will give support if this means no 2021 season for inbound tourism operators and their supply chains?
Priti Patel
It is important at this stage to reflect upon the amount of support that the Government have put in to businesses throughout this pandemic. Of course the hon. Lady is right on certainty for businesses and others with regard to coronavirus restrictions. Nothing has changed on that, and of course we will work with all sectors, as we have done throughout this pandemic, when it comes to not only support, but giving them information up front.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that people should not be travelling in and out of the country unless absolutely necessary? Will she assure me that airports are fully aware that they too have a moral duty to ensure that social distancing is in place?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right: we are in a global health pandemic. The daily numbers that we see of people being hospitalised and the impacts of covid are a sobering reminder of all of this. I wish to make a couple of points. Of course passengers are checked at the airports—we have just discussed that today. All airports across the UK are operational partners, and they have a responsibility to comply with those social distancing and covid-compliant measures. We will continue to work with them and support them to do so. As ever, my message again is: people should not be travelling; we are in global health pandemic.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
The Home Secretary will be aware that the Scottish Government cannot unilaterally close the border in Scotland to international arrivals. May I therefore ask: in the event that further restrictions on international arrivals are imposed, will she commit to offering the full resources of the UK Border Force, including funding, if required, to ensure that Scotland is able to operate effectively as part of a four-nations approach?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman has made the case for a stronger United Kingdom and for the Union working together, which is absolutely right, and we have been doing that, with Border Force in particular. I pay tribute to my Border Force colleagues across the country for the very strong work they are doing, in Scotland, Wales and across the UK, because they have been on the frontline every day.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key benefit of Brexit is that decisions on our immigration, national security and borders are now exclusively matters for Her Majesty’s Government?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that in Britain post Brexit we are clear in terms of the powers and decisions that we are able to undertake. That is, of course, effectively what the Government are now doing, and my hon. Friend has highlighted some clear areas where that change has now happened.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
The first covid case in Wales was recorded on 28 February last year, yet almost a year later the UK Government remain reluctant to follow the science wholeheartedly in relation to the health risks implicit in international travel. While today’s answer is insufficient, the Government’s measures will also be difficult to sustain in the long term. Given that health is devolved, what plans are in place for the UK Government and the Welsh Government to work together on a long-term plan to ensure that international travel is not again a threat to public health?
Priti Patel
If I may I will take the right hon. Lady back to January last year. She just mentioned travel measures, but travel measures were brought in in January last year. I am not going to run through again the various measures that have been undertaken. If I may say so, when it comes to the devolved nations, there is support and work in place, and calls take place on a near daily basis. It is absolutely right that we take a united approach to dealing with measures and restrictions, but also to tackling coronavirus. I absolutely urge Ministers across the four nations: if they have any particular issues in respect of joining up, speaking with one voice and being much more united, the Government’s door is well and truly open because that is exactly what we have been trying to do over the past 12 months.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary for all the work that she and her Department are doing to keep our borders and people safe during this period. More than anything else, aerospace workers in Burnley need planes to be back in the air, so will the Home Secretary assure me that her Department is looking at what measures might be needed on the border in the long term to allow travel to resume in a safe and secure way?
Priti Patel
I commend my hon. Friend for speaking about the aerospace sector and the innovation that takes place within it. Of course, across Government we recognise that coronavirus has been very challenging for the aviation sector, so those discussions will always take place and have taken place, and support will continue to be part of that wider discussion. The Government are committed to that.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
On the day that Office for National Statistics figures show that the UK now has the highest number of covid deaths per million population in the world, and given that currently the isolation assurance service does not check the vast majority of those required to isolate, how can the Home Secretary assure us that enforcement of these new rules will be adequate, and that they will not be more honoured in the breach than the observance?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady has made a very important point. The number of deaths from coronavirus has reached 100,000. Every death is an absolute tragedy. I think that puts this discussion today into some context—a great deal of context, in fact—regarding not only measures but the fact that we are working night and day to reduce the spread of coronavirus. I have highlighted the checks done by the isolation assurance service, but it is not just about that service. It may reassure the hon. Lady to hear that Border Force is now fulfilling 100% of compliance checks, working with airport staff on triaging to bring in those checks and with airports and ports on queues and managing the flows coming in. Those are important measures, but it does come back to the need for compliance, which is why, again, I urge everyone who should not be travelling to please stay at home.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
Given the huge efforts that everyone has made, which have now got infection rates back under control, and given the rise of new covid strains in a number of countries around the world, does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot risk importing further new strains of the virus into the UK, which would undermine all that work?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken already about our incredible vaccine—our world-leading vaccine—which we are proud of. Our work and focus since the development of the vaccine have been about protecting that vaccine from new strains, hence the measures that we brought in in December—the pre-travel tests and the carrier liability for pre-travel tests as well. Those are important measures, and they are clearly linked to the vaccine, but also to stopping the spread of coronavirus.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Home Affairs Committee and the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus—in our report following our inquiry last year—recommended tighter border restrictions to suppress the virus, reflecting the success of countries that followed a SARS/MERS pandemic model, rather than a flu pandemic model. It just is not credible for the Home Secretary to say that there were adequate protections at our borders. Given this, why have the Government been so slow to protect the country’s public health and the economy via its borders?
Priti Patel
I am naturally going to disagree with the hon. Lady, and do so respectfully. As I have already said and as she will recall, last year at the Select Committee we had a lengthy discussion around coronavirus measures at the border and the number of people coming into the country, and I have highlighted the measures that are in place. These are stringent and strong measures, which have been put in place in a layered approach throughout the pandemic. When the situation has changed, when the evidence has changed, and when new strains have materialised and developed, the Government have taken the right action at the right time.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Many residents in Hyndburn and Haslingden have raised concerns about people entering our country and not following the isolation guidance when they arrive. Will the Home Secretary please reassure my residents that more stringent measures will be in place, if necessary, to control the virus?
Priti Patel
I reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents about the isolation assurance service. As I have said, that service is working with Border Force and the police around absolutely following through on compliance checks. The IAS is linked with Public Health England, so it clearly takes the lead on that. My hon. Friend’s constituents should be reassured by the checks that we have in place, which are very clear; Border Force and others are working together to ensure that they are working.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]
The Home Secretary said last week that she was an advocate of closing the borders last March. Given that she chose not to answer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on this matter, could I ask again—why did she not make stronger public representations at the time? Or was she silenced within her own Department?
Priti Patel
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier comments. I have been very clear about the measures that have been brought in since January last year. Any Member of this House saying that the Government have not taken action is completely wrong. I would be more than happy to write to him with the list of every single step and measure—from the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—that has been brought in at the border.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) [V]
I know that the Home Secretary understands the importance of trade and the pressures facing many UK hauliers right now, so will she confirm that, regardless of what new measures are brought in at the border, hauliers will get all the support they need to keep vital trade flowing in and out of the country?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The role of hauliers—for goods, freight and medical supplies—has been at the forefront of all our actions when it comes to keeping goods flowing. I point my right hon. Friend to the work and testing measures that he will have seen at our ports—at Dover. These are important measures that do exactly that; they help to keep goods moving, and that will continue.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
On this tragic day, when, according to the Office for National Statistics, the number of UK covid-related deaths is about to surpass 100,000—many from poorer and working-class backgrounds—can the Home Secretary confirm that any upcoming plans on borders and hotel quarantining will not disproportionately affect the poorest while being a luxury for the richest in our society?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. First of all, I am not going to get into speculation around new measures and things of that nature. It is a tragic day, a sad day; it is a terrible, terrible, shocking reminder of how coronavirus has touched the lives of so many people. It is right, quite frankly, that all our measures are kept under review, and today’s figures are a sobering reminder of why we do that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
This is a really miserable time for everybody involved in the travel industry. Yesterday, Hays Travel announced that it is going to close 89 of its 535 stores. At the moment, it is unclear whether that will impact on the four stores in Northamptonshire, including the shop in Kettering. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if the Government tighten the border controls, they revisit the financial help available to the travel industry?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend, and I completely hear his comments. As I said, our operational partners and the people in the sector have had a torrid time. It is for my colleagues across Government to continue that work and dialogue. I should emphasise that dialogue always takes place with sectors and businesses. That is important, and it will absolutely continue.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
The Home Secretary pays tribute to border staff, but they face risks working in close contact with arriving passengers and clandestine arrivals, particularly since the end of the transition period, without commercial-grade masks or personal protective equipment. What additional measures have been put in place to protect the staff that she rightly speaks so highly of?
Priti Patel
I will always speak highly of my frontline partners in Border Force, who do exceptional work across ports and airports. From the start of this pandemic, we have supported Border Force staff and resourced them with PPE and the equipment they have asked for and needed—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head, but we absolutely have, and the head of Border Force, who I work with day in, day out, can testify to that. As I have already articulated, measures at the border are always under review. Those incredible staff are put under pressure, for example, when airports are very busy. They are there, and we have measures in place to protect them, including the way in which we rota them and keep them distant from travelling members of the public.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
I offer my support to the work that the Home Secretary has undertaken during the pandemic by reacting to the ever-changing challenge of this virus. As she knows, Warrington is getting used to having a more significant connection to UK ports, and to Ireland and the channel tunnel, with the recent addition of an inland border facility. Can she assure me that the new measures will not impact the flow of freight and cause issues with lorries queuing in my rural villages?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Obviously, as part of the end of transition, inland sites were created to assist with the flow of goods, as we have spoken about this afternoon. Again, Border Force is involved with inland sites, and that will absolutely continue. The measures are under review, and we are making sure we can operationalise them. That equally applies to the inland sites that he refers to.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Educational Settings: Reopening
(3 years, 2 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
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the Government’s plan for the reopening of educational settings.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Throughout the pandemic, the Government have been clear that education is a national priority. We had worked hard to keep all schools, colleges and universities fully open, but the scientific advice we received in January meant that we had no choice but to close schools and colleges to all but vulnerable children and the children of critical workers, and to restrict in-person teaching in university to those studying to be future critical workers.
It is the Government’s strong desire to reopen all schools, colleges and universities as soon as possible. We will prioritise the reopening of schools as we begin the process of lifting lockdown restrictions. We are acutely aware of the damage done to children’s education and development, particularly for the most disadvantaged pupils, by being away from school, and of the increased burdens that are placed on parents. That is why we allowed early years providers to remain open throughout this lockdown.
The decision about when and how we can reopen has to be based on clear public health data and guided by scientific evidence and the advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the Joint Biosecurity Centre, Public Health England and the chief medical officer, including on issues such as hospitalisation rates and mortality, the rate of vaccination, and the challenge of new variants. Ultimately, it was the pressure on the NHS that caused us to move into a national lockdown, and the Government are monitoring NHS capacity carefully as they review whether easing lockdown might be possible.
The Government recognise that headteachers, teachers, support staff, parents and carers need time to prepare for reopening. That is why the Secretary of State made it clear last week that we will give two weeks’ notice to schools, colleges and universities so that they can prepare for a return to face-to-face education. We want to give two weeks’ notice so that parents can make arrangements for the care of their children, and we will be making announcements in the next few days.
Until schools can reopen fully, it is crucial that they continue to provide high-quality remote education alongside the on-site provision for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank teachers and school leadership teams across the country for working around the clock to keep schools open for some while also rising to the challenge of providing remote education for the millions of children who are continuing their education from home.
However, remote education can never be a substitute for days spent in a classroom led by a brilliant teacher, or for children being with their friends. We want those days to return as quickly as possible, and with them this Government’s continuing determination, made still more urgent by the pandemic, to raise standards in all our schools to improve the life chances of every child and to transform the start in life for those children facing the toughest challenges.
Kate Green
I was pleased to see the Schools Minister at the Dispatch Box—I have more hope of receiving answers from him than I am used to from the Secretary of State—but even he has failed to give parents, students and staff the credible plan they deserve. We simply do not know what the Government’s plan is for school reopening, other than what we read in the newspapers. In recent days, we have had reports that the Prime Minister wants pupils back before Easter, the Health Secretary saying he wants pupils back after Easter, and Public Health England saying overnight that primary schools are already safe to reopen. Which is it? What is the plan for full reopening?
The Schools Minister mentioned some metrics but was vague about the required performance against them. Can he give us some more clarity? Will schools return only if R is below 1? We have read reports that Public Health England believes that primary schools are safe to open. Are these reports accurate, and will he publish the scientific evidence? Will there be a credible testing plan in place as pupils return?
How will the Government get this chaotic system back on track? Can the Minister tell us in what order pupils will return to the classroom? Will it be exam years first, primary schools first, or a regional variation? What is the plan for the return of college and university students?
Why have the Government repeatedly ruled out the use of rotas to keep pupils in the classroom as a means of reducing transmission? What will be done to help pupils to catch up on the learning they have lost? Can the Minister guarantee that schools will be first to reopen when it is safe to do so, or will other restrictions be lifted if our children return to the classroom?
Parents need support and they need to be able to plan. They need answers to these questions and they need them now.
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady asks for a plan. There is a plan. Schools were closed as part of the national lockdown, which was introduced to tackle the growing pressure on the NHS, and there are clear criteria for emerging from the lockdown, including hospitalisation rates and the other three criteria I mentioned in my opening comments. We have always been clear that schools will be the last to close and the first to open as we emerge from the national lockdown when on the criteria it is safe to begin to do so.
The hon. Lady asks about the safety of schools. We have always been clear that restricted attendances in schools are not because schools are unsafe but in order to reduce the overall number of social contacts in our community.
The hon. Lady asks about testing. Lateral flow device testing is taking place in our schools. We are testing staff twice a week to identify asymptomatic covid cases. Those pupils returning to secondary school, or in secondary school at the moment, will be tested twice as they return to school.
The hon. Lady says again, “Why aren’t schools the first to open and the last to close?” Well, that is something we have been making clear all along. The problem with her is that she repeatedly calls for action that we are already taking. She is always two steps behind. The Opposition have no plans, no direction and no clarity on what is the biggest crisis facing this country and the world for nearly a century.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I thank all teachers and support staff for all the work that they are doing to try to teach children at this time.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of paediatricians have written to The Times today about children’s anxiety, depression and self-harm—all at frightening levels because of school closures. Parents are showing signs of psychological stress and breakdown as a result of the pressures of trying to home-school their children and sustain their jobs and businesses. We need to get our schools open again sooner rather than later. Why not open schools and colleges in the areas where covid cases and the R are significantly lower? Will he put mental practitioners in all schools to help children and parents during this time? What discussions has he had with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on priority vaccinations for teachers and support staff so that we can help to put an end to the revolving door of learning that has characterised education this year? We just need to get our children back in school full-time as soon as possible.
Nick Gibb
My right hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to teaching staff in our schools. He is also right to point to the very difficult circumstances that both students and parents face when they are having to learn from home and are not with their friends. We all know that being in school is the best thing for young people rather than learning from home. All the decisions that we are taking are with the wellbeing of students at the forefront. We understand the disruption that the pandemic is causing to students’ education and the impact that it may have had on their mental health. We remain committed to introducing the new mental health support teams for schools and colleges. To support the return to school, we have put in place a range of measures and guidance, and a new £8 million training initiative for school staff to support children’s wellbeing. The health elements of the new RSHE—relationships, sex and health education—curriculum include teaching about mental health and wellbeing. The NHS continues to run 24-hour helplines for those people who have mental health problems.
My right hon. Friend asked about regional differences in infection rates. We will always be led by the science when making decisions about moving away from the lockdown conditions.
Finally, my right hon. Friend asked about vaccines. The JCVI advises that the first priority for the covid vaccination programme should be the prevention of mortality. For the next phase of the roll-out the JCVI has asked the Department of Health and Social Care to consider occupational vaccination, in collaboration with other Departments, including the Department for Education.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
We are all acutely aware of the impact of school closures on our children, none more so than those of us who have children and are trying to juggle work and home schooling. Will the Minister assure the House, however, that schools will reopen only when the scientific evidence indicates that it is safe to do so, not because of pressure from the Back Benches?
I hope that the Minister has a set of key targets that must be met before reopening. Can he share them with the House today? Is there a maximum R value that the Government are looking at if we are reopening? I echo the call from the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for the JCVI to look at the prioritisation of teachers for vaccination.
Nick Gibb
As I said to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), we have restricted attendance not because schools are unsafe, but in order to reduce the overall number of social contacts in our community. Both PHE and the Department of Health and Social Care confirm that the system of controls we have in our schools—the extra hand-washing, the hygiene, the ventilation, the one-way systems, the masks in communal areas and so on—create an inherently safer environment for children and staff, where the risk of transmission of infection is substantially reduced. This is about reducing transmission in the community, and it is one of the measures after tier 4 that we introduced to achieve that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) asked about the criteria for emerging from the lockdown. As I said at the beginning of this UQ, those criteria include hospitalisation rates, mortality, the rate of vaccination, and the challenge of the new variants, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we will be led by the advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the Joint Biosecurity Centre, PHE, and the chief medical officer in any decisions we make regarding the reopening of schools.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
On the previous point, I hope the Back Benches get louder about that, because it is more important than ever. We need to hear about the Stroud dad who contacted me because he is so desperately worried about the mental health of his children from being at home all day, and from the parents who are contacting me on Instagram. Instagram is for pictures of cats, but these parents are absolutely at their wits’ end juggling childcare and work. Will my right hon. Friend reassure Stroud’s parents that the reopening of schools is being treated as a national emergency? On his point about evidence, will he work with the six Gloucestershire MPs to see whether our falling covid case rates and the low transmission in schools will allow our primaries to reopen after half-term?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right; we take the mental health of pupils and parents, and indeed school staff, very seriously in all the decisions we make. Indeed, the Minister on the Front Bench beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), is convening a mental health action group to look at the effects on children, young people and staff in the education system, and we will confirm the next steps on that as soon as we can. However, at every step we will be led by the scientific advice on when it is safe to reopen schools.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Following the question of the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for many months the Children’s Commissioner, who leaves her post shortly and who is a terrific advocate for young people, has highlighted the effect of school closures on children’s mental health and wellbeing. Families in Kingston upon Hull North are struggling and as a nation we are storing up a time bomb of mental health issues for a generation. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about real and additional support for schools, child and adolescent mental health services, and the voluntary sector groups helping children and families now?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member will be aware of all the work that the Department for Education, Ministers and the Secretary of State have done in recent months, and for more than a year, on the children and young people’s mental health Green Paper to ensure that we roll out, over the next few years, a serious series of support for mental health provision in our schools. It is a huge programme, which is designed to help children with serious mental health issues. It is also designed to alert and to take action when there are early signs of mental health conditions in children. It is a huge project, and one we are continuing with. We have put in place a range of measures to help tackle the mental health concerns that the pandemic is throwing up, including the action group set up by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. The £8 million training initiative for school staff to support children’s wellbeing is already up and running.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) [V]
The majority of parents in Kensington would like to see their children return to school after the half-term break, especially with proper testing in place. The Prime Minister assured me in early January that there was a “cautious presumption” for children to return at that time. Since early January, rates in London have fallen significantly. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that everything is being done to get children back into school and that we have not ruled out a return after the mid-term break?
Nick Gibb
As a schools Minister, no one in the House—not even my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) or, indeed, my hon. Friend—is keener than I am to see all schools back and open to all children and young people, but we will be led by the scientific advice when we make that decision, and that will be how we best tackle the transmission of this virus in our communities.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
Parents and children have faced unprecedented pressures, in part thanks to the incompetence of this Government. We have had the failures with test and trace, we have had indecision about school closure and now schools opening, and we have also had huge issues with the distribution of laptops. In Tower Hamlets, we have 60% of children facing poverty—the highest in the country—and a shortage of 10,000 laptops. Can the Minister update the House on when my constituents can get the laptops so that they can get the education they need urgently while we are in lockdown? The Government have had nearly a year now, and we have children whose life chances will be damaged further if this is not sorted out immediately.
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member failed to mention of course that the Government have purchased hundreds of millions of doses of vaccine from a range of different providers, and that we were one of the first countries to begin rolling out the vaccine process. She failed to point out that we have already purchased 1.3 million laptops for disadvantaged children in our schools who may not have a device, on top of the 2.9 million laptops and tablets that already exist in our schools. So far, we have delivered to the hands of children, local authorities and schools 876,000 laptops, purchased in a demanding global market, built from scratch, imported and distributed. It is an amazing logistical exercise, and it would have been nice if the hon. Member could have paid tribute to the work of hundreds of staff in Computacenter and the Department for Education for such an amazing achievement.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) [V]
I am sure the Minister will join me in paying tribute to the two special schools in my constituency, Alderman Knight and Milestone, as they carry out such amazing work with pupils who are very challenged. Those pupils are less aware of social distancing requirements, and school staff need to work in close proximity and come into frequent physical contact with them because, for example, of the disabilities that some of the pupils may have. Does the Minister agree that vaccinating teachers and staff at all schools, and particularly at special schools, would bring great benefits?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I pay tribute to all staff who work in our special schools. They remain open for vulnerable children and do a wonderful job. For children with special educational needs and disabilities, attending their educational setting is crucial so that they can receive high-quality teaching and the specialist professional support they need. He makes an important point about vaccines. The priority for the first phase is on mortality, but in the second phase the JVCI will be looking at different occupations. The Department for Education will be pressing the case for the education workforce.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
For months, parents, teachers, unions, MPs and local authorities have been calling for: rotas in schools; school transport that is ring-fenced to a single school to reduce transmission; laptops and internet access for children; vaccinations for teachers; mental health funding for young people and the myriad costs facing schools; directly employing supply teachers for one-to-one catch-ups; and trusting local public health directors and schools to decide how best to reopen. The ideas are there on how to reopen schools safely, so why is there still no plan?
Nick Gibb
As I set out, there is a very clear plan for reopening schools, based on the fact that schools are part of the national lockdown. There are clear criteria for how and when we emerge from that national lockdown, which will depend on vaccinations, mortality and tackling new variants and, most importantly, on the pressure that the NHS is facing.
On all the other issues the hon. Member trotted out, we have been working on them. In May, we entered into a contract to purchase 200,000 laptops; we increased that in August, September, October, and November. These computers are built to order—there is a long lead time, but we anticipated and prepared for every contingency, which is why we have orders in place for 1.3 million devices, 876,000 of which are now in the hands of young people and schools.
On rotas, they are difficult for secondary schools to implement at the same time as providing full-time education for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. Rotas do not prioritise exam years. We only ever restrict education as a last resort where transmission is exceptionally high, and rotas are a less effective means of reducing transmission risk than the approach set out in great detail in the contingency framework.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
Yesterday, I took part in a mental health summit with Peterborough citizens, our local clinical commissioning group and many pupils from Peterborough secondary schools. Despite the best efforts of the Government, the mental health of many students has been impacted by school closures. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating local students on raising these issues with me? I heard what he said about following scientific advice. When considering the right time to reopen schools, will he put the mental health impact on students at the very top of his priority list?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right to raise these issues. Mental health concerns are at the forefront of all our decision making on schools and reopening schools, and I pay tribute to those students who have taken these issues as seriously as they have. It is why we are, over the longer term, putting in place the recommendations in our Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health. Once fully rolled out, I believe that they will transform the provision of mental health services for children in our schools.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
The Minister is insistent that there is a clear plan for reopening schools. Schools are largely open for those important children with additional needs and the children of key workers, but surely we must do more than hope for the best; we have to plan for the worst and let school leaders and governors know what these proposals consist of. If they do not know, they cannot plan and prepare for the eventuality of being told what the plan is by the Minister. Can we also have laptops delivered that are free of malware? All too many of the laptops delivered to schools in my vicinity—and not all schools have them yet, by the way—have had malware on them.
Nick Gibb
Of course we want to give schools the appropriate notice, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last week that we would give schools, colleges and universities two weeks’ notice. That is not just for the schools; it is for parents as well, who need to know precisely what their childcare arrangements will be. As for the malware issue, that occurred in a very small number of devices. They have been dealt with, and the virus has been removed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I know that my right hon. Friend is as keen as everyone is to get schools fully open with children back in them. As we emerge from the national lockdown, it is likely that we will go back into some form of tiered approach. Can he update the House on what the plan is? Will all schools of a particular type be fully open, or will it be based on the tier an area is in? That will be vital in terms of heads and senior staff planning for how they reopen their schools fully.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) [V]
I would like to put on record my thanks to the teachers and support staff in schools for the tremendous job they are doing at the moment. Some teachers who have covid-19 are absent for not just a few days but many weeks. Will the Minister ensure that when schools reopen, resources will be available to cover long-term staff absence, to ensure that children do not fall further behind?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the teachers and staff in our schools. Sunday was International Education Day, and we should be paying tribute to staff in our schools, further education colleges, universities and early years settings. We should also pay tribute to parents during this time and to the resilience of children and staff. We monitor staff absence rates in our schools, and the regional schools commissioners’ offices will offer help and support to schools that are suffering excessive or high rates of staff absence due to covid.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
Getting our children safely back into school is clearly a priority for this Government, and it is right that reopening next month remains under review. I am sure that many parents in East Devon will be concerned by significant delays, as we all know that, although schools across Devon are going above and beyond to provide virtual learning, nothing beats the classroom. Could my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will keep all options on the table for reopening schools, including reopening on a regional basis if the scientific evidence supports a phased return based on vaccinations and case rates in different parts of the country?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right that the Government want to see schools open. We believe that face-to-face education—being in the classroom, with their teacher—is best for the education of young people and their mental wellbeing, so we want to see schools open as soon as possible. As we have always said during the pandemic, schools will be the last to close and the first to open. We consult with stakeholders and advisory groups about the options for reopening, and we keep all those issues under review.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
There are children in Bedford and Kempston who still cannot access remote learning today because they do not have a digital device or broadband. So will the Government urgently tackle that inequality and put forward a long-term IT strategy for schools so that every child can learn from home and catch up after a year of disruption to their education?
Nick Gibb
Yes, I agree with the hon. Member. We have already purchased 1.3 million computers. They have been built to order, imported and distributed. We have distributed 876,000 of those devices, but it is not just about devices; it is also about data. We have partnered with the UK’s major mobile phone operators to provide free data for disadvantaged children to get online, as well as 4G wireless routers. I pay tribute to Three, EE, Tesco Mobile, SMARTY, Sky Mobile, Virgin Mobile, O2, Vodafone, BT Mobile and Lycamobile for working with us on this service-.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public health risk of allowing schools, particularly covid-secure primary schools, to reopen is modest, particularly when set against the three quarters of covid-symptomatic people who are currently not self-isolating, with all the risk that that brings to public health?
Nick Gibb
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. He will know, given his background, that what matters is all of us obeying the rules that are set out very clearly and how, as a nation, we can manage the reduction in the transmission of this very deadly virus. It is beholden on all of us to obey those rules. The more we do that, the quicker we can reduce infection in our society and move out of the lockdown position.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I echo the concerns of the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) about the warnings given by paediatricians and the Children’s Commissioner today about children’s mental health. In particular, I want to ask about children who have not yet been assessed for education, health and care plans and are now at home. What progress is being made in trying to ensure that they get their assessments, even though they are not in school, because we know that any delay in getting them assessed could have a serious impact on their educational and social development?
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Before I ask my question, may I take the Minister back to something that he said in his statement? I think he said that schools were closed to stop community transmission. In our evidence last week, Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, said that it was the other way around—that there was no evidence that schools drove large-scale community transmission; it was community transmission that led to infections in school. What I want to press him on is what he said about the criteria for reopening schools. He mentioned a number of indicators: hospitalisation rates and so forth. At what level do those indicators have to get to in order to trigger the reopening of schools? These are decisions not for scientists, but for Ministers, and we want to know: what point do those measures need to get to for Ministers to take the decision to reopen schools to all children?
Nick Gibb
The reason why schools have been asked to restrict access to children other than vulnerable children and the children of critical workers is nothing to do with the safety of the schools themselves. It is about reducing community activity. That in turn will help to reduce transmission risk in those communities. That is the reason behind adding school closures to the other closures in the economy that took place prior to that decision, which we were advised to take in January. My right hon. Friend rightly asks: what are the criteria that will determine whether and how soon we will move out of the national lockdown position? As he reminds me, I mentioned those in my opening comments about hospitalisation rates, mortality, the rate of vaccination and the challenge of new variants. We do rely on the advice of SAGE, the Joint Biosecurity Centre, Public Health England and the chief medical officer as well as the deputy chief medical officer, Jenny Harries, when those criteria are assessed and whether they believe that it is right to start to undo some of the national restrictions that we are now facing.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In Edmonton, almost 7,000 children live in poverty, and families living in multigenerational, crowded homes, experiencing food and job insecurity, are really struggling. What is the Minister doing to ensure that all vulnerable children are able to access the support and services that they need during this lockdown?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member raises a hugely important issue that has been at the forefront of our decision making right from the very beginning of the pandemic. When we closed schools for the first time, we allowed vulnerable children and the children of critical workers to attend school, but the attendance rates were quite low—certainly compared with those children’s rates of attendance today. We took action to ensure that local authorities and schools made contact with the families of those children to find out why they were not attending school—whether there were good reasons for that—and to encourage the most vulnerable children to attend school. That remains our position now.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
I thank all the teachers who continue to work so hard to teach our young pupils. Given that by mid-February we should have vaccinated those accounting for 90% of mortality risk, why cannot pupils return to their classrooms later that month? Surely, by that time the risks from school attendance will be lower than they were last autumn, when the school gates were open to all.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right to raise those issues, and I agree with him to the extent that vaccination is an important criterion that will determine how and when we emerge from the national lockdown position, of which schools are an important part. But vaccination is only one of the criteria; hospitalisation rates and mortality rates are also important, as is the challenge of any new variants. We rely on the advice of the scientists to weigh up those different criteria and to advise us on when and how soon we can undo the national lockdown.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I send my thanks and solidarity to all the teachers and support staff in my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside who are working through these very challenging times. The pandemic and school closures have widened the educational attainment gap for working-class black and white pupils. The catch-up funding is not sufficient to achieve the levelling up required. Will the Government review the progress made with the financial support allocated to schools and provide more funding where necessary?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member is right. Everything that this Government have been seeking to do since 2010 has been about closing the attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers, and we do not intend to let this pandemic divert us from that overarching objective. There is no question but that the pandemic has, during this period, widened the attainment gap, and our objective is to close that gap again as soon as we can. That is why we secured £1 billion of catch-up funding, of which £650 million is a catch-up premium for pupils. Some £350 million of that is funding the national tutoring programme, which is designed to help the most disadvantaged young people with one-to-one and small-group tuition, which is an effective way of helping children to catch up.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) [V]
I refer to the declarations I have made relating to the Covid Recovery Group.
Will my right hon. Friend please either open schools or justify the decision to keep them closed by quantifying the harms and benefits of his policy?
Nick Gibb
I am always happy to debate these issues with my hon. Friend. The national lockdown was based on very clear criteria, and our emergence from the national lockdown will also be based on very clear criteria. The schools element of the national lockdown is very much part of that process. We continually talk to stakeholders and advisory groups, but ultimately we will be led in our decision making by the advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the Joint Biosecurity Centre, the chief medical officer and the Department of Health and Social Care.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
We all want schools and other educational settings to reopen as soon as it is safe to do so, and it is absolutely right for the shadow Education Secretary to be calling on the Government to publish their plan defining the conditions for this safe reopening, given, once again, the confusing mixed messages from this Government. The Minister has said that NHS pressures and the level of covid circulating in the community are key criteria for determining lockdowns, including of schools. So what discussion has the Education Secretary had with the Transport Secretary about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency outbreak and the impact that workplace transmissions are having on covid case levels?
Nick Gibb
These criteria are, of course, monitored the whole time, wherever there are outbreaks, in whatever segment of society or the economy increasing or decreasing transmissions take place; they are the criteria upon which the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the Joint Biosecurity Centre, the chief medical officer and Public Health England will advise us about when it is safe to reopen schools.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) [V]
Contrary to the mood of this urgent question so far, may I point out that today is the day we have surpassed 100,000 deaths in the UK, that 37,000 people are currently in hospital for covid and that now is not the time to set arbitrary deadlines for the opening of schools, or arbitrary targets that mean that schools can then be opened? We must go by the medical advice. In connection with that, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks it is a good idea to vaccinate every adult who works in a school sooner rather than later, to stop public transmission of covid?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right to point to that tragic milestone. My thoughts, like those of everyone in this House, are with the families and friends of people we have lost during this covid pandemic. He is right, therefore, to point out that at the moment there are 37,000 people in our hospitals with the virus, which is higher than at the peak of the virus last year. That is why we have to take these decisions about the national lockdown very seriously, to rely on the advice of SAGE, the JBC and PHE and to look at the pressure on the NHS when reaching those decisions.
My hon. Friend is also right to highlight the issue of vaccines. The priority initially is mortality, which means that there is a focus on age and where the rates of mortality are higher. However, once we are through that phase 1, we will be looking at occupations and the Department for Education will certainly be making the case to the Department of Health and Social Care for staff in the education sector.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I was one of those advocating for schools to stay open as long as possible, but I agree with the Minister that, given the height of the pandemic we are in now, this was the right thing to do—I say that very reluctantly. However, the longer it goes on, the worse it is for pupils, as we all know. There is a lot of fanfare about the national tutoring programme, but what serious consideration are he and the Department giving to providing proper catch-up summer lessons and so on, particularly for young people going into exam years, because they will not get that time back, no matter how good the online learning is?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are considering this issue the whole time. The £1 billion catch-up fund is important, as is the national tutoring programme, but of course we also have to take into account what we are going to do when children are back for the longer term to make sure that we help these young people to catch up. The older they are, the less time they have left in school before they leave. So we are giving this issue a great deal of thought as we plan further announcements in the near future.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland would be better served if the SNP bothered to care about more than its fixation on yet another independence referendum and, rather than callously exploiting the crisis, began prioritising the education of Scotland’s children? The SNP shamefully continues to let them down through years of failing education policy due to the SNP’s poverty of positive ideas and responsible leadership.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am not sure the Minister was the right person to ask that question of, but none the less, we will move on.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
Special schools in my constituency, including Brent Knoll, Riverside and Watergate, remain open. They are doing a tremendous job and often provide personal and medical care on top of teaching. I echo calls for making school staff a priority for vaccinations, but will the Minister also consider treating staff in special schools akin to frontline care workers and prioritising them for the vaccine without delay?
Nick Gibb
That is an important point. As I have said previously, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s priority is mortality, which is based principally on age, and it also prioritises those working for the national health service and in care homes. The second phase will be occupationally based, and we will be making the case for staff in special schools as well as other staff in the education sector.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
Will the Minister join me in thanking teachers across Cheadle, who have educated vulnerable children and children of critical workers in school while managing the challenges of remote learning? When schools fully reopen and the Minister assesses the inevitable variation in children’s learning throughout covid, will he look at the educational impact of regional covid restrictions? Our higher local case rates in the autumn caused pupils to lose even more time in the classroom. Will he consider additional targeted educational resources and teaching support to address any educational disadvantage as we move beyond covid?
Nick Gibb
I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to teachers in Cheadle. Combining teaching vulnerable children and critical workers’ children full time in school with providing high-quality remote education to pupils at home is a huge challenge. Of course, teachers also have to maintain the safety measures that are in place to ensure that we minimise the risk of transmission in school. I am aware of the very real challenges that teachers face. Ensuring that children who have not coped as well with remote education as they would in the class are able to catch up as swiftly as possible when they return to school is a key priority for the Department, and we will be saying more about that in the weeks ahead.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Schools need a return plan, but what about the children who are unable to learn remotely in the meantime? The Government are slowly distributing laptops that are unusable without connectivity, but 1 million children have only mum’s mobile as their connection and a further half a million have no connection at all and so cannot receive network data boosts. Nine months on, why has the Minister still not ensured that those children can connect from home so that they do not fall even further behind?
Nick Gibb
If I am allowed, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her assiduous work on remote education. We have purchased 1.3 million computers for children and young people in our schools and colleges at a time when there is huge global demand for those devices. They have been built to order, imported, shipped and distributed, and 876,000 of them are now in the hands of schools and pupils. It is also right to point to data. We have partnered with the UK’s major mobile phone operators to provide free data to disadvantaged children so that they can get online using, for example, their parents’ smartphone. They will not have to pay data charges for downloading educational material.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) [V]
Will the Minister join me in thanking the teams at our schools in Great Grimsby for all their hard work? As Grimsby now has one of the lowest infection rates in the country and reducing hospitalisations, will he consider allowing at least infants and primary schools to return in the town after the half-term break?
Nick Gibb
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the teachers in Great Grimsby for the work that they are doing in keeping schools open for vulnerable children and children of critical workers, as well as all the other work that they do in continuing to teach children while they remain at home. We take the advice of SAGE, Public Health England and the CMO on how and when we can remove the restrictions on access to our schools. It was part of the national lockdown decisions, and we will take their advice when we make those decisions.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell me, did the PM’s much trumpeted army of catch-up tutors from the first lockdown ever happen, or was it just Ealing that got left out? How will he fund, after a second year of disruption, not just the academic deficit but the emotional damage done, not just to pupils but to teachers? We expect them to be superhuman, with their own bereavements, bursting bubbles, kids and long covid, yet they have had no recognition in pay or vaccines, and child and adolescent mental health services had a two-year waiting list even before coronavirus.
Nick Gibb
The national citizenship programme is a big programme, which is overseen by the Education Endowment Foundation. There are 33 tutoring companies, 15,000 tutors are signed up and we intend to reach 250,000 of the most disadvantaged pupils. That is a very effective, evidence-based approach to helping catch-up. If there are particular circumstances that the hon. Lady wants to bring to my attention, I shall be delighted to have those details and I will take the matter up with the Education Endowment Foundation.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
I am increasingly concerned about the mental health of our young people while schools remain closed. I should like to thank Wolverhampton’s Youth MPs, Tutsirai Rukarwa and Ruby Cochrane, for discussing that with me recently. Many young people are struggling with feelings of isolation and are worried about falling behind with schoolwork. They are anxious that that will impact their future exam success, their choice of university and their career path. What measures will the Government take to really support these people with their mental health?
Nick Gibb
The Government have made children’s wellbeing and mental health a central part of our response to the pandemic. We have already set up the wellbeing for education return project, backed by £8 million, to help support the wellbeing and resilience of pupils, parents and staff in light of the covid pandemic and lockdown. We are very aware and concerned about the impact that the pandemic has had on the mental wellbeing of so many children in our schools, or at home, trying to learn remotely.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]
Before the lockdown, children in the north had missed many more days than their counterparts in the south. Their schools have also suffered a financial crisis, as the pandemic has cost them eye-watering sums of money just to keep things safe. How will the Minister ensure that children in constituencies like mine in Stockton are not left behind, and that their schools will have the extra funding they need to ensure that regional attainment gaps will not be even wider than they were before the pandemic?
Nick Gibb
We did secure a very good three-year settlement for school funding with the Treasury, and that was confirmed in the spending review 2020, despite all the other challenges on the Treasury. In addition, we have secured £1 billion of funding for schools for catch-up, and there are also specific funds to help schools tackle and pay the additional costs that they have incurred due to covid—such as the costs incurred between March and July last year and extra staffing costs incurred in November and December last year and in January when the schools went back. Schools that are in difficult financial constraints are always able to talk to their local authority, or to the Education and Skills Funding Agency if they are an academy.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of a letter from HMC—Ipswich School is one of its schools, and it has shown great spirit in really rolling its sleeves up and saying, “We want to help. We think we can vaccinate all teaching staff within a very short period of time.” If the JCVI takes the decision that after all of the most vulnerable have had their first dose, teachers should be prioritised, would it not be the appropriate moment—at the point at which all of the most vulnerable and all teaching staff have had their first dose, which provides a significant amount of protection—to say that at that point the harms and the dangers posed by schools’ remaining closed will become greater than any potential public health risks.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes an important point; I am sure that it will have been heard by the Department of Health and Social Care. I have a lot of responsibilities on my plate, as does my hon. Friend, but I am not responsible yet for the roll-out of the vaccine programme, which is going extremely well, with more than 6 million people vaccinated so far.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
Kensington Primary School in East Ham is the Pearson national teaching awards primary school of the year. The school asked for 100 devices for children to learn, although it needs more than that. It has received 32 so far. When can it expect the rest? The Minister has indicated that there are about half a million devices that have been purchased but not yet distributed. When will they all get out, and will the Department be purchasing more?
Nick Gibb
I am very happy to look into why that particular school did not receive its devices, and I will be in touch with the right hon. Member. There is a lead time in all this, which is why we were putting in orders in August, September and October last year. We put in an order for 340,000 in November, and those devices are now being delivered. On 12 January, we put in another order for 300,000 computers, which will begin to come on stream shortly.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) [V]
As a paediatrician, I can see the damage that is being done to children’s mental health when they are not in school; as a constituency MP, I am hearing about the difficulties that families are facing when their children are trying to learn from home while they work from home; and as a parent, I can see some of these challenges for myself. With the vaccination programme steaming ahead and levels of covid falling—and in some cases lower than they were last term, when schools were open—does my right hon. Friend agree that the balance of risk is now in favour of reopening schools, and that they should reopen at February half-term at the very latest?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend, with her experience in the NHS and as a mother, is right to point to the importance of children being back in the classroom. It is right for their education and for their mental wellbeing. It is right for them to be with their friends. Education will be a national priority for this Government during this pandemic. Schools will be the last to close and the first to open, and that remains our position.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
Teachers have taken on many additional tasks during the pandemic, as well as developing online learning, which is a substantial job in itself. Will the Minister therefore consider providing extra support to schools to deliver the testing that is needed? Will he also say a little bit more about plans to address lost learning, which affects all years, not just those with imminent exams?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of testing. We are testing staff in schools twice weekly to identify any asymptomatic cases. That is an important measure that we have taken. We are helping schools with the cost of rolling that out; there is £78 million of funding available for schools to employ agency workers and others to help them to deliver those lateral flow device tests. He is right to point out that lost education is important. That is why we are supporting the Oak National Academy, which was set up by a group of teachers. We have funded it with over £4 million. The academy has had 3 million individual users, and 32 million of its lessons have been viewed online.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Minister’s commitment that it is the Government’s absolute priority to reopen schools and get undergraduates back to university. I am reassured that he keeps open the option of returning after half-term. In the meantime, I would like to thank all the teachers and heads in Arundel and South Downs for their hard work during this crisis, and also the Minister himself for his help in getting free laptops to Upper Beeding Primary School after I raised the matter with his Department.
Nick Gibb
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP in paying tribute to the teachers in his constituency, and if I may, as he is a neighbour, I would like to add my thanks to all the teachers in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for the sterling work that they are doing, as are his teachers, in supporting children during a very challenging period.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Schools are currently doing a fantastic job of providing remote education and reaching out to vulnerable families, but inevitably some pupils will fall through the cracks. As our 2020 Youth Violence Commission report highlights, the links between young people disengaging from school and an increase in the likelihood of them being victims or perpetrators of serious violence are well established. Until our schools reopen, what extra support can the Minister put in place to ensure that schools are able to support those most at risk?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member raises an important point. This is why we have kept alternative provision and special schools open, and it is why we keep schools open to vulnerable children to ensure that they are in a school where they can be protected. I share her view that the most important risk factor for young people, leaving aside the pandemic, is not being in school, so we need to do everything we can to help children remain in school in normal times. That is why we want to reopen schools for all pupils as soon as the science allows.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the teachers across Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, who have done an incredible job in keeping schools open for key worker and vulnerable children during very difficult circumstances? Given the huge uncertainties about how fast infections will fall, the risks from new variants and the effects of the vaccine roll-out, does he agree that we have to make the decisions on schools reopening, which we are all desperate to see, based on scientific advice rather than on arbitrary deadlines?
Nick Gibb
Yes, I will join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the teachers in his constituency, who, like teachers up and down the country, are working round the clock to ensure that the children in their schools have a safe and caring environment, and also helping to educate children while they are at home. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has analysed a lot of the scientific data and helped those of us who are less scientifically minded to understand the huge raft of data and science that is out there. He is absolutely right to say that, in all the decisions we take, we need to ensure that we are led by the science.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question for over an hour. He has answered 40 questions, of which 34 were remote, so let me also thank the technicians for making that possible. We will now suspend for three minutes for hygiene purposes.
Football (Regulation)
Tuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Football (Regulation) Bill 2019-21 View all Football (Regulation) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent football regulator in England; to make provision for that regulator to license football clubs, distribute funds within football, review English Football League club finances, and reform the governance of the Football Association; to require the regulator to take steps in connection with football supporters’ groups; and for connected purposes.
The governance of English football is broken. Our national game—the beautiful game—is in crisis. These issues are not new but have been laid bare and amplified by the covid-19 pandemic, during which, sadly, football has failed to speak with one voice. We have seen much-loved clubs go to the wall. Sadly, many more may well follow, and at the heart of this is broken governance, gross financial disparities between the rich clubs and the poor clubs, and unsustainable business models. It is staggering that the wage bills of championship clubs are equal to 110% of their revenues—just one example of the downward spiral as lower league clubs seek the financial nirvana that premier league promotion dangles. Ultimately, it is the loyal football supporters and communities up and down the country who suffer the most.
Football is different from any other sector of the economy. It is not just a business; this is our national sport. Our football clubs are societal assets at the beating hearts of towns and cities, making a huge contribution to the culture and identity of our nation. We in this place and the other place surely have a responsibility to protect them from maladministration, blinkered leadership and commercial suicide.
Football’s failing governance has been clear for many years, but again and again, football has failed to reform itself. The conflicts that have dogged the game’s integrity and financial probity have become more obvious under the current pandemic. In recent weeks, the authorities have failed to show decisive leadership on whether matches should be paused due to rising covid infections. The Football Association chairman resigned after using offensive language, showing himself to be out of touch with the modern players, the modern game and, indeed, modern Britain. We have also witnessed the tragically slow progress on addressing the link between dementia and heading footballs. For me, this demonstrates a failure that is tantamount to negligence.
Locally, too, working alongside Maidstone United in my constituency, I have witnessed the flawed distribution of emergency National Lottery funding to national league clubs. This botch, failing to account for lost gate receipts, has left many national league clubs in dire financial circumstances. These examples very sadly illustrate the fact that in England, no one is speaking for the football world with the independence and authority needed to address the big issues.
The Football Association, allegedly the governing body of the game, is outdated and out of touch. Its own governance leaves much to be desired. Frankly, it is not up to the mammoth task of driving through the reforms that football so desperately needs. Other powerful stakeholders in the game are too invested and too self-interested to bring about the changes required. Even as I speak today, the Premier League is midway through a lengthy governance review of its own, but to me that feels like students marking their own homework. Does anyone seriously expect the Premier League to make the radical and fundamental changes that are needed across the wider professional and grassroots game? I think not.
Now is the time for fundamental reform—reform that can only be achieved through the creation of an independent football regulator. That was the central recommendation of “Saving the Beautiful Game: Manifesto for Change”, a recent report co-authored by a group, of which I was part, made up of experienced individuals with a deep interest in football. Such a step would not be unique. In France, for example, lawmakers intervened to make governance of football fairer by implementing rules around club ownership and player contracts. In Spain, the lawmakers again intervened to ensure fairness in the sale of La Liga broadcasting rights, and in Germany professional clubs already operate under a tough licensing regime.
A regulator appointed under this Bill would be absolutely independent. It would be funded from within football, not by public money, and it would not require Government to run the game. It would have the power and responsibility, among other things, to do the following: distribute funds in the interests of the wider game of football, introduce a comprehensive licensing system for professional football clubs, review thoroughly the causes of financial stress in the game, bring forward reforms to modernise and strengthen the FA, work with supporters’ groups to advance the causes that really matter to them, and drive and promote diversity and inclusion—areas where football, from the coaching field to the boardroom, continues to fall well below the standards enjoyed in so many areas of modern British society.
Association football is the most popular sport in the entire world. It is played by over 250 million people in over 200 countries, and it was born in England 150 years ago. It is a huge part of community life across the length and breadth of our country, but if we want to protect and preserve that fabulous heritage for generations into the future, our football governance needs emergency surgery, and it needs that surgery now. Let us drive through the radical change required, create an independent football regulator and make governance of the beautiful game that we all know and love fit for the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Helen Grant, Damian Collins, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Dawn Butler, Jamie Stone, Christian Wakeford, Karl MᶜCartney, Jason McCartney, John Cryer and Joy Morrissey present the Bill.
Mrs Helen Grant accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 245).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now suspend for one minute, in order for people to safely leave and to enter the Chamber for the next business.
Business of the House (Environment Bill: Carry-over)
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move, TABLE Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings First day New clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; amendments to Part 1; new clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; amendments to Part 2. Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to Business of the House (Environment Bill: Carry-over). New clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3; amendments to Part 3; new clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4; amendments to Part 4; new clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 5; amendments to Part 5; new clauses and new Schedules relating to clause 131 or Schedule 20; amendments to clause 131 or Schedule 20. Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to Business of the House (Environment Bill: Carry-over) . Second day New clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6; amendments to Part 6; new clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 7; amendments to Part 7; new clauses and new Schedules relating to clauses 132 to 139; amendments to clauses 132 to 139. Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day. Remaining proceedings on Consideration. Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day.
That—
(a) if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Environment Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session;
(b) paragraphs (9) to (14) of Standing Order 80A shall have effect in relation to the Bill as if it had been ordered to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament in pursuance of a carry-over motion under paragraph (1) of that Standing Order, except that paragraph (13) shall have effect as if the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Bill shall lapse is two years from the date of its first reading in this House.
As Members on all sides of the House will be aware, the covid pandemic has upended the familiar procedures we are all used to following in this place, and indeed across almost every aspect of our life. The necessary changes we have had to make to our procedures in order to keep Members, the public, and of course staff safe have put extraordinary pressure on the parliamentary timetable, and I want to reassure all Members that the Government remain committed to getting this Environment Bill on to the statute book.
We committed in our manifesto to create the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on Earth, and this Bill forms the cornerstone of that commitment. Across all areas of the environment, the Bill will drive improvement, with cleaner air, greater biodiversity, a greater emphasis on nature, less waste, healthier rivers, more recycling, restoration of our precious habitats, less deforestation, and a ban on exporting polluting plastic waste to developing countries—all underpinned by new, legally binding targets and watched over by our tough new Office for Environmental Protection. Work on delivering these improvements will not pause: indeed, much is underway already, and will speed up apace. We are launching consultations, collating evidence, and driving forward implementation to restore and improve our environment as soon as we can. We have appointed the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, Dame Glenys Stacey; we have published a policy paper on targets; and we will shortly be publishing our environmental policy statement.
I, like many other Members, want to see this Bill made law without delay. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance that both I and my Department, and indeed the whole Government, are working to implement these measures without delay. Even if the parliamentary passage of the Bill will take place in this session and the next, this carry-over motion is absolutely essential to ensuring this flagship piece of legislation does not fall at the end of this session. The Environment Bill will resume early in the second session—I make that absolutely clear—with Royal Assent by autumn. One could say that by spreading it over two days, with a space in between, we will get two bites at this really important environmental cherry.
Question put and agreed to.
Environment Bill (Programme) (No. 5)
Ordered,
That the Order of 26 February 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme) as varied by the Orders of 4 May 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 2)), 22 June 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 3)) and 28 September 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 4)), be further varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Consideration—
(a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Environment Bill
Tuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
17:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 366 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 360 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 354 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 366 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 357 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
After Caroline Lucas, there will be a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions.
New Clause 1
Environmental Principles: Public Authorities
‘(1) A public authority, must, when exercising their functions (including the making of policy and legislation), act in accordance with the environmental principles currently in effect.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply to policy relating to Wales.
(3) In this section, “legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament; and
(b) subordinate legislation.’—(Caroline Lucas.)
This new clause would require public authorities to act in accordance with environmental principles when exercising their functions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 5—State of nature target—
‘(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to set a target to halt and begin to reverse the decline in the state of nature in England as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 2030.
(2) The target in subsection (1) shall be known as the state of nature target.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the state of nature target is met.
(4) A draft statutory instrument containing regulations that make provision for how progress toward the state of nature target will be measured must be laid before Parliament at least one month before the fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
(5) Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument under this section, the Secretary of State must obtain, publish and take into account the advice of relevant experts, including—
(a) The Environment Agency;
(b) Natural England;
(c) The Office for Environment Protection; and
(d) The Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
(6) In this section—
(a) the abundance and distribution of species;
(b) the risk of extinction; and
(c) the extent and condition of priority habitats.’
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set and meet a target to begin to reverse the loss of biodiversity in England no later than 2030. This timetable would align with the new Convention on Biological Diversity goals that are due to be agreed in 2021.
New clause 9—Environmental objective and commitments—
‘(1) In interpreting and applying this Act, any party with duties, responsibilities, obligations or discretions under or relating to it must comply with—
(a) the environmental objective in subsection (2); and
(b) the commitments in subsection (3).
(2) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain—
(a) a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;
(b) an environment that supports human health and well-being for everyone; and
(c) sustainable use of resources.
(3) The commitments are—
(a) all commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Nations Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of 28 September 2020, including, but not limited to, the urgent actions committed to be taken by it over the period of ten years from the date of that pledge;
(b) any enhanced commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government pursuant to that pledge, any other pledge, and any international agreement; and
(c) all relevant domestic legislation, including, but not limited to, the Climate Change Act 2008, as amended from time to time.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the requirement in subsection (1), that requirement applies to—
(a) the Secretary of State in setting, amending and ensuring compliance with the environmental targets; preparing, amending and implementing environmental improvement plans; and performing all their obligations and exercising all their discretions under this Act;
(b) the Office for Environmental Protection and the Upper Tribunal in performing their respective obligations and exercising any applicable discretions; and
(c) all other persons and bodies with obligations and discretions under, or in connection with, the subject matter of this Act.’
New clause 11—Environmental targets: plastic pollution—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set targets (“the plastics reduction targets”) in respect of the reduction of plastic pollution and to reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold.
(2) The plastics reduction targets may, but need not, be long-term.
(3) The duty in subsection (1) is in addition to (and does not discharge) the duty in section 1(2) to set a long-term target in relation to resource efficiency and waste reduction.
(4) Section 1(4) to (9) applies to the plastics reduction targets and to regulations under this section as it applies to targets set under section 1 and to regulations under that section.
(5) In this section—
(a) the term “plastics pollution” means the introduction of plastic materials or plastic-containing products into the environment, and
(b) the term “non-essential single-use plastic products” means products intended to be used once then disposed of where their use is not essential for medical, environmental, health and safety, national security or other essential purposes as defined by the Secretary of State.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets to reduce plastic pollution and reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold.
New clause 14—OEP function to consider housing targets—
‘(1) The OEP will have the power to consider appeals on housing targets set by public authorities in England.
(2) An individual affected by the targets in subsection (1) will have the right of appeal to the OEP.
(3) In determining an appeal under subsection (1) the OEP may either—
(a) reject; or
(b) reduce the housing target set by the public authority.
(4) In dealing with the appeal set out in subsection (1) the OEP must have regard to the impacts the housing targets will have on compliance with the UK’s environmental targets.’
New clause 15—Net zero carbon target as condition of planning permission—
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in section (2).
(2) After section 70(2), insert—
“(2A) Any grants of planning permission for residential development in England must be subject to a condition to secure that a net zero-carbon target objective during construction and ongoing occupation of the building is achieved.”’
New clause 17—Strategy for new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing—
‘(1) Her Majesty’s Government must prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing.
(2) “Environmental protection” in subsection (1) means the protection of humans and the natural environment from the impacts of human activity as defined in Clause 44.
(3) The new economic goals must address—
(a) the environmental targets in this Act,
(b) the Climate Change Act 2008,
(c) the UK’s commitments under international environmental agreements, laws and treaties,
(d) the wellbeing of future generations,
(e) the overseas environmental impacts of UK consumption and economic activity, and
(f) the contribution of the UK’s consumption and production to the state of the global environment, in relation to nine planetary boundaries—
(i) Stratospheric ozone depletion,
(ii) Loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and extinctions),
(iii) Chemical pollution and the release of novel entities,
(iv) Climate change,
(v) Ocean acidification,
(vi) Freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle,
(vii) Land system change,
(viii) Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans, and
(ix) Atmospheric aerosol loading.
(4) The strategy must—
(a) set out how the new economic goals will replace growth in gross domestic product as the principal measure of national economic progress,
(b) set out a vision for how the economy can be designed to serve the wellbeing of humans and protect the natural environment,
(c) include a set of indicators for each new economic goal, and
(d) set out plans for the application of new economic goals and indicators to central and local government decision-making processes including but not limited to Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation produced by HM Treasury (The Green Book).
(5) In drawing up the strategy, Her Majesty’s Government must obtain, publish and take into account the advice of—
(a) experts in the field of ecological economics,
(b) a nationally representative citizens assembly,
(c) trades unions,
(d) businesses,
(e) statutory agencies,
(f) representatives of local and regional government, and
(g) any persons the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.
(6) The strategy must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.
(7) The Government must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress towards meeting the new economic goals and their efficacy in delivering environmental protection and societal wellbeing.
(8) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report has been laid before Parliament, move a Motion in the House of Commons in relation to that report.’
This new clause requires the Government to prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals that are designed to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing and to report annually on these goals.
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
‘(e) Public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment.’
This amendment is designed to require the Government to set legally-binding, long-term targets to increase public access to, and enjoyment of the natural environment.
Amendment 40, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
‘(10) In setting a target, the Secretary of State must take into account any targets set by Senedd Cymru.
(11) If the UK Government seeks to spend funds from the Shared Prosperity Fund on infrastructure in Wales, an impact assessment must be carried out and published on the effect of the infrastructure project on the target set by Senedd Cymru.
(12) If the impact assessment under subsection (11) finds that the infrastructure project would have a negative effect on the achievement of the target set by Senedd Cymru, the Secretary of State must seek and receive the consent of Senedd Cymru to that infrastructure spending.’
This amendment would ensure that the consent of Senedd Cyrmu would be required before the UK Government could use the financial assistance powers in the UK Internal Market Bill to spend via the Shared Prosperity Fund on infrastructure projects in Wales which would undermine environmental targets set by Senedd Cymru.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—
(a) be less than or equal to air quality guidelines established by the World Health Organization in 2005; and
(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.’
This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
Amendment 25, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—
(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3;
(b) follow World Health Organisation guidelines; and
(c) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.’
This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 31, at end insert
‘, and
(c) interim targets are met.’
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets they set.
Government amendment 6.
Amendment 28, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”
This amendment would require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in its Environmental Plan.
Amendment 39, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
‘(7A) If an exemption is granted under Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, which is likely to affect species covered by an environmental improvement plan—
(a) a report must be laid before Parliament within one month of the exemption decision on the likely effects of the exemption on populations of—
(i) bees,
(ii) other pollinators, and
(iii) other species,
(b) the scientific advice given to ministers relating to the exemption must be published as an addendum to the report, and
(c) a Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report is laid before Parliament under paragraph (8), move a Motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.
(7B) The requirement in subsection (7A) shall apply retrospectively to exemptions granted within the last 12 months of the coming into force of this Act.’
This amendment places requirements on Ministers to allow parliamentary scrutiny of exemptions granted to allow plant protection products banned under retained EU law (such as neonicotinoid pesticides), where they are likely to impact bees and other species covered by an environmental improvement plan.
Amendment 4, in clause 16, page 10, line 15, at end insert—
‘(3A) When applying the precautionary principle, the policy statement must comply with the provisions of the regulator’s code and must include—
(a) a procedure for identifying and recording risk; and
(b) a procedure for identifying and recording the social, economic and cultural impacts of action and inaction.
(3B) The policy statement in subsection (3A) must also include instructions for taking into account all activities with an environmental impact on any area of land under consideration and a procedure for ensuring that any action taken—
(a) is proportionate to the risk posed by each activity on the land being considered; and
(b) balances short term impacts against the achievement of the land’s conservation objectives.
(3C) The precautionary principle should only apply in response to risks that are—
(a) more than hypothetical in nature; and
(b) serious and irreversible.’
This amendment sets out the definition of the precautionary principle when it is used in accordance with the provisions of this Bill.
Amendment 1, in clause 18, page 11, line 20, leave out from “benefit” to end of clause and insert—
‘(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to policy so far as relating to Wales.’
This amendment removes the proportionality limitation and the exceptions for armed forces, defence policy, tax, spending and resources from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
Amendment 43, page 11, line 24, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. It also removes the exceptions for tax, spending and allocation of resources.
Amendment 23, page 14, line 29, leave out Clause 24.
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 44, in clause 45, page 27, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy and the exceptions for tax, spending and allocation of resources from the definition of environmental law.
Government amendments 9 to 20.
Caroline Lucas
I am pleased to move new clause 1. This Bill could not be more important. It is 25 years since the last dedicated Environment Act was passed. During that time, the speed and scale of environmental destruction has increased dramatically. The UK is now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and Ministers simply are not rising to that challenge. According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Government are failing to meet fully 17 out of 20 UN biodiversity targets.
Despite the Government’s aim to be
“the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it”,
this Bill has languished in Parliament for more than 200 days before Committee resumed. As a consequence, there is now a governance gap, with only interim measures in place where a fully-fledged Office for Environmental Protection should have been. Worse, we now hear that the Bill is to be delayed by at least six months, because Ministers have apparently run out of time to pass it in Parliament.
Of course we understand the pressures that covid has put on the parliamentary timetable, but the Government have had more than four years since the referendum, two years since the draft Bill was published and one year since the UK left the EU to get these plans in place. Their failure to do so is utterly incompetent. Will the Minister give us a precise date for both the next Report stage and the missing policy statement that is linked to the environmental principles? It is to those principles that I now turn, because my new clause 1 and amendment 1 are on the environmental principles, and I plan to push new clause 1 to a vote.
Ministers promised that, post Brexit, environmental standards would be not only maintained but enhanced, yet this Bill does not even come close to making up for what we have lost by leaving the EU. It sets out five important principles, including prevention, precaution and polluter pays. Under EU law, it is a requirement that those are actually applied when law making and that they cover all public bodies, not just Ministers. However, the Bill significantly weakens their legal status because they do not apply to public bodies, and there is no such duty on Ministers to act in accordance with the principles. Instead, there is only a duty to “have due regard” to a policy statement that the Government have not even bothered to published yet.
The Minister has tried to persuade us that “due regard” is at least as strong as “in accordance with”, yet her case simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In 2018, the Lords Select Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 found that the duty to “have regard” to contained in that Act was
“weak, unenforceable and lacks clear meaning.”
Adding the word “due” in front of “regard” does not change that. There are plenty of examples of other legislation in which public authorities are required by statute to act in accordance with or to take actions to comply with—for example, the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 or the Planning Act 2008.
We can only conclude that, in this instance, the Government deliberately intend to weaken these provisions and, as a consequence, to drive a coach and horses through fundamental EU protections. New clause 1 would extend the duty to all public authorities and broaden the scope of the principles. Crucially, it would strengthen the duty from “have due regard” to “act in accordance with”, and it would apply directly to the principles, rather than a non-existent policy statement.
Amendment 1 addresses further absurdities in the Bill—in this case, the exclusion of the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, and indeed anyone spending resources within Government, from having to consider the principles at all. That really is ludicrous. My amendment therefore removes the proportionality limitation from the environmental principles, as well as the exclusions for the MOD and the Treasury.
New clause 17 is vital because it recognises that even if we do succeed in strengthening this Bill, efforts to protect and restore nature will ultimately fail unless we also address the underlying economic drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem destruction. The new clause therefore requires the Government to prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals so that social and environmental gains sit at the heart of the Government’s economic plans and measurements. If we stick with the current economic rulebook, we will continue to see the hard work of DEFRA undermined by the overriding short-term economic priorities of the Treasury, and above all the pursuit of infinite GDP growth on a planet of finite resources. For decades, we have seen Ministers commit to environmental goals and targets only for those goals to be missed time and again. Nature’s dangerous decline continues apace, at a high cost to current and future generations. This time we need to do things differently. Some major business voices are also urging Government to do the same. Consider this from the Business for Nature coalition, which says:
“Governments, companies and financial organizations would take better decisions if they used information ‘beyond short-term profit and GDP’ that includes impacts and dependencies on nature, as well as synergies and trade-offs informed by science and planetary boundaries.”
New clause 17 is all about better, more consistent decision making across Government so that the environmental ambition in this Bill is not undermined by conflicting goals of other, more powerful Departments. While I will not be pressing it to a vote, I do hope that the Minister will commit to taking this forward with the urgency it requires.
Turning to amendment 21, green space has become more important than ever over the past 10 months, yet access to nature is far from equal. My amendment seeks to address that. Some 2.6 million people in the UK have no publicly accessible green space within walking distance, and one in eight British households has no access to a garden—an inequality that disproportionately affects those in black and minority ethnic communities. Currently the Bill states:
The Secretary of State may…set long-term targets”
on
“people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”
However, because this is not a priority area, it risks being overlooked, with funding and resources being diverted elsewhere. My amendment remedies this omission by promoting access to and enjoyment of nature as a priority area for long-term targets. This change not only has the potential to equalise access to nature but would also come with wider benefits to physical and mental health.
Finally, I would like to indicate support for a number of other amendments, including amendment 23 on the Office for Environmental Protection. When it comes to enforcement, the OEP is being presented as a new, independent watchdog. In reality, it is more like a ministerial lapdog kept on a tight leash, with Ministers given the power to steer it by offering so-called guidance that the OEP is bound to consider. Since Ministers also control its budget and its board, it is entirely likely that such guidance will actually be felt, in practice, rather more as an instruction. The Minister has argued that the Government already routinely offer guidance to other non-departmental public bodies. While it is true that they do to some, they certainly do not have power to issue guidance in relation to bodies charged principally or partly with enforcing potential breaches of the law by other public bodies. That is a crucial difference. That is why I support the amendment that would delete this guidance, which was added to the Bill at a very late stage.
I also support amendments that intend to ensure that interim targets are legally binding. There are strong amendments to improve air quality, and to align our state of nature targets with those from the convention on biological diversity and with the objectives of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, which I introduced into Parliament last year.
This is a hugely important Bill. It is unbelievable that we are seeing, yet again, a delay to its coming forward. The Minister must now undertake that in the extra time she is going to achieve, she will strengthen the Bill to make it fit for purpose so that it comes close to some of the aspirations that she and her fellow Ministers have expressed before.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Minister, let me say that, as I have indicated, there is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. The vast majority of contributions will be via videolink. Can I say to those who are contributing via videolink that there is a clock on the device you are using, so please keep an eye on it? There are no interventions on you, so it should be straightforward as to when you finish your contribution. If you try to exceed that time, you will be automatically cut off. For those contributing in the Chamber, the clocks will be working in the usual fashion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I would like to begin by setting out why this Environment Bill is so important. Members on all sides of the House agree that on the whole—despite, I must just say, some notable successes where farmers, Government and conservationists are working together—the desperate decline of our natural environment and biodiversity has gone on for far too long. We need to act to improve the quality and the quantity of habitats for our fellow species across the board, and we need to re-establish the equilibrium of the habitats and ecosystems.
Our UK indicator for farmland birds shows that we have had a decline of 50% in those birds since 1970. The lapwings I grew up with on the farm at home are no longer there, nor are the yellowhammers. Insect pollinators have declined by 30% since 1980, so in place of that hazy buzz we were all so used to there is now, in many places, silence. This matters not only because people treasure our species and habitats—and, goodness, we have really appreciated that in lockdown during the pandemic, have we not?—but because they underpin vital processes such as carbon storage or pollination. That is why we are laying the foundations for nature’s recovery through this Bill, delivering the tools needed to drive the change we want to see.
Legally binding targets for environmental improvement across at least four priority areas must be set. Our ambitious targets across air quality, water, waste and biodiversity will drive long-term action. Through this Government now and future Governments, we will be held accountable by Parliament if progress lags. I know the House will also be particularly interested to hear that we will set not one but two legally binding targets to tackle harmful air pollution across the country. The Bill will require current and future Governments to produce an environmental improvement plan, which must be reviewed and reported on regularly. The Bill creates a tough new independent Office for Environmental Protection to hold all public authorities—from local authorities to central Government—to account on reaching these goals. It will enforce the delivery of all environmental law, including, for example, our net zero target.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
First, will the Minister congratulate year 4 from Christ Church primary, who have sent me 100 different essays on exactly the topic she is talking about and on deforestation? Secondly, what does she say to our own Chemical Industries Association, which bemoans our leaving REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation—saying that it opens the door to harmful chemical pollution potentially to animals and humans, because it is the Government who are responsible for the replacement?
Rebecca Pow
Of course, I would be absolutely delighted to welcome those essays from Christ Church primary school. Indeed, if the hon. Member would like me to send a letter from the Environment Minister, I would be delighted to do so. I am always very pleased to speak to our students and young children about what we are doing on the environment, and they are our future generations whom we are doing all this for, so I thank her for that. We are going to talk about REACH later—I engage very closely with the industry—so we will discuss that in the second grouping of amendments today.
Just before that intervention, I mentioned the new independent Office for Environmental Protection, and I would like to take this opportunity to provide the House with an update on the OEP. We want to ensure that this is located in a good long-term place and, trust me, there were an awful lot of contenders. After considering wider locations, we have decided that Worcester will be an excellent location for the headquarters of the OEP. This is part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that opportunities are spread fairly across the country. My heart goes out to people in the area who may have been flooded this week, but I hope the OEP’s being based in Worcester gives a little bit of good news.
As the Prime Minister set out in the Government’s 10-point plan to net zero, protection, restoration and enhancement of our natural environment are crucial. The Bill will play a key part in that mission. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for opening the debate by raising some important points on the environmental principles. The environmental principles will work together to protect the environment from damage by making environmental considerations central to the policy development process across Government. I am keen to hear views from across the House, and there are many references to the environmental principles in some of the other amendments, so I shall respond in more detail to some of her points on the principles and other important issues at the end of the debate. I reassure her, though, that we are working at pace: during the break between the two Report sessions, we will continue unstintingly to deliver measures in the Bill.
Before I go any further, let me mention some Government amendments, some of which make relatively technical changes that will improve and enhance the Bill. Government amendment 6, tabled by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, clarifies that both the terrestrial and the marine aspects of England’s natural environment will be considered when conducting the significant improvement test in clause 6. That has always been our intention, as I explained in Committee, but the amendment puts it beyond doubt. I am delighted that the amendment spells out that marine is absolutely part and parcel of what we mean when we talk about the environment.
With regard to the Office for Environmental Protection, Government amendment 31, also tabled by the Secretary of State, is a technical amendment that simply serves to clarify that section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 does not apply on an environmental review, providing the courts with a full range of remedies for the OEP environmental review procedure. Government amendments 9 to 20, also tabled by the Secretary of State, align the clauses relating to the OEP’s Northern Ireland enforcement functions with the amended part 1 provisions. Those amendments were personally requested by Northern Ireland Ministers.
I welcome the opportunity to hear from hon. Friends and Members on both sides of the House on this vital Bill, and I look forward to responding at the end of the debate.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to new clause 9 and amendments 25, 39 and 23 in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
Parliament declared a climate and ecological emergency on 1 May 2019. A year and a half has passed, and the need for more urgent action on the environment has only increased. If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change that would only destroy jobs, homes, biodiversity and our planet, we have just nine short years to cut carbon emissions and protect nature, according to the UN’s experts on climate and biodiversity. As David Attenborough says,
“the living world is on course to tip and collapse. Indeed, it has already begun to do so”.
This Bill is a cobbled-together set of disparate actions that is sinking under the weight of greenwash that has been applied by Ministers. It does not take the urgent action that is so desperately needed.
This legislation is not perfect by any means, but the Bill should already be law. The deliberate pausing of Report stage after today means that some amendments will not be debated by MPs until May, the Bill will not be in the House of Lords until just before the summer, and it risks not being on the statute book until the autumn. That means we could be waiting over six months more for an environmental watchdog, for powers to stop our children breathing unsafe air, and to regulate Ministers’ actions. The Minister said that she did not want to see a delay in the Bill, while she was moving a motion to delay the Bill. That simply is not good enough. What a terrible message to send to the world in the year we are hosting COP26. It was supposed to be in law before Britain left the Brexit transition period and it is not. It was supposed to be bold and world-leading because of the urgency of the climate crisis and it is not.
This is a go-slow Government when it comes to environmental action. If we could solve the climate crisis with press releases then the planet would have nothing to worry about, but it is actions, not words, that we need. We need faster action to create the well-paid green jobs our communities need, and we need bolder action on improving standards and protecting habitats and species, so we can strengthen our economy and rebuild our country. If building back better after the pandemic is to be genuine, and not a smash and grab on the language of the environmental left, it must be underpinned by bold policy.
The Bill has a number of important issues, so let me deal with some of the main ones—first, air quality. The whole House remembers Ella Kissi-Debrah, a nine-year-old girl who tragically died following an asthma attack in London seven years ago. The coroner’s court found that air pollution made a material contribution to Ella’s death. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) for working with Ella’s mum Rosamund in demanding bolder action. This Sunday would have been Ella’s 17th birthday. As her mum wrote in The Sun on Sunday:
“Had WHO air pollution limits been in place and enforced then, according to the Coroner’s report, she would still be here today.”
Air quality is a matter of social justice, of equality and of poverty and requires fundamental change in the way we do business.
There are three amendments on air quality in the names of my Devon colleague the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and in my own name. All the amendments seek real action on air pollution. Labour will back all of them if they are put to the vote. According to figures published by NHS England, on average 5% of deaths in those over 30 can be attributed to PM2.5 air pollution. What that means is 40,000 deaths a year are caused by poor air—40,000 deaths. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that a £1.6 billion economic benefit to the UK could be released if we met WHO guidelines.
It is frankly bizarre that, faced with such mounting evidence of the unnecessary deaths caused by poor air, Ministers still refuse to put WHO air quality standards into law. I want to see the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs step up and hold Ministers’ feet to the fire. That means taking the case for the toughest WHO air quality targets to force the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments to radically up their game. If Ministers still refuse to accept our amendments, can the Minister confirm she will use the powers in the Bill to adopt WHO targets and exceed them if she can whenever the Bill eventually gets on the statute book? A Labour Government would adopt WHO targets because it is simply the right thing to do, so that everyone in all our communities has clean air to breathe.
Luke Pollard
I will not for time’s sake.
You cannot build back better if you are struggling to breathe.
Secondly, let me to turn to the Office for Environmental Protection. The Bill should have been passed by the end of the Brexit transition period, and the OEP should be up and running now. Labour offered to work with Ministers to ensure that that happened, but here we are with that date passed and the Bill still unlikely to become law until autumn, which is a year too late. That means the UK is now without an environmental watchdog, as the OEP has not yet been set up. We are concerned that it will be a weak watchdog with no real teeth. Calling it tough will in itself not make it tough. The OEP needs to be vigorously independent. That is why our amendment would delete a clause that would allow the Secretary of State to give guidance to the OEP and effectively let the Government mark their own homework. It is backed by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which concluded that we should make sure that
“every step is taken to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is as independent from the Government as possible”.
Although I think many of us would have preferred an out-and-out environmentalist to be leading the OEP, the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey is welcome and I hope the board members she is now recruiting will look a tad greener. But I must say to the Minister that, as a south-west Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned that the Government have just robbed the south-west of the Office for Environmental Protection. She will know it was announced in October 2019 that it would be going to Bristol. She knows that the expectation was that this would be a south-west-based regulator and she knows of the anger—the anger—that this will cause in the south-west on finding out it has been sent to somewhere that she claims is near Bristol. Worcester is nowhere near Bristol and that promise is nowhere near being met. The south-west has been robbed of a regulator and I think that is deeply, deeply worrying.
Let me turn briefly to bees and Labour’s amendment to prevent the Government from lifting the ban on bee-killing chemicals. I am a fan of bees; my family keeps bees on a farm in Cornwall. Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 out of 35 native bee species. Bees are essential to the future of our planet, to pollenating our crops and to our rich tapestry of biodiversity, so bee health is non-negotiable. That is what MPs on both sides of the House say in good times, so I expect them to say it now. Labour’s amendment would oppose the Conservative plan to lift the ban on bee-killing pesticides. If bee health really is non-negotiable, the ban must not be set aside just because it is convenient to do so now. There is no doubt that sugar beet farmers have been hit hard by crop blight, but lifting the ban is not the solution. Improved sugar contracts, compensation and accelerating blight-resistant varieties are a much better answer.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With a four-minute limit, I call Neil Parish via video link.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]
I thank DEFRA Ministers for their hard work on the Bill.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has looked at the Environment Bill over the past few years. We have given it pre-legislative scrutiny and looked at the Office for Environmental Protection and issues such as plastic waste, tree planting and air quality. The Bill has come back to Parliament in several shapes and sizes, and I think that might be about to happen again. I hope that the Government are carrying over the Bill to the next Session because they want to amend it to include all my amendments on deforestation and air quality.
The Amazon is losing an area twice the size of Devon every year to deforestation. Government amendments to ban sales from illegal deforestation go some way, but we can go further still and target the finance behind that. I will speak about air quality in the second debate today; there is an environmental and public health emergency that needs swift action. I appreciate the Government’s argument that we need more time to do work on the science, but we have known about the seriousness of the situation for many years, so it cannot be put off much longer.
We also need to ensure that the Bill comes back quickly in the summer, because we currently have an environmental governance gap. The Government and public authorities are not being adequately held to account over their compliance with environmental law, and it is not the best look. The court of public opinion is ultimately our judge, so I gently suggest that the Bill should be brought back immediately in the next Session to demonstrate its importance.
Now that we are outside the EU, we do not have the Commission to fine us and hold us to account. We are rating ourselves and we need a strong protection in domestic law in this Environment Bill. We also need a strong Office for Environmental Protection, and I welcome the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey as chairman of the OEP. Through this process, I have called for the chair to have independence from Government. Dame Glenys Stacey’s track record as an effective regulator through using both carrot and stick to hold public bodies to account means I have faith in her achieving that independence, but in common with other Government agencies the OEP needs resources and teeth to bite. The OEP will not be independent if it is constantly worrying about its budget. The Government and Ministers have excellent environmental credentials and I do not think they will water down protection in any way, but we need to act more quickly and should be a little bit braver when it comes to scrutiny.
We also have a duty now to set the right environmental laws and framework for the future Governments and generations. The Prime Minister is taking up the green recovery and DEFRA Ministers also believe in a better environment, as do many in this House and across the country. We are fortunate to be hosting COP26 later this year; it is an exciting time for environmental policy in this country. Outside the EU we have a real opportunity do better and show global leadership on issues of global importance; whether in air quality, water quality, soil health, tree planting, plastic waste or species protection, we should be ambitious with our environment policy.
This Environment Bill is a landmark Bill and the Government have put great effort into it over several years. With a few more tweaks and a firm commitment to bring the Bill back early in the next Session we can set a great example to the rest of the world and have a modern Environment Act of which we can all be proud.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now go to a video link, and it is a Front-Bench contribution from Deirdre Brock; happy Australia Day, Deirdre.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I shall speak to Scottish National party amendments 43 and 44. This Bill concerns England in the main; most of these policy areas are devolved and Scotland has its own environmental legislation, which, frankly, is light years ahead. This Bill has made its way rather painfully through the process, and it has seemed for far too much of that time that it was more about the UK Government trying to hide the fact that they have no real environmental ambition to speak of.
Only a few months after stepping in to overturn a council’s planning permission for an opencast mine, the Government have chosen to stay out of the planning process for a deep coalmine near Whitehaven in Cumbria. Less trusting folk than me have suggested that that might have something to do with what happened in that constituency in December 2019, but such cynicism is surely unfounded.
The UK has made little or no progress in tackling the really big-ticket items—carbon emissions, air and water pollution, tree planting, and so on. In fact, one of the area’s explicitly excluded from this Bill, the military, is one of the worst offenders. I have talked at great length about the environmental impacts that we know of, particularly the historical dumping of unwanted explosives, ammunition, ordnance, radioactive waste and so on into the sea, and we know that the area around Beaufort’s Dyke between Scotland and Ireland has millions of tonnes of unsavoury stuff littering the sea floor, but we do not know what is down there, because the dump records have been mislaid and the Ministry of Defence appears to have no intention of seeking to clean it up.
Similarly, I have been told that the MOD has done environmental impact studies on its land estates, but they have not been shared. There was a report in May, however, by Scientists for Global Responsibility, which found that the carbon footprint of British military spending was around 11 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent, some of it relating to arms exports but most of it from MOD operations.
That is not all: not one single nuclear submarine has been dismantled since the first one was decommissioned more than 40 years ago; four decades on and the UK has more redundant nuclear subs in storage than it has in use. I should add, too, the hundreds of nuclear safety breaches at the naval bases on the Clyde that I discovered through written questions, which are interestingly not matched by similar figures elsewhere.
It is clear that the environmental impact of military operations is more than substantial, even if it is not officially acknowledged. I would have thought that any Government who wanted to—in the Prime Minister’s words—
“do extraordinary things on the environment”
would want to do something about that, so I assume that it was an error that led someone in Government to exempt defence, national security and the armed forces from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental provisions, and from any consideration of environmental issues on tax, spending and allocation of resources.
I raised this issue in Committee, so Ministers have had plenty of time to consider it, and they should consider reversing their position. The procedural oddities of this place will not allow for everything to be considered, so this issue has taken a back seat for the moment to allow Labour’s amendment on neonicotinoids to be voted on. That is a devolved issue and treated differently in Scotland, but it is of course important for England.
We have 10 months until COP26 takes place in Glasgow —pandemics permitting—and the UK Government really have to step up to the plate and start showing some real leadership. Talking about it is not enough. Painting the fence green is not enough. The Government actually have to become green, become environmentally friendly, and work for the future of the planet and of the human race. In the past year, we have seen how a virus can disrupt our world, but that would be nothing compared to the devastation that the climate crisis threatens. We all have a role to play in addressing that challenge, but there is little point in individual households doing what they can while the Government fail to do what they are capable of.
I think that this Bill will go down as a missed opportunity, but that does not mean that the Government are powerless to act. I look forward to a change in priorities and a move to action. This is not a time to delay, defer and dissemble; it is a time to move forward purposefully. The question for the Government is not whether they win or lose their battles today, but whether they really decide to lead over the next year and the coming years.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The four-minute limit is now imposed again for all further Back-Bench contributions.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
I will speak to my amendment 4. The precautionary principle is a whole new way for the Government to legislate on environmental matters which can be applied to a huge range of environmental principles. It could be used in the extreme—for example, to introduce policies such as stopping people from driving motor cars on the basis that they damage the environment. In an increasingly legislative field, my amendment is so important in ensuring that the Government can clearly define the purposes for use of the precautionary principle, beyond those in the mere principles statements outlined in clauses 16 to 18.
The Minister said in a letter to me this morning: “I can confirm that Ministers of the Crown are only required to have due regard to the policy statement when making policy by virtue of clause 18(1). The environmental principles duty is not designed to apply to individual decisions or other public bodies.” In other words, the statement of principles is pretty nearly toothless.
My amendment would clearly constrain when and where the precautionary principle can be used. I ask the Minister, when she sums up, to go further than just going into the principles; I ask her to include some of my amendment in the Bill. A particularly important part is subsection (3C), which says:
“The precautionary principle should only apply in response to risks that are…more than hypothetical in nature; and…serious and irreversible.”
I cannot see any reason at all why that should not be in the Bill. If the Minister is not inclined to include it, I hope that their lordships will pick it up when the Bill goes to the House of Lords.
The precautionary principle is not consistently applied to different activity; it is frequently used to constrain certain activities where any impacts are deemed to be unacceptable. For example, Natural England is currently seeking to restrict game shooting around European protected sites. Due to evidence of damage in only five—a mere 1.5% of all sites—it wants to introduce a licensing system.
In summing up, can the Minister please bear in mind all the constraints that are in my amendments? Otherwise, this principle could well become oppressive to people’s freedom in the future, and we may well rue the day that we put the provision in the Bill. I am looking to the Minister to tell me why some or all of my constraints cannot be included in the Bill, because that is where they should be. The statement of principles, as written in the Bill, is pretty nearly toothless, and the precautionary principle gives the Minister, or any future Minister, a huge overwhelming power, which we may well live to regret.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I wish to speak to new clause 5 on the state of nature target.
There are few things that can lift our spirits as much as time spent with nature. Who does not feel a sense of awe and wonder at the astonishing biodiversity of our landscape, its creatures and its plants. As well as ensuring that that same sense of awe and wonder can be enjoyed by future generations, it should be self-preservation, frankly, that urges us to confront the threat of biodiversity and habitat loss. We should have respect for the soil from which we came—the soil that has given us everything that we can see around us: food; fuel; raw materials; medicines; and the ability to capture carbo. It is the soil to which we will, one day, all return—a reminder of our place in the natural order of things.
The truth is that we can no longer take all this for granted. Why? It is because we are destroying our natural world at an alarming rate. In the words of the Minister’s own Department:
“Much of England’s wildlife-rich habitat has been lost over the last century…and there has been widespread species loss.”
The latest state of nature report records a decline of 13% in the abundance of UK species since 1970. Some 15% of UK species are now endangered, including the red squirrel, the water vole, the ghost orchid, and the meadow clary. The number of moths has decreased significantly in the past 50 years and a third of British wild bees and hoverflies are in decline. A total of 97% of our wildflower meadows have been lost since the 1930s. This is a crisis caused by agricultural practices, pollution, urbanisation, habitat loss and climate change, and it requires action, and that is what this new clause seeks to do.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to binding targets, but I think that it can be strengthened to make a good Bill better by including a target to halt and begin to reverse the decline of habitats and species by 2030. That should not be too difficult in principle for the Minister, because this is exactly what the United Kingdom called for in drawing up the leaders’ pledge for nature, which commits to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030. But, of course, to reverse loss, one must first halt it. The problem is that the Bill’s timetable for setting targets does not fit in with the 2030 biodiversity pledge, so the new clause would place a requirement on Ministers to draw up, before the Conference of the Parties later on this year, a 2030 state of nature target to halt and begin to reverse the decline in species and habitats and to set out a plan to do so, including how the target would be measured. It would need to cover the abundance of species, their risk of extinction and the extent and condition of habitats, bearing in mind that widely accepted and reliable sets of indicators already exist to enable us to assess these things.
I accept that the target is ambitious, but if we are not going to be ambitious now, when will we be ambitious for the state of nature? It is not as if we do not know what works to bring about change for the better. We do. We just need a lot more of it. The truth is this: we have always known that the natural environment sustains our souls, but we have now come to understand that it also sustains our very existence. That is why it matters and that is why we should do now what we know in our hearts to be right. I hope the House will vote for the new clause.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to this important debate. It is a great relief to see the Bill come back to this House, but equally it is a great disappointment to learn that it will be back just for today and we will have to wait until the next parliamentary Session begins after Easter for the second allocated day. When the Minister responds to the debate, will she give some indication that she intends to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible and that procedures in the Lords conclude before the summer recess? We must go into the COP26 conference in November with clarity that this ground-breaking piece of legislation is on the statute book.
I wish to speak about two aspects of the Bill, the first of which is the Office for Environmental Protection. I am delighted to welcome the Minister’s announcement today that the OEP headquarters will be in Worcester in the west midlands, near my constituency. Worcester is, of course, on the River Severn, which is the largest river in the country and has recently been in flood through my constituency. The whole Severn catchment area requires considerable attention and will get greater focus thanks to Dame Glenys Stacey’s presence at the headquarters from time to time, in her new role.
Alongside the EFRA Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and we called for a greater degree of independence for the OEP. Having met Dame Glenys at our pre-appointment hearing in December, we took some comfort from our opinion that she is the right person to lead the organisation, but we are concerned that she has sufficient budget to recruit the number of people required and the experts she needs, and to reflect the OEP’s responsibilities in helping to deliver the 25-year plan.
When the Environmental Audit Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny, we were also concerned about the environmental improvement plans. We felt that the OEP should advise the Government on the establishment of targets, as was the case under the previous regulatory regime through the European Commission. We welcome the fact that targets are enshrined in the Bill but think it important that the body that will have part of the responsibility to monitor compliance with those targets is also involved in setting them. We would very much like to see confirmation from the Minister that the date for establishing the environmental targets can be confirmed with a statement of intent ahead of COP26.
The second aspect I wish to speak about is amendment 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). It would require the Government to include in the environmental plan steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. As part of our inquiry into biodiversity and ecosystems, my Committee has repeatedly heard that central to restoring our greatly depleted natural environment—about which we have heard from other speakers—is building a better relationship between people and nature. It was called for in the Glover review; we would like to see it enshrined in the Bill and urge the Government to support amendment 28.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I speak in favour of amendment 2, which was tabled by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and would put into law the World Health Organisation air quality limits.
I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. I introduced my own clean air Bill four years ago, in 2017, at which time the Royal College of Physicians had already reported that 40,000 people in Britain were dying prematurely every year, at a cost of £20 billion. The figure is now thought to be 64,000 people. Air pollution affects people’s brains, hearts and lungs. The mental and physical health of unborn children is affected, as is young children’s concentration. It can also affect people in terms of depression, anxiety and dementia—so the list goes on. In fact, the number of covid deaths is up 8% for each microgram of PM2.5.
DEFRA claims that overall pollution has come down in the past 10 years, but the reason for that is that we have closed down our coal-fired power stations and exported our manufacturing. In urban environments, the deaths and the pollution are going up, and that is why we need these limits to be imposed universally. It is the poorest and most diverse neighbourhoods that are suffering most from the pollution and hence from the greatest levels of covid deaths. It is no good the Government saying that they will have average concentrations, where they average the amounts of concentration in a rural environment with those in a toxic urban environment. Those limits would not have saved the life of Ella Kissi- Debrah, who tragically died. The coroner’s inquest heard that the cause of death was the levels of air pollution that caused her asthma, which caused her to go into hospital 28 times in just three years before her tragic death. We want World Health Organisation universal limits applied so that thousands of children can be saved and protected.
It is everyone’s right to have clean air, and it is the Government’s duty to deliver that right. We therefore need amendment 2, which is a guiding light around which other targets can coalesce. It requires PM2.5 to be 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. We need all Government Departments and public bodies to work together to achieve this, as set out in new clause 6. Unfortunately, the Government are just saying that they will have targets in 2022. Those targets will not be legally enforceable and they will be able to be changed. That simply is not good enough. For Ella’s sake, for the sake of thousands of children up and down Britain, and for all of us, we need World Health Organisation standards in legislation, and I hope that that will be agreed today.
Finally, I turn to new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I sponsored a plastics Bill in 2018. The fact is that there will be more plastic than fish in the sea by 2050. UK supermarkets alone produce 114 billion pieces a year. We need the producers and the polluters to pay a tax on virgin plastic. I would certainly support that, because millions of birds and animals are dying. We are ingesting the microplastics that get into fish and inhaling plastic that is in our clothes and washing machines. In a nutshell, as we approach COP26 we should be showing leadership to the world in stopping our oceans choking, stopping our children choking, protecting our air, protecting our oceans and protecting our environment.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This is a ground-breaking Bill. There is much of merit in it, although you would not believe it to listen to some of the contributions from the Opposition Benches. There are many good amendments, and I would single out new clauses 14 and 15 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) about linking housing targets and planning permissions.
In the limited time available, I want to talk about my amendment 5 on interim targets. Setting targets is easy. Governments like to set headline-grabbing targets, but too often the small print belies the ambition of the target, and the target date is in the dim and distant future. That can instil complacency and lethargy, because there is plenty of time to hit the mark and there is therefore no need to panic. When it comes to climate change, however, there is every need, if not to panic, at least to put our foot on the gas, metaphorically, and to act with urgency and immediacy.
The 2050 net zero target is almost 30 years away, and it should be a “last possible date by which”. It should be subject to a constant audit as to how quickly and by how far we can constantly bring that end date forward. It must also be an end date for a clearly set out progression to reducing harmful emissions and creating a net carbon environmentally benefiting economy. We need things to show a marked improvement from today, and so it should be with the natural environmental improvement targets in this Bill. My amendment is simple. It adds just four words in an additional subsection to clause 4, making it the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that “interim targets are met.” That amendment would guarantee continuous incremental improvements in the natural environment, helping to keep all things environmental high up the Government’s list of priorities. It would bring the Environment Bill target framework into line with the approach of the Climate Change Act 2008, where there are five-yearly legally binding targets as milestones to the long-term legally binding target of net zero by 2050.
At the moment, the only recourse for the Office for Environmental Protection, if the Government miss an interim target, will be to criticise them in its annual report. That could of course be ignored by Ministers and Governments until the long-term target was missed, when enforcement action would actually kick in. Frankly, the power of policing this has to have more teeth than the ability of the environmental policemen to shout, “Stop, or I’ll shout ‘stop’ again!” Friends of the Earth has said:
“If these targets are not binding upon the Secretary of State it would be a huge missed opportunity to ensure the EIP system drives sustained, tangible environmental improvement—and would undermine the rationale for setting such goals in the first instance.”
Tim Loughton
I do not think so, but my hon. Friend is very kind. It is only because Madam Deputy Speaker is looking daggers at me.
Five-yearly interim targets also need to be set in the environmental improvement plans. However, the environmental improvement plans are not legally binding—they are simply policy documents—and all the plans need to be reviewed and potentially updated every five years and reported on every year. This is not the same as legal accountability.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a pleasure to speak briefly in this debate to the amendment in my name and in support of the many excellent amendments tabled by colleagues from across the House.
While they were open, my visits to schools were able to continue over Zoom; it has been one of the pleasures during this difficult lockdown. The common theme in these sessions is always questions about the climate crisis. The sense of urgency among young people is palpable, yet I fear that in decades to come, they will look back at the decision makers of today and ask why, despite all the warning signs, we did not do more when we had the chance. I want Wales to seize that chance and use our natural resources and innovation to fuel our recovery and transition to a sustainable economy. We have the capacity and capability to do it, but too often, our efforts are being hampered by Westminster. There has been the refusal to support the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, the pitiful track record on rail investment, and a flat refusal to empower the Welsh Government with powers over energy policy or meaningful economic levers.
I fear greatly that the latest power grab will see any climate ambitions set by the Senedd actively undermined by Westminster. I am talking, of course, of the powers grabbed via the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to spend in devolved areas, which the British state intends to use to deliver the shared prosperity fund. It takes very little imagination to picture a scenario in which the British Government bypass the will of our democratically elected Senedd and pursue their Union Jack-plastered pet project in Wales without any regard for the environmental consequences.
Amendment 40 in my name seeks to defend Wales from Westminster intrusion. It would require that an impact assessment is carried out on the effect on environmental targets set by the Senedd of any infrastructure project that the British dare to seek to deliver in Wales via the shared prosperity fund or any other mechanism. Where the effect is found to be a negative one, my amendment would give the Senedd a veto on the project.
While I will not push this amendment to a vote this evening, I seek reassurances from the British Government. I want a guarantee that Wales will be free to not only set, but achieve more ambitious targets on achieving net zero, improving air quality and reducing plastic waste, without any interference from Westminster. By introducing the Bill, the British Government have rightly made much of the importance of setting long-term environmental targets and establishing lines of accountability. Is not it only right that the Welsh Government are fully accountable for any decisions that affect Wales’s environmental targets?
I briefly pledge my support for new clause 17, which would require the UK Government to deliver a strategy setting out how the economic recovery can be designed to improve our wellbeing and environment. I also support new clause 9, which would ensure that anyone with responsibility under this legislation must comply with the commitment to achieving a healthy, resilient, biodiverse natural environment. I welcome amendments that seek to strengthen, and hold the Government to account on, the promise to combat global deforestation, and to set targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing for the purposes of chemicals regulation.
We do have an opportunity to make a difference, and the next time I talk to young people in my constituency, I want to be able to show them that we are taking it. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
I start by welcoming this Bill and praising the Government for bringing it before the House. I know it is disappointing that the Bill will not make it into law until the next Session, but it is a world-leading piece of legislation. Whether it is because of the scientific warnings about climate change, the loss of biodiversity, air quality issues, or the need to create a better environment around us all, the measures in this Bill represent a major step forward. Although there will be a lot of debate about whether the Bill should be enhanced and how, I hope that all who propose changes to it recognise what an important measure it is.
I shall seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Bill reaches the second day of Report, to move my amendment on the protection of the hedgehog and to speak about forest protection. Today, though, I want to focus on the first part of the Bill, particularly the requirements to prepare an environmental improvement plan and to set targets for improvements. The 25-year environment plan that the Government produced two years ago provides an essential and world-leading blueprint for the kind of change that is needed. It covers a whole range of issues, but in particular I want targets and updates of the plan to focus on habitat restoration and protection here, and I want tangible measures to incentivise and support the restoration and protection of habitats in other parts of the world. We have to be world leaders in protecting our species and encouraging other people to do the same.
The loss of biodiversity in the UK has been tragic. Whether we are talking about the disappearance of birds from our gardens and hedgerows, the decline in the numbers of much-loved species such as the hedgehog, or the challenges of our marine environment, it is the job of this generation to start to turn the tide. The decline is even more tragic in other parts of the world, with large numbers of iconic species in real danger of disappearing and with habitat being lost at an alarming rate. The implementation of this Bill, the targets that are set and the ongoing improvement plan must tackle this disaster in our country, and help to do so for our planet.
In other parts of the world, deforestation is a key part of the problem, and this Bill must play a part in ensuring that the UK says to the world, “Enough is enough.” We will come back to that next time. Here, the issue is not deforestation—we have more trees today than we have had for centuries, and we have ambitions to plant more—but we have intense development pressures. We do need new homes and we need to tackle some of our infrastructure challenges, but new developments must have a smart strategy for environmental protection alongside them, particularly to avoid the unnecessary destruction of habitats.
We need to grow more food here and stop importing so much from around the world, so we need a bigger and stronger farming sector, but it must protect biodiversity. The measures to do so in this Bill and in the Agriculture Act 2020 are very welcome. We need to take some tough decisions about invasive species, because we have to stop outsiders multiplying in a way that drives our native species to extinction. The targets set under this Bill must put biodiversity at the heart of our strategy, and the duties that it places on local communities must also strengthen biodiversity.
In the coming weeks, we will hear a lot of thoughts and ideas about additional things that could be done to improve our environment, but we must give the Government credit. This Bill can and will make a difference, and I look forward to it becoming law. Given the delay, however, the need to act on biodiversity starts now. Although I know that we must wait for the Bill to pass into statute, I want Ministers to make this a central part of their work now. The powers in this Bill will help them to do so in the future, but protecting our species and protecting biodiversity here, and encouraging others around the world to do the same, must start right now.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I rise to support my new clauses 14 and 15. The core principle of the Bill is that safeguarding the environment should be at the heart of decision making right across Government, and that must include the planning system. New clauses 14 and 15 would give the OEP the power to veto or reduce housing targets and require new developments to be consistent with our net zero carbon target. Of course, the environmental net gain provisions in the Bill will generate, via the planning system, a welcome flow of investment into nature. I also welcome the Government’s recent abandonment of their housing target algorithm, which generated impossibly high numbers, but for London, that threat remains for the longer term. We also have a planning Bill due soon.
My fear is that the Government’s determination to “build, build, build” could compromise the environmental ambition of the Bill that we are considering. Let us face it, nothing has a greater physical impact on the landscape than the buildings we construct. Successive generations have been judged by the legacy of the built environment they have left behind. By giving environmental and climate concerns a greater weight in the housing and planning system, my new clauses are an appeal to Ministers not to repeat the mistakes of the ’60s and ’70s, which their algorithm makes me fear that they will.
Even with Ministers’ change of heart on the algorithm, the housing targets remain very high. That could mean a drive for ever denser, ever higher blocks consuming ever more of the green spaces we value so much, and never more so than in a time of covid. Local input into the planning system provides a formidable defence for the environment, and I ask the Government to drop their White Paper proposals to remove local decision making for areas designated for growth.
Despite the measures that I would like to see added to the Bill, Members should be in no doubt of my strong support for this legislation, which I introduced as DEFRA Secretary in its first iteration in the last Parliament. The Bill will mark a historic turning point as we establish a demanding and rigorous framework of legally binding targets, improvement plans and measures to protect biodiversity and crack down on waste and plastics pollution.
As many Members have said, we are at a crisis point for nature and for climate. We need urgent action to arrest the decline in habitats and the threat posed to thousands of species both here and overseas. We hold this earth in trust for those who come after us. If we are to have any chance of being the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it, we need to make big changes to the way we do things in this country, and I am confident that this Bill will help us do that.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
The ecological and climate crises will be the defining issues of the 21st century. In a few short years, climate breakdown is likely to transform the way we live. The floods that devastated communities across England last week provided a stark reminder of how incredibly high the stakes are. Now the heavy responsibility falls on those of us who serve in this place to ensure that future generations inherit a liveable planet. Through taking bold and decisive action now and driving forward change on the international stage, we can roll back the ecological crisis and build a fairer, greener economy in its wake, but I am afraid that the Government’s ambitions fail to meet the scale of the challenge.
The Prime Minister has called for a green Brexit, but at the same time he is replacing the EU’s comprehensive package of environmental protections with four simple targets that the Environment Secretary can change at will. That is why I urge Members across the House to support new clause 9, which would oblige anyone exercising responsibilities in relation to the Environment Bill to adhere to broader commitments such as the Climate Change Act 2008 and the United Nations leaders’ pledge for nature.
I also support amendment 39, which would guarantee parliamentary scrutiny when the Government want to allow the use of plant protection products that endanger bees and other pollinators. I know that I was not alone in being concerned by the Environment Secretary’s decision to temporarily lift the ban on bee-killing pesticides. That decision flies in the face of the Government’s own commitment to fight biodiversity loss and was made without consulting Parliament. Of course we all sympathise with farmers who are currently wrestling with crop blight, but those pesticides pose an existential threat to bee populations and other pollinator species, which play such a vital role in pollinating 70% of the crops we eat. I do not think it is hyperbolic to say that our future depends on bees.
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for tabling new clause 5, which would commit the Environment Secretary to tackling and reversing biodiversity loss in England by 2030. While I welcome the proposals to establish an Office of Environmental Protection, I am deeply concerned that it would lack the necessary powers and independence to truly do its job. I will therefore be supporting amendment 23.
The Government had the opportunity to use their Bill to put the environment at the heart of their policy making. The Bill fails even to maintain existing environmental standards, let alone make the UK a world leader in environmental policy. The fact that the Bill will now be delayed until later this year is yet another dispiriting sign that the Government, for all their rhetoric, simply are not serious about tackling the climate change and ecological emergencies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I want to try to accommodate everybody on the speaking list, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
The amendment in my name—amendment 28 to this important Bill, which has so much to celebrate—is supported by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and many others from different parties across this House. It would oblige the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in their environmental plan, rather than simply give them the option to do so. It substitutes for a “may” a “must”—an addition of one letter to recognise the vital importance of green spaces to all our constituents. That is especially true during the pandemic and lockdown, when our parks, big or small, have literally kept many of us sane. The numbers of visitors is up sharply and some inequalities of access—such as for those living in cities, and many ethnic minorities—have been exposed.
It is estimated that for every £1 spent in a park, an extra £7 of value to wellbeing, health and environment is created. Eight out of 10 adults agree that visiting the countryside is good for physical fitness and mental wellbeing. People spending time in green spaces can help reduce heart disease and obesity, cancer and also stress, and in this time of lockdown we need all those things more than ever.
Many people in green spaces can and should also be a good thing, not a bad thing, for the environment. For example, in my constituency of Gloucester, we have the joy of a wonderful green space right in the heart of the city, the Robinswood Hill country park, which gives an opportunity for every child to have the experience of sitting on their mother or father’s shoulders and watching for the first time, on the top of the hill, the sunset over the River Severn in the summer—one of the most beautiful things that anyone can do. That in turn stimulates enjoyment of our green places and also environmentally friendly behaviour, encouraging litter picking, as well as bringing more people into the parks.
In this short space of time, may I highlight the support of the Ramblers, who understand so clearly the importance of our enjoyment of green spaces, and highlight that the amendment is not purely about benefiting urban dwellers? For example, the National Trust estimates that people across Britain are missing out on 500 million park visits a year because of poorly equipped facilities. Basic upgrades, from loos and income-generating cafés to play areas, can hugely help accessibility. Natural England has reported that insufficient footpaths in the presence of busy or dangerous roads can easily prevent access and deter the use of parks. So there are aspects of the amendment that would benefit both those living in the countryside and those living in the towns.
The Environment Secretary has always been supportive of many of these aims, and has said himself:
“Studies across the spectrum…remind us that it is in our best interests to look after nature. We know that a connection with nature contributes to wellbeing and improved health.”
So I hope that the Minister who is taking the Bill through the House—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), whose career in the House of Commons has been dedicated to the environment—will share those feelings by recognising the opportunity to do more, and find measures that can be used as targets to enhance people’s enjoyment of our green spaces, so that the “may” does become a “must” in time, and the Government do report on the improvement of people’s enjoyment.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I support all the amendments that Labour has tabled today, but will concentrate my remarks on those specifically related to air quality.
My constituency of Vauxhall contains some of the busiest and most polluted roads in London and the country. Clapham Road and Brixton Road are both major routes for journeying in and out of south London, as well as rat runs for the everyday journeys to work, school and shops made by Vauxhall residents. However, in making these journeys, those residents are constantly exposed to the dangerous pollutants emanating from cars and other vehicles. Brixton Road has made national headlines for exceeding the annual legal air pollution limits a few days into the new year; like many of my constituents, I walk along that road on a daily basis.
We know that these toxic pollutants can have a devastating impact on our hearts and lungs. In particular, we know that PM2.5 particles are able to get deep into our lungs and bloodstream, where they can have a significant impact on our overall health, both in the short and long term. PM2.5 can be very bad for the health of our children. Even before this pandemic, children in Vauxhall were regularly exposed to toxic and illegal levels of air pollution, and were having to wear masks to school.
We all have a role to play in reducing this pollution: we have to make fewer journeys by car, drive less polluting vehicles, and walk and cycle when we are able to do so. However, the Government have to play their part, too. Reaching the World Health Organisation limit on PM2.5 pollution is an achievable target. That is why I will be supporting amendments 2 and 25, to ensure that these strict targets for air quality will be reached by 2030 at the latest. This will take us a step closer to making our air completely safe, both for today and for future generations.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am very proud of the Government’s leadership on the environment. I commend the Minister for all the work she has done so far.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you would not think that my constituency of West Dorset has the worst place for air pollution in the entire country, but environmental issues affect us all. The village of Chideock, between Bridport and Lyme Regis, has the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide in the entire country from traffic on the A35. The pollution is more than double the Government limit. This issue is not new—it has been ongoing for years—but urgent cross-departmental action is required, and I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that she will look at this issue in Chideock as a matter of priority with the new powers the Bill will provide.
Plastic was once seen as the saviour of the rainforests, but it has become the scourge of the sea. Half of all plastics ever made have been produced in the past 15 years. Less than a third of plastic in Britain is recycled, and British supermarkets still produce 114 billion items of single-use plastic. Those supermarkets are devoid of real environmental responsibility for plastic packaging once it leaves their stores, which is contributing to an environmental disaster.
Greenpeace has just released its “Checking Out on Plastics III” report, which ranks the UK’s biggest supermarkets on their plastics credentials, and is recommended reading. A reader will find out, for example, that on a per market share basis, Tesco’s total plastic use has increased by 2.2% between 2017 and 2019. It is for this reason that I have tabled new clause 11, which would require the Government to set specific targets and reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold by a designated date. This amendment is intended to work alongside the measures already set out in this Bill, to complement the Government’s ambitions to end this systemic over-production and over-consumption of polluting plastics.
I have greatly appreciated working with the West Dorset Environmental Alliance, a brilliant local group providing much-needed insights and momentum. I am also grateful for the support from the Conservative Environment Network and Friends of the Earth. This Bill is key to achieving a green future. It will unleash our nation’s potential to make our environment better for us all.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
I am pleased to support the amendments in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
The Government said they had a desire to have a “world-leading watchdog”. I wonder whether there was a misprint and it should have said a “world-leading lapdog”. Do they really mean it? I was on the hearing that met Dame Glenys Stacey, and she is a robust regulator, with a proven record of independence, and I trust her. The Secretary of State should set the criteria and the parameters that he expects the Office for Environmental Protection to work to, but he should then leave it to the regulator to regulate. Dame Glenys, I believe, has been appointed as the right person, so let her do the job without further interference. Let her also have the benefit of interim targets, because for someone regulating, targets can be really helpful. I listened to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and he is absolutely right. We need interim targets to be able to hold people to account, but also to be able to incentivise businesses and give them clarity about what they have to achieve.
When we are talking about enforcement, it is perhaps salutary if I remind colleagues of those who were there when, as chair of the then all-party group on biodiversity, I worked with Friends of the Earth to organise a photo opportunity for colleagues who came to support ensuring there was no relaxation of the ban on neonicotinoids. It was incredibly well supported: over 100 Members of Parliament came to support that campaign, and I have the photos to prove it. So for those Members who go into the Lobby tonight saying they will support the Government on lifting the ban, perhaps we, with Friends of the Earth, should dig out those photographs and start publishing them one by one to show just how much Members meant it when they had their photograph taken with that bee.
On deforestation, the Government are saying that there should be an imposition on companies to look at the legality of the sourcing of their materials, such as soy and timber. Legality is not enough. Yesterday I met a number of people representing the Brazilian interests as well as the commercial interests, and it is clear that what has happened already in Brazil is that the laws have been reduced because of the pressure. Companies must be asked to look at the sustainability of their supply chain, not just the legality of it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
The Office for Environmental Protection concerns me greatly, because I think it is going to offer us very little protection. Its powers include the terrifying capacity to point out that the Government have failed to safeguard environmental protections or to maintain standards, but it cannot force the Government to comply, it cannot fine and it cannot prosecute. It can shame the Government, but if I could be so flippant, Madam Deputy Speaker, this appears to be a Government who know no shame, as demonstrated by the last-minute decision to delay this already criminally overdue Bill by maybe six months or more.
This is outrageous, but the Government will tough it out and will probably bear no consequences for doing so. However, there will be huge consequences for our environment, for biodiversity, for future generations and, indeed, for farmers and food producers. No formal regulation over these months and pretty much toothless enforcement thereafter will mean the steady erosion of animal welfare and environmental protections just, as it happens, as the Government are engaging in negotiating trade deals around the world. Some might consider this to be a rather convenient hiatus that will allow them to throw British farming under a bus once again. Farmers will lose the ability to look at our regulation as something that they can use to strengthen their hand when it comes to those negotiations. The undermining of our land management community—of our farmers—is a massive threat to our environment. Without them, we lose the practical capacity to deliver biodiversity gains.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
I will speak to the clauses relating to the Office for Environmental Protection. I had the privilege of being part of the Bill Committee that scrutinised this landmark legislation. I commend the Government and the Minister for taking a world-leading role through this legislation, not least by the introduction of the Office for Environmental Protection.
It is no secret that the defining challenge of our era is to provide an effective mechanism for the preservation of our natural environment. In the wake of covid-19, we have all seen the stories about nature hitting the reset button. Having meaningful, sustainable protection for the environment will require countries across the world to work together, but it will also require countries to show moral leadership on this issue.
That reminds me of a speech that Margaret Thatcher delivered to the United Nations General Assembly in 1989. The then Prime Minister spoke to the international community about the acute dangers of environmental destruction and about nations coming together in a global contribution to our planet’s health. We need a concerted effort by each member of the international community, and I believe that this Bill demonstrates to the world that Britain will be a world leader in protecting our environment. We really should be proud of that.
Our environment is not two-dimensional; it is a complex tapestry of biodiversity. Protecting it is not easy, nor is it an overnight job. That is why the Bill is essential. It offers the guarantee that our 25-year plan needs, our future generations demand and our environment requires. I am confident that the establishment of the OEP will deliver the necessary guarantees and safeguards for our natural environment. The OEP will be a watchdog with the ability to ensure that future Governments stay the course with regard to environmental sustainability and make a significant contribution to the environment that we all desire. The persistent monitoring of progress that Governments will be subjected to by the OEP will ensure that they are held to account and do not renege on our national pledge to the environment.
I also welcome the opportunity for local people to challenge the decisions made by their local authorities. Our communities care about the environment. By allowing people this opportunity to challenge local authorities, we recognise the pride that people have in the environment. I am keen for our communities to be given powers to hold public bodies to account through the OEP. If we are to meaningfully protect our environment, our communities will be essential. The environmental activism that I have seen in my constituency, from schoolchildren to volunteer groups and faith communities, has been nothing short of inspirational. In the year that we take up the presidency of COP26, I also see a massive opportunity to engage our faith communities in building a narrative and a case for moral leadership in protecting our environment.
The global community shares in the inheritance of the health of our world and its aesthetic, but it also shares in the immediate danger of climate destruction. I have no doubt that the OEP will be a world-leading organisation, setting the UK at the forefront of environmental protections. If we are to lead, the best way to do so must be by example, and through this legislation and the OEP, I believe we will be exemplary.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Environment Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this place is currently scrutinising. That is not hyperbole; the evidence of the climate crisis and the crisis in the state of nature, where the survival of so many species, including our own, is under threat, is irrefutable—although I know some would like it to be refutable.
I was fortunate to be an observer of the first national citizens’ assembly looking at climate change last year. People from all parts of the country, from all backgrounds, with wide-ranging opinions, were randomly selected to reach a consensus about action to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. During one session I attended, the fabulous David Attenborough came along to give us the benefit of his extensive experience, having seen the devastation being wrought on our planet, including here in the UK. It left a profound impact on me, and I hope that citizens’ assemblies will be used at both the national and local level to engage with our communities to build consensus on many other important issues.
It is clear from the many constituents who have contacted me, including many school students from across Oldham and Saddleworth, how concerned they are about the state of the environment and the planet we temporarily inhabit. They want an environment legacy that is fit for not just them, but their children and their children’s children. The environment is another issue of intergenerational inequality. I speak in support of the amendments and new clauses in this group to which I have added my name. First, I support the amendments calling for the Bill to include an environmental objective to achieve and maintain biodiversity, support for human health and wellbeing, and the sustainable use of resources. That provides an overarching focus for the Bill, which I hope the Government will support.
Secondly, the Bill needs to include governance measures to ensure that at least World Health Organisation guidelines on air quality and particulates of 2.5 microns or less are monitored and enforced. Anyone who has followed the campaign of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s family following nine-year-old Ella’s death from a fatal asthma attack, contributed to by the poor air quality in London, will recall the evidence to the recent inquest that pointed to her death acting as a warning of the risk of poor air quality to the health of other Londoners. In Ella’s memory, we must act.
Thirdly, the Bill must include the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny where the Government seek exemptions on the use of pesticides such as neonicotinoids and others banned under EU law. We must question the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on his recent decision to authorise the use of neonicotinoids in place of non-chemical alternatives for controlling the yellow beet virus.
Finally, I support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on the state of nature report. Only by committing to a binding target to halt and begin to reverse the decline of the state of nature at home, showing the domestic leadership that is needed, can the Government have any credibility in trying to secure support for a global deal—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, but I am afraid we must move on now to Sally-Ann Hart.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
This Environment Bill is major legislation and a mark of this Government’s commitment to our environment and combating climate change. As the Prime Minister said, it is
“a lodestar by which we will guide our country towards a cleaner, and greener future.”
This Bill is the flagship of a wider package of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs legislation, including the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Fisheries Act 2020, which seeks to deliver on the Government’s pledge to leave the environment in a better state than they inherited it in.
New clause 11, on environmental targets on plastic pollution, has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), and I wish to focus my comments on it today. Plastic pollutes land and oceans, and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of its life cycle, from its production to its refining and the way it is managed as a waste product. The scourge of plastic waste—the litter we see in our oceans, and on our beaches, streets, pavements and roadsides—takes hundreds of years to decompose, contaminating our soil and water. The toxic chemicals used to manufacture plastic get transferred to animal tissue and eventually enter the human food chain, risking our health.
In my constituency of beautiful Hastings and Rye, we have a number of stunning beaches, at Camber, Winchelsea, Pett and Hastings. Single-use plastic such as straws, cups, bottles and bags, blights all parts of our environment. Litter picking groups such as Hastings Beach Clean, Tidy Up St Leonards and Rye Harbour Beach Clean pick up bag-loads of plastic every time they go out. However, there is no doubt that this Government have taken the plastic challenge seriously. In 2018, they published a resources and waste strategy, and they have taken measures such as banning plastic straws and microbeads. They are leading global efforts to tackle ocean pollution, including by launching the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance alongside Vanuatu. The requirement for large retailers to charge 5p for single-use plastic carriers bags has seen plastic bag sales drop 90% since its introduction.
The Bill includes a range of measures to tackle plastic use and disposal, such as new charges on single-use plastic and a new deposit return scheme, which should incentivise consumers to choose more sustainable products over plastic ones. The amendment seeks to work with the grain of the measures already set out in the Bill to end the systemic over-production and consumption of polluting plastics and non-essential single-use items. However, it would also require the Government to set targets to reduce plastic pollution and the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold by a designated date. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I speak in support of amendments 21 and 28, tabled by the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I thank the Ramblers and other campaign groups that are supporting the amendments and campaigning to promote public access to nature.
The amendments have a simple purpose: to extend the Bill from just protecting nature to ensuring that we can all access nature. The lockdowns and restrictions of the past year have shown us how important it is for people to have access to high-quality outside space. Although we have all been staying at home to protect the NHS, getting out for regular exercise, whether walking, cycling or running, has been vital to protecting people’s mental health.
The use of outside space is to be encouraged after the pandemic, not written off as a temporary phase, but that will mean protecting and expanding green spaces in our cities and supporting and encouraging people to get out into the countryside. As it stands, the Bill allows the Government to set targets for promoting access to nature, which is welcome, but I am concerned that that may end up as a low priority, and we should not allow that to happen.
The amendments would guarantee that future Governments had to take action to protect our access to nature. They would ensure that nature was available to more people, not just those who can afford to access it. We need that to change, because there are already serious inequalities in access to open spaces. Only 57% of adults in the UK live within a five-minute walk of green space, whether a park, field or canal path, but even that disappointing headline figure hides significant further inequalities.
Only two in five people from black and other minority ethnic communities say that they can walk to a green space within five minutes. Adults with a household income below £15,000 are twice as likely to say that they cannot access green space as those with a household income of £70,000. One in four people in my local area of Salford is in that first income band. People in the most deprived areas of England tend to have the poorest health and significantly less green space than those in wealthier areas. We need to do much more to ensure that access to nature is equitable for everyone.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will set targets for public access to nature, and that they will include widening access to ensure that more people are able to enjoy it? Such targets are only the first step. We will also need concerted action, such as subsidies to farmers to promote access over their land, and the promotion of public transport links from inner-city areas to green, open spaces and the countryside. Without such action and clear targets to prompt it, there remains a danger that access to nature will continue to be denied to many people, so I urge the Government to accept the amendments.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Before the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) gave her contribution over video link, I thought I would be the only Member to speak without tabling a new clause or amendment. The truth is that I actually quite like this Bill—it is a good Bill. It feels like we are having a good day at the office. That does not mean that we should not be debating it, of course, and that is what I am here to do.
Chiefly, I am disappointed by the delay. Climate change is obviously the biggest, most strategic threat that we face as a country and a planet. We have the tactical immediate threat of coronavirus, of course. It is unfortunate, but understandable, that the legislative timetable split. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), I remain confident that the Bill will return in the next Session. I seek assurances from the Minister that my colleagues still have that ambition and enthusiasm to make sure that these changes become law.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The world has changed immeasurably in the year since the Bill’s First Reading. In the last 12 months covid-19 has devastated lives, torn through communities and paralysed economies across the globe. The pandemic has taken so much: lives, of course, but also hugs, handshakes, kisses, birthdays, Christmas and Eid. It has given, too: mental health issues, domestic violence and poverty. However, during the height of the pandemic the lockdown also gave us much lower emissions and much better air quality. Anecdotal evidence suggests, somewhat ironically, that those who suffer from certain respiratory illnesses fared much better during the first lockdown. That gives us a brief window into a post-pandemic future if we manage to take a hold of it. We need to create long-term structural change, underpinned by robust legislation.
In my city of Leeds, a person is 20 times more likely to die from air pollution than in a car accident—20 times. According to the Royal College of Physicians, across the UK, air pollution is responsible for 40,000 early deaths, at an economic cost of £20 billion a year. For that reason, I believe it is my moral duty to support amendment 25 to ensure that the particulate matter target for air quality is at least as strict as the WHO guidelines. That is a call I made when we introduced the charging clean air zone in Leeds, a commitment the Government have abandoned. We need to pass the amendment and reintroduce the clean air zone.
The State of Nature report says that UK species diversity is in freefall, with 15% of UK species at risk of becoming extinct. Some our most-loved animals, including Scottish wild cats, red squirrels and water voles, are at risk. I am the parliamentary species champion for the white-clawed crayfish. New clause 5 would give all those species a much better chance of survival. We also have bee-harming neonicotinoids. The UK Government recently granted emergency authorisation for sugar beet seeds to be treated by neonicotinoids. That is banned under EU law and we cannot allow it to come in through the back door, so we need to pass amendment 39.
Finally, on the OEP, its progress has been followed by the Environmental Audit Committee for three years. It is supposedly independent, but its budget, board and chair are set by the Government. Only recently, the Secretary of State said: “We will be able to guide the OEP.” It is worth noting that the Government have no comparable power in relation to any existing enforcement bodies. We therefore need to pass amendment 23 to bring a semblance of independence back to this important regulatory body, and ensure that we move forward and do not have another pause in this legislation.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
I am speaking from the Isle of Wight, where, in addition to being a UNESCO biosphere, we hope in the next couple of years to become the UK’s first island park, if the Government intend to bring forward the new protected landscapes Bill, as I clearly I hope they do.
I support this Bill very much—I think it is a great Bill—but I wish to speak in favour of new clauses 14 and 15 to argue the case for minimising the impact of housing on the environment. It is great that the Government want to design better, and frankly we need better design in this country, but a well-designed low-density greenfield housing estate is still a low-density greenfield housing estate, and these housing estates are, by nature, unsustainable. New clause 14 would allow for a handbrake to stop environmentally damaging housing, because it would, by law, prioritise carbon-efficient housing and carbon-efficient locations.
House building, along with everything else that we do, needs to align with the UK’s binding obligations in the Paris climate accords and carbon-efficient obligations, as well as the Government’s justified world-leading commitment to net zero by 2050. To do that, we need carbon-efficient housing solutions, and that implies a focus on cities as opposed to suburban and rural development. If we do not get that carbon-efficient housing in this Bill, as mandated by this new clause, then can we look at it for the housing Bill?
For me, this also means that we need to do more to incentivise brownfield development in not only suburban but rural areas. Very often brownfield sites are too small to be used efficiently under the current financial regime, and it is much cheaper to build inefficiently on greenfield sites. Greenfield sites, as well as being the most carbon-intensive because we are building detached houses, are also dependent on car use outside existing communities, which means dependence not only on carbon-emitting cars but on people having to travel to get to amenities rather than those amenities being built near them. Research provided by the House of Commons Library shows that homes built in urban areas are significantly less carbon-emitting than those built in suburban and rural areas.
I welcome this Bill, but can we please look at the legal requirement for the most carbon-efficient housing in the most carbon-efficient locations, not only for our climate change commitments but for quality of life in cities, in suburbs and in rural areas?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Like other Members, I am disappointed that the Government have failed to make significant progress with this Bill, especially given the urgent need to act to address not only the causes of climate change but biodiversity loss. In such an important year for climate change mitigation and adaptation, I hope that the Government will make a meaningful effort to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible in the next Session.
It is a pleasure to speak to several amendments, including new clause 9, which draws attention to our international commitments and the importance of action to protect our natural environment both here at home and abroad. In particular, I hope that the new clause will draw further attention to the plight of our forests—the lungs of our world and vital habitats for species great and small—in addition to the need for measures to discourage trade in products of deforestation abroad.
I hope that new clause 9 will also draw attention to an equally pertinent issue: the offshoring of our emissions and associated resource consumption. WWF believes that as much as 46% of the UK’s carbon footprint is not currently accounted for by national reporting or included in the UK’s net zero target. This simply must be addressed if we are serious about our role in tackling climate change.
The Bill also focuses minds on the constraints imposed by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 on action to protect our natural world across the four nations of the UK. This is reflected in amendment 40 and new clause 1, both of which Plaid Cymru will be supporting.
Wales is rightfully proud of its status as a world leader in recycling and a nation where sustainable development is a constitutional duty, yet one of the many reasons why the Senedd withheld consent from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and why the Welsh Government are now taking legal action against the UK Government is the issue of plastic pollution, as raised by the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Wales would be legally prohibited from taking action to restrict the use of single-use plastic under the Act’s non-discrimination clauses. These clauses not only make the Bill’s lack of ambition even more egregious, but draw attention to how the Government are hindering environmental action by working against, rather than with, the devolved nations and their record of action in this field.
We have a duty to do all we can to protect our natural world for present and future generations. We cannot afford to ignore this most profound duty, so I hope the Government will actively listen and reflect on the constructive debate we have had here today.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
Listening to the contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House on this Bill today has been a real pleasure; it is clear that there is widespread support for its ambitions and I share that. It has also been a pleasure to listen to my constituents over the past 12 months —to the schoolchildren, the farmers, the businesses and most of all to Laurinda and The Time is Now group—because it is clear that out in the country the ambitions that the Government have set in this Bill are equally shared and, as many have said, we are eager to see this Bill get on the statute book.
I want to focus on issues of biodiversity and housing and draw the Minister’s attention to the new clauses in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). In North East Bedfordshire we look to have one of the fastest rates of growth in housing development, and it is crucially important that whatever the level of housing—and of course those numbers need to come down—that housing development takes into account the maintenance, encouragement and resilience of the biodiversity in our local communities. I urge the Minister to listen to representations from the CPRE and also from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, based in my constituency, about the importance of biodiversity being incorporated in legislation when it comes to the expansion of housing developments and new developments across the country.
Finally, on the Minister and her team, it is clear that these ambitions, coming from all directions, at some point have to be corralled into a piece of legislation for the whole, and there are lots of tensions between what people want to achieve, but, as she and her colleagues will know, in addition to setting targets we must make sure that we maintain support and buy-in from the various constituents who are affected by those targets. I wish her all the best in bringing forward this Bill and give it my strong support today.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on the Opposition Front Bench said, the delay in the Bill’s progress sends a terrible message in view of the climate emergency. Now that we have left the EU, it is vital that we maintain the highest environmental standards, but this Bill replaces the EU’s comprehensive environmental protections with targets that the Secretary of State has near discretion to change at any time. That is why the amendments in this group are so important in seeking to maintain the independence of the OEP, placing duties on public authorities to act in accordance with key environmental principles, and enhancing protections for biodiversity. That is so important and is why we on these Benches support these amendments.
Many constituents have been in touch about amendment 39 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which seeks greater transparency in decisions on banned bee-and-other-species-killing pesticides. I want to say a few words in support, not least because the Welsh Government have led the way through their initiatives to make Wales a pollinator-friendly nation, and Newport City Council has also taken up the baton: we are a bee-friendly city. It is to be hoped that bee-friendly initiatives are having an effect, with a population of small scabious bees found in St Julian’s and the Gwent levels being home to the UK’s rarest bumblebee, the shrill carder bee. The Gwent Wildlife Trust and the RSPB are doing fantastic work locally. We know that bees’ importance to the ecosystem is towering. Some 90% of the world’s flowering plant species are dependent on insect pollination, and many species are dependent on bees because their food sources rely on pollination. Tragically, we know that bees are in decline. Reasons for the decline are various, but also include bee-killing insecticides, which were rightly banned across the EU in 2018. Although Ministers previously said that they would keep restrictions on pesticides in place, less than three years on, we now hear that they will allow them to treat sugar beet. This not only puts pollinator populations at risk, but sets a precedent that Ministers can strike out other hard-won protections. We must not allow that to happen.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a real privilege to be called to speak in this debate. Improving the environment is a topic that I am incredibly passionate about, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I start by saying that it has been great to serve on the Bill Committee for this piece of legislation. There is so much that is good in this Bill and I give particular thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) for her energy and enthusiasm in driving this Bill forward.
Protecting the environment and our natural environment is, without doubt, one of the greatest gifts that we can pass on to the next generation, and protecting the environment is something that is exceptionally close to my heart, and, of course, to many of my constituents. I want to focus my comments in this part of today’s debate on governance. This Bill is of crucial importance to providing a legal framework for our environmental governance for a post-Brexit global Britain. As it stands right now, our environmental law and policies are mostly driven by the European Union, but I know that, when it comes to the environment, the Government are keen to go further, and go beyond the baseline standards that we adopted while we were within the European Union.
All policy should be long term, but it is particularly important that environmental policy goes above and beyond, which is why I welcome the fact that the Environment Bill will allow the setting of new, long-term, legally binding and joined-up targets, focusing on air quality, biodiversity, water, waste reduction and resource efficiency. The Office for Environmental Protection will go a long way to deterring the breaches of environmental law. For far too long, many people have felt that breaches of environmental law in Britain have gone unchecked—it is almost as if they see those breaches as second or third-tier offences—and that enforcement power could be better spent elsewhere. Of course, that is wrong, which is why I am so pleased that the Office for Environmental Protection will be given the flexibility to go a long way to help change that. Damaging the environment damages us all, and I therefore stress to the Minister that, on this point, it is vital that the OEP is fully independent and properly funded to have teeth and weight to take action, and that it is allowed to take the enforcement action that it deems necessary.
In conclusion, there is always much more that we can do, and I urge the Government to push this piece of legislation forward at pace. We all have a duty to leave the environment in a cleaner, greener state than we found it, and this Bill helps to achieve that.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Despite the infectious enthusiasm of the Minister, I have to say that, sadly, the deficiencies of the Bill bolster my scepticism about the Prime Minister’s supposedly Damascene conversion to eco-warrior from someone who, in only 2015, claimed that the science surrounding warming temperatures was “without foundation”. But if his Government want to prove me wrong, they certainly have the chance to do so today. First, they could support new clause 9, which would provide that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with an environmental objective to achieve and maintain: biodiversity; support for human health and wellbeing; and sustainable use of resources. The new clause includes specified environmental commitments that have been made by the Government including in the UN Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of September 2020 and under the Climate Change Act 2008.
Secondly, the Government should support amendments 25 and 2, whose principles are supported by the British Lung Foundation. These amendments set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. As it stands, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition for the achievement of this target. I stress to the Minister the importance of these amendments to my constituents. A 2018 report showed that Salford and Manchester were in breach of these WHO guidelines, and air pollution, primarily caused by vehicles, is said to contribute to at least 1,200 deaths a year across Greater Manchester.
Finally, the Government should support amendment 39. There is huge concern about the decision to allow a derogation regarding the use of certain neonicotinoids. The decision goes against all commitments that the Government made to help nature, including an explicit pledge to keep pesticide restrictions after Brexit. Without the scrutiny that amendment 39 would provide, there is a significant risk that the emergency authorisation of such pesticides could sadly become a common occurrence.
There are so many additional amendments in this section that have been eloquently articulated by Members today, but it is clear that we are in a climate and ecological emergency, and that we need this Environment Bill to create the highest of environmental standards. Without the changes outlined, it simply does not do that; it is just greenwash.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
This is a good and welcome Bill. I support it, but I want it to go further, which is why I have put my name to amendment 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). One area in particular in which we should go further, and which is of concern to my constituents, is in relation to PM2.5 particulate pollution, which is perhaps the most dangerous type of pollution to human health. Its impact on things such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer are well documented.
I recognise that the Bill as it stands commits to bringing a new target for PM2.5 before Parliament by October 2022. It is what Ministers have always said in previous debates and it is good, but we need to go further. The Bill does not, for example, commit to reaching World Health Organisation guidelines and does not give a timescale for adoption, even though Ministers have said that that is their ambition.
As I understand it—it has been said in the House previously—past DEFRA studies have shown that we can achieve the WHO standard of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. That would be a reasonable timeframe, and, if it can be done, there is no reason why we should not put it into the Bill. It is an important issue, even in a constituency such as mine—a comparatively leafy London suburb, which has better scores on pollution than many parts of London, but is still above the UK average in a number of respects—and it is a matter of real concern for my constituents. Putting that commitment, which we want to achieve anyway, on the face of the Bill would show willing on our part towards our own citizens. It is also worth saying that it would increase our influence on these matters abroad, because, at the end of the day, these matters have to be tackled internationally.
There is a great deal of focus on the integrated review that is under way, and many countries have punched above their weight by taking a lead on this issue. New Zealand is a great example, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. If we were to set out our stall and commit ourselves to tackling PM2.5 pollution in this way on the face of the Bill, that would be a really positive message for global Britain, particularly in the run-up to COP26 in November. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will indicate that the Government want to move forward positively and vigorously on this, and I suggest that that is a way they can do so.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
A number of my constituents have contacted me to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection should be an independent and powerful body capable of ensuring that the Government uphold environmental laws on everything from plastic pollution to air quality. They are concerned about clause 24 of the Bill and have pointed out that, if the Government have the power to tell the Office for Environmental Protection how to do its job, the office cannot be truly effective; I very much share their concerns. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has remarked that it is
“essential that every step is taken to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is as independent from the Government as possible, to give the public confidence that the Government will be properly held to account on its duty to protect the environment.”
I therefore support amendment 23, which would delete clause 24.
The quality of the air we breathe is vital to our wellbeing. One of my constituents wrote to me last week to say that air pollution is a daily issue for her and others like her suffering with lung conditions. She told me how, on days when air pollution is high, her symptoms can flare up so badly that she is unable to leave her home. The Government have already committed to adopting a new binding target for PM2.5 through the Bill. However, as Friends of the Earth has pointed out, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition or a deadline for its achievements. Amendment 25 is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guideline of below 10 micrograms per cubic metre, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
I now turn to the matter of bees. I pay tribute to the work of Flourish at Ford Way in Upton for the work it does in keeping hives and producing excellent honey. More than 50,000 people have signed The Wildlife Trusts’ petition urging the Prime Minister to overturn the Environment Secretary’s recent authorisation of the emergency use of a bee-killing pesticide for farmers to use on sugar beet crops in England. That shows the real strength of public feeling on this issue.
Amendment 39 would require Ministers to allow parliamentary scrutiny of exemptions granted to allow plant protection products banned under retained EU law, such as neonicotinoid pesticides, where they are likely to impact bees and other species covered by an environmental improvement plan. In conclusion, I urge Members to back these key amendments to ensure the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection, improve air quality and protect bees.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I am glad that this Bill has finally returned to the Commons after months of delay. It has been a frustratingly long time since I took part in prelegislative scrutiny as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it is nearly a year since I attended the first meeting of the Public Bill Committee. We are now told that we need to wait months more for the second day of Report stage and for the Bill to become law. The Bill should have been in place before the end of transition. Can we even be sure now that it will be in place before COP26? There is absolutely no excuse for the Government’s laxity, and one can only attribute it to a lack of ambition and urgency in tackling the nature and climate emergencies.
Leaving the EU without a fully functioning, properly resourced and independent Office for Environmental Protection that can take public authorities to court over the most serious breaches of environmental law leaves a regulatory gap, which so many of us warned against. We were promised that the Office for Environmental Protection would be located in Bristol, with the creation of 120 jobs. That was publicly reported, and I was told it by Ministers on more than one occasion, yet the Minister has today announced without a hint of shame—in fact, with more than a hint of smugness—that the OEP will be based in Worcester. She can rest assured that I will be seeking an explanation from her as to why this hugely disappointing and, given Bristol’s record, inexplicable decision was made.
This Bill is not all it could be and needs to be strengthened. Labour’s new clause 9 would place firm duties on officials to achieve and maintain biodiversity, human health and sustainable use of resources. New clause 1 would put a duty on public officials to act in accordance with environmental principles. Again, we were repeatedly told during prelegislative scrutiny that a policy statement on environmental principles would be published imminently, so where is it, or was that just another ploy to stave off awkward questioning at the time?
New clause 5 would set the equivalent of the net zero target for tackling the decline in nature by 2030, to begin to reverse the devastating losses we have seen in recent decades. We need such protections in law because, as we have seen repeatedly, the Government’s actions do not always match their words. For example, amendment 39, which would allow parliamentary scrutiny of the use of harmful pesticides such as bee-killing neonicotinoids, was tabled in response to the Government’s emergency authorisation of the use of those pesticides. Labour will always back good British farming practices and farmers but, faced with a devastating decline in biodiversity and our bee populations, we cannot uncritically give the green light, without scrutiny, to the use of harmful pesticides.
To conclude, the Bill needs to be better, the OEP needs to be stronger, and we need proper environmental governance in place without further delay. The natural world is in crisis and we must do all we can to address that, not just the bare minimum.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Last week, my constituents were given a salutary reminder of the very real threat that we face from the climate and ecological emergency that Parliament declared just 18 months ago: we faced the worst floods—potentially—in living memory, with water levels more than 1 metre higher than ever previously recorded. We were saved because the River Alt burst its banks and demolished an embankment over a 30-mile stretch, bursting into floodplain rather than flooding 500 or so properties in Maghull in my constituency. That is one reason why new clause 9 is so important: it would mean that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with environmental objectives. We were lucky with the flooding last week but we may not be next time. That is one good example.
The red squirrels in Formby in my constituency, which are looked after by the National Trust, desperately need the intervention of new clause 5, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Local action to support them is no substitute for wider action on habitat and species, so that new clause is an important and necessary step.
Let me turn to air quality and the importance of the amendments on that subject. The Government want to build an access road to the port of Liverpool. The people who live near the port of Liverpool have a life expectancy that is among the lowest in the country, living 10 years fewer than those just 2 miles away. We heard earlier from Members that 40,000 people a year die because of poor air quality, so why do we not have a system in government in which everybody, including the Department for Transport, plays their part? We should not be building new roads to improve transport in isolation, but should take account of air quality and the need to protect people, as well as the effect on the climate. It should be a rail link rather than a road. That is the third element in my constituency that brings to life what the Bill means in practice.
All three of those elements, in common, indicate why the Office for Environmental Protection must have teeth to be able to intervene across Government. It cannot be that so-called guidance from the Secretary of State can intervene, interfere and dilute the OEP’s effectiveness. So much work is needed on these policy areas—I gave three examples just from my constituency, and there are so many more. We must pass the amendments I have mentioned, the legislation must go on to the statute book quickly, and for this country, my constituents and the world, we must have the intervention now.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to speak to the Bill on Report. My constituency is a green and pleasant place, by and large, but we have seen our fair share of environmental damage and change, and we still endure landfill sites and the scars of our industrial heritage. Environmental issues of all kinds are hugely important to my constituents, including the schoolchildren I speak to, such as those at Birtley East Primary School, who told me that they had written to the Prime Minister, as they had to me, to persuade us that we must protect the environment for their sake.
I wish to comment on the group of amendments on oversight and environmental protection. The Bill is welcome, but we have to take the opportunity to make sure that it really hits the spot—that it has the strength to protect our environment locally and nationally and also contributes to environmental protection internationally and globally. From talking to many environmental organisations, it is clear to me that there is widespread agreement that we need to build stronger measures into the Bill. We need targets and we need to build in independence for the Office for Environmental Protection. Most of all, we need to see the Bill become law. It is sad that there is a delay, but we must see this Bill become law urgently, and certainly before COP26 in Glasgow.
I would like to speak briefly about new clause 9. This House has already declared a climate emergency, so it is right that the Bill really tackles that emergency in a consistent and ambitious way. New clause 9, as we have heard from previous speakers, provides that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with an overarching environmental objective.
On amendment 23, we have already mentioned that the Office for Environmental Protection needs to be independent of Government. As others have said, clause 24, which was added by the Government in Committee, allows the Secretary of State to provide guidance. We really need that independence, so I hope the amendment will be supported.
On amendment 39, I am sure that most hon. Members, like me, have been flooded with representations on the granting of the licence to use neonicotinoids. It is right that we have proper scrutiny when such licences are granted. In fact, we should not be granting them at all. There are difficult decisions to be made on environmental issues, and we really need to step up and try to make them.
Finally, on amendment 25 on air quality, it is becoming more and more important that our air quality is a health and environmental issue, so I support this amendment. There is so much more that I would like to say on different parts of the Bill, but I do not have time today. I hope this debate today will help us to make those tough decisions.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I share with many others the frustration at the delay of this Bill, which started out long before other pieces of legislation, including some incredibly consequential Bills on Brexit that were rammed through with minimal scrutiny. I want to focus in particular on Government amendment 20 and, briefly, new clause 17, and I offer my support for other progressive amendments.
By way of context, arising from the protocol there is a greater ongoing requirement for Northern Ireland to remain aligned to the European Union. This is a good thing. However, governance needs to be considered separately from policy. It should go without saying that independence and an ability to prosecute effectively are critical to the Office for Environmental Protection, but that is not the case.
This Bill grants the Secretary of State in England and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland the power to issue guidance to the OEP on certain matters that must be included in the OEP’s enforcement policy. The Government claim that the new power does not grant the Secretary of State or DAERA any ability to intervene in decision making about civic or individual cases, and that the OEP does not have to act strictly in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.
While technically correct, it is clear, especially in the context of all the other Government amendments, that the new power will have the effect of allocating Ministers a central role in shaping the basic principles of the watchdog and a severely constraining effect on the OEP’s ability to act independently. This power to provide guidance therefore inverts the intended hierarchy, in which the OEP oversees Ministers, in that it gives Ministers the role of overseeing the OEP. I do not believe that this role has been given sufficient scrutiny in Northern Ireland with respect to the role of DAERA.
I also want to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection is not the summit of environmental governance in Northern Ireland. The New Decade, New Approach agreement, which restored the Northern Ireland Executive this time last year, contained a commitment to an independent environmental protection agency. This will be different in its scope and role from the OEP, and the OEP should not be used as an excuse for not proceeding with an EPA.
Finally, I want to speak very briefly in support of new clause 17. The pandemic has laid bare the need for a new outlook on our economy and wider society. We need to look, therefore, at a new, more holistic and inclusive economic model, including more sophisticated economic objectives and indicators such as environmental regeneration, renewable energy and the UK’s impact overseas, alongside health, incomes, security, equality, inclusion, affordable housing and the wellbeing of future generations.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
For all that hon. Members have said that this is a good and necessary Bill, devolution means that it will not have a huge impact on my constituents. The aspects of it that will have an impact have received legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament, which was an important step. More widely, legislative consent needs to be respected by the UK Government more often that just when it happens to suit them.
Amendments 43 and 44, in the names of my SNP and Plaid Cymru colleagues, will not be voted on, but the importance of the principles behind them remains. They would remove the exemptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles and environmental law. They would also remove the exemptions for tax, spending and the allocation of resources.
We know of the long-term problems caused by munitions dumped at Beaufort’s Dyke between Scotland and Northern Ireland, the impact that military research can have on the environment, the radioactivity on beaches in Fife and the long-term problems left by the decommissioning of nuclear-powered submarines. They have all left us with a literally toxic environmental legacy. Like decisions about taxation, spending and allocating resources, decisions about those matters cannot be divorced from their environmental impact, and the Government cannot be exempted from their wider responsibilities in those regards. This is not about subordinating security or decisions about the economy to the needs of the environment or vice versa; it is about ensuring that the wider policy considerations and responsibilities for the environment are given due regard at all times in the decision-making process.
It is important to recognise that the EU has some of the strongest environmental targets, laws and protections in the world, and our departure has put them under threat. As an EU member, the UK was forced to match those standards. Unlike the Scottish Parliament’s EU continuity Bill, this Bill sadly does not include any non-regression clauses in that regard. The promises of non-regression rely on the intent of this and future Governments to stand by that pledge. It would give me and a great many others much greater assurance about the Government’s good intentions if they were to allow the insertion of a non-regression principle into the Bill as it progresses through the other place.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
In the winter of 2019-20, the people of Hull planted 1,300 alder buckthorn trees as part of the butterfly city community initiative. That was done with Hull City Council, local primary schools and community orchard and garden groups across the city. The principal aim was to benefit the brimstone butterfly, as the leaves are food for it, but it was also important to start a conversation about biodiversity.
The planting of the trees was not just about biodiversity; it was also to help to clean our air. Improving the quality of the air we breathe is a priority for Hull. In 2017, the last year for which records are available, Centre for Cities analysis estimated that more than 1,500 deaths in Hull—one in 20—were due to air pollution, making it the most badly affected place in Yorkshire. The major disease-causing component of air pollution is known as fine particulate matter or PM2.5. It can be any solid or liquid particles that are smaller than 2.5 micrometres suspended in the air. The tiny size of the particles makes that form of pollution effectively invisible to the human eye. It is not smog or the haze that we normally associate with pollution, it can even be present on what appears to be a clear and sunny day.
There is no effective defence—no mitigation—if we live in an area of high levels. The particles settle in our airways and are small enough to enter our bloodstream. A study by King’s College London of people living within 50 metres of a major road showed that roadside air pollution can stunt children’s lung growth, make asthmatic children more likely to cough and raise people’s risk of a heart attack, stroke, heart disease and lung cancer. Studies from around the world have linked PM2.5 to low birth rates, diabetes and diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Air pollution has a cost not just in terms of health and quality of life, but an estimated financial cost of up to £20 billion a year. Based on 2018 data, it is estimated that more than 22 million people in the UK live in areas with levels of PM2.5 above those recommended by the World Health Organisation, yet those deadly levels of air pollution are entirely legal. The Government are well aware of the problems, the costs and the number of deaths. The 2019 air quality strategy clearly states:
“Air quality is the largest environmental health risk in the UK.”
The Labour party wants this country to be the best to grow up in and the best to grow old in, and we want that for everyone, regardless of where they happen to live. That is why we are calling for the adoption into law of the World Health Organisation air quality standards. I urge the Government to take action today, clean up the air and accept our amendment.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
This Bill has had an exceptionally long gestation, and it is a matter of great regret to me and to my party that, unfortunately, we have learned today that it is to be delayed even further. This should be an area where there is an easy consensus to be built. Surely, in the year when we are due to host COP26, this should be a matter that brings all parties together to achieve meaningful advance. It is a matter of infinite regret that we are not able to do so.
My first plea to the Minister and the Government is this. If we are to have further delay, can we please use the time a bit better than we have so far? Can we ensure that when we host COP26 later this year, we can point to a significant achievement as an instance where we are leading the world, rather than being pulled along in this area of vital importance to all future generations?
I worked regularly with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), on the subject of plastic pollution when she was on the Back Benches. It pains me to say that in that respect, the Bill is a major disappointment. We realise that as a consequence of many of the short-term changes that were necessary to tackle the pandemic, the progress that we had been making on the use of single-use plastic has been put on the back burner. That is regrettable, and possibly necessary, but a concerted effort by the Government is required. The pandemic and the restrictions under which we are living will not last forever, but it feels as though the plastic pollution that we are generating now will do so. It will certainly be with us for decades. That is why we must look to the lessons of how we constructed the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, and get on with the business of setting meaningful targets and having meaningful ways of holding the Government to account for meeting them.
The Minister has new clause 11, from her colleague the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). Surely that could be given greater impetus now that more time is to be put into the management of this Bill. When she was on the Back Benches, the Minister worked well on the subject with people from across the House. Will she carry on doing that work as a Minister on the Front Bench?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Government amendments that were made in Committee to clarify the enforcement powers in England of the Office for Environmental Protection, and particularly the fact that further amendments will be made to ensure that they remain aligned with the OEP functions in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that will be the case. I am aware that there has been co-operation with Northern Ireland Ministers, who have requested that these amendments also be made in relation to Northern Ireland, but I welcome their inclusion and this alignment. If only we could see something similar in all aspects of our governance, such as trade, we would be in a much healthier position, with full shelves—but perhaps that is another debate for another day.
I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about plastic pollution, and I request, as he did, that Ministers and Government make a concerted effort to maintain the reduction of plastic pollution. Although we have seen a lot of reduction, we still need more. Enforceability is always a concern of mine. It is right and proper that we introduce greater, more effective legislation, but it is no use unless there is no doubt about the interpretation of the OEP enforcement provisions and the courts’ ability to grant remedies. Many of us would like to ensure that there is no doubt that the courts can and will enforce the Bill’s provisions.
I am a country sports enthusiast, as I am sure the Minister knows, and part of my being a country sports enthusiast is a dedication and commitment to conservation. That is why the Bill is important; it is an essential component of our moving forward, and that is what I always seek to ensure. It is right and proper that there is a legislative obligation to think about environmental principles and I welcome this addition.
However, some constituents have made it clear that they believe the Bill does not go far enough. I seek further clarification from the Minister. Would she be so kind, during her summing up, to outline the rationale behind excluding defence and procurement from these obligations? Every Government Department should play its part. Whilst it should not be the priority of Defence to think of the economy first—the safety of the nation is first—my constituents believe there could still be an obligation to give consideration to the impact within the process of reaching decisions.
I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. When it comes to the environment, we believe that more could be done to ensure that Government works with developers to help ensure that new projects are much more sustainable. For example, instead of a developer being responsible for the full price of sewer works, and putting in the least that can be expected to enable them to turn a profit, surely Government or local council assistance to put in long-term environmentally sustainable, more costly infrastructure will benefit us all. I also want to put in a word for the importance of air quality, insulation, heating and play areas—the improvement of all buildings in the future.
I am conscious that the Minister has a lot on her plate—a lot of questions to answer—but I thank her for the time and hope she can take these points on board.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by thanking my constituents who have contributed to this debate by sending me emails.
We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Considering the scale and urgency of the crisis we are facing, it is staggering that the Government have seen fit to postpone the Bill yet again. We have a responsibility to take rapid and radical action towards sustainability and environmental protection. Delaying this core piece of legislation is a major setback to that work. In the run-up to hosting COP26 later this year, the Bill should be an absolute priority, as should commitment to maintaining and enhancing environmental protection. That it is not, speaks volumes about the commitment of this Government to the environment, to our global responsibilities and to future generations.
The Bill, as it stands, has been called a missed opportunity by the Environmental Audit Committee, and has failed to enshrine action on climate change at the heart of Government policy. Environmental campaigners and organisations across the board have been clear that we need ambitious targets, enforced by a fully independent watchdog, with significant powers to actively dissuade the contravention of environmental legislation. However, if the watchdog is to be effective, it must be capable of holding the Government to account, and that means full independence and serious powers to prosecute and impose financial penalties. The Bill currently allows the OEP to be guided by the Secretary of State, threatening to turn it from a watchdog into a lapdog.
I support many of the various amendments that have been tabled today to strengthen the Bill, including amendment 23, which would ensure the independence of the OEP. With the extra time we now have due to the postponement of the Bill, we could go even further. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will take on board the recommendations of countless environmental campaign groups, endless research projects and recognition by the UN itself that the environmental crisis cannot be tackled without powerful legislation and a fundamental rethink of our economic strategy?
The Bill must take the opportunity to put forward a radical vision that puts climate justice and sustainability at the heart of government through a massive programme of investment and regulation, to offer every worker in high-carbon and unsustainable industries the option of retraining, and to be relocated into high-skill, high-wage jobs in their own communities, from insulating houses to green tech to expanding public transport. “Redeployment not redundancies” must be the strategy. The working class must not pay the price for the corporate greed ravaging the Earth. Instead, strategic support and investment must be undertaken to protect both people and planet, clamp down on tax avoidance and use the income to generate sustainable jobs and invest in a carbon-zero economy. Tinkering at the edges is not an option; the Government must take the rapid and radical action needed to get a grip.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I will be voting in favour of amendment 25 to the Environment Bill, to embed World Health Organisation targets on air quality; amendment 23, to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is truly independent; and new clause 9, to enforce commitments to protect biodiversity, health and wellbeing, and the sustainable use of resources. However, due to time constraints, I will focus on Labour’s amendment 39, and the importance of Parliament scrutinising the granting of any exemptions for the use of banned pesticides.
I share the concerns of my Luton South constituents who have contacted me, and the more than 50,000 people who have signed the Wildlife Trust’s petition about protecting bees from the use of neonicotinoids. Their existence is too important to the functioning and survival of ecosystems, so the protection of bees is non-negotiable. It is important to recognise, though, that bees are not just in rural areas: the bees in Luton South produce the delicious High Town Honey just around the corner from me, which has won several prizes at the Bedfordshire Beekeepers Association honey show. The decline of bees will have a disastrous impact on food security. Bees pollinate around 70% of the fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds we eat, but in the UK 13 bee species are already extinct, and one in 10 of Europe’s wild bee species is under threat.
The Secretary of State has authorised farmers to use neonicotinoids on sugar beet crops, even though it is widely recognised that they kill bees. The Government’s justification that sugar beet is not a flowering crop, and therefore the risk is acceptable, does not stand up to scrutiny. A similar application for the use of neonicotinoids in 2018 was refused by the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides because of “unacceptable environmental risks.” This is not to say that overall, I do not recognise the genuine concerns of sugar beet growers across the east of England, but the Government should back farmers to help create a sustainable solution through better support for the sector, accelerating the introduction of blight-resistant crops, and including allowances for crop loss in next year’s sugar contracts.
The Government’s decision to allow the use of banned pesticides has too big a consequence for there to be no parliamentary scrutiny. The emergency authorisation of pesticides must never become common practice. The Government have a clear choice today: vote to speed up the decline of our bee population, or uphold the ban, allow parliamentary scrutiny of future exemptions, and save our bees.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank hon. Members for their co-operation: we have managed to get everybody from the Back Benches in during this debate. I now call the Minister, Rebecca Pow.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an absolute pleasure to have you in the seat today—the hot seat, as I like to call it.
I thank all those right hon. and hon. Friends and Members who have tabled amendments and contributed to today’s debate, helping to scrutinise this Bill. They have highlighted the importance that so many people place on the issue of the environment, and how important it is that we tackle biodiversity loss, climate change, and environmental risks to public health. In particular, I thank those Members who are so positive about this Bill—which, of course, I am as well—including my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), who has done so much work with his faith groups on the issue of the environment. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for their enthusiasm. This is a phenomenal ambition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North said, and it is a good day at the office—in fact, it is very exciting to get out of the office.
I will start with the environmental principles, and respond to the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members. We are legislating to ensure that the environment is front and centre of our future policy making; however, we need to ensure that our approach is balanced. That is why we must reject new clause 1 and amendment 1 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), about which she spoke so eloquently in her opening speech. We must also reject amendments 43 and 44.
Removing the requirement to act proportionately, as set out in amendment 1, would require Ministers to prioritise the principles even where they incur significant disproportionate costs to society, or hinder innovation and sustainable development. This is not our intention. Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), I will clarify that contrary to her comments, this is not an England-only Bill. Over half its measures extend beyond England, bringing benefits right across the UK.
Caroline Lucas [V]
I thank all Members for their important contributions to the debate, but there is really only one test that matters when it comes to this Bill: does it improve on the protections that we enjoyed as EU members, and is it up to the challenge of the accelerating nature and climate emergencies? Sadly, the answer is no on both counts.
Time and again this afternoon, we have heard that the Bill lacks both ambition and urgency. As many hon. Members have said, with two vital UN meetings on biodiversity and climate this year, it is even more important that we have our own house in order. We cannot hope to influence the performance of other countries if we have not demonstrated leadership in our own domestic policy.
I particularly support those speeches in favour of more ambitious, legally enforceable air quality targets, which are needed now. A number of hon. Members made reference to the tragic death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah. Strong, binding legislation would be the only fitting tribute to her and to her mother, who has campaigned so tirelessly for that. I welcome the fact that the Minister has said she will look at it again.
On the state of nature, the case for legally binding interim targets was powerfully made by Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will take account of that. I noticed that she did not commit to legally binding targets for 2030, or that the interim targets should be binding, yet that is essential if we are to improve on the Government’s woeful record; they have actually gone backwards on six of the 20 UN biodiversity targets.
I am not reassured by what the Minister said about the independence of the OEP or the strength of the environmental principles. On the OEP, she says that the guidance is intended simply to address ambiguities. That is not the way the Bill is written. The Bill is written in such a way that Ministers will be able to give instruction to that body, not least because they will also give it its budget and have a major say on who makes up its board. That means that the Government will have a disproportionate impact on the OEP, which should be truly independent.
On the principles, I noticed with interest that the Minister appears to have given up trying to persuade us that “due regard” is at least as strong as “in accordance with”. I assume that is because she recognises that that case cannot be made because it is simply not true. In that case, I hope she will undertake to revise that element of the Bill.
The Minister says that applying the principles to public bodies as well as to Ministers is too burdensome. I remind her that it simply replicates what we enjoyed as members of the EU, which was not seen to be too burdensome, and that her Government promised that they would increase the ambition of EU legislation, not water it down in this way. The Environmental Audit Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny, concluded:
“This aspect of the Bill is not fit for purpose.”
The Committee recommended that the principles should be
“put on an unqualified legal basis”
and extended to all public bodies, and I echo that conclusion.
I take heart from the strong statements of support for more ambitious action on the environment from Members on both sides of the House, but those on the Government side need to understand that, as it is currently drafted, the Bill will not even make up for the protections we have lost as a result of leaving the EU, let alone improve on them, and that unless we fix our broken economic system as my new clause 17 sets out, we will not achieve anything like sustainability anywhere near fast enough.
I urge the Minister again to use the time gained by the delay to the Bill to increase its strength and ambition. It could not be more urgent. Over the course of my lifetime alone, populations of some of our most important wildlife have plummeted by over half, and over 15% of species are now threatened with extinction. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said in his powerful speech, if we are not going to be ambitious now, when are we? New clause 1 would re-establish a legally binding architecture for essential environmental protections, and I would therefore like to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Environmental impact of nappy waste—
“(1) Schedule [Environmental impact of nappy waste] confers powers on the relevant national authority to make regulations about environmental standards for nappies.
(2) The relevant national authority means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers or the Secretary of State;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State;
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State.
(3) Regulations are subjective to the negative procedure.”
The new clause enables the addition of NS1 which is intended to reduce the impact on the environment of disposable nappies, and has been adapted from a Private Member’s Bill (Bill 299) on this matter.
New schedule 1—Environmental impact of nappy waste—
“Nappy waste impact reduction schemes
1 The relevant national authority must by regulations establish schemes to reduce the impact of nappies on the environment by—
(a) defining the characteristics required for a nappy to meet environmental standards;
(b) promoting nappies which meet environmental standards; and
(c) reporting on the steps taken to encourage local authorities to promote reuseable nappies and reduce nappy waste.
Environmental standards
2 (1) The relevant national authority must by regulations establish environmental standards for nappies.
(2) The standards must define the characteristics required for a nappy to be traded, advertised or promoted as—
(a) “reusable”;
(b) “biodegradable”;
(c) “eco-friendly”;
(d) “environmentally friendly”; and
(e) other such similar terms as may be defined in the standards.
(3) The regulations may provide for nappies or the packaging in which they are contained to bear a mark signifying that they meet the environmental standards.
(4) The trading, advertising or promotion of a nappy is an unfair commercial practice for the purposes of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277) if—
(a) that nappy is described using a term used in sub-sub-paragraphs (2)(a) to (d) or a similar term defined in regulations under sub-paragraph (1) but does not meet the relevant standards, or
(b) that nappy or its packaging bears the mark in sub-paragraph (3) but does not meet the relevant standards.
Promotion of nappies that meet environmental standards
3 (1) The relevant national authority must by regulations establish a scheme to promote nappies that meet the environmental standards in paragraph 2.
(2) The scheme must be a collaboration between public bodies and the nappy industry.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a levy to be paid by persons who manufacture or trade in nappies for the purpose of meeting the operating expenses of the scheme.
(4) The scheme must provide public information on—
(a) the effects of disposable nappies on the environment;
(b) the financial advantages of reusable nappies for families and local authorities; and
(c) other advantages of nappies that meet the standards in paragraph 2.
Local authority reusable nappy schemes
4 (1) The relevant national authority must prepare a report on steps that will be taken to encourage local authorities to operate schemes to—
(a) promote the use of reusable nappies, and
(b) reduce nappy waste.
(2) In preparing that report, the relevant national authority must consult—
(a) operators of existing reusable nappy schemes,
(b) local authorities involved in those schemes,
(c) parents who have participated in such schemes,
(d) manufacturers of reusable nappies.
(3) The report must be laid—
(a) in relation to England, before Parliament;
(b) in relation to Wales, in Senedd Cymru;
(c) in relation to Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament; and
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, in the Northern Ireland Assembly; or in Parliament;
within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new schedule brings into the Bill the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill on Nappies (Environmental Standards) Bill (Bill 299) in order to define environmental standards for nappies, promote nappies that meet the standards, and report on local authority schemes to promote reuseable nappies and reduce nappy waste.
Government amendments 32 to 35.
New clause 6—Clean Air Duty—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual policy statement setting out how the Government is working to improve air quality, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The annual policy statement in subsection (1) must include—
(a) how public authorities are improving air quality, including indoor air quality; and
(b) how Government departments are working together to improve air quality, including indoor air quality.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, table a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on air quality, which includes indoor air quality and the work of public authorities and Government departments working together to improve it.
New clause 13—Air quality in rural areas: application of pesticides—
“(1) For the purposes of improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment in rural areas, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of pesticides for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—
(a) buildings used for human habitation; and
(b) public or private buildings and associated open spaces where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—
(i) schools and childcare nurseries;
(ii) hospitals and health care facilities.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1)(a) and (b) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide.
(3) In determining the distance in subsection (2), the Secretary of State must be guided by the optimum distance that would make significant difference in air quality for people using the locations listed in subsection (1).
(4) In this section “public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit the application and pollution of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by residents and members of the public, with the aim of improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment in rural areas.
Government amendment 7.
New clause 3—Phosphates Levels—
“In making decisions on planning decisions, the competent authority can disregard any impact of the potential build and its long-term consequences on the level of phosphates in the water.”
Amendment 42, in clause 78, page 71, line 16, after “licensee”, insert—
“or risk management authority, where risk management authority has the same meaning as in Part 1 Section 6 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010,”.
The amendment seeks to deliver the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation that water companies and local authorities should publish plans to manage surface water flood risk (e.g. from roads).
Amendment 3, in clause 82, page 79, line 22, after “damage” insert—
“, including damage from low flows”.
Amendment 30, in clause 82, page 80, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must prepare an annual report on water abstraction management.
(5) The annual report must—
(a) include data for the period covered on the volume of water in England—
(i) licensed for abstraction, and
(ii) abstracted.
(b) state whether the natural environment of these water sources has, or particular aspects of it have, improved during that period based on the data, and
(c) assess the impact of water abstraction in that period on the natural environment of chalk streams.
(6) The first annual report on water abstraction may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which this section comes into force.
(7) The annual report must be published and laid before Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which the report relates.”
The purpose of this amendment is to monitor more closely the environmental impact of water abstraction on chalk streams with annual reporting.
Government amendment 8.
New clause 18—REACH Regulation and animal testing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set targets for—
(a) the replacement of types of tests on animals conducted to protect human health and the environment within the scope of the REACH Regulation, and
(b) the reduction pending replacement of the numbers of animals used and the suffering they endure.
(2) A target under this section to reduce the suffering of animals must specify—
(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable of being objectively measured, and
(b) a date by which it is to be achieved.
(3) Regulations under this section may make provision about how a target that has been set is to be measured.
(4) A target under this section is initially set when the regulations setting it come into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing for the purposes of chemicals regulation.
Amendment 24, in schedule 20, page 244, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
(a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.”
This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.
Ruth Jones
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said in his remarks on the first group of amendments, this Bill has been a long time coming. I am delighted that the Bill is back before the House, but—and there is a “but”—the Minister and her colleagues have lengthened its passage even further by throwing day two of the Report stage into the long, long grass. Considering that the Bill became known as the missing in action Bill after it disappeared for more than 200 days before the Committee stage, that is not a good sign.
New clause 8 holds a key role in the priorities of Her Majesty’s Opposition with regard to this Bill and the important task of taking whatever steps are necessary in the fight to preserve our planet and protect our environment. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to take account of the waste hierarchy, starting with the priority action of prevention. A few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) filled in for me as shadow Minister at a Westminster Hall debate called by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). In his remarks, my hon. Friend was very clear that the collective task of tackling waste, improving recycling rates and taking the steps needed to protect our environment and preserve our planet is one that we need to do together—all of us. In his conclusion, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pressed the point about the need to look further at the waste hierarchy in dealing with waste. I agree with him. I look forward to him supporting new clause 8 in the Lobby tonight, and I hope he will bring some of his hon. Friends with him.
This Bill does not go far enough, and it did not have to be this way. Over the past two decades, the household waste recycling rate in England has increased significantly from just 11.2% to almost 50%. I am pleased that for half of that time a Labour Government ambitiously pushed for a change of behaviour and real action on the green agenda. However, England still falls far short of the EU target of recycling a minimum of 50% of household waste by 2020. Our departure from the EU does not mean that we should shift gear or slow down. We need to go further and faster.
As of 2018, Wales is the only nation in the UK to reach the target. In 2017, it recorded a recycling rate of 64%. Wales is recognised as third in Europe and fourth in the world in the recycling league championship. As the Member for Newport West in this House, I pay tribute to the Welsh Labour Government, particularly my right hon. Friend the First Minister and the Environment Minister, Lesley Griffiths.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Minister, I should explain that there are many people who wish to speak this evening, so there will have to be an immediate time limit of three minutes for Back-Bench speeches. I remind hon. Members that, when a speaking limit is in effect for Back Benchers, a countdown clock will be visible on the screens. Yesterday, quite a lot of people spoke for longer than the time limit, so I want to make sure that everyone knows that there is a clock in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. For the few Members who are participating here in the Chamber, the normal clock will apply.
Rebecca Pow
It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the second half of what I am sure will be a lively debate on this important Bill. This group covers waste and resources, air quality, water and the regulation of chemicals—all vital areas to improve on if we are to restore and enhance our environment.
The Environment Bill will deliver consistent recycling collections across England, including separate weekly food collections. We will tackle waste crime by ensuring that the tools we have at our disposal better reflect new methods and online mediums that criminals use. We will also be able to drive a revolution in our resource use, continuing our change towards a more sustainable, circular economy, which is the model set out in our waste and resources strategy. We will have powers to ban the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries, which is a key manifesto commitment. While I am on the subject of plastic, I would like to pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) and to reassure him that measures in the Bill will help him to tackle the scourge of plastic on his beautiful beaches in West Dorset, which I frequent myself—from Somerset.
The Bill will also enable reform throughout the product lifetime. Producers will be incentivised towards more sustainable design, through new resource efficiency requirements and extended producer responsibility. Single-use plastic charges and resource efficiency information will help consumers make better choices about products, and the introduction of a deposit return scheme for drinks containers, alluded to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones)—I am pleased that she brought that up—will drive better consumer choices and increase recycling. I would like to assure her that work is going on at great speed on that second consultation.
Technical Government amendments 32 to 35 correct references to existing legislation that is no longer in force following the end of the transition period. Measures in the Bill will also deliver key proposals in our clean air strategy, which the World Health Organisation has described as “world leading”. Not only will it address health concerns, but it is estimated to cut the costs of air pollution to society by £1.7 billion every year by 2020—well, that is by this year, so we have already been working on that—rising to £5.3 billion every year from 2030. We know that there is more to do and, through this Bill, local authorities will be better equipped to act through a clear framework and simple-to-use powers to address specific concerns in these areas.
The Government have already committed to stopping the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, and the Bill provides the Government with new powers to enforce environmental standards for vehicles. Government amendment 7 will mean that references to EU standards do not require updating to ensure that they are enforceable with this tough new vehicle recall power. It is a technical amendment that ends any risk that we will be unable to issue a recall affecting Northern Ireland.
Before I talk about the water section of the Bill, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his dedicated work on water issues and for being a dogged and determined advocate for our precious rivers.
Our climate is becoming less predictable, and we need to manage our water sources better to ensure resilience to future floods and droughts. The water measures in the Bill will help achieve the goals set out in our 25-year environment plan for clean and plentiful water and to reduce the risks of harm from environmental hazards. Water companies will have to produce drainage and sewerage management plans, which will set out how environmental risks, including sewage outflows into rivers, must be managed. Reforms to the abstraction licensing system will mean that less water is taken from our environment when it causes damage or harm.
I know that the health of our rivers, in terms of both flow levels and reducing sewage outflows, is of great concern to many Members; I have met so many of them to discuss this. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) has tabled amendment 42, and I look forward to hearing what I am sure will be an impassioned speech from him. However, I am pleased to inform the House that the Bill already delivers the outcomes he is seeking: less water taken where it damages our environment and less sewage spilling into our precious waterways. Water companies will be able to produce joint water resource management plans for the first time, enabling water transfers from areas with plentiful water to water-stressed areas. We will reform the system of internal drainage boards, ensuring that our water management system is fit for the future. Technical Government amendment 8 will update clause 91, as it currently refers to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which has now been superseded by the Sentencing Act 2020.
Finally, we will ensure that we are able to maintain an effective, efficient system of regulation for our world-leading chemicals industry now that we have left the EU. We have taken control of our domestic laws in this area through the UK REACH regime. I look forward to hearing the debate, in which I know many Members are eager to participate, and I hope to be able to cover many of the points raised at the end.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I had said that there would be a limit of three minutes, but so many Members who had informed the Speaker’s Office that they wished to take part in the debate have decided not to bother that there is rather more time for those who have taken the trouble to meet their obligations. We will therefore start with a time limit of four minutes for Back-Bench speeches, which does not apply to the SNP spokesperson, Mr David Linden.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is no surprise that you are so generous.
I have repeatedly spoken in the Chamber about the importance of protecting the environment for future generations. One issue that I have continued to raise—I did so in 2018, 2019, 2020 and I do so now in 2021—is that of disposable nappies and their impact on the environment. For several years, I have been working on this issue with Magnus Smyth of TotsBots, a company in the Queenslie area of my constituency that manufactures reusable and eco-friendly nappies. One of the issues that Magnus has raised is nappy companies that falsely tell their customers that they are eco-friendly. It is important that we level the playing field so that companies such as TotsBots can continue to produce eco-friendly products and encourage consumers to make more environmentally-conscious decisions.
New clause 10 outlines the crux of the issues around reusable and environmentally-friendly nappies. In summary, it states that powers should be granted to the relevant national authority to make regulations about environmental standards for nappies. Disposable nappies have a huge impact on the environment. To put that in context, around 3 billion single-use nappies are thrown away each year in the UK, weighing in at an estimated 690,000 tonnes. The use of single-use nappies by an average child over two and a half years would result in a global warming impact of approximately 550 kg of CO2 equivalents. Indeed, switching to reusable nappies or even using a mixture of both has hugely positive environmental consequences. A family that chooses reusable nappies can save about 99% of the waste that would be generated by using single-use ones. If only 20% of babies using single-use nappies switched to reusables, 1 million tonnes of waste could be prevented each year in the EU.
Neil Parish
In this second debate on the Environment Bill, I will speak to my amendment on air quality and in support of the amendment moved by the Opposition Front Bench.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has done three inquiries on air quality in the last five years, and we are just about to publish our new air quality report. We need cleaner air across the UK, particularly in the hotspots of our cities, to improve public health. The Government are starting to take this issue very seriously, and I am glad that we have a clean air strategy that aims to cut air pollution significantly.
I am also pleased that the Bill places a duty on the Government to set two air quality targets by October 2022, one of which is for particulate matter in ambient air. However, we can and should act sooner, with an ambitious target. PM2.5 is one of the most dangerous particulates because of its size, which means that it can be deposited in our lungs. The covid-19 pandemic has also likely resulted in a new cohort of people with ongoing breathing problems who may be more vulnerable to the harmful effects of air pollution. That is why I tabled my amendment on PM2.5. My amendment has cross-party support and seeks to put World Health Organisation guidelines for particulate matter into law, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. Ministers have said in the past that we should not accept such an amendment because we can be even more ambitious; so why not put the target in law today and then improve it afterwards, if we can do better?
It is important to work practically across the Government to improve air quality, because an ambitious target by itself is not going to fix the issue. In 2018, we did a Select Committee inquiry across four Select Committees to show how this issue can be solved by joined-up policy. DEFRA, the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Treasury need to work closely on this issue, and I believe that they are starting to do so.
The Government are now investing huge amounts of money in greener transport including electric cars. I welcome the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. With more ultra-low emissions vehicles, we need more charging stations, rapid chargers and other incentives to build confidence and help people to switch over to electric cars in the next decade. Road transport is one of the biggest causes of poor air quality, so this will help to reduce nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide in the air we breathe.
We also need more walking and cycling in urban areas, because it is not just the fuel that is dangerous, but tyre wear and brakes. That is why I am glad that more help is being given to local authorities so that they can plan and implement clean air zones. I know that Bath and North East Somerset Council is meant to be introducing a clean air zone in March, with Birmingham City Council doing the same in June. But in Bristol, for example, the Mayor has no control of the M32, which goes straight through the middle of the city, because it is run by Highways England. This is exactly why we need a joined-up approach across Government to solve the issue of poor air quality.
The Government should amend the Bill, and accept this cross-party amendment on air quality as it comes back in the next Session. We have done so much work to improve air quality and the environment already. I know that the Minister is passionate about this issue. Let us not go backwards. Let us go the extra mile and put ambitious air quality targets in law today.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) [V]
I tabled new clause 3 to draw attention to the environmental challenge and penalties facing Herefordshire. First, let me be absolutely clear: nobody wants to see more pollution or phosphates in the river—nobody. However, due to the levels of phosphate in the Wye, we have an ill thought out and ineffective housebuilding moratorium, imposed on us by a Dutch court through EU law. Implemented in October 2013, this moratorium was enacted to try to address the phosphate pollution in the Rivers Wye and Lugg. This is a serious issue that requires proper and effective action. It was hoped that Herefordshire Council, Natural England and the Environment Agency, and their Welsh equivalents, could come up with a tangible solution by which the threat could be stopped. After recent calls that I have had with these bodies, it is clear that there is still some way to go. I therefore tabled this new clause to have the subject heard in the House.
The threat of phosphates in watercourses is well known. Herefordshire is by no means alone, nor is it the worst polluted area in the country. Indeed, the river winds its way out of Powys into Herefordshire, then back into Monmouthshire where it forms the border with Gloucestershire, yet only Herefordshire has a moratorium. In the Environment Agency’s 2017 “State of the environment” report, 86% of English rivers had not reached good ecological status. High phosphate levels in the water can result in toxic algal blooms. These blooms deplete oxygen levels in the water by blocking out the light, resulting in fish and other organisms dying. The phosphates enter the watercourse through two primary means, the first being point source, where the main offender tends to be the sewage outlets—so called because it can generally be traced back to a wastewater pipe that is discharging into the river. The second means is diffuse sources, typically caused by run-off from agricultural land.
The ruling in Herefordshire occurred as a result of an EU legal case. On 7 November 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its judgment in two joined cases, which were related to the habitats directive and became known as the Dutch nitrogen case, or simply the Dutch case. The case in the Netherlands found that through their fertiliser application techniques, farmers were having a negative effect on EU-protected habitats. Assessments were required to be carried out to determine how to reverse and prevent further environmental damage. As a result of this ruling in a different country, Natural England updated its legal advice, which has since created significant problems for house builders in England, particularly those in Herefordshire.
This ruling has disproportionately affected the River Wye and the River Lugg. The Wye is a special area of conservation; the Lugg is a tributary of the Wye, and is designated as a site of special scientific interest. The Wye is the fourth longest river in England, and is home to plants such as water-crowfoot and wonderful Atlantic salmon stocks. It is a wonderful river that we need to protect for the future, and the way that that is being done at the moment is ineffective. It is by no means the worst-performing river in the country when it comes to phosphate pollution, and this problem can and must be solved. We have had meetings with the council, the Environment Agency, and Natural England and its Welsh equivalents. We need collaboration, and we need to make sure that the Government will support an improvement to the phosphate levels so that we can get our river back to where it needs to be.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). As I indicated on Second Reading in February last year, I very much support the Bill and the focus that the Government are placing on our environment.
In February, I referred to flooding that had recently occurred in my constituency. Very regrettably, I must report that the heavy rainfall of Storm Christoph has brought further disruption to local residents and businesses. Last Wednesday, high waters flowing down the River Clwyd destroyed the 19th-century Llanerch bridge, connecting Trefnant and Tremeirchion. I have already raised the issue of that bridge’s future with my hon. Friend the Minister, the local authority, and the Welsh historic environment service, Cadw. Such devastating events highlight the need for serious consideration of issues relating to water management. Increasing the responsibility of water companies and local authorities to plan how to manage flood risk more effectively is one way to reduce the impact of future floods, and I ask the Government to seriously consider the value of amendment 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
I am pleased that the Bill further contributes to the Government’s commitment to tackle air pollution. Clean air zones and the clean air strategy are important, as are the provisions in this Bill, but I believe that more can, and perhaps should, be done. A number of amendments that have been tabled seek to push the Government to improve air quality, including new clause 6 and amendment 2. The legal duty set out in the Bill to set a target for concentrations of the fine particulate matter known as PM2.5 could reduce the 36,000 annual deaths in Britain, primarily through cardiovascular and respiratory disease, that are linked to air pollution. Air quality will improve as a consequence of our national move towards net zero by 2050, but setting a bold target can act as an important driver in the interim.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I want to speak briefly in support of amendments 2 and 25 and new clause 6, all of which seek to tackle the health crisis caused by the current levels of air pollution. For my constituents living in a permanent air pollution blizzard, surrounded by Heathrow airport, the M4, the M25, the Uxbridge Road and the A40, this is literally a matter of life and death, and we have the threat of a third runway making matters worse.
The air pollution levels in my area are among the worst in the country and consistently above levels that are considered safe. The result is, of course, high levels of respiratory disease. At one stage, this reached such epidemic levels that I recall special arrangements having to be introduced in one of our primary schools for pupils to hand in their inhalers as they arrived in class, and courses were introduced for teachers across our borough in how to deal with asthmatic attacks and respiratory problems in pupils. But we know so much more now in my community about the impact of air pollution. It is not just about respiratory problems; it is the cause of heart disease among many of us, as well as cancers and, tragically for our children, even the risk of impeding their physical development.
The modest amendments that we propose today simply enhance our ability to tackle the air pollution epidemic. They set realistic targets. They require Government Departments to work together and they ensure through regular reports to Parliament that we can monitor their implementation. They also inject a sense of urgency into a programme of action to overcome the mounting threat of air pollution. The air my constituents breathe every day is poisoned by air pollution. It is killing us. Knowing as we do the tragic health impacts of air pollution, we have a responsibility to legislate to protect not only my constituents but communities across the country. That is what these amendments can assist us in doing.
Failure to act decisively now will render the Government and Parliament culpable of an appalling dereliction of duty, and future generations will simply fail to comprehend why we did not take the necessary action in this legislation. I urge Ministers to work with us on this and to accept the amendments and the new clause. Let us tackle this ongoing, life-threatening hazard once and for all. We desperately need this legislation to be effective this time round. It has already been delayed. We cannot wait any longer. Too many people are suffering ill-health and risking their lives. The covid pandemic has made them even more vulnerable. That is why there has to be a sense of urgency about passing this legislation, but ensuring it is complete and comprehensive so that this opportunity is not wasted.
Philip Dunne [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I thank him for his support for my private Member’s Bill, which I will touch on briefly. But my thanks primarily go to the Minister, who was generous while talking about my campaigning efforts to improve the water quality of our rivers, which I wish to talk about under part 5 and, in particular, in support of amendment 3 to clause 82 and amendment 42 to clause 78.
It has been clear to me for many years, but particularly this year as I have been campaigning to improve water quality by reducing sewage pollution to our rivers, how significant this issue has tragically become. Many people have been in touch with me through campaigning groups, all urging the Government to get behind my Bill.
I was delighted on Friday, when I was unable to be in the Chamber to debate my private Member’s Bill because sittings had been suspended, that as something of a consolation prize the Minister announced the Government’s support for the aims of my Bill. I look forward to a second consolation from the unfortunate development today—we hear that the Environment Bill will be deferred until the next parliamentary Session. I invite the Minister to use that time to work with me to bring into the appropriate legislative and regulatory space the many measures in my Bill that have significant support: they have support from 135 Members of this House today, on both sides of the House. I hope that, when she responds to the debate, she will give some encouraging noises to give me hope that that will happen. I am also grateful to her for establishing the storm overflows taskforce, which is the mechanism through which she is seeking to get advice from industry and campaigning groups to try to identify the measures that need to be undertaken.
Through the Environmental Audit Committee, we have launched an inquiry into water quality and we will be providing recommendations to the Government. The delay may mean that we are in a position to provide some recommendations through that Committee prior to the Bill appearing in the other place. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to use this time to introduce relevant amendments to the Bill as it passes through the Lords. We also hope to provide some help in assessing what the suitable water targets are under the Bill, which are so welcome, through the drainage and wastewater management plans laid out in the Bill.
I support the measures that I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) will talk about shortly. I also support the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), whose new clause 4 is widely supported by my constituents, not least members of the British Hedgehog Preservation Society, which is based in my constituency. It acknowledged the inclusion in July last year of the hedgehog in the red list of endangered British mammals.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to three minutes, but with four minutes, I call Sir Charles Walker.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to my amendment 3 to clause 82, which is signed by me and 16 colleagues, and which has also secured support from other speakers tonight. The Minister said that I was going to give an impassioned speech. I am afraid I am not, because it has been so easy doing business with her. Is not it wonderful in this place when we can sit down with Ministers and do business?
Before I move on, I would like to thank some chalk stream campaigners: Paul Jennings of the River Chess; Charles Rangeley-Wilson; Dr Jonathan Fisher; Jake Rigg of Affinity; Richard Aylard of Thames Water; and of course the Angling Trust and Fish Legal.
To support rich biodiversity, chalk streams need two things: high flows and high-quality water. A lot of debate in this place centres on rewilding, and rewilding often centres on beavers—wonderful little creatures; I knew a lot of them when I was in Oregon—but the fact of the matter is that proper rewilding of our chalk streams requires good-quality water, and plenty of it. Without those two things, we do not have freshwater shrimp and fly life at the bottom of the food chain, we do not have trout and grayling, we do not have water voles and we do not have otters.
Clause 82 provides the Secretary of State with powers to modify abstraction licences without compensation where
“the ground for revoking or varying the licence is that the Secretary of State is satisfied the revocation or variation is necessary—
(i) having regard to a relevant environmental objective, or
(ii) to otherwise protect the water environment from damage.”
Our amendment would add the words
“including damage from low flows.”
The Secretary of State and the Minister at the Dispatch Box today said that they could not accept that amendment because it might limit the scope of the clause, and I understand that. However, I received a welcome letter from the Secretary of State and the Minister on 25 January, and that letter made it clear that the accompanying guidance to the Bill once it becomes an Act, in giving life to the legislation, will make it clear that—I quote from the Ministers’ letter—“the reference to damage includes damage caused by low flow levels in a river due to unsustainable abstraction.”
That is an important commitment. I have discussed it with the water companies—with Water UK, which is their representative body—and they are very keen for that guidance to be issued. They want to do the right thing. In doing the right thing, they will have to have negotiations with Ofwat, and they will need to be able to point to guidance that has legal force in support of their position.
Steve Brine
As a fellow signatory of amendment 3, I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting that commitment. He knows that I am fortunate to have the River Itchen in my constituency. This is a preventive measure. We have good flows and good-quality water, which is why we have a world-class chalk stream, and we want to keep it that way. The amendment really helps to do that, so on behalf of the River Itchen lovers, I thank the Minister very much.
Sir Charles Walker
I thank my hon. Friend for making that intervention, which is important. Sixteen people signed the amendment along with me, and my hon. Friend, who is a doughty campaigner for the Itchen, was one of those valuable signatories.
In the time left, I will refer briefly to my other amendment, amendment 42 to clause 78, with regard to drainage and sewerage management plans, regulations and procedures. I tipped the Minister off that I would raise this briefly. The amendment seeks to deliver the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation that water companies and local authorities should publish plans to manage surface water flood risk. In short, it seeks to ensure that everyone operating drains or pushing water into rivers, and all flood risk management authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, co-operates and shares information on the preparation of drainage and wastewater management plans. The water companies want to make sure that this is a team effort. Lots of nasty stuff goes into our rivers from a lot of different places. The water companies want to get on top of the situation and to work with other agencies to make sure that happens.
I conclude by thanking the Minister for how she has dealt with me and the other signatories to amendment 3. It has been an exemplar of how to do business with Back-Bench Members of Parliament.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) [V]
We have lost many of the safety nets provided by membership of the European Union. This skeletal, post-Brexit Environment Bill is somewhat disappointing, unambitious and the opposite of progressive, but it is currently the only mechanism we have in Parliament to protect basic standards and try to build on them. This is not—nor should it be —a partisan political issue; it is an issue for every single human being. It has therefore been reassuring to hear of the many important amendments from Members from all parties.
If I was to represent my constituents’ many concerns in this debate, I would have to speak for several hours, not the few minutes we have been allocated. I represent a beautiful part of Kent that has a varied coastal and rural geography and is home to several farmers and wine producers. Our farmers work hard to uphold the highest standards of environmental responsibility, and my constituents are in regular contact about wildlife, protecting our vital pollinators, the unethical concreting over of our precious green spaces and the short-sightedness of building on floodplains.
In May 2019, Parliament declared an environmental emergency. Although this is obviously partly due to events beyond the control of Parliament, it feels at times as though we are plodding towards any meaningful change, when we should be racing at full speed against the clock to stop the devastating damage that climate change is wreaking on our planet. Adults around the world make and change laws, yet it is children who are dragging us to do so—crying out for us to notice that we have a duty to protect those who will have custody of the world after we are gone. I am talking about children such as Greta, who has led a global network of young people and become a household name.
Another child we remember today is Ella Kissi-Debrah. I am glad that her name will yet again be in Hansard, but deeply sad about and ashamed of why that is. Instead of being remembered as the bright and happy nine-year-old girl her mother Rosamund tells us about, Ella should now be 17-year-old young woman thinking about the next stage of her education and looking forward to and embracing adult life. But that opportunity was stolen from her as her little lungs gulped in a toxic cocktail of lethal pollutants. All she was doing was breathing. Her mother has battled to get a verdict from the coroner that proves how poisonous the air that our children breathe actually is. We need to support the amendments that promote improvements in air pollution —we need to get behind those amendments—so I urge all colleagues to vote to improve air quality and protect any more Ellas and the children who will inherit this planet from us.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
The Government do not seem to appreciate the dire position we are in, for although our air is far cleaner today than at any point in our lives, some communities have not seen the benefits. My constituency is one of them. We know that deprivation and race make us more susceptible to pollution. We in Ealing, Southall are suffering because of that and, cruelly, the system keeps making things worse. This is a matter of justice and equity.
Last week, at the communities of colour meeting on air pollution, I met Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, a woman driven to secure change for her daughter Ella, who was killed by pollution. Her story is a powerful one that is sadly repeated all too often across the country, because there is never really a safe limit for air quality. Sadly, the most polluting activities tend to be left in the worst of places.
Campaigns such as CASH—Clean Air for Southall and Hayes—in my constituency are saying no and holding us all to account. For thousands living near the gasworks, this is an issue of equity. That is why action must be targeted on the areas with the most polluted air today. People are dying and this Government deny the problem.
Environmental justice has to be available to all, or it is available to no one. Please, Ministers, act so that the Environment Agency can. Act so that Public Health England can. You can give justice to thousands who are without it today. Your Government say that pollution contributes to more than 30,000 excess deaths a year. Ella’s is just one story in thousands. Act for all of them.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
I speak as chairman of the all-party group on the packaging manufacturing industry, an important part of the UK economy with sales of £11 billion and 85,000 employees, representing 3% of the workforce, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Packaging performs an important function. It is part of the delivery system within complex logistics to enable products to get safely and efficiently from the point of production to the consumer for use or consumption, and it has an important role in preventing damage in transit and extending the life of food products by keeping them fresher for longer. The industry is keen to ensure that the environmental impact of its product is minimised through, first, more recycling of all the materials used in packaging, and that should be carried out within the UK; and, secondly, reductions in the amount of packaging ending its life in the wrong place, which we know as litter, whether that is in the UK or in our oceans. For these reasons, I welcome the provisions in the resources and waste chapter of the Bill, but with so many of them contained in secondary legislation, I wonder whether I can ask for clarity from the Minister on a number of measures.
Will there be continued consultation with the industry on these measures, and will the Minister ensure that the UK industry can continue to remain competitive? There is no merit in simply transferring packaging manufacture overseas. On extensions to producer responsibility, we know that retailers and manufacturers will pay a bigger proportion—in fact, many times more—of the cost of recycling and disposing of packaging, a cost that previously fell on local councils. It is argued that that moves the burden from the taxpayer to the polluter, but it is not the packaging manufacturer that is the polluter—people are—and I hope that improved education and awareness of the local environment will accompany these measures.
We welcome the introduction of a deposit return scheme, but will the Minister confirm that this will be a UK-wide scheme, including Scotland, so that manufacturers do not have to carry two separate sets of stock? Will she advise whether there will be a single deposit, regardless of container size? Can she ensure that we will not simply divert recycling that currently takes place on the kerbside to the DRS? Will she ensure that we include consistent household recycling, including plastic films and flexibles? We know that different local authorities collecting different things has led to very substantial confusion, with only 14% of councils currently collecting flexible materials.
I look forward to the Minister’s clarification on many of these items in her winding-up speech at the end of the debate.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
I support all the amendments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on air quality. The World Health Organisation has clearly stated that 40 of our towns are breaking the WHO limit for air pollution. We also know that 60% of people in England are living in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits last year. We know that severe air pollution costs lives, with over 40,000 deaths a year being linked to air pollution.
The impacts of air pollution are not evenly distributed, either, with a disproportionate impact on deprived areas. Research has shown that those living in deprived areas are exposed to higher concentrations of air pollution, often because their homes are situated next to roads with higher concentrations of emissions. The Marmot report also highlighted that individuals in deprived areas suffer more adverse health impacts than those from less deprived areas, because of higher prevalence of underlying cardio, respiratory and other diseases. In my constituency of Enfield North we see the direct effect of poor air quality. In the Borough of Enfield, 6.6% of deaths are attributed to exposure to particulate matter 2.5 pollution. That means that 178 deaths per year in Enfield are linked to long-term exposure to toxic air pollution.
Despite the work of proactive local authorities, pioneering new initiatives like school streets, parklets, low-traffic neighbourhoods or the 60-acre Enfield Chase woodland created by the Labour-run Enfield Council planting almost 200,000 trees, and the work of Mayor of London in introducing the ultra low emission zone, action cannot just take place at a local level; it needs to be backed by national and international legislation. It is too important not to be.
These amendments on air pollution, which I am urging the Government to support today, do not represent a radical step but the bare minimum that we must do as a country. The impact of the amendments would be to establish the WHO legal standard. In the fight against coronavirus, we have shown that working in partnership with international colleagues is vital. Addressing air quality and protecting the environment is no different. We have the opportunity to set the country forward on a course that will protect lives and advocate stronger environmental protections. This is not just an issue about public health; it is something that impacts our daily lives. We must vote in support of these amendments to ensure that we lead the way, instead of hiding away.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Ah— Jerome Mayhew. I had just been informed that he did not want to take part in the debate, but I see that he is there.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, please would you accept my apologies for the confusion that I have managed to cause?
I wish to speak on new clause 6 and amendments 3 and 30 and—if I am permitted by you—to make significant reference to amendment 39, although we have already voted on it.
New clause 6 deals with air quality. I absolutely recognise the challenge of poor air quality, and a number of hon. Members have spoken very movingly about it during the debates this afternoon and this evening, but I am not sure how the creation of an annual policy statement to the House is the best way to address that. We already have a range of existing reporting requirements available to Ministers, as well as two new ones contained in the Bill. They include a new requirement for the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament on local pollution objectives, in addition to publishing a national air quality strategy every five years.
Amendments 3 and 30 both deal with water quality—with flow rates—and again there is a suggestion that an annual report on water abstraction would be an effective way of improving standards. I question whether that is the right way to approach the subject. When requirements are introduced for such onerous statements, they are effective in increasing costs and increasing delay and the bureaucracy of Government, but I am not sure that they are effective on the ground.
In my constituency of Broadland I am lucky enough to have a number of chalk streams, including the Stiffkey and the Wensum, and I have experience of the Environment Agency and its approach to water extraction licences. To my mind, a much more effective way of policing the area of water abstraction and flow is to use the powers already given to the Environment Agency to deal with abstraction licences—I hope, in co-operation and collaboration with abstractors, which include farmers. I declare my interest as a director of a farming business.
Finally I should like to turn to amendment 39, because its target was very squarely the sugar beet growers and the sugar beet processors of the east of England. EU law has rightly allowed for short-term exemptions to the rules on plant protection products in the event of a virulent outbreak of disease. This year, that is exactly what we have had with virus yellows, so I think the Government are entirely right to allow the exemption with a huge number of protections for bees and other pollinators. To require an obstructive vote in the House would be a backward step.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but, no, it is not in order for him to have spoken to amendments contained in the previous group. It is not in order. I make the point because I could not reasonably interrupt him under the circumstances under which we are working, but we do expect Members to stick to the rules and not to bend them just because we are working virtually. It is important to keep standards.
I call Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you for calling me from Huddersfield, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been involved in the environmental campaigning sector for all my political parliamentary career, and I have learned the hard lesson that if we do not have good science working purposefully in partnership with the private sector right across the spectrum and building coalitions, we do not get the action that we need.
Today, I am saddened that there will be a further delay in the Environment Bill coming into a living reality. I believe that it is the right of children and all of us in this country to breathe clean air, to have pure water, to be able to swim in the rivers and streams, and to have healthy soil that has not been contaminated and degraded. We could achieve some good purposes in partnership, and I call for that partnership to have great leadership. Sometimes I am not sure whether there is enough purpose, partnership and leadership in this present Government. I remember too many articles in a certain well-known magazine, The Spectator, which always seems to feature climate change doubters. The fact of the matter is that many of them have been proven absolutely wrong by good science and the work led by David Attenborough.
We need to do things at home, in our constituencies. As chair of the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, I can tell the House today that we are launching a constituency service that gives the quality of air in every constituency, along with the number of electric vehicles, the number of charging points and a whole range of criteria, so that Members know just how the polluted air in their constituencies is affecting their constituents.
We need to roll up our sleeves and get this sorted out. When I came into Parliament, we were known as the dirty person of Europe, and we were burying all our waste in holes in the ground. We have moved on through good science, good partnership and working together. I am an optimist and I think we can sort climate change, but we will not do it unless we get purposeful and determined leadership in this country.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
This Bill is so much more than the sum of its parts. It is best described as a prism through which the panoply of wider environmental policies, many of which will be a key part of the covid recovery response, should be viewed. Whether we are talking about phasing out petrol vehicles, encouraging cycling or planting trees, this Bill creates the framework through which targets can be set and the environmental benefits can be measured. For the first time, air quality and water quality are not just afterthoughts but are at the heart of policy making.
I want to pay tribute to some of the environmental groups in my constituency: Action for the River Kennet for the transformational work that it has done on chalk streams, and the West Berkshire Climate Action Network and the West Berkshire Green Exchange for all that they do.
First, I would like to address water quality. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his private Member’s Bill, which places statutory obligations on water companies that are discharging sewage into rivers. Obviously, his private Member’s Bill dovetails neatly with amendments 3 and 42, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). Although the Government have not said exactly what they want on this, I am very grateful to the Minister for her correspondence last night and her general tone, which makes it clear that the Government are in broad agreement.
This is an issue that is very close to my heart. In the last year, we have had terrible flooding in the eastern part of my constituency at Eastbury, but particularly Lambourn, where sewage has floated up to the road surface, run along a road past the children’s school and then flowed freely into the River Lambourn, which is one of our most treasured chalk streams. One of my early experiences as a new MP was just how difficult I found it to get any real remedy for my constituents when that happened.
Finally, I would like to talk about air pollution, which we know poses the biggest environmental hazard to public health. I understand the sentiment that sits behind new clause 6, which was proposed by the Opposition, asking the Government to publish an annual policy statement setting out what they and local authorities plan to do, but I think it is superfluous for three reasons. First, setting targets is already embedded in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Secondly, the Secretary of State already creates an obligation on themselves to declare whether the significant improvement test in relation to air quality has been met under clause 8. Finally, there is the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, which is not just an oversight body, but has real teeth and powers of enforcement, so the Government are not marking their own homework in this regard.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I had high hopes of being able to start my speech by speaking the words of Margaret Thatcher in 1989 when she addressed the United Nations on the issue of climate change—she outlined the destruction and damage that was facing the world unless action was taken—but, sadly, there is not enough time to be able to read out the full quotation. However, those words are true now, and there is more that can be done.
I welcome the Government’s announcement today, their report and their Bill for what they do in addressing waste, water and air quality. These are all things that, as a triumvirate, must be addressed so that we are able to regain our control over the environment and help it to flourish in years to come. Of course, the Government have already set a number of ambitious targets—from net zero for 2050 to ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030, eradicating gas boilers, planting more trees and looking at new agricultural regenerative techniques. These are the ambitious things that we must do.
I would like to start by talking a little bit about waste. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has already mentioned, there is an important element here about ending single-use plastics, but we can do more. I ask whether the Government might consider incentivising businesses to ensure that we have full-cycle plastics that are used from cradle to grave, and then recycled. We can incentivise the industries that pollute this world to make sure that they are adhering more to the rules and regulations of countries across the world.
In my own constituency, air quality has remained an incredibly important issue. The A385 runs through my patch, next to a school, which has some of the highest levels of pollution in south Devon, and planning development alongside it is likely to further add to that problem. It is the same in Brixham, where the new Inglewood development would see roads and traffic increased, leading to further pollution of air quality. These are the things that we must take into account when we are building, improving infrastructure and developing for our entire community.
On water, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has done so impressively well on his private Member’s Bill, something I have supported since I coming to this place. I look forward to seeing what he brings back to the House and how the Government work further with him, but as a keen swimmer all year round—without a wetsuit, I hasten to add—I am very keen that we do all we can to improve the quality of our waterways and of our coastline, and to ensure that we are able to improve the way in which we engage on these issues, especially with groups such as Surfers Against Sewage.
The need to be able to discuss how reports might be put into this place was raised under new clause 6, but I would say that we do have the Environment Agency reports that come to Parliament and are reported on, but we also have the OEP, which I think is very welcome as it enables us to take a hold on our environment and improve it.
Tim Farron [V]
On the air quality amendments, the targets in this Bill do not even meet those recommended by the World Health Organisation, as has been said by other Members. That should rightly alarm all of us, especially given that the UK has such a terrible track record in recent years. When we were a member of the EU, it fined us regularly for failing to meet the targets set at that point. Air quality standards are of the utmost importance, and for the Government to under aim and be under-ambitious here is deeply troubling. We are being asked to accept not only decreased air quality standards, but delayed standards, as this Bill is pushed back once again, after years of delay. Yet, tragically, we now increasingly see “poor air quality” cited as a cause of death on the death certificates of many, many people. As many colleagues from both sides of the House, have said, this is a matter of life and death, Delayed action at this time, in the hiatus between the strong targets and standards we had up to the end of 2020 and the point at which we get whatever standards we will get when this Bill is finally agreed, allows bad habits to build up and bed in, and it makes Britain’s poor air quality harder still to clear up.
On waste, the absence of plastic reduction targets beggars belief, given the rhetoric we have heard from many in the Government. The Conservative manifesto made a specific reference—a promise even—to
“ban the export of plastic waste”
to developing countries. The Government have broken that promise. So not only are they not tackling our plastic problem here at home, but we are adding to the plastic problem of poorer countries overseas.
My amendment 30 related to water quality. We simply want the Government to monitor the impact of the abstraction of water on biodiversity in chalk streams and in other waterways. This Bill does not do that, and it is a simple and obvious request. Only 14% of England’s rivers and lakes are in a good quality water position at the moment, so the need for this measure is clear.
So we see an unambitious Bill and a delay, which means even this poor ambition will be hard to bring to fruition, given that we will have to wait many months. This takes commitment to underachievement to new heights, undermining the quality of our environment and animal welfare. These are times when we need to be setting clear and ambitious targets if we are going to lead the world, but I am afraid that we are lagging far behind.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to serve on the Environmental Audit Committee and discuss a number of topics that form part of this landmark Environment Bill through our inquiries. Our Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), has campaigned tirelessly for better water quality and no doubt through his work we have in this Bill sewerage undertakers now being required to produce a statutory drainage and sewerage management plan to actively address environmental risks such as sewer overflows and their impact on water quality.
Without doubt, this Bill paves the way for the Government to continue putting the environment at the very heart of their decision making, with legally binding targets on biodiversity, air quality and waste efficiency just a few of a plethora of new ambitions. I was heartened by the Minister’s opening comments on plastic pollution and new clause 11. As an MP for 50 miles of stunning North Norfolk coast, I am glad that provisions in this Bill will help to reduce plastics on our beaches. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets to reduce plastic pollution and reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold. If plastic pollution continues at current rates, plastic in the oceans will outweigh fish by 2050. There is a strong public appetite for action: 63% of people want to reduce their consumption of plastic, and 77% want the Government to take more action to protect the ocean, so I am glad that this is being covered.
Barry Gardiner [V]
The UK creates the second highest amount of electronic waste in the world, and we export 40% of that waste to other countries, most of them developing nations. How crazy is that, when that waste contains the rare earth metals and the other valuable metals that we need for our wind turbines, our mobile phone batteries and our car batteries? It is insanity. That is why I support new clause 8, which aims to ensure that the Secretary of State implements the waste hierarchy with specific emphasis on waste prevention, rather than simply waste management.
I turn to amendment 24. Since 2007, the REACH directive has provided a database to assess the risk of more than 21,000 chemical substances in the UK, and it obliges manufacturers to manage the risk of dangerous chemicals. This amendment is very simple. It means that there is a risk that the UK could become a dumping ground for hazardous chemicals unless we maintain the same standards that we had previously.
While talking about risk, let me turn to air quality. We have got used to understanding risk much better with covid and the statistics that we have seen every night on our television screens, but let us imagine if, on our television screens every night, we saw that in many areas of our country, one in 19 deaths can be linked to poor air quality—to air pollution. That is the level of risk. I tend to agree with what the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said about new clause 6: what difference will it make for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament once a year, given that the Government were not prepared to meet the legal obligation by 2015 and had to be taken to the Supreme Court twice? But perhaps we should at least try.
This whole Bill is about our 25-year environment plan and leaving our environment in a better state than we inherited it. That means that we have to understand the whole nexus of connections that exist. That is why the Dasgupta report coming out later this month on the economics of biodiversity and the value of natural capital is so vital, to understand that we must balance the burden of costs that each part of society pays for our public goods.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) in this important debate. Hundreds of residents from Pontypridd and across Rhondda Cynon Taff have contacted me over the last few weeks urging me to speak up today, and I know that people’s passion for the environment is certainly not limited to the south Wales valleys. I will, however, take this opportunity to mention the fantastic work that Friends of the Earth Pontypridd does to raise awareness of environmental issues; long may its work continue.
On a personal note, I am the very proud co-chair of the all-party group on water, and I sincerely hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will indulge me the brief opportunity to invite and encourage Members across the House to join the all-party group today. We are always open to new members.
Members may not be aware, but my love for all things water began long before I became a Member of this House, as I was previously an employee of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, the not-for-profit water company. Through my work, I have seen at first hand the impact of waste on our environment and also the benefits of investing in our infrastructure to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose waste water network, both now and into the future. It is because of this that I would like to place on record my support for new clause 10, tabled in the name of my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). Items may be marketed as flushable, but I can assure Members that disposable nappies, wet wipes and all manner of items flushed down toilets can cause utter devastation to people’s homes and our environment.
This Environment Bill is very welcome as it could make real change that could improve our ecology both now and for future generations. I represent a constituency that was decimated by flooding nearly a year ago. Storms Jorge, Dennis, and Ciara devastated businesses in Pontypridd and they are still trying to recover. This highlights the urgency of the climate emergency that the planet is in. We can build all the flood defences possible, but unless we seek to tackle the root causes of climate change, then they will be the equivalent of King Canute trying simply to hold back the tide.
It seems quite obvious to me that the protections for our environment should be included in legislation. While I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill today, I believe that, in its current form, there are some alarming gaps. The Bill does not go far enough to replace the EU’s environmental protections, and, in its current form, the Bill allows the Secretary of State far too much discretion in changing certain environmental benchmarks or targets. That is why I am encouraged by new clause 8, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is a very good friend. As previously mentioned by others, this clause would ensure that the Secretary of State has a specific responsibility to take into account the requirements of the waste hierarchy. Additionally, this clause prioritises the importance of waste prevention—a move that we should all be unanimously in support of.
I would hate for this Government to apply the same approach to some of the amendments today intended to improve our environmental protections and I hope to see cross-party support for this amendment. I urge Members across the House to support the amendments, because we must act now before is too late.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary environment group and as a member of the Environment Bill Committee, I very strongly welcome this Bill. As we have heard, it may not give everything that everyone wants, but it is a huge step forward in protecting the planet. I really welcome the ambition of the Government and the Minister to work towards that.
I want to focus my comments on water, which is, in many ways, at the heart of this Bill. I have three particular things. The water management schemes will help to move water from wetter parts of the country to drier parts of the country. In South Cambridgeshire and East Anglia, we are one of the driest part of the country and we need more water. I very much welcome the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) to reduce sewage outflows into rivers. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced that in the body of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) has been a champion for chalk streams and I very much welcome his amendment 3 to clause 82, which would revoke or vary abstraction licences, or give the Secretary of State the power to do so, if rivers run dry. Again, the Government have introduced that in the heart of the Bill, so more water, less sewage—what more could we want?
The reason why I focus my comments on chalk streams is that they run like a network of silver threads throughout South Cambridgeshire—the River Cam most famously, but also many of its tributaries such as the River Shep, which runs down to the RSPB reserve at Fowlmere, the village that I grew up in. I remember playing in the chalk streams as a child. They were so clear that the fish looked like they were floating in the air. The chalk streams are very rare, very beautiful and very threatened. I went back to the RSPB reserve in Fowlmere during the election campaign and it was bone dry. It was not that the chalk streams were running low; they were not there at all. I went there again recently, there was some water back in the streams, but no wildlife. The wildlife cannot survive if the streams run dry. I have been working with local campaign groups, particularly Water Resources East and Cam Valley Forum, to help save the chalk streams. I thank the Minister and her officials for their time, because I know that they have been doing a lot of work with us on that—in particular, setting up a chalk stream working group. I welcome the Government’s move to protect chalk streams by giving the Secretary of State the powers to revoke or vary licences if chalk streams run dry. That will bring a ray of hope to the chalk stream campaigners of South Cambridgeshire.
I want to leave the Government with this challenge: when Parliament votes on this Bill, it will vote to give the Government powers to save the chalk streams. If the chalk streams are threatened, I ask them please to make sure that they use those powers.
Robbie Moore
I start by referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also declare that my family run and operate a plastic recycling business.
There is of course much to talk about in this Bill, but in the short time that I have, I want to talk about rivers and, in particular, improving water quality. The state of some of our rivers today is quite frankly shocking: 40% of all rivers in England and Wales are now polluted with human sewage. That not only threatens aquatic species such as trout and grayling that we might find in the River Wharfe in Ilkley in my constituency, but it is a threat to our own human health. Much praise must be given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill, which is a fantastic piece of proposed legislation which, as he knows, I wholeheartedly support. I am delighted that the Government have decided to adopt it and encompass so many of its measures within this Bill. My delight also stems from my constituency, because ever since I was elected to this place in December 2019, protecting rivers and improving water quality has been a crucial priority for me.
In Ilkley, for far too long untreated sewage has been released into the River Wharfe by Yorkshire Water at times of high rainfall. We have a dedicated team at the Ilkley clean river campaign group, which has been running a long and very successful campaign to clean up rivers. I have supported them in their endeavours to do so ever since entering this place. By working together as a community, there is so much that can be achieved. My thanks go out to all who are involved in that campaign.
I am very pleased that the Government will be placing on a statutory footing an obligation on sewerage companies to make drainage and water management plans, and that the Government will be setting clear water quality targets. However, may I make a plea to the Minister as a follow-up to the many conversations that we have already had on this point? As she is aware, the Ilkley section of the River Wharfe has now been granted bathing water status—one of the highest levels of water quality anywhere in the UK. However, while I am delighted with DEFRA’s decision to grant such a mechanism for providing strict regulation to improve water quality, it is important that we recognise the difference between bathing and clean water status, as many strong undercurrents within a river can cause difficulty for swimming, as has previously happened in the Wharfe. I urge the Government, in future, perhaps to look at a rebranding of such status, as the title of bathing water status can be misleading to the public.
This a good Bill that I wholeheartedly support. I truly believe that it is the start of a greener, cleaner environment for the future of Great Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Something is wrong with the sound. [Interruption.] It is not possible to go to the next person until we stop the video link that is not working. Is somebody listening to me? I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the system not working properly and for him not knowing that it was not working. We will now go to Kerry McCarthy.
Kerry McCarthy [V]
Labour’s new clause 8 would require the Secretary of State to take account of the waste hierarchy. From food waste to plastic pollution, the starting point should be to prevent waste from occurring in the first place. I hope that when this Bill reaches the other place, we will further debate our global carbon footprint and the need to bring proposals to COP26 to measure consumption, not just production. Promoting the circular economy should be at the absolute heart of any green recovery package. At present, we have disincentives to send waste to landfill but very few mechanisms to encourage compliance further up the hierarchy, and virtually no enforcement either, because the Environment Agency simply does not have the resources to do so.
Turning to the amendments on air pollution, we have heard about the tragic death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, and we also know that covid has left many people extra-vulnerable with long-term damage to their lungs. As we mark today the horrific milestone of over 100,000 covid deaths and many more infected, I urge the Minister to think again on this. I support adopting the target on PM2.5; the suggestion that it would prevent higher ambition is ludicrous.
The Government have for too long tried to pass the buck to local councils; what we need is a comprehensive national strategy on air pollution to prevent any further tragedies. We also need urgent action from the Government on their decarbonisation of transport plan. I do not get any sense at the moment that the Government are joining the dots.
Finally, on chemicals and animal testing, with the Prime Minister suggesting in his first post-Brexit deal interview with The Telegraph that chemicals was one area where the UK could diverge from EU regulations, it is hardly surprising that people are deeply worried by the Secretary of State being given such sweeping powers to amend the legal framework. It leaves us wide open to the risk of damaging deregulation as a result of trade deals with countries with weaker systems and lower standards such as the United States of America, and the risk of the dumping of products on the UK market that fail to meet EU regulations. Amendment 24 would ensure non-regression from REACH, the EU regime, and allow scope to exceed those standards. A recent European Court of Justice ruling has reaffirmed that under REACH the principle of animal testing as a last resort must be fully respected and it is good that this is included as a protected principle in the Bill, but this is not reflected in current figures for animal testing; there is far too much duplication of testing and far too little data sharing. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to set targets to reduce animal testing and the suffering experienced by animals as a result, and I would thoroughly support that.
Let us not just agree to keep our current standards in this Bill, but try to raise our ambitions too.
Bill Esterson
The film “Dark Waters” shows just what goes wrong, with the disastrous consequences for human life, animal life, plant life and pollution, where there is a lack of regulation in the chemicals industry. Mark Ruffalo brilliantly played the lawyer who took on the might of DuPont and won on behalf of so many who were disadvantaged.
Of course, in this country we benefit from the highest chemical standards in the world—the previous regime made sure of that—and the industry rightly wants to maintain those standards and indeed build upon them. The industry in this country is worth £31.4 billion in exports and employs 102,000 people in well-paid jobs, and chemicals are in everyday products; in the Liverpool city region they are part of our car manufacturing sector and we have many fine chemical industry companies, including Blends Ltd and Contract Chemicals just a few miles outside my constituency. They want to maintain those high standards and they want to build on them; they want to build on them so that new products and services can be developed, and so that innovation in the recycling of plastics can be enhanced. To deliver on that agenda, they need the support of the Government through this Bill.
Unfortunately, we have already seen standards weakened through the changes to UK REACH, and powers in this Bill will give the Government the opportunity to further reduce them, leaving open the prospect of dumping lower-standard products, undermining the excellence of the industry in this country.
Industry here wants no divergence; it wants to solve the problem of the £1 billion cost to access the database that businesses need to be able to continue producing in this country. Unless these problems are resolved, we will see an impact on that £31.4 billion of exports, with companies given no choice but to move their manufacturing capacity to the continent of Europe.
There is much at stake here; there is much at stake in maintaining and enhancing those standards for human health, for animal health, for plant life and for British jobs. The Minister said that she has a good relationship with the industry. She can demonstrate that good relationship by supporting amendment 24.
Caroline Lucas [V]
My new clause 13, on the application of pesticides in rural areas, follows a very similar amendment made to the Agriculture Bill in the other place. Although it was later removed by the Government during the final stages, it enjoyed wide cross-party support, as I hope this new clause will.
As it stands, the Environment Bill lists air quality, water and biodiversity as priority areas for long-term target setting, alongside waste, but it does not recognise the environmental harm caused by the use of pesticides, and the need to protect human health is omitted entirely. My new clause seeks to remedy that by requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the use of chemical pesticides near buildings and open spaces used by rural residents and members of the public, whether hospitals, schools or homes. That is crucial for improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment.
It is important to recognise that this is about not the misuse or illegal use of pesticides, but the approved use of crop pesticides in the locality where rural communities are present, yet there are still no specific restrictions on the contamination and pollution of the air from widespread spraying of pesticides in rural areas. Indeed, the UK’s regulatory system assesses the safety of only one chemical at a time, yet rural residents are exposed to a cocktail of harmful pesticides spread on nearby farms. Furthermore, although operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides, residents have absolutely no protection at all.
We cannot restore and enhance our environment while continuing to ignore the damage caused by pesticides in our intensive food and farming system. In that light, the Government should be standing up for rural residents and communities and protecting them from harm. That is what my new clause 13 seeks to do.
My new clause 18 would require the setting of targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing under REACH regulations. It has been estimated that, by mid-2019, tests had been performed on about 2.4 million animals. In the last reporting period, the UK used the highest number of animals in experiments of any country in Europe. Although the Government have protected animal testing as a last resort principle from REACH in the Bill, this is an opportunity to go further and demonstrate real leadership by setting targets to replace animal testing.
Tests on animals are notoriously unreliable and are increasingly being questioned by the science. The scientific advancement of non-animal tests and approaches allows us better to predict hazard and manage risk while avoiding or significantly reducing the use of tests on animals—all in a shorter timeframe, with fewer resources used. That is better for human health and animals. I therefore urge the Minister to look again at this important issue and support the new clause.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will try to go back to Geraint Davies.
Geraint Davies [V]
Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
New clause 6 is a necessary condition of delivering World Health Organisation air quality limits, or indeed any targets that the Government choose to set by 2022, as they plan. DEFRA alone simply cannot deliver the clean air targets that the Government want without the support of all other Departments. The new clause would create a duty for all Departments to work together to do that.
When I met the Environment Secretary, the Environment Minister and Rosamund, Ella’s mother, the Environment Secretary said that he had not ruled out WHO air quality limits and needed to understand how he would get to any such targets. I agree with that, but it requires a duty on all Government bodies and Departments to work together. DEFRA would work with Transport when Transport needs to deliver an integrated, electrified public transport system. Clearly, we would need a Treasury fiscal statutory mechanism to facilitate that with the right duties, incentives, scrappage schemes and investment. We would need a housing and planning scheme built into that so that we build around stations, not motorways. We would need Health at the centre of it, because 64,000 people a year are dying prematurely. We need an education system that allows people to walk to school safely, and a local government system so that people can take account of things and possibly reduce the speed of motorway traffic near urban centres. This all needs to be by joined-up design, rather than hope for the best.
The second part of the amendment is about indoor air quality. I thank the Government for belatedly including indoor air quality in the Bill. I thank the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health for their “Inside Story” report, which acknowledged that 90% of the time we are indoors we are subjected to all sorts of dangerous chemicals—formaldehyde and all sorts of other things—in our furniture. Professor Stephen Holgate, one of the architects of the report, mentioned that we will not get limits unless we have an interdisciplinary approach with academics, clinicians, industry and government working together. Indeed, the professor of environmental law at University College London, Eloise Scotford, mentioned that joined-up governance is critical in law to push ahead with progress.
As we approach COP26, we have an opportunity to present a template of an integrated approach to help combat air pollution, which is killing 7 million people across the globe every year. I give my thanks to the Health Secretary and other members of the Government who are working together, but the point of the amendment is to provide a duty, so that we are required to work together to deliver cleaner air and save thousands of lives.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
We Liberal Democrats have a clear plan to cut most carbon emissions by 2030 and to get to net zero by 2045. In the context of the Bill, waste is a big carbon emitter, particularly plastic waste, and we must address the problem immediately. The Waste and Resources Action Programme’s new Plastic Pact, funded by DEFRA, is an important initiative which will create a circular economy for plastics. It is based on building a stronger recycling system, taking more responsibility for our own waste and ensuring that plastic packaging can be effectively recycled and re-used.
Last year, I tabled an amendment to the Bill. It would have perfectly fitted WRAP’s initiative, but sadly it is not in the Bill. My amendment aimed to make the reporting of the end destination of household and business waste mandatory for councils. Transparency is a great driver of change and one of the sad features of the Bill is the absence of transparency and accountability. No targets set within the Bill will be legally binding until 2037. By then, the climate crisis will be massively worse. Acting now is imperative. Climate change delay is hardly better than climate change denial.
We are proud in Bath to be one of the first councils to introduce a clean air zone. Air pollution is a big killer and hits the disadvantaged much harder due to poor housing, high-density living, proximity to main roads and fewer options to avoid higher-risk areas. What my council now needs is a separate clean air Act, which also includes new powers and funding to local authorities to effectively monitor air pollution. For instance, in Bath, residents are asking for real-time data to be made available, so that residents can make informed choices for their city and on what forms of transport they want to use.
I am ambitious for my city and for my country to show clear leadership on clean, healthy urban environments for the future. There is so much we can achieve with the right political will.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
I will be supporting amendment 24, but due to time I will focus my comments on new clauses 8 and 2.
The fact that the Bill has taken so long to progress through Parliament is enough to know that it is not, and never has been, a real priority of this Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) reminds us, think back to the 1970s and 1980s when we were the dirty man of Europe: the dirtiest air, the dirtiest rivers and the dirtiest beaches. Thankfully, we aligned ourselves with European legislation and higher standards. It is with that in mind that I want to address the new clauses this evening.
New clause 8 relates to the waste hierarchy, starting with the absolute priority action of prevention. I am reminded of the importance of international legislation and co-ordination. I will hold the Government to account on whether they meet EU legislation and I will press them to exceed it. Addressing waste was an important part of EU policy, establishing as it did global leadership by creating robust frameworks of different regulations and directives to improve the management of waste in EU and European Free Trade Association countries. EU policy can be separated into product-related regulations such as the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, the end-of-life vehicles directive and the batteries directive, and legislation including the landfill directive. However, plastics are a particular concern, and it is important that we commit pre-manufacture to how parts will be recycled and address producer responsibility, as well as that of the distributors and retailers. We need to encourage supermarkets to do more; I am reminded of the Grüne Punkt, or green spot, approach in Germany. It started back in the 1990s, and it meant that supermarkets would have to take back packaging. I want to see the UK leading in this area, because it is critical.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Environmental Audit Committee labelled this Bill a “missed opportunity”. I rise to support amendments in the name of the Opposition and others that could make it fit for our country, in a year in which the eyes of the world are watching us as hosts of the UN COP26 conference on climate change. I only have time to address two issues: the regulation of chemicals now that we have departed from the EU, and air pollution.
I support amendment 24 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), to ensure we do not regress from existing standards and protections. That amendment would prevent a damaging race to the bottom that could undermine standards on chemicals, which is of great concern, given the comments the Prime Minister has made about chemicals and his indication that he may want us to depart downwards from those standards. My constituents, Tracey Logan and Richard Szwagrzak, were poisoned by formaldehyde fumes when cupboards were being built and installed in their house. We found there was no regulation covering formaldehyde levels in MDF sheets, hence the need to at least protect our existing standards and then ensure that the Government have powers to strengthen them, as amendment 24 does.
The issue of air quality is particularly important in my constituency, lying as it does along the two core routes between Heathrow and central London, and with many living in a highly polluted environment. Toxic air kills 40,000 people a year in the UK and contributes to the health inequalities that plague our society. We need to see action. Community-led efforts such as Chiswick Oasis can cut air pollution, as can city-wide programmes: an Imperial College study found that policies put in place by the Mayor of London have already led to improvements in air quality, with the measures that have been introduced increasing the average life expectancy of a child born in London in 2013. However, we need to do much more and, at a Government level, to tackle toxic air pollution. We need to see Government Ministers leading on this.
If new clause 6—which would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament on air quality and the solutions that the Government are going to be implementing—is moved, I will be supporting it. Crucially, that amendment calls for cross-departmental work to tackle this serious threat to our public health. This Bill has huge gaps in it, and gives Ministers sweeping powers to row back on our much-needed protections. I hope the Government will listen to concerns raised by Members across this House and use any delay to this Bill as a chance to fix it.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
I am very glad to speak today in favour of the Opposition amendments, and on behalf of the deafening voice of civil society and so many organisations and individuals across the country, including the many local members of the Putney Environment Commission in my constituency, who feel that this Bill does not go far enough.
I served on the Bill Committee last November and was disappointed that the Government did not accept any Opposition amendments, which would have improved the Bill. Today, the Minister said that
“the desperate decline of our natural environment and biodiversity has gone on for far too long.”
That is right—so why is this Bill being so delayed, and with more delays to come? How can the EU (Future Relationship) Bill be rushed through in one day, while here we are in a climate emergency—as declared by Parliament in May 2019—yet this Bill has taken a year to get to this stage and now it has been announced that the next stage will be in May? Will we even have it passed by autumn?
This leaves us without the regulation of the EU that was in place before and with no new regulator in place. Will the Minister give a final deadline date for passing this Bill, and use the time between stages to improve it? The amendments before us today would give us much-needed higher ambition through targets, and much more strength to take action on the important areas of air quality, water, waste and chemicals.
Let me turn to new clause 8. It is vital to hold producers to account to ensure that waste is prevented throughout the whole supply chain, not just at the end—for example, by reducing plastics, changing materials and rethinking product use, such as nappies.
On air pollution, Putney High Street is one of the most polluted streets in the UK, and has the poor distinction of taking places two and three in a recent table of the top 10 pollution hotspots in London. We should set our sights high and include WHO targets in the Bill, not put them up for negotiation later. The cost will be that 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases attributable to air pollution over the next 30 years if we do not take strong action.
On amendment 24 on chemical regulation and setting up a whole new regulation in the UK when we already have one, this, among many things, will mean unnecessary animal testing. Many constituents have written to me about this issue. If more constituents knew about it, they would not be happy. I hope that this can be changed and rectified before the next stage of reporting in May.
In summary, the Bill has a long way to go before it is fit for purpose. I hope that today Conservative Members finally listen, give this Bill the force and ambition that our environment desperately needs, and vote for the Opposition amendments.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
Like the previous Members of my party who have spoken, I shall be supporting the Opposition amendments. However, I would like to use my time to focus entirely on air pollution—a subject that is close not just to my heart, but to so many people I meet every day. It is also vital to our future and to our health, both individually and as communities.
In my constituency of Edinburgh West, we have two of the most polluted roads in Scotland, and one in every 29 deaths in our city of Edinburgh has been attributed to air pollution. Surely that is beyond unacceptable. I also have personal family reasons for knowing what a silent and merciless killer air pollution can be. Lives are blighted or even lost, and our NHS is put under yet more strain. Clean air is one of the most precious commodities that we have, and it is becoming even more precious.
For me, there is nothing that we could do that would be too much, but tinkering around the edges, as this Bill will do, is not good enough. We need to be brave and, yes, we need to start spending money. Our children are now making it abundantly clear that they do not believe that previous generations have done enough to ensure that the planet is safe for them, and they are the ones who tend to be exposed to higher levels of pollution than adults. We need to listen and act now. The Liberal Democrats’ zero carbon target is 2045; we believe that 2050 is simply too late. We need to strengthen our interim targets and undertake a 10-year emergency emission reduction programme to cut emissions as much as possible by 2030.
This legislation is a good start, but it does not have the teeth necessary to provide the robust protection for the environment that we need. If it is not to become little more than a series of meaningless platitudes, the Office for Environmental Protection and local authorities must have sufficient funding and empowerment to be effective. We need an Act modelled on the Climate Change Act 2008, with regular interim targets to cut not just air pollution but plastic pollution, and to restore nature. For me, the clean air provisions are simply not good enough. We need new legal limits that meet World Health Organisation limits, a new duty on public bodies to do their part in tackling pollution, and a new right to clean air in domestic law. All that is meaningless, however, if the reports are correct and the Bill is delayed until the next Session. More time will be lost, more people will breathe in dangerously polluted air, more damage will be done to our lives, our environment and the planet, and the chances of turning this ecological disaster around will be lost. I hope that the House will support the Opposition amendment.
Rachel Hopkins [V]
The River Lea flows all the way through my constituency of Luton South, so I shall start by welcoming the earlier clarification stating that clause 82 should cover damage caused to chalk streams as a result of low flow, as championed by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I will be supporting the Opposition Front-Bench amendments, including amendment 24 on chemical regulations, but I want to speak specifically about waste management in support of new clause 8, which will require the Secretary of State to take account of the waste hierarchy, starting with the priority action of prevention.
The waste hierarchy refers to the priority order of managing waste: prevention; preparing for reuse; recycling; other forms of recovery; and disposal. To tackle the climate and ecological emergency, there must be a preventive and focused approach to waste management. I am fully aware that the Minister has stated that the Bill enables the Government to place obligations, including targets, on producers to prevent waste, but I am concerned that the Government are refusing to explicitly put that commitment to prioritising preventive action in the Bill. The Bill should use the strongest possible language to demonstrate the UK’s commitment to preventing the creation of waste, as well as to the reusing and recycling of it.
Local government has a crucial role in waste management and in tackling unnecessary and unrecyclable material. Community-based action to shape attitudes and behaviour is vital to improving the UK’s sustainable management of waste, and bolder language would further empower councils to take stronger action.
Luton Council’s waste management strategy for 2018 to 2028 is committed to a “waste less, recycle more” plan that recognises the importance of limiting the amount of waste. As well as ensuring that the recycling process is efficient, the waste minimisation strategy has a focus on behaviour change through education, engagement and communication, including working with schools, encouraging visitors to reduce the amount of waste and maintaining waste standards. However, unprecedented budget cuts imposed by the Government’s austerity agenda over the last decade have restricted the great work that councils do to sustainably tackle waste, so I urge the Government to back Labour’s amendment, to use stronger language to tackle waste prevention and to empower our councils by providing more financial support to expand preventive waste strategies in our communities.
Richard Thomson [V]
I want to speak to new clause 10, tabled in the name of Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru colleagues, and also to new schedule 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) spoke eloquently about the impact on the environment of disposable nappies, and about the sometimes misleading claims made about their environmental friendliness by the manufacturers. My partner and I decided to use cloth nappies for our children. I fully understand that, for varying reasons, that is not a decision that everyone feels able to take, or something that people can do 100% of the time, but it was a choice that worked very well for us.
New clause 10 and new schedule 1, taken together, would establish the basis on which the Government could act to address the problem of waste caused by nappies that are not reusable. Establishing clear standards for disposable nappies would help parents to make informed choices. It would provide clarity over terms such as “reusable”, “biodegradable”, “eco-friendly”, “environmentally friendly” and anything else that was put into the mix. That would help parents by making it clear what they were buying and what the impact of that choice would be. Furthermore, the schedule would, through the relevant national authorities cited, oblige the Government to begin to encourage local authorities to promote the use of reusable nappies if they do not do so already—I know that some do—and so reduce waste, by working alongside parents as well as existing schemes such as nappy libraries, which many parents find so valuable.
The waste that comes from disposable nappies is one of the biggest single environmental problems that we face, but it is also, potentially, one of the easiest for us to begin to solve through the provision of good information and good incentives from Government. To do so would be good for babies and good for the world that they grow up in. It is something that we are able to act on, and we should look to do so.
Rebecca Pow
I thank all hon. Friends and Members who have taken part in the debate—the input on this groundbreaking Bill has been fantastically supportive and enthusiastic.
Let me start with new clause 8. I am pleased to report that the waste hierarchy is already embedded in law through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. Accordingly, the Bill has been developed with it as a guiding light. While I touch on waste, I must assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) that consultations will shortly be launched on issues across waste reforms, including deposit returns, recycling collections and environmental permitting regulations, and we will work with packaging producers on them all.
The Secretary of State must produce a waste prevention programme and a waste management plan for England, setting out policies that apply the waste hierarchy. Waste handlers must also take reasonable measures to apply the waste hierarchy on the transfer of their waste. I hope that that reassures the many Members who touched on the waste hierarchy, waste and plastic, including my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who both have spectacular coastlines and concerns about plastics, and the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). The resource and waste measures in the Bill provide us with a range of options to tackle issues across the waste hierarchy.
Bill Committee members will have heard me talk about whether we could possibly tackle cat food pouches, which brings me neatly to nappies and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). I myself have experience of using reusable nappies—what a labour of love it is. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the primary powers on resource efficiency in the Bill will give us the legislative means to act on nappies, as suggested in new clause 10 and new schedule 1. I am happy to make that clearer to the hon. Gentleman through a change to the Bill’s explanatory notes. I really hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) will also welcome that.
Rebecca Pow
I will not take any interventions because of the pressure of time, but I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow East will welcome that. I shall turn to air quality, on which so many Members and colleagues have had an input—unless the hon. Gentleman wanted to say congratulations?
David Linden
I welcome any baby steps, but I would also welcome any opportunity to discuss with the Minister certain aspects of labelling and packaging. I welcome the changes that she is to make to the explanatory notes, but will she agree to meet me and the Nappy Alliance to discuss the matter in the context of the next stage of the Bill?
Rebecca Pow
I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said; of course, we will consider all these things when we come to that point.
Rebecca Pow
I will not give way again.
Let me turn to air quality, which was mentioned by so many colleagues and Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).
On new clause 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), my Department is working closely with other Departments to improve air quality through the Bill. We are making it simpler for local authorities to tackle a key source of indoor air pollution—domestic burning—and strengthening the role of public authorities in tackling air pollution. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament on progress towards local air quality objectives, to review regularly the national air quality strategy and to publish an environment improvement plan.
Let me turn to the use of pesticides and air quality and new clause 13. The use of pesticides is not allowed where that usage may harm people. The existing regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 requires comprehensive scientific assessment.
Let me turn to water and new clause 3, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). Nutrient pollution from phosphates and nitrates is one of the main pressures on the water environment, with the main source being development and agriculture. Planning authorities must consider the environmental effects of increased discharges from proposed developments. By removing any need for the consideration of phosphate pollution in assessments, the new clause would threaten the protection of important wildlife sites.
I turn to amendment 3 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I thank him for taking the time to meet me a couple of weeks ago. Flow levels are incredibly important to the health of a river and the ecology it supports, and he is a great champion for rivers. Our new abstraction powers in clause 82 will strengthen existing powers for addressing environmental damage as a result of abstraction, including low flows. The Environment Agency will clamp down further on environmental damage caused by unsustainable abstraction of water through a variety of actions, including placing new conditions on existing permanent licences.
I can also commit to my hon. Friend that I will amend the explanatory notes for the Bill to include a specific reference to flow levels. That will make it crystal clear that low flows will continue to be assessed by the Environment Agency in the exercise of these new abstraction powers. I hope that he will not ask me to write to him again and that that is clear. I commend others who have raised water so eloquently: my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew).
Moving on to amendment 30, I assure the House that restoring England’s internationally important chalk streams is a priority for this Government and for me personally. A chalk streams working group has been formed, and it is developing an action plan. Actions being considered include improving the transparency and usability of data, which can be done without primary legislation.
I turn to amendment 42. I expect sewerage companies to develop statutory drainage and sewerage plans in collaboration with risk management authorities, and I will use the power of direction in the Bill if they do not.
I turn to new clause 18 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). While I am sympathetic to its aims, it is not necessary. The “last resort” is already a protected provision, and the Secretary of State already has a duty to review testing requirements in respect of reproductive toxicity.
Turning to amendment 24 on the REACH regulations, we have already included safeguards to protect the fundamental principles of REACH, and we cannot agree to proposed new sub-paragraph (1B) of schedule 20.
I am going to wind up now, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Are you saying that I have more time? If I did have time, I would wax a little more lyrical.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
For the sake of clarity, yes, the hon. Lady can have another three or four minutes.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall slow down a tiny bit, then.
I did just want to say a little more in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I talked about the sewerage management plans, which are now going to be requirements, and said that I would use the powers of direction in the Bill if water companies were not using those properly. Section 13(1) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 already requires risk management authorities to co-operate with one another when exercising prescribed functions, but I intend to expand those functions to include the preparation of a drainage and sewerage management plan.
I hope that demonstrates that I and this Government, and DEFRA in particular, are putting this whole issue of dealing with our water right up there, centre stage. It is so important to all of us that we sort our water out, and it is thanks to so many colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and others who have spoken—that we are taking this really seriously. I hope that everyone will be supportive of that, including my Labour shadow colleagues.
Let me go back to REACH very quickly. I said that we had included safeguards to protect the fundamental principles of REACH, which is schedule 20. That includes ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment, and replacing substances of very high concern, such as cancer-causing chromium compounds, through the REACH authorisation process. As I said, we cannot agree to proposed new sub-paragraph (1B), which would force us to follow what the EU does instead of having ownership of our own laws. We would have to make decisions and regulations with no regard to our own scientific evidence. We have no plans at all to diverge from EU REACH for the sake of it. I hope the shadow Minister was listening to that, because she particularly raised it. Protecting the environment and human health is paramount, and the UK will retain the fundamental approaches and key principles of EU REACH.
I really will wind up now, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your time. It has been an honour to preside over the passage of this Bill. It has been long, and it still continues, but all the better. It charts a new and much-needed exciting and ambitious course for us all on the environment, and it will leave it in a better state than we found it. I want to thank all colleagues on both sides of the House who have taken part in this, helping to drive us all towards a fairer, greener future. I want to thank my Bill team. I probably do not have time to name them all, but I named them in Committee. I thank my private office, all Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee, my long-suffering family and my husband Charles, who I hope is watching me from up there.
As Members of the House are aware, the immense pressure put on the parliamentary timetable by the covid pandemic means that the Bill will sadly need to be carried over to the second Session. As I stated at the start, we will be back. I give an assurance that this carry-over will in no way reduce our commitment on the environment. Intensive work relating to measures in the Bill is already under way and will continue. One of the reasons I came to Parliament was to work to put the environment centre stage, helping to steer us to an essential sustainable trajectory for the planet. It is the right thing to do, and we are doing it.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her wide-ranging thanks and comments, but I have to say that we will be doing it all again in May, because this is only day one, and we have day two to go. Hopefully, the Bill will eventually become law, which will be really good, because that is the whole point of this.
Our amendments would make an average Bill better, but as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, we want the Bill to go further. Labour wants to seize the opportunity before us to develop a genuinely once-in-a-generation Bill, in the words of the Minister. Changing explanatory notes about the Bill is all very well, but it does not change the legislation. If it is that important, we should put it in the Bill.
The Minister touched on the deposit scheme, as requested, but we do not want to focus on consultation; we want a proper scheme delivered at the earliest opportunity. On air quality, it is vital that we act and act now. One Government Back Bencher noted that the World Health Organisation knows best, and I urge the Minister to take heed of that piece of advice. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for sharing the experiences of his constituents who live in, as he put it, a “pollution blizzard”. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for their moving and important speeches on new clause 6, on air quality. They both mentioned the lost life of Ella Kissi-Debrah—a name we must never forget.
The Minister is right: we all want strong, effective management of our water; we want clean water; and we want to mitigate the impact of hazardous waste in our waters. I am pleased that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), spoke earlier in the debate. He knows from the shadow Minister for water, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), that Her Majesty’s Opposition support his private Member’s Bill. Water quality is so important. That is why, when preparing for the debate, I was shocked to find that in Camborne and Redruth—the Secretary of State’s seat—all 10 rivers that pass through the constituency have failed to meet the standards of chemical pollution set by the Environment Agency. Simply put, the Government’s inaction has seen contaminated water not just across the country but in the Secretary of State’s own backyard. I hope that that will focus the Minister’s mind.
I join my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), in praising Friends of the Earth Pontypridd for its campaigning work on water, and I praise her work on nappies too. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) for their enthusiastic contributions. The vital nature of science and its purpose was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who spoke about his many decades of fighting to protect our environment and preserve our planet; he is right. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made an important contribution in which he spoke to both his amendment and ours, and I thank him for the cross-party approach he has taken to these issues.
On waste, the Minister heard the message loud and clear from colleagues, and a special mention goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her years of campaigning. The Minister could quite easily accept new clause 8 and show that a cross-party approach is welcomed by Tory Ministers.
Amendment 24, which we will push to a vote, would ensure that Britain does not become a dumping ground for hazardous waste. It would prevent damaging deregulation and help to maintain regulatory parity with EU REACH and chemical-related laws that would prevent the dumping of products on the UK market that fail to meet the EU regulations and avoid the cost and complexity of regulatory divergence on the industry. Our objective is clear, and I hope that the Minister will support our amendment tonight. The need to do whatever we can to preserve our environment and protect our planet is obvious, so I hope that she will join us in doing just that.
We wish to push amendment 24 to a vote, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, with the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59
Hazardous waste: England and Wales
Amendments made: 32, page 46, line 39, leave out “Before section 62A” and insert “After section 62”.
This amendment changes the way in which the location of new section 62ZA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is identified. It is currently inserted before section 62A of the 1990 Act, which is repealed by the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Amendment 33, page 48, line 45, leave out from beginning to first “the” in line 13 on page 49 and insert—
‘(8A) In the application of this Part to England, “hazardous waste” means—
(a) any waste identified as hazardous waste in—
(i) the waste list as it applies in relation to England, or
(ii) regulations made by the Secretary of State under regulation 3 of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1540), and
(b) any other waste that is treated as hazardous waste for the purposes of—
(i) regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 62ZA, or
(ii) the Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/894).
(8B) In the application of this Part to Wales, “hazardous waste” means—
(a) any waste identified as hazardous waste in—
(i) the waste list as it applies in relation to Wales, or
(ii) regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under regulation 3 of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1540), and
(b) any other waste that is treated as hazardous waste for the purposes of—
(i) regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 62ZA, or
(ii) the Hazardous Waste (Wales) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1806).
(8C) In subsections (8A) and (8B),’.
This amendment updates the definitions of hazardous waste being inserted into Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take account of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Amendment 34, page 49, line 18, leave out from “(2000/532/EC)” to end of line 19.—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Clause 62
Regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990
Amendment made: 35, page 55, line 33, leave out subsection (4).—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment omits an amendment to section 62A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is no longer needed because section 62A is repealed by the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Clause 73
Environmental recall of motor vehicles etc
Amendment made: 7, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“and the regulations may provide that a reference in the regulations to a standard is to be construed as a reference to that standard as it has effect from time to time.”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 73 specifying relevant environmental standards may specify standards as they have effect from time to time. This power to make ambulatory references will avoid the need to amend the regulations each time standards are updated.
Clause 91
Disclosure of Revenue and Customs information
Amendment made: 8, page 91, line 31, leave out
“section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003”
and insert
“paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has been replaced by paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020. This amendment updates the cross-reference in consequence.
Schedule 20
Amendment of REACH legislation
Amendment proposed: 24, page 244, line 19, at end insert—
‘(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
(a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed
parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.’ —(Ruth Jones.)
This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Impact of the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
I present this petition on behalf of the residents on Enfield North to register their deep concerns about the planned Highways England works on the planned M25 junction 25 scheme.
The petition states
The petition of residents of the constituency of Enfield North,
Declares that the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme proposed by Highways England…poses many problems for the local community.
It further declares that the proposals set out by Highways England are flawed, and completely lack safeguards to protect schoolchildren and other road users from increased toxic air pollution and road accidents. It goes on to say:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to assess thoroughly the impact of the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme on the surrounding neighbourhoods and the environment, and to introduce effective measures to ensure that air pollution is mitigated and the road is safe for residents, school children and other road users.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Enfield North,
Declares that the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme proposed by Highways England has been approved and planned works are due to begin in March 2021 but the scheme poses many problems for the local community; further declares that the proposals set out by Highways England overlook the impact of increased traffic flows and speeding along the route which is through residential neighbourhoods and school precincts; notes that the scheme will increase the presence of HGVs which is a safety concern for the three schools along the route and thousands of children who use the route to and from school; further notes that there have been 13 motor accidents involving HGVs on this route since 2015 and two fatal accidents involving HGVs since this scheme was introduced in 2001; and further declares that the proposals set out by Highways England present a serious lack of measures to mitigate air pollution and ensure that the road is safe for residents, school children and other road users.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to assess thoroughly the impact of the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme on the surrounding neighbourhoods and the environment, and to introduce effective measures to ensure that air pollution is mitigated and the road is safe for residents, school children and other road users.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002645]
Detention of Anoosheh Ashoori in Iran
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to present the case of my constituent Anoosheh Ashoori today. Anoosheh is the 66-year-old father of Elika and Aryan, and a devoted husband to Sherry. As we speak, Anoosheh is lying in a prison cell in Evin, Tehran. The Minister will know some, if not all, of the details I am about to say, but I am saying them again because, in spite of the Minister and the Foreign Secretary being in full awareness of the facts of Anoosheh’s case, they have not improved their approach in the three and a half years he has been imprisoned.
I am grateful to Anoosheh’s wife, Sherry, for telling me about his life before his capture. Anoosheh’s dream when he was a teenager was to become an astronaut—not so different from some of our children’s dreams perhaps. He had big ambitions and worked hard to make them happen. When he was 18, he moved to the UK from Iran to study, and he finally gained his masters in aeronautical engineering in 1977. When his father passed away in the 1980s, Anoosheh situated himself in Iran to take over the family civil engineering business, for which he won national awards. Anoosheh, Sherry and their young family moved back to the UK in 2004. Anoosheh spent the next decade working tirelessly to make his business successful in the UK. In 2015, they moved into their dream home, in my constituency of Lewisham East, and planned their retirement.
It is obvious from Sherry that Anoosheh is absolutely besotted with his family. He uses his creativity to serve those he loves—from building baking machines to support his daughter to making a hobbit house in the family garden. Sherry has spoken of the pride that she and Anoosheh feel for their children: for Elika, who runs her own patisserie business, and for Aryan, who is an academic researcher with his own music label. It is clear that Anoosheh is a selfless, compassionate and caring family man. His devotion to his family is what led him back to visit his elderly mother in Tehran.
On that horrid day in 2017, just minutes after speaking to his wife on the phone, Anoosheh Ashoori was kidnapped off the street, with a bag over his head, and bundled into a van. He has been detained in Evin prison ever since. He was charged with spying by the Iranian authorities, and given a 10-year prison sentence. There has never been a scrap of evidence presented, and Anoosheh was denied legal support for a trial that should never have happened.
The conditions Anoosheh has had to endure in the past three and a half years are too painful for his family to recount, and I am confident that he spares them the details. Evin prison is known for the psychological and physical torture of its prisoners. There have been reports of mock executions, beatings, brutal interrogations and solitary confinement—not once or twice, but over and over again—of prisoners. Anoosheh has tried to end his life. He has attempted suicide three times, feeling unable to cope and to survive any longer.
But what exactly did Anoosheh do to deserve this horrific ordeal? His only crime is his dual British-Iranian nationality. The Minister will know well of the trauma Anoosheh and other British prisoners in Iran go through. We have had several urgent questions—particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq)—and we have heard many Government statements expressing their regret at the situation. However, our Government are simply not doing enough. Indeed, they are sitting on their hands when it comes to releasing innocent British citizens being held as hostages.
In November, the happy news was reported that Australian national Kylie Moore-Gilbert was released from prison in Tehran. This was a bittersweet experience, as Anoosheh’s family wondered when their loved one would return home. We are left to wonder: why can the Australians, and the Americans, make it work for their citizens, but not us?
The Foreign Office’s current strategy for dealing with consular disputes is not effective enough. It is imperative that the Government call out the hostage status of Anoosheh and those other dual British nationals being held by Iran for political leverage. To quote the international convention against the taking of hostages, international law dictates that:
“Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person…in order to compel a third party, namely, a State…to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages”.
Although this specifies individuals who take hostages, this is the precisely the mentality behind Iran’s strategy of hostage diplomacy.
Related to the imprisonment of Anoosheh and other British citizens is the £400 million debt owed to Iran by the United Kingdom. Iranian officials have told Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe that she is being detained because of the IMS debt. Our Foreign Office has repeatedly insisted that there is no link between Iran’s demand for payment and the taking of British prisoners. That is utter nonsense. For the rest of us, it is plain to see.
Anoosheh, Nazanin, and other British people in Iranian prisons are not mere “consular cases”. They are not just numbers, but people with families and futures. They are people being brutally mistreated over an international financial dispute. They are hostages. When will the Foreign Office accept that and acknowledge them as such?
Furthermore, court hearings were due to take place in the autumn to discuss managing the IMS debt, but they were postponed. Will the Minister give an update on the progress that his Department has made in resolving this sticking point? Iran is holding these prisoners in an attempt to hold Britain’s feet to the fire. The Government’s refusal to admit that and to act on that is only keeping the hostages in bondage for longer. To add insult to injury, last month the Foreign Secretary asserted that British citizens being held hostage abroad are not entitled to protection from the British Government. Surely I do not need to explain how absurd and inhumane that is. Will the Foreign Office issue a retraction of this damaging comment and assure the families of those randomly held that their loved ones will, of course, be given consular assistance?
Ultimately, we need detailed assurances that the UK Government will do all they can to support Anoosheh’s release from prison and to step up their efforts to bring him home. Anoosheh needs hope that his brutal treatment will come to an end; and his family need to know that he will soon be home where he can begin to heal. I implore the Minister to give a commitment today that his Department will not just express “concerns” for Anoosheh’s welfare, but detail a clear plan of action that will explain how they will bring Anoosheh and Nazanin back to London where they belong.
I also urge the Minister to confirm that the UK Government will not abandon my constituent and his family, but will in fact stand by British citizens who are being unlawfully detained abroad and that my constituent is as entitled to protection from the Foreign Office as the Foreign Secretary himself would be.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for securing this debate and I pay tribute to her for her unwavering efforts on behalf of her constituent.
Let me start by offering my deepest sympathies to the family of Mr Ashoori. They have endured this terrible ordeal for many years, as the hon. Lady has said. In August 2017, when Mr Ashoori was visiting family, he was detained by the Iranian authorities and sentenced to 10 years in prison under what the Iranian authorities called national security charges. Despite his appeal, Mr Ashoori’s sentence was upheld in July 2019. His family first made contact with officials from what at the time was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 19 June 2018, requesting consular assistance for Mr Ashoori. Since then, the UK Government have been in regular contact with the family. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met the family on four occasions, most recently on 27 October. In these meetings he has reiterated the Government’s continued commitment to reuniting Mr Ashoori with his family here in the UK. We continue to work flat out to secure Mr Ashoori’s full and permanent release, as we do with all detained dual British nationals, regardless of how extensively each case has been covered in this House or in the media.
The House will be all too aware that the Iranian Government do not recognise dual nationality and therefore refuse to identify Mr Ashoori as being British. In practice, that means that they will not permit consular officials from the British embassy to visit Mr Ashoori or other dual British national detainees. That creates severe challenges for the UK Government in providing consular support to the detained dual British nationals. Consular officials are unable to visit Mr Ashoori in prison without the express permission of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which to date it has never granted.
Despite those challenges, officials in our embassy in Tehran consistently press for access to Mr Ashoori and call on Iran to allow him to receive urgent medical furlough. The Government continue to raise Mr Ashoori’s case at the most senior levels, and we discuss his situation at every opportunity with our Iranian counterparts. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary engages with Foreign Minister Zarif regularly and always raises Mr Ashoori and our other dual British national detainees. Our ambassador in Tehran continually raises the cases of all dual British national detainees, including Mr Ashoori, with the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs. He last did so on 6 January this year with the deputy Foreign Minister.
Our intention is always to act in a way that we judge most likely to be in the best interests of dual British nationals who are detainees in Iran. We remain committed to doing all we can to ensure that they are released and allow them to return home to be reunited with their families. In the meantime, we have repeatedly pressed, and will continue to press, for consular access and appropriate medical care, including furlough, in advance of their full release.
On our consular support to the family of Mr Ashoori, the Government have relentlessly lobbied for Mr Ashoori’s full and permanent release. Since the family requested assistance from my Department, officials have provided consular support to the Ashoori family and are available to be contacted 24 hours a day. Officials provide regular updates on our lobbying efforts to the family and meet them to discuss their ongoing concerns. The most recent meeting of our officials with the family was on 20 January.
Mr Ashoori’s pressing health and welfare concerns are raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and our ambassador in Tehran at every opportunity with their Iranian counterparts, along with the UK’s serious concerns about Iran’s practice of detaining foreign and dual British nationals. The UK Government continue to make robust diplomatic representations on behalf of the dual British nationals detained in Iran who have requested our assistance, including Mr Ashoori, and we have repeatedly expressed our concern about Mr Ashoori’s appalling treatment. Our consular services are the FCDO’s most important public service. Ministers and officials work tirelessly and tenaciously to support individuals and their families. We always act in a way we believe to be in their best interests. But we are not complacent. We will continue to keep under review what actions we might take that are most likely to ensure that Mr Ashoori is allowed to return home to the UK.
The Government have been consistently clear that we want to put the relationship between the UK and Iran on a better footing. We believe that maintaining diplomatic relationships will help achieve our vision of a non-nuclear-armed Iran, an Iran that acts as a responsible regional power, and an Iran that does not pose a threat to the UK and UK interests. We continue to assess that it is also the best way of securing the release of dual British nationals currently in detention. The Government will work with all international partners, including the new US Administration, to deliver those shared goals. The UK will keep a diplomatic door open for discussions across a full range of UK interests. We will also continue to hold Iran to account for its human rights records.
From the Prime Minister down, the Government are clear that we do not accept dual British nationals being used as diplomatic leverage, and that it is essential that they are released. I will not make excuses for those in the Iranian Government responsible for the ongoing detention of British dual nationals. It is unacceptable and it must end. But it is the Iranian Government’s actions that we should be focused on. It is their choice to detain such people, and it is totally in their gift to release them. We should all be relentlessly focused on their behaviour and the decisions that they have made. This Government have consistently made clear to the Iranians our concerns at their persistent violations of human rights. We will keep up the pressure, along with the co-operation of our international friends and allies.
In the past six months, we have summoned the Iranian ambassador to hand over a letter from the UK, French and German Foreign Ministers and co-signed, a joint statement at the Human Rights Council expressing serious concerns over Iran’s behaviour. We have also reiterated calls for all states to uphold their human rights obligations. We will continue to call out those violations for as long as Iran commits them.
Let me end by once again expressing my deepest sympathies for Mr Ashoori and his family whilst he remains detained, as well as for all the others that remain detained at the hands of the Iranian Government. I can assure the House that this Government remain committed to doing whatever we can to secure the release of all of them, and will continue to make representations at every level, at every opportunity, on their behalf.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Patrick Grady |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Ogmore) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin I would like to remind hon. Members of the social distancing rules and the other requirements with which hon. Members are, I am sure, now very familiar and are, of course, observing already. However, I also remind hon. Members that the Speaker has asked that masks be worn in Committee except when a Member is speaking. Our Hansard colleagues would like any notes that Members have to be emailed to them at hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021, No. 15).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The instrument before us today prevents enforcement agents—that is to say, bailiffs—from attending residential premises in England to execute a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious circumstances. The instrument applies to enforcement action in England and will be in force until the end of 21 February 2021.
Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have put in place unprecedented support to protect renters directly, through measures such as these regulations and by making £180 million available to local authorities in discretionary housing payments to help renters with housing costs, but also indirectly through furlough, bounce back loans and many other forms of support.
The instrument renews the restrictions on enforcement agents carrying out evictions that were in place between 17 November 2020 and 11 January 2021. It will prevent enforcement agents from giving tenants notices of eviction or from attending residential premises to enforce a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious circumstances. That will ensure we continue to protect public health during the national lockdown at a time when the risk of virus transmission is high, and to avoid placing additional burdens on the NHS and local authorities. The instrument continues to provide for exemptions from the ban in cases where the competing interests of preventing harm to third parties, or taking action against egregious behaviour, make an alternative course appropriate.
The exemptions are as follows: when a claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown; where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour or nuisance, or false statements, or domestic abuse in social tenancies; for substantial rent arrears equivalent to six months’ rent; or where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of death of the tenant, and the enforcement agent attending the property is satisfied that the property is unoccupied.
The instrument contains a requirement for the court to be satisfied that an exemption applies on a case-by-case basis. That will ensure that there is a clear, uniform and transparent process for establishing whether an exemption to the ban applies. This legislation is an extension of the previous ban on the enforcement of evictions in all but two respects. The first difference is that we have redefined “substantial rent arrears” to cover cases with rent arrears of greater than six months. The requirement in the last statutory instrument was for nine months of arrears, not including any arrears that had accrued since March 2020. We have revised the definition to balance the need to continue to protect tenants with the impact of the ongoing restrictions on landlords.
As a result of action that the Government and the courts have taken during the pandemic, we expect that most of the cases that fall within the exemption will relate to possession claims that began before the six-month stay on possession proceedings from March 2020. In those cases, landlords may have been waiting for over a year without rent being paid, and it is appropriate that they are able to seek possession in those unusual cases.
The second difference between this instrument and the one it replaces is that this instrument permits writs and warrants of restitution to be enforced. Those orders are issued in cases where a person who has been evicted from premises re-enters those premises illegally. Therefore, it is appropriate that they are excluded from the ban.
The regulations will be in place until 22 February 2021. We are keeping the provisions under review in order to ensure our approach reflects the latest available data. It is important to ensure that our approach remains proportionate, and strikes the right balance between continuing to protect tenants and ensuring that landlords are able to access justice.
It is important to note that most cases do not reach the enforcement stage, and our support for renters to remain in their homes will continue throughout the winter. As I have mentioned briefly, the Government have taken unprecedented action to protect renters. We have taken action to prevent people from getting into financial hardship by helping businesses to pay salaries—which is the most important measure to ensure that people can pay their rent—using the furlough scheme, which has been extended to April, and we have boosted the welfare safety net by billions of pounds. The Government have also made £180 million available to local authorities in discretionary housing payments to help renters with their housing costs.
We are continuing to require landlords to provide tenants with six months’ notice before eviction in all but the most serious cases until the end of March, which means most renters now served with notice could stay in their homes until June 2021, with time to find alternative support or accommodation.
New court arrangements and rules are in place to ensure appropriate protections for all parties until at least the end of March, and, from early February, we will be piloting a new mediation service to support landlords and tenants to resolve disputes before a formal hearing takes place. This service will be free to use for all tenants and landlords if the duty solicitor at a review hearing thinks that the case would benefit from mediation.
During the debate on 7 December about the previous statutory instrument concern was raised that the Government had not gone further to protect renters by preventing possession claims from being made and heard in the courts. The six-month stay on possession proceedings introduced at the start of the pandemic could only ever be temporary. It is important, of course, to distinguish between claims and enforcement.
The new court rules and processes, introduced in September to respond to the pandemic, remain in place and will be regularly reviewed. Those include the requirement for cases from before 3 August 2020 to be reactivated by the landlord and then be subject to a new review hearing at least four weeks before the substantive hearing. The deadline to reactivate will be extended to the end of April 2021. The new court rules and processes also include the need for landlords to provide the courts and judges with information on how tenants have been affected by the pandemic; where this information is not provided, judges will be able to adjourn proceedings until it has been provided.
A further requirement is for all enforcement agents to provide a minimum of 14 days’ notice before enforcing an eviction in most cases. We have also introduced a new review stage at least 28 days before the substantive hearing, so that tenants can access legal advice. New Government guidance has also been published to help landlords and tenants in England and Wales understand the possession action process and new rules within the court system.
Our approach strikes the right balance between prioritising public health and supporting the most vulnerable renters, while ensuring that landlords can access and exercise their right to justice; landlords can action possession claims through the courts, but evictions will not be enforced, apart from in the most serious cases.
The instrument provides tenants with protection from eviction, ensuring that vulnerable tenants are not forced from their homes during the current national lockdown restrictions. This is intended to protect public health at a time when the risk of virus transmission is high, and to avoid placing additional burdens on the NHS and local authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Mr Paisley,
“no one should lose their home as a result of the coronavirus epidemic.”
So said the Government’s Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), last March. It was an honourable sentiment, which rightly enjoyed the support of those on both sides of this House. Unfortunately, in the months since, we have witnessed the Government’s promise be broken again and again.
Between the start of April and the end of November 2020, 207,543 households approached their local councils for help with homelessness or the threat of homelessness. Of those, 50,561 were judged to be threatened with homelessness; 70,309 were already homeless. Ministry of Justice statistics show no possessions were recorded between April and September, but clearly those numbers are hiding the reality on our streets. Most people leave their homes before their case ever gets to court, let alone wait for a bailiff.
A dangerous cocktail of illegal evictions, tenants put under pressure to leave before eviction, and pressure on lodgers—who have never had protection—has meant that hundreds of thousands have faced the indignity of the threat of homelessness.
Why does the Minister think it is right to allow tenants to be kicked out for arrears that they have built up since the start of the pandemic? This breaks the Housing Secretary’s promise. Why does the Minister think it is right to extend the ban on evictions only to 21 February, when we know that restrictions on our liberty, lives and work will go on for much longer than that? That breaks the Housing Secretary’s promise. Why does the Minister think that there is a difference in seriousness between this lockdown and March’s lockdown, when his Government put in place a clear ban on evictions? That again breaks the Housing Secretary’s promise.
Instead of creating another cliff edge just a few weeks away, we need a package of support for renters and home owners to ensure that nobody loses their home because of the pandemic. It is time to extend the ban on evictions and repossessions, extend mortgage holidays, make the six-month notice period that will soon come to an end permanent, raise the local housing allowance to cover median market rates, reform housing law to end automatic evictions through the courts, reduce the waiting period to receive support for mortgage interest payments, retain the £20 uplift to universal credit, end the five-week wait and suspend the benefits cap.
People are facing the biggest crisis of a generation because of this Government’s incompetent management of the pandemic. The last thing they need now is to lose their homes. Labour will not oppose the regulations today, because any extension to the eviction ban is better than none, but we will not vote for them either, because we are urging the Government to go further—to stick to their promises and not let anyone else lose their home.
Alex Chalk
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his representations. It is important to be clear: to pick up one of his points, if there are individuals who have been unlawfully evicted, let the message go out that that is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. We expect action to be taken in those appalling cases. The legislation is there; it has been there since 1977. Local authorities are well placed to take action and I hope they do precisely that.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of criticisms. I hope he will take into account that, for those who are potentially at risk of eviction, under these measures, there will be a six-month notice before that takes place. That is far in excess of anything that existed prior to the pandemic under this Government or indeed under the Government he served in.
Ultimately, we have to strike an important balance. Prior to this measure, some landlords might have been in a situation where their tenant was in arrears to the tune of eight months or so, but they had no ability to take possession of their property. Such cases are vanishingly rare, but in those rare cases, it is appropriate that scope for action exists.
These regulations are intended to strike the balance. We are there to support tenants with measures such as furlough, bounce back loans and self-employed income support, to pay their rent. Happily, recent surveys show that more than 93% of tenants are doing precisely that. For those who are not doing so or are unable to negotiate rent reductions or even rent pauses, in those very rare cases—I stress that it is a small minority of cases—it is important and proportionate that there is a remedy.
I also want to stress the enormous sums of money that have gone into supporting local authorities—£4 billion—and into supporting discretionary housing allowance. The regulations strike the right balance. They are on the side of renters. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 2 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 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: Mr Philip Hollobone, † Steve McCabe
† Britcliffe, Sara (Hyndburn) (Con)
† Cates, Miriam (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)
Clark, Feryal (Enfield North) (Lab)
Crawley, Angela (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
† Johnston, David (Wantage) (Con)
† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)
† Lamont, John (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
† Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab)
† Onwurah, Chi (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
† Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con)
† Russell, Dean (Watford) (Con)
† Sunderland, James (Bracknell) (Con)
Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)
† Warman, Matt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
West, Catherine (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
† Wild, James (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Sarah Thatcher, Huw Yardley, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 26 January 2021
(Afternoon)
[Steve McCabe in the Chair]
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
The Chair
Before we begin, I know this is difficult and people forget, but Mr Speaker is clear: we should be wearing our masks if we are not speaking. I ask you to do your best to comply with that, because it is sensitive. The rules under which the House is allowed to operate have been agreed with health and safety, meaning that if we are not complying, not only are you putting everyone at risk, but unfortunately all the work that has been done could be invalidated. I urge people to do their best to remember.
Clause 17
Laying before Parliament
Amendment proposed (this day): 20, in clause 17, page 29, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) Where the Secretary of State considers that laying a copy of the direction or notice (as the case may be) before Parliament would, under subsection (2), be contrary to the interests of national security, a copy of the direction or notice must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.
(5) Any information excluded from what is laid before Parliament under the provision in subsection (3)(b) must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.”—(Christian Matheson.)
This amendment would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with any information relating to a designated vendor direction or designation notice which on grounds of national security is not laid before Parliament, thereby enabling Parliamentary oversight of all directions and notices.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 20, page 35, line 30, at end insert—
“(9) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any notification under this section relating to a designated vendor direction, designation notice, a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction or a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any notification under this section which relates to a direction or notice that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 23, in clause 20, page 37, line 41, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation decision relating to a designated vendor direction, designation notice, a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction or a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation decision which relates to a direction or notice that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 24, in clause 21, page 39, line 9, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any urgent enforcement direction relating to a designated vendor direction to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any urgent enforcement direction which relates to a direction that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 25, in clause 21, page 40, line 6, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation of an urgent enforcement notification relating to a designated vendor direction to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation of an urgent enforcement notification which relates to a direction that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
I need to understand, Mr Matheson, what your intention is.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
As you correctly say, Mr McCabe, I need to announce my intention, but just as I was about to, the Committee was halted. I am reminded of the occasion involving that notorious football referee Clive Thomas. The 1978 World Cup blew up against Brazil because, as the ball was heading towards the goal, he disallowed the goal. That was rather how I felt this morning.
That said, I do not wish to press the matter further, despite the fact that I had devastating remarks that would have swayed the Minister. I will not put my amendments to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Monitoring of designated vendor directions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
It is a pleasure to be back under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
I will try to rattle through these as quickly as I can. Clauses 18 to 23 cover monitoring and enforcement, and further provisions relating to non-disclosure and information requirements. Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State the power to give Ofcom a monitoring direction, requiring the regulator to obtain information relating to a public telecoms provider’s compliance with a designated vendor direction and to provide that information in a report to the Secretary of State.
The clause also includes requirements about the form of such reports and the procedures around their provision, but it does not create any new powers for Ofcom, which already has them under section 135 of the Communications Act 2003. The provisions in the clause are an integral part of the compliance regime. The power to give a monitoring direction to Ofcom is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State has the ability to require it to provide the information needed to assess compliance with designated vendor directions.
Clause 19 provides Ofcom with the power to give inspection notices to public communications providers. The provisions will apply only where the Secretary of State has given Ofcom a monitoring direction. Inspection notices enable Ofcom to gather information from communications providers in relation to their compliance with a direction. The notices are a tool for Ofcom to give effect to its obligations under a monitoring direction.
Clause 19 also sets out the new duties that inspection notices can impose, the types of information that they can be used to obtain and how the duties in an inspection notice will be enforced. Ofcom may only give inspection notices in order to obtain information relating to whether a provider has complied or is complying with a direction. The notice power cannot be used to obtain information relating to whether a provider has complied or is complying with a direction. The notice power cannot be used to obtain information relating to how a provider is preparing to comply with a direction. Ofcom can instead use its other information-gathering powers under section 135 of the Communications Act 2003 to obtain such information.
Clause 20 provides the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to enforce compliance with designated vendor directions, as well as with any requirement for a public communications provider to prepare a plan setting out the steps it intends to take to comply. It is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to issue directions where necessary in the interest of national security. Clause 20 is essential to ensure that the Secretary of State can carry out this role effectively and enforce compliance with any directions issued. New sections 105Z18 to 105Z21 will be inserted into the Communications Act 2003 for this purpose. The provisions set out the process that the Secretary of State will follow in instances where an assessment is made that a public communications provider is not acting in compliance with the direction or with the requirement to provide a plan. The process encompasses giving a contravention notice, enforcing it and imposing penalties for non-compliance. The clause is essential in ensuring that the Secretary of State can carry out the role effectively and deters and penalises instances of non-compliance.
Clause 21 provides the Secretary of State with the power to give urgent enforcement directions. Provisions to enable urgent enforcement are needed in cases where the Secretary of State considers that urgent action is necessary to protect national security or to prevent significant harm to the security of a public electronic communications network, service or facility.
Clause 22 creates a power for the Secretary of State to impose a requirement on public communications providers or vendors not to disclose certain types of information without permission. The provisions are necessary to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information, which would be contrary to the interest of national security.
Finally, clause 23 creates a power for the Secretary of State to require information from a public communications provider or any other person who may have information relevant to the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions under new sections 105Z1 to 105Z26. For example, the Secretary of State can require information on a provider’s planned use of such goods or information relating to how a network is provided. It can also include information about the proposed supply of goods or services. The ability to gather such information would ensure that the Secretary of State is able to make well-informed decisions when considering whether to issue designation notices and designated vendor directions. Information obtained through the use of this power can also be used to support the monitoring of compliance, with directions supplementing information gathered by Ofcom through its information-gathering and inspection notice powers.
To summarise, new sections 105Z18 to 105Z21 together establish the power and processes that outline how the designated vendor regime will be monitored and enforced. The provisions in clause 22 are needed to manage the disclosure of information, the unauthorised disclosure of which may be contrary to national security, and clause 23 will ensure that the Secretary of State is able to obtain the information necessary to make assessments to determine whether to give a notice or direction and to assess compliance.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr McCabe. I will not detain the Committee long with a consideration of the clauses, and I thank the Minister for so ably setting out what the clauses aim to achieve. Indeed, we on this side recognise the importance and the necessity of clauses 18 to 23 in establishing the process and ensuring the powers to obtain information and enforce direction as part of that process.
We only reiterate a small number of important points to draw attention once again to the breadth of the powers, which enable the Secretary of State to require information to an almost unlimited extent. Given the breadth of the powers, the information and progress on the telecommunications diversification strategy is, once again, notable by its absence. Given the breadth of the requirements, it is notable that there is nothing on progress on the diversification strategy. Nor, if my memory serves me correctly, does the impact assessment reflect the potential costs to either the network operators or Ofcom in exercising these powers. The clauses do not set out the impact and they emphasise once again the importance of Ofcom having the appropriate resources to enable it to carry out the requirements effectively. I hope that the Minister will bear those limitations in mind in his ongoing review of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Further amendment concerning penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Warman
Clause 24 enables higher penalties than those currently set out in the Communications Act 2003 to be issued by Ofcom, and clause 25 makes two necessary consequential amendments to that Act. The penalties under clause 24 can be imposed for contraventions of requirements to provide information to Ofcom for the purpose of its security-related functions. That includes when providers do not provide information requested by Ofcom for the purpose of providing a report to the Secretary of State.
Penalties can be set at a maximum of £10 million or, in the case of a continuing contravention, up to £50,000 a day. These maximum penalties are a marked increase on the existing ones, which are capped at £2 million, or £500 a day. This clause ensures that the maximum penalties are the same as those in clause 23. The size of these penalties is appropriate given the potential impact of the situation described. Proposed new section 139ZA(5) of the 2003 Act, inserted by this clause, gives the Secretary of State the power to change, by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, the maximum amount of the fixed and daily penalties. That will help to future-proof the framework by ensuring that penalties can be adjusted over time—for example, because of inflation.
In summary, clause 24 enables Ofcom to issue the financial penalties necessary to ensure that providers supply it with the information that it needs. Clause 25 contains the consequential amendments to that, which are necessary because the Bill creates a number of powers to make regulations and some of those regulations will amend primary legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Financial provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 27 stand part.
Government amendments 1 to 4.
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
Matt Warman
I will be brief, but it is important to cover the Government amendments. The clause provides that any increase in expenditure attributable to the Bill is paid out by Parliament. Clause 27 covers the extent of the Bill and clause 28 provides for the commencement of the Bill’s provisions.
I turn to the small set of amendments that the Government deem necessary, given that the Bill will be carried over to the second Session. The Bill creates new national security powers for the Secretary of State to address the risks posed by high-risk vendors through the issuing and enforcement of designated vendor directions in clauses 15 to 23 and 24. Amendment 1 enables clauses 15 to 23 to come into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. Amendment 2 ensures that the higher penalties also come into force. Amendment 3 removes the subsection of clause 28 providing for sections to come into force at the end of the two-month period. Finally, amendment 4 ensures that the provisions of clause 24 that are not commenced early come into force via commencement regulations on a day determined by the Secretary of State. Without the amendments, the provisions relating to those powers would come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, which could put at risk the timely implementation of this important policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Commencement
Amendments made: 1, in clause 28, page 46, line 19, leave out “section 14” and insert “sections 14 to 23”.
This amendment would cause clauses 15 to 23 to come into force on Royal Assent.
Amendment 2, in clause 28, page 46, line 19, at end insert—
“(ca) section24, so far as it relates to section18;”.
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 1. Clause 24 provides for higher penalties to be available for certain contraventions of information requirements, including contraventions associated with section 105Z12 of the Communications Act 2003, which is inserted by clause 18.
Amendment 3, in clause 28, page 46, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential upon Amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 4, in clause 28, page 46, line 30, at end insert—
“(ba) section 24 (so far as not already in force by virtue of subsection (1));”.—(Matt Warman.)
This amendment is consequential upon Amendments 1 and 2.
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 3
Duty of Ofcom to report on its resources
‘(1) Ofcom must publish an annual report on the effect on its resources of fulfilling its duties under this Act.
(2) The report required by subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the adequacy of Ofcom’s budget and funding;
(b) the adequacy of staffing levels in Ofcom; and
(c) any skills shortages faced by Ofcom.’.—(Christian Matheson.)
This new clause introduces an obligation on Ofcom to report on the adequacy of their existing budget following the implementation of new responsibilities.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7— Review of Ofcom’s capacity and capability to undertake duties (No.2)—
‘(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 105Z29 insert—
“105Z30 Review of Ofcom’s capacity and capability to undertake duties
The Secretary of State must, not later than 12 months after the day on which the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 is passed, lay before Parliament a report on Ofcom’s capacity and capability to undertake its duties under this Act in relation to the security of public electronic communications networks and services.”.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on Ofcom’s capacity and capability to undertake the duties provided for in the Telecommunications (Security) Bill which would be inserted into the Communications Act 2003 under the cross-heading “Security of public electronic communications networks and services” (which would encompass all the clause numbers which start with 105).
Christian Matheson
I do not want to detain the Committee all that long. The basis of the new clause is to ensure that Ofcom has the staffing and financial resources, as well as the capacity and technical capability, to undertake its new responsibilities under the Bill.
I remind the Committee that we heard in the evidence sessions that this is only one of several new areas of responsibility that Ofcom has received in recent years. For example, it now has responsibilities for regulating aspects of the work of the BBC. Parliament will be presenting Ofcom with responsibilities in relation to online harms, all of which is to be welcomed, but we have to recognise that there will be an overstretch for Ofcom.
In the area that the Committee is considering, there are technical complications that require specific sets of talents and capabilities which, we have heard previously, are not always in ready supply in the sector. We heard evidence that Ofcom, in common with other public sector bodies, does not pay as highly as some high-end consultancies, suppliers, developers or software houses, and therefore there will be churn. I do not want to stand in the way of anyone’s career development, but understandably there will be churn, in terms of Ofcom’s ability to maintain its responsibilities in what we know will be a continually evolving sector that throws up new technical challenges.
New clause 3 provides a duty on Ofcom to report on its resources, including the
“the adequacy of Ofcom’s budget and funding…the adequacy of staffing levels….and any skills shortages faced”.
In doing so, it will concentrate the minds of senior management at Ofcom, although I have no doubt that those minds will be focused on these matters already. Perhaps they will give this priority, particularly in terms of forward planning, and they will think, “We’re okay at the moment, but are we going to require extra and additional capability in area x, y or z in the next couple of years.” It will also focus and concentrate the minds of Ministers and Parliament, ensuring that Ofcom has the resources and capability to achieve the tasks that we have given it.
We heard many lines of evidence from the expert witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central may refer to some of them in her contribution, and I do not want to undermine that. Professor Webb said:
“I doubt Ofcom has that capability at the moment. In principle, it could acquire it and hire people who have that expertise, but the need for secrecy in many of these areas is always going to mean that we are better off with one centre of excellence”.
Emily Taylor of Oxford Information Labs said:
“Ofcom is going to need to upskill. In reality, as Professor Webb has said, they are going to be reliant on expert advice from NCSC, at least in the medium term,”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 79, Q95.]
The new clause is about assisting Ofcom to make an audit of what is available and ensuring that it is up to standard in terms of technological changes. It will also ensure that it is looking forward, in the midst of all the other responsibilities that Parliament is asking it to undertake, in order to maintain a level of skills and expertise that will enable it to undertake the snapshot reviews of current networks, as well as reviews of future provision and threats to the network. I hope that the new clause is self-explanatory and I am pleased to present it to the Committee.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I would like to speak to new clause 7, which stands in my name. It is related to new clause 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. As he has just said, Ofcom has had an expansion of its duties in the last few years and become a little bit like a Christmas tree with added responsibilities, but none of them will be as important for the nation’s future as this. That is not to decry any of the expertise or other duties that Ofcom has, but national security and the security of our national telecoms infrastructure, is a vital new task. I have said before that my concern about Ofcom centres on national security. That is why I have tabled amendments to the Bill. My fear is that Ofcom will not have the necessary expertise, although I am not suggesting that it cannot develop into a good regulatory body looking at security and our national telecoms infrastructure.
I tabled parliamentary questions on Ofcom’s budgets and headcounts, and I am glad to see that its budget and personnel have increased as its tasks have grown. That was not the case in 2010, when its budgets were subject to some quite savage cuts. My concern—I will call this my Robin Day approach—is that we have to future-proof Ofcom to ensure that the organisation not only has the budget but also has the personnel it needs. I do not want to suggest that the Minister would want to cut Ofcom’s budget at present, as it does important work. However, it is a regulator and perhaps does not have the clout of a Government Department, so any future Chancellor or Treasury looking for cuts disguised as efficiencies could see it as easy, low-hanging fruit.
Ensuring that the Secretary of State undertakes duties highlighting Ofcom’s efficiency puts a spotlight on the basis of considerations by future Administrations of any political persuasion. That will be important, not just in the early stages but as we continue. It may take a while for Ofcom to get up to speed, but I want to ensure that that continues. The obligation for the Secretary of State to report on Ofcom would at least give me comfort that first, it is being looked at and, secondly, that civil servants cannot in future just assume that an easy cut can be made but which might then impact on our national security.
I raised another subject with the head of Ofcom when she appeared before the Committee. I do not really want to rehearse the discussions again, but as the Bill progresses the Minister will have to give assurances on security, and try to demonstrate the close working relationship between Ofcom and the security services. That will be important, as it will give credibility to the expectation that Ofcom can actually do the job that we have set out. If the Minister does that, it will reassure people who may not be convinced that Ofcom has the necessary expertise, and ensure that that close working relationship continues, not just now but in future, so that national security is at the centre of this.
There will always be a balance—as I said, we saw it in the National Security and Investment Bill—between wanting, quite rightly, to promote telecoms as a sector, and national security. I fall very much on the side of national security being the important consideration, and we need to ensure that that is always the case. It is important that national security and intelligence agencies are able to influence these decisions, not just in respect of Ofcom but also in respect of Ministers in future.
Chi Onwurah
I support and second the comments and contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Kevan Jones), who tabled new clauses 3 and 7. I would also like to congratulate the Committee on having made it through, as it were, the thickets of the Bill as it stands to the sunlit uplands of our new clauses, which are designed to improve it in a constructive and supportive way.
New clauses 3 and 7 both address the challenge of Ofcom’s resources. As Members of the Committee know, I joined Ofcom in 2004. I know that we are not allowed to use props in debates in the Chamber, but the Communications Act 2003, which I am holding in my hand, is the Act with which the Bill is concerned. The changes that the Bill makes are mainly adding to that Act.
When I joined Ofcom in 2004, the Act was about half the size it is now. I am grateful to the Vote Office for printing and binding the enlarged Act which, as I said, is about double the size it was when I joined Ofcom. That is because—my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester alluded to this—Ofcom has acquired responsibility for critical national infrastructure, the BBC, the Post Office. What is not yet reflected in the Act is Ofcom’s soon-to-be-acquired responsibility for the entirety of our online existence, as reflected in an online safety Bill, which has yet to make its appearance but has the absolute commitment of the Minister’s Department.
This latest expansion of Ofcom’s duties will necessarily add a strain not only to its budget—I shall come on to address that briefly—but, most importantly, to its resources, as was referred to by my right hon. and hon. Friends. In January this year, a colleague of the Minister stated that Ofcom will have the resources that it needs to do its job. If that is the case, may I ask what objection the Minister has to Ofcom reporting to Parliament on the state of its resources, particularly as those resources will be very hard to come by. My right hon. and hon. Friends emphasised the fact that Ofcom lacks experience in national security measures, and that expansion of duties will require the recruitment of people with the required level of security clearance and experience.
We heard in the evidence sessions that that might be a challenge. Dr Alexi Drew said:
“I think what needs to be considered in that question is the type of resources that will be the hardest for Ofcom to acquire. I frankly believe it is not necessarily technology; I believe it is actually personnel. The edge that is given to companies that have already been mentioned in your hearings today—Google, Microsoft, Facebook et al—is not necessarily in the technology, but in those who design the technology. Those people are hard to come by at the level that we require them at. They are also very hard to keep, because once they reach that level of acumen and they have Google, Facebook or Amazon on their CV, they can pretty much choose where they go and, often, how much they ask for in the process.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 84, Q82.]
I just want to reiterate that the Bill must be forward-looking on security challenges. While we the existing architecture of our telecoms networks requires skills in certain aspects of technology—radio frequencies and so on—as the architecture moves more and more into the cloud and the software domain, those skills and CVs are going to be all the more scarce and difficult to obtain.
We also heard from Dr Drew that he was not sure whether Ofcom had the capacity to take on the sheer volume of work that was likely to be created. Finally, we heard evidence from Lindsey Fussell, Ofcom’s group director for network and communications:
“In relation to Ofcom’s costs, Ofcom is funded in two ways: first, by a levy on the sectors and companies that it regulates and, secondly, through the collection of fees, primarily from our spectrum duties. Our overall funding is obviously agreed by our board but also subject to a cap agreed with Government…We are currently in discussion with the Treasury about the exact technicalities and which of those routes will be used to fund this, but it will be in line with Ofcom’s normal funding arrangements.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 97, Q131.]
Mr Jones
This is about resources for Ofcom as a whole, but there will also be debate within Ofcom about how its resources are spent. Without any ring-fenced moneys for security, is my hon. Friend concerned, like me, that not only the external control of the budget but that debate internally might compromise security?
Chi Onwurah
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This debate is important for the Bill and important for our new clauses. It is also important that the Minister clarifies what the duties and priorities of Ofcom should be. Having worked for Ofcom at a different point in its history, I can tell hon. Members that when there is, say, a complaint about the behaviour of somebody in the “Big Brother” household that is hitting all the headlines in all the newspapers, that attracts the sudden concentration of resource—unnecessarily, one might argue. There needs to be a counterweight, if you like, to those headline-driven resourcing bottlenecks, which would be either ring-fencing or reporting on how resource is being used to support national security.
All Opposition Members are clear that national security must be the first priority of Government, and therefore the first priority of Ofcom. This is all the more relevant as I pick up the Communications Act 2003, in all its weightiness, where we find the general duties of Ofcom in section 3:
“It shall be the principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions—(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and (b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition.”
Security is not mentioned—national security or telecommunications security. During the evidence sessions, the argument was made, although I forget by whom, that security was a necessary part of furthering the interests of citizens in relation to communication matters. That is possibly true, but I still think this important issue would be improved by clarity.
As we know, there is a significant pressure on Ofcom’s resources, which changes week by week and month by month depending on what the issues are in the many and increasing domains in which it operates. If these principal duties of Ofcom do not reflect our national security, the concern is that having no direct reporting mechanism to Parliament could mean these resources being used opaquely, with no direct requirement to prioritise national security. I hope the Minister will agree that new clauses 3 and 7 solve a problem the Bill will have in practice. I hope that if he will not agree to the clauses as they stand, he will agree to consider how Ofcom’s prioritisation of national security interests can be made clearer.
Mr Jones
As I have said before, I am not a great fan of arm’s length regulators, because it is a way of Government Departments and Ministers off-loading their responsibilities. Given how my hon. Friend has described the Bill, the way this is going means that Ofcom will be larger than DCMS in the future. Does she share my concern about accountability if things go wrong? It is a good get-out for the Government to be able to hide behind Ofcom, rather than Ministers taking direct responsibility.
Chi Onwurah
As always, my right hon. Friend raises a good point. Having worked for a quango, I had clear insight into the line between independence and dependence, and into the importance of the political will of the Government, regardless of supposed independence. Equally, I saw how any regulator or supposedly independent organisation can be used as a shield for Ministers who do not want to take responsibility.
My right hon. Friend also raises a good point about the hollowing out of capacity in Government Departments. A consequence of 10 years of austerity and cuts is that DCMS and other Departments do not have the capability, capacity or resources that they previously might have enjoyed. I will point out to the Minister the example of the Government’s misinformation unit. It has no full-time employees and is supposed to exist using resources already in the Department—for something as critical now, with the vaccine roll-out, as disinformation.
My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that given the relationship between the Government and Ofcom, which is an independent regulator, and given the increase in responsibilities that the Bill represents at a time when other responsibilities are also being added to Ofcom, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have no visibility when it comes to Ofcom’s resources and capacity while giving it yet more responsibility. In fact, this seems to be responsibility without accountability. I hope the Minister will take on board the suggestions in new clauses 3 and 7.
Matt Warman
I thank the hon. Lady for her contributions. To address her central point, it would not be possible for Ofcom to meet the duties Government have tasked it with without addressing the foundational issue of security. It is important that we bear in mind that that is not an exhaustive list, but security will always be a foundational point.
The new clauses would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of Royal Assent. New clause 3 would require Ofcom to publish an annual report on the adequacy of its budget, resourcing and staffing levels in particular.
As the Committee is aware, the Bill gives Ofcom significant new responsibilities. Ofcom’s budget is approved by its independent board and must be within a limit set by the Government. Clearly, given the enhanced security role that Ofcom will undertake, it will need to increase its resources and skills to meet these new demands. As such, the budget limit set by the Government will be adjusted to allow Ofcom to carry out its new functions effectively. This is of a piece with the direction of travel we are going in. In 2012, Ofcom had 735 employees. Last year, it had 937 employees, so as its remit has expanded, so has its headcount. That will continue to be reflected in the level of resourcing that it will be given.
Christian Matheson
Budget allocations can go down as well as up and there might be a future Government who are not quite as generous as past Governments have been. What guarantee can the Minister offer us that without some kind of reporting, such as that we propose, Ofcom’s budget will not be frozen or, indeed, reduced?
Matt Warman
Ultimately, a mechanism already exists by which Parliament is able to scrutinise Ofcom’s resourcing. Ofcom is required under the Office of Communications Act 2002 to publish an annual report on its financial position and other relevant matters. That report, which is published every March—I am sure the hon. Gentleman is waiting with bated breath for the next one—includes detail on Ofcom’s strategic priorities as well as its finances, and details about issues such as its hiring policies.
Matt Warman
The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question that I may be able to answer in a moment, depending on a number of factors. As for the thrust of his question, Ofcom is ultimately a serious regulator that has the resourcing to do a serious job. The right hon. Gentleman would be criticising us if it had fewer people, so he cannot have his cake and eat it by criticising the fact it has enough to do the job—but I think he is going to have a go.
Mr Jones
Quite the opposite. This just reinforces my point about quangos. If we reach a situation where quangos are bigger than the sponsoring Department it is perhaps best to keep things in-house rather than having arm’s length quangos and the nonsense behind which we hide in this country about so-called independence.
Matt Warman
The reality is that the relationship between Government Departments and regulators is very often incredibly close, but independence is an important part of regulation. Although the right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the optimal size for in-house expertise versus external expertise, it is getting the balance right between Ofcom, the National Cyber Security Centre and DCMS that this Government and the reporting measures we already have are fundamentally committed to providing.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about Ofcom’s resourcing. Ofcom will not be making decisions on national security matters, as we have said repeatedly, but it will to be responsible for the regulation around these issues. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Intelligence and Security Committee has shown great interest in how Ofcom is preparing for its new role.
As for the point about disclosure and resources, I would be happy to write to the ISC to provide further details in the appropriate forum about Ofcom resourcing and security arrangements. This could include information that cannot be provided publicly, including information about staffing, IT arrangements and security clearances of the sort that we have discussed. I hope that Opposition Members understand that that is the appropriate forum to provide reassurance and to satisfy the legitimate requirements of public scrutiny on this issue.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way and for the tone of his response to the different points we made. I will leave the reassurance about writing to the ISC to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. Does the Minister recognise that that does not address the issue of Ofcom’s resources and reporting more generally, particularly lower down the pipeline, when it comes to national security? We have emphasised again and again the breadth of powers. The Minister has said that Ofcom will have the discretion, for example, to require an audit of all operators’ equipment—an asset register audit. It will take significant resource to understand the audit when it comes back. There are significant resource requirements involved that do not necessarily require security clearance but are nevertheless essential to effective security, and the Minister does not really seem to be offering reassurance on those.
Matt Warman
I would say that there is a sensible place to put some of that information, which is the communication to the ISC that I have offered, and there is a sensible place to put other information, which is the annual reporting that already exists. Hopefully the hon. Lady can find some comfort in the fact that both the information that cannot be shared publicly and the information that can will be subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary and public scrutiny.
Christian Matheson
I simply want to welcome the Minister’s comments, and the fact that he has recognised that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the appropriate place to discuss these matters, which, of course, cuts across other clauses that the Committee has already considered. He might bear that in mind on Report.
Matt Warman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that now that I have given those various reassurances, hon. Members are appropriately comforted.
Everyone is waiting for the headcount of DCMS; I am assured that it is 1,304 people, some 300 more than that of Ofcom. I do not know whether that makes the right hon. Member for North Durham happier or more sad.
Matt Warman
We can discuss the optimal sizes of quangos and Departments outside this room. However, the right hon. Gentleman is obviously right that Government Departments and regulators need the resources they require to do their job properly. I hope that by describing the various mechanisms I have provided hon. Members with the reassurances they need to withdraw the new clause.
Christian Matheson
First, I owe you an apology, Mr McCabe; so keen was I to crack on with the consideration of the Bill that I did not say how great a pleasure it was to serve yet again under your chairmanship. I should have done so at the outset and I apologise.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am looking to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, for a little guidance. It could well be that we might want to serve a little bit longer under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, by testing the views of the Committee on new clause 3, if we may.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 5
Reporting to Parliament No.2
‘(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 105Z29 insert—
“105Z30 Reporting to Parliament
(1) The Secretary of State must produce an annual report for the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament concerning—
(a) designated vendor directions made under section 105Z1; and
(b) designation notices issued under section 105Z8.
(2) The report must contain an assessment of the national security risks underpinning the directions and notices made under those sections.
(3) Ofcom must produce an annual report for the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament—
(a) assessing the adequacy of existing security measures within UK public electronic communication networks and services; and
(b) assessing future threats to the security of those networks and services.”’—(Chi Onwurah.)
This new clause introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of vendor designation on national security risks. It also requires Ofcom to produce a forward looking report on future threats to network security and undertake an assessment of the adequacy of existing measures.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 is similar in its intent to amendment 19, which we discussed earlier. As with all our amendments and new clauses, it is designed to improve the Bill through ensuring greater scrutiny, focus, transparency and security for the diversification of our network. It would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of vendor designation on national security risks. It would also require Ofcom to produce a forward-looking report on future threats to network security and undertake an assessment of the adequacy of existing measures.
At the centre of the new clause is a wish to reflect the importance of national security not as a snapshot in time but as something that needs to be continually monitored, considered and assessed for future impact. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report for the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. That would ensure that the report can be comprehensive with regard to security issues that might not be appropriate to share with the public or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The new clause would require that the annual report should concern designated vendor directions made under new section 105Z1 and designation notices issued under new section 105Z8. The report must contain an assessment of the national security risks underpinning the directions and notices made under those sections. That is for the Secretary of State to report.
In addition, Ofcom would be required to produce an annual report for the Intelligence and Security Committee to assess the adequacy of existing security measures within the UK public electronic communication network and services. Critically, it should assess future threats to the security of the networks.
As we have discussed, the Bill gives major sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and Ofcom. We want to ensure that they are proportionate and accountable. Like amendments 5, 9, 10, 20 and 22 to 25, the new clause seeks to address issues of oversight, scrutiny and transparency. We have taken some heart from the Minister’s recognition in the previous debate of the unique role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in assessing security implications, in that case resourcing for Ofcom. The new clause would ensure a focused accountability to Parliament, via the Intelligence and Security Committee, of the notices, designated vendor directions and designation notices made under the provisions of the Bill, and the existing security measures and future threats.
As aspects of this have already been debated, I want to focus on assessing future threats to the security of the network and services. The Minister might say that that is part of the responsibility of the National Cyber Security Centre. What we see is a massive transformation of how the UK addresses security in telecommunication networks, for very good reasons, and a significant amount of the responsibility falls on Ofcom.
The Minister has written to us about how Ofcom and the NCSC will be expected to work effectively together, and we welcome that, but it is also important that Ofcom demonstrates that it has the resources and skills to assess forward-looking threats to the security of our networks. If the measures in the Bill are to be effective for the next five or 10 years, there must be adequate accountability and assessment of future threats, so that we do not find ourselves once more in the position that we are in now because there has been a wholesale change to the networks and Parliament has not been able to assess the implications.
To support the concerns that we have raised, it is worth remembering that Andrea Donà, UK head of networks at Vodafone, said:
“Reviewing the legislation at regular intervals to assess its efficacy in the face of new technological challenges, and also in the light of new strategic aims by Government and that constant review involving the industry, will be very welcome”.––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 8, Q3.]
Dr Alexi Drew of the Centre for Science and Security Studies, talked about making it as hard as possible for attackers to get access, saying:
“We should be making sure that there is as much oversight and understanding as is possible of where our supply chains go, the standards that they should meet, and whether those standards are being met…this Bill goes some way towards that. I would argue that it needs to be continually updated, checked and maintained. This is not a one-off: times change, and the internet changes faster. Those would pretty much be my recommendations.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 82, Q100.]
Dr Louise Bennett argued that it was incumbent on the Government to have funding in place if vendor designations affected particular suppliers, because it could have the opposite effect to the one intended as small suppliers might not have
“the resources of skills, time or money”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 52, Q67.]
to respond. Reporting to the Intelligence and Security Committee on the impact of vendor designation notices as well as on forward-looking threats would be provide an opportunity to take account of the impact on particular sectors and on small suppliers, for example. Furthermore, we have talked previously about issues of confidentiality in the sector and concerns about changes and evolution in network architecture or the performance and predominance of one particular supplier, and the increasing influence that a supplier might have, which might not be appropriate to be reported in a public domain but would very much gain from being reported in a secure measure.
I know that the Minister is reluctant to add to the duties of Ofcom. He will probably say that Ofcom could do this if it wanted to. I reiterate that Ofcom has a lot of things that it could or should do, and would do, but it does not have as a principal duty ensuring the forward-looking security of our networks. The new clause will ensure that that is regularly considered by Ofcom and that Parliament can exercise adequate and effective scrutiny. It would also contribute greatly to the ability of Ofcom and the National Cyber Security Centre to work together effectively, as they would to produce such a report. I hope the Minister will support the provisions of the new clause.
Matt Warman
As the hon. Lady said, we have addressed various issues relating to the new clause in previous debates. It is important to stress that Ofcom has the resources that it needs. She talked about its ability to face the future, but in our evidence sessions, we talked to Simon Saunders, the director of emerging technology. I know she does not wish to suggest that Ofcom does not do this already, but demonstrably it is already proactively engaged in horizon scanning.
Chi Onwurah
Speaking as someone who was head of technology at Ofcom, I am aware that it engages in horizon scanning. I am sure the Minister will come on to this, but while there might be horizon scanning to understand how markets evolve and what level of competition may be seen in new markets in the future, the new clause deals specifically with horizon scanning for security and security threats. I am sure the Minister will focus on that.
Matt Warman
It is important to say that we have amended section 3 of the Communications Act 2003, to which the hon. Lady alluded, so that Ofcom must have regard to the desirability of ensuring the security and availability of networks and services, so that should be incorporated into the horizon scanning work.
Chi Onwurah
This is an important point. I do not think the 2003 Act has been amended, since I had it reprinted a week ago. We were talking about the principal duties. Under section 3, Ofcom has about two and a half pages of duties that it needs to carry out, but only two principal duties. Those principal duties do not mention security.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady is right, but as of 31 December 2020, section 3(4) states:
“OFCOM must also have regard, in performing those duties, to such of the following as appear to them to be relevant in the circumstances…the desirability of ensuring the security and availability of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communication services”.
It is absolutely there, but I fear we are getting into a somewhat semantic argument.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister is generous in supporting this back and forth in debate. I will close by pointing out that the duty to which he refers is one of 13 duties, so it can hardly be considered a priority. To put it more fairly, to ensure that it is a principal priority, it would need to be elevated.
Matt Warman
I think an organisation of 937 people can cope with 13 priorities. On one level, however the hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, and it is not one that we disagree with. Security has to be absolutely central to the work that Ofcom will do.
I will not restate the points I have made about how seriously we take the Intelligence and Security Committee and how seriously we will continue to take it. We will continue to write to the Committee on topics of interest as they arise and we are happy to continue to co-operate in the way that I have done; however, as I said in the debate on amendment 9, the primary focus of the ISC is to oversee the work of the security and intelligence agencies, and its remit is defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013. Amending the Bill to require regular reporting to the ISC, as proposed by the new clause, would risk the statutory basis of the ISC being set out across a range of different pieces of legislation.
Matt Warman
Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that it was the memorandum of understanding that he would like to see amended. Now he seems to be suggesting that we should insert the new clause, which will not change the memorandum of understanding.
Mr Jones
No, I said in an earlier contribution that if it were done by the memorandum of understanding, I would be quite happy. I know the Minister is limited in the number of civil servants he has beneath him compared with Ofcom, but will he go away and read the Justice and Security Act 2013? It talks about Departments, but it also talks about intelligence more broadly, which is covered by the memorandum of understanding. I do not know why he is pushing back on this issue; it may be because of the Cabinet Office, which has more civil servants than he has. I suggest that we will win this one eventually.
Matt Warman
That may well be the case, but the right hon. Gentleman is not going to win it here—that is the important point to make. It is right not to try to address this issue in the new clause, but the Government will continue to take very seriously the work of the ISC, as he would expect.
Additionally, the new clause is designed to require Ofcom to provide annual reports to the ISC, which would, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, be particularly unusual in the context of the work of the Committee, as Ofcom will not be making judgments about the interests of national security under the Bill, or as part of its wider function. Ofcom’s role as regulator seems not to be something that comes under the purview of the ISC, even if I understand the broader point. As I said earlier, however, the NCSC is very much under the purview of the ISC, and there are plenty of opportunities for the Committee to interrogate the work of that excellent agency. I am sure the Committee will continue to take up such opportunities with vigour, but as I have said before, it would not be right to seek to reframe the remit of the ISC through the new clause. I ask the Opposition to withdraw it.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments and for engaging so readily in debate. I have to say that we feel very strongly about the new clause, both for parliamentary scrutiny and for ensuring that Ofcom is looking forward and assessing future threats. With bated breath, I wish to test the will of the Committee on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 6
Network diversification (No. 2)
‘(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 105Z29 insert—
“105Z30 Network diversification
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on the impact of progress of the diversification of the telecommunications supply chain on the security of public electronic communications networks and services.
(2) The report required by subsection (1) must include an assessment of the effect on the security of those networks and services of—
(a) progress in network diversification set against the most recent telecommunications diversification strategy presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State;
(b) likely changes in ownership or trading position of existing market players;
(c) new areas of market consolidation and diversification risk including the cloud computing sector;
(d) measures taken to implement the most recent telecommunications diversification strategy presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State;
(e) the public funding which is available for telecommunications diversification.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than two months after a report has been laid before Parliament under this section, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’ —(Chi Onwurah.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Government’s diversification strategy as it relates to the security of telecommunications networks and services, and to allow for a debate in the House of Commons on the report.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
It is with some sadness that I come to the last new clause we have to present—[Interruption.]. I see that causes some hilarity in the Committee; I am sure that is just nervous laughter and everyone shares my dismay that the focus on telecommunications that the Committee has ably exhibited for the last few sittings will soon come to an end. Our consideration in some detail of the importance and implications of our telecoms network’s security must conclude, but I am pleased that we end on this new clause, which sums up one of the key themes we have focused on throughout our discussions: the importance of the diversification strategy.
Many amendments tabled by the Opposition reflect our concern that the Bill claims to seek the security of our telecommunications networks and yet does not mention once the diversification strategy. We are moving the new clause to put that right. We support the Bill and the Government’s aims in the Bill. We believe it is right to remove high-risk vendors from the UK’s networks and to take the measures in the Bill that will ensure that the Government will be able to designate vendors and require telecoms operators to comply with security requirements. However, those steps must go hand in hand with credible measures to diversify the supply chain, and that must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
As I said, the Bill as drafted fails to mention the Government’s diversification strategy and chooses to ignore the impact that the new powers afforded to the Secretary of State and Ofcom will have on supply chain diversity. The Minister recognises that they will reduce diversity, yet there is no reference to the steps that will be taken to diversify the supply chain. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the Government’s diversification strategy’s impact as it relates to the security of telecommunications networks and services.
The Opposition have argued throughout our deliberations that the sweeping powers afforded to the Secretary of State and Ofcom by the Bill must be put under proportionate scrutiny, and the new clause would do that. It would bring about a debate in the House on the findings of the Secretary of State’s diversification strategy report and require a ministerial response no more than two months after the report’s publication. The new clause would therefore provide accountability for the diversification strategy’s progress and lead to real action, not just talk.
It has been said that
“it is essential that we create a more diverse and competitive supply base for telecoms networks”
because reliance on two providers creates “an intolerable resilience risk”. Those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State. Members from across the House agree that we cannot have a robust and secure network with only two service providers. That is something we were repeatedly told in the evidence sessions. The chief technology officer of BT Group, the director of emerging technology at Ofcom and the former head of cyber-security at GCHQ think so, and even the Secretary of State thinks so, yet the lack of link between the diversification strategy implementation and the security of our networks is ongoing cause for concern. Now we have the chance to take action, and I am glad to offer the Minister the opportunity to put this right.
This is not new information. The dependence of our telecoms networks on diversifying the supply chain was set out in the 2019 telecoms supply chain report. A leak from that report caused a Cabinet resignation, so important was it considered to be. Unfortunately, in the intervening year and a half, the Government have failed to act, refusing to take the necessary steps to ensure the diversification of our national supply chain, leaving us at real risk of being short-changed on national security. I emphasise, once again, that we place national security at the heart of everything that we do in this Committee.
The UK defence industry seeks to encourage, support and create markets for UK small and medium-sized enterprises, supporting the very best in innovation and helping innovative small and medium-sized enterprises to grow. We would like to see the UK’s telecommunications industry do likewise, to ensure a sovereign security capability. We want the Bill and the diversification strategy to create significant opportunities for UK businesses, linking them to global supply chains.
I welcome the Government’s diversification strategy. After all, I have been calling for a strategy to grow and diversify our telcoms sector for a long time—even before I came to this House. Although the Government have been talking about such a strategy for some time—there was an awful lot of talk about a diversification strategy and bigging it up before it was published—as is often the case with this Government, the strategy that was published was a bit of a disappointment. It lacked the clear commitment and funding that one would expect to find in any effective strategy.
The £250 million committed by the Government over five years came with little detail on how it would be spent. I have now had assurance that the funding is focused on integration and testing facilities, which are necessary, but there is no emphasis on supporting research and development, and particularly supporting our start-ups in the telecommunications sector. In the evidence sessions, Mike Fake of Lumenisity highlighted that the first year of the £250 million diversification funding was equivalent to only 10% of BT’s annual research and development budget. This is not the bold action of a Government committed to network diversification and our telecommunications security.
The diversification strategy declares itself
“a clear and ambitious plan to grow our telecoms supply chain while ensuring it is resilient to future trends and threats.”
That is a bold ambition. It says it will do that by focusing on three main areas:
“Supporting incumbent suppliers to ensure their resilience and ability to supply the market in the near term, while supporting their transition into the emerging market structure; attracting new suppliers into the UK market to build resilience and competition, prioritising deployments that are in line with our longer term vision; accelerating open-interface solutions and deployment so that we are not reliant on any single vendor and begin to realise our long term vision for a more open and innovative market.”
These are all highly laudable. They are not easy. I recognise the challenge that the Government face. As we discussed in the evidence sessions, this comes after decades of neglect of sovereign capability, not only in the UK but by other countries, which is why we find ourselves with only two vendors, both from Scandinavian countries, and no UK, US or other European capability.
We have heard just how difficult this challenge will be. Will the Minister tell me how we can possibly achieve that bold ambition if we fail to monitor the impact of the strategy? We need an annual report on the progress made by the diversification strategy, so that we can apply appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. After all, the strategy commits the Government to regular reports on progress, which is what the new clause asks for, while adding a focus on the diversification strategy’s impact on our national security. That is what it is all about. The Secretary of State tells us that the Government are implementing one of the toughest telecommunications security regimes in the world, but why is there to be no scrutiny applied to this key part of the regime?
When I asked the Minister in parliamentary questions why the diversification taskforce was not diverse in terms of geography—it includes no one from north of Watford—or discipline, having on it no equipment supply chain expertise, I was told that geography did not matter, and that the taskforce was focusing on cyber-security skills. To be fair, the Minister did say that Ian Livingston, the chair, was Scottish, but I think he will acknowledge that he has not lived in Scotland for some time. Geography does matter. We need to build up concentrations of skills and expertise—clusters. Cyber-security is very important, but focusing on it suggests that we are not serious about developing sovereign capability in other very important areas.
We are agreed that diversification is essential, and I hope that we are agreed that that should include UK capability. We also agree that it is challenging. How do we do it? In an evidence session, Professor Webb said:
“If I wanted to diversify, I would instruct the telecoms operators to diversify. I would not try and pull the levers one step removed. I would say to the telecoms operators, either with a carrot or a stick, ‘You must diversify. If you have x number of vendors in your network, I will give you £x million as a carrot.’ The stick might be some kind of licence condition that said, ‘In order to meet your licence, you have to have at least x number of vendors in your network.’”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 73, Q87.]
We also heard from Chris Jackson, who said:
“Incentives definitely play a part in this; to comment on Japan for a moment, I know the Japanese Government have incentivised companies to embrace open RAN, and that might well explain why companies such as Rakuten and NTT DOCOMO have been very successful in launching the technology. That proves it can be done and shows that where there is a willingness, there is a way, but if we can drive all those different parties coming together, that is how we will get traction.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 38, Q43.]
The Government have chosen not to do that. They have chosen to focus on big sticks for security, as set out in the Bill, such as designations, enforcements and fines of up to 10% of turnover, but they have left diversification very much to the market, providing it with a sweetener of £250 million over five years. Surely we have a right—indeed a duty—to monitor how and whether that is successful.
We heard in the evidence sessions that we have significant national promise in terms of capability. Dr Andy Sellars, the strategic development director for the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult, said:
“In the UK we have something like 5,000 companies that design and manufacture electronic systems. Something like 600 of them are involved in telecoms. I am not suggesting that all of those 600 become equal players. That would be a crazy scenario. But there are certainly some parts of the telecom network where the UK is pre-eminent. There are some backhaul and fibre technologies that we are very good at. As we deploy 5G into rural communities, that is likely to require low Earth orbit satellites; we are very good at satellite communications.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 19 January 2021; c. 109, Q142.]
I will give the Minister a specific example of both the opportunity and the challenge, which I hope he will respond to equally specifically. I am very pleased to say that the example comes from my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne Central: INEX, which is leading the UK’s drive for a sovereign radio frequency and communications gallium nitride semiconductor—an important semiconductor capability for telecommunications.
INEX is currently working with many of the organisations in the north-east communications cluster, including aXenic, Evince, VIPER RF, II-VI, Newcastle University and Durham University. Further afield, it works with companies and organisations in south Wales, Glasgow, Cambridge and Edinburgh, deploying compound semiconductors for RF and microwave applications, and working on the microfabrication of devices for quantum, medical and centres markets. Most recently, that has been expanded to include graphene-based devices.
Despite covid-19, in 2020 INEX grew by 50%, having recruited six highly qualified and experienced people. To address and grow the telecommunications market, those businesses in the north-east will have to extend their reach to partners in tier 1 telecommunications companies and their labs, and demonstrate that they have the skills and resources to scale the delivery of telecommunications hardware. The biggest challenge will be accessing the capital investment to buy the process and manufacturing equipment to deliver at-scale commercial products. That is a fundamental barrier to entry for many small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector. I ask the Minister what specifically he is doing to redress that. He will say that the diversification strategy suggests that there will be funding for testing and integration, but we are specifically looking at the challenge regarding capital investment.
If that group of companies is to be an intrinsic part of telecommunications deployment, we must ensure that it can reach into and benefit from the competitive pull of tier 1 labs and access the global telecommunications industry. I strongly believe that although direct procurement of critical subsystems, cyber-certification and sponsoring the UK’s attendance on standards bodies is beneficial —I will talk a bit about that—for truly secure telecommunications, the UK’s sovereign businesses, both hardware and software, need to be embedded in the global supply chain from which telecoms infrastructure is built.
The Bill needs to ensure that the UK is an embedded development partner, rather than simply a taker of technology. I am afraid that right now the Bill simply tries to ensure that we are a taker of technology. During the evidence sessions, we heard repeatedly of the importance of standards from numerous sources. Emily Taylor, the chief executive officer of Oxford Information Labs, heralded the exciting opportunities presented by inter-operable standards, and the impact that they could have on prevention of vendor blocking. The diversification strategy recognises that too, stating that standards
“play a critical role in determining the barriers to entry for new suppliers and establishing principles such as open interfaces and interoperability”,
but the Bill gives no requirement for reporting on the progress of standards, and no indication of how our involvement in standards, which is necessary for diversification, will be achieved.
Emily Taylor also said:
“The ITU is headed by a Chinese national, and of 11 working groups within the ITU’s Telecommunication Standardisation Sector …China has a chair or vice-chair in 10, and a total of 25 positions at chair or vice-chair”.––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Strategy) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 19 January 2021; c. 71, Q82.]
Clearly there is a huge challenge in increasing UK participation in the standards necessary for telecommunications security, but how are we to see the progress that I am sure the Minister envisages if we do not have a report on the progress of the diversification strategy and its implications for security?
On standards, Professor William Webb told us:
“The UK Government themselves could not really have an influence, and nor could a university or any other organisation like that, not unless they spent inordinate amounts of money and hired a lot of people to write a lot of papers. There needs to be a concerted global or western European effort, or some kind of larger scale activity that can help the larger companies with the resources and expertise and the standards bodies to step up their efforts”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 72, Q83.]
yet we see no reflection of that in the Bill.
The impact that standards can have on vendor supply chain diversity is reflected in the diversification taskforce and the diversification strategy, which put a lot of emphasis on open RAN. We had much discussion in the evidence sessions about the maturity or otherwise of open RAN. The Government seem to have placed open RAN technology at the centre of their strategy to diversify 5G hardware, and aim to see live 5G open RAN in the UK this year. We support utilising open RAN, but evidence suggests that the technology may not be mature for another five to eight years, and Doug Brake stated that open RAN may not even be ready to be incorporated into 5G.
I acknowledge that through open RAN, the Government are thinking about how we will build the next generation of UK networks, but the UK currently has only two vendors. Our telecoms security is desperately in need of diversification and the development of a sovereign capability as soon as possible. We need an appropriate way of measuring that success.
We have also discussed the implications of changes in the architecture of telecommunications networks, and of moving control and services to the cloud. We have discussed the importance of forward-looking assessment, but I feel that a report to Parliament would ensure that those matters were kept very much at the forefront of the minds of Ofcom and the Department. It is worth mentioning that, on diversification and strategy, Dr Bennett suggested that a commissioner could help by
“keeping an eye on what is going on here, and in order to be able to help policy makers and the Secretary of State to make the right changes.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 49, Q61.]
I will make a couple more points before I bring my remarks to a close. First, we heard concerns from a number of operators that they might be left in a contractual limbo, with designated vendor notices rendering them unable to buy from a supplier but contractually obligated to. If the Government will not address that now, they should at least allow us visibility, through a report, of the impact. Secondly, as discussed, neither the Bill nor the diversification strategy include incentives to diversify, but the Government could put in place incentives to innovate, which might have the same effect—requiring improving rates of spectral efficiency, and network SIP funds, such as the rural one, for example. Is the Minister considering that?
Finally, I think we can all agree that this should involve working with our allies. We heard in evidence that the new Administration in the United States, for example—we all congratulate the new President, Joe Biden —would be inclined to do that. Doug Brake said:
“What we have seen over the last several years in the United States is a variety of different agencies doing what they can to mitigate the risks. It is less a co-ordinated whole of Government approach in the US and more a disjointed and fragmented policy response across different agencies, so I am hopeful that under a Biden Administration we will see a much more co-ordinated effort and one that is more co-operative with allies.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 123, Q163.]
We also heard from Emily Taylor about the idea of a D10, which the Defence Committee has talked about—a Five Eyes-type of collaboration among our allies. That idea has been kicking around for some time, yet we are yet to see it progress to anything concrete. Bringing together allies to work internationally and collaboratively on reinvigorating our telecoms sector is a laudable aim, but why is the Minister so afraid of monitoring its success?
A decade of neglect of our telecoms infrastructure has left us vulnerable and created the need for this Bill. We support the Bill, but it is clear that to protect our national security now and in future we must have an effective network supply chain diversification strategy, plan and implementation. New clause 6 would ensure that this vital aspect of our telecoms security is regularly reviewed and scrutinised, so that the UK is never again forced to choose between technological progress and national security.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady raised an important issue. Fundamentally, however, the issue of diversification is twofold. The Government want to see greater diversification within our telecoms supply chain. The £250 million allocated for the first three years of that programme to support the diversification strategy is a hugely important part of it.
As we are already seeing in the increased use of open RAN, whether with Vodafone in Wales or the NeutrORAN project with the NEC, there is already significant progress. I think that demonstrates that the industry does regard this—whether the hon. Lady wants to call it as an incentive or a carrot—as something that is making things happen to a greater extent. The Government cannot legislate for the diversification of the market; that is something that we can incentivise and work with the market to do.
We can monitor the diversity of networks, as Ofcom has the powers to do. We can set requirements on what the minimum standards might look like. For instance, NCSC guidance already says that two vendors should be the minimum, rather than one, for a telecoms network. That gives you an indication of what we will be monitoring and looking at, potentially, in codes of practice in the future. The hon. Lady is right to focus on this important issue, but it is wrong to pretend, important though Secretaries of State are, that any Secretary of State could legislate in the way she describes for the greater diversification that we all seek.
The focus of the Bill is on setting clear and robust security standards for our networks that telecoms providers must adhere to, and they must be met regardless of the diversity within any of those networks. To be fair, the diversity within a provider’s supply chain, in and of itself, does not offer the guarantee of network security. A provider using a diverse supply chain needs to be held to the standards set out in this Bill, so that the provider is able to offer the security standards that we need, regardless of the number of suppliers that they have available.
It is important to reassure hon. Members that Ofcom will have the ability to collect information relating to the diversity of suppliers’ networks under section 135 of the Communications Act 2003, as we have discussed. I do not think it is necessary to specify the need to collect information relating to diversification, as that is just one set of information that Ofcom may collect; it is just as important as several others in monitoring and reporting the security and resilience of networks. It is also important to clarify that, although greater diversity is critical in ensuring that we reduce our national dependence on a small number of suppliers, it is part of a broader approach to building security and resilience across the global supply chain that sits outside the Bill, important though it is. Diversification is an issue broader than the make-up of supply chains for UK providers alone, as the hon. Lady knows.
At this stage, there is a limited number of suppliers in the global market—a smaller number that are capable of providing equipment suitable for the UK market. It is a global challenge that requires a global solution, which is why it is an integral part of the diversification strategy that the hon. Lady mentions. Our primary objective has to be to grow the supplier base and give operators more choice about the vendors that they use.
As we heard in evidence sessions, operators are equally committed to increasing diversity in UK networks. To achieve that, the Government will take forward the programme of works that the hon. Lady mentioned, with trials and testbeds for new suppliers and open RAN technology. We will ensure that telecoms standards are set in a way that promotes security and interoperability, and we will remove barriers to entry for new suppliers.
As the hon. Lady said, all that work is being informed by an independent taskforce looking at all options to drive increased market diversification. That includes incentives in forms other than those that I have already described, and the taskforce will be making recommendations in the coming months. It is also looking forward to identify areas where market consolidation might occur in the future, what can be done to offset those risks and where the UK can establish its sovereign capability.
The hon. Lady asks why there were not suppliers on the taskforce. If there had been suppliers directly on the taskforce, they would have been conflicted, but the taskforce has worked closely with suppliers because they are obviously very important. Indeed, Manevir, NEC and others who gave evidence are among those who we have spoken to and worked closely with, as we have with Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung.
As the Government deliver our strategy across all these areas, we will be making announcements and providing regular updates as required. That approach, rather than the one the hon. Lady seeks through the new clause, will enable us to provide up-to-date and timely information on progress. With that, I hope she will be content that there is plenty in the diversification strategy that will deliver what she wants, but it is not an issue for the new clause.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments; having spoken for so long myself, I was reluctant to interrupt him. I am pleased that he has clarified that the £250 million is over three years, as opposed to being over five years—I had not seen that before. That is welcome, and I anticipate further funding.
However, the Minister says that the Government cannot legislate for the diversification of the network. Why not? The Government can legislate to break up consolidation in other markets, and they have legislated to do so—for example, competition law does exactly that. We heard in evidence sessions from some who felt that diversification could be achieved only through direct intervention. He implies that I am arguing that diversification delivers telecoms security on its own, but I am not arguing that. I am arguing that it is necessary though not sufficient—clearly, other methods are needed.
The Minister suggests that diversification is one of many things that Ofcom can report on, if it so chooses. That is equally important, but let us be clear that it was the diversification of a supply chain that was the critical report—a report so important that the current Secretary of State for Education was forced to resign because of its leaking, which is why we are here today. The diversification of the supply chain is absolutely critical.
The Minister says that we heard from operators that were committed to diversification, but we also heard that there were real challenges in their commitment to diversification. We would not be where we are today if they were so committed to diversification of their supply chain. That is why there is a need for incentives and intervention. On that basis, it is important to test the will of the Committee on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Mr Jones, new clause 7 has already been debated. Do you want to put it to a Division?
The Chair
I realise that this will come as a devastating blow to all of you, but the final question I must put is that—
Chi Onwurah
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. I put on the record my gratitude, and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, to you and your colleague, Mr Hollobone, for the way in which you have expertly chaired proceedings in the Committee. I also sincerely thank all House staff who have supported our work here, including those representing Hansard, and particularly the Clerks, who have been absolutely invaluable in setting out our desires to improve the Bill in clear and orderly amendments and new clauses.
I also thank all members of the Committee from both sides of the House. This detailed, technical Bill is critical for our national security, coming at a time of national crisis, when we are braving—all of us: staff and Members—a pandemic in order to be here. We have had an orderly and constructive debate.
Matt Warman
Further to that point of order, Mr McCabe. What fun we have had! It is a pleasure to come to this point in the Bill’s passage. I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to the House staff and to yourself, Mr McCabe, and Mr Hollobone. I also reiterate her point that this is a crucial Bill—one that I am glad enjoys cross-party support. I look forward to debating its further stages in the House.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Committee rose.
Written evidence reported to the House
TSB 11 Stefano Cantarelli, Chief Marketing Officer, Mavenir.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Seventh sitting)
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: † Mr Philip Hollobone, Steve McCabe
† Britcliffe, Sara (Hyndburn) (Con)
† Cates, Miriam (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)
Clark, Feryal (Enfield North) (Lab)
Crawley, Angela (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
† Johnston, David (Wantage) (Con)
† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)
† Lamont, John (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
† Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab)
† Onwurah, Chi (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
† Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con)
† Russell, Dean (Watford) (Con)
† Sunderland, James (Bracknell) (Con)
Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)
† Warman, Matt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
West, Catherine (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
† Wild, James (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Sarah Thatcher, Huw Yardley, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 26 January 2021
(Morning)
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I remind Members about the importance of social distancing. Spaces for Members are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. The Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Today we continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped 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 they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. 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 6
Powers of OFCOM to assess compliance with security duties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
It is a pleasure to be back under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As we discussed during the debate on amendments to this clause in our previous sitting, clause 6 inserts proposed new sections 105N to R, providing Ofcom with strengthened powers to assess whether providers of public electronic communications networks and services are complying with their security duty. These powers are vital to enable Ofcom to fulfil its expanded and more active role, giving it the tools to monitor and assess providers’ compliance with the new telecoms security framework and providing the basis for commencing any enforcement action.
Proposed new section 105O provides the power to give assessment notices to a provider. Assessment notices may impose a duty on a provider to do a number of different things, which I will briefly summarise. First, providers can be required to carry out, or arrange for another person to carry out, technical testing in relation to their network or service. Secondly, they can be required to make staff available to be interviewed, enabling Ofcom to gain insights into how a provider’s security practices and policies are implemented.
Thirdly, providers can be required to allow an Ofcom employee or an assessor authorised by Ofcom to enter their premises to view documents or equipment. I recognise that that is a significant power, but it is necessary. It is subject to certain restrictions to protect legally privileged information and to limit entry to non-domestic premises only. To provide clarity for telecoms providers, Ofcom will also publish guidance setting out how and when it will use the power. Importantly, providers have a right of appeal.
The powers of assessment set out in the clause are key to enabling Ofcom to carry out the effective and extensive monitoring and assessment of providers’ security practices that is necessary.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to come back to this important Bill. I thank the Minister for writing to me and reassuring me on certain matters relevant to the clause. We accept the need for Ofcom to have powers to require information from vendors, but we would like a specific requirement whereby Ofcom can ask vendors for information on the diversity of their supply chains. I will leave further discussion on that for our new clauses. I will support this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Powers of OFCOM to enforce compliance with security duties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 8 stand part.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Matt Warman
I will seek to move relatively rapidly through these four clauses.
Clause 7 provides Ofcom with enforcement powers in relation to providers’ security duties. The Bill gives Ofcom new powers to impose tough financial penalties on providers who breach their security duties. The penalties range to a maximum fine of 10% of a provider’s annual turnover, which is in line with the maximum fines available for breaching other regulatory requirements. For continuing contraventions, Ofcom can levy a daily penalty of up to £100,000. Penalties that are generally lower than that but still significant will also apply for contravening information requirements, which are subject to a maximum penalty of £10 million or, for a continuing contravention, a penalty of up to £50,000 per day. These penalties ensure that there will be a real financial deterrent to poor security practices. I should also say that, in the most serious cases, or in cases where a provider repeatedly contravenes its security duties, Ofcom would be able to use existing powers to suspend or restrict the provider’s entitlements to provide a network or service. Clearly, that is a step that we hope the regulator will never need to take.
The clause also gives Ofcom an important new power to take action where security is being compromised or is at imminent risk of being compromised. Proposed new sections 105U and 105V of the Communications Act 2003 would enable Ofcom to direct a provider to take interim steps to secure its network or service while Ofcom investigates or pursues further action. This power recognises that contravention of a security duty could result in a security compromise that causes real damage to users of that network or service. Where Ofcom uses that power, it will be required to commence and complete the enforcement process as soon as is reasonably practicable. The clause gives Ofcom the tools it needs to effectively enforce compliance with the new security framework.
Clause 8 sets out the position for bringing civil claims against providers who breach their security duties, which is a matter we touched on in earlier debates. It enables providers to be held accountable not just by Ofcom but by service users, such as members of the public, in cases where loss or damage is sustained by those users as the result of a breach of a duty. Providers owe a duty to any person who may be affected by a contravention of their security duties to take security measures, to comply with specific security duties in any regulations and to inform users of security compromises.
This clause allows any affected person to take legal action should providers breach those security duties. However, any affected person can bring legal proceedings against a provider only with the consent of Ofcom, which may be subject to conditions relating to the conduct of the legal action. This reflects the existing position in the Communications Act 2003 and ensures that providers face legal action only in appropriate circumstances. The clause also makes providers responsible to their users, providing another source of accountability. It allows users to bring legal claims for any losses they have suffered, which is only fair and reasonable.
Clause 9 addresses the interaction between provisions in the Bill and other legislation, specifically national security, law enforcement and prisons legislation. The security duties created by the Bill do not conflict with duties imposed on communications providers by other legislation via these clauses. Equally, we do not want the Bill to affect adversely the important work carried out by our law enforcement agencies, criminal justice authorities and intelligence agencies. The clause gives that clarity to providers about their responsibilities.
Finally, clause 10 requires that Ofcom publish a statement of policy about how it will fulfil its general duty and use specific powers to ensure that providers comply with their security duties. This will provide welcome clarity to industry about the expected use of important new powers. I beg to move that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I will not detain the Committee long, as we are cracking on through the clauses. I will only emphasise that these clauses give Ofcom broad powers—very broad powers—and measures of enforcement, as well as placing duties on the network operators to all users of their network services. We support these broad powers, but it is incumbent on the Minister and indeed on the Committee to consider whether those powers will receive sufficient scrutiny, and sufficient oversight and input from our security services. We anticipate debating those particular questions in more detail later today. In the meantime, we will not stand in the way of these clauses standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Reporting on matters related to security
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 11, page18, line 26, at end insert—
“(aa) an assessment of the impact on security of changes to the diversity of the supply chain for network equipment;”
This amendment requires that network supply chain diversification is included in Ofcom reports on security.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 12 stand part.
Clause 13 stand part.
Chi Onwurah
We start this debate where we ended our sitting on Thursday, on the diversity of the supply chain. But this is not groundhog day; this is a very different aspect of the diversity of the supply chain. I hope the Minister has noticed that there are three themes to our amendment: national security, diversity of the supply chain and appropriate scrutiny. Those are our key concerns about the Bill as it stands.
We wish to see the Bill debated as speedily as possible. For the record, I reiterate my concern that, in the midst of a pandemic lockdown, where the advice is to stay at home, the Leader of the House requires that Members of Parliament should congregate in one room for several hours. With that in mind, we are cracking on as quickly as possible, and we have made significant progress only this morning. However, we feel strongly that, given the speed at which we are providing the appropriate scrutiny, more time should be devoted to debating the Bill on the Floor of the House. We are cracking on in order to protect, as far as we can, the public health of Members of Parliament, staff, House officials and Clerks, who are doing an amazing job in the midst of a pandemic.
Clause 11 makes provision for reporting by Ofcom on security matters. That includes a duty to provide an annual security report to the Secretary of State. Amendment 14, in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, requires that network supply chain diversification is included in Ofcom’s report on security. As I said, we anticipate having a broader debate this afternoon on the importance of the diversification of the supply chain to security, as part of the debates on our new clauses, so I will only summarise our key points and concerns now.
This amendment follows amendment 13, which sought to give Ofcom the power to request reports from operators on their supply and the progress of their supply chain diversification. We support steps to remove high-risk vendors from the UK networks, but they must go hand in hand with credible measures to diversify the supply chain. I am afraid it remains the fact that we have no reference to the diversification of the supply chain in the Bill, despite the fact that, as I will briefly outline, both the Secretary of State and experts during our evidence sessions emphasised that we could not have network security without effective diversification.
We cannot have a robust and secure network with only two service providers. Supply chain diversification is absolutely vital to protecting our national security. If a vulnerability exists in one vendor or service provider, that intrusion may be limited to that one vendor or service provider alone. A diversity of suppliers in the supply chain limits the exposure of vital information. This amendment ensures that network supply chain diversification is addressed in Ofcom’s report on security. My key question to the Minister is, how can Ofcom report on security if it is not reporting on supply chain diversification?
The Minister may well say that Ofcom has the power to report on supply chain diversification and to request information on supply chain diversification. As I have said on a number of occasions, the powers in the Bill are broad. That is why effective scrutiny requires some specification of what will be reported upon.
The security report to the Secretary of State should be made as
“soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period”
and
“must contain… information and advice… to assist the Secretary of State in the formulation of policy”.
It must also include the extent to which providers have complied with security duties. That is as an example of some of what may be included in the security report. Given that the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that supply chain diversification goes hand in hand with the security of the network, it is essential that supply chain diversification is specifically mentioned in the Bill, so that we can have accurate and detailed reports from Ofcom on key aspects of network security.
The amendment will help provide the Secretary of State with the information to update Parliament on the progress of the Government’s diversification strategy, depending on Ofcom’s findings. The Secretary of State has promised to give Parliament such updates, so this is an enabling amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State has the information he needs to provide the reporting that he has committed to.
In support of the amendment, I would like to cite one of the witnesses in our evidence sessions. Dr Alexi Drew, from Kings College, London, was asked whether it was possible to have a secure network without a diverse supply chain, and answered:
“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—insecure 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.]
That is a risk that, I am sorry to say, the Bill currently does not sufficiently address. I hope that, by accepting this amendment, the Minister will recognise that we are, as always, seeking to improve the Bill and to ensure that it provides a credible and effective means to secure our networks.
With regard to clauses 11, 12 and 13 stand part, we recognise the importance of providing Ofcom with the appropriate powers to request information, but also to share information related to security. In that respect, these provisions are ones that we can support.
Matt Warman
I welcome the spirit of the amendment. I think that the hon. Lady and I share the same ambition. I know that she wants to have the proper debate later, so we look forward to that.
Clause 11 inserts into the Communications Act 2003 proposed new section 105Z, which deals with Ofcom’s reports on security. It requires Ofcom to produce such reports within two years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and every 12 months thereafter. As the hon. Lady said, amendment 14 is similar to the amendment to clause 6 that we discussed previously. Ultimately, when considering Ofcom’s role and specifically its reporting function, we should note that proposed new section 105Z(2) requires Ofcom security reports to include such information and advice as Ofcom considers may best assist the Secretary of State in the formulation of policy on telecoms security. That could go beyond the list in proposed new subsection (4) to include other relevant information, such as that related to diversification. The Secretary of State can also direct Ofcom to include information that goes beyond that list.
As the Committee and, indeed, Ofcom will be well aware, the Government have recently published a targeted diversification strategy, which will deliver lasting and meaningful change in the 5G supply chain and pave the way for a vibrant, innovative and dynamic supply market. We heard widespread support for the strategy from witnesses during the oral evidence sessions. The strategy demonstrates our commitment to building a healthy supply market and is backed by a £250 million initial investment.
We have publicly announced that the Government will be funding the creation of a UK telecoms lab to research and test new ways of increasing security and interoperability, and we are already partnering with Ofcom and Digital Catapult to fund the industry-facing test facility SONIC—the SmartRAN Open Network Interoperability Centre. Both of those will play a key part in our investment in diversification and demonstrate Ofcom’s existing part in it.
As already mentioned, amendment 14 would require Ofcom to include in its security reports
“an assessment of the impact on security of”
any
“changes to the diversity of the supply chain for network equipment”.
As that requirement is already essentially covered by Ofcom’s existing powers, the amendment is not necessary. The inclusion of any such information is already within Ofcom’s discretion, but I am sure that we will discuss it more later on, as the hon. Lady said.
Clause 12 expands Ofcom’s information-gathering powers for the purposes of its security functions and enhances its ability to share the information with the Government. It enables Ofcom to require a provider to produce, generate, collect or retain security information, and then to analyse that information. Any information sought using this power must always be proportionate to how Ofcom will use it.
Clause 13 makes provision in connection with the standard of review applied by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in appeals against certain of Ofcom’s security-related decisions. Ofcom’s regulatory decisions are subject to a right of appeal to the tribunal, and that will also be the case for most of Ofcom’s decisions relating to the exercise of its regulatory powers conferred by the Bill. This clause makes provision to ensure that the tribunal is not required to modify its approach in appeals against relevant security decisions, and should instead apply ordinary judicial review principles.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained to the Committee why amendment 14 is unnecessary and why clauses 11 to 13 as drafted should stand part of the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments. Although we agree on many things in many areas, I think that in this case he is trying to have his cake and eat it, inasmuch as he is saying that amendment 14 is not necessary because Ofcom already has the powers, but he is reluctant or is refusing to specify that those powers will be used for the objective of reporting on the progress of diversification of the supply chain. It was good to hear the Minister reiterate the importance of diversification of the supply chain, but I remain confused about whether he agrees with the evidence and, indeed, with his own Secretary of State that diversification of the supply chain is a prerequisite of the security of our networks and, indeed, our national security—that is what we are discussing with regard to our telecoms networks. If diversification is a prerequisite, why is the Minister so reluctant to refer to it? If he is so confident in the plan to diversify our supply chains, why is he so reluctant to insert any requirements to report on the progress of that diversification?
I listened intently: the Minister said that Ofcom has the powers to report on whatever it considers to be relevant to security. During the evidence session, we heard from Ofcom itself, very clearly and repeatedly, that it is not for Ofcom to make decisions on national security. It will not make national security decisions. That is not within its remit and responsibilities; the witnesses from Ofcom stated that repeatedly and clearly. I would be happy to read from Hansard if that point is in question. Given that Ofcom will not make security decisions and that the diversification of the supply chain is essential for security, I am at a loss to understand why the Minister will not accept a reference to reporting on the progress of diversification. Although, unfortunately, the pandemic means that we are not at full strength on the Opposition side of the Committee, I wish to test the will of the Committee on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Reviews of sections 1 to 13
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 14, page 21, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
“(3) The reports must be published not more than 12 months apart for the first 5 years, then not more than 5 years apart.
(4) The first report must be published within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact and effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13 every year for the first five years after the Act is passed, and then every five years following.
The amendment reflects another of our key concerns about the Bill, which is the level and extent of appropriate scrutiny for such broad and sweeping powers. It seeks to ensure appropriate scrutiny. Clause 14 requires the Secretary of State to review the impact and effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13 at least every five years. Our amendment would require the report to be published every year for the first five years after the legislation is passed, and then up to every five years after that.
As we have said, the Bill gives the Secretary of State and Ofcom sweeping powers. We want to ensure both that they are proportionate and that there is accountability. As we have previously emphasised, we are sure that the Minister and the Secretary of State are inclined to exercise the powers in a proportionate and accountable way, but they will not be in their posts forever, and perhaps not for the entire first five years of the legislation’s operation, so it is important that the Bill requires that Parliament be able to scrutinise its effectiveness, as that is so important to our national security. In that sense, this amendment follows amendments 5, 9 and 10 with respect to the requirement for appropriate oversight and accountability.
I emphasise—I am sure that you will understand, Mr Hollobone—that in some ways we are here because of a lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the presence and growth of high-risk vendors in our networks. It was only when Parliament became aware of and was able to give its full-throated input on concerns about the dominance of high-risk vendors in our telecommunications market that the Government took action. We do not want to be in the position of finding again that there has been a dramatic change in the security of our networks without appropriate scrutiny.
Clause 14 states that the Secretary of State must
“carry out reviews of…impact and effectiveness”
and that the report must be laid before Parliament for parliamentary scrutiny. However, we are to wait up to five years before it will be made possible to give parliamentary scrutiny to a Bill that is so important to national security, as both the Minister and the Secretary of State, and indeed the security services, have emphasised. We are not to review its effectiveness for five years.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Does not the clause state that the period is up to five years? The review could be done during that period; it would not have to be at the five-year mark every time.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The clause enables the Minister or Secretary of State to choose to lay a report more frequently. Again, I do not want to impute anything against the Minister or the Secretary of State, but given the importance of the subject and of parliamentary review, why not ensure that it is more frequent?
I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that Parliament has many things to consider, and so does the Secretary of State. There is competition for parliamentary time, particularly in a pandemic and in view of the challenges that we shall face in the next few years. How can I put this? We have concerns that the priority may slip in the face of, for example, economic challenges, investment challenges and recovery challenges. We want to be sure what is happening. We are the party of national security and we want to ensure that, in this context, national security is brought to Parliament to be debated, discussed and reviewed at least every year.
I have outlined the importance of parliamentary scrutiny as part of our wish to do that, but we should also consider what might happen in the next five years, before the first review mandated by the Bill. We have seen vast technical, technological and geopolitical shifts in the last five years. We face security challenges from China and Russia, and terrorist threats in a complex security environment. I am sure the Minister does not anticipate that those hostile actors against whom the measures in the Bill securing our networks are primarily directed will not respond; they will do so. We cannot imagine that we will take these measures to secure our networks against those who seek to attack or undermine our telecommunications capability in their own interests and they will not respond in some way. As it stands, the first review of that response could be five years after it has happened.
In addition, specifically with regard to the hope on which the Government might be placing an unjustified amount of assurance in diversifying our supply chains using open radio access network technology, we heard from witnesses that the next five years are key. The next five years will be the period in which we will see—or not see—the maturity of open RAN technology. There was a discussion about whether open RAN will be a viable and credible alternative in the next year, two years, three years or four years. While there are technological changes and the maturity of open RAN is in question, spending the next five years without having a review of its effectiveness seems to me to lack appropriate oversight.
There is support for increased review measures. We heard from Derek McManus, the chief operating officer of O2, about the evolution of open RAN. He said:
“There are trials in the UK…it will be at least a couple of years before you have a viable technical and commercial product, focused initially on rural.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 11, Q5.]
As things stand, that period could pass without any review or report. We also heard from Emily Taylor, the chief executive of Oxford Information Labs, who said:
“Imagine if we were sitting here, in five or 10 years’ time, lamenting the fact that the equipment market is now dominated by Microsoft and Google. I am just making that up as a hypothetical example—I have no knowledge to back that up—but those are the companies that have the sufficient scale and skills, and as Chi Onwurah said in her question we are moving to a more hybrid network, where skills in cloud computing and software are going to define the success of the player.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 77, Q92.]
I am quoting someone quoting me, who says that
“skills in cloud computing and software are going to define…success”
but we are going to wait five years to review, when, as I am sure the Minister is well aware, given his background, five years could be five technological generations in this area.
The next five years will be key to the maturation of the technologies about which the Minister has so many hopes to help with the diversification of our supply chain and in terms of the global security and geopolitical environment and landscape, yet we have no requirement for reporting or accountability during that time. That is what the amendment is designed to change.
Matt Warman
I listen with interest to the points that the hon. Lady makes, and to the assertion that she is a member of the party of national security. I welcome her to this side of the House, if that is the case. [Interruption.] Thank you, but no.
As the hon. Lady says, clause 14 is a review clause requiring the impact and effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13 to be reviewed at least every five years by the Secretary of State. The review report must be published and laid before Parliament, but it is by no means the only source of parliament scrutiny, as she knows. Her amendment would increase the frequency of these reports to every year for the first five years after the Bill is passed and then every five years thereafter.
Increasing the frequency of the reports would bring its own challenges for a number of reasons. First, the framework is considerably different from the previous security regime in the Communications Act 2003. It seems to me that we will not be able fully to assess the impact and effectiveness of the new security regime instituted by clauses 1 to 13 until all parts of the framework, including secondary legislation, codes of practice and other things, have been in place for a reasonable period of time. The code of practice that will provide guidance on the detailed security measures that telecoms could take is intended to set clear implementation timelines. Some measures may require significant operational change, as we heard in the evidence sessions for telecoms providers, and we are aware that that may be costly. For that reason, we cannot reasonably expect all changes to be implemented instantly or, indeed, all necessarily at the same time.
There is a further practical difficulty with the amendment. If the first report is to be produced 12 months after Royal Assent, it will require the review to be undertaken well in advance of that deadline. That means that the report will represent an incomplete picture of the Bill’s impact, even at its very first production. Some measures will not even have been implemented by telecoms providers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn was exactly right that the current requirement for publishing reports is at least—rather than at most—every five years. We have been deliberate in our choice of this timeframe because five years is the reasonable point by which we expect the majority of telecoms providers to have implemented most, if not all, changes. It is therefore considered appropriate to require a report on the impact and effectiveness of the framework by that time. I recognise that five years is a long time. That does not mean that the framework will be free from scrutiny in the intervening period. As clause 11(3) sets out, the Bill amends section 134B of the Communications Act so that Ofcom’s regular infrastructure reports will include information on public telecoms providers’ compliance with the new security framework. Ofcom publishes the reports annually, rendering the amendment unnecessary.
Chi Onwurah
On a point of clarification, I have the impression that the Minister anticipates that the first report under the Bill would only happen once all the requirements had been implemented. I think that that implies that it would only happen once a high-risk vendor, specifically Huawei, had been removed from the network.
Matt Warman
No is the short answer, because while this is a progress report, five years from 2021 is 2026—the deadline is 2027, even at the most extreme end, which is not where we anticipate it will end up—and it would be before the point that she identifies.
The infrastructure reports from Ofcom will help to provide Parliament and the public with a view on how telecoms providers are progressing with compliance with the new framework. As I alluded to earlier, they are not the only means of parliamentary scrutiny. We have the Intelligence and Security Committee and we have Select Committees. I suspect that there might be one or two debates on this matter over the next five years as well. To pretend that this is the only method of parliamentary scrutiny is not accurate.
Chi Onwurah
If the Minister will give way briefly, he may find it saves time. To clarify: for the first report we will not necessarily have to wait until all the provisions of delegated legislation associated with the Bill are in place. As for the infrastructure reports that Ofcom publishes, to which he refers as a form of alternative scrutiny, will they, might they or will they not reflect progress in the diversification of the supply chain?
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady asks me to predict what is in a report that has not been written yet by an organisation that is not a Government Department. I agree with the principle of what she is saying. This is an important aspect and one would reasonably expect it to be reflected in the reports that we have talked about. It is, however, important overall to say that Ofcom’s own regular infrastructure reports will, as I have said, include information on public telecoms providers’ compliance with the new security framework, which is the broadest interpretation and gives a huge amount of latitude for the sorts of information that she seeks. I hope that those infrastructure reports will help to provide Parliament with the kind of scrutiny that she seeks, and the public with the kind of scrutiny that we all seek. [Interruption.] For those reasons I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for an exciting intervention from his phone, and I thank the Minister for his comments. As I think I have said, I spent six years working for Ofcom with the Communications Act 2003 on my desk. I know the importance that our independent regulator places on the words of the Minister during such debates as this. As he has indicated that the reports would do well to include reference to everything that appertains to security, including the diversification of supply chain, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Designated vendor directions
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 15, page 22, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) When considering whether a designated vendor direction is necessary in the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must take account of the advice provided by the intelligence services.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to give due priority to advice provided by the Intelligence Services (including the National Cyber Security Centre as part of GCHQ) when considering when to issue a designated vendor direction.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 16, page 27, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) When considering whether a designation notice is necessary in the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must take account of the advice provided by the intelligence services.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to give due priority to advice provided by the Intelligence Services (including the National Cyber Security Centre as part of GCHQ) when considering whether to issue a designation notice.
Amendment 18, in clause 16, page 28, line 3, at end insert—
“(m) the person’s control of data flows.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider a person’s potential control of data flows when issuing a designation notice.
Clause 16 stand part.
Amendment 19, in clause 17, page 29, line 19, at end insert
“, together with an assessment of the impact the designation notice will have on supply chain diversity;”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the impact a designation notice will have on telecoms market supply chain diversity, enabling parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr Jones
I thought I would bring some light relief to the Committee’s proceedings. Amendments 16 and 17 are both probing amendments. I might sound like a broken record, but they are really just to ensure that we get a situation where the necessary advice is taken. Amendment 16 states:
“When considering whether a designated vendor direction is necessary in the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must take account of the advice provided by the intelligence services.”
I accept that the entire purpose of the Bill is to have national security at its heart, but I still have a nagging doubt about whether Ofcom will be able to put national security at the heart of its considerations.
Amendment 17 states:
“When considering whether a designation notice is necessary in the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must take account of the advice provided by the intelligence services.”
This is an attempt to future-proof the Bill. As I mentioned the other day, when we pass legislation in this place it is important that it outlives present Ministers, and us all. Unfortunately, there is form on this—look at the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2013 report on critical national infrastructure. I accept it was then the Cabinet Office, not Ofcom, that dealt with this, but when BT negotiated its contract with Huawei, the Cabinet Office was told about it but did not feel it necessary to tell Ministers for another three years, until 2006. I am concerned that national security will not be at the forefront when people look at such matters. The amendment is really just to ensure that that takes place, and codifies it into law.
I do not wish to criticise civil servants in any way, but having been a Minister myself, I know they sometimes have a tendency not to put forward things that might have a political dimension that they do not recognise. That is why it is important for national security that the Secretary of State has first-hand knowledge and information directly from the security services. We have very effective security services in this country—I pay tribute to them—but we also have the Cabinet Office. I know the Minister might think I am a bit obsessive, but I am sure he has come up against the buffer of the Cabinet Office, which seems to want to intervene in everything and anything that does not really concern it.
The Secretary of State should have access directly to the security information and should not have to go through the filter of the Cabinet Office or Ofcom. I accept the assurances that the Minister gave about Ofcom’s ability to give advice and work closely with the security services, and these are probing amendments. I am interested in what he says about how we can ensure that when the Secretary of State takes a decision, national security is at its heart, and that he or she got it straight from the horse’s mouth—in other words, from the security services—rather than its being filtered through the membrane that sometimes exists in Whitehall.
Matt Warman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the debate. He has talked so much about my impermanence that I felt lucky to come back today, never mind any time in the future. He makes a reasonable point, with which I broadly sympathise. As this is a broad grouping that covers clauses 15 and 16 and the amendments to clauses 15, 16 and 17, I will discuss the policy intention behind the clauses in sequence, and address the amendments.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is obviously an opportune moment to pay tribute to the heroic work of our national security services. The Bill emphasises the importance of their advice, and it empowers the Government to manage the presence of high-risk vendors in our networks. The report to which he refers is important, but it is also important to say that it was published, as he said, in 2013. It related almost entirely to events that took place under Labour, and it predates the existence of the National Cyber Security Centre, so we are dealing to some extent with a different world. I will go into a bit of detail on that.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government announced in January last year that new restrictions should be placed on the use of high-risk vendors in the UK’s 5G and full-fibre networks. In July 2010, the Government worked with the NCSC to update the guidance following action taken by the US Government in relation to Huawei. Clauses 15 to 17 provide the principal powers that the Government need to manage the risks posed by high-risk vendors. Without such powers, the guidance issued to industry will remain unenforceable and therefore present a risk to national security.
Mr Jones
I accept what the Minister says about the report, but its key point was that civil servants basically decided not to tell Ministers. On his explanation and the way forward, or what has changed since, how can we avoid a situation whereby Cabinet Office civil servants take the decision not to tell Ministers? How can we ensure that that will not happen again?
Matt Warman
In short, the right hon. Gentleman is challenging the fundamental effectiveness of Government and the judgments that were made by officials at the time. I simply say that it is the duty of Government to ensure that such errors are not made in future. That cannot be done solely by legislative means; it must be done by custom and practice. The right hon. Gentleman understands, through his work on the ISC, that the role of those close working relationships is in some ways far more important in the day-to-day security issues that we are dealing with. Perhaps we can return to that point later.
The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to issue designated vendor directions, imposing controls on the use of goods, services or facilities that are supplied, provided or made available by designated vendors. The Secretary of State may issue such directions only where it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security and proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved.
Amendment 16, which would amend clause 15, seeks to place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to take into account advice from our intelligence services when considering whether to issue a designated vendor direction. Amendment 17, which would amend clause 16, seeks to place a similar requirement when considering a designation notice.
I should reassure hon. Members that the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Member for North Durham knows, has every intention of seeking the advice of our security and intelligence services, as would any Secretary of State, in particular the NCSC, when considering whether to issue a designated vendor direction or designation notice.
It is also worth saying, from a scrutiny point of view, that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport maintains an excellent relationship with the NCSC. We are scrutinised by the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and I have appeared before the Intelligence and Security Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. There are many examples in the Bill where the NCSC’s expert advice has been taken into account.
The UK telecoms supply chain review, on which the Bill is based, was the product of the close working relationship between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the NCSC. In a sense, that close working relationship demonstrates that matters have moved on substantively since 2013.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the illustrative notices that we published in November last year. The NCSC was closely involved in the drafting of those illustrative notices. It will also be involved in the drafting of direction and designation notices once the Bill has been enacted . Given the demonstrable success of our collaboration with the NCSC thus far, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that explanation, although I appreciate that he introduced a probing amendment.
Clause 15 would create the new power for the Secretary of State to issue designated vendor directions to public communications providers, in the interests of national security. Although clauses 15 and 16 are distinct, they are complementary. Directions cannot be issued without identification of a designated vendor and designations have no effect unless directions are given to public communications providers. Clause 15 inserts new sections 105Z1 to 105Z7 into the Communications Act 2003 and amends section 151 for that purpose.
The clause will enable the Government’s announcements in 2020 on the use of high-risk vendors to be given legal effect. Those announcements include advice that require a public telecoms provider to exclude Huawei from their 5G networks by 2027, and stop installing new Huawei goods, services or facilities in 5G networks from September 2021. It will also enable the Government to address risks that might be posed by future high-risk vendors, helping to ensure our telecoms networks are safe and secure.
Proposed new section 105Z1 sets out the direction power. It would allow the Secretary of State to give a designated vendor direction to a provider, imposing requirements on their use of goods, services or facilities supplied by a specified designated vendor. Proposed new section 105Z2 provides further details on the types of requirements that may be imposed in a designated vendor direction. Proposed new section 105Z3 sets out the consultation requirements and expectations for public communications providers. Proposed new section 105Z4 sets out a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide a copy of a direction to the designated vendor or vendors, specified in a direction and, hence, affected by it. Proposed new sections 105Z5 and 105Z6 set out when and how the Secretary of State may vary or revoke a direction. Lastly, 105Z7 enables the Secretary of State to require a public communications provider to provide a plan setting out the steps that it intends to take to comply with any requirements set out in a direction and the timings of those steps.
Although the Government have made specific announcements on Huawei, the high-risk vendor policy has not been designed around one company, country or threat. The designated vendor direction power, as set out in these provisions, is intended to be an enduring and flexible power, enabling the Government to manage the risks posed to telecoms networks both now and in the future.
Clause 16 includes a non-exhaustive list of matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard when considering whether to issue a designation notice. Amendment 18 seeks to amend that clause by adding a person’s control of data flows to the list of matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard. However, nothing in the clause prevents the Secretary of State from considering control of data flows before issuing a designation notice already, if the matter were deemed relevant to the assessment of national security. It is already covered and so is not required as a stand-alone measure.
The clause creates a power for the Secretary of State to issue a designation notice, which designates a vendor for the purposes of issuing a designated vendor direction. Proposed new section 105Z8 is the principal measure of the clause, and sets out the power for the Secretary of State to designate specific vendors where necessary in the interests of national security. A designation notice must specify the reasons for designation unless the Secretary of State considers that doing so would be contrary to the interests of national security. The proposed new section also lists the primary factors that may be taken into account by the Secretary of State when considering whether to designate a vendor on national security grounds.
Finally in this group, amendment 19 would require the Secretary of State, when laying a designation noticed before Parliament, also to lay before Parliament a report detailing the impact that the designation notice might have on the diversity of the UK’s telecoms supply chain. The effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to lay a report purely on the impact of the designation notice, but a designation notice simply notifies vendors that the Government consider them a risk to national security.
Only when the designation notice is issued alongside a designated vendor direction are controls placed on the use of a designated vendor’s goods, services and facilities by public communication providers, so it is those controls that might have an impact on the diversity of the supply chain. I can reassure the Committee that the Government will consider the diversity of the supply chain before issuing designation notices and designated vendor directions. A lack of diversity is in itself a risk to the security of a network. I hope that answers the question that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central asked in regard to an earlier amendment. It is right that the Government consider that risk before deciding whether to issue designation notices and designated vendor directions.
To conclude, clauses 15 and 16 provide us with the ability to improve the security of our telecommunications networks and to manage the risks relating to high-risk vendors, both now and in the future.
Chi Onwurah
I will speak to amendments 18 and 19, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and to clauses 15 to 17. As the Minister set out, the clauses are about key powers in the Bill that seek to secure our networks and to regularise requirements already in place, albeit informally or not legally, to remove Huawei as a specific high-risk vendor from our networks. The clauses give Government the powers to do what they have said they will do.
On the clauses, I will not repeat what the Minister said, and I congratulate him on clearly setting out their powers, which the Opposition believe are necessary. I also join the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in paying tribute to our security services, which do such great work to keep us secure across a wide range of threats and challenges—both present and evolving—and on whose continued work and effectiveness the Bill is highly dependent. As my right hon. Friend set out, we want to ensure that national security is absolutely at the heart of the Bill.
As the Minister set out, the clauses are rightly not specific to Huawei or any vendor or country of origin. It is also important, as the Minister clarified to me in a letter, that they sit in addition to the current process for identifying and designating high-risk vendors and then issuing designated vendor directions, which set out how a designated vendor is to be treated and are critical to ensuring that we do not again find ourselves in a position where we have a high-risk vendor dominant in our telecommunications networks.
Although I accept that the clauses were not designed for Huawei, as is right, the Minister and the Committee must recognise that their impact will be different for Huawei and for future vendors. Parliament and the sector have spent some years considering the level of risk posed by Huawei specifically, and we have spent some time in this Committee discussing the impact of removing Huawei on the diversity of our supply chain. We have agreement from the Secretary of State, the sector and experts that that leaves us in a position where we have only two vendors, effectively, which is not, as the Minister set out, an acceptable position.
Any further designated vendor notices after the one to deal with Huawei will have a considerable impact and will require considerable consultation. We are in a position now where our telecommunications networks supply chains are not diverse or resilient; that is the general consensus. A further designated vendor notice will therefore have a significant impact on the progress of the diversification of our supply chains, which I do not feel is adequately reflected in the Bill or the debate around it. That is partially what our amendments seek to probe.
We are quite focused on Huawei and the process that got us into the mess that we are in at the moment, having to rip a vendor out of our existing networks. I am not sure that we are sufficiently focused on what will happen in the future should there be a need to designate another vendor, perhaps from a hostile state or perhaps not, because of the impact on security. Our amendments probe whether there is sufficient understanding there.
Amendment 18 amends the list of concerns in clause 16 to which the Secretary of State must pay attention when issuing a designation notice, by adding,
“the person’s control of data flows.”
The list is already quite long, at about 40 lines, and includes,
“the nature of the goods… the reliability of the supply of those goods… the extent to which and the manner in which goods, services or facilities supplied, provided or made available by the person are or might be used in the United Kingdom”.
Our concern, which we are highlighting, is whether those are sufficiently forward-looking, whether we are—as was suggested in evidence sessions—fixated on Huawei, the current architecture and current major security threats, and whether we are looking forward to the evolving security threats. That is because—as we have said and I will repeat—the Labour party puts national security at the heart of our scrutiny of this Bill, as the party of national security, a priority which is above the economic considerations that have too often been prioritised above our national security.
Our concern is that failings in the Bill show that the Government may take risks with the security critical network infrastructure and, as part of that, with our long-term economic security. Data is absolutely central to the information economy, which is the economy. Almost all digital services gather personal data and use it for commercial purposes. Data is often described as the new oil. I prefer to call it the engine of our economy. The international and national flows of data are critical to our security, as well as to our economy. We would like the Minister to explain that the protection for UK data flows is recognised as a threat, which is taken into account by the Secretary of State when considering designation notices.
One reason behind the amendment is what we heard from the Committee’s expert witnesses. In response to my question about different aspects of network security that might not be fully addressed by the Bill as it stands, Dr Louise Bennett, the director of the Digital Policy Alliance, said:
“I think most people would agree that the diversity of end points, of interfaces and of applications running over complex networks all pose security problem areas. The more of those you have, the more resilient your network might be on the one hand, because there are multiple parts, but on the other hand, the harder it is to maintain them adequately.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 52, Q68.]
Dr Bennett suggested that control of data flows was a threat that needed to be specifically addressed by the Bill. Howard Watson, the chief technology officer of BT Group, also said:
“We also faced logical threats, such as malware implants, DDoS attacks and what are called advanced persistent threats, which is an actor embedding themself into parts of the environment, staying hidden for a while and potentially collecting credentials—think of the SolarWinds hack that is in the news at the moment.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 17, Q16.]
Emily Taylor, chief executive of Oxford Information Labs, said
“It is also the case that consolidation of infrastructure providers, like the cloud providers, is a security risk, because they become too big to fail. There was a brief outage of Google just before Christmas, and people just cannot work. When Cloudflare or Dyn go down, they introduce massive outages, particularly at a point where we are all so reliant on technology to do our work. These are security risks, and that highlights the need for a flexible approach. You have to be looking across all sectors.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 74, Q88.]
The witness evidence testimonies show that this is not only about the ability to control our signalling systems and protocols in the 5G network as it stands, but as the network evolves more and more of the network control will be both in the centre and on different infrastructure, such as Amazon Web Services in the cloud.
What I particularly want the Minister to respond to the question of how he anticipates the threat from consolidation as the network evolves—this consolidation at cloud level—will be addressed by designation notices? He said that the amendment talks about having regard to designation notices rather than the directions, which would specify the steps that operators have to take. When it comes to making decisions when issuing a designation notice, this requirement fits in with paragraphs (a) to (l), which are already included.
Amendment 19 to clause 17 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the impact a designation notice will have on telecoms market supply chain diversity to enable parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment seeks to provide greater scrutiny of the diversification of the telecoms market supply chain, which, as we have all agreed, is a prerequisite for the Bill to be effective. It follows amendments 13 and 14, which we have already discussed, in addressing supply chain diversity.
I have mentioned a number of times that the Bill does not refer to the diversification strategy. We heard during the evidence sessions that it was a strategy and not yet a plan. The security of our networks depends on an effective plan to diversify the supply chain, which should also include support for UK capability. The amendment would require that a report be laid before Parliament to set out the impact that the designation notice will have on supply chain diversity. The Minister commented on whether it should be the designation notice or the direction. The objective of the amendment is to ensure discussion and understanding of the impact on the diversification strategy. It is particularly important because, as I have said, any future designation notice will be in the context of a telecoms supply chain that has been significantly reduced as a consequence of Huawei’s removal. It is important that the further impact be understood.
To be clear, we recognise that a designation notice is an appropriate response where there are risks to our national security and to the security of our telecommunication networks, regardless of the impact on diversification. However, we feel strongly that it is important to understand the impact, because of the reduced state of diversification in our supply chain. We cannot have a robust and secure network with only two vendors, and the Government’s emphasis on open RAN technology is yet to be shown to be sufficient to ensure the diversification of our networks in a reasonable timeframe.
I want us to imagine that the Government chose, for whatever reason, to issue a designation notice against one of the remaining vendors—Ericsson or Nokia. It would be critical for the impact on the progress of the diversification strategy to be set out, as well as for discussions to be had with industry and so on. A designated vendor notice could remove a vendor from the supply chain, further reducing resilience and security. I am sure the Minister will agree that it would be important to fully understand the implications, even as we put in place a designation notice. I think we all agree that we are aiming to have a rich diversity of suppliers, but it is also essential to understand the impact of designation notices on that.
We want to encourage the network operators to diversify their supply chains, as we discussed in the evidence sessions. The Bill contains a lot of stick and not very much carrot. A designation notice is absolutely a stick. A requirement to report on the impact on supply chain diversity would encourage the Government to put in place appropriate carrots to increase the incentives for diversification with one hand, as they take away potential vendor diversity in the supply chain with the other.
I support the clauses standing part of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady has done really well, but we are not debating clause 17 stand part. She can refer to the other clause if she wishes.
Chi Onwurah
Thank you for the clarification, Mr Hollobone. I see that we are discussing whether clauses 15 and 16 stand part. I support those clauses and look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment.
Matt Warman
I pre-emptively covered a lot of the hon. Lady’s questions, but I will say two brief things. She talked about consolidation in the cloud sector. While the Bill is very much a national security Bill, the National Security and Investment Bill would cover consolidation in that sort of sector, rather than this one. Obviously they do work together.
Chi Onwurah
The point I am making—clearly, I did not make it effectively—is that that sector is becoming this sector. The cloud sector is becoming the telecoms sector. The reason we need this Bill in addition to the National Security and Investment Bill is to address the security concerns of the telecoms sector specifically. The cloud sector is becoming part of the telecoms sector, yet the Bill does not address those concerns.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady is not wrong, obviously, in the sense that there is a potential conversation to be had about when a cloud provider is a telecoms provider and vice versa, if I can put it like that, although it is not the most elegant way of doing so. However, the point is that the reason we have comprehensive coverage of the landscape is because we have both the National Security and Investment Bill, which she debated recently, and this Bill. The broad powers that she described are intended to provide precisely that sort of coverage.
Similarly, the hon. Lady referred to the length of the list in clause 16 of matters that can be taken into consideration. That relates to the point I made previously, namely that the sorts of issues that she is talking about, such as data flows, are already covered in the long list. The list is as long as it is because it is intended to look to the future. Therefore, being prescriptive in the way that she describes is fundamentally unnecessary. We are not excluding what she wants to be on the list. A matter is already very much there if it is pertinent to national security. For that reason, I do not think there is a compelling case to add that single topic to the list, both because it is already there and because if we start going down that route, we could make the case for adding a host of other things that are already covered but that people might want to be mentioned specifically.
As I said earlier on the convergence of the two sectors, the point is that we have comprehensive coverage through both Bills. It will be for the NCSC, Ofcom and the Government to make a judgment as to whether any consolidation in a sector poses a national security risk.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 20 to clause 17. This is Christian Matheson’s big moment. I call him to move the amendment.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 17, page 29, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) Where the Secretary of State considers that laying a copy of the direction or notice (as the case may be) before Parliament would, under subsection (2), be contrary to the interests of national security, a copy of the direction or notice must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.
(5) Any information excluded from what is laid before Parliament under the provision in subsection (3)(b) must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.”
This amendment would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with any information relating to a designated vendor direction or designation notice which on grounds of national security is not laid before Parliament, thereby enabling Parliamentary oversight of all directions and notices.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 22, in clause 20, page 35, line 30, at end insert—
“(9) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any notification under this section relating to a designated vendor direction, designation notice, a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction or a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any notification under this section which relates to a direction or notice that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 23, in clause 20, page 37, line 41, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation decision relating to a designated vendor direction, designation notice, a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction or a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation decision which relates to a direction or notice that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 24, in clause 21, page 39, line 9, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any urgent enforcement direction relating to a designated vendor direction to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any urgent enforcement direction which relates to a direction that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 25, in clause 21, page 40, line 6, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation of an urgent enforcement notification relating to a designated vendor direction to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation of an urgent enforcement notification which relates to a direction that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Christian Matheson
I am sure the Committee has been waiting with bated breath for my big moment all morning, Mr Hollobone. May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship?
I had prepared some notes to help me present the amendments, but I need not have bothered; I could simply have taken the Hansard report from last week and quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. He talked about being a stuck record, but he is not; he is being consistent. I like to think that Labour has been consistent throughout the detailed consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about the three areas that we consistently think would improve the Bill, and the amendment falls into one of those areas: scrutiny and the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I refer to my right hon. Friend’s speech last week on amendment 9, when he talked about the desire to help the Bill. He also laid down a challenge. He commented on the fact that I thought that some parts of his speech were inspirational. They were, because they made me think quite a lot. There was one lightbulb moment when he used his experience of, I believe, 20 years in the House this year—on which I congratulate him—and said that the chances are that a similar amendment will be proposed in their lordships’ House and the Government may well agree to it.
My right hon. Friend also said that it is not necessarily a good thing for the Minister—not in this case, mind you—to be a tough guy who wants to get through the Bill without any amendments, when there is a genuine desire among the Opposition to get the Bill through. I remind the Minister and Government Members that we support the Bill. There have been occasions when an Opposition have tried to scupper, delay or make mischief with a Bill. I assure Government Members—I hope it is obvious to them—that there is no such skulduggery on this side of the House, not with this Bill and not ever, and certainly not when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and I on the Bill Committee. We are genuinely keen to improve the Bill during its passage.
The amendment again falls into one of the three areas my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central has identified as necessary. As the Minister may have guessed, the chances are that we will not put it to the vote, but we do ask that he gives it careful consideration. I refer the Committee to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham last week about the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Amendments 20 to 25 relate to different clauses, but have the common aim of ensuring that there is correct parliamentary oversight of the process outlined in the Bill, specifically by referring all orders made under proposed new section 105Z11 of the Communications Act 2003 to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
It would normally be the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that would take on telecommunications matters. Additionally, the Secretary of State may lay orders before Parliament for general consideration and scrutiny. However, the Bill has our national security at its heart, and as a proud former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I am the first to admit that it would not be at all an appropriate forum for the consideration of such reporting to take place, nor would it be the normal procedure for laying orders before this House or the other place, either in general or on the specifics of the order.
As we touched on last week, the temptation is therefore the default position that no reporting at all would take place, which is clearly not desirable. I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not the Government’s intention. To be fair, I think he touched on that point last week, but it would be helpful if he could touch on it again.
The use of the ISC is therefore an elegant and obvious solution. The Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham is such a distinguished member, has worked well and has the confidence of the House. It provides a secure and trusted forum for decisions of the Secretary of State that may have far-reaching commercial and technical implications, as well as security implications, to be scrutinised and considered by hon. Members who are able to receive the full facts and make a judgement based on them, while giving nothing away to those who wish us ill and would exploit our open democracy in doing so. I see no reason why our determination to protect our communications infrastructure should be used against us by our adversaries, but nor should that determination be traded off with a reduction in parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive and agencies that act on behalf of us all.
The ISC is there for a reason: it is precisely to cover situations such as this. If the Minister can propose an alternative solution that balances security with scrutiny, we would be pleased to hear it. I suspect this solution would also make commercial UK businesses more open to scrutiny themselves by offering a level of confidentiality, although I accept that that is not the primary role of the ISC.
It should also not be option for the Secretary of State to report. Such a chaotic patchwork would undermine the integrity of the Bill and the processes that we are setting up. Failing any alternative being proposed, we believe that these amendments, which involve the ISC acting on behalf of the whole House—indeed, the whole of Parliament—would fill a glaring hole and enhance the Bill. I commend them to the Committee.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said that we were going over old ground, and to a certain extent we are because some of the amendments reflect those that I moved last week.
May I say at the outset, Mr Hollobone, that the Minister has been an exemplar in engaging with and briefing the ISC? He has set something of a precedent; usually we have only Cabinet Ministers or Prime Ministers before us to give evidence. He is one of the few junior Ministers to have appeared before us, so I congratulate him. He did it because he wanted to engage with the issues. He must therefore be commended on his commitment to ensure that there is scrutiny. However—this is not to wish his demise, but to argue for his promotion—he will not be there forever. I think he does not quite understand why the Government are not at least moving on this.
The ISC’s remit is defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013. It sets out which Departments we cover, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is not one of them. However, as I said last week, security is increasingly being covered by other Departments, and this Bill is a good example. The National Security and Investment Bill is another one, where security decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Parliament must be able to scrutinise that.
If a high-risk vendor is designated as banned from the network by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, there are perfectly good reasons why the intelligence behind that cannot be put into the public domain. The methods by which such information is acquired are of a highly sensitive nature, so it would not only expose our security services’ techniques, but in some cases would make vulnerable the individuals who have been the source of that information. I think most people would accept that that is a very good reason.
This sort of thing is happening increasingly. We have the two Bills that I have referred to, but we also have the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, which will come back to the House tomorrow. Covert human intelligence and the ability to collect intelligence on behalf of our security services is very important. Most of that is covered by the Home Office, and covert human intelligence sources are covered by the ISC’s remit and can be scrutinised. However, there is a long list of other organisations that will be covered by tomorrow’s Bill, including—we never quite got to the bottom of this—the Food Standards Agency, for example. Again, how do we ensure that there is scrutiny of the decisions?
We also have—this has come out of the pandemic—the new biosecurity unit in the Department of Health. Again, there is no parliamentary scrutiny, because the Health and Social Care Committee will not be able to look at the intelligence that supports so much of that. An easy way out of this is in the Justice and Security Act 2013: the memorandum of understanding, which just means that, were our remit extended to look at this and other matters, the ISC could oversee and ask for the intelligence.
Having spoken to the Business Secretary and the Minister, who sympathises with us, I am not sure where the logjam is in Government. The point is that an amendment will be tabled in the Lords. Whether the provision is in the Bill or just in the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC, it is easily done and would give confidence that the process at least had parliamentary oversight.
On many of these decisions, frankly, the oversight would not be onerous; we are asking only that we are informed of them. On some occasions, we might not even want to look at the intelligence. It might be so straightforward that, frankly, it is not necessary, so I do not think that it is an administrative burden. I cannot understand what the problem is. To reiterate what I said last week in Committee, it is not about the ISC wanting to have a veto or block over such things. It is, rightly, for the Government and the Secretary of State to make and defend those decisions.
It is also not about the ISC embarrassing the Government, because we cannot talk in public about a lot of the information that we receive. It is not as though we would publish a publicly available report, because of the highly classified nature of the information. However, the ISC can scrutinise decisions and, if it has concerns, write to the Prime Minister or produce a report for the Prime Minister raising them. That gives parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive’s decisions.
As I say, the report might not be made public. People might ask, “Would that be a new thing?” No—it happens all the time. For example, on the well-publicised Russia report this year, there was a public report with redactions in it and quite an extensive annex, which raised some issues that we were concerned about. That annex was seen only by individuals in Government, including the Prime Minister.
There is already a mechanism, so I fail to understand why the Government want to oppose this. From talking to Ministers privately, I think that there is a lot of sympathy with the position and I think that we will get there eventually. How we get there and in what format, I am not sure—whether the method is to put it in the Bill or to do it through the mechanism in the 2013 Act. That might be a way forward.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to support the excellent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I did well to delay my remarks till after my right hon. Friend had spoken, because he has set out very effectively, based on his considerable experience as a long-standing member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, both why it is important that that Committee should be consulted and receive the reports, and why it is hard to understand the Minister’s reluctance both in this Bill and in the National Security and Investment Bill to involve a source of such credible security expertise and, importantly, security clearance in key issues of national security.
I want to add two points to those made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The first is to reiterate a point made previously: our security threats are changing, evolving and, unfortunately, diversifying. We see that in changes to our defence spending, in changes in the national review of our defence capabilities, and in changes in the evolution of the geopolitical landscape—the potential source of threats. However, the Minister does not seem able to support reflecting that by ensuring that, rather than keeping to our existing modes of parliamentary scrutiny, we enable parliamentary scrutiny of issues of national security by those who are best placed to carry out such scrutiny—undoubtedly members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I want to point briefly to a discussion in the evidence sessions. Ofcom made it clear that it does not consider itself in a position to make national security decisions, which is understandable, and that some of the decisions and considerations about national security with regards to telecommunications networks would require people who have STRAP clearance. Ofcom’s group director for networks and communications pointed to the fact that she had had STRAP clearance previously, and she said that if the NCSC
“feels that that is needed for the type of information that we may need to handle, we would make sure that happened.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 90, Q115.]
To my knowledge, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee members do not have STRAP clearance. I would like the Minister to comment specifically on the level of security clearance required for members of the Committee that he has identified as being the location for scrutiny of important issues of national security. What level of security clearance do its members have? Would that enable the scrutiny that we all agree is in the best interests of the Bill?
I would like the Minister to respond to a specific example. Amendments 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are designed to require that the Intelligence and Security Committee has access to the appropriate information. There is a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a copy of a designated vendor direction, as set out in clause 15, which inserts new section 105Z11 into the Communications Act 2003. The new section states:
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of—
(a) a designated vendor direction;
(b) a designation notice;
(c) a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction; and
(d) a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice.”
So far, so good—we have that scrutiny. However, the new section also says:
“The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that laying a copy of the direction or notice (as the case may be) before Parliament would be contrary to the interests of national security.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham alluded to occasions when, we can see, that would be the case. I should like the Minister to respond specifically. Imagine, for example, that through the work of our excellent security services we became aware that a telecoms start-up in this country or abroad was under the undue influence of someone hostile to our national interest, and its integrity was compromised, and that those who had come by the information did not want to share with the wider world how they had done so. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend said, sharing that information might compromise the means by which it was acquired. It might also have a significant impact on the stock market price of the company, and perhaps of other companies or British institutions that were invested in it. That information could not be shared publicly. Yet there could not be an understanding of the reason for the designation notice or effective scrutiny of it by Parliament unless the information was shared in some secure way. Surely that secure way would be sharing it with the ISC.
To take another example, what would happen if the security services became aware that the billionaire owner of one of our major suppliers for, say, cloud services was compromised in some way or that it was going to be bought by a hostile actor? I have previously suggested that I want to understand how the Bill would address the potential for, say, Amazon Web Services to be bought by a hostile actor, and the influence that that would have on our security.
That information would be incredibly security-sensitive, but it would also be market-sensitive. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said that market sensitivity is not the primary reason for the amendments. We prioritise national security. However, let us recognise that questions of national security have a huge impact on our markets as well, and our markets are influential on national security.
Under the clause the Secretary of State would not need to lay a copy of the direction or notice before Parliament if it would be contrary to the interests of national security. Revealing the way we obtain security information through our excellent security services would clearly be contrary to the interests of national security. How would the Minister ensure that there would be an appropriate level of scrutiny for a notice of that kind, which would not be laid before Parliament for reasons of national security? How would scrutiny be maintained?
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I emphasise that we support clause 18—[Interruption.] I am sorry. We are discussing clause 17.
Chi Onwurah
We support clause 17 and our amendments are intended to make it more accountable to Parliament and therefore more successful and effective in securing our national security.
The Chair
Order. I misled the hon. Lady. We are now discussing amendments 20 and 22 to 25. When we finish the debate on those amendments, we will debate clause 17 stand part. The hon. Lady may want to save this part of her remarks until the next debate.
Chi Onwurah
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is sometimes confusing to know exactly what is being discussed at what point. With that, I ask the Minister to respond to our concerns about the scrutiny of the powers in the clause.
Matt Warman
I welcome the second salvo in the campaign to address this matter by the right hon. Member for North Durham. He said it would be an ongoing campaign.
This group of amendments would require the Secretary of State to provide information relating to a designated vendor direction or designation notice to the ISC. The amendments would require the Secretary of State to do this only where directions and designation notices had not been laid before Parliament, whether in full or in part, as a result of the national security exemptions in clause 17. It will not surprise the right hon. Member for North Durham or other Opposition Members that some of these short remarks will overlap with the conversation that we had earlier on a similar matter.
Amendment 20 would require designated vendor directions or designation notices to be provided to the ISC. Amendments 22 to 25 would require the Secretary of State also to provide the ISC with copies of any notifications of contraventions, confirmation decisions and so on. Although I recognise some Members’ desire for the ISC to play a greater role in the oversight of national security decision making across government, including in relation to this Bill, the amendments would, as the right hon. Member for North Durham knows, extend the ISC’s role in an unprecedented way. None the less, I thank his welcome for my unprecedented appearance.
As I said in the debate on amendment 9, the ISC’s primary focus is to oversee the work of the security and intelligence agencies. Its remit is clearly defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013, and the accompanying statutory memorandum of understanding, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think he thinks it is my place to take a view on that role, and I do not think this Bill is the place to have that debate.
Mr Jones
Yes, but I would ask the Minister’s civil servants to read the Act before they write this stuff for him. The Act refers to “intelligence”. Our remit is not fixed by a Department. I know the Minister sympathises with this and that we will get there eventually, but I say to his civil servants, please read the Act.
Matt Warman
I will come on to that. Accepting any of these unilateral amendments to this Bill is not the appropriate place to achieve an overall enhanced role for the ISC—
Mr Jones
I am sorry to say to the Minister that it is not looking for an enhanced role at all. It is actually doing what it says in the Justice and Security Act 2013. It is about scrutinising intelligence. A lot of the information, which will be used by him and others in these orders, will be derived from the same decisions that we oversee .
Matt Warman
Absolutely. Members of the Committee should note that in exercising the powers created by this Bill, the Secretary of State will be advised by the NCSC on relevant technical and national security matters. The NCSC’s work already falls within the Intelligence and Security Committee’s remit, so the right hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation.
In that context, the amendment seems to duplicate that existing power, while also seeking to do something that is better done in reform of a different Act, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks. I am sorry to disappoint him again. I think he knew already that I would do that, but I look forward to his third, fourth and fifth salvos in his ongoing campaign.
Christian Matheson
I hear the Minister’s explanation, which we have been over before when considering other amendments. He talks about other salvos by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I go back to the statement that my right hon. Friend made last week, which is that he expects that at some point something will happen and we will move forward.
The Chair
Order. If the hon. Gentleman would like to chair this afternoon’s sitting, I am sure we could arrange for him to do that. I know Members will be disappointed, but I am instructed to say that as it is 11.25 am, the Committee is now adjourned.
The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 2 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 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I remind Members about the importance of social distancing. Spaces for Members are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. The Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Today we continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped 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 they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. 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 6
Powers of OFCOM to assess compliance with security duties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
It is a pleasure to be back under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As we discussed during the debate on amendments to this clause in our previous sitting, clause 6 inserts proposed new sections 105N to R, providing Ofcom with strengthened powers to assess whether providers of public electronic communications networks and services are complying with their security duty. These powers are vital to enable Ofcom to fulfil its expanded and more active role, giving it the tools to monitor and assess providers’ compliance with the new telecoms security framework and providing the basis for commencing any enforcement action.
Proposed new section 105O provides the power to give assessment notices to a provider. Assessment notices may impose a duty on a provider to do a number of different things, which I will briefly summarise. First, providers can be required to carry out, or arrange for another person to carry out, technical testing in relation to their network or service. Secondly, they can be required to make staff available to be interviewed, enabling Ofcom to gain insights into how a provider’s security practices and policies are implemented.
Thirdly, providers can be required to allow an Ofcom employee or an assessor authorised by Ofcom to enter their premises to view documents or equipment. I recognise that that is a significant power, but it is necessary. It is subject to certain restrictions to protect legally privileged information and to limit entry to non-domestic premises only. To provide clarity for telecoms providers, Ofcom will also publish guidance setting out how and when it will use the power. Importantly, providers have a right of appeal.
The powers of assessment set out in the clause are key to enabling Ofcom to carry out the effective and extensive monitoring and assessment of providers’ security practices that is necessary.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to come back to this important Bill. I thank the Minister for writing to me and reassuring me on certain matters relevant to the clause. We accept the need for Ofcom to have powers to require information from vendors, but we would like a specific requirement whereby Ofcom can ask vendors for information on the diversity of their supply chains. I will leave further discussion on that for our new clauses. I will support this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Powers of OFCOM to enforce compliance with security duties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 8 stand part.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Matt Warman
I will seek to move relatively rapidly through these four clauses.
Clause 7 provides Ofcom with enforcement powers in relation to providers’ security duties. The Bill gives Ofcom new powers to impose tough financial penalties on providers who breach their security duties. The penalties range to a maximum fine of 10% of a provider’s annual turnover, which is in line with the maximum fines available for breaching other regulatory requirements. For continuing contraventions, Ofcom can levy a daily penalty of up to £100,000. Penalties that are generally lower than that but still significant will also apply for contravening information requirements, which are subject to a maximum penalty of £10 million or, for a continuing contravention, a penalty of up to £50,000 per day. These penalties ensure that there will be a real financial deterrent to poor security practices. I should also say that, in the most serious cases, or in cases where a provider repeatedly contravenes its security duties, Ofcom would be able to use existing powers to suspend or restrict the provider’s entitlements to provide a network or service. Clearly, that is a step that we hope the regulator will never need to take.
The clause also gives Ofcom an important new power to take action where security is being compromised or is at imminent risk of being compromised. Proposed new sections 105U and 105V of the Communications Act 2003 would enable Ofcom to direct a provider to take interim steps to secure its network or service while Ofcom investigates or pursues further action. This power recognises that contravention of a security duty could result in a security compromise that causes real damage to users of that network or service. Where Ofcom uses that power, it will be required to commence and complete the enforcement process as soon as is reasonably practicable. The clause gives Ofcom the tools it needs to effectively enforce compliance with the new security framework.
Clause 8 sets out the position for bringing civil claims against providers who breach their security duties, which is a matter we touched on in earlier debates. It enables providers to be held accountable not just by Ofcom but by service users, such as members of the public, in cases where loss or damage is sustained by those users as the result of a breach of a duty. Providers owe a duty to any person who may be affected by a contravention of their security duties to take security measures, to comply with specific security duties in any regulations and to inform users of security compromises.
This clause allows any affected person to take legal action should providers breach those security duties. However, any affected person can bring legal proceedings against a provider only with the consent of Ofcom, which may be subject to conditions relating to the conduct of the legal action. This reflects the existing position in the Communications Act 2003 and ensures that providers face legal action only in appropriate circumstances. The clause also makes providers responsible to their users, providing another source of accountability. It allows users to bring legal claims for any losses they have suffered, which is only fair and reasonable.
Clause 9 addresses the interaction between provisions in the Bill and other legislation, specifically national security, law enforcement and prisons legislation. The security duties created by the Bill do not conflict with duties imposed on communications providers by other legislation via these clauses. Equally, we do not want the Bill to affect adversely the important work carried out by our law enforcement agencies, criminal justice authorities and intelligence agencies. The clause gives that clarity to providers about their responsibilities.
Finally, clause 10 requires that Ofcom publish a statement of policy about how it will fulfil its general duty and use specific powers to ensure that providers comply with their security duties. This will provide welcome clarity to industry about the expected use of important new powers. I beg to move that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I will not detain the Committee long, as we are cracking on through the clauses. I will only emphasise that these clauses give Ofcom broad powers—very broad powers—and measures of enforcement, as well as placing duties on the network operators to all users of their network services. We support these broad powers, but it is incumbent on the Minister and indeed on the Committee to consider whether those powers will receive sufficient scrutiny, and sufficient oversight and input from our security services. We anticipate debating those particular questions in more detail later today. In the meantime, we will not stand in the way of these clauses standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Reporting on matters related to security
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 11, page18, line 26, at end insert—
“(aa) an assessment of the impact on security of changes to the diversity of the supply chain for network equipment;”
This amendment requires that network supply chain diversification is included in Ofcom reports on security.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 12 stand part.
Clause 13 stand part.
Chi Onwurah
We start this debate where we ended our sitting on Thursday, on the diversity of the supply chain. But this is not groundhog day; this is a very different aspect of the diversity of the supply chain. I hope the Minister has noticed that there are three themes to our amendment: national security, diversity of the supply chain and appropriate scrutiny. Those are our key concerns about the Bill as it stands.
We wish to see the Bill debated as speedily as possible. For the record, I reiterate my concern that, in the midst of a pandemic lockdown, where the advice is to stay at home, the Leader of the House requires that Members of Parliament should congregate in one room for several hours. With that in mind, we are cracking on as quickly as possible, and we have made significant progress only this morning. However, we feel strongly that, given the speed at which we are providing the appropriate scrutiny, more time should be devoted to debating the Bill on the Floor of the House. We are cracking on in order to protect, as far as we can, the public health of Members of Parliament, staff, House officials and Clerks, who are doing an amazing job in the midst of a pandemic.
Clause 11 makes provision for reporting by Ofcom on security matters. That includes a duty to provide an annual security report to the Secretary of State. Amendment 14, in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, requires that network supply chain diversification is included in Ofcom’s report on security. As I said, we anticipate having a broader debate this afternoon on the importance of the diversification of the supply chain to security, as part of the debates on our new clauses, so I will only summarise our key points and concerns now.
This amendment follows amendment 13, which sought to give Ofcom the power to request reports from operators on their supply and the progress of their supply chain diversification. We support steps to remove high-risk vendors from the UK networks, but they must go hand in hand with credible measures to diversify the supply chain. I am afraid it remains the fact that we have no reference to the diversification of the supply chain in the Bill, despite the fact that, as I will briefly outline, both the Secretary of State and experts during our evidence sessions emphasised that we could not have network security without effective diversification.
We cannot have a robust and secure network with only two service providers. Supply chain diversification is absolutely vital to protecting our national security. If a vulnerability exists in one vendor or service provider, that intrusion may be limited to that one vendor or service provider alone. A diversity of suppliers in the supply chain limits the exposure of vital information. This amendment ensures that network supply chain diversification is addressed in Ofcom’s report on security. My key question to the Minister is, how can Ofcom report on security if it is not reporting on supply chain diversification?
The Minister may well say that Ofcom has the power to report on supply chain diversification and to request information on supply chain diversification. As I have said on a number of occasions, the powers in the Bill are broad. That is why effective scrutiny requires some specification of what will be reported upon.
The security report to the Secretary of State should be made as
“soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period”
and
“must contain… information and advice… to assist the Secretary of State in the formulation of policy”.
It must also include the extent to which providers have complied with security duties. That is as an example of some of what may be included in the security report. Given that the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that supply chain diversification goes hand in hand with the security of the network, it is essential that supply chain diversification is specifically mentioned in the Bill, so that we can have accurate and detailed reports from Ofcom on key aspects of network security.
The amendment will help provide the Secretary of State with the information to update Parliament on the progress of the Government’s diversification strategy, depending on Ofcom’s findings. The Secretary of State has promised to give Parliament such updates, so this is an enabling amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State has the information he needs to provide the reporting that he has committed to.
In support of the amendment, I would like to cite one of the witnesses in our evidence sessions. Dr Alexi Drew, from Kings College, London, was asked whether it was possible to have a secure network without a diverse supply chain, and answered:
“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—insecure 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.]
That is a risk that, I am sorry to say, the Bill currently does not sufficiently address. I hope that, by accepting this amendment, the Minister will recognise that we are, as always, seeking to improve the Bill and to ensure that it provides a credible and effective means to secure our networks.
With regard to clauses 11, 12 and 13 stand part, we recognise the importance of providing Ofcom with the appropriate powers to request information, but also to share information related to security. In that respect, these provisions are ones that we can support.
Matt Warman
I welcome the spirit of the amendment. I think that the hon. Lady and I share the same ambition. I know that she wants to have the proper debate later, so we look forward to that.
Clause 11 inserts into the Communications Act 2003 proposed new section 105Z, which deals with Ofcom’s reports on security. It requires Ofcom to produce such reports within two years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and every 12 months thereafter. As the hon. Lady said, amendment 14 is similar to the amendment to clause 6 that we discussed previously. Ultimately, when considering Ofcom’s role and specifically its reporting function, we should note that proposed new section 105Z(2) requires Ofcom security reports to include such information and advice as Ofcom considers may best assist the Secretary of State in the formulation of policy on telecoms security. That could go beyond the list in proposed new subsection (4) to include other relevant information, such as that related to diversification. The Secretary of State can also direct Ofcom to include information that goes beyond that list.
As the Committee and, indeed, Ofcom will be well aware, the Government have recently published a targeted diversification strategy, which will deliver lasting and meaningful change in the 5G supply chain and pave the way for a vibrant, innovative and dynamic supply market. We heard widespread support for the strategy from witnesses during the oral evidence sessions. The strategy demonstrates our commitment to building a healthy supply market and is backed by a £250 million initial investment.
We have publicly announced that the Government will be funding the creation of a UK telecoms lab to research and test new ways of increasing security and interoperability, and we are already partnering with Ofcom and Digital Catapult to fund the industry-facing test facility SONIC—the SmartRAN Open Network Interoperability Centre. Both of those will play a key part in our investment in diversification and demonstrate Ofcom’s existing part in it.
As already mentioned, amendment 14 would require Ofcom to include in its security reports
“an assessment of the impact on security of”
any
“changes to the diversity of the supply chain for network equipment”.
As that requirement is already essentially covered by Ofcom’s existing powers, the amendment is not necessary. The inclusion of any such information is already within Ofcom’s discretion, but I am sure that we will discuss it more later on, as the hon. Lady said.
Clause 12 expands Ofcom’s information-gathering powers for the purposes of its security functions and enhances its ability to share the information with the Government. It enables Ofcom to require a provider to produce, generate, collect or retain security information, and then to analyse that information. Any information sought using this power must always be proportionate to how Ofcom will use it.
Clause 13 makes provision in connection with the standard of review applied by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in appeals against certain of Ofcom’s security-related decisions. Ofcom’s regulatory decisions are subject to a right of appeal to the tribunal, and that will also be the case for most of Ofcom’s decisions relating to the exercise of its regulatory powers conferred by the Bill. This clause makes provision to ensure that the tribunal is not required to modify its approach in appeals against relevant security decisions, and should instead apply ordinary judicial review principles.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained to the Committee why amendment 14 is unnecessary and why clauses 11 to 13 as drafted should stand part of the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments. Although we agree on many things in many areas, I think that in this case he is trying to have his cake and eat it, inasmuch as he is saying that amendment 14 is not necessary because Ofcom already has the powers, but he is reluctant or is refusing to specify that those powers will be used for the objective of reporting on the progress of diversification of the supply chain. It was good to hear the Minister reiterate the importance of diversification of the supply chain, but I remain confused about whether he agrees with the evidence and, indeed, with his own Secretary of State that diversification of the supply chain is a prerequisite of the security of our networks and, indeed, our national security—that is what we are discussing with regard to our telecoms networks. If diversification is a prerequisite, why is the Minister so reluctant to refer to it? If he is so confident in the plan to diversify our supply chains, why is he so reluctant to insert any requirements to report on the progress of that diversification?
I listened intently: the Minister said that Ofcom has the powers to report on whatever it considers to be relevant to security. During the evidence session, we heard from Ofcom itself, very clearly and repeatedly, that it is not for Ofcom to make decisions on national security. It will not make national security decisions. That is not within its remit and responsibilities; the witnesses from Ofcom stated that repeatedly and clearly. I would be happy to read from Hansard if that point is in question. Given that Ofcom will not make security decisions and that the diversification of the supply chain is essential for security, I am at a loss to understand why the Minister will not accept a reference to reporting on the progress of diversification. Although, unfortunately, the pandemic means that we are not at full strength on the Opposition side of the Committee, I wish to test the will of the Committee on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 14, page 21, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
“(3) The reports must be published not more than 12 months apart for the first 5 years, then not more than 5 years apart.
(4) The first report must be published within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact and effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13 every year for the first five years after the Act is passed, and then every five years following.
The amendment reflects another of our key concerns about the Bill, which is the level and extent of appropriate scrutiny for such broad and sweeping powers. It seeks to ensure appropriate scrutiny. Clause 14 requires the Secretary of State to review the impact and effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13 at least every five years. Our amendment would require the report to be published every year for the first five years after the legislation is passed, and then up to every five years after that.
As we have said, the Bill gives the Secretary of State and Ofcom sweeping powers. We want to ensure both that they are proportionate and that there is accountability. As we have previously emphasised, we are sure that the Minister and the Secretary of State are inclined to exercise the powers in a proportionate and accountable way, but they will not be in their posts forever, and perhaps not for the entire first five years of the legislation’s operation, so it is important that the Bill requires that Parliament be able to scrutinise its effectiveness, as that is so important to our national security. In that sense, this amendment follows amendments 5, 9 and 10 with respect to the requirement for appropriate oversight and accountability.
I emphasise—I am sure that you will understand, Mr Hollobone—that in some ways we are here because of a lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the presence and growth of high-risk vendors in our networks. It was only when Parliament became aware of and was able to give its full-throated input on concerns about the dominance of high-risk vendors in our telecommunications market that the Government took action. We do not want to be in the position of finding again that there has been a dramatic change in the security of our networks without appropriate scrutiny.
Clause 14 states that the Secretary of State must
“carry out reviews of…impact and effectiveness”
and that the report must be laid before Parliament for parliamentary scrutiny. However, we are to wait up to five years before it will be made possible to give parliamentary scrutiny to a Bill that is so important to national security, as both the Minister and the Secretary of State, and indeed the security services, have emphasised. We are not to review its effectiveness for five years.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Does not the clause state that the period is up to five years? The review could be done during that period; it would not have to be at the five-year mark every time.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The clause enables the Minister or Secretary of State to choose to lay a report more frequently. Again, I do not want to impute anything against the Minister or the Secretary of State, but given the importance of the subject and of parliamentary review, why not ensure that it is more frequent?
I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that Parliament has many things to consider, and so does the Secretary of State. There is competition for parliamentary time, particularly in a pandemic and in view of the challenges that we shall face in the next few years. How can I put this? We have concerns that the priority may slip in the face of, for example, economic challenges, investment challenges and recovery challenges. We want to be sure what is happening. We are the party of national security and we want to ensure that, in this context, national security is brought to Parliament to be debated, discussed and reviewed at least every year.
Matt Warman
I listen with interest to the points that the hon. Lady makes, and to the assertion that she is a member of the party of national security. I welcome her to this side of the House, if that is the case. [Interruption.] Thank you, but no.
As the hon. Lady says, clause 14 is a review clause requiring the impact and effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13 to be reviewed at least every five years by the Secretary of State. The review report must be published and laid before Parliament, but it is by no means the only source of parliament scrutiny, as she knows. Her amendment would increase the frequency of these reports to every year for the first five years after the Bill is passed and then every five years thereafter.
Increasing the frequency of the reports would bring its own challenges for a number of reasons. First, the framework is considerably different from the previous security regime in the Communications Act 2003. It seems to me that we will not be able fully to assess the impact and effectiveness of the new security regime instituted by clauses 1 to 13 until all parts of the framework, including secondary legislation, codes of practice and other things, have been in place for a reasonable period of time. The code of practice that will provide guidance on the detailed security measures that telecoms could take is intended to set clear implementation timelines. Some measures may require significant operational change, as we heard in the evidence sessions for telecoms providers, and we are aware that that may be costly. For that reason, we cannot reasonably expect all changes to be implemented instantly or, indeed, all necessarily at the same time.
There is a further practical difficulty with the amendment. If the first report is to be produced 12 months after Royal Assent, it will require the review to be undertaken well in advance of that deadline. That means that the report will represent an incomplete picture of the Bill’s impact, even at its very first production. Some measures will not even have been implemented by telecoms providers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn was exactly right that the current requirement for publishing reports is at least—rather than at most—every five years. We have been deliberate in our choice of this timeframe because five years is the reasonable point by which we expect the majority of telecoms providers to have implemented most, if not all, changes. It is therefore considered appropriate to require a report on the impact and effectiveness of the framework by that time. I recognise that five years is a long time. That does not mean that the framework will be free from scrutiny in the intervening period. As clause 11(3) sets out, the Bill amends section 134B of the Communications Act so that Ofcom’s regular infrastructure reports will include information on public telecoms providers’ compliance with the new security framework. Ofcom publishes the reports annually, rendering the amendment unnecessary.
Chi Onwurah
On a point of clarification, I have the impression that the Minister anticipates that the first report under the Bill would only happen once all the requirements had been implemented. I think that that implies that it would only happen once a high-risk vendor, specifically Huawei, had been removed from the network.
Matt Warman
No is the short answer, because while this is a progress report, five years from 2021 is 2026—the deadline is 2027, even at the most extreme end, which is not where we anticipate it will end up—and it would be before the point that she identifies.
The infrastructure reports from Ofcom will help to provide Parliament and the public with a view on how telecoms providers are progressing with compliance with the new framework. As I alluded to earlier, they are not the only means of parliamentary scrutiny. We have the Intelligence and Security Committee and we have Select Committees. I suspect that there might be one or two debates on this matter over the next five years as well. To pretend that this is the only method of parliamentary scrutiny is not accurate.
Chi Onwurah
If the Minister will give way briefly, he may find it saves time. To clarify: for the first report we will not necessarily have to wait until all the provisions of delegated legislation associated with the Bill are in place. As for the infrastructure reports that Ofcom publishes, to which he refers as a form of alternative scrutiny, will they, might they or will they not reflect progress in the diversification of the supply chain?
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady asks me to predict what is in a report that has not been written yet by an organisation that is not a Government Department. I agree with the principle of what she is saying. This is an important aspect and one would reasonably expect it to be reflected in the reports that we have talked about. It is, however, important overall to say that Ofcom’s own regular infrastructure reports will, as I have said, include information on public telecoms providers’ compliance with the new security framework, which is the broadest interpretation and gives a huge amount of latitude for the sorts of information that she seeks. I hope that those infrastructure reports will help to provide Parliament with the kind of scrutiny that she seeks, and the public with the kind of scrutiny that we all seek. [Interruption.] For those reasons I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for an exciting intervention from his phone, and I thank the Minister for his comments. As I think I have said, I spent six years working for Ofcom with the Communications Act 2003 on my desk. I know the importance that our independent regulator places on the words of the Minister during such debates as this. As he has indicated that the reports would do well to include reference to everything that appertains to security, including the diversification of supply chain, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Designated vendor directions
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 15, page 22, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) When considering whether a designated vendor direction is necessary in the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must take account of the advice provided by the intelligence services.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to give due priority to advice provided by the Intelligence Services (including the National Cyber Security Centre as part of GCHQ) when considering when to issue a designated vendor direction.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 16, page 27, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) When considering whether a designation notice is necessary in the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must take account of the advice provided by the intelligence services.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to give due priority to advice provided by the Intelligence Services (including the National Cyber Security Centre as part of GCHQ) when considering whether to issue a designation notice.
Amendment 18, in clause 16, page 28, line 3, at end insert—
“(m) the person’s control of data flows.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider a person’s potential control of data flows when issuing a designation notice.
Clause 16 stand part.
Amendment 19, in clause 17, page 29, line 19, at end insert
“, together with an assessment of the impact the designation notice will have on supply chain diversity;”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the impact a designation notice will have on telecoms market supply chain diversity, enabling parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr Jones
I thought I would bring some light relief to the Committee’s proceedings. Amendments 16 and 17 are both probing amendments. I might sound like a broken record, but they are really just to ensure that we get a situation where the necessary advice is taken. Amendment 16 states:
“When considering whether a designated vendor direction is necessary in the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must take account of the advice provided by the intelligence services.”
I accept that the entire purpose of the Bill is to have national security at its heart, but I still have a nagging doubt about whether Ofcom will be able to put national security at the heart of its considerations.
Amendment 17 states:
“When considering whether a designation notice is necessary in the interests of national security, the Secretary of State must take account of the advice provided by the intelligence services.”
This is an attempt to future-proof the Bill. As I mentioned the other day, when we pass legislation in this place it is important that it outlives present Ministers, and us all. Unfortunately, there is form on this—look at the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2013 report on critical national infrastructure. I accept it was then the Cabinet Office, not Ofcom, that dealt with this, but when BT negotiated its contract with Huawei, the Cabinet Office was told about it but did not feel it necessary to tell Ministers for another three years, until 2006. I am concerned that national security will not be at the forefront when people look at such matters. The amendment is really just to ensure that that takes place, and codifies it into law.
I do not wish to criticise civil servants in any way, but having been a Minister myself, I know they sometimes have a tendency not to put forward things that might have a political dimension that they do not recognise. That is why it is important for national security that the Secretary of State has first-hand knowledge and information directly from the security services. We have very effective security services in this country—I pay tribute to them—but we also have the Cabinet Office. I know the Minister might think I am a bit obsessive, but I am sure he has come up against the buffer of the Cabinet Office, which seems to want to intervene in everything and anything that does not really concern it.
Matt Warman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the debate. He has talked so much about my impermanence that I felt lucky to come back today, never mind any time in the future. He makes a reasonable point, with which I broadly sympathise. As this is a broad grouping that covers clauses 15 and 16 and the amendments to clauses 15, 16 and 17, I will discuss the policy intention behind the clauses in sequence, and address the amendments.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is obviously an opportune moment to pay tribute to the heroic work of our national security services. The Bill emphasises the importance of their advice, and it empowers the Government to manage the presence of high-risk vendors in our networks. The report to which he refers is important, but it is also important to say that it was published, as he said, in 2013. It related almost entirely to events that took place under Labour, and it predates the existence of the National Cyber Security Centre, so we are dealing to some extent with a different world. I will go into a bit of detail on that.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government announced in January last year that new restrictions should be placed on the use of high-risk vendors in the UK’s 5G and full-fibre networks. In July 2020, the Government worked with the NCSC to update the guidance following action taken by the US Government in relation to Huawei. Clauses 15 to 17 provide the principal powers that the Government need to manage the risks posed by high-risk vendors. Without such powers, the guidance issued to industry will remain unenforceable and therefore present a risk to national security.
Mr Jones
I accept what the Minister says about the report, but its key point was that civil servants basically decided not to tell Ministers. On his explanation and the way forward, or what has changed since, how can we avoid a situation whereby Cabinet Office civil servants take the decision not to tell Ministers? How can we ensure that that will not happen again?
Matt Warman
In short, the right hon. Gentleman is challenging the fundamental effectiveness of Government and the judgments that were made by officials at the time. I simply say that it is the duty of Government to ensure that such errors are not made in future. That cannot be done solely by legislative means; it must be done by custom and practice. The right hon. Gentleman understands, through his work on the ISC, that the role of those close working relationships is in some ways far more important in the day-to-day security issues that we are dealing with. Perhaps we can return to that point later.
The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to issue designated vendor directions, imposing controls on the use of goods, services or facilities that are supplied, provided or made available by designated vendors. The Secretary of State may issue such directions only where it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security and proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved.
Amendment 16, which would amend clause 15, seeks to place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to take into account advice from our intelligence services when considering whether to issue a designated vendor direction. Amendment 17, which would amend clause 16, seeks to place a similar requirement when considering a designation notice.
I should reassure hon. Members that the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Member for North Durham knows, has every intention of seeking the advice of our security and intelligence services, as would any Secretary of State, in particular the NCSC, when considering whether to issue a designated vendor direction or designation notice.
It is also worth saying, from a scrutiny point of view, that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport maintains an excellent relationship with the NCSC. We are scrutinised by the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and I have appeared before the Intelligence and Security Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. There are many examples in the Bill where the NCSC’s expert advice has been taken into account.
The UK telecoms supply chain review, on which the Bill is based, was the product of the close working relationship between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the NCSC. In a sense, that close working relationship demonstrates that matters have moved on substantively since 2013.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the illustrative notices that we published in November last year. The NCSC was closely involved in the drafting of those illustrative notices. It will also be involved in the drafting of direction and designation notices once the Bill has been enacted . Given the demonstrable success of our collaboration with the NCSC thus far, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that explanation, although I appreciate that he introduced a probing amendment.
Clause 15 would create the new power for the Secretary of State to issue designated vendor directions to public communications providers, in the interests of national security. Although clauses 15 and 16 are distinct, they are complementary. Directions cannot be issued without identification of a designated vendor and designations have no effect unless directions are given to public communications providers. Clause 15 inserts new sections 105Z1 to 105Z7 into the Communications Act 2003 and amends section 151 for that purpose.
The clause will enable the Government’s announcements in 2020 on the use of high-risk vendors to be given legal effect. Those announcements include advice that require a public telecoms provider to exclude Huawei from their 5G networks by 2027, and stop installing new Huawei goods, services or facilities in 5G networks from September 2021. It will also enable the Government to address risks that might be posed by future high-risk vendors, helping to ensure our telecoms networks are safe and secure.
Proposed new section 105Z1 sets out the direction power. It would allow the Secretary of State to give a designated vendor direction to a provider, imposing requirements on their use of goods, services or facilities supplied by a specified designated vendor. Proposed new section 105Z2 provides further details on the types of requirements that may be imposed in a designated vendor direction. Proposed new section 105Z3 sets out the consultation requirements and expectations for public communications providers. Proposed new section 105Z4 sets out a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide a copy of a direction to the designated vendor or vendors, specified in a direction and, hence, affected by it. Proposed new sections 105Z5 and 105Z6 set out when and how the Secretary of State may vary or revoke a direction. Lastly, 105Z7 enables the Secretary of State to require a public communications provider to provide a plan setting out the steps that it intends to take to comply with any requirements set out in a direction and the timings of those steps.
Although the Government have made specific announcements on Huawei, the high-risk vendor policy has not been designed around one company, country or threat. The designated vendor direction power, as set out in these provisions, is intended to be an enduring and flexible power, enabling the Government to manage the risks posed to telecoms networks both now and in the future.
Clause 16 includes a non-exhaustive list of matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard when considering whether to issue a designation notice. Amendment 18 seeks to amend that clause by adding a person’s control of data flows to the list of matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard. However, nothing in the clause prevents the Secretary of State from considering control of data flows before issuing a designation notice already, if the matter were deemed relevant to the assessment of national security. It is already covered and so is not required as a stand-alone measure.
The clause creates a power for the Secretary of State to issue a designation notice, which designates a vendor for the purposes of issuing a designated vendor direction. Proposed new section 105Z8 is the principal measure of the clause, and sets out the power for the Secretary of State to designate specific vendors where necessary in the interests of national security. A designation notice must specify the reasons for designation unless the Secretary of State considers that doing so would be contrary to the interests of national security. The proposed new section also lists the primary factors that may be taken into account by the Secretary of State when considering whether to designate a vendor on national security grounds.
Finally in this group, amendment 19 would require the Secretary of State, when laying a designation noticed before Parliament, also to lay before Parliament a report detailing the impact that the designation notice might have on the diversity of the UK’s telecoms supply chain. The effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to lay a report purely on the impact of the designation notice, but a designation notice simply notifies vendors that the Government consider them a risk to national security.
Only when the designation notice is issued alongside a designated vendor direction are controls placed on the use of a designated vendor’s goods, services and facilities by public communication providers, so it is those controls that might have an impact on the diversity of the supply chain. I can reassure the Committee that the Government will consider the diversity of the supply chain before issuing designation notices and designated vendor directions. A lack of diversity is in itself a risk to the security of a network. I hope that answers the question that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central asked in regard to an earlier amendment. It is right that the Government consider that risk before deciding whether to issue designation notices and designated vendor directions.
To conclude, clauses 15 and 16 provide us with the ability to improve the security of our telecommunications networks and to manage the risks relating to high-risk vendors, both now and in the future.
Chi Onwurah
I will speak to amendments 18 and 19, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and to clauses 15 to 17. As the Minister set out, the clauses are about key powers in the Bill that seek to secure our networks and to regularise requirements already in place, albeit informally or not legally, to remove Huawei as a specific high-risk vendor from our networks. The clauses give Government the powers to do what they have said they will do.
On the clauses, I will not repeat what the Minister said, and I congratulate him on clearly setting out their powers, which the Opposition believe are necessary. I also join the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in paying tribute to our security services, which do such great work to keep us secure across a wide range of threats and challenges—both present and evolving—and on whose continued work and effectiveness the Bill is highly dependent. As my right hon. Friend set out, we want to ensure that national security is absolutely at the heart of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady has done really well, but we are not debating clause 17 stand part. She can refer to the other clause if she wishes.
Chi Onwurah
Thank you for the clarification, Mr Hollobone. I see that we are discussing whether clauses 15 and 16 stand part. I support those clauses and look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment.
Matt Warman
I pre-emptively covered a lot of the hon. Lady’s questions, but I will say two brief things. She talked about consolidation in the cloud sector. While the Bill is very much a national security Bill, the National Security and Investment Bill would cover consolidation in that sort of sector, rather than this one. Obviously they do work together.
Chi Onwurah
The point I am making—clearly, I did not make it effectively—is that that sector is becoming this sector. The cloud sector is becoming the telecoms sector. The reason we need this Bill in addition to the National Security and Investment Bill is to address the security concerns of the telecoms sector specifically. The cloud sector is becoming part of the telecoms sector, yet the Bill does not address those concerns.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady is not wrong, obviously, in the sense that there is a potential conversation to be had about when a cloud provider is a telecoms provider and vice versa, if I can put it like that, although it is not the most elegant way of doing so. However, the point is that the reason we have comprehensive coverage of the landscape is because we have both the National Security and Investment Bill, which she debated recently, and this Bill. The broad powers that she described are intended to provide precisely that sort of coverage.
Similarly, the hon. Lady referred to the length of the list in clause 16 of matters that can be taken into consideration. That relates to the point I made previously, namely that the sorts of issues that she is talking about, such as data flows, are already covered in the long list. The list is as long as it is because it is intended to look to the future. Therefore, being prescriptive in the way that she describes is fundamentally unnecessary. We are not excluding what she wants to be on the list. A matter is already very much there if it is pertinent to national security. For that reason, I do not think there is a compelling case to add that single topic to the list, both because it is already there and because if we start going down that route, we could make the case for adding a host of other things that are already covered but that people might want to be mentioned specifically.
As I said earlier on the convergence of the two sectors, the point is that we have comprehensive coverage through both Bills. It will be for the NCSC, Ofcom and the Government to make a judgment as to whether any consolidation in a sector poses a national security risk.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 20 to clause 17. This is Christian Matheson’s big moment. I call him to move the amendment.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 17, page 29, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) Where the Secretary of State considers that laying a copy of the direction or notice (as the case may be) before Parliament would, under subsection (2), be contrary to the interests of national security, a copy of the direction or notice must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.
(5) Any information excluded from what is laid before Parliament under the provision in subsection (3)(b) must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.”
This amendment would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with any information relating to a designated vendor direction or designation notice which on grounds of national security is not laid before Parliament, thereby enabling Parliamentary oversight of all directions and notices.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 22, in clause 20, page 35, line 30, at end insert—
“(9) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any notification under this section relating to a designated vendor direction, designation notice, a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction or a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any notification under this section which relates to a direction or notice that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 23, in clause 20, page 37, line 41, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation decision relating to a designated vendor direction, designation notice, a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction or a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation decision which relates to a direction or notice that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 24, in clause 21, page 39, line 9, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any urgent enforcement direction relating to a designated vendor direction to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any urgent enforcement direction which relates to a direction that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 25, in clause 21, page 40, line 6, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation of an urgent enforcement notification relating to a designated vendor direction to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation of an urgent enforcement notification which relates to a direction that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Christian Matheson
I am sure the Committee has been waiting with bated breath for my big moment all morning, Mr Hollobone. May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship?
I had prepared some notes to help me present the amendments, but I need not have bothered; I could simply have taken the Hansard report from last week and quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. He talked about being a stuck record, but he is not; he is being consistent. I like to think that Labour has been consistent throughout the detailed consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about the three areas that we consistently think would improve the Bill, and the amendment falls into one of those areas: scrutiny and the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I refer to my right hon. Friend’s speech last week on amendment 9, when he talked about the desire to help the Bill. He also laid down a challenge. He commented on the fact that I thought that some parts of his speech were inspirational. They were, because they made me think quite a lot. There was one lightbulb moment when he used his experience of, I believe, 20 years in the House this year—on which I congratulate him—and said that the chances are that a similar amendment will be proposed in their lordships’ House and the Government may well agree to it.
My right hon. Friend also said that it is not necessarily a good thing for the Minister—not in this case, mind you—to be a tough guy who wants to get through the Bill without any amendments, when there is a genuine desire among the Opposition to get the Bill through. I remind the Minister and Government Members that we support the Bill. There have been occasions when an Opposition have tried to scupper, delay or make mischief with a Bill. I assure Government Members—I hope it is obvious to them—that there is no such skulduggery on this side of the House, not with this Bill and not ever, and certainly not when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and I on the Bill Committee. We are genuinely keen to improve the Bill during its passage.
The amendment again falls into one of the three areas my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central has identified as necessary. As the Minister may have guessed, the chances are that we will not put it to the vote, but we do ask that he gives it careful consideration. I refer the Committee to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham last week about the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Amendments 20 to 25 relate to different clauses, but have the common aim of ensuring that there is correct parliamentary oversight of the process outlined in the Bill, specifically by referring all orders made under proposed new section 105Z11 of the Communications Act 2003 to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
It would normally be the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that would take on telecommunications matters. Additionally, the Secretary of State may lay orders before Parliament for general consideration and scrutiny. However, the Bill has our national security at its heart, and as a proud former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I am the first to admit that it would not be at all an appropriate forum for the consideration of such reporting to take place, nor would it be the normal procedure for laying orders before this House or the other place, either in general or on the specifics of the order.
As we touched on last week, the temptation is therefore the default position that no reporting at all would take place, which is clearly not desirable. I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not the Government’s intention. To be fair, I think he touched on that point last week, but it would be helpful if he could touch on it again.
The use of the ISC is therefore an elegant and obvious solution. The Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham is such a distinguished member, has worked well and has the confidence of the House. It provides a secure and trusted forum for decisions of the Secretary of State that may have far-reaching commercial and technical implications, as well as security implications, to be scrutinised and considered by hon. Members who are able to receive the full facts and make a judgement based on them, while giving nothing away to those who wish us ill and would exploit our open democracy in doing so. I see no reason why our determination to protect our communications infrastructure should be used against us by our adversaries, but nor should that determination be traded off with a reduction in parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive and agencies that act on behalf of us all.
The ISC is there for a reason: it is precisely to cover situations such as this. If the Minister can propose an alternative solution that balances security with scrutiny, we would be pleased to hear it. I suspect this solution would also make commercial UK businesses more open to scrutiny themselves by offering a level of confidentiality, although I accept that that is not the primary role of the ISC.
It should also not be option for the Secretary of State to report. Such a chaotic patchwork would undermine the integrity of the Bill and the processes that we are setting up. Failing any alternative being proposed, we believe that these amendments, which involve the ISC acting on behalf of the whole House—indeed, the whole of Parliament—would fill a glaring hole and enhance the Bill. I commend them to the Committee.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said that we were going over old ground, and to a certain extent we are because some of the amendments reflect those that I moved last week.
May I say at the outset, Mr Hollobone, that the Minister has been an exemplar in engaging with and briefing the ISC? He has set something of a precedent; usually we have only Cabinet Ministers or Prime Ministers before us to give evidence. He is one of the few junior Ministers to have appeared before us, so I congratulate him. He did it because he wanted to engage with the issues. He must therefore be commended on his commitment to ensure that there is scrutiny. However—this is not to wish his demise, but to argue for his promotion—he will not be there forever. I think he does not quite understand why the Government are not at least moving on this.
The ISC’s remit is defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013. It sets out which Departments we cover, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is not one of them. However, as I said last week, security is increasingly being covered by other Departments, and this Bill is a good example. The National Security and Investment Bill is another one, where security decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Parliament must be able to scrutinise that.
If a high-risk vendor is designated as banned from the network by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, there are perfectly good reasons why the intelligence behind that cannot be put into the public domain. The methods by which such information is acquired are of a highly sensitive nature, so it would not only expose our security services’ techniques, but in some cases would make vulnerable the individuals who have been the source of that information. I think most people would accept that that is a very good reason.
This sort of thing is happening increasingly. We have the two Bills that I have referred to, but we also have the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, which will come back to the House tomorrow. Covert human intelligence and the ability to collect intelligence on behalf of our security services is very important. Most of that is covered by the Home Office, and covert human intelligence sources are covered by the ISC’s remit and can be scrutinised. However, there is a long list of other organisations that will be covered by tomorrow’s Bill, including—we never quite got to the bottom of this—the Food Standards Agency, for example. Again, how do we ensure that there is scrutiny of the decisions?
We also have—this has come out of the pandemic—the new biosecurity unit in the Department of Health. Again, there is no parliamentary scrutiny, because the Health and Social Care Committee will not be able to look at the intelligence that supports so much of that. An easy way out of this is in the Justice and Security Act 2013: the memorandum of understanding, which just means that, were our remit extended to look at this and other matters, the ISC could oversee and ask for the intelligence.
Having spoken to the Business Secretary and the Minister, who sympathises with us, I am not sure where the logjam is in Government. The point is that an amendment will be tabled in the Lords. Whether the provision is in the Bill or just in the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC, it is easily done and would give confidence that the process at least had parliamentary oversight.
On many of these decisions, frankly, the oversight would not be onerous; we are asking only that we are informed of them. On some occasions, we might not even want to look at the intelligence. It might be so straightforward that, frankly, it is not necessary, so I do not think that it is an administrative burden. I cannot understand what the problem is. To reiterate what I said last week in Committee, it is not about the ISC wanting to have a veto or block over such things. It is, rightly, for the Government and the Secretary of State to make and defend those decisions.
It is also not about the ISC embarrassing the Government, because we cannot talk in public about a lot of the information that we receive. It is not as though we would publish a publicly available report, because of the highly classified nature of the information. However, the ISC can scrutinise decisions and, if it has concerns, write to the Prime Minister or produce a report for the Prime Minister raising them. That gives parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive’s decisions.
As I say, the report might not be made public. People might ask, “Would that be a new thing?” No—it happens all the time. For example, on the well-publicised Russia report this year, there was a public report with redactions in it and quite an extensive annex, which raised some issues that we were concerned about. That annex was seen only by individuals in Government, including the Prime Minister.
There is already a mechanism, so I fail to understand why the Government want to oppose this. From talking to Ministers privately, I think that there is a lot of sympathy with the position and I think that we will get there eventually. How we get there and in what format, I am not sure—whether the method is to put it in the Bill or to do it through the mechanism in the 2013 Act. That might be a way forward.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to support the excellent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I did well to delay my remarks till after my right hon. Friend had spoken, because he has set out very effectively, based on his considerable experience as a long-standing member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, both why it is important that that Committee should be consulted and receive the reports, and why it is hard to understand the Minister’s reluctance both in this Bill and in the National Security and Investment Bill to involve a source of such credible security expertise and, importantly, security clearance in key issues of national security.
I want to add two points to those made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The first is to reiterate a point made previously: our security threats are changing, evolving and, unfortunately, diversifying. We see that in changes to our defence spending, in changes in the national review of our defence capabilities, and in changes in the evolution of the geopolitical landscape—the potential source of threats. However, the Minister does not seem able to support reflecting that by ensuring that, rather than keeping to our existing modes of parliamentary scrutiny, we enable parliamentary scrutiny of issues of national security by those who are best placed to carry out such scrutiny—undoubtedly members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I want to point briefly to a discussion in the evidence sessions. Ofcom made it clear that it does not consider itself in a position to make national security decisions, which is understandable, and that some of the decisions and considerations about national security with regards to telecommunications networks would require people who have STRAP clearance. Ofcom’s group director for networks and communications pointed to the fact that she had had STRAP clearance previously, and she said that if the NCSC
“feels that that is needed for the type of information that we may need to handle, we would make sure that happened.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 90, Q115.]
To my knowledge, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee members do not have STRAP clearance. I would like the Minister to comment specifically on the level of security clearance required for members of the Committee that he has identified as being the location for scrutiny of important issues of national security. What level of security clearance do its members have? Would that enable the scrutiny that we all agree is in the best interests of the Bill?
I would like the Minister to respond to a specific example. Amendments 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are designed to require that the Intelligence and Security Committee has access to the appropriate information. There is a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a copy of a designated vendor direction, as set out in clause 15, which inserts new section 105Z11 into the Communications Act 2003. The new section states:
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of—
(a) a designated vendor direction;
(b) a designation notice;
(c) a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction; and
(d) a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice.”
So far, so good—we have that scrutiny. However, the new section also says:
“The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that laying a copy of the direction or notice (as the case may be) before Parliament would be contrary to the interests of national security.”
Chi Onwurah
We support clause 17 and our amendments are intended to make it more accountable to Parliament and therefore more successful and effective in securing our national security.
The Chair
Order. I misled the hon. Lady. We are now discussing amendments 20 and 22 to 25. When we finish the debate on those amendments, we will debate clause 17 stand part. The hon. Lady may want to save this part of her remarks until the next debate.
Chi Onwurah
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is sometimes confusing to know exactly what is being discussed at what point. With that, I ask the Minister to respond to our concerns about the scrutiny of the powers in the clause.
Matt Warman
I welcome the second salvo in the campaign to address this matter by the right hon. Member for North Durham. He said it would be an ongoing campaign.
This group of amendments would require the Secretary of State to provide information relating to a designated vendor direction or designation notice to the ISC. The amendments would require the Secretary of State to do this only where directions and designation notices had not been laid before Parliament, whether in full or in part, as a result of the national security exemptions in clause 17. It will not surprise the right hon. Member for North Durham or other Opposition Members that some of these short remarks will overlap with the conversation that we had earlier on a similar matter.
Amendment 20 would require designated vendor directions or designation notices to be provided to the ISC. Amendments 22 to 25 would require the Secretary of State also to provide the ISC with copies of any notifications of contraventions, confirmation decisions and so on. Although I recognise some Members’ desire for the ISC to play a greater role in the oversight of national security decision making across government, including in relation to this Bill, the amendments would, as the right hon. Member for North Durham knows, extend the ISC’s role in an unprecedented way. None the less, I thank his welcome for my unprecedented appearance.
As I said in the debate on amendment 9, the ISC’s primary focus is to oversee the work of the security and intelligence agencies. Its remit is clearly defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013, and the accompanying statutory memorandum of understanding, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think he thinks it is my place to take a view on that role, and I do not think this Bill is the place to have that debate.
Mr Jones
Yes, but I would ask the Minister’s civil servants to read the Act before they write this stuff for him. The Act refers to “intelligence”. Our remit is not fixed by a Department. I know the Minister sympathises with this and that we will get there eventually, but I say to his civil servants, please read the Act.
Matt Warman
I will come on to that. Accepting any of these unilateral amendments to this Bill is not the appropriate place to achieve an overall enhanced role for the ISC—
Mr Jones
I am sorry to say to the Minister that it is not looking for an enhanced role at all. It is actually doing what it says in the Justice and Security Act 2013. It is about scrutinising intelligence. A lot of the information, which will be used by him and others in these orders, will be derived from the same decisions that we oversee .
Matt Warman
Absolutely. Members of the Committee should note that in exercising the powers created by this Bill, the Secretary of State will be advised by the NCSC on relevant technical and national security matters. The NCSC’s work already falls within the Intelligence and Security Committee’s remit, so the right hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation.
In that context, the amendment seems to duplicate that existing power, while also seeking to do something that is better done in reform of a different Act, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks. I am sorry to disappoint him again. I think he knew already that I would do that, but I look forward to his third, fourth and fifth salvos in his ongoing campaign.
Christian Matheson
I hear the Minister’s explanation, which we have been over before when considering other amendments. He talks about other salvos by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I go back to the statement that my right hon. Friend made last week, which is that he expects that at some point something will happen and we will move forward.
The Chair
Order. If the hon. Gentleman would like to chair this afternoon’s sitting, I am sure we could arrange for him to do that. I know Members will be disappointed, but I am instructed to say that as it is 11.25 am, the Committee is now adjourned.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 2 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 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I know this is difficult and people forget, but Mr Speaker is clear: we should be wearing our masks if we are not speaking. I ask you to do your best to comply with that, because it is sensitive. The rules under which the House is allowed to operate have been agreed with health and safety, meaning that if we are not complying, not only are you putting everyone at risk, but unfortunately all the work that has been done could be invalidated. I urge people to do their best to remember.
Clause 17
Laying before Parliament
Amendment proposed (this day): 20, in clause 17, page 29, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) Where the Secretary of State considers that laying a copy of the direction or notice (as the case may be) before Parliament would, under subsection (2), be contrary to the interests of national security, a copy of the direction or notice must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.
(5) Any information excluded from what is laid before Parliament under the provision in subsection (3)(b) must be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.”—(Christian Matheson.)
This amendment would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with any information relating to a designated vendor direction or designation notice which on grounds of national security is not laid before Parliament, thereby enabling Parliamentary oversight of all directions and notices.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 20, page 35, line 30, at end insert—
“(9) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any notification under this section relating to a designated vendor direction, designation notice, a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction or a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any notification under this section which relates to a direction or notice that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 23, in clause 20, page 37, line 41, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation decision relating to a designated vendor direction, designation notice, a notice of a variation or revocation of a designated vendor direction or a notice of a variation or revocation of a designation notice to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation decision which relates to a direction or notice that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 24, in clause 21, page 39, line 9, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any urgent enforcement direction relating to a designated vendor direction to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any urgent enforcement direction which relates to a direction that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
Amendment 25, in clause 21, page 40, line 6, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation of an urgent enforcement notification relating to a designated vendor direction to which subsection (2) or (3)(b) of section 105Z11 applies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a copy of any confirmation of an urgent enforcement notification which relates to a direction that has not been laid before Parliament on grounds of national security.
I need to understand, Mr Matheson, what your intention is.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
As you correctly say, Mr McCabe, I need to announce my intention, but just as I was about to, the Committee was halted. I am reminded of the occasion involving that notorious football referee Clive Thomas. The 1978 World Cup blew up against Brazil because, as the ball was heading towards the goal, he disallowed the goal. That was rather how I felt this morning.
That said, I do not wish to press the matter further, despite the fact that I had devastating remarks that would have swayed the Minister. I will not put my amendments to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Monitoring of designated vendor directions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
It is a pleasure to be back under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
I will try to rattle through these as quickly as I can. Clauses 18 to 23 cover monitoring and enforcement, and further provisions relating to non-disclosure and information requirements. Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State the power to give Ofcom a monitoring direction, requiring the regulator to obtain information relating to a public telecoms provider’s compliance with a designated vendor direction and to provide that information in a report to the Secretary of State.
The clause also includes requirements about the form of such reports and the procedures around their provision, but it does not create any new powers for Ofcom, which already has them under section 135 of the Communications Act 2003. The provisions in the clause are an integral part of the compliance regime. The power to give a monitoring direction to Ofcom is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State has the ability to require it to provide the information needed to assess compliance with designated vendor directions.
Clause 19 provides Ofcom with the power to give inspection notices to public communications providers. The provisions will apply only where the Secretary of State has given Ofcom a monitoring direction. Inspection notices enable Ofcom to gather information from communications providers in relation to their compliance with a direction. The notices are a tool for Ofcom to give effect to its obligations under a monitoring direction.
Clause 19 also sets out the new duties that inspection notices can impose, the types of information that they can be used to obtain and how the duties in an inspection notice will be enforced. Ofcom may only give inspection notices in order to obtain information relating to whether a provider has complied or is complying with a direction. The notice power cannot be used to obtain information relating to whether a provider has complied or is complying with a direction. The notice power cannot be used to obtain information relating to how a provider is preparing to comply with a direction. Ofcom can instead use its other information-gathering powers under section 135 of the Communications Act 2003 to obtain such information.
Clause 20 provides the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to enforce compliance with designated vendor directions, as well as with any requirement for a public communications provider to prepare a plan setting out the steps it intends to take to comply. It is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to issue directions where necessary in the interest of national security. Clause 20 is essential to ensure that the Secretary of State can carry out this role effectively and enforce compliance with any directions issued. New sections 105Z18 to 105Z21 will be inserted into the Communications Act 2003 for this purpose. The provisions set out the process that the Secretary of State will follow in instances where an assessment is made that a public communications provider is not acting in compliance with the direction or with the requirement to provide a plan. The process encompasses giving a contravention notice, enforcing it and imposing penalties for non-compliance. The clause is essential in ensuring that the Secretary of State can carry out the role effectively and deters and penalises instances of non-compliance.
Clause 21 provides the Secretary of State with the power to give urgent enforcement directions. Provisions to enable urgent enforcement are needed in cases where the Secretary of State considers that urgent action is necessary to protect national security or to prevent significant harm to the security of a public electronic communications network, service or facility.
Clause 22 creates a power for the Secretary of State to impose a requirement on public communications providers or vendors not to disclose certain types of information without permission. The provisions are necessary to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information, which would be contrary to the interest of national security.
Finally, clause 23 creates a power for the Secretary of State to require information from a public communications provider or any other person who may have information relevant to the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions under clauses 18 to 21. For example, the Secretary of State can require information on a provider’s planned use of such goods or information relating to how a network is provided. It can also include information about the proposed supply of goods or services. The ability to gather such information would ensure that the Secretary of State is able to make well-informed decisions when considering whether to issue designation notices and designated vendor directions. Information obtained through the use of this power can also be used to support the monitoring of compliance, with directions supplementing information gathered by Ofcom through its information-gathering and inspection notice powers.
To summarise, new sections 105Z18 to 105Z21 together establish the power and processes that outline how the designated vendor regime will be monitored and enforced. The provisions in clause 22 are needed to manage the disclosure of information, the unauthorised disclosure of which may be contrary to national security, and clause 23 will ensure that the Secretary of State is able to obtain the information necessary to make assessments to determine whether to give a notice or direction and to assess compliance.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr McCabe. I will not detain the Committee long with a consideration of the clauses, and I thank the Minister for so ably setting out what the clauses aim to achieve. Indeed, we on this side recognise the importance and the necessity of clauses 18 to 23 in establishing the process and ensuring the powers to obtain information and enforce direction as part of that process.
We only reiterate a small number of important points to draw attention once again to the breadth of the powers, which enable the Secretary of State to require information to an almost unlimited extent. Given the breadth of the powers, the information and progress on the telecommunications diversification strategy is, once again, notable by its absence. Given the breadth of the requirements, it is notable that there is nothing on progress on the diversification strategy. Nor, if my memory serves me correctly, does the impact assessment reflect the potential costs to either the network operators or Ofcom in exercising these powers. The clauses do not set out the impact and they emphasise once again the importance of Ofcom having the appropriate resources to enable it to carry out the requirements effectively. I hope that the Minister will bear those limitations in mind in his ongoing review of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Further amendment concerning penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Warman
Clause 24 enables higher penalties than those currently set out in the Communications Act 2003 to be issued by Ofcom, and clause 25 makes two necessary consequential amendments to that Act. The penalties under clause 24 can be imposed for contraventions of requirements to provide information to Ofcom for the purpose of its security-related functions. That includes when providers do not provide information requested by Ofcom for the purpose of providing a report to the Secretary of State.
Penalties can be set at a maximum of £10 million or, in the case of a continuing contravention, up to £50,000 a day. These maximum penalties are a marked increase on the existing ones, which are capped at £2 million, or £500 a day. This clause ensures that the maximum penalties are the same as those in clause 23. The size of these penalties is appropriate given the potential impact of the situation described. Proposed new section 139ZA(5) of the 2003 Act, inserted by this clause, gives the Secretary of State the power to change, by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, the maximum amount of the fixed and daily penalties. That will help to future-proof the framework by ensuring that penalties can be adjusted over time—for example, because of inflation.
In summary, clause 24 enables Ofcom to issue the financial penalties necessary to ensure that providers supply it with the information that it needs. Clause 25 contains the consequential amendments to that, which are necessary because the Bill creates a number of powers to make regulations and some of those regulations will amend primary legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 27 stand part.
Government amendments 1 to 4.
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
Matt Warman
I will be brief, but it is important to cover the Government amendments. The clause provides that any increase in expenditure attributable to the Bill is paid out by Parliament. Clause 27 covers the extent of the Bill and clause 28 provides for the commencement of the Bill’s provisions.
I turn to the small set of amendments that the Government deem necessary, given that the Bill will be carried over to the second Session. The Bill creates new national security powers for the Secretary of State to address the risks posed by high-risk vendors through the issuing and enforcement of designated vendor directions in clauses 15 to 23 and 24. Amendment 1 enables clauses 15 to 23 to come into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. Amendment 2 ensures that the higher penalties also come into force. Amendment 3 removes the subsection of clause 28 providing for sections to come into force at the end of the two-month period. Finally, amendment 4 ensures that the provisions of clause 24 that are not commenced early come into force via commencement regulations on a day determined by the Secretary of State. Without the amendments, the provisions relating to those powers would come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, which could put at risk the timely implementation of this important policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Commencement
Amendments made: 1, in clause 28, page 46, line 19, leave out “section 14” and insert “sections 14 to 23”.
This amendment would cause clauses 15 to 23 to come into force on Royal Assent.
Amendment 2, in clause 28, page 46, line 19, at end insert—
“(ca) section24, so far as it relates to section18;”.
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 1. Clause 24 provides for higher penalties to be available for certain contraventions of information requirements, including contraventions associated with section 105Z12 of the Communications Act 2003, which is inserted by clause 18.
Amendment 3, in clause 28, page 46, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential upon Amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 4, in clause 28, page 46, line 30, at end insert—
“(ba) section 24 (so far as not already in force by virtue of subsection (1));”.—(Matt Warman.)
This amendment is consequential upon Amendments 1 and 2.
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 3
Duty of Ofcom to report on its resources
‘(1) Ofcom must publish an annual report on the effect on its resources of fulfilling its duties under this Act.
(2) The report required by subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the adequacy of Ofcom’s budget and funding;
(b) the adequacy of staffing levels in Ofcom; and
(c) any skills shortages faced by Ofcom.’.—(Christian Matheson.)
This new clause introduces an obligation on Ofcom to report on the adequacy of their existing budget following the implementation of new responsibilities.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7— Review of Ofcom’s capacity and capability to undertake duties (No.2)—
‘(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 105Z29 insert—
“105Z30 Review of Ofcom’s capacity and capability to undertake duties
The Secretary of State must, not later than 12 months after the day on which the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 is passed, lay before Parliament a report on Ofcom’s capacity and capability to undertake its duties under this Act in relation to the security of public electronic communications networks and services.”.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on Ofcom’s capacity and capability to undertake the duties provided for in the Telecommunications (Security) Bill which would be inserted into the Communications Act 2003 under the cross-heading “Security of public electronic communications networks and services” (which would encompass all the clause numbers which start with 105).
Christian Matheson
I do not want to detain the Committee all that long. The basis of the new clause is to ensure that Ofcom has the staffing and financial resources, as well as the capacity and technical capability, to undertake its new responsibilities under the Bill.
I remind the Committee that we heard in the evidence sessions that this is only one of several new areas of responsibility that Ofcom has received in recent years. For example, it now has responsibilities for regulating aspects of the work of the BBC. Parliament will be presenting Ofcom with responsibilities in relation to online harms, all of which is to be welcomed, but we have to recognise that there will be an overstretch for Ofcom.
In the area that the Committee is considering, there are technical complications that require specific sets of talents and capabilities which, we have heard previously, are not always in ready supply in the sector. We heard evidence that Ofcom, in common with other public sector bodies, does not pay as highly as some high-end consultancies, suppliers, developers or software houses, and therefore there will be churn. I do not want to stand in the way of anyone’s career development, but understandably there will be churn, in terms of Ofcom’s ability to maintain its responsibilities in what we know will be a continually evolving sector that throws up new technical challenges.
New clause 3 provides a duty on Ofcom to report on its resources, including the
“the adequacy of Ofcom’s budget and funding…the adequacy of staffing levels….and any skills shortages faced”.
In doing so, it will concentrate the minds of senior management at Ofcom, although I have no doubt that those minds will be focused on these matters already. Perhaps they will give this priority, particularly in terms of forward planning, and they will think, “We’re okay at the moment, but are we going to require extra and additional capability in area x, y or z in the next couple of years.” It will also focus and concentrate the minds of Ministers and Parliament, ensuring that Ofcom has the resources and capability to achieve the tasks that we have given it.
We heard many lines of evidence from the expert witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central may refer to some of them in her contribution, and I do not want to undermine that. Professor Webb said:
“I doubt Ofcom has that capability at the moment. In principle, it could acquire it and hire people who have that expertise, but the need for secrecy in many of these areas is always going to mean that we are better off with one centre of excellence”.
Emily Taylor of Oxford Information Labs said:
“Ofcom is going to need to upskill. In reality, as Professor Webb has said, they are going to be reliant on expert advice from NCSC, at least in the medium term,”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 79, Q95.]
The new clause is about assisting Ofcom to make an audit of what is available and ensuring that it is up to standard in terms of technological changes. It will also ensure that it is looking forward, in the midst of all the other responsibilities that Parliament is asking it to undertake, in order to maintain a level of skills and expertise that will enable it to undertake the snapshot reviews of current networks, as well as reviews of future provision and threats to the network. I hope that the new clause is self-explanatory and I am pleased to present it to the Committee.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I would like to speak to new clause 7, which stands in my name. It is related to new clause 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. As he has just said, Ofcom has had an expansion of its duties in the last few years and become a little bit like a Christmas tree with added responsibilities, but none of them will be as important for the nation’s future as this. That is not to decry any of the expertise or other duties that Ofcom has, but national security and the security of our national telecoms infrastructure, is a vital new task. I have said before that my concern about Ofcom centres on national security. That is why I have tabled amendments to the Bill. My fear is that Ofcom will not have the necessary expertise, although I am not suggesting that it cannot develop into a good regulatory body looking at security and our national telecoms infrastructure.
I tabled parliamentary questions on Ofcom’s budgets and headcounts, and I am glad to see that its budget and personnel have increased as its tasks have grown. That was not the case in 2010, when its budgets were subject to some quite savage cuts. My concern—I will call this my Robin Day approach—is that we have to future-proof Ofcom to ensure that the organisation not only has the budget but also has the personnel it needs. I do not want to suggest that the Minister would want to cut Ofcom’s budget at present, as it does important work. However, it is a regulator and perhaps does not have the clout of a Government Department, so any future Chancellor or Treasury looking for cuts disguised as efficiencies could see it as easy, low-hanging fruit.
Ensuring that the Secretary of State undertakes duties highlighting Ofcom’s efficiency puts a spotlight on the basis of considerations by future Administrations of any political persuasion. That will be important, not just in the early stages but as we continue. It may take a while for Ofcom to get up to speed, but I want to ensure that that continues. The obligation for the Secretary of State to report on Ofcom would at least give me comfort that first, it is being looked at and, secondly, that civil servants cannot in future just assume that an easy cut can be made but which might then impact on our national security.
I raised another subject with the head of Ofcom when she appeared before the Committee. I do not really want to rehearse the discussions again, but as the Bill progresses the Minister will have to give assurances on security, and try to demonstrate the close working relationship between Ofcom and the security services. That will be important, as it will give credibility to the expectation that Ofcom can actually do the job that we have set out. If the Minister does that, it will reassure people who may not be convinced that Ofcom has the necessary expertise, and ensure that that close working relationship continues, not just now but in future, so that national security is at the centre of this.
There will always be a balance—as I said, we saw it in the National Security and Investment Bill—between wanting, quite rightly, to promote telecoms as a sector, and national security. I fall very much on the side of national security being the important consideration, and we need to ensure that that is always the case. It is important that national security and intelligence agencies are able to influence these decisions, not just in respect of Ofcom but also in respect of Ministers in future.
Chi Onwurah
I support and second the comments and contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Kevan Jones), who tabled new clauses 3 and 7. I would also like to congratulate the Committee on having made it through, as it were, the thickets of the Bill as it stands to the sunlit uplands of our new clauses, which are designed to improve it in a constructive and supportive way.
New clauses 3 and 7 both address the challenge of Ofcom’s resources. As Members of the Committee know, I joined Ofcom in 2004. I know that we are not allowed to use props in debates in the Chamber, but the Communications Act 2003, which I am holding in my hand, is the Act with which the Bill is concerned. The changes that the Bill makes are mainly adding to that Act.
Mr Jones
This is about resources for Ofcom as a whole, but there will also be debate within Ofcom about how its resources are spent. Without any ring-fenced moneys for security, is my hon. Friend concerned, like me, that not only the external control of the budget but that debate internally might compromise security?
Chi Onwurah
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This debate is important for the Bill and important for our new clauses. It is also important that the Minister clarifies what the duties and priorities of Ofcom should be. Having worked for Ofcom at a different point in its history, I can tell hon. Members that when there is, say, a complaint about the behaviour of somebody in the “Big Brother” household that is hitting all the headlines in all the newspapers, that attracts the sudden concentration of resource—unnecessarily, one might argue. There needs to be a counterweight, if you like, to those headline-driven resourcing bottlenecks, which would be either ring-fencing or reporting on how resource is being used to support national security.
All Opposition Members are clear that national security must be the first priority of Government, and therefore the first priority of Ofcom. This is all the more relevant as I pick up the Communications Act 2003, in all its weightiness, where we find the general duties of Ofcom in section 3:
“It shall be the principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions—(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and (b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition.”
Security is not mentioned—national security or telecommunications security. During the evidence sessions, the argument was made, although I forget by whom, that security was a necessary part of furthering the interests of citizens in relation to communication matters. That is possibly true, but I still think this important issue would be improved by clarity.
As we know, there is a significant pressure on Ofcom’s resources, which changes week by week and month by month depending on what the issues are in the many and increasing domains in which it operates. If these principal duties of Ofcom do not reflect our national security, the concern is that having no direct reporting mechanism to Parliament could mean these resources being used opaquely, with no direct requirement to prioritise national security. I hope the Minister will agree that new clauses 3 and 7 solve a problem the Bill will have in practice. I hope that if he will not agree to the clauses as they stand, he will agree to consider how Ofcom’s prioritisation of national security interests can be made clearer.
Mr Jones
As I have said before, I am not a great fan of arm’s length regulators, because it is a way of Government Departments and Ministers off-loading their responsibilities. Given how my hon. Friend has described the Bill, the way this is going means that Ofcom will be larger than DCMS in the future. Does she share my concern about accountability if things go wrong? It is a good get-out for the Government to be able to hide behind Ofcom, rather than Ministers taking direct responsibility.
Chi Onwurah
As always, my right hon. Friend raises a good point. Having worked for a quango, I had clear insight into the line between independence and dependence, and into the importance of the political will of the Government, regardless of supposed independence. Equally, I saw how any regulator or supposedly independent organisation can be used as a shield for Ministers who do not want to take responsibility.
My right hon. Friend also raises a good point about the hollowing out of capacity in Government Departments. A consequence of 10 years of austerity and cuts is that DCMS and other Departments do not have the capability, capacity or resources that they previously might have enjoyed. I will point out to the Minister the example of the Government’s misinformation unit. It has no full-time employees and is supposed to exist using resources already in the Department—for something as critical now, with the vaccine roll-out, as disinformation.
My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that given the relationship between the Government and Ofcom, which is an independent regulator, and given the increase in responsibilities that the Bill represents at a time when other responsibilities are also being added to Ofcom, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have no visibility when it comes to Ofcom’s resources and capacity while giving it yet more responsibility. In fact, this seems to be responsibility without accountability. I hope the Minister will take on board the suggestions in new clauses 3 and 7.
Matt Warman
I thank the hon. Lady for her contributions. To address her central point, it would not be possible for Ofcom to meet the duties Government have tasked it with without addressing the foundational issue of security. It is important that we bear in mind that that is not an exhaustive list, but security will always be a foundational point.
The new clauses would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of Royal Assent. New clause 3 would require Ofcom to publish an annual report on the adequacy of its budget, resourcing and staffing levels in particular.
As the Committee is aware, the Bill gives Ofcom significant new responsibilities. Ofcom’s budget is approved by its independent board and must be within a limit set by the Government. Clearly, given the enhanced security role that Ofcom will undertake, it will need to increase its resources and skills to meet these new demands. As such, the budget limit set by the Government will be adjusted to allow Ofcom to carry out its new functions effectively. This is of a piece with the direction of travel we are going in. In 2012, Ofcom had 735 employees. Last year, it had 937 employees, so as its remit has expanded, so has its headcount. That will continue to be reflected in the level of resourcing that it will be given.
Christian Matheson
Budget allocations can go down as well as up and there might be a future Government who are not quite as generous as past Governments have been. What guarantee can the Minister offer us that without some kind of reporting, such as that we propose, Ofcom’s budget will not be frozen or, indeed, reduced?
Matt Warman
Ultimately, a mechanism already exists by which Parliament is able to scrutinise Ofcom’s resourcing. Ofcom is required under the Office of Communications Act 2002 to publish an annual report on its financial position and other relevant matters. That report, which is published every March—I am sure the hon. Gentleman is waiting with bated breath for the next one—includes detail on Ofcom’s strategic priorities as well as its finances, and details about issues such as its hiring policies.
Matt Warman
The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question that I may be able to answer in a moment, depending on a number of factors. As for the thrust of his question, Ofcom is ultimately a serious regulator that has the resourcing to do a serious job. The right hon. Gentleman would be criticising us if it had fewer people, so he cannot have his cake and eat it by criticising the fact it has enough to do the job—but I think he is going to have a go.
Mr Jones
Quite the opposite. This just reinforces my point about quangos. If we reach a situation where quangos are bigger than the sponsoring Department it is perhaps best to keep things in-house rather than having arm’s length quangos and the nonsense behind which we hide in this country about so-called independence.
Matt Warman
The reality is that the relationship between Government Departments and regulators is very often incredibly close, but independence is an important part of regulation. Although the right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the optimal size for in-house expertise versus external expertise, it is getting the balance right between Ofcom, the National Cyber Security Centre and DCMS that this Government and the reporting measures we already have are fundamentally committed to providing.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about Ofcom’s resourcing. Ofcom will not be making decisions on national security matters, as we have said repeatedly, but it will to be responsible for the regulation around these issues. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Intelligence and Security Committee has shown great interest in how Ofcom is preparing for its new role.
As for the point about disclosure and resources, I would be happy to write to the ISC to provide further details in the appropriate forum about Ofcom resourcing and security arrangements. This could include information that cannot be provided publicly, including information about staffing, IT arrangements and security clearances of the sort that we have discussed. I hope that Opposition Members understand that that is the appropriate forum to provide reassurance and to satisfy the legitimate requirements of public scrutiny on this issue.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way and for the tone of his response to the different points we made. I will leave the reassurance about writing to the ISC to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. Does the Minister recognise that that does not address the issue of Ofcom’s resources and reporting more generally, particularly lower down the pipeline, when it comes to national security? We have emphasised again and again the breadth of powers. The Minister has said that Ofcom will have the discretion, for example, to require an audit of all operators’ equipment—an asset register audit. It will take significant resource to understand the audit when it comes back. There are significant resource requirements involved that do not necessarily require security clearance but are nevertheless essential to effective security, and the Minister does not really seem to be offering reassurance on those.
Matt Warman
I would say that there is a sensible place to put some of that information, which is the communication to the ISC that I have offered, and there is a sensible place to put other information, which is the annual reporting that already exists. Hopefully the hon. Lady can find some comfort in the fact that both the information that cannot be shared publicly and the information that can will be subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary and public scrutiny.
Christian Matheson
I simply want to welcome the Minister’s comments, and the fact that he has recognised that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the appropriate place to discuss these matters, which, of course, cuts across other clauses that the Committee has already considered. He might bear that in mind on Report.
Matt Warman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that now that I have given those various reassurances, hon. Members are appropriately comforted.
Everyone is waiting for the headcount of DCMS; I am assured that it is 1,304 people, some 300 more than that of Ofcom. I do not know whether that makes the right hon. Member for North Durham happier or more sad.
Matt Warman
We can discuss the optimal sizes of quangos and Departments outside this room. However, the right hon. Gentleman is obviously right that Government Departments and regulators need the resources they require to do their job properly. I hope that by describing the various mechanisms I have provided hon. Members with the reassurances they need to withdraw the new clause.
Christian Matheson
First, I owe you an apology, Mr McCabe; so keen was I to crack on with the consideration of the Bill that I did not say how great a pleasure it was to serve yet again under your chairmanship. I should have done so at the outset and I apologise.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am looking to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, for a little guidance. It could well be that we might want to serve a little bit longer under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, by testing the views of the Committee on new clause 3, if we may.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 is similar in its intent to amendment 19, which we discussed earlier. As with all our amendments and new clauses, it is designed to improve the Bill through ensuring greater scrutiny, focus, transparency and security for the diversification of our network. It would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of vendor designation on national security risks. It would also require Ofcom to produce a forward-looking report on future threats to network security and undertake an assessment of the adequacy of existing measures.
At the centre of the new clause is a wish to reflect the importance of national security not as a snapshot in time but as something that needs to be continually monitored, considered and assessed for future impact. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report for the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. That would ensure that the report can be comprehensive with regard to security issues that might not be appropriate to share with the public or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The new clause would require that the annual report should concern designated vendor directions made under new section 105Z1 and designation notices issued under new section 105Z8. The report must contain an assessment of the national security risks underpinning the directions and notices made under those sections. That is for the Secretary of State to report.
In addition, Ofcom would be required to produce an annual report for the Intelligence and Security Committee to assess the adequacy of existing security measures within the UK public electronic communication network and services. Critically, it should assess future threats to the security of the networks.
As we have discussed, the Bill gives major sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and Ofcom. We want to ensure that they are proportionate and accountable. Like amendments 5, 9, 10, 20 and 22 to 25, the new clause seeks to address issues of oversight, scrutiny and transparency. We have taken some heart from the Minister’s recognition in the previous debate of the unique role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in assessing security implications, in that case resourcing for Ofcom. The new clause would ensure a focused accountability to Parliament, via the Intelligence and Security Committee, of the notices, designated vendor directions and designation notices made under the provisions of the Bill, and the existing security measures and future threats.
As aspects of this have already been debated, I want to focus on assessing future threats to the security of the network and services. The Minister might say that that is part of the responsibility of the National Cyber Security Centre. What we see is a massive transformation of how the UK addresses security in telecommunication networks, for very good reasons, and a significant amount of the responsibility falls on Ofcom.
Matt Warman
As the hon. Lady said, we have addressed various issues relating to the new clause in previous debates. It is important to stress that Ofcom has the resources that it needs. She talked about its ability to face the future, but in our evidence sessions, we talked to Simon Saunders, the director of emerging technology. I know she does not wish to suggest that Ofcom does not do this already, but demonstrably it is already proactively engaged in horizon scanning.
Chi Onwurah
Speaking as someone who was head of technology at Ofcom, I am aware that it engages in horizon scanning. I am sure the Minister will come on to this, but while there might be horizon scanning to understand how markets evolve and what level of competition may be seen in new markets in the future, the new clause deals specifically with horizon scanning for security and security threats. I am sure the Minister will focus on that.
Matt Warman
It is important to say that we have amended section 3 of the Communications Act 2003, to which the hon. Lady alluded, so that Ofcom must have regard to the desirability of ensuring the security and availability of networks and services, so that should be incorporated into the horizon scanning work.
Chi Onwurah
This is an important point. I do not think the 2003 Act has been amended, since I had it reprinted a week ago. We were talking about the principal duties. Under section 3, Ofcom has about two and a half pages of duties that it needs to carry out, but only two principal duties. Those principal duties do not mention security.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady is right, but as of 31 December 2020, section 3(4) states:
“OFCOM must also have regard, in performing those duties, to such of the following as appear to them to be relevant in the circumstances…the desirability of ensuring the security and availability of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communication services”.
It is absolutely there, but I fear we are getting into a somewhat semantic argument.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister is generous in supporting this back and forth in debate. I will close by pointing out that the duty to which he refers is one of 13 duties, so it can hardly be considered a priority. To put it more fairly, to ensure that it is a principal priority, it would need to be elevated.
Matt Warman
I think an organisation of 937 people can cope with 13 priorities. On one level, however the hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, and it is not one that we disagree with. Security has to be absolutely central to the work that Ofcom will do.
I will not restate the points I have made about how seriously we take the Intelligence and Security Committee and how seriously we will continue to take it. We will continue to write to the Committee on topics of interest as they arise and we are happy to continue to co-operate in the way that I have done; however, as I said in the debate on amendment 9, the primary focus of the ISC is to oversee the work of the security and intelligence agencies, and its remit is defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013. Amending the Bill to require regular reporting to the ISC, as proposed by the new clause, would risk the statutory basis of the ISC being set out across a range of different pieces of legislation.
Matt Warman
Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that it was the memorandum of understanding that he would like to see amended. Now he seems to be suggesting that we should insert the new clause, which will not change the memorandum of understanding.
Mr Jones
No, I said in an earlier contribution that if it were done by the memorandum of understanding, I would be quite happy. I know the Minister is limited in the number of civil servants he has beneath him compared with Ofcom, but will he go away and read the Justice and Security Act 2013? It talks about Departments, but it also talks about intelligence more broadly, which is covered by the memorandum of understanding. I do not know why he is pushing back on this issue; it may be because of the Cabinet Office, which has more civil servants than he has. I suggest that we will win this one eventually.
Matt Warman
That may well be the case, but the right hon. Gentleman is not going to win it here—that is the important point to make. It is right not to try to address this issue in the new clause, but the Government will continue to take very seriously the work of the ISC, as he would expect.
Additionally, the new clause is designed to require Ofcom to provide annual reports to the ISC, which would, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, be particularly unusual in the context of the work of the Committee, as Ofcom will not be making judgments about the interests of national security under the Bill, or as part of its wider function. Ofcom’s role as regulator seems not to be something that comes under the purview of the ISC, even if I understand the broader point. As I said earlier, however, the NCSC is very much under the purview of the ISC, and there are plenty of opportunities for the Committee to interrogate the work of that excellent agency. I am sure the Committee will continue to take up such opportunities with vigour, but as I have said before, it would not be right to seek to reframe the remit of the ISC through the new clause. I ask the Opposition to withdraw it.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments and for engaging so readily in debate. I have to say that we feel very strongly about the new clause, both for parliamentary scrutiny and for ensuring that Ofcom is looking forward and assessing future threats. With bated breath, I wish to test the will of the Committee on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
It is with some sadness that I come to the last new clause we have to present—[Interruption.]. I see that causes some hilarity in the Committee; I am sure that is just nervous laughter and everyone shares my dismay that the focus on telecommunications that the Committee has ably exhibited for the last few sittings will soon come to an end. Our consideration in some detail of the importance and implications of our telecoms network’s security must conclude, but I am pleased that we end on this new clause, which sums up one of the key themes we have focused on throughout our discussions: the importance of the diversification strategy.
Many amendments tabled by the Opposition reflect our concern that the Bill claims to seek the security of our telecommunications networks and yet does not mention once the diversification strategy. We are moving the new clause to put that right. We support the Bill and the Government’s aims in the Bill. We believe it is right to remove high-risk vendors from the UK’s networks and to take the measures in the Bill that will ensure that the Government will be able to designate vendors and require telecoms operators to comply with security requirements. However, those steps must go hand in hand with credible measures to diversify the supply chain, and that must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
As I said, the Bill as drafted fails to mention the Government’s diversification strategy and chooses to ignore the impact that the new powers afforded to the Secretary of State and Ofcom will have on supply chain diversity. The Minister recognises that they will reduce diversity, yet there is no reference to the steps that will be taken to diversify the supply chain. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the Government’s diversification strategy’s impact as it relates to the security of telecommunications networks and services.
The Opposition have argued throughout our deliberations that the sweeping powers afforded to the Secretary of State and Ofcom by the Bill must be put under proportionate scrutiny, and the new clause would do that. It would bring about a debate in the House on the findings of the Secretary of State’s diversification strategy report and require a ministerial response no more than two months after the report’s publication. The new clause would therefore provide accountability for the diversification strategy’s progress and lead to real action, not just talk.
It has been said that
“it is essential that we create a more diverse and competitive supply base for telecoms networks”
because reliance on two providers creates “an intolerable resilience risk”. Those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State. Members from across the House agree that we cannot have a robust and secure network with only two service providers. That is something we were repeatedly told in the evidence sessions. The chief technology officer of BT Group, the director of emerging technology at Ofcom and the former head of cyber-security at GCHQ think so, and even the Secretary of State thinks so, yet the lack of link between the diversification strategy implementation and the security of our networks is ongoing cause for concern. Now we have the chance to take action, and I am glad to offer the Minister the opportunity to put this right.
This is not new information. The dependence of our telecoms networks on diversifying the supply chain was set out in the 2019 telecoms supply chain report. A leak from that report caused a Cabinet resignation, so important was it considered to be. Unfortunately, in the intervening year and a half, the Government have failed to act, refusing to take the necessary steps to ensure the diversification of our national supply chain, leaving us at real risk of being short-changed on national security. I emphasise, once again, that we place national security at the heart of everything that we do in this Committee.
The UK defence industry seeks to encourage, support and create markets for UK small and medium-sized enterprises, supporting the very best in innovation and helping innovative small and medium-sized enterprises to grow. We would like to see the UK’s telecommunications industry do likewise, to ensure a sovereign security capability. We want the Bill and the diversification strategy to create significant opportunities for UK businesses, linking them to global supply chains.
I welcome the Government’s diversification strategy. After all, I have been calling for a strategy to grow and diversify our telcoms sector for a long time—even before I came to this House. Although the Government have been talking about such a strategy for some time—there was an awful lot of talk about a diversification strategy and bigging it up before it was published—as is often the case with this Government, the strategy that was published was a bit of a disappointment. It lacked the clear commitment and funding that one would expect to find in any effective strategy.
The £250 million committed by the Government over five years came with little detail on how it would be spent. I have now had assurance that the funding is focused on integration and testing facilities, which are necessary, but there is no emphasis on supporting research and development, and particularly supporting our start-ups in the telecommunications sector. In the evidence sessions, Mike Fake of Lumenisity highlighted that the first year of the £250 million diversification funding was equivalent to only 10% of BT’s annual research and development budget. This is not the bold action of a Government committed to network diversification and our telecommunications security.
The diversification strategy declares itself
“a clear and ambitious plan to grow our telecoms supply chain while ensuring it is resilient to future trends and threats.”
That is a bold ambition. It says it will do that by focusing on three main areas:
“Supporting incumbent suppliers to ensure their resilience and ability to supply the market in the near term, while supporting their transition into the emerging market structure; attracting new suppliers into the UK market to build resilience and competition, prioritising deployments that are in line with our longer term vision; accelerating open-interface solutions and deployment so that we are not reliant on any single vendor and begin to realise our long term vision for a more open and innovative market.”
These are all highly laudable. They are not easy. I recognise the challenge that the Government face. As we discussed in the evidence sessions, this comes after decades of neglect of sovereign capability, not only in the UK but by other countries, which is why we find ourselves with only two vendors, both from Scandinavian countries, and no UK, US or other European capability.
We have heard just how difficult this challenge will be. Will the Minister tell me how we can possibly achieve that bold ambition if we fail to monitor the impact of the strategy? We need an annual report on the progress made by the diversification strategy, so that we can apply appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. After all, the strategy commits the Government to regular reports on progress, which is what the new clause asks for, while adding a focus on the diversification strategy’s impact on our national security. That is what it is all about. The Secretary of State tells us that the Government are implementing one of the toughest telecommunications security regimes in the world, but why is there to be no scrutiny applied to this key part of the regime?
When I asked the Minister in parliamentary questions why the diversification taskforce was not diverse in terms of geography—it includes no one from north of Watford—or discipline, having on it no equipment supply chain expertise, I was told that geography did not matter, and that the taskforce was focusing on cyber-security skills. To be fair, the Minister did say that Ian Livingston, the chair, was Scottish, but I think he will acknowledge that he has not lived in Scotland for some time. Geography does matter. We need to build up concentrations of skills and expertise—clusters. Cyber-security is very important, but focusing on it suggests that we are not serious about developing sovereign capability in other very important areas.
We are agreed that diversification is essential, and I hope that we are agreed that that should include UK capability. We also agree that it is challenging. How do we do it? In an evidence session, Professor Webb said:
“If I wanted to diversify, I would instruct the telecoms operators to diversify. I would not try and pull the levers one step removed. I would say to the telecoms operators, either with a carrot or a stick, ‘You must diversify. If you have x number of vendors in your network, I will give you £x million as a carrot.’ The stick might be some kind of licence condition that said, ‘In order to meet your licence, you have to have at least x number of vendors in your network.’”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 73, Q87.]
We also heard from Chris Jackson, who said:
“Incentives definitely play a part in this; to comment on Japan for a moment, I know the Japanese Government have incentivised companies to embrace open RAN, and that might well explain why companies such as Rakuten and NTT DOCOMO have been very successful in launching the technology. That proves it can be done and shows that where there is a willingness, there is a way, but if we can drive all those different parties coming together, that is how we will get traction.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2021; c. 38, Q43.]
The Government have chosen not to do that. They have chosen to focus on big sticks for security, as set out in the Bill, such as designations, enforcements and fines of up to 10% of turnover, but they have left diversification very much to the market, providing it with a sweetener of £250 million over five years. Surely we have a right—indeed a duty—to monitor how and whether that is successful.
We heard in the evidence sessions that we have significant national promise in terms of capability. Dr Andy Sellars, the strategic development director for the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult, said:
“In the UK we have something like 5,000 companies that design and manufacture electronic systems. Something like 600 of them are involved in telecoms. I am not suggesting that all of those 600 become equal players. That would be a crazy scenario. But there are certainly some parts of the telecom network where the UK is pre-eminent. There are some backhaul and fibre technologies that we are very good at. As we deploy 5G into rural communities, that is likely to require low Earth orbit satellites; we are very good at satellite communications.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 19 January 2021; c. 109, Q142.]
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady raised an important issue. Fundamentally, however, the issue of diversification is twofold. The Government want to see greater diversification within our telecoms supply chain. The £250 million allocated for the first three years of that programme to support the diversification strategy is a hugely important part of it.
As we are already seeing in the increased use of open RAN, whether with Vodafone in Wales or the NeutrORAN project with the NEC, there is already significant progress. I think that demonstrates that the industry does regard this—whether the hon. Lady wants to call it as an incentive or a carrot—as something that is making things happen to a greater extent. The Government cannot legislate for the diversification of the market; that is something that we can incentivise and work with the market to do.
We can monitor the diversity of networks, as Ofcom has the powers to do. We can set requirements on what the minimum standards might look like. For instance, NCSC guidance already says that two vendors should be the minimum, rather than one, for a telecoms network. That gives you an indication of what we will be monitoring and looking at, potentially, in codes of practice in the future. The hon. Lady is right to focus on this important issue, but it is wrong to pretend, important though Secretaries of State are, that any Secretary of State could legislate in the way she describes for the greater diversification that we all seek.
The focus of the Bill is on setting clear and robust security standards for our networks that telecoms providers must adhere to, and they must be met regardless of the diversity within any of those networks. To be fair, the diversity within a provider’s supply chain, in and of itself, does not offer the guarantee of network security. A provider using a diverse supply chain needs to be held to the standards set out in this Bill, so that the provider is able to offer the security standards that we need, regardless of the number of suppliers that they have available.
It is important to reassure hon. Members that Ofcom will have the ability to collect information relating to the diversity of suppliers’ networks under section 135 of the Communications Act 2003, as we have discussed. I do not think it is necessary to specify the need to collect information relating to diversification, as that is just one set of information that Ofcom may collect; it is just as important as several others in monitoring and reporting the security and resilience of networks. It is also important to clarify that, although greater diversity is critical in ensuring that we reduce our national dependence on a small number of suppliers, it is part of a broader approach to building security and resilience across the global supply chain that sits outside the Bill, important though it is. Diversification is an issue broader than the make-up of supply chains for UK providers alone, as the hon. Lady knows.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments; having spoken for so long myself, I was reluctant to interrupt him. I am pleased that he has clarified that the £250 million is over three years, as opposed to being over five years—I had not seen that before. That is welcome, and I anticipate further funding.
However, the Minister says that the Government cannot legislate for the diversification of the network. Why not? The Government can legislate to break up consolidation in other markets, and they have legislated to do so—for example, competition law does exactly that. We heard in evidence sessions from some who felt that diversification could be achieved only through direct intervention. He implies that I am arguing that diversification delivers telecoms security on its own, but I am not arguing that. I am arguing that it is necessary though not sufficient—clearly, other methods are needed.
The Minister suggests that diversification is one of many things that Ofcom can report on, if it so chooses. That is equally important, but let us be clear that it was the diversification of a supply chain that was the critical report—a report so important that the current Secretary of State for Education was forced to resign because of its leaking, which is why we are here today. The diversification of the supply chain is absolutely critical.
The Minister says that we heard from operators that were committed to diversification, but we also heard that there were real challenges in their commitment to diversification. We would not be where we are today if they were so committed to diversification of their supply chain. That is why there is a need for incentives and intervention. On that basis, it is important to test the will of the Committee on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Mr Jones, new clause 7 has already been debated. Do you want to put it to a Division?
The Chair
I realise that this will come as a devastating blow to all of you, but the final question I must put is that—
Chi Onwurah
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. I put on the record my gratitude, and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, to you and your colleague, Mr Hollobone, for the way in which you have expertly chaired proceedings in the Committee. I also sincerely thank all House staff who have supported our work here, including those representing Hansard, and particularly the Clerks, who have been absolutely invaluable in setting out our desires to improve the Bill in clear and orderly amendments and new clauses.
I also thank all members of the Committee from both sides of the House. This detailed, technical Bill is critical for our national security, coming at a time of national crisis, when we are braving—all of us: staff and Members—a pandemic in order to be here. We have had an orderly and constructive debate.
Matt Warman
Further to that point of order, Mr McCabe. What fun we have had! It is a pleasure to come to this point in the Bill’s passage. I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to the House staff and to yourself, Mr McCabe, and Mr Hollobone. I also reiterate her point that this is a crucial Bill—one that I am glad enjoys cross-party support. I look forward to debating its further stages in the House.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Written Statements
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Official Development Assistance: Government Priorities
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
As agreed with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the last spending review, I have completed the cross-Government review of how Official Development Assistance (ODA) will be allocated against the Government’s priorities for 2021. This statement sets out the process and conclusion of the review, which has ensured that UK ODA is focused on our strategic priorities, spent where it will have the maximum impact, has greater coherence and delivers most value for money. Department 21-22 Allocation (£m) FCDO 8115 BEIS 706 CSSF 337 DCMS 6 DEFRA 92 DHSC 207 HMRC 4 HMT 3 Home Office 470 ONS 3 Other [1] 42 [1] Includes DfE, DWP, MOD and Barnett given to the devolved administrations as a result of UK Government spend on ODA. These budgets include ODA eligible costs.
The UK is facing the worst economic contraction in over 300 years, and a budget deficit of close to £400 billion. At 19% of GDP this is around double that of the last financial crisis. As announced last year, given the impact of this global pandemic on the economy and, as a result, the public finances, we will move to a target of spending 0.5% of GNI as ODA in 2021.
This is a temporary measure and we will return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows.
We remain a world leading donor, and based on current GNI forecasts will spend over £10 billion of ODA in 2021.
At the same time, we will ensure the maximum impact from our aid budget by changing the way we allocate ODA to support a more integrated approach. This will allow us to drive greater impact from our ODA spending.
This review has agreed ODA allocations for all Government Departments, sharpening our focus on the core priorities I set out to Parliament in November in the overarching pursuit of poverty reduction: climate and biodiversity; covid-19 and global health security; girls’ education; science and research; defending open societies and resolving conflict; humanitarian assistance; and promoting trade.
This settlement gives us the best possible launch pad to champion our international priorities for the coming year, as we commence our G7 presidency and look ahead to hosting COP26. It maintains the Prime Minister’s promise to double UK international climate finance to £11.6 billion over the next five years. It sustains our commitment to the world’s poorest people, advances our strategic interests overseas, and delivers on the Prime Minister’s ambition to bring greater coherence and strategic oversight to the UK aid budget. The Government will drive forward that agenda in 2021 through clear ministerial accountability and oversight for all our development spend. Looking further ahead, I will lead a cross-departmental review on a new development strategy to ensure close alignment of UK aid with the objectives to be set out in the integrated review.
[HCWS735]
Medicinal Cannabis from The Netherlands
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I would like to update the House on progress made by the Department of Health and Social Care towards ensuring patients can continue to access Bedrocan cannabis oils from the Netherlands.
The UK has left the EU, and the transition period after Brexit came to an end on 31 December 2020. From 1 January 2021, prescriptions issued in the UK can no longer be lawfully dispensed in an EU member state.
Dutch law does not permit the export of finished Bedrocan oils from the Netherlands. Prior to 31 December, Bedrocan oils were supplied in the Netherlands against UK prescriptions through the proxy of a specialist importer. This was allowed while UK prescriptions were recognised in the Netherlands.
Bedrocan cannabis flowers produced in the Netherlands, and other unlicensed cannabis-based medicines imported from other countries, can continue to be supplied to the UK.
The Government have worked quickly with the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport to resolve the issue. I am delighted to announce that the Dutch Government has agreed to the continued access to the medicine for existing UK patients until 1 July 2021.
This news will bring enormous relief to the families who depend on these medicines and I am hugely grateful to the Dutch Government for working with us closely and quickly on this.
The Department has communicated this to patient groups, clinicians and the supply chain to ensure immediate action is taken to resume supply of these products and that no patient faces a break in their treatment.
The Department are also working in earnest to rapidly explore options for a more permanent solution for supply of these products, and will engage patient representatives and the supply chain.
[HCWS734]
Independent Review of Prevent
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 committed the Government to making arrangements for an independent review and report on Prevent, the Government strategy for supporting people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. Prevent is one of the four strands of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, and is therefore a critical part of our approach to reducing the risk we face from terrorism.
Following an open competition to appoint a new independent reviewer of Prevent, I am appointing William Shawcross. Mr Shawcross brings with him the necessary skills, experience and independence to carry out this review and provide recommendations to further develop our approach to supporting people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism in the future.
The appointment of Mr Shawcross demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that the Government’s strategy for supporting vulnerable people to prevent them from being drawn into terrorism is as effective as possible in the future.
The terms of reference for the review will be published shortly once Mr Shawcross has had an opportunity to review them in full and any amendments he might want to make, taking into account any views which have been shared with the review team on the previous terms of reference. These will outline the timescales for completing the review and ensure this important work fulfils the Government’s objective of diverting vulnerable people away from terrorism.
[HCWS736]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 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 begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I 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.
Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
This instrument has two main purposes. It makes technical amendments to the Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which I will refer to as the exit SI, to correct deficiencies that have arisen in light of the Northern Ireland protocol. It also applies the provisions of the retained EU law version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003 to Northern Ireland, subject to modifications. This will enable the marketing of UK fertilisers in Northern Ireland, which was the original intention of the exit SI before the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed. The exit SI made in 2019 amended the retained version of EU Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003, so it operates effectively in the UK now, after EU exit. It replaced the “EC fertiliser” label with a new “UK fertiliser” label, which will function in the same way.
The UK fertiliser regime would have operated across the whole of the United Kingdom from the end of the transition period. However, it was made in February 2019, before the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed. As a consequence of the protocol, the EU law version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003 and the EC fertiliser regime it provides for will continue to apply in Northern Ireland, and the UK fertiliser regime provided for in the retained EU law version of this regulation will not. I hope it will be helpful if I say that, to remedy this, this instrument applies the provisions of the retained EU law version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003 in GB to Northern Ireland, subject to modifications, in order to enable UK fertilisers to continue to be marketed in Northern Ireland.
By way of context, the regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of fertilisers is unusual, compared to other agricultural products, as fertilisers are partially harmonised at EU level. This means that member states can operate their own domestic regulatory regimes alongside the European regulation of the EC fertiliser regime provided for in the EU regulation. Accordingly, alongside the EC fertiliser regime, Great Britain and Northern Ireland have historically operated separate domestic regulatory regimes under the Fertilisers Regulations 1991 and the Fertilisers Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992, respectively. Manufacturers in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland are free to choose which framework they use to market their products, although they must comply with the requirements of that regime—for example, they would need to be established within the EU or Northern Ireland to sell EC fertilisers in Northern Ireland.
The key provision of this instrument is to ensure that the retained GB version of EU Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003, which allows products to be marketed as a UK fertiliser, applies in Northern Ireland, as was originally intended in the exit SI made in 2019. Because of the partial harmonisation of fertiliser legislation, making the UK fertiliser regime applicable in Northern Ireland does not affect the continued application of the EU version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003, which will continue to apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the protocol.
This statutory instrument is important, as a common route to market across the UK for fertilisers is required so that a manufacturer in Great Britain who trades only in the UK can market products across Great Britain and Northern Ireland and use one label to do this. If products labelled as UK fertiliser could no longer be marketed in Northern Ireland, there could be significant costs for businesses in an industry with low profit margins. There are particular concerns that, without this SI, the supply of certain products that are specifically regulated under this regime—for example, DMPSA, a nitrification inhibitor—would reduce, and this could impact on the sustainability of food production. Failure to provide for this may also result in a general reduction in the supply of fertiliser products to Northern Ireland from manufacturers who are established in Great Britain and who are no longer able to place EC fertilisers on the market. It is therefore necessary to ensure that UK fertilisers can be marketed in both Great Britain and in Northern Ireland.
In summary, the technical amendments this instrument makes relating to the Northern Ireland protocol are straightforward. Under the protocol, the EU law version of Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003 continues to apply in Northern Ireland following the end of the transition period. This instrument reflects its GB application by removing references to Northern Ireland that are no longer relevant from the retained EU law version, such as in the definitions of “appropriate authority” and “enforcement authority”. The remaining provisions in this instrument enable the marketing of UK fertilisers in Northern Ireland.
We worked with the devolved Administrations on this statutory instrument, and they have given their consent. This instrument is necessary because it makes technical amendments in light of the Northern Ireland protocol and will ensure that we can continue to operate a unified fertiliser regime across the UK. I beg to move.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for providing the Grand Committee with a comprehensive explanation of this SI, which he has given in his normal courteous and lucid manner. As he said, this SI is not particularly controversial, but it is certainly fiendishly complicated in places. I am a great supporter of science having a major role in agriculture, horticulture and associated activities, but it is very important—I know the Minister agrees with me on this—that any such use is carefully monitored because there could be a knock-on effect into the future. I will come back to this point in a moment.
It is our task, as a legislature, to examine SIs and ensure that they match the Executive’s declared intent. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at this SI on 5 January and decided not to draw it to the attention of the House. That is a fair indication that it contains only what we believed to be there. Therefore, that is a second line of defence, and it gives us some guidance.
There is no impact assessment for this SI because, as stated, it has been judged that
“no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.”
Therefore, in the light of these assurances, I am inclined to accept the SI at face value, but there are a couple of things that I should like to raise with the Minister.
I was reassured that once we get past January 2023 and are dealing with only UK fertilisers, the language used will be English for all fertilisers sold in the UK. It is important that farmers can see how to use the fertilisers and at what levels. May I ask about a small point on that? What is the position in Northern Ireland? I understand that with the Northern Ireland protocol there is some distinction, but is any of the fertiliser which might be shipped from Great Britain to Northern Ireland likely to end up in the Republic of Ireland? If so, how does that affect the labelling?
My last point—I do not think I will take up my full time—is about ammonium nitrate, especially ammonium nitrate fertilisers, which may contain more than 28% nitrogen. I do not want to labour this too much but, bearing in mind the terrible explosion in Beirut, does the Minister feel that sufficient guidance is given in this SI and associated ones about the storage of ammonium nitrate fertilisers, which can have such devastating effects in terms of explosions, as opposed to in their use as fertilisers?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for presenting the regulations and his introduction to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Clark, just suggested, they are fiendishly complicated so I hope my noble friend will permit me to ask a couple of questions relating directly to how they will apply and on a couple of other matters relating to fertilisers more broadly.
Looking specifically at paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, if my understanding is correct, this says clearly—and my noble friend referred to this—that an EU manufacturer must have a manufacturing base in the EU to be able to import into Northern Ireland, whereas a manufacturer in Great Britain will be able to continue to export to Northern Ireland but will have to produce one label for export to Northern Ireland and make separate provision for continuing to export to the rest of the European Union. Could my noble friend confirm that that is the case?
I was contacted by the AIC, which deals in seed and agricultural production. It suggested that there will be a two-year transitional period, during which businesses will be able to continue to manufacture and sell material labelled as an EC fertiliser under Regulation 2003/2003 for use in Great Britain, provided that those products conform to EU standards. Will my noble friend confirm that that is just for a two-year period and what happens at the end of it?
Also, will the UK fertiliser manufacturers hoping to export to the EU and Northern Ireland need to be established within the EU or Northern Ireland, as I mentioned, and will products have to be labelled accordingly with the EU-established manufacturer or importer as appropriate? Presumably that will be an additional cost to the UK fertiliser manufacturer. I ask because paragraph 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states that there should be not so much no increased costs, but no increased obligations on businesses. However, there would certainly seem to be the cost of producing these labels.
I have two rather more technical points. Detonation-resistance testing for the production and importation of high-concentration ammonium nitrate is a legal requirement, but this is now limited to a single UK-based laboratory, which apparently lacks the capacity to meet demand. The nature of the product additionally limits its easy transport between countries by courier. There is, I understand, a current derogation of two years to allow European-sourced ammonium nitrate to continue to be tested in EU accredited laboratories. Clearly this derogation must be extended to allow testing in any accredited ISO laboratory.
Finally, the UK now has oversight of its trade remedies through its countermeasures policy. Presumably our Trade Remedies Authority, when it is up and running, will be in charge of this. The application to the UK of existing trade remedies on urea ammonium nitrate from the USA, Russia and Trinidad and Tobago is due to terminate, so urea ammonium nitrate will not be subject to the EU-imposed anti-dumping duties, though I gather that the anti-dumping duty on ammonium nitrate from Russia will still apply. I understand that these latter two points probably go broader than Defra, but I would be keen for my noble friend to write to me for our better understanding of how this applies to these regulations, particularly for those volatile products to which the noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred.
With those comments, I am delighted to consider the SI this afternoon and look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
I too thank the Minister for setting out clearly and in detail the purpose of these regulations and their application in Northern Ireland. I shall preface detailed consideration of the regulations with a couple of general remarks, which I am sure the Committee will understand.
While these regulations are highly technical, they are another piece of the jigsaw of legislation required purely as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. They amend previous regulations which, as the Minister said, applied to the whole of the United Kingdom and were passed to take care of the situation in the event of a no-deal exit from the European Union. I remind noble Lords that many of us find the need for this kind of legislation—amending legislation that applies to the whole of the UK and making specific provision for Northern Ireland—deeply objectionable in principle, to put it mildly. It is having to be done to implement a protocol over which no one in Northern Ireland had any say or any vote. It is important to make that point over and over again on these regulations because they are important. Laws will be made in this Parliament of ours that will, effectively, mean that new regulations, in this and many other areas, can be made in Brussels. They will then come into force in Northern Ireland without anyone at Westminster or Stormont, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, having any input or vote on them. That is a bizarre and unacceptable way of making laws for part of the United Kingdom. It is certainly not taking back control.
Turning to the detail, these regulations do two things. First, they allow for the continued application in Northern Ireland of the European regulation on the EC fertiliser regime. Secondly, since under EU law there can, as the Minister said, be a dual regime for fertilisers, they enable UK fertilisers, so labelled, to be marketed in Northern Ireland. This part of the statutory instrument is very welcome—there will be a UK-wide regulatory regime for the marketing of UK fertilisers and it means that manufacturers in Great Britain can market their products across the United Kingdom, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of course, EC fertilisers can still be marketed in Northern Ireland alongside that.
I note that the devolved Administrations have been consulted and have consented to the making of the instrument. I further understand, having made some investigation in the matter, that officials are currently preparing an implementing instrument that will fully implement in Northern Ireland the provisions of the UK retained law to allow for both the manufacture and marketing of UK fertilisers in Northern Ireland.
I close by asking the Minister, given the degree of consensus on this instrument, and on a more general but relevant note, whether he anticipates being able to obviate and alleviate some of the difficulties. I put that mildly—there are really difficult consequences concerning movement of agriculture-related products between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Can he give some reassurance that producers and consumers will get some relief from some of the current problems in moving such goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?
The situation since 1 January has, as noble Lords will know, caused considerable consternation to many, and extra cost and hardship. One reason the Minister gave for advocating these regulations was that they would save costs and keep products on the market in Northern Ireland. That should apply right across the board, so I would be grateful if the Government would commit to doing everything in their power to overcome the current obstructions and restrictions and permit unfettered trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of this SI. I have three brief sets of points to make. Given that the SI is about the management of fertilisers and ammonium nitrate material, an intensely environmental issue, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take a minute to reflect on this morning’s news about the delay of many months to the Environment Bill. My inbox is full of expressions of fury and disbelief. When we are the chair of COP 26, this can be described only as very depressing and embarrassing. There is a huge legislative lacuna, a gaping gap in UK law, and it sends a message about the importance with which the Government regard environmental issues in this hugely nature-depleted, polluted and contaminated land. Work on the Bill began in July 2018. We will potentially go into the biodiversity COP in October without that law, and it may even be a scrape to get it in before COP 26 itself starts.
I have two questions for the Minister, although I understand that he may not be able to answer them now. What will happen with the Office for Environmental Protection and what will happen about giving farmers certainty about applying the fertilisers we are talking about now, in terms of environmental land management schemes? My second question concerns the fact that we are now discussing artificial fertilisers. The Committee may remember my interest in soil science, so I hope Members will give me for venturing a little into that.
There was an old Italian proverb in the 1930s that said that artificial fertiliser was “good for the father and bad for the son”. That was about the environmental damage—the level of soil damage—done by artificial fertilisers. Having just come out of the Oxford Real Farming Conference and heard lots of excellent things about soil, and having seen reports from its companion, the Oxford Farming Conference, there is increasing understanding of the impact of nitrogen fertilisers, not just on the climate emergency—nitrous oxide has 298 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide and stays in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years—but also on soil structure. In healthy soils, with low levels of nitrogen, one sees that microbes do not metabolise carbon compounds but instead excrete them as polymers that act as a glue holding the soil together. Of course, we are seeing, with the floods around the UK now, some of the huge damage that the loss of soils can do, when we do not have that soil structure.
I come to a specific point about this SI, and I follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who, with her customary depth and grasp of detail, asked some detailed and important questions. I particularly pick up the point she raised about paragraph 7.3 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:
“Manufacturers who currently market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland will need to be established in the EU to continue to market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Northern Ireland”.
This seems to be a pattern we often see, so what advice are the Government giving potential or current manufacturers? Are people being told to take their business out of the UK and to set up in the EU? Have the Government made any assessment of the economic and job impacts in this industry and more broadly?
I want to raise a related point with the Minister; I would be happy to share the source with him later. There is a report from the Belfast News Letter which reflects some of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. It is about peat and it quotes Robin Mercer from the Hillmount Garden Centre, who said that it is
“now illegal to import a plant which contains on its roots any soil or bark-based peat-free compost”,
but legal to import, albeit with lots of paperwork, plants that are contained within peat. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the issues around peat and the need to move away from peat-based compost. Will he look into this and see whether there is any way to ensure that we are not encouraging, through this and other statutory instruments relating to the end of the Brexit transition period, environmental damage through agricultural practices?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I too thank the Minister for his detailed and comprehensive explanation of these regulations, which are a direct result of the UK leaving the European Union—that is the plain and simple fact. I have several questions for the Minister. If he cannot provide answers today, I will be content to get them in writing.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I have a concern about unfettered access for imports from Britain to Northern Ireland. I fully recognise that the protocol has to be fully implemented, so what work are the UK Government carrying out with the EU and the Northern Ireland Executive, plus Assembly, to ensure that there are no further wrinkles or problems to be encountered by importers or local businesses in Northern Ireland? That will simply add further costs and burdens for many retailers and consumers. What will be the exact role of the Northern Ireland Executive and DAERA in overseeing the implementation of the regulations?
A Defra consultation document on reducing ammonia emissions from solid urea fertilisers, published in November 2020, is due to be concluded today—26 January. Have there been many responses? How does it fit into this statutory instrument? Will there be further legislation as a result of this document and any ensuing measures? Will an amending SI be needed? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify this further.
The consultation document sought views on proposals designed to reduce ammonia emissions, 87% of which come from UK agriculture. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has already said, this is good because it will protect the soil and our environment, specifically from the use of solid urea fertilisers.
It recommends three options: a ban on solid urea fertilisers, which the Government favour; a requirement to stabilise solid urea fertilisers; and a requirement to restrict their spreading to a two-month window from 15 January to 31 March each year. Can the Minister update the Committee? Is the SI just a temporary measure to be followed by amending legislation to reflect the recommendations, including a possible ban? Or does this intersection with the Northern Ireland protocol cut across all this and ensure that it will not happen?
Finally, with the protocol in place, what will be the position in Northern Ireland regarding reducing urea fertilisers? I presume this will be an issue for DAERA and the Northern Ireland Executive. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing on this statutory instrument. I share the dismay of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the Environment Bill and agree with many of her comments.
Our farming and horticulture sectors have come to rely on fertilisers to ensure that their businesses thrive. However, many of the chemicals contained in fertilisers do not improve soil quality—quite the opposite. The Government rightly set great store by not only improving soil quality but preventing runoff from land, which can carry topsoil away.
As I understand it, this SI has two parts: one relates only to the Northern Ireland protocol—as the original SI was implemented in February 2019, before the protocol was in place—and the other to labelling. Again, if I have understood it correctly, the “UK fertiliser” label can be used in Northern Ireland. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, producers who do not currently trade with the EU and are based in the UK cannot use the same label.
I understand that the Agriculture Act now allows the UK to set a different set of standards for fertilisers from those being used in the EU. Are these differing standards stricter in the UK than in the EU, or are the EU ones tighter?
I am aware that a radical review of fertilisers is being undertaken both in the EU and the UK. The UK review is an ambitious programme to change and modernise the use of fertilisers. How long with this review take and when will its findings be published? Is it likely to be completed before the end of July this year?
I note that the devolved Administrations have been consulted on this SI. Are they also to be consulted on the ongoing review of the use and type of fertilisers? It will be important to harmonise fertiliser use across the country and not have different practices in different devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the lack of consultation and agreement with Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable.
Widening the subject, I am encouraged that some of our waste will be recycled into soil enhancers. Can the Minister say more about plastics contamination in waste products which are to be used in this way? Like him, I am in favour of a circular economy, and delighted that we may be able to use our waste from both recycled green, on-farm composting and from water boards as soil enhancers and improvers. However, antibiotics from water board waste are entering the soil. In the past, the overuse of antibiotics has been widespread in the treatment of both human and animal diseases. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the level of antibiotics in the soil improvers will be closely monitored?
Overall, I am happy to support this SI. As other noble Lords have said, it is very complex. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions which I and others have posed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing beforehand. As noble Lords have said, this is a hugely complicated issue. We accept that this SI in its current form is necessary to ensure that the marketing and trade of fertilisers with Northern Ireland can continue effectively in the short term.
We accept that it is important that UK manufacturers can trade products across GB and Northern Ireland using the same label. Can the Minister clarify that the existing regulatory standards will remain the same in GB and Northern Ireland? Can he also update the Committee on the checks currently taking place on the Northern Ireland border? We all have some sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about the problems occurring on the Northern Ireland border. I hope the Minister can assure us that urgent action is being taken to iron out some of the blocks and complexities at the border and that these will be resolved in short order.
The Minister has explained that we are in a period of transition regarding controls over future fertiliser policy and that a consultation is being drawn up. Although it goes beyond the scope of this SI, we would welcome such a review and an opportunity to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords have said, there is clearly potential for modernisation, based on the best science available, together with a greater understanding of the need to protect and enhance our soils. Can the Minister reassure us that any new proposals will maintain our commitment to the precautionary principle and to our high environmental standards?
As this is the first SI with which I have been concerned since the trade and co-operation agreement was signed in December, I wonder if the Minister can help me on a couple of other issues. Can he say how that detailed agreement will be dealt with going forward? Will it require us to revisit many of the SIs that we have already agreed? As noble Lords know, the trade and co-operation agreement is a very long document. Will its content have to be broken down in due course into primary and secondary legislation? In other words, will we have to go into the detail of this agreement at some point or will it be signed off as a whole? We are interested in the Defra elements, but it has a much wider spread. We would appreciate it if the Minister could help us regarding the state of that document, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for a compelling debate. I agree with the Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, that it is complicated and intricate.
Clearly, we are dealing with materials that we need to treat extremely cautiously, so I wanted to take the opportunity to address the safety of ammonium nitrate and its storage. Ammonium nitrate is classed by the Government as a controlled good, which means that there are extremely strict rules on its handling in GB. Its import and handling are covered by the Ammonium Nitrate Materials (High Nitrogen Content) Safety Regulations 2020.
The noble Lord also asked about fertiliser shipped from GB to Northern Ireland and labelling, if it were to end up in the Republic. We have updated the published guidance to reflect the changes and new actions needed to market fertilisers in GB, Northern Ireland and Europe from 1 January this year, and circulated the changes to industry before publication. The Agricultural Industries Confederation published guidance for its members based on our updated GOV.UK guidance. On this basis, there is clarity over labelling and where fertilising products can be sold.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Bakewell, raised environmental issues. Again, I should like to address a key point. In having fertilisers to enhance agricultural production, feed the nation and feed the world, we need to be extremely conscious of the environmental issues. Although it is essential to maintain and, wherever we can, increase yields for both food and non-food use, fertilisers can have a significant negative impact on air quality, water quality and emissions, as well as habitats and soils.
That is why the Government are very clear about the need to uphold high standards now that we have left. This will be reflected in any new regulatory regime for fertilisers introduced under the new powers included in the Agriculture Act 2020. The powers in the Act allow for the establishment of an assessment, monitoring and enforcement regime to ensure fertilisers’ compliance with composition, content and function requirements that will be set out in regulations, and for otherwise mitigating risks to human, animal or plant health or the environment presented by fertilisers. I absolutely recognise the dynamics of what we need to do and that, as has been said, the careful monitoring of fertilisers’ use is well known by those who will use them.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned cost. The whole purpose of the GB, Northern Ireland and UK fertiliser label was to minimise manufacturing costs. She mentioned, as I have, the Agricultural Industries Confederation. It is very much aware of and content with the provisions of the original exit SI that created the UK fertiliser label. As I said, the policy objective of this SI is to maintain that common route to market across the UK in the light of the Northern Ireland protocol.
I am also very conscious of what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said about the difficulties. That is why not just Defra but the Government as a collective are doing everything we can, case by case, in the Defra areas and beyond, to work with producers, hauliers and Governments to ensure that these issues are resolved company by company. I know, as will noble Lords, from the work we have done on many Northern Ireland regulations over time, of the very strong relationship that Defra has with DAERA. I register for all noble Lords, particularly those from Northern Ireland, that I am acutely aware of some of the difficulties. Yes, we want a smooth passage of trade, but we need to recognise —as we do—that there are requirements because of the protocol. We seek to ensure a pragmatic approach within the principles of the protocol so that businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom can thrive and consumers get the goods that they need and get them speedily.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, mentioned the importance of UK standards and asked about any differences with what may be EU standards. At the moment, the retained UK fertiliser regime will adopt the same standards as the EU. That is our position. The EU is implementing a new fertiliser products regulation to improve standards, and this new law will become fully operational in July 2022. As I mentioned, we have taken powers under the Agriculture Act to ensure that we, too, can modernise our domestic system and improve standards in fertiliser regulation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned, there is a consultation on urea fertiliser that will close today. We launched a consultation on reducing ammonia emissions from the use of solid urea fertilisers because ammonia emissions are harmful to sensitive habitats as well as to human health, with 87% of ammonia emissions coming from farming. We need to address that, and the farming industry is very conscious of it. I do not have any further detail, I am afraid, because the consultation closed today.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised a point on labelling. This SI will implement a unifying label for the UK. Both Northern Ireland and GB can trade under EU regulation as long as they comply with those requirements.
On any new system of assessment under the regulations, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others, we have already started moving towards adopting conformity assessment for fertilisers, a risk-based system commonly used for manufactured products. This means that we can use appropriate testing standards depending on the risk posed to the consumer and the environment. It offers regulatory assurance for consumers that fertilisers deliver the nutrient efficiency claimed by manufacturers, but also allows us to set limits for contaminants, such as plastics, in organic products. This will ensure that products not currently regulated, such as soil improvers, will be safe for the consumer and the environment. It should stimulate both demand and development for less polluting types of fertilisers, such as biostimulants.
I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we will use every opportunity we can in a new Session of Parliament to get the Environment Bill before your Lordships as soon as possible. We will be working to reduce peat. I will take that away and work on all other points that were made. As I said, the role of DAERA is extremely important, and it will be for the Northern Ireland Administration to work on these matters, but we will co-operate on matters such as the reduction of use of urea.
I fear my Whip is sending me a message that means I may have gone beyond the time allocated, but noble Lords raised some very important points. I will write fully on some of the more detailed points but, in the meantime, I commend the regulations. They are important for the whole purpose of what we want to do within the United Kingdom and working with our Northern Ireland colleagues.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 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, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Operation of Air Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Operation of Air Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They amend EU Regulation 1008/2008, which sets out common rules for the operation of air services. These regulations ensure that Regulation 1008/2008 continues to function correctly in UK law after the transition period. They do so by amending the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
This SI is necessary because the EU amended Regulation 1008/2008 after the UK’s 2018 regulations were made. EU Regulation 1008/2008 was amended in May last year by EU Regulation 2020/696, which inserted provisions to address problems caused by the sharp decline in air passengers resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. It also inserted powers for the Commission to extend the new provisions by delegated acts. The Commission used these powers and made further amendments to Regulation 1008/2008 via two delegated regulations adopted on 16 December 2020. These extended two of the new provisions until the end of 2021. The earlier amendment made in May would have seen them expire at the end of 2020.
This SI was made using the “made affirmative” procedure as the only means of bringing it into force before the end of the transition period while ensuring parliamentary scrutiny. As I have noted, the most recent EU amendments were not adopted until 16 December; only then was it possible to determine the precise content of this SI. The SI was laid on 23 December, the earliest opportunity after the Commission’s adoption of the delegated regulations.
I will now describe the provisions in more detail. They allow airlines in financial difficulty to retain their operating licences, subject to certain conditions, and allow airports to urgently replace ground-handling providers should they suddenly cease trading. Both provisions will apply until the end of 2021.
Regulation 1008/2008 requires the Civil Aviation Authority—the CAA—to revoke or suspend the operating licence of an air carrier in financial difficulty; it may replace it with a temporary licence. Such action risks the integrity of the air carrier in the eyes of investors and customers. It would raise concerns about the airline’s viability and could, in turn, lead to deeper financial problems. Normally, such actions are justified to regulate tightly carriers in financial difficulty but, during the Covid-19 pandemic, all air carriers have suffered significant decreases in revenues and a more flexible response is required.
Regulation 2020/696 inserted a new provision allowing regulators not to revoke or suspend operating licences where the carrier is in financial difficulty providing that a financial assessment is undertaken, safety is not at risk and there is a realistic prospect of financial reconstruction within 12 months. The CAA is the UK regulator in this respect.
The second provision concerns ground handling at UK airports where ground-handling suppliers are restricted; for example, on safety grounds. Where a ground handler has ceased trading before the end of its contract, the new provision allows airports to choose a new provider directly for a limited period rather than undertaking a tender process.
Reduced passenger demand at airports has severely impacted the ground-handling sector and increased the risk of sudden failure of ground-handling companies. The new provision ensures that airports where ground handlers are restricted can select replacement providers quickly and minimise disruption to users of the airport.
The withdrawal Act retained EU Regulation 1008/2008 in its entirety on exit day. The amendment makes the changes necessary so that this EU regulation continues to function correctly alongside the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The SI amends Regulation 1008/2008 to fix deficiencies arising from the amendments made by subsequent regulations and Commission delegated regulations. For example, “Union air carrier” is replaced by “UK air carrier”, and references to the ground-handling directive are replaced by references to the Airports (Groundhandling) Regulation 1997, which transposed the directive. Provisions relating to the Commission’s delegated powers are revoked because they are no longer relevant to the UK.
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic will continue for some time. The provisions that I have described provide the CAA and airports with additional flexibility to respond. I commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister, who has given us a comprehensive introduction to the regulations. I suspect, as she hinted, that the Covid situation causing the massive lack in demand for air services will go on for some time and that we will have many such debates on air regulations before the year is out.
I have just one or two questions for the Minister. First, it appears from reading the Explanatory Memorandum that the regulations apply only to the UK and to UK-registered carriers—obviously, it is just the UK—but how do foreign carriers get registered to operate in the UK?
Secondly, I have noted that a UK air carrier must have its principal place of business in the UK, which is perfectly reasonable, but are there any restrictions on the shareholding or ownership or on where those operators might be registered, be they in the UK, within the European Union or elsewhere?
I am also interested in bilateral air services agreements. How many, if any, have been agreed with EU member states and came into force at Brexit? If those agreements are not complete, when will they be—they must be done individually, I believe—and what happens in the meantime? Are we just hoping for the best, or are there some interim arrangements?
Finally, on qualifying air operators being eligible for PSOs—I am obviously interested in PSOs from where I live in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—I understand PSOs being limited to EU carriers, but do any EU carriers have cabotage rights to operate in the UK? Would they then be able to bid for PSOs in the same way as UK-registered air carriers?
That is enough from me. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in thanking the Minister for her explanation. He is probably quite right that this will be the first of many such sessions.
I think I understand the regulations, but I am concerned about the activities of operators such as Ryanair, which now register their businesses on the continent. How are they covered? Are they now counted as a UK carrier, or are they a foreign carrier? We can see quite a lot of that sort of movement in the industry, where it will be quite difficult to determine who is what. Otherwise, I think I understand the regulations and the way in which ground-handling services have been bundled together with air operations. Like the noble Lord, I look forward to—or, rather, I can foresee—many more occasions when we might return to this subject.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the trade agreement between the UK and the EU was concluded on Christmas Eve last year and came into force on 31 December, four and a half years after the vote for Brexit. It is almost 1,500 pages, 26 of which deal with aviation. There were major concerns that the existing conditions would be worsened, but this has largely been avoided. Of course, there is some risk of divergence over time, but, as of now, compared with the threat of no deal, we are in a very good place in spite of being out of Europe’s single aviation market. The traffic rights have been preserved. Ownership and control restrictions allow UK airlines to be EU-owned, and there is close co-operation on safety and security, so, on the whole, this is very good news.
However, as has been said, the UK aviation industry has suffered greatly. Industry groups warned in a recent article that there was only so long that airports could “run on fumes”. There are now the new quarantine rules and a requirement to isolate for 10 days, and all travel corridors are closed. The Airport Operators Association is grateful for the £8 million in rates relief for airports, but airports such as Heathrow, whose rates are £100 million in a year, have suffered hugely—at times, the airlines’ and airports’ business has been down by more than 90%. Does the Minister agree that the support needs to continue and that, in particular, the furlough scheme should be extended beyond April until at least the end of June?
There is now talk of the possibility of travellers being forced to quarantine in hotels when they arrive in the UK. Can the Minister inform us as to whether this will happen? Aviation leaders have warned that tougher border controls would be catastrophic. On the other hand, everyone in business understands that health has to come first. As the Prime Minister said, there is a theoretical risk of a new, vaccine-busting variant of the virus, which we have to be able to keep under control. Thankfully, the vaccine looks to be progressing extremely well. Does the Minister agree that we should have a testing regime which comprises not only a PCR test 72 hours before boarding a flight but a lateral flow test on arrival as is the case in the UAE, as well as another lateral flow test five days later, which would avoid the need for quarantine as we look ahead to when the vaccines have been rolled out?
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, the Minister in her opening remarks referred to safety. Obviously, when airlines are not flying at normal levels and get in financial difficulty, sometimes safety is short-circuited and maintenance is put off to save money. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how safety is being maintained given these circumstances.
Secondly, I wanted to ask about the difference between what are called “foreign carriers” and “British carriers”. Airlines are owned internationally these days; they are not normally owned by a particular country, and what is a principal place of business is a matter often in the eye of the beholder. I am not quite clear how these arrangements are entered into. The other important point is that they should be reciprocal. How is that going to be rolled out over future years?
My third point, on the PSO, has already been referred to. The Minister will be aware that there are a number in the UK—in Cornwall, I believe, and I know there are others. We certainly have at least one in Northern Ireland. Given that Northern Ireland is still subject to state aid rules, how will the application of PSOs be looked at in terms of the agreement with the European Union? People could argue that unfair advantages are being given if PSOs are designated in particular areas; and of course, there is also our concern for the social and economic development of more remote regions. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how these issues will be judged. In Northern Ireland we at least have one operational PSO and are still subject to state aid; where is the interface between that and potential PSO rules in Great Britain?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward these regulations today—they go to the heart of the sustainability and resilience of the industry. At its height, the aviation sector enjoyed a turnover of over £60 billion, contributed over £22 billion a year to the UK economy and employed almost 1 million people either directly or indirectly. My thoughts are with all those who have been involved and who may have lost their jobs in the airline sector and the aviation industry at this time.
I particularly welcome the fact that this statutory instrument allows air carriers to retain licences in the event of passenger numbers falling, subject to the conditions that my noble friend set out, and allows, in the circumstances of a ground handler ceasing to trade before the end of the contract, airports to choose a new provider directly for a limited period to enable them to continue without a tender process at that time.
My noble friend set out the conditions which have to be met in the event of an operating carrier experiencing financial difficulties. If the airline operator cannot meet those criteria at this time and until December this year, what happens to the licences which are released and what procedure is to be followed in those circumstances? It would be very helpful for us and those affected to know.
I also echo the thanks given by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for the support enjoyed by the airline sector and other industries. But does my noble friend agree that airlines need further economic support at this time, over and above the support they have already enjoyed? Of course, most of the loans have to be paid back, and it may be some time before we enjoy the level of activity that we saw between 2016 and 2018 to enable the airlines to repay those loans. Will my noble friend look at my request to end the current air passenger duty anomaly, which is effectively subjecting UK domestic flights to double taxation?
Those are my two specific questions, in addition to what happens to the licences: what further support might be extended, and can the vexed question of air passenger duty and double jeopardy be tackled?
Lord Bowness (Non-Afl) [V]
I thank the Minister for her introduction of the instrument, and I hope she will forgive me if I look a little wider than provisions for financial difficulties—of which I fear there are many and will be many more if we are not careful—and for changes to ground staff handling.
If you take airline travel as the beginning of a chain which links airlines, airports, their employees and suppliers, the aerospace industry and its suppliers, and the communities dependent upon them, there is a long chain of jobs dependent upon the functioning of the air travel industry. For this reason, I urge the Government and the Prime Minister to note and act upon the open letter sent by ABTA to the Prime Minister asking for an aviation, travel and tourism recovery package. We know it cannot take place now, but we need to plan for when it is possible and not wait until it is possible. We will need plans for inward travel, made in conjunction with not only the European Union but other jurisdictions. We will need to know what testing is to be available, where and when and at what cost. What role will vaccination certificates play? A few countries have already indicated unrestricted access for those who have been vaccinated, but how is that going to be proved by individuals?
Lastly—and I hope the Minister will forgive me—I raise yet again, after many questions, European Union regulation 261 on passenger compensation in the event of cancellation or delay. The Minister previously helped me on this point, and I am grateful for her assurance that it remained in force after 31 December. But, while in no way doubting her integrity on the matter, is it in a suitable form post our exit from the European Union on 31 December? Did it not need amendment to reflect this? If so, has it been done, and where?
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her introductory explanation. This SI extends temporary provisions to disapply the usual rules for airlines which get into financial difficulty. In normal circumstances, their operating licence is revoked or replaced by a temporary licence. The SI recognises that previously financially healthy airlines are financially at risk while travel restrictions are in place, meaning that they can continue operating without revocation or suspension of their licence so long as they were previously financially stable, safety is not at risk and there is a realistic prospect of restructuring. Similarly, it allows airports to replace ground-handling service providers without going out to tender. These seem sensible measures at the moment, but I have some questions about the detail.
First, week after week there is fresh news of crises among airlines worldwide. Most have responded by downsizing their fleets and personnel, but many clearly face serious financial difficulties still. Can the Minister tell us how many airlines in the UK have been accorded the special measures briefly described by me and referred to in the regulations? Have they been allowed to continue operating when, in normal circumstances, they could have lost their licence?
The process is subject to conditions relating to previous financial viability. Can the Minister explain how those tests are applied in the UK? Is this done by the CAA, the CMA or another government agency? Many airlines, as previous speakers have pointed out, have shareholders in the UK, the EU and across the world; what international co-operation and liaison is there between licensing authorities in such cases? Can the Minister explain how they are dealt with? On ground handling, have there been any instances of airports using the non-tender approach allowed?
Finally, I will ask about the general situation for aviation and, indeed, the travel sector generally, as several other noble Lords have. We seem to be heading towards tighter restrictions in relation to quarantine hotels, which are a very sensible response to the situation. Last month, the ONS published data that shows that the travel sector has been the hardest hit sector in the UK economy. It contributes £65 billion a year to our GVA and sustains 1 million jobs, but the Government are still providing no support targeted specifically to the travel industry; there has been no Eat Out to Help Out for it.
The Minister knows about this—I have asked about it on numerous occasions—and she always refers me to the standard package of measures available for businesses generally, but will she now accept that airlines, airports and all those companies that support them and the travel industry as a whole now need a dedicated package of support? Their request is that the Global Travel Taskforce be reconvened so that the travel industry works closely with government to tackle this very specific problem.
The measures in this SI reflect that, very early on in this pandemic, the EU specifically recognised that airlines and support companies, such as ground handlers, would face financial crises. Almost a year on, the travel industry urgently needs the UK Government to show similar awareness of it as a whole.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this instrument to transfer EU regulations into UK statute and to ensure continuity in relation to airlines and their operating licences. Of course, there is much work to be done to ensure that airline finances are more resilient, but this instrument is none the less a welcome contribution towards that. On that note, considering that part of these regulations relates to insolvencies of suppliers of ground-handling services, can the Minister update the Committee on what steps the Government are taking to avoid insolvencies in the near future?
Moving on to the instrument itself, the Minister will recall that, in November 2020, the European Commission stated that the periods for which the previous provisions apply will be extended by 12 months until 31 December 2021. Do the Government expect the European Commission to extend the timeframe further, beyond the current deadline—and, if so, will the UK extend the timeframe to reflect this? In regard to the drafting of this specific instrument, I am pleased that the Government have stated that the CAA supports these regulations. Can the Minister confirm who else the Government have consulted as part of the drafting of the regulations?
Finally, looking to the future operation of regulations in this area, can the Minister detail how the Department for Transport is currently engaging with the European Commission to support airlines? Does the Minister expect the European Commission to introduce any further provisions in this area? As I said, I welcome the introduction of this instrument and I am pleased that the Government are seeking continuity for airlines.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these regulations. As ever, I give my special thanks to those who were in touch beforehand to raise any issues or questions with me. It always amazes me, but probably in a good way, that noble Lords are able to raise issues far beyond the scope of the SI. I will do my best to respond, but I will focus on those issues that are directly relevant, while I still have time.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, talked about consultation and engagement. I hope he will recognise that this SI was put in place very rapidly, as the developments came out of the European Commission. We consulted the CAA and key ground-handling companies, but we were not able to consult as widely as we would ordinarily have liked. However, of course, we speak to the aviation sector as a whole, and I am not aware that there were any significant concerns about these regulations.
I turn to the point raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh about what happens to the licences. There is not a finite supply of them. If the test cannot be met, the CAA can suspend or revoke an airline’s operating licence, or it could issue a temporary operating licence—these procedures are very well understood. I return to what is in the SI: the three tests that the CAA has to put in place are rigorous, and it will be able to assess whether a licence needs to be suspended or revoked.
I turn briefly to the second of the three points, which is about confirming that the financial problem poses no safety risk, and I will pick up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised. Of course, safety is our highest priority in aviation; there has been no change to the regulation in relation to it, and there has been no change to the enforcement of safety regulations—that remains the case, and I reassure him on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked whether these powers have been used, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether they might be extended in the future. I am not aware that these powers have been used since they became available in May 2020, and, obviously, I hope that they do not have to be used in 2021 either—but they provide the flexibility, should we need it.
On the issue of ground handlers, we are, of course, transposing, or matching our regulations to, things that were set out by the European Commission, as is the case under the withdrawal Act. At the moment, no airports in the UK have a limitation on the number of ground handlers to no more than two on safety grounds, so the ground-handler side of things would not currently be needed. However, on the airline side, it certainly gives the sector some comfort that there is the appropriate flexibility, should it be needed.
Of course, in the first instance, we are looking to the end of 2021, which is why we had to get these powers in quite quickly at the end of last year. I hope that we do not need to extend them in 2022, but we will continue to talk to the industry about this. If we need to consider extending them, this will require primary legislation. As for what the European Commission may do, obviously, we will watch with great interest, but the UK will make these decisions for itself.
This slightly leads into the question of what a UK airline and a foreign airline are. The latter needs to have an air operator certificate and a route licence from the CAA to operate in the UK. A UK airline must have a principal place of business in, and be regulated by, the UK. As such, to a certain extent, an airline decides where its principal place of business is and, therefore, who it is regulated by. Of course, within the EU and, to the largest extent, the UK, it probably does not really matter because you are mostly dealing with the same regulation—so Ryanair is not a UK carrier because its principal place of business is not in the UK and, therefore, it is not regulated by the CAA.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also asked about new bilateral agreements following the trade and co-operation agreement, which we entered into at the end of last year. There do not need to be any bilateral agreements now, so there will be no new ones with EU member states because the new air services agreement within the TCA covers the entirety of the EU.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about PSOs, the Northern Ireland protocol applies only to trade in goods, whereas public service obligations are a service. They are therefore not subject to state aid rules and can be considered in the broader context of regional connectivity. The PSOs were put in place under Regulation 1008/2008; as I said, this regulation has been retained in UK law. Indeed, Article 3.5 of the EU TCA makes specific mention of PSOs as an allowed subsidy, which is positive. Decisions on PSOs are made on a case-by-case basis. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked whether an EU carrier would be able to undertake one. If no UK airline was interested in providing a PSO, an EU airline could be given greater cabotage rights so that it could then provide the service.
We in government have come up with a good package that covers many types of business in the economy. I will not go through this in detail as I am sure noble Lords have heard it mentioned many times before, but the air transport sector as a whole has received around £3 billion of support from the Covid Corporate Financing Facility and the job retention scheme alone. Noble Lords will be well aware that the airport and ground operations support scheme has been announced by the Government; that should be helpful in reducing cash burn, particularly for small and medium-sized airports. It could also unlock further shareholder and lender support.
It is worth mentioning that further cross-economy measures are available to businesses in the aviation sector if they are eligible. In January 2021—this month—easyJet announced that it had signed a £1.4 billion loan facility with a syndicate of banks, partially guaranteed by UK Export Finance. British Airways also secured a similar commitment for £2 billion, which, again, will be partially guaranteed by UK Export Finance. A lot is going on to make sure that our aviation sector is secure for the future. Also in January, the Chancellor announced the Additional Restrictions Grant. Again, that may be appropriate for some businesses, but we are well aware that, like so many sectors of our economy at the moment, aviation is struggling.
We are now focused on getting a plan together—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned this—for how we will help the sector recover. We are doing a lot of work in this area. The expert steering group, which we originally set up right at the outset of the pandemic, was reconvened in September to focus specifically on recovery work. It includes representative bodies such as the Airport Operators Association and Airlines UK, airlines such as easyJet, IAG, Virgin and Wizz Air, airports, ground handlers, a freight representative, the Association of British Travel Agents—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, name-checked it, I think; it is actually involved in the recovery work so I hope that it will share its thoughts with the group—and the CAA. The steering group is working with the department to come up with a recovery plan for the aviation sector. It will explore all sorts of different things relevant to aviation; a specific example is looking at how we can make sure that we maintain our regional connectivity.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned border closures. I thank him for his suggestion about testing. As noble Lords know, this is a live issue at the moment. The Government always have it under review and are always thinking about how we can strengthen it.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned air passenger duty—not for the first time. I am always grateful to her for doing so. As I believe I have said, we take great interest in air passenger duty. The Treasury always keeps taxes under review. The Government have committed to consulting on aviation tax reform. We recognise the issue mentioned by the noble Baroness. I very much hope that, now that the workload around the initial response to Covid-19 has declined somewhat, we will be able to move the consultation forward more quickly.
Finally, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about Regulation 261 and passenger compensation, I am afraid I can go no further. As I said, it is a functioning regulation and we do not believe that it needs to be updated, but I will ask officials to write to the noble Lord if further detail would be helpful.
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are the first to be made under the powers conferred by Section 31 of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. By reason of urgency, it was necessary to make these regulations without a draft being laid and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The urgency was that these regulations needed to be made and to come into force before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, to ensure that the rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs could continue to be enforced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in respect of vehicles engaged in commercial road transport, under the terms of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA.
Drivers’ hours rules are central to keeping our roads safe and protecting driver welfare. They set maximum driving times and minimum break and rest times for most commercial drivers of both lorries and coaches. For example, the rules mean that after 4.5 hours driving, a driver must take a 45-minute break, and daily driving time is normally limited to nine hours. The consequences of driving any vehicle when fatigued can, of course, be catastrophic, and the potential risks associated with heavy commercial vehicles are particularly severe.
These rules are enforced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency at targeted roadside checks, but also by visiting operators’ premises. The principal tool used by enforcement officers is the record generated by the tachograph, a device installed in relevant vehicles that records the driving, rest and break times of individual vehicles and drivers. The regulations amend domestic legislation to ensure that the roads chapter of the TCA, which covers the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules applicable to journeys between the UK and EU from 1 January 2021, can be enforced. They do this by providing that the EU drivers’ hours regulation and the EU tachographs regulation, which are retained in domestic legislation by the EU withdrawal Act, will apply to journeys between the UK and the EU, as well as domestic journeys in the UK. The regulations also clarify that the AETR rules apply to journeys between the UK and countries that are not EU member states.
As I said, the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules are important to public safety, and this instrument is required to ensure that such rules can continue to be enforced effectively. The policy area of drivers’ hours is devolved with respect to Northern Ireland. While, for the sake of efficiency, this SI makes amendments to the retained EU regulations on a UK-wide basis, this does not affect the devolved nature of the policy.
To conclude, keeping these regulations in force is essential for ensuring that the drivers’ hours and the tachograph rules applicable to journeys between the UK and EU member states under the TCA are enforceable. These rules are at the heart of the road safety regime for commercial vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing these very important regulations. I agree that it is necessary to keep enforcement at the top of the list, because it is all to do with road safety, and I welcome these regulations without question, apart from that of enforcement. There is nothing new about our discussion of enforcement, but it is worth asking the Minister a few questions about how it is done, because we have had issues recently about number plate recognition. Apparently, the system that recognises number plates, for congestion charges and such things, no longer links with the systems in the rest of Europe, so it looks to me as if any truck, car, coach or anything with non-UK registered number plates will probably get away with no enforcement at all, because it will be too difficult, time-consuming and labour-intensive to chase them up.
I have a few questions for the Minister. One is simple; she outlined the answer, which we should probably all know. How does the DVLA monitor tachographs? Obviously, it can be done at people’s premises, although I do not imagine an army of several thousand DVLA staff is employed to do this. Is it ever done at motorway service areas or at ports where lorries congregate? It would be nice to know how much monitoring takes place and how often it happens.
The regulations say that some 500 offences are reported to the DVLA every month. This is quite a high figure. I assume that a large proportion of these offences relate to long-distance trucks, many of which have probably come from or are going to the continent and may be in a hurry. It is well known that about 80% of them have non-UK number plates and non-UK drivers. How do the Government think they can be followed up, given that the number plate recognition service is going back to manual? What are the reciprocal arrangements for British-registered trucks going to the continent? Will they also be subject to enforcement? As we have often noted, in places such as France, they will stop you if they feel like it and ask questions afterwards.
A few years ago, I had a friend who was a long-distance driver working for a truck delivery company. On one occasion he was asked by his employer to drive a truck from the south-west to Glasgow, another from Glasgow to the south-west, and a third from the south-west to Glasgow, all within 24 hours. He had more than one tachograph. How is such a situation enforced? The number of trucks does not matter. Driving for this length of time is highly dangerous without the usual rest period.
Finally, will the Minister comment on the headline in last Sunday’s Observer about the DVLA’s failure to protect its workers from coronavirus. Apparently, 500 cases were reported out of a staff of 1,800. Staff were refused permission to work at home and were told to turn off their test and trace apps so that they would not make a noise. Do the Government think that this is an example of good employment practice? I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support these regulations. Using tachographs to control drivers’ hours is highly beneficial and helps to reduce accidents caused by lack of sleep or overwork.
When my daughter was a trainee solicitor, one of the partners at her law firm was known as the prince of tachographs because he was instrumental in advising lorry drivers on their use in the late 1980s, when they were first introduced. I am pleased to say that he now sits as Lord Justice Hickinbottom in the High Court.
While it is reassuring to see legislation on the continued use and enforcement of tachographs, what extra measures have the Government introduced, or could consider implementing to assist lorry drivers in using their tachographs to help alleviate the delays they are now facing as they cross to and from Europe with deliveries? I have heard of drivers, who are invariably paid by the delivery, refusing to take deliveries abroad due to the sheer amount of time they take—at least double or more. I suspect that those drivers’ hours are also playing a part in those delays.
I seek assurance that the Government are considering the impact of the tachograph regulations on our current trading arrangements with Europe by lorry and whether relaxing or amending the rules on tachographs could help to alleviate the delays we are seeing to goods. It is important to the UK that we keep deliveries free-flowing and do not impede trade elsewhere. Perhaps, where helpful and appropriate, the use of tachographs could be moderated to lessen those delays until a smoother system is in place.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about enforcement now that we do not have such good access to international information on number plates. That is a particular issue because 85% of lorry drivers going across to mainland Europe are not UK-based, so enforcement is key.
I also endorse the noble Lord’s comments about conditions at the DVLA in Swansea. Will the Government ensure that there is a full investigation into why so many employees have caught the virus, and into employment practices that do not seem to be in line with government guidance?
The regulations are another example of the legislative contortions that we have got ourselves into by being outside both the EU and the single market, but at the same time wanting to mirror EU standards. I cite one sentence from paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“Although the EU Exit Regulations will come into force on IP completion day”—
which, by the way, has passed—
“because the Mobility Package came into force after the EU Exit Regulations were made, the EU Exit Regulations do not remedy these deficiencies.”
A great deal of concentration was required to understand what the Explanatory Memorandum was trying to explain.
The desire to track EU regulations is very understandable—especially on logistics, where smooth liaison for drivers operating internationally is essential. The experience of the past few weeks has already revealed many problems with the day-to-day operation of Brexit that were overlooked by its advocates. One has to wonder whether the experts—the drivers and haulage companies—could have been engaged earlier to try to find solutions to these problems.
I wonder how we will keep this up in the long term. The EU has recently announced 82 transport policy and legislative proposals for the coming year—all part of its green deal. I know that the Government are anxious to make their mark on climate change issues, so I assume that the UK will want to at least keep pace with that. It will be extremely difficult to keep pace with changes in EU regulations in this field and in many others.
I have a question about tachographs. Paragraph 2.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to clarifying the types of tachograph applicable in the UK. If a lorry is to be driven in the EU, will the tachograph have in future to conform to EU standards too? I tend to assume that it will, but I should like the Minister’s confirmation. What will be the situation for drivers in Northern Ireland?
Before Christmas, when lorries were queuing through Kent because of restrictions due to the outbreak of the new strain of Covid, the Government suspended the restrictions on drivers’ hours and required rest periods. Is the lifting of restrictions still in force? If so, why? Are the delays still significant enough to require this? I ask because, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, drivers’ hours regulations are so important to road safety generally and the lifting of the rules was general and not specific to Kent.
Finally, do the Government have any plans to vary these rules? Recent news suggests that they intend to lower employment regulations and reduce standards. The example of tachographs and drivers’ hours is a classic case of regulations that benefit individual employees but are also of great importance to our safety and security generally.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her concise explanation of the content and purpose of these regulations. I must say, I also found the Explanatory Memorandum heavy going.
These regulations ensure that the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules for commercial road transport, lorries and coaches in the trade and co-operation agreement are applicable to journeys between the UK and the EU and can be enforced. They were laid under the “made affirmative” procedure, meaning that they applied instantly when they were laid shortly after the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU was concluded late last month. That agreement made no changes to the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules applicable to journeys between the UK and EU.
The Government have said that these regulations are needed urgently to ensure that the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules can continue to be enforced under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, and that the urgency arose because there was such a short period of time—a few days—between the conclusion of the agreement and the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020.
Due to the tight deadline for making these legislative changes, and with the agreement of the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, these regulations include changes affecting Northern Ireland even though the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules are a transferred matter for Northern Ireland. Indeed, such was tightness of the deadlines that, on top of the regulations being made under the “made affirmative” procedure, there was no time for consultation on them, for an impact assessment or to update an earlier impact assessment that was apparently completed.
We are not opposed to the regulations since they do not represent a change to the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules; we accept their necessity. However, Parliament’s role in scrutinising this legislation has been marginalised, to say the least. In the debate so far, a number of questions have been asked and issues raised.
I note what the Minister said about the importance, safety-wise, of the regulations on drivers’ hours and the potentially serious consequences for the drivers concerned and other road users if they are not adhered to.
As has already been said, we gather that the Government are reviewing legislation on workers’ rights and protections even though we have barely cut our ties with the EU. Could the Minister say if the drivers’ hours rules applicable in Great Britain are currently under review and, if so, whether consultation will be somewhat greater than it has been in respect of these regulations? Have there been any discussions with the road haulage industry and coach industry on drivers’ hours regulations, or have the Government sought their opinions and views? Have the trade unions representing drivers been involved in any such discussions or been approached for their opinions and views? What is the view of the Department for Transport on the existing drivers’ hours regulations and whether they should be changed, and, if so, in what direction and in what way?
The drivers’ hours regulations can be enforced through the use of tachographs. In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile cases of tachograph falsification. In light of the importance the Minister rightly attaches to adhering to the drivers’ hours regulations, do the Government have any further steps in mind to clamp down on such tachograph falsifications? My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to some practices that seem to take place.
Hauliers have played a key role over many months in the provision and availability of essential supplies during the current pandemic. They both need and deserve the protections the current regulations provide if properly enforced—as they should be.
The Government have introduced a temporary relaxation, until the end of March, of the enforcement of the retained EU drivers’ hours rules in England, Scotland and Wales for drivers involved in the international carriage of goods by road and between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These measures include extending the EU daily driving limit and reducing the daily rest requirements. This has been largely necessitated by the prospect of delays at our borders following our withdrawal from the EU and the lack of government notice and guidance to the haulage industry—or indeed anybody else affected—on what needed to be done to adapt to the changes arising from our withdrawal. What impact, if any, do these regulations have on the current relaxation and enforcement of EU drivers’ hours rules, and what impact does the current relaxation of EU drivers’ hours rules have on the application and enforcement of these regulations?
Finally, in light of noble Lords’ comments on enforcement, safety and Brexit during this debate, what assessment was made of the safety implications of temporarily extending the EU daily driving limit and reducing the daily rest requirements? Could the temporary relaxation of EU drivers’ hours rules have been made while we were members of the EU, or was it possible only because we cut all ties with the EU at the end of last month?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we have a small but perfectly formed group considering these regulations today and I am grateful for all contributions. I shall endeavour to answer as many questions as I can in the time available.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner, the roads chapter of the TCA specifies that the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules applicable between the UK and the EU are consistent with those set out in the EU drivers’ hours regulation and the EU tachographs regulation, which have been retained from EU law. As I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, this means that the flow of drivers and their trucks either way between the UK and EU is facilitated by the work that noble Lords are doing today. Therefore, she should feel reassured that no delays at the border are caused by tachograph issues. I am pleased to say that, at the moment, there are very few delays at the border anyway. That is because we have seen greater trader and haulier readiness than, certainly, I was expecting, which is positive. That is even in the context of the slight curveball that the French and, latterly, the Dutch threw by requiring testing for hauliers as well. While it was a difficult time after the testing regime was implemented, it has all calmed down significantly now. I am pleasantly surprised at the amount of readiness out there, which just goes to show that, sometimes, when the Government encourage people to do something, they really do it.
I also reassure noble Lords that the TCA means that a new generation of tachographs will be installed in UK vehicles used internationally when they are ready. Drivers’ hours and tachograph rules will also be applied to some light goods vehicles, which we think will help road safety too. So, there is a lot of co-operation between the UK and the EU particularly in respect of these international movements, drivers’ hours and tachographs.
I turn briefly to fines, non-compliance and enforcement. We take this incredibly seriously. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who asked whether there was an army of enforcement officers waiting at the roadside to catch recalcitrant hauliers. Yes, there is; that is exactly what we have. Data for 2019-20 from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the DVSA, show that officers stopped more than 66,000 vehicles on the road. From those encounters, they issued more than 12,000 fixed penalty notices for drivers’ hours and tachograph offences. One driver might have got several of those, so it is not necessarily the case that a high proportion of people are doing wrong. However, I am afraid that it was foreign drivers who picked up most of those fixed penalties—77.2% went to non-UK drivers. That is why the regulations are so important.
A range of fines can be applied to the driver. For UK drivers, it is a fixed penalty notice; for non-UK drivers, financial penalty deposits also play an important part in the enforcement regime. That means that the driver has to pay the fine there and then, the DVSA being well versed in collecting the appropriate funds at the roadside to ensure effective enforcement for those who do not follow the rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, requested more information on the DVSA and its activities. It has a large group of enforcement officers out on the roadside. They go to motorway service areas, ports, venues and other places—anywhere where one would imagine there is a significant number of hauliers. Visits to operators are often done on a risk-based system. DVSA has some quite good computer software which looks for those who are likely not to be following the rules as much as others.
The noble Lord was worried about the number plate recognition system. I reassure him that the national NPR system works for registration numbers irrespective of where the vehicle originates. DVSA probably has a bit more information on UK vehicles than non-UK ones, but that does not mean that the NPR system does not work; we can identify those vehicles. Virtually all vehicles now have digital tachographs. The driver inserts their own card, which they then transfer from vehicle to vehicle, meaning that the DVSA can compare the two to see whether a driver has been driving without using a card. The noble Lord told the Committee about his pesky friend who seemed to be doing something that was not entirely within the law—I hope that he has ceased and desisted from doing that now. Drivers who use more than one card are usually easy to identify because the DVSA has the IT systems to check card validity.
On the issue of tachographs, we are always looking at how we can improve enforcement, particularly around tachograph falsification. The Department for Transport is preliminarily considering developing an additional range of sanctions, including in the context of non-UK operators’ responsibilities. We will take that work forward in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the lack of access to EU systems, but that is not the case here. The UK remains connected to the TACHOnet system, which is used by the DVLA—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is different from the DVSA—when it processes tachograph card applications at the outset. Basically, this prevents a driver having more than one tachograph. It is also used by the DVSA when doing its roadside checks so that it can get access to the EU information.
The noble Baroness mentioned the EU mobility package changes, and I apologise for the state of the Explanatory Memorandum and its being unclear; I will take that back to the department, and perhaps we will be able to improve it for the next time. I reassure her that work is already under way on the mobility package amendments: a draft negative resolution was laid for sifting in Parliament in early January. Unlike this SI, the changes are not operation-critical.
There is currently a relaxation of drivers’ hours; indeed, we have had a number of these, as we have had discussions with the haulage industry and the freight sector about how they feel freight and goods are flowing, the impact of Covid-19 on staff absences and whether specific issues within the system are causing goods to back up. We feel that there is a risk of continued disruption to the supply chain, so we extended the relaxations until 31 March. However, the understanding is very clear: they can be withdrawn earlier if circumstances change—so we do keep it under review. We are very cognisant of driver welfare and road safety, and we are very clear that normal drivers’ hours rules are to be followed unless it is absolutely necessary not to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about reducing workers’ rights. This Government recognise the importance of drivers’ hours rules to driver welfare and road safety. I am not aware of any proposals in this area, so there has been no engagement or consultation, except for talk about temporary relaxations. The Government have no long-term plans to reduce workers’ rights.
In closing, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about things that they may have read about the DVLA in the Observer. I say to them: do not believe everything that you read in the media. I speak to the CEO of the DVLA very frequently: I last spoke to her on Sunday, and we went through all the allegations in the Observer. There are some very interesting comments, and all I can say is that I do not recognise them.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may be interested to know that the CEO, Julie Lennard, will be at the Transport Select Committee tomorrow. I believe that she will put his mind at rest: the DVLA has the very highest standards on staff welfare. It follows the guidance from Public Health Wales and the Welsh Government to the letter, has frequent conversations and discussions with Public Health Wales and shares its plans with it. As such, I am reassured that DVLA staff are being looked after as well as possible. We must also recognise that the services it provides are critical to the functioning of our economy, and to enabling people to get to medical appointments and undertake essential journeys. I am sure there will be more on that at the TSC tomorrow.
That was a slight diversion from the SI before the Committee, but I commend the regulations.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I 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 for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour.
West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021.
Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 17 December and, if approved by both Houses, will implement the devolution deal agreed between the Government and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and announced by the Chancellor at the Budget on 11 March 2020. It will establish the office of Mayor of West Yorkshire, with the first election to take place on 6 May 2021. The mayor will be chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, which comprises the constituent councils of Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield. The order also transfers the police and crime commissioner functions for West Yorkshire to the combined authority, to be exercised by the mayor. Additionally, the mayor and combined authority will be conferred a range of other significant powers, as agreed in the devolution deal. These include education and skills, housing, regeneration and planning, the mayoral development corporation and transport.
The order also amends some of the combined authority’s governance arrangements to reflect these powers and the role of the mayor. If this order is approved and made, West Yorkshire will benefit from significant funding, which was agreed for the area as part of the deal. The largest element of this is the £38 million of annual investment funding for West Yorkshire for the next 30 years, comprising more than £1.1 billion in total, to be invested by West Yorkshire to drive growth and take forward its priorities. It also includes other significant funding, such as £317 million from the Transforming Cities Fund, £101 million for flood risk management, a £25 million heritage fund and £500,000 for a Bradford station masterplan. In addition, the deal provides the area with flexibilities on spending, as well as control of the annual education budget.
As other combined authorities have shown, there is good evidence that devolution to geographies that reflect a functional economic area enhances economic performance, fiscal efficiency and policy delivery at both national and local levels by making government action more coherent locally and enhancing local government’s contribution to solving problems in areas falling between individual policy fields. By conferring the powers on the combined authority, the provision of local services will be better aligned with locally determined priorities and there will be less complexity as the delivery of public services within the combined authority area is streamlined. The deal provides that West Yorkshire will monitor and evaluate the deal in order to demonstrate and report on progress.
As I am sure noble Lords will agree, these powers and this funding will be a vital element of the city region’s economic and social recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Together, they will drive growth and create opportunities for people who live and work in West Yorkshire. At this point, I am keen to recognise and thank the local leaders and their councils for all that they have done and are continuing to do to support the area and local people as they face the challenges of the pandemic.
This order will be made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As required by the 2016 Act, along with this order we have made a Section 105B report which provides details about the public authority functions, such as adult education functions and responsibility for a devolved and consolidated local transport budget, which we are devolving to the combined authority. Some of these functions, such as the power to pay grants to constituent councils for exercising highways functions, will be exercisable by the mayor.
The statutory origin of this order is in a governance review and scheme adopted in April 2020 by the combined authority with its five constituent councils in accordance with the requirements of the 2009 Act. The scheme proposed additional functions to be conferred on the combined authority, as envisaged in the devolution deal. It specified those that would be exercised by the mayor and made certain amendments to governance arrangements.
The combined authority and the councils consulted on the proposals in their scheme. The public consultation was promoted widely through a range of platforms. Responses were accepted through the combined authority website as well as via email, letter and a hard-copy form. It ran from 25 May to 20 July 2020. In total, 4,413 people responded. The combined authority provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses to the consultation on 14 September.
Overall, there were eight questions, on all of which there was strong support from the public and stakeholders. Indeed, the leading question, which asked whether the respondent agreed or disagreed with the proposals for the revised arrangements for the combined authority, was supported by almost 70% of respondents. Specific questions on the powers to be conferred under transport, skills, employment, housing and planning garnered similar levels of support. Some 60% of respondents supported the proposal to transfer police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor. I can confidently say that, overall, there was strong support from the people of West Yorkshire.
In laying this draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2009 Act are met—that no further consultation is necessary and that conferring the proposed powers would likely improve the exercise of statutory functions in the combined authority area—and are appropriate, having regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government, and that, where the functions are local authority functions, they can be appropriately exercised by the combined authority. Furthermore, as required by statute, the combined authority and the five constituent councils have consented to the making of this order.
The order before noble Lords will give effect to the provisions of the devolution deal, which I will briefly summarise. PCC functions will be transferred to the WYCA for exercise by the mayor. The order is clear that the mayor’s role as the holder of PCC functions is carved out, meaning that decisions around police property, rights and liabilities are the mayor’s responsibility and there remains a distinct precept. All money relating to policing must be paid into and out of the police fund, and that money can be spent only on policing and matters related to the mayor’s PCC functions.
A new police and crime panel is to be created, which will exercise broadly the same functions as under the PCC model. The financial year of the PCC and chief constable of West Yorkshire is to be extended from 31 March to 9 May 2021 to rationalise accounting processes and avoid preparing additional accounts for the one-month interim period. Any receipts will be paid to the police fund to ensure that police funding is protected.
The combined authority will take on many education functions for its area. This will also enable it to establish adult education provision and manage its devolved adult education budget from 2021-22. This can be better aligned to locally determined priorities and help boost economic growth.
To improve the supply and quality of housing and facilitate the regeneration of West Yorkshire, the combined authority will be conferred housing, regeneration, land acquisition and disposal powers. These powers will be exercised concurrently with Homes England, enabling the combined authority, working closely with Homes England, to promote housing and regeneration.
The compulsory purchase of land will be a mayoral function and any decision will require consent from the combined authority member whose local government area contains any parts of the proposed land. This order will also give the mayor a power to designate mayoral development areas in the combined authority area to support the delivery of strategic sites in West Yorkshire. This is the first step in establishing a mayoral development corporation, or MDC, in the combined authority area. A further order will be necessary to create such a body. The relevant powers concerning MDCs are conferred on the combined authority to be exercised by the major. These decisions will require the consent of the respective combined authority members whose council areas contain any parts of the designated area and of the Peak District National Park Authority if any part of the designated area sits within the national park.
While strategic planning powers and strategic infrastructure tariffs were agreed in the devolution deal, these are not being conferred at this stage. The Government have committed to confer these powers or their equivalent once the way forward on the reforms to the overall planning system is clear.
The mayor will have control over a consolidated and devolved transport budget, with a power to pay grants to the five constituent councils in relation to the exercise of their highways functions to improve and maintain roads. The mayor may pay grants to bus service operators or eligible bus services operating within the combined authority area. Grants must be calculated in accordance with any regulation methods made by the Secretary of State.
The order also includes constitutional provisions reflecting the powers conferred on the role of the mayor. There is a provision on voting arrangements so that any decision of the combined authority about its new powers conferred through the order must include the mayor among the majority of members in favour of that decision. It also provides for the establishment of an independent remuneration panel to recommend the allowances of the mayor and the deputy mayor.
The mayor and the combined authority will be scrutinised and held to account by the combined authority’s overview and scrutiny committee. The overview and scrutiny arrangements that the combined authority has currently established will be retained, subject to any amendments required to reflect the introduction of the mayor and any statutory provisions. Under the terms of the deals, the mayor and the combined authority may also seek to enhance scrutiny and develop their wider conference with all elected members of the combined authority’s areas to engage on key issues.
This order, which is supported locally, is a significant step forward for West Yorkshire and its businesses and communities. It is key to the city region’s economic recovery. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in three minutes, I can touch on only one or two key issues. I welcome the order and the elevation of the leader of Leeds City Council, Judith Blake, to this House. I know that she will make a great contribution.
In winding up, could the Minister touch on when we might have the long-promised White Paper on devolution? How might it deal with the inconsistencies and incoherence of having different powers for different city regions and their mayors; the creation of powers for mayors to have the police and crime commissioner function in some areas but not in others; and the way in which the resources he referred to, combined as they were in the Autumn Statement, have been cut and the structural funds originally available from the European Union have disappeared? They now look more like the towns fund, which became a slush fund for individual Members of Parliament. How might that be avoided in these circumstances?
I want to touch particularly on the importance of Yorkshire getting its act together to collaborate, have its voice heard and ensure that it is not discriminated against as it has been so blatantly in recent years. If the Sheffield City Region—I hope that it will stop arguing about the name—and the newly created West Yorkshire mayoral authority, together with the leaders in the remainder of Yorkshire, can combine as they have done in the last few days with those in the East Midlands to make their voices heard on the HS2 scandal, some good will certainly have come out of this. Others will mention HS2; it is interesting that the briefing from HS2 always refers to the Crewe and Manchester leg as connecting to the north, as though the north were just the north-west. It is time that Yorkshire got its act together and collaborated.
That will involve the Government supporting the universities in Yorkshire to combine to counterweight the golden triangle of Imperial, Oxford and Cambridge. It will involve the local authorities, as well as the city mayors, being able to see where their voice can be heard, for instance in the present maldistribution of vaccines—parts of Yorkshire have done so well in distribution that they are now being rationed—to ensure above all that the work done at the local level can be properly supported and a coherent policy developed from central government.
Given what is happening with Scotland and in Ireland, and given the failure to have any coherent policy for the English regions, confirmation of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority is way overdue. Since, uniquely, the region has two major cities—because Bradford is the size of Bristol—this will be a step forward in ensuring that the voice of the great, historic county of Yorkshire can at last be heard just as loudly as the voice of the north-west of England.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have a direct interest in this matter as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
As we have heard, there are five constituent councils in West Yorkshire, representing 2.5 million people. Again, as we have heard, it is the only region with three cities: Bradford, Wakefield and Leeds. It has not been easy for the councils to give their agreement to this deal. There were only 4,400 responses to the consultation, which is hardly representative, and three of the constituent councils failed to achieve unanimity on the deal.
There is a healthy degree of scepticism in West Yorkshire about the mayoral model. This is compounded by the ability of the mayor to appoint both a political adviser, paid from the public purse, and a deputy mayor for policing—again, a political appointee paid from the public purse. Yorkshire residents are rightly suspicious of mayors’ ability to add to their council tax bills and of the lack of ongoing, direct accountability for their decisions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted the fact that
“operational efficiencies … could lead to reduced costs”.
However, it concluded that the MHCLG was not able to provide evidence to support that assertion. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to do so.
This agreement is hailed as devolution but it falls at the first hurdle. The agreement that was originally reached has been undermined unilaterally by the Government at the very last minute. As the Minister has said, strategic planning powers and powers for a strategic infrastructure tariff have been removed from the agreed deal by the Government on the whimsy that they may be compromised by a government planning Bill. So much for devolution. The Government have cocked a collective snook at West Yorkshire; the Covid vaccine supply debacle has just compounded that sentiment.
As for funding, the promise of £1.1 billion over 30 years is not guaranteed; £38 million a year is all the extra that is provided for. Given that the five councils have had more than £500 million cut from their spending every year, this puts the financial offer into a proper perspective. However, on the basis that half a loaf is better than none at all, I am willing to accept this instrument.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who obviously has a great personal interest in this draft order given her strong role in Kirklees.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out the terms of the order. I certainly welcome it. Until now, West Yorkshire has been the most obvious omission from the pattern of combined authorities and metro mayors in England. The Conservative manifesto committed the Government to a successful devolution of powers to city region mayors and to a White Paper on devolution in 2020. I understand the reasons for the delay but the Government confirmed last week that the English devolution and local recovery White Paper would be published “in due course”—three words with which we are all familiar and which have been used by successive Governments. Can I press my noble friend to indicate with perhaps more clarity the precise timetable of that happening?
The draft order, based on the devolution deal, has been agreed by the councils of the area and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, and a public consultation has been carried out, as detailed in the Explanatory Memorandum. Although all consultations for combined authorities have not had a flood of responses, this one has had the largest, as noted by the leader of Leeds City Council, Judith Blake. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I very much congratulate her on the announcement of her Peerage, and I look forward to her presence and contributions in your Lordships’ House. The consultation demonstrates considerable support for the content of the order, from 59% on finance to 75% on transport. I am pleased to see that it very much involved the universities of the area.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I note that planning and strategic infrastructure have not been conferred and that the Government are committed to conferring planning, at least in future. Could my noble friend outline the timeframe for that to happen and perhaps also explain why infrastructure has not been included?
Finally, I ask my noble friend about the elections that we all hope and expect to take place in May, as he mentioned—not just in West Yorkshire, of course. When will the guidelines be issued for the conduct of those elections? What discussions have there been with the devolved Administrations, particularly Wales, where there will be some elections on that day governed by the National Assembly for Wales—namely, the Senedd elections—and some by Westminster: namely, the police and crime commissioner elections? Clearly, those guidelines need to be dovetailed so that they say the same things. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, as I will have a vote in the West Yorkshire mayoral elections. I also endorse what my noble friend Lord Blunkett said about the urgency with which we need to see the White Paper and the more comprehensive approach to devolved institutions.
I will talk not about the powers but about the practicalities of the election. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has just said that we should have clear guidelines as soon as possible. We would all like the elections to go ahead, but we have to be realistic and make sure that there are proper preparations. We do not want a last-minute decision to postpone them elections, and we are in danger of seeing that if we do not have better preparations at a very early point.
We are only a matter of weeks from candidates having to go around getting people to sign their nomination forms, which would be difficult. We would normally see volunteers putting leaflets through, and knocking on, doors, which will not be possible. Telephone canvassing is not a good substitute.
The Government have said that polling stations will be Covid-safe, but many schools are polling stations. Will they have to close the day before and after for deep cleans? All those things need looking at. Where will returning officers will get their polling staff from—and will they be vaccinated? Will they be vaccinated three weeks or three months in advance? We are running out of time.
However, my biggest concern is for the count, because the practicalities are clear to anyone who has been a candidate in an election. Counts are busy; they are in big halls, many of which are being used for vaccinations, so they may not be available. How can a scrutineer stand two metres apart from other scrutineers and the people counting and have total confidence that they are doing a good job?
There is a real difficulty here because I do not think that the Government have fully taken on board all the practical difficulties. If they are going to go ahead with those elections on the due date, they have to have closer and more detailed conversations with both returning officers and local authority leaders. Those leaders have had a lot to put up with in the past few months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who is a councillor, was saying. They have very scarce resources: we do not want them to have to spend money making preparations for elections that get called very late and at the last minute.
Finally, I acknowledge the work that has gone on in the lead-up to this situation. I particularly pay tribute to Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, who has been the chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and has helped to keep all the local authorities working so well together during recent difficult times.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, this order represents another small step in decentralising England. The additional powers, over skills and training and strategic housing and regeneration, in particular, are important, if limited. But, of course, there is little extra money.
I shall leave it to colleagues who live in Yorkshire to comment further on the detail of the order, but I want to make the point that what is being introduced is in practice a centralised structure. It is not just that the duties of an elected Police and Crime Commissioner are to be taken over by the mayor, it is also that there will be no assembly, as in London. There, the Assembly exists to hold the mayor to account and make sure that the mayor’s policies, actions and strategies are in the public interest.
Scrutiny matters. We need to look carefully at how scrutiny has worked in all mayoral authorities—not just combined authorities—to assess how each is performing and what we can learn from their achievements or failures. When combined authorities were first introduced, their bespoke nature was understandable, because it meant that different approaches to spreading power in England could be tested. That approach has been useful, but now we need to review how well each of the combined authorities has worked and how more power and responsibility might be devolved from Whitehall and Westminster—and not just to those existing combined authorities. That could take place in the context of the promise by the Government of a White Paper on English devolution, which was due last year, as we have heard from other noble Lords and Baronesses this evening.
At the last election, the Conservative manifesto contained a commitment to a constitution, democracy and rights commission. That is welcome, but, in my view, we need a proper constitutional convention that looks towards creating a federal structure for the United Kingdom. This is because the question of whether to hold another referendum on independence for Scotland should be seen in the context of the UK as a whole. That must surely include the constituent parts of England. It could prove key to helping the levelling up agenda, because I think levelling up, if it is to be successful, will require constitutional reform.
The Covid pandemic is teaching us many things. One is that England is too centralised. There will be a public inquiry, but we need more. We need a constitutional convention to spread power and responsibility much more widely.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the powerful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I associate myself with his and others’ questions about when we can expect the devolution White Paper. We know the slogan “Take back control” was at the forefront in 2016; I do not believe it has any less resonance today—I suggest it has more, given the loss of the democratic oversight and opportunities of the European Parliament.
I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the input of the Yorkshire & the Humber Green Party into these questions. Most of them concern democracy. The Minister referred in his introductory remarks to the consent for these plans and the percentage of people who indicated agreement to the lead question. So I ask the Minister: what alternative was offered to people? Would it have meant a loss of money to the region, as I understand it would? Were people given the alternative to show support for the One Yorkshire plan that, in 2019, 18 of the 20 councils of the regions backed? Where is the Government’s evidence for the support of the people? Why was a referendum not held, as has occurred in the past?
As other noble Lords have said, London has an elected Assembly that scrutinises the work of the mayor—perhaps not as strongly as we might like but it none the less exists and has the opportunity to question and challenge. Why does Yorkshire not have a similar assembly or, given its scale, a parliament? Can one person really represent 2.5 million people? Will there not be a democratic loss through the loss of the elected police and crime commissioner and making the deputy mayor for policing a political appointee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said? Across West Yorkshire, more than 8% of elected councillors are from parties other than Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. How are the voices of those other voters going to be properly represented on the combined authority?
Briefly, in the time available to me, I have some questions. There is a low level of participation in adult education across the region of 30%. The lowest level nationally is 29% in the south-west. Are there enough resources for the new mayor to be able to make a difference? Given that housing is such a huge issue in the area, perhaps the Minister could now, or at some point in the future, say whether the Government have considered allowing the mayor to suspend the right to buy in West Yorkshire and specify higher levels of energy efficiency as part of the mayor’s powers.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his clear explanation of the powers that the authority will have and what it can do. I also declare an interest as a member of Cumbria County Council. I am a member of that council because I believe in local government, and it is a key part of the levelling-up agenda to have stronger, more effective local government in the north of England.
I should like to put three points to the Minister. First, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and others have pointed out, there are inconsistencies and deficiencies in the way in which this devolution process has been handled. We need a White Paper, more consistency and to strengthen not weaken devolution. When are those proposals going to come?
Secondly, until now, the focus has been on strengthening the voice of the big metropolitan areas in the north of England but there are, of course, more rural and scattered hinterlands. The Government are considering local government reorganisation proposals for the hinterland in the north-west of my native Cumbria, in the hinterland of West Yorkshire and in North Yorkshire. I strongly support the creation of single strategic authorities in those areas. The district councils are iffy about this, but we can deal with their concerns through effective devolution within a strategic authority to towns and groups of parishes. That would be a better answer.
Thirdly, a stronger voice for Yorkshire is desperately needed as the Government contemplate the decision to put the eastern leg of HS2 on the back burner, which would be catastrophic for the north. It would create gross inequality between the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east that would get worse and worse as the decades went on. It cannot be allowed to happen. I know that this is not the Minister’s direct responsibility but that of the Department for Transport, but the Local Government Minister must give attention to this desperately important issue.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
As somebody born and raised in Huddersfield and whose family still lives there, now calling Sheffield my home, I feel I have a little knowledge about West Yorkshire and the devolution deal in a White Rose county. As a vice-president of the LGA, I welcome the order, but start with a word of caution as I look up the M1. Do not fall for the hype that these devolution deals are a way to solve the decades of underinvestment and lack of opportunities for Yorkshire’s people and the infrastructure required for future well-being and prosperity.
Although welcome, these deals do not deliver the powers and responsibilities that each area needs to shape their destiny. In reality, this is decentralisation, not true devolution. We have seen over the past few months that the real powers on game-changing investment will continue to sit with the iron fist of the Treasury, fixed and rooted in Whitehall. One of the significant schemes for West and South Yorkshire is HS2: both are on the eastern leg of the line. The Government have gone cold, and plans from the National Infrastructure Commission now appear to either kick the eastern leg into the long grass or scrap it altogether.
Support for future opportunities by linking the people and businesses of the great towns and cities of Yorkshire and the north via an integrated transport system is also needed. We have been told to lower our horizons. Whitehall has cut the budget for Transport for the North. London still has the real levers over money and strategic decisions. These devolution deals give us some crumbs at our tables, while the bread machine and loaf-makers stay in Whitehall. No innovative money-raising powers or exciting and significant fiscal incentives for the economic and social improvements at the scale that West Yorkshire requires are in this deal. The pandemic has made the task even harder. As this week’s annual study by the Centre for Cities shows, the number of people seeking work in parts of Yorkshire has increased fivefold in the wake of Covid, with many facing the prospect of years in the job wilderness unless the Government recognise the scale of the unfolding economic crisis that we face.
Although the deal is welcome, the Government must be honest with people in West Yorkshire. The vital levers of power and fiscal control to make the significant changes required are not part of this deal. Small changes can be made by the metro mayor, but the game-changing levers for people, communities and the local economy will still be in the grip of Whitehall. Levelling up will be a soundbite until we get meaningful devolution leading to a more federal England that can truly unleash the full potential of Yorkshire and its people.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it looks like half of Sheffield has turned up today, but then the interest is rather big because they need to go to West Yorkshire in order to see a goal or two, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I will be able to catch up on a very good goal after this session. It would also be good if there was a high-speed link to aid the speed there and to bring county cricket back to Sheffield, so that there was some reverse travel as well, combining the old with the new.
I warn the Government of a potential political own-goal of significance to which I have been alerted only today. That is something I warned about when the South Yorkshire mayoral order was passed and we got assurances. I am not sure whether it is relevant to this, but I seek clarification from the Minister on that. That is the alignment of health bodies and this new, strengthened system of local government.
I made the point in relation to the Sheffield mayor that not all health authorities follow the same boundaries. The Doncaster and Bassetlaw health authority has, without question, been the top-performing health authority over the last 30 years, particularly in primary care—as, I predict, will be witnessed when statistics come out on Covid vaccination. However, it is about to be undone by bureaucratic meddling as people take their eye off the ball, combining the two—in other words, separating the funding from existing health systems. It makes Doncaster hospital unviable and closes down the accident and emergency department in Bassetlaw.
The constituencies directly affected are Newark, Bassetlaw, Bolsover, the top of Mansfield, Rother Valley and Don Valley. The impact is pretty significant and I ask the Minister to talk to his colleagues in health. Modernising and reforming—I would say “strengthening” —local government, and trying to shift well-established, successful health boundaries and shove them under the same authority is something that, even if thought sensible, should be done over a decade, not in a few minutes as a whim, with the mantra “We’ve got to do everything through public health”. If the Government get that wrong, I can tell noble Lords that voters in six constituencies—or perhaps seven, as you could add a number of voters from Brigg and Goole—will not forgive them.
So, in doing good by bringing in these mayoralties and devolving power, we should not allow others to undermine that good work by messing around with the health structures. Such changes should be slow, gradual and thought through, not rushed, but there is a danger that that is happening at this moment.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the key issue that has come out of this debate is whether this new mayor and the combined authority will have the powers to make a fundamental difference. We all accept that we need it to be able to make a fundamental difference to level up and give the people of West Yorkshire the dynamic future that they need.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, put his finger on a key policy issue, to which we would welcome an answer from the Minister: why has the mayor not been given responsibility for strategic infrastructure? Given that the mayoral authorities are intended to be strategic and West Yorkshire needs a plan for the future, the absence of a power to plan strategic infrastructure is a gaping hole in this order.
That links directly to the point about HS2 made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lord Liddle. I suggest that HS2 is the single most important piece of infrastructure for the strategic future of West Yorkshire. If it happens, it will produce a transformation in connectivity, but there will be a real crisis from the comparative lack of connectivity if, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, HS2 goes to the north-west in the extension from Birmingham to Crewe and Manchester but does not go to the east Midlands and on to Sheffield and Leeds and continue into the north-east. That is hugely important for the area about which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has spoken.
I am sure that the Minister, whom we hold in high regard, will repeat the words that have been repeated many times in both Houses about the eastern leg of HS2: that the Government are in principle committed to it, that they wish to see the benefits of HS2 shared with Yorkshire and the north-east, and that the integrated rail plan will be coming soon. We have heard all that before. The problem is that those things do not commit the Government to producing and progressing with the eastern leg of HS2 at all—because it could be delayed indefinitely—let alone on the same timescale as proposed for Crewe and Manchester.
Therefore, rather than get another recital of the brief, perhaps I may ask the Minister to take two specific points back to his right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, who will be the key decision-makers in this respect. The first is that the Government have now said that, because of delays due to Covid and logjams in the Department for Transport, the legislation to extend HS2 from Crewe to Manchester will be introduced not this year but next year. That means that there is now an opportunity to revert to the original plan for phase 2b of HS2 and put the whole of the eastern leg in it.
Secondly, will the Minister take back to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister the strong view of all local authority leaders in the east Midlands and Yorkshire, as well as Members of Parliament and of this House, that if we are going to have a high-speed line, 21st-century technology, for the western part of the country but leave the eastern part of the country still subject to Victorian technology, it would be the equivalent of our great Victorian forebears building the railways to go up to Birmingham and Manchester but leaving canals to serve Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds? As a strategic future for the country, that would be a disaster.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I would add, on the railway system, that the new trans-Pennine link is as important as the eastern leg of HS2 and is particularly important for Bradford. I remind everyone that Leeds is now the biggest conurbation in Europe lacking a mass transit link.
I welcome the conclusion of this deal, but with qualifications. It provides West Yorkshire with some of the additional funds it needs. It builds on the constructive co-operation of the councils over the past 15 years. It provides for a spokesman for the region, in the shape of an elected mayor, but it does not fulfil the promise of the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which set out the aim of
“full devolution across England … so that every part of our country has the power to shape its own destiny”.
The funds this deal provides are conditional, and in a number of separate packages, subject to continuing central oversight and partisan ministerial interference—slush funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said. The mayor will join other city mayors across England without any institutionalised structure for representing their concerns to Whitehall, as we have seen in ministerial resistance to intervention from existing mayors over recent months. I understand that some Conservative MPs are now opposed to devolution as such, and that a few may even oppose this order in the Commons tomorrow. In today’s Yorkshire Post, Philip Rycroft, formerly a senior official concerned with constitutional issues, called what the Government are proposing “a mess”.
We should have had a devolution White Paper by now, setting out the Government’s plans for the whole of England, as others have mentioned. Instead, we have had plans to parcel up bits of Whitehall departments and scatter them across the country, taking directions still from Whitehall. The commission on democracy that the manifesto promised has disappeared. This deal is not what councils in Yorkshire asked for. They wanted a Yorkshire regional authority. The Government are forcing city mayors on unwilling communities. A Populus poll last year showed 27% of voters in Yorkshire supported a full rollout of city mayors, while 31% preferred the established collective council model and 30% were not sure. That is hardly a vote of confidence.
Throughout this year, we watched the Government bypass local councils, giving generous contracts to consultancies and outsourcing companies to set up test and trace schemes while ignoring the local expertise and experience that councils possess. People in Yorkshire have noticed UK Ministers consulting the three devolved Administrations in detail while failing even to inform existing mayors and local councils of shifting plans for lockdowns for schools. There is, and the Minister must realise this, a growing consensus across England that we would be better governed if there were real devolution within England rather than detailed central control, with favoured deals for Conservative target seats from Cabinet Ministers.
So, I welcome this only as an interim arrangement. It transfers funds to West Yorkshire to improve transport, manage flood risk, support local business and improve adult education, but it is not enough. If this Conservative Government are to fulfil their promise to level up this country, as the Prime Minister regularly repeats, the centre will have to transfer substantial powers and financial autonomy to cities and regions outside the south-east. The Prime Minister waffles on about promoting the Anglo-Saxon model of democracy across the world, yet, around us, this country is moving towards a constitutional crisis. Our voters are increasingly disillusioned with all parties. Ministers are attempting to bully the Electoral Commission and to raise sharply the limit for campaign spending. The Prime Minister has misused the royal prerogative against Parliament and overridden the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Scotland and Northern Ireland are beginning to move away from the union. Against that challenge, this modest improvement in funds transferred to West Yorkshire, with a mayor whose voice is likely to count for little at the centre, deserves, at best, a lukewarm welcome.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the Grand Committee to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I am pleased that the order is before the Grand Committee today. It is progress in delivering another devolution deal, as the Government like to call them, but several issues need raising. I do not like this odd patchwork which the Government seem so keen on, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, will recall my many interventions in this regard. There is also the issue of where we go forward with this type of model in Yorkshire as a whole, and then there is the question of the powers and the small sums of money that accompany this type of arrangement.
But before I comment on any of that, I pay tribute to Mark Burns-Williamson OBE, the police and crime commissioner for West Yorkshire. He will be standing down when his term comes to an end, as this deal transfers the office and powers of the police and crime commissioner to the new mayor of West Yorkshire. Mark has done an excellent job since his election as the PCC in 2012, and prior to that he served as the chair of the West Yorkshire Police Authority and as an elected councillor.
Looking at this model, I am not sure how much power is devolved, and it feels a lot like the powers that the former West Yorkshire County Council had prior to its abolition in 1986. That is not a view that only I have expressed; I saw that Michael Meadowcroft, the former Liberal MP for Leeds West, had the same view. I also think that at least 20 of the 22 authorities in Yorkshire have expressed support for the One Yorkshire model, which the Government will have to address at some point. This feels to me like a very temporary arrangement.
I am very much in support of proper devolution of power, and this is something the Government will have to focus on if they want to keep the United Kingdom intact. That means giving up power at the centre and giving it to the regions and nations that make up the United Kingdom, but I do not feel that they are ready to do that yet.
The sums of money on offer are also very small— £38 million is all that is actually on offer—and it will cause significant problems for whoever is elected as the first Mayor of West Yorkshire. I hope that it will be my honourable friend in the other place, Tracy Brabin—the Member for Batley and Spen who is the Labour and Co-operative candidate for West Yorkshire—but whoever is elected, I wish them well in this important role.
I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in looking forward to the leader of Leeds City Council, my friend councillor Judith Blake, joining the Labour Benches in the next few weeks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised important points about the consultation. Again, I have raised these points many times before. If you look at the number of people who engage in these consultations, they are small—I think it was 4,000 people, but 2.5 million people live in this area. These are very small numbers to gauge, and the Government must look better at how to get more consultation. As I said, all that is guaranteed is funding of £38 million a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and my noble friend Lord Adonis raised the issue of why the planning infrastructure powers have not been devolved, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, can give us a full response there. I also agree with the concerns raised by a number of noble Lords about the issue of HS2 and the eastern leg possibly being dropped or delayed. That would do immense damage. I lived for many years in the East Midlands, and the thought that the eastern part of our country will not get the same attention as the western part is, I think, of concern to many noble Lords.
My noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton raised again the issue of the practicality of the elections and the count afterwards. I hope the noble Lord will take these points back to his colleagues in government and make some clear announcements urgently, because otherwise it risks another shambles, with last-minute panic changes. Thinking particularly about the count, that was a really important point my noble friend raised; I tabled some parliamentary Questions on these issues yesterday. We have to get this right, because there would be no point announcing these things if the elections are postponed at the last minute. Candidates, councils and returning officers need to know what is going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right about the east-west connectivity in terms of Leeds and Bradford. They desperately need a mass transit system to deliver that.
In conclusion, it is good as far as it goes, and, in that sense, I will support the order before the Grand Committee today. However, major issues have been raised by a number of noble Lords which we need to look at as we move forward. This certainly cannot be seen as the end; it can only be the start of a process to level up our country.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very constructive debate this evening involving thoughtful contributions from real experts—two former leaders of Sheffield City Council and a former leader of Kirklees Council. I will take the opportunity to respond to some of the points raised.
All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is that the English devolution and local recovery White Paper will come forward in due course, and I am sure that will be clarified. I accept his support and that of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for this devolution, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who I think gave half a loaf of support. I also accept the lukewarm support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy; that is better than no support at all.
Turning to an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Bourne and others, on 29 October 2020 the consultation on the Planning for the Future White Paper closed, having received 40,000 responses, which are currently being considered. Should legislation be required following consideration of these responses, we will look to bring that forward in the autumn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised a number of issues about the difficulties of holding elections, which were also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The Prime Minister has been very clear that postponing elections needs a high bar. The legislation clearly provides for the elections to take place in May, and that remains the position, although it will be kept under review. Advice will be provided to returning officers to ensure that polling stations are safe and Covid secure for voting, and we are considering options to support voters who are instructed to self-isolate shortly before or on the day of the poll.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the approach and asked whether there are options. The approach was that of a consultation, and there were some 4,000 responses—the largest number to any combined authority consultation of this kind. In fact, the Consultation Institute gave a commendation of good practice to the combined authority that carried out the consultation.
I also point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the London Assembly model is the only one that has a level of government above the level of councils with responsibility for asking questions of the mayor. What we have here is the norm: a combined authority where local government—the five councils, in this case—is hard-wired in with the mayor and the mayoral combined authority. That operates very successfully in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and all the other places where we have mayoral combined authorities. London is a unique model in having a tier of government that gets to ask questions of the mayor. Personally, I am not sure that that is the way to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, showed his strong support for single strategic authorities. It is well known that if you devolve clearly and effectively to a single decision-maker in the form of a mayor and they cover a functional economic area, that has huge benefits in driving the performance of a particular region—in this case, a city region. We continue to develop that. City region-type devolution now covers 41% of English residents, and that is a substantial figure to build upon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of adult education, which enables the West Yorkshire Combined Authority to develop the skills that local employers need, reducing skills shortages, boosting productivity and economic prosperity and improving well-being in communities.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that regional transport decisions are devolved to the mayor. It is not the case that we will ever see national infrastructure devolved, although strategic planning and the strategic infrastructure levy will begin to operate when the position on planning reform is clear. We are committed to phase 2b of High Speed 2 and I am happy to recommit to our commitment, if that will help in any way.
This order, which is widely welcomed by the people of West Yorkshire, is a significant development for the city region and will make a significant contribution to the future prosperity of West Yorkshire, enabling it to action vital economic recovery following this Covid-19 pandemic. I commend the order to the Committee.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to just two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Housebuilding
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of houses being built.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I point to my residential and commercial interests as set out in the register. The Government are committed to supporting the supply of new homes; we delivered around 244,000 last year, the highest number in more than 30 years. We are bringing forward an ambitious nearly £20 billion investment that will include over £12 billion for affordable housing over five years and more than £7 billion to both unlock new land through the provision of infra- structure and to diversify the market through our national homebuilding fund. Alongside our reforms to the planning system, this will deliver the new homes the country needs.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) (V)
While I welcome what has been done, does the Minister agree that we need something on a much larger scale—a Beveridge-scale programme for new affordable housing? That would provide the jobs needed for those who have possibly lost their jobs because of the pandemic. I would also suggest that there should be a Minister at Cabinet level with just one job—a Minister for housing. We should also co-operate with the Ministers for housing in Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff. I hope that he will agree with that and help to put it into operation.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I would point out that housing is a devolved matter and I am not looking to tie the hands of the Prime Minister in how he prioritises this. I would also point out that we need to be very clear about the levers that the Government have to deliver new housing. The most important of those is the investment in infrastructure and the very substantial £12 billion commitment to affordable homes.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (V)
My Lords, I declare non-financial interests in various Church lands through numerous charities of which I am a member. The Church will be publishing a housing, church and communities report in February. Can the Minister tell us what criteria Her Majesty’s Government use to define affordable housing? Is it genuinely affordable in the sense that most people would use the word?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The definition of “affordable” that we use is taxpayer-subsidised housing. Of course, that is council housing as well as housing association and social housing but, importantly, it is housing that takes you on a pathway to home ownership—so it is immediate housing that is also discounted by the taxpayer.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) (V)
My Lords, home ownership is a huge contributor to a prosperous and contented society, and I am glad to see the Minister’s focus on this. What is the gross number of new homes that were built last year? I am not sure about the basis for the figure of 244,000 that he mentioned. How many were in existing buildings such as pubs, offices or shops?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the gross figure for additional dwellings was 252,790. That figure was obtained by adding 243,770 net additional dwellings to 9,000 demolitions. Some 26,930 gains were made through change of use.
Lord Best (CB) (V)
I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on his appointment of a Church of England bishop for housing; that is a most helpful move. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to accept the excellent recommendations made by Sir Oliver Letwin to get more homes built by ending our dependence on the oligopoly of major housebuilders who corner the land market and build out at a speed that suits themselves? Instead, we should capture the land value through local authorities and thus ensure the building simultaneously of a variety of new homes, including social housing and retirement housing and so on, for every major site.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, there is a great deal of sense in that question. I would point out that the proposals to revise the National Planning Policy Framework make it clear that sites for substantial development should seek to include a variety of development types from different builders.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) (V)
My Lords, many charitable housing providers such as almshouses—for which I am an ambassador—are very small and are not included with regulated social housing providers, so will the Government review Section 106 of the planning guidance to extend its benefits and allow almshouses and other charitable providers to extend their housing provision?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The use of Section 106 is a very important driver of the delivery of affordable housing. Perhaps I might take that point away and respond in writing.
Lord Hussain (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware of many local authorities such as Luton—my home town—which do not have much building land within their own boundaries; their housing waiting lists continue to run into thousands. In order to meet local needs, can he tell us how the Government plan to help such local authorities acquire land from neighbouring councils to build much-needed affordable social housing?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have pointed to a substantial amount of money—£12 billion—of which £11.2 billion is for the affordable homes programme. In addition, we have announced a new, £7.1 billion fund, which is designed to help precisely with land acquisition and to deal with the requisite infrastructure to enable the housing that the noble Lord describes.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, small and medium housebuilders who build most of the existing housing stock have practically ceased to exist in the last few decades, in part because of the cost, time and risk involved in obtaining planning permission. Does my noble friend agree that there is a case for exempting small builders developing small sites from the need for planning permission, subject only to a pre-published design code?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right that we are seeing the level of planning regulation deter small builders. It is important that, as part of our reform of the planning system, the Government take that into account and find ways to, let us say, level up the field to let the small players participate in the market and therefore deliver on the small sites the new homes that this country needs.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I speak as a vice-president of the LGA. With government targets continuously missed, the last time anywhere near 300,000 homes a year were built, councils contributed more than 40% of them. So the only way the Government could get back to building at this scale would be by supporting councils to build homes. What steps therefore are the Government taking to help local authorities build the homes they need to build?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, achieving the highest housebuilding target in over 30 years is a credible achievement. There is no doubt that the 300,000 target will be stretching, particularly in the light of the national Covid emergency. We will rely on councils to build; we have released the constraints on local authority finance and the ability to borrow, as well as providing a huge £12.2 billion programme for affordable house- building.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, these questions have been focused entirely on the supply of housing, but the future demand for housing is surely a key aspect. Is the Minister aware of the latest ONS household projections for England? They show that, over the next 20 years, just over half the extra homes needed for our projected population growth will be the result of immigration; that is, nearly 300 new homes every day. Surely we need action on demand as well as on supply.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is important that we think about both the demand and the supply of homes, but it is also important that we attract global talent to this country. It is about getting that right—but I am not the Minister for immigration policy.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, more than 1 million homes that have been given planning permission over the last decade are yet to be built. Does my noble friend agree that, for the Government to meet their aspirations on the number of new homes being built, giving councils tools to encourage developers to build on sites with permission would enable building in a swift and timely manner?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend will know that the Government want to see new homes built faster and to a higher-quality standard. Our planning White Paper proposes to introduce more speed and certainty into the planning system through the granting of automatic outline consents for growth areas. This will ensure that developers, authorities and communities can have greater clarity at an early stage of the process and will reduce unnecessary delays as those developments progress.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: Night-time Economy
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the restrictions put in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic on (1) the income of businesses working in, and (2) jobs related to, the night-time economy; and what steps they are taking to address any such impact.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interest as chairman of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The night-time economy includes businesses operating between 6 pm and 6 am and is therefore very broad. BEIS and DCMS sponsor the hospitality, entertainment, arts and culture sectors, all of which play a significant role in the night-time economy. Over the course of the pandemic, the Government have worked closely with businesses from across these sectors to understand their concerns, and have responded with £280 billion of funding to support businesses, retain jobs and provide support on backdated rents.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer and for the support that the sector has received. I am delighted that he recognises the contribution that the night-time economy makes, in billions of pounds of revenue—in its heyday—and in accounting for 8% of the national workforce, with a high proportion of young people employed. Will he work closely with the Treasury to ensure that, going forward, specific support can be targeted on the fixed costs of those working in the night-time economy, such as rent, insurance, electricity and water, which amount to 15% of their turnover? To date, little targeted help in that regard has been given; this would be very warmly received and would ensure a return to a sustainable and vibrant future as soon as businesses are allowed to reopen.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes some important points. We will of course work closely with the Treasury, as always. The support package that the Government have put in place is designed to help businesses with their fixed costs. It includes the business rates holiday, the job retention scheme and various grants, and introduces a moratorium on the eviction of commercial tenants. The Government keep all these support measures under constant review.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the night-time economy also generates employment for freelance and self-employed musicians, actors and technicians. It is clear that DCMS funding for established building-based clients is not reaching this group, over half of whom have reported receiving no support. Will the Minister work with colleagues in DCMS to ensure that this issue is resolved quickly and for the future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point, as he so often does. The Government recognise the important role that freelancers, including musicians, play in the night-time economy. That is why we have put the Self-employment Income Support Scheme in place. We have funded Arts Council England to provide £26 million to support over 8,200 creative people. We have provided £6 million in benevolent funds to make direct awards, reaching almost 3,500 people so far, but of course we need to look at what more we can do to help.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the night-time economy is essential to any city or town in the United Kingdom. Hospitality is a critical source of employment, particularly of young people starting out in life. Today, it is the highest unemployment sector. Successful theatres, pubs and restaurants contribute considerable amounts to the Exchequer every year. Does the Minister agree with me that there are also important and immeasurable social, mental and physical health benefits to the nation from people enjoying social interaction, which is clearly evidenced by its unhappy absence over the last 12 months?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do agree with the noble Lord. The night-time economy generates around £66 billion in UK revenues. It employs 1.3 million people, across a wide range of businesses, so the points that he has made are well received.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
I wonder if my noble friend could update the House on the progress of the £1.57 billion Culture Recovery Fund, which was announced by the Government and is most welcome; I congratulate the Government. Does he agree with me that this sector of our economy is important not just economically, with 1.3 million people estimated to be employed, but culturally, socially and health-wise?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend is correct. The Culture Recovery Fund is delivered through Arts Council England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Historic England and the British Film Institute. It covers charitable and private organisations of all sizes, in the arts, museums and heritage sectors, as well as music venues, festivals and independent cinemas. The Government continue to work closely with each of these sectors to understand what further support we can provide.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-chair of the APPG for the Night-Time Economy. In 2019, the annual revenue budget for the night-time economy nationally was £66 billion. Comparatively, the fishing industry, in 2018, was worth £784 million to the economy. That is about £60 billion less a year. Could the Minister explain, in pure economic terms, why people are asking me why the night-time economy has been abandoned by this Government in favour of protecting the fishing industry? Minister, I like fish, but not at the expense of Ronnie Scott’s or the Band on the Wall in Manchester or thousands of other venues now on their knees. Many thousands of jobs are predicted to go permanently in our sector, if more financial support is not immediately forthcoming.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not sure of the point that the noble Lord is making. It is not a choice of one or the other. Of course the fishing industry is important, but the night-time economy is vital also. I outlined earlier the many steps that we are taking to help them.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, black cabs and licensed Hackney carriage drivers are essential to the night-time economy. Is my noble friend familiar with offers from black cabs in London and licensed hackney carriage owners throughout the country to assist in the Government’s response to the pandemic? What consideration have the Government given to this offer, specifically to deliver the pandemic vaccination programme?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Not just black cabs but various private hire companies have offered to help. I will certainly pass on those comments to my colleague, Minister Zahawi, who is responsible for the vaccination programme.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
Although the Chancellor’s support for the arts, already mentioned, has been vital and is much appreciated, I know that the Government accept that many freelancers, particularly musicians, have fallen through the support network if they have failed to qualify for universal credit or the SEISS. I wonder if the Minister and his colleagues could look at some kind of register, through the auspices of agencies such as the Musicians’ Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians, to identify and assist cases of real hardship, at a time when musicians cannot work and some are in dire straits.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I understand his concerns. In my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I outlined the support that we are providing to the sector, but I am sure that my colleagues in DCMS will work closely with the sector to understand its concerns and see what more we can do to help.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, UK Music tells us that almost three-quarters of musicians are thinking of quitting due to the drop in income and opportunities. The legendary rock drummer Bob Henrit says that we are in danger of losing a whole generation of talent. Are the Government happy about losing the tax revenues that these people are likely to generate in the future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, of course we are not happy about it. We are not happy about any of the measures that have we have been forced to put in place because of the pandemic. We want to see these venues reopening, as soon as it is safe.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, live events are a significant aspect of the night-time economy. The need for a Government-backed insurance scheme to protect organisations against the cancellation of events due to Covid cannot be emphasised enough. Many organisations, including festivals, cannot survive much longer without such insurance, which has been granted to the film and TV sector.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I outlined the support packages earlier. We want to take into account the concerns of many sectors, such as those that the noble Earl highlights. We will keep these matters under review and my colleagues in DCMS will continue to liaise closely with the sector.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl) [V]
The night-time economy accounts for 8% of the UK’s employment, with revenues of £66 billion a year. Perhaps less well known is that 18% of the black community work at night, compared to 11% of the white community. Bearing in mind that Covid appears to have more of an adverse effect on the black community, what progress are the Government making into researching the reasons for this racial disparity?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is tempting me to stray into matters beyond my brief. I know that considerable research is going on, from funding provided by the DHSC, to ascertain the precise impacts of the virus on different communities. The noble Lord is entirely right that the night-economy time is vital to the black community. Within the night-time economy, the hospitality sector alone employs around 2 million people, with 7% more BAME employees than the UK average of 12%. As I outlined earlier, we have taken steps to try to preserve as many of these jobs as possible.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the third Oral Question.
Television Licence Evasion
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation to decriminalise television licence evasion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s response to the consultation states that
“decriminalisation will remain under active consideration while more work is undertaken to understand the impact of alternative enforcement schemes.”
We remain concerned that a criminal sanction for TV licence evasion is increasingly disproportionate and unfair in a modern public service broadcasting system. However, we recognise that changing the sanction would have wide-ranging impacts for licence fee payers and has the potential for significantly higher fines and costs for the small minority who evade.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister repeated what the Secretary of State said last week—that he remained
“concerned that a criminal sanction for TV licence evasion is increasingly disproportionate and unfair in a modern public service broadcasting system.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/20; col. 48WS.]
How then can the Minister possibly justify the continued harassment, intimidation and bullying by Capita of the many elderly, vulnerable households just trying to survive in the midst of a pandemic? Is it not time that the Government recognised that older people are turning off the BBC, younger people have never even turned it on, and the licence fee itself represents a bygone age and should be abolished and replaced by a choice-based alternative?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness covers a number of points. On her first point, I absolutely sympathise with the issue she raises, although we have to recognise that the BBC is independent in the way that it enforces and collects the licence fee, and that levels of evasion are the lowest in Europe.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, as so often, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right. I am glad that the Minister agrees that a criminal sanction, including cases of imprisonment for TV licence evasion, is disproportionate. Does she agree that it is regrettable that we live in an age where some 91 people have been given custodial sentences for failing to pay fines in respect of the non- payment of TV licences in recent years, and that a change to a civil penalty system should take place now, rather than wait until the licence fee review is completed?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The figures that my noble friend refers to—the 91 people receiving a custodial sentence—are for the period 2015-18, and those numbers have declined significantly in recent years. In relation to a civil sanction, it needs to be sufficiently robust to underpin the legal requirement to hold a TV licence, and, as I mentioned, it might result in higher financial penalties. We are keeping this matter open for further review.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, in recent times we have seen a rapid decline in the funding of one of our greatest achievements as a country, admired and envied the world over: British public service broadcasting. Over the past 15 years, investment in original UK production has been cut by 30%. Does the Minister accept that addressing this massive decline should be top of the agenda when the BBC’s licence fee is soon reviewed?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. In the review of the licence fee—which, as he knows, we are committed to until 2027—a very wide range of issues will be taken into account, including, of course, the importance of our independent production sector. As he understands better than I, it has been enormously successful and vibrant, thanks to a great deal of other investment as well as that from the BBC.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say why on earth the Government intend to keep decriminalisation under consideration in the 2022-27 licence fee discussion? This is really perverse, since the Perry review said the current system of sanctions is “fair and proportionate” and that civil-based systems were not a viable alternative. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of those consulted recently opposed it. Does the Minister not agree that this is a distraction from the important reform agenda that the BBC is adopting?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that there is a very important reform agenda. In their responses, the general public were roughly split evenly; those reporting through campaign groups were definitely —though I see the noble Baroness is shaking her head —in favour of the status quo. But we will not allow this to distract us; there is a great deal of effort going into looking at the current reform programme at the BBC.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is time to stop raiding the BBC licence fee for worthy causes when such actions do irreparable damage to the BBC’s capacity to maintain its support of our creative industries? Would the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, not be better employed supporting the charity StepChange in its campaign to have Clause 34 in the upcoming Financial Services Bill 2019-21, which gives statutory support and advice to those who get into debt?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, there is no raid going on of the BBC; quite the reverse. We are working towards much more transparency around the licence fee settlement and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to the director-general of the BBC asking for a breakdown of spend against the five charter purposes, so that we can work with a transparent and clear focus.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, last week’s announcement heaps uncertainty and unfairness on the BBC as it keeps the threat of a further loss of revenue in play, instead of following the clear message from the recent consultation and the Perry review that the current system is the most effective of the available options. Can the Minister confirm that no further action will be taken in this area until agreement has been reached between the Government and the BBC on the licence fee level for the remainder of the charter period?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Perhaps it would help if I quote directly from the Government’s response to the consultation in relation to the noble Lord’s valid and important point. We said that:
“The government considers that a future decision on decriminalising TV licence evasion would benefit from a clearer picture on the wider drivers of BBC income in the face of market and other trends.”
So, we need a rounded picture of those issues on which to take a decision.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
Do the Government agree that legislation decriminalising TV licence evasion would, in practice, render paying for a licence optional and constitute a halfway house towards getting rid of the licence?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not entirely agree with my noble friend but he is right that it risks sending the wrong signal to the very small minority who seek to evade payment. We feel that it is more constructive to look at ways in which the BBC can support those on low incomes to pay the licence fee.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB) [V]
Can the Minister confirm that the DCMS response to the decriminalisation of the licence fee found that, as of 20 June 2020, there were zero people in prison for failing to pay the fine in respect of non-payment of the TV licence in England and Wales? Can she also confirm that the National Debtline advice to people who do not pay fines is that only in the most serious cases of non-payment and after every avenue is exhausted can a judge then send them to prison?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Viscount is right —my notes say 30 June rather than 20 June, but we will not argue about that. In relation to his second point, that is absolutely correct; about 0.6% of those non-payers were prosecuted, which is the lowest in Europe.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. Lord Morris? No, he is not here. I call the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, over the last few months the Rupert Murdoch-owned radio station talkRADIO has been using its broadcasting licence to wage war against the BBC licence fee and its collection. Last week saw a particularly egregious example, which was blatant and inaccurate propaganda, designed to pursue commercial self-interest. Does the Minister agree that if it is to maintain its reputation as the guardian of impartiality and accuracy in broadcasting, Ofcom should investigate and act?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right that it is absolutely Ofcom’s responsibility to address issues such as the one he has just raised.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Workers’ Rights
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review workers’ rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, there is no government plan to reduce workers’ rights. The UK has one of the best employment rights records in the world, and it is well known that in many areas of worker protections the UK goes much further than the EU. Now that we have left the EU, our Government and Parliament can decide what rules should apply and make improvements where they are needed.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
The Government took power in the Brexit deal to degrade workers’ rights. On 14 January, the FT reported that
“a package of deregulatory measures”
was being drawn up, particularly in relation to working time. Apparently,
“select business leaders have been sounded out on the plan.”
The review was confirmed in the other place on 19 January. Yesterday and today, any intention to reduce workers’ rights was denied. What is the scope of the review, who is being consulted, why are the TUC and trade unions excluded, and what of the employment Bill?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can only reiterate the Answer I just gave: there is no government plan to reduce workers’ rights. Our manifesto promised, among other things, to get Brexit done and to maintain the existing level of protection for workers provided by our laws and regulations.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
Surprisingly, it did not take long after Brexit for the Government to consider shredding the working time directive, which deals with maximum hours, rest breaks and, importantly, minimum holidays. Instead of making vulnerable workers more vulnerable, when will the Government tackle abuses in the labour market, such as the growth of one-sided zero-hours contracts and other exploitative measures? These should be the priority targets, not attacks on workers’ established rights.
Lord Callanan (Con)
There is no plan to make vulnerable workers more vulnerable, as he put it. The House should be in no doubt that the Government will always stand behind workers and continue to stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.
Lord Fox (LD) [V]
My Lords, I know of no business organisation calling for the Government to cut back workers’ rights, but no matter how much the Minister protests, the Government did sound the working time dog whistle to Back-Bench Tories. Business are calling for help to retain and recruit people through, for example, a cut in employers’ national insurance contributions. Will the Minister undertake to redirect the activities of his department to ensure that the Treasury brings in this vital support to our businesses?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord is well aware that I cannot speculate on tax changes. They are a matter for the Chancellor. I would get myself into serious bother if I tried to pre-empt what he might decide to do.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in many areas, the United Kingdom goes further than the European Union on workers’ protections?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed, my noble friend is correct. Our equalities legislation and our maternity and paternity entitlements are already much better than minimum EU standards. In the UK you get over five weeks’ annual leave minimum; the EU requires only four weeks. I do not understand the Opposition’s obsession with wanting to downgrade our standards to those of the EU.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations have preserved the terms and conditions of many employees who find themselves working for a new employer after a transfer of business. With very many more businesses likely to change hands due to the effects of Covid, does the Minister believe that the TUPE rules are still fit for purpose?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for confirming that the Government have no plans to weaken employment rights. This will be a great relief to many people across the country. However, what about levelling up? Does he agree that there is still work to be done on, for example, the Taylor review, which is yet to be completed; the protections needed for employees on zero-hours contracts, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monks; the differences in rights between workers and employees; and the continuing need for vigilance about non-payment of the minimum wage?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will of course always clamp down on unscrupulous practices where they occur, including on those who do not pay the minimum wage. I am proud that it was a Conservative Government who banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, giving gig economy workers more control over the hours that they work. We will look to go further where we can.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Fox said, there is no business demand for weakening job protections, but they would be severely hit by even worse border friction and possible tariffs. Can the Minister say how, in their review of employment rights, the Government are assessing the potential for EU trade sanctions under the level playing field provisions of the trade and co-operation agreement? Also, the tweet from the Conservative Party impliedly criticising the EU law for having no pay provisions is, as he knows, completely disingenuous, because the treaties bar the EU from having such provisions. The Conservatives would have been the first to complain if the treaty had such provisions.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am surprised that the noble Baroness is asking about the trade and co-operation agreement, because the Liberal Democrats voted against it and therefore would have preferred no deal, but it is the case that, under that trade agreement with the EU, either party can consider whether divergence on labour standards merits a rebalancing of the agreement. We will of course completely comply with our obligations, as we do under all trade agreements.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
When I spoke at the rally at Staythorpe power station in 2009, it was European Union law that allowed foreign workers to be flown in and put in containers, stopping British workers getting those jobs. Why are the Government not changing our law to prohibit this undercutting of workers’ rights?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed, the noble Lord makes an important point, but these are all now matters that we can decide for ourselves. Immigration laws are, of course, kept under review, and the new immigration Act will be in force shortly, but we are now allowed to decide these things for ourselves. The EU will no longer be dictating to us how we conduct our own affairs.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that responsible trade unionism is valuable in protecting workers’ rights? However, clearly from time to time the law needs updating, possibly in the way referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mann. The Minister will know that in 13 years of Labour Governments none of the basic reforms of the Conservative Government who preceded them was repealed. Will the Minister argue for reforms that will be similarly widely accepted?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. We remember that when we served in the European Parliament we were lobbied many times by UK Labour Governments to try to maintain existing flexibilities in the working time directive and others. Hopefully the Labour Party will return to that path of common sense soon. It is also important to bear in mind that most workers are not members of trade unions. We need to consult with trade unions where they represent workers but to bear in mind the rights of workers who are not represented by trade unions.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Covid pandemic has severely tested the strengths and weaknesses of workers’ rights and found them to be wanting in recognising the importance of childcare to family and national well-being. We have seen some employers using the pandemic as an excuse to fire workers and then re-engage them on lower pay and conditions. Does the Minister agree that strengthening and enhancing workers’ rights is important in increasing productivity and national prosperity?
Lord Callanan (Con)
In our manifesto we promised that we would enhance workers’ rights where it was appropriate to do so, and we stick by that commitment. I think the noble Lord makes some important points.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are suffering the worst pandemic for a century. Now as much as ever the employment rights of workers who keep the economy going need to be protected. Will the Minister condemn employers who take advantage of the situation and tactics such as fire-and-hire, and commit the Government to a review of such pernicious practices?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand that ACAS is currently conducting a review and, of course, the Government will listen carefully to any recommendations it makes. We want to provide support to employees at such a time, but we also need to recognise the very difficult time that many businesses and companies are going through at this unprecedented time during the pandemic.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, which brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I thought this would be a convenient point to confirm the plan for the February half-term recess. There will be written confirmation of this in the Royal Gallery and in tomorrow’s Forthcoming Business. Subject, as is always the case, to the progress of business, we will rise for half-term at the conclusion of proceedings on Thursday 11 February and return on Monday 22 February. I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to announce any further recess dates. I understand that certainty in respect of Easter would be welcome at the earliest opportunity, not least by the staff of the House, who continue to support us with such skill and dedication. I will make a further announcement as soon as I am able to.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Serious Criminal Cases Backlog
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, by 2010 the system did 150,000 jury trials a year with about 47,000 waiting, about 30%. The median period between crime and court disposal was 240 days. By the time the pandemic started in March last year, jury trials were down to 100,000 a year with a median delay of 305 days, so fewer trials and longer waits. Now there are 54,000 cases awaiting a jury trial and rising. No one can blame the courts for Covid. The judges, court staff, defence and prosecutors have done bravely and well but the Ministry of Justice has overpromised and underdelivered. It said that there would be 200 Nightingale courts in which jury trials could be done; there are 20. Some 600 people in the last seven weeks have got Covid, from judges to court staff. There is no systematic testing. We have not made the necessary changes to preserve jury trials. What is the target for getting the backlog down and how is it going to be achieved?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord fails to put this information in context. In the Crown Court, prior to the Covid pandemic hitting in March last year, the outstanding caseload was 39,000, which was well within the range of 33,000 to 55,000 over the last decade. Immediately before the pandemic hit, we had increased the number of sitting days in response to an incoming demand on the courts. He will be aware that we have taken various steps to ensure that delays are minimised. However, I agree with him on one point: that we should pay tribute to the judges, magistrates, jurors, witnesses, victims, lawyers, court staff, CPS staff and, if I may say so, MoJ officials who have made a monumental effort to deliver justice in very challenging times.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
With respect to the answer just given by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State’s response last week was complacent and lacked urgency. The four chief inspectors of probation, police, prisons and the CPS came together to produce a joint crisis report, expressing their grave concern about the “unprecedented and very serious” backlog of Crown Court trials—54,000-odd cases with trials scheduled into 2022—and the disastrous effects of these delays on victims, witnesses, youth offending teams, defendants and prosecutors. As long ago as July last year Caroline Goodwin, then chair of the Criminal Bar Association, pleaded with the Government to
“get serious and open up 50 more buildings and focus on criminal trials.”
Now many more are needed, along with much more funding to stave off collapse. Yes, efforts have been made and in difficult circumstances, but why the self-congratulation? Where is the urgency? What are the Government now going to do?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that there is no complacency whatever. In fact, in September we published a crime recovery plan to which members from all groups involved in the criminal courts contributed. That plan was put together after significant consultation and collaboration. It is now being implemented. We now have more rooms for jury trials. We have plexiglass to enable social distancing and are using Nightingale courts including, I am pleased to say, St George’s Hall in Liverpool, where I first saw justice in action. We are exceeding the goals in the plan. The target was 250 courts safe for jury trials by October; we have exceeded that number and are improving the position yet further.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome my noble friend from the next-door chambers to mine in the Middle Temple, both to this House and to his place in government. Will he accept that the £250 million in court recovery money mentioned in the Answer to the Urgent Question is not new money but reannounced expenditure? Does he also agree that it might be more useful if we were told how many courtrooms were not being used at all, compared to the limited number of Nightingale courts in operation that cannot anyway deal with dangerous defendants on remand in custody —for example those on charges of homicide or rape?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the MoJ has invested record amounts. There was an investment of £142 million to improve courts, tribunals, buildings and technology. That was, in fact, the single biggest investment in court estate maintenance for more than 20 years. Of course we will build on that, but it would be fair to say that everybody is doing their best in extremely challenging circumstances.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, any backlog in the criminal justice system is worrying because it results in delays, and delays breed delays and result in injustice. They must not be allowed to fester because of the damage they can do to the justice system as a whole. This backlog is especially worrying because of its scale, its subject matter and because it is no doubt substantially due to Covid. What is required is a concerted effort to tackle the backlog and stop it festering and growing further out of control. There needs to be a plan to which all the criminal justice agencies sign up, including the Government, the judiciary and prosecution and defence lawyers, properly resourced to tackle the backlog as a matter of urgency. The Minister seems to suggest that there is such a plan. If so, when does he expect to see an improvement in the current situation and how is the plan being implemented?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, there is such a plan. I refer the noble and learned Lord to the answer I gave a few moments ago about the crime recovery plan that we set out in September last year. He is certainly correct: there is an old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. We are working very hard to make sure that there are no greater delays than those necessarily caused by the circumstances in which we are living.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I draw attention to my interest on the register as the Anglican bishop for Her Majesty’s prisons. The backlog of cases has a serious impact on offenders, victims and witnesses. On top of this, projections from the Ministry of Justice show that the prison population is expected to jump to almost 100,000 in 2026, which adversely affects prison staff as well as prisoners. Does the Minister agree that resources could be better spent on police-led diversion work and community-based provision, which could start now?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, when looking at the criminal justice system, I agree that it is mistake just to think about courts, sentencing and prisons. One has to look at it in a broader and wider context. To that extent, the points that the right reverend Prelate makes are well made.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is clearly no quick fix for a backlog of this magnitude, but will the Government consider extending to other witnesses the existing provisions under Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act? These currently enable vulnerable witnesses to record their evidence and be cross-examined away from the courtroom at an early stage before trial. That recording can be replayed later at trial, with the result that evidence is not forgotten and footfall at court is usually reduced when the case finally gets to trial.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. This Government have taken a number of steps to ensure that vulnerable witnesses can give evidence in that way. Indeed, noble Lords will be aware of provisions that build on that in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment. To take that point further would, I think, require more careful consideration, but I would be very happy to discuss that with the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend and the Government please understand the toll that unacceptable delays in the criminal justice system takes on even provenly innocent individuals? I know from personal experience that delays in both the trials and sentencing of those who make false accusations can drive people to consider suicide. Sadly, I know of other cases where individuals did take their lives.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct that delays in the criminal justice system can affect not only the defendant but others involved, including victims and witnesses. The listing of cases is ultimately a matter for the judiciary, not the Executive, so I am limited in what I can say. However, I can confirm, for example, that at the moment the majority of cases where a defendant is in custody have been listed for trial before July 2021.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, are the Government considering two possible steps that would help to reduce the unacceptable backlog of cases in the Crown Courts? The first is to reduce the number of jurors to, say, seven, making it easier to ensure social distancing in court rooms, and the second is to allow defendants who are legally represented to choose trial by judge alone in some categories of cases where juries are currently required?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, trial by jury is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this jurisdiction. With the support of Public Health England and Public Health Wales, we have made adjustments to more than 290 court rooms and jury deliberation rooms so as to facilitate trial by jury. Reducing the size of the jury is therefore unlikely to free up an additional amount of space for jury trials, and it would also require primary legislation. As to the other point that the noble Lord makes about trial by judge alone, that would, I think, require a significant change in our criminal justice system, and therefore very careful consideration would be required before embarking on that change.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, unfortunately, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I will pause a moment or two for those who wish to escape the Chamber and those who wish to come in.
Skills for Jobs White Paper
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this White Paper—it is not often that I say that—and I am glad that the Government have finally recognised the importance of further and technical education, especially after a decade of cuts to the FE budget. This is particularly welcome within the current context of Covid-19, with the ONS announcing today that unemployment has risen to 5%. Many people will need to retrain to re-enter the workforce, and the Government have to act fast to address the uncertainty in our economy.
With that in mind, what sectors will be included in the lifetime skills guarantee, and how will this change depending on the needs of the economy? What support will be available to those who are already qualified to level 3 but need to train for jobs in a new industry, or those who are not qualified to level 2?
In the year when the UK is hosting COP 26, I was saddened to see that climate change is not mentioned once in the White Paper. How does it align with the UK’s net-zero target?
We also got within this package of announcements the “interim conclusion” to the Augar review, which promises four new consultations on reforms to higher education, the lifelong loan entitlement, modularisation and the TEF. When will these conclude?
The legacy of 10 years of cuts will not end with this paper, and the Association of Colleges has even said that, despite recent uplifts, funding remains inadequate. I echo that. When will the education sector be given the long-term funding settlement that it needs?
I reflect that, if Covid has taught us one thing, it is that the care sector needs more training and support. FE is well placed to upskill this sector, and I had hoped that we might have seen some specifics on how this might be achieved. That was an opportunity missed.
I also implore the Minister not to forget about universities, with many facing job cuts. Can she confirm that new support for higher education will be provided in the upcoming Budget? Given the uncertainties of the last year, this sector requires stability and commitment, so why have the Government decided to cut support for London’s world-class institutions, and why have they not given more thought to integrating support for upskilling using the university sector and getting better integration between and across the sectors?
Parity of esteem between HE and FE is long overdue, so this White Paper goes in the right direction but not far enough. Finally, when will FE stop—[Inaudible]—of our education sector and be given the long-term funding settlement that it deserves?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We lost the last part of those remarks, but I will call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
I very much welcome the Statement and the Skills for Jobs White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, we have seen further education become almost the Cinderella of the education service, and it is really welcome that at long last we are now realising its importance in terms of capital investment in plant and sites and revenue investment. However, on the latter, I ask the Minister to consider the point made by Sir Ian Diamond’s commission: that colleges need three-year grant settlements to give them room to develop and that one year is not sufficient.
As a country, we face a whole host of challenges to do with training and skills—not least the climate emergency, the effects of Brexit and changes in the world of work—and of course a demographic time bomb is ticking away, with demand outstripping the supply of young people entering the labour market. We have already seen this in sections of our economy—the construction industry, for example. It is a sobering thought that by 2030 the number of people aged 65 and above is projected to increase by 42%, while the number of those aged 14 to 64 is forecast to grow by only 3%. It is clear that we need to be nimble in how we respond to skills shortages and skills development, and not get caught up in structures.
The ambition to open funding and finance to everyone throughout their lives is welcome. Many earners face additional barriers to accessing education, so we need to ensure that finance is available to meet those demands. Why are these loans are not being introduced until 2025—and why loans, not grants? We know that adults are more averse to taking on debt. We should review the limits on accessing education and training while in receipt of universal credit, with the principle that individuals should not be penalised for engaging in education and training.
The careers service, careers advice, careers education and careers guidance should be of high quality and given face to face, not micromanaged from the top. The proposed careers hubs have to have the support and expertise that is much needed. Can the Government ensure that we look also at building the skills that are needed for the green economy? They have focused a lot of support on people who do not have level 3 qualifications, but what about those who have not completed level 2? Do the Government not accept that they, too, will need support and help?
Finally, I am attracted to the suggestion by the Association of Colleges that the Government should form a cross-departmental ministerial task force to oversee a new government 10-year strategy for education and skills to drive industrial strategy and other priorities, working with employers and other key stakeholders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for welcoming this report. It is good at this time of crisis to have good news and to know that in the past year, £600 million has been invested in the FE sector and £1.5 billion of capital is committed over the next few years.
The noble Lord correctly highlights the fact that at the moment people need to retrain, and quickly. That is why we have acted very quickly on the national skills fund so that the level 3 entitlement, which enables every adult to get their first full level 3 qualification, is in place. We have also had the first round of boot camps, which enable people to do eight-week to 12-week training courses and give them a fast-track route to an interview. We need to be nimble, which is why those initiatives have been introduced as part of the national skills fund before consultation on the rest of it is complete.
That is also why the Government will introduce local skills improvement plans and, because of the need for nimbleness in retraining, why the lifelong loan entitlement will be for four years. People who already have an undergraduate degree may then want to do a level 4 or a level 5 higher technical qualification. That will be introduced in 2025.
On conservation, I can tell the noble Lord that 400 courses have been made available under the level 3 entitlement, and they are focused on skills that we believe will lead quickly to jobs. Conservation is included in the level 3 entitlement.
The noble Lord referred to various aspects of the Augar review. Many of its recommendations have already been delivered: the level 3 entitlement; the investment in the FE estate, as I have outlined; the capital investment in new places for 16 to 19 year-olds to meet demographic changes; and the lifelong loan entitlement. There will be a consultation on other aspects of the Augar review in the spring, including the minimum entry requirements for higher education, and a full and comprehensive response to coincide with the next comprehensive spending review. Augar is a dynamic piece of work that will help us respond to the current crisis.
With regard to colleges, there will also be consultation around the need, identified in the Augar review, to consider multiyear settlements for FE colleges. We recognise that one of the issues facing them is the year-on-year funding so we are looking to address that.
On higher education funding, we are ready to implement restructuring should any of the HE sector need it, and we are closely monitoring the finances of those autonomous institutions. On the noble Lord’s point about the teaching grant, or T-grant, the other main source of income for universities, that is being redirected to strategic subjects. Obviously, these currently include subjects in the area of healthcare, but also certain arts subjects that we believe are not getting adequate funding. Those subjects are crucial to the labour market but we do not believe that the additional weighting given to London is the best way to fund that, and it is not consistent with the Government’s wider aim of levelling up different areas of the country. However, universities are dynamic partners in many of the institutes of technology which focus on STEM subjects, 11 of which are now open. It is good to see them working with the FE colleges and local employers on that initiative. There were perhaps a couple of final points from the noble Lord, but unfortunately the connection was interrupted. I apologise for missing those.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the issue of the accountability and funding of the FE sector. As I have said, we are looking into Augar’s recommendations on that, and it is also part of the remit of the FE commissioner —that role will be looking at the sustainability of the FE estate across the country, which is a vital part of reskilling people.
On the matters around the construction industry that the noble Lord raised, we have introduced a T-level in that sector, one of the first for 16 to 19 year- olds. With regard to the noble Lord’s point about demographics, he divides the population into, I think, people under and over 64, but we now know that people are working longer and their careers may involve more than one sector. Hence our concern with flexibility: levels 4 and 5 are more modular, and access to those qualifications will help people to train, and retrain, as will the four-year loan entitlement.
The noble Lord specifically raised the issue of entitlement to benefits while learning. We are alert to this issue in relation to people claiming universal credit. People can take part in eight weeks of full-time learning and maintain their entitlement to benefit, and there is no restriction on part-time learning. For people who have particular vulnerabilities and are at risk of long-term unemployment, that period of training can be longer.
On funding support, particularly for 16 to 19 year-olds, there are residential bursary funds to enable students to access specialist provision that is not available within their normal travelling range. Such funds are distributed by the FE sector. We are therefore aware of the need of those on benefits to have flexibility with regard to training. Careers advice is of course also a vital part of this package: £100 million is being invested in the careers service, much of which is targeted at face-to-face provision. Enterprise advisers are being rolled out by the Careers and Enterprise Company, which helps schools.
The noble Lord mentioned the need for net zero carbon. The Skills and Productivity Board provides a national picture of our economy. Its advice is given to the Secretary of State in accordance with the industrial strategy, so we are linking them up. At the local level, however, it is important that the local skills improvement plans will be employer-led, respond to local economic need and involve the devolved authorities. We then have a strategic development fund to enable the colleges to design the content of the courses that local employers are asking for. The overall ambition is that by 2030, almost all technical qualifications will be based on the employer-led standards that have informed the apprenticeships and the T-levels, so that the level of qualifications is high.
Finally, the noble Lord mentioned level 2 qualifications. As noble Lords will probably be aware, there is a second -stage consultation on level 3 about what qualifications we need to continue funding that are not T-levels or A-levels. There is also a call for evidence on level 2. We are particularly aware of young people who are further away and may not have got qualifications during their 11 to 16 years education and how we can enable them to get level 2 or level 3 qualifications and get on the qualifications ladder. The country needs a higher level of technical skills and enhanced respect for that sector, because men and women who have level 4 or 5 qualifications earn, on average, more than those with a level 6 undergraduate degree. This change has been overdue for decades in this country: to give as much respect to technical qualifications as we do to academic ones.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be as short and sweet as possible so that we can call as many speakers as possible. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, for the kerfuffle that led him to appear early during the discussion, and I call him now.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very disappointed that university technical colleges are not mentioned at all in the White Paper for 16 to 18. We fulfil the very first sentence of the White Paper, which reads:
“Putting employers at the heart of the system so that education and training leads to jobs that can improve productivity and fill skills gaps.”
We are supported by over 500 companies. Employers come in and teach, and they produce projects for students to work on in teams. There are 48 university technical colleges with 16,000 students, and we have the lowest level of youth unemployment of any schools in the country. To fulfil the hopes of this White Paper, we need more university technical colleges.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Baker will think that this answer is sweet for him. We as a Government support a strong cadre of university technical colleges. Indeed, one opened with the full support of the sector and the local authority in Doncaster in September. There are UTCs that Ofsted has rated as outstanding, such as the Ron Dearing UTC, and obviously that forms part of the name of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust. When there are further free school applications, we look forward to any applications that are put forward for UTCs. We want to see a strong cadre of UTCs.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, the White Paper focuses on English, STEM and digital skills, but employers and the British Chambers of Commerce also say that the UK’s deficit in foreign language skills damages the economy and inhibits recruitment across all sectors and at all levels. Languages are not just an academic discipline; they are a vital technical skill that can boost export growth and social mobility. So will the Minister agree to look at how to integrate foreign language skills into the plans for technical education and the remit of the careers hubs?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct about the importance of modern languages, which is why they are part of the English baccalaureate and why we have given £4.8 million to fund the modern foreign language pedagogy pilot, which is looking at the attainment of languages at levels 3 and 4. However, I suggest to the noble Baroness that, when employers are leading on the local skills improvement plans, if the employers in a region say, “Actually, what we need in addition to that technical skill is a language—for instance, Polish or any other language”, it is open to them to say, “This is a skill that we need in the local area.” Then, as I have said, the strategic development funds will help the colleges to have the content of courses to match that skills improvement fund. If employers need those skills, we hope to see the need for foreign languages coming in as part of many higher technical qualifications and integrate it in that way. I invite the noble Baroness to make sure that employers are doing that as these plans are developed.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s White Paper but I share some of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Bassam. Implementing many of the Augar report’s recommendations is important, although personally I think that instead of talking about loans we should be talking about a graduate tax, which is a much more progressive approach.
I have two points that I want to raise. First, there is a recognition that the Government have to increase the number of apprenticeships. If that is the case, they have to look at the application of the apprenticeship levy in a way that encourages many more SMEs to take on apprentices. At the moment SMEs are saying they find the scheme complex and an administrative burden. We need to ensure that we remove that complexity and encourage many more SMEs. Secondly, does the Minister recognise the importance of a government National Careers Service website that could become a single source of assured career information for young people and adults?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s introduction regarding apprenticeships. The levy has now been in existence for five years. It has enabled significantly more workplace-based training and, I would say, has enhanced the reputation of apprenticeships as an alternative to academic study.
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, we have offered £2,000 for any new apprenticeship start, which is for a younger person who is under the age of 24, or 25 if they have any HCP, and £1,500 for any other apprenticeship start. However, he is right that the apprenticeship service has been a work in progress. The SMEs now have access to the service via a website that should enable them to access the training that they want, rather than only being able to access training from contracts with providers that were entered into centrally. They can go on that website and reserve the training places that they want to have, and SMEs have been given a small number of guaranteed places.
We are also looking at the development of the levy and at easing the transition and the payment of the levy down the supply chain, which often involves making the levy available to small and medium-sized enterprises. We hope that the introduction of the apprenticeship service to SMEs will help with some of the bureaucratic issues that the noble Lord outlines.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in the White Paper, but why do the Government constantly betray their ignorance in claiming originality for employers being at the heart of this? Employers have always been the drivers for work- based skills and qualifications. However, as previous Governments have discovered to their cost, it is essential to have input from teaching experts, namely colleges, and assessment experts—that is, awarding bodies. I declare an interest as a vice-president of City and Guilds, for which I worked for 20 years. What input is anticipated from colleges and awarding bodies to ensure that these skills are fit for purpose?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the key aspect of this is that employers are involved in setting the standards in relation to these qualifications. They will be at the heart of producing the local skills improvement plans, but they will work with the colleges. We recognise that the status of FE employees has not perhaps been what it might have been so we are investing in that workforce, in enhanced initial teacher training for it and in industry exchanges. So while the employer-led bodies will form those plans, they will work closely with the FE colleges and I am sure they will consult the awarding bodies that the noble Baroness makes reference to.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, obviously I welcome the White Paper, but it worries me to a large extent because there must be limits to what central government can do to match the skills of people to the jobs available. Things move very fast. Throughout the White Paper, the theme emerges of what employers want. This may be strange, but I am slightly suspicious of employers and what they want. It is easily said, but who are these employers? Big ones, presumably. Who represents them? Is not the really important question: what are these employers doing to help themselves?
That brings me to the general position of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, regarding the relationship between education and training. In my opinion the White Paper is very weak on where the boundary lies between education and training. I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to think very carefully. It is not possible for any education service to make employees oven-ready for employers, as it were. They can take them so far but the employers have to do the rest. There should be a lot more concentration on the duties and responsibilities of employers for training.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there is a limit to central government, which is why the key strategy here is local skills improvement panels, working closely with colleges and the devolved authorities. That is matched by the Skills and Productivity Board, which will give a national picture. In relation to the question of who these employers are, when one looks at what is happening with apprenticeships, there are trail-blazer groups of employers. This is not just picking one person. The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education oversees these trail-blazer groups. They include small and medium-sized enterprises and we are so encouraged that, as my noble friend made reference to education and training, much more is now taking place in the workplace. When one looks at apprenticeships, one sees that they have good training in the workplace as well as time out of the workplace to do that training. There are workplace placements for T-levels as well, so that those young people have a period of weeks in the workplace. So my noble friend is right that employers have a responsibility, and that is why employer-led bodies such as chambers of commerce are going to be involved with the local skills improvement plans.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, I was a member of the Centenary Commission on Adult Education, which reported in November 2019. I welcome the Skills for Jobs White Paper. It confirms the importance of collaboration between businesses and colleges for improving people’s career prospects. Putting employers at the heart of new qualifications right across England will build on the success of these local partnerships. They will ensure courses remain in lock-step with industry need and give learners confidence they are gaining skills that lead to jobs. Would the Minster agree that new technologies mean that nine in 10 employees will need to learn new skills by 2030, and the Government commitment to delivering the flexible learner entitlement, boosting access to modular learning, is hugely welcome and will support more adults into training? Would the Minister agree that this should be backed up by turning the apprenticeship levy into a flexible skills levy at Budget?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The noble Lord is correct that one of the areas where we lack productivity and we know we have a skills gap is the digital sector. That is why digital has been a focus of those eight to 12-week bootcamps that I outlined, with a fast track to an interview. So the noble Lord is entirely right in relation to that. I will take his suggestion about the levy back to the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, as one of the few in your Lordships’ House with a Higher National Diploma qualification from a technical institution, rather than a university degree, this is an issue of great importance to me. The aspiration and language used in the ministerial Statement is to be welcomed. However, the most important aspect now is delivering on the words in the White Paper. I therefore ask the Minister: while it is right and, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Bassam, overdue that FE and apprenticeships receive additional investment, is it not a reality that universities also play a vital role in the delivery of technical skills, and that the divide between academic and technical education is far more complex than some would acknowledge? What is the Minister’s vision for a more integrated tertiary education that incentivises apprenticeship providers, FE and HE to work collaboratively to deliver choice, flexibility and clear pathways for students, young and old?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to hear the noble Lord’s own career history. I think the institutes of technology are the first examples we have of the HE sector working with the FE sector in STEM with local employers. He is right that we want to see parity of esteem, but the situation we are dealing with is that for decades this country has not been like many of our European partners in valuing these technical qualifications. That is what we need to level up at the moment. There are degree apprentices, and I believe that Minister Keegan is the only Member of the other place with a degree apprenticeship. It is important that we got T-levels validated for UCAS points, so that they are also an access point, and you will see them merging in. This is a work in progress, but the most important thing in this country is that we respect technical qualifications. That is the first job we need to do and a clear ambition of the White Paper.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I should first remind the House of my declared interests in the field of education. There is a great deal here about bootcamps to get people ready for study. I believe these are designed to help with things such as basic skills as well. Will some consideration be given to those with special educational needs in how these are structured? Anybody who was around when we did the last Education Bill knows how much time we spent making sure the dyslexics and others were allowed to actually get apprenticeships, while also having some realistic form of saying that for the English qualification you have got to get through. In this world, when we talk about technical skills, the answer is usually on a programme that is built into your computer software. That is there. Are we going to accept that that is used to acquire these skills, and will we make sure that when we are training people in technical IT skills they know how to access and integrate it?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to special educational needs, I will go back and look at that. We are into the second procurement phase of the bootcamps and I will make sure that he is given the details in relation to special educational needs. In relation to what we are trying to focus on with level 4 and 5 qualifications, employers will be in the lead on the standards. I want to be very clear to the noble Lord that if what they outline for that qualification is to give the learner the knowledge, skills and behaviours to do that job and there is no additional English and maths requirement, that will be the framework. I hope that encourages the noble Lord that it will not be the case that “You must have passed x exam”. With the employer in the lead looking at those qualifications, if they say those are the functions and what you need for the job, there is to be no additional English and maths requirement.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
I was pleased that the White Paper recognises the importance of high-quality, impartial careers advice and guidance and seeks to create a clear careers system catering for all ages. Can the Minister tell us about how the Government will bring about the proposed alignment between the Careers & Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service to achieve this, including the four principles they say they plan to follow? What plans are there to provide the funding required, so that everyone who needs it has access to qualified personal careers guidance—something notably missing from the White Paper—perhaps as part of a new lifelong careers strategy?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have outlined, there is going to be £100 million invested in the enterprise advisers—which I believe are part of the Careers & Enterprise Company—and more into National Careers Service guidance and a new website in relation to that. One must not forget as well that nearly £1 billion has been invested in work coaches at the DWP, who are also a vital part of the careers strategy.
We are aware through the Careers & Enterprise Company that, particularly in relation to technical education, it is important that local employers are brought into our schools, so that all the opportunities available, particularly careers and apprenticeships that might not be part of the secondary school workforce experience, are brought in front of young people so that they know all the options that are open to them.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this White Paper. Is it important to emphasise, using the Baker clause, that those considering their careers should be fully aware of careers open to them which do not require them to go to an academic course?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there are requirements on the local authority, and indeed on provider schools, to make sure that their young people are aware of the opportunities for them, so that if they choose to go down the route of a UTC or studio school, many of which have an entry point at 14, they are made aware of that. It is the role of the Careers & Enterprise Company to make sure that other roles and occupations are brought in front of young people, so that they know the full options before them in terms of academic and technical qualifications and career routes.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in my communities there are thousands of well-qualified young people, who have lived in the shadows of successful corporate business organisations in Canary Wharf and the City with a palpable record of providing few opportunities for work, other than in paltry numbers in the poorly paid hospitality-based sector, causing continued disparities. Therefore, I welcome the Statement and the paper and its focus on local skills improvement plans, on strengthening the statutory footing on which business organisations will be expected to participate and on improving local skills and so increase access to jobs. Given the deepening current unemployment crisis, can the Minister say what further steps the Government will take immediately to increase the number of industry and sector-based paid apprenticeships? I urge the Government to reconsider their loans into grants, if they are really serious about upskilling the population.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is inspiring to hear the noble Baroness. When one thinks about being in those parts of east London, I believe, that she makes reference to, it is interesting to look from where people live and see Canary Wharf and those buildings at the end of Whitechapel Road. From a local skills improvement plan point of view, obviously it will involve the London Mayor, but actually having those career opportunities and the local skills that are needed for those young people to access those jobs, which they can see in those institutions visible to them, is part of this strategy. We are pleased that, with the full maintenance loans that are also available, we have seen record numbers of disadvantaged students going into higher education. The largest increase has been within the British black African cohort who have been accessing universities, so we are seeing improvements there.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this question is now up. Before we move on to the next business, we will pause for a moment or two to allow people to get in and out.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, for Committee stage of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it is not possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice, either in the debate or by emailing 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.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 129-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Jan 2021)
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, in opening this debate, on the first day of Committee on this Bill, it might be sensible for me to outline our approach. This is particularly so, because I was not able to be present for the Second Reading debate on 21 September—for which I apologise but I was involved in a court hearing.
All on these Benches—and, I believe, all across the House—regard terrorist offences as particularly serious and deserving of the highest condemnation. This Bill was a response to two appalling terrorist attacks. The first was the attack in and outside Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, when Usman Khan, who had been released on licence after serving half of a 16-year sentence for terrorist offences the previous December, stabbed five people, killing two of them, after attending a prisoner rehabilitation programme, before being shot dead by police. The second was the attack on Streatham High Road in February last year, when Sudesh Amman, a terrorist who was under surveillance and had been released a month or so previously from a three year and four month prison sentence for disseminating terrorist material, stabbed and injured two people before being shot dead by police. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, rightly pointed out at Second Reading, both of those attacks were carried out by offenders who had been released half way through their sentences. The central feature of Part 1 of this responsive Bill is to make the sentencing regime tougher, both for offences that are considered by their nature to be terrorist offences and for offences deemed to have a terrorist connection.
Our concern, in considering this Bill at Committee stage, is to ensure that damage is not done, by the perceived requirement to respond severely to terrorist offences, to consistent and long-held principles of our criminal law. Clause 1, broadly, extends the range of offences that can be deemed to have a terrorist connection to include any offence, committed after the Act comes into force, that is punishable with imprisonment for more than two years. The terrorist connection need not be determined by the judge in the case of a number of specific terrorist offences listed in Schedule A1, effectively because it is presumed. Otherwise, it is for the judge to determine and state in open court that an offence has such a connection. A finding that an offence does have a terrorist connection, requires a sentencing judge to treat that terrorist connection as an aggravating factor when imposing sentence by reason of Section 69 of the Sentencing Code. For the purpose of that section, an offence has a terrorist connection if the offence
“is, or takes place in the course of, an act of terrorism; or … is committed for the purposes of terrorism.”
I note in passing that the code does not require that the offender was a knowing party to the planning, objectives or implementation of the act of terrorism, actual or intended, that was in fact committed. Furthermore—and this is our central point on Clause 1 —the decision that the offence has a terrorist connection is to be taken by the court at the sentencing stage, even though such a decision inevitably fundamentally changes the nature of the offence for which the offender has been convicted. The decision that is then made involves a factual determination of great significance to the criminality of the defendant and of the offence, yet it is taken by the judge alone without the involvement of a jury. Because the category of offences that may give rise to such a finding is so wide—that is, any offence that carries a maximum prison sentence of more than two years—the offences include a very wide range, such as causing criminal damage over £5,000, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, theft and many others, some of which would often be quite minor if committed without a terrorist connection.
Terrorism as an aggravating factor in sentencing was introduced by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. By Section 30 of that Act, where a person was found guilty of an offence listed in Schedule 2 to that Act and the court found that the offence had a terrorist connection, the judge was bound to treat the terrorist connection as an aggravating factor. The mechanism was the same as is proposed under this legislation, but the Schedule 2 offences under the 2008 Act were of the utmost severity. They included murder, kidnapping, Section 18 wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, a number of serious explosives offences, hijacking, biological weapons offences, hostage taking and serious aviation offences.
A determination that an offence has terrorist connections has implications beyond sentencing, as it also triggers a number of forfeiture provisions and the terrorism notification requirements that apply. Under the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020—the emergency legislation we passed last year to prevent terrorist offenders being released after serving half their sentences—any offender whose offence came under the prescribed list of serious offences, and had been determined by a judge to have a terrorist connection, was subject to the rules in that legislation against release at the halfway point but, again, that Act involved a list of serious prescribed offences.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have a very different view from the opponent of the clause standing part. The UK Government, regardless of who is in power, obviously recognise at this point in time that the fundamental dimensions of this Bill are about the safety of the United Kingdom against terrorism. Our problem is that we are still a very open nation.
Whether it is in Afghanistan, the Middle East or Asia, in all those parts of the world we take an active role in promoting democracy. We see it occasionally with refugees who come to this country. Genuine refugees are welcome, but hidden within the alleged genuine refugees are, too often, terrorists or quasi-terrorists. It is against that background that my noble friend on the Front Bench is rightly introducing this Bill in Committee. If people think I am exaggerating, I have had personal death threats from the IRA. I happened to represent Northampton South, which had an IRA cell in the early 70s. Colleagues may know that I have been deeply involved in Sri Lanka for 50 years, and I am sorry to report that some number of illegal entrants to our country were active members of the LTTE Tamil Tigers. So the challenge is there, and we need to recognise it.
I praise those in our party who have decided the time has come to look again at the sentencing of terrorism. The problem is made worse by the misunderstanding—whether it be genuine or otherwise—of the difference between human rights and the original European Convention on Human Rights, which, of course, was the basis of our Human Rights Act. That is fine, but it should not cover elements where a war took place. Again, I cite Sri Lanka, because that was a ghastly war between a democratically elected Government and a terrorist movement, proscribed by the United Kingdom Government in in its last few months in 2001. The law that looks after the rights in that context is international humanitarian law.
It may surprise colleagues to know that under the generosity of previous Governments, we in the UK allowed the number two man running the Tamil Tigers to have an office in Camden. Okay, he was a British citizen, but he was in charge throughout the period when I was involved, and his wife—an Australian lady, now, obviously, with joint British citizenship—was involved in recruiting child soldiers. We had these people living in our midst. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: well done in bringing the Bill forward. Clause 1, to me, is absolutely fundamental to it, and I wish it a safe and swift passage.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege, as always, to follow the noble Lord. I respect his point of view and the experiences he has had. I am sure he will appreciate we are concerned with the rule of law and preserving the reputation this country has for justice done in the proper way.
Terrorist activity is an aggravating factor in sentencing. Section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 enables courts to increase the sentence if it is established that the offence has a terrorist element. But the 2008 Act limited the use of this provision to the specific offences in Schedule 2, which were those most commonly connected with terrorist attacks or ancillary to them. The primary offences listed involved murder, manslaughter, violence to the person and explosives, nuclear, biological material and hijacking offences. The proposal in Clause 1 extends the offences that can be aggravated by a terrorist element to include any offence in the whole criminal calendar punishable with imprisonment for more than two years. This is an enormous widening of the provisions of the 2008 Act. The main feature of these provisions is that the issue of whether there is a terrorist element in an offence is not determined by a jury, notwithstanding the fact that these cases will inevitably be heard on indictment in the Crown Court.
The decision that there is a terrorist connection becomes part of the sentencing process, to be determined by the trial judge alone after conviction. Could the Minister explain the process the Government envisage? Would it be the equivalent of a Newton hearing, with a separate trial of the issue in which evidence is called and arguments heard on which the judge’s decision is based, or would the judge be entitled to come to a conclusion based on the evidence he has heard in the trial before the jury? It is an important decision. It is not just that his finding will add years of imprisonment to the individual defendant but, as my noble friend Lord Marks said a moment ago, it will trigger the terrorism notification requirements and the restrictions on early release contained in the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020.
Surely, in the traditions of the criminal law of this country, a suspect believed to be involved in terrorist offences should be charged with those offences. It should be for the jury to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain such charges. It cannot be right to charge the suspect with lesser offences and allow the judge to add the icing to the cake. There is no way in which this clause can be satisfactorily amended; consequently, the only thing to do is throw it out.
Let me give a pertinent example which everybody will understand after the events of last year. Suppose a jury finds a Whitehall protestor guilty of occasioning actual bodily harm to a rival protestor outside the gates of Downing Street, by punching him on the nose and stealing his flag. Under this clause, the judge could find proved, after the jury’s verdict, that the use of force to influence the UK Government and intimidate the public was for the purpose of advancing an ideological cause and therefore well within the definition of terrorism in the pursuit of, shall we say, exiting the European Union. Does the Minister—whom I welcome to his seat in the House of Lords—agree?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I join noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, to his place in the House of Lords. I am sure he will make an enormous series of contributions to our debates on justice issues—not just criminal justice, but civil justice. He is very welcome.
This is a very important Bill. I think everyone in the House, certainly on this side, is very keen that the Government be given legitimate tools to fight terrorism as hard as possible. One legitimate tool must be the use of greater sentences, where appropriate, for people who commit terrorist offences. In principle, we on this side are not against the idea of expanding the circumstances in which an offence can be regarded as aggravated because of a terrorist connection, which is what Clause 1 does.
Also, in principle, I do not think it necessarily wrong for the judge to be given very substantial powers to make judgments on what the appropriate sentence may be. The most obvious example of this relates to murder, where the judge in effect has the power to determine whether the offender should be given a whole life sentence, which will obviously have huge ramifications for what happens to that defendant. Indeed, such a decision had to be made quite recently on the conspirator convicted in relation to the Manchester Arena bombings —he was given a whole-life sentence by Mr Justice Baker. That was a very significant occasion.
I am very keen to discover precisely what process the Government have in mind for how a decision will be made on what are more or less serious offences than the normal ones. What process is envisaged in which a judge can decide whether an offence is aggravated by terrorism in the sense envisaged by Clause 1? In principle, I think a fair process can be envisaged and it may not be wrong for the judge to decide that rather than the jury. However, I am very interested to hear what the Government have to say about it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for reminding the Committee of the two terrorist offences at Fishmongers’ Hall and at Streatham, which formed the backdrop to this Bill. They were rightly mentioned at Second Reading; it is correct that we have them in our minds as we embark on Committee today.
Clause 1 addresses a limitation in the existing legislation to ensure that no terrorist-related offenders fall through the cracks. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, set out, at present the courts are expressly required to consider whether there is a terrorist connection at the point of sentencing only in relation to a defined list of non-terrorism offences set out in Schedule 1 to the Sentencing Code for England and Wales and Schedule 2 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 for Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Clause 1 removes this defined list of non-terrorism offences from Schedule 1 to the Sentencing Code and Schedule 2 to the 2008 Act. This is an important step, though not quite as radical as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggests. It will expressly require the courts, in cases where it appears that any non-terrorism offence with a maximum penalty of more than two years was committed in the course of an act of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism, actively to consider whether the offence was committed with a terrorist connection and should be aggravated as such. Closing this loophole provides a necessary flexibility in the legislation, reflecting the fact that terrorist offending takes a wide variety of forms.
On Second Reading we noted that, sadly, the terrorist threat is constantly evolving; offenders prove themselves rather inventive, alas, and it is right that the legislation keeps pace. I am glad for my noble friend Lord Naseby’s support, who sadly spoke with personal experience. I also welcome the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for this important step in expanding the list of offences.
This clause also ensures that the consequences of a terrorist connection are applied consistently to all offenders. The identification of a terrorist connection by the courts has a wide-ranging impact. First, it must be treated as an aggravating factor when sentencing. This will help ensure that terrorist offenders receive punishment befitting the severity of their offending and the risk they pose to public safety. Secondly, the change will also result in the offenders being subject to the registered terrorist offender notification requirements following their release from prison, meaning that they are required to notify specified information to the police. That information supports the police to manage an offender’s risk on release much more effectively. Thirdly, once the Bill receives Royal Assent—as we hope it will—offenders convicted with a terrorist connection will be subject to a minimum of 12 months on licence following their release and will be eligible to have certain licence conditions imposed on them to assist in the effective management of their risk, for instance polygraph testing.
It might help the Committee if I offer a hypothetical example to demonstrate how this change will work in practice, as noble Lords asked for. Today, someone convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life would not be guaranteed to have their sentence aggravated, even where the court has identified a terrorist connection. They would also not be subject to the restriction on early release provisions or the registered terrorist offender notification requirements upon release. That is because this offence is not listed in Schedule 1 to the Sentencing Code or Schedule 2 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. Clause 1 will address this inconsistency in the current legislation by requiring the court to consider whether there is a terrorist connection and treat it as an aggravating factor if such a finding is made. It will also ensure that appropriate risk management tools, such as the notification requirements, apply following the offender’s release from prison.
I emphasise that, as is the case currently, courts will be required to apply the criminal standard of proof—that is, beyond reasonable doubt—when determining a terrorist connection at the point of sentencing. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked about this. Judges routinely have to consider whether offences which they are sentencing have been committed with aggravating factors and, in doing so, they apply the criminal standard of proof and must be satisfied that they are made out beyond reasonable doubt. I hope that addresses the question that he and others raised about the process.
It is also important that the Committee notes what the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said in public about the Bill and these provisions, including during the oral evidence that he provided to the Public Bill Committee in another place. Asked by my honourable friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales which provision in the Bill, in his professional view, would have the biggest effect on making our citizens safer, he said that it was this one:
“That is a really welcome change, which makes people safer.”—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 16.]
The Bill contains a comprehensive package of measures, of which this change is an important part. It will help to establish confidence in the sentencing framework by ensuring that those who commit terrorist-related crimes receive punishments commensurate with those crimes, spend longer in custody and are subject to appropriate risk management processes following their release.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I should have opened my earlier speech by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, to his position and to the House. He has been extremely helpful to me in relation to the Domestic Abuse Bill and its provisions and I have seen him virtually on a number of occasions, so I have not completely appreciated that this is the first time that we have been together on a Bill. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his response.
I listened carefully to all that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said. Of course we all, throughout the House, deplore terrorism and agree that it is crucial that we make our country safe from terrorism and treat terrorist offences with extreme severity. The point that I made, echoed by my noble friend Lord Thomas and, to a certain extent, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is that, in the effort to set up that severe framework, we must not abandon important principles of English criminal justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, has not answered the point made by me and by my noble friend Lord Thomas and, to a lesser extent, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the fact-finding process by which the aggravation of an offence carrying a sentence of more than two years’ imprisonment is to be proved has not been defined in the Bill, is taken out of the hands of the jury by the Bill and put into the hands of the judge, and does not satisfy the basic requirement of English law that the findings of fact about an offence are for the jury, and the sentencing is for the judge.
Of course I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the judge has discretion in many cases—including the offence of murder, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned—to increase or reduce a sentence in accordance with his view of the evidence. However, that does not answer the central point that what we have here is the creation of a raft of new aggravated offences, and the position that it is for the judge alone to decide whether he is dealing with an aggravated offence or a basic offence; and the basic offence can be quite a minor offence in general terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, has not answered the question from my noble friend Lord Thomas as to whether there would or would not be a Newton hearing. He has not answered the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about how the judge makes a determination that the offence is to be treated as aggravated. I invite the noble Lord to go back and discuss with his colleagues in government how this point can be dealt with so as to ensure that the aggravated offence is either charged, tried and convicted in accordance with our principles of law by the jury, or how it is to be determined on proper evidence, if not by the jury then by the judge.
The clause as it stands is unacceptable. For that reason, I maintain the questions that I have about it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 1. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Schedule 2: Serious Terrorism Offences: England and Wales
Amendment 1
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes references to offences in the Space Industry Act 2018 from Schedule 17A to the Sentencing Code (serious terrorism offences). References to those offences will instead be inserted on their commencement by Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 (see the amendment at page 108, line 11) so that they are dealt with consistently by the Sentencing Act 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Committee will allow me to take a moment to thank the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for their very warm words of welcome, which I appreciate.
Amendment 1 is a minor technical amendment that removes references to offences in the Space Industry Act 2018 from Schedule 17A to the Sentencing Code, which deals with serious terrorism offences. References to those offences will instead be inserted, on their commencement, by Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 so that they are dealt with consistently by that Act. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I understand from the Minister that this is a minor amendment. I too welcome him to his position. He has been very helpful to me both on this Bill and on the Domestic Abuse Bill, with which we are dealing almost simultaneously. I have a couple of minor questions for him. First, what would happen if this amendment were not put in place? How would that have affected the position, and what could the consequences have been? Secondly, what level of consultation has he done externally to ensure consistency in Sentencing Codes and parliamentary Acts?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord. To answer his two questions, I say that this is essentially a tidying-up matter because of the different pace of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. The question of what would happen if this amendment were not made is an interesting one. At the very least we would be left with inelegant legislation, and I know from my previous incarnation that inelegant legislation is bad for Parliament but very good for lawyers, so let us try to make it as elegant as we can while we are at it. Much of the consultation on this matter preceded my involvement in this Bill and indeed my introduction to this House, but I am aware that there has been very significant consultation. Of course, if the noble Lord wishes to raise any particular points with me, my door is always open to him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Schedule 3: Offences for the purposes of this Act: Northern Ireland
Amendment 2
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments at page 53, line 44, page 95, line 4 and page 95, line 37 are consequential on the removal of Clause 34.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 3, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 73, 74 and 75. I will also signal my intention to propose the removal of Clauses 33, 34 and 35.
Clause 33 was intended to provide explicit provision so that Scottish Ministers might impose a polygraph condition as a licence condition for specified released terrorist offenders. Clause 34 was intended to provide explicit provision so that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice might impose a polygraph condition as a licence condition for specified released terrorist offenders. Scotland does not currently have express provision for polygraph testing, but Scottish Ministers have broad powers to set licence conditions under Section 12(1) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. Northern Ireland does not currently have express provision for polygraph testing, but the Department of Justice has broad powers to set licence conditions under Article 24 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and Rule 3(2)(e) of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) (Northern Ireland) Rules 2009.
Through discussions on the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the provisions of the Bill, it became apparent that while this clause would enable a fully comparable UK-wide approach to polygraph testing on licence, pursuit of this provision in Scotland and Northern Ireland was not strictly necessary and could result in Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers withholding their consent for the Bill. The Government remain of the view that polygraph examinations are a useful additional tool in supporting the effective management of terrorist offenders, and we hope that the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly will see the demonstrable benefits of its introduction in England and Wales.
This Government will continue to legislate on reserved matters but, as an expression of our respect for the existing powers of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to the setting of licence conditions, and as a demonstration of this Government’s reasonable approach to those discussions, we have now agreed to remove the provision on the clear understanding that, should this Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly or a future one change its view on polygraph testing, it will be able to implement the measure without additional legislation being required.
Clause 35 was intended primarily to provide supplementary provisions to Clauses 33 and 34 that would restrict the circumstances in which the devolved Administrations could impose mandatory polygraph examinations as a licence condition for certain terrorist offenders. As a result of the removal of Clauses 33 and 34 from the Bill, Clause 35 is no longer needed. The clause was intended to ensure that regulations could be made to ensure that polygraph conditions were confined only to those offenders’ licences where it was necessary and proportionate to do so, to ensure standards for the examinations and that appropriate records and reports kept in relation to testing were consistent across the UK. Polygraph examinations are already carried out on sexual offenders in England and Wales. The conduct of those polygraph examinations is governed by rules made under Section 29(6) of the Offender Management Act 2007. Amendments 2, 3, 17, 18, 21 to 26 and 75 are consequential on the removal of Clauses 33 to 35.
Amendment 73 is necessary to ensure that the measures that permit introduction of polygraph testing in a licence condition for terrorist offenders in England and Wales are commenced two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Previously, when explicit provision was sought and set out for Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as for England and Wales, we had agreed that the provision should be commenced via regulation to allow sufficient time to develop the relevant infrastructure in those jurisdictions. As explicit provision is no longer made for those jurisdictions through this Bill, and polygraph testing is already used by the probation service for sex offenders in England and Wales, the same delay is not now required. As such, the usual commencement of two months after Royal Assent is appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have many reservations about the value of polygraph tests. They rely on measuring several physiological processes—pulse rate, blood pressure, perspiration and so on, the changes that may take place in the course of questioning. However, the emotional and physiological responses recorded may arise from such factors as simple anxiety about being tested or fear of being judged deceptive, or a host of things—perhaps the state of one’s digestion after food. There is an inherent ambiguity in the physiological responses. The reluctance to use polygraph evidence is precisely because the response may mimic the response expected of a person seeking to deceive.
What is meant by “failing” the polygraph test? Failing the test means exhibiting a certain physiological response to a question. What is truth? The examiner cannot know whether that response means that the answer is a lie. However, there is no punishment for failing the test—whatever that means—or for exhibiting that response. That does not breach the terms of the offender’s licence. The individual will not be returned to prison. Alterations may, however, take place in the conditions of his licence, and those could be onerous.
The irony is that, in the course of questioning, the person being questioned may provide information truthfully that will have an adverse effect on him. He has not failed the test because his body does not react to his telling the truth, but he has provided information that may lead to his punishment. He has of course lost his right to silence, a right first developed in the late 17th century as a check to arbitrary rule. It has been regarded over centuries as fundamental to the fairness of the criminal law in this country and in the common-law countries all over the world.
Faced with the terrorist atrocities that we have seen in this country, the loss of the right to silence may seem a worthwhile price. Obviously that is not the immediate view in Scotland, nor in Northern Ireland. Let us face the dilemma: the proposals for England and Wales do not involve imprisonment for a lie but possible imprisonment for telling the truth or, since it is mandatory to answer the questions, even for remaining silent. Faced with legal and moral issues such as this, the drafters of the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is proceeding this week here also, as the Minister will know, decided that it was appropriate to proceed with a three-year pilot before finally rolling out the use of polygraphs generally in that field. Why is a different approach taken in this concurrent Bill?
It is interesting to note that the case studies in the MoJ memorandum on these proposals indicate that the information provided led to warrants being issued and physical evidence obtained in the offenders’ respective homes to contradict what they had said. However, there is no indication how often that has occurred or how many times such activity has proved nothing, and nothing has come of it. Will the Minister deal with that in his reply?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I too have considerable doubts about the reliability of polygraph material. This series of government amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, indicate some degree of shambles on the part of the Government. They are withdrawing the polygraph provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Had they consulted the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive prior to the initial publication of the Bill, they would have seen what the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive had to say about them.
In the light of what was said by those two Governments, why did the UK Government introduce these provisions? It is plain from what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, is saying that the Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations do not want them. There is a reference to the various provisions that might allow them to introduce them as licence conditions. However, neither of the Administrations have indicated that they want these powers, so why on earth were they introduced in the first place and when was it that the UK Government decided to respect those views? If they did not consult those two Administrations before, why not?
Separate to that, on the use of polygraphs, what advice have the Government sought from police forces in England and Wales? To what extent would those police forces be confident about using polygraph testing?
Moving on, the effect of Amendment 73 would be that Clause 32, which sets out the conditions for polygraph testing for terrorist offenders in England and Wales, would come into force two months after Royal Assent rather than by regulations. Why have the Government reduced the degree of scrutiny available to the introduction of polygraphs by removing the need for regulations? Separately, what provisions are available in the Bill to stop the use of polygraphs if they prove to be ineffective?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for setting out their various points. I turn first to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. On the effectiveness of polygraphs, as I said in my introductory remarks, they are used elsewhere in English law in relation to sex offenders. There is therefore a body of evidence as to their utility. On what “failing” means and the consequences of failure, it is important to remember, as I think the noble Lord appreciates, that offenders who are subject to testing cannot be recalled to custody for failing a polygraph test. They can be recalled for making disclosures during the test that reveal that they have breached other licence conditions, or that their risk has escalated to a level at which they can no longer be managed safely in the community.
On the right to silence and other Human Rights Act rights, I am sure that the noble Lord will recall that during the course of the sex offender pilot of the polygraph system, an offender challenged the imposition of testing on Article 8 grounds, but that was rejected by the courts. No further challenges have been made since then and we are therefore confident that this is compliant with the Human Rights Act and the rights contained therein.
On the remark that there is to be no pilot scheme, I will make two points. First, this is not the initial use of polygraphs in English law because they are already used in connection with sexual offences. Secondly, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient numbers of relevant offenders to carry out a pilot that would produce meaningful results.
I turn to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. It is rather odd to be accused of presiding over a shambles when we have actually listened to the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly in our discussions with them. On whether police forces are able and ready to use polygraphs, they are of course already being used in circumstances related to sexual offenders. Therefore, this testing is not entirely new to them. The regulations that will govern polygraph testing have been set out and we do not think that it will be an ineffective tool.
I hope that I have responded to the various points raised. If noble Lords feel that I should provide further information on any of them, they know that we will of course continue to have discussions about these matters.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 53, line 41.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 4: Serious terrorism sentence for adults aged under 21: England and Wales
Amendment 4
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the balance between custody and licence for young offenders.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, Clause 4 and my Amendments 4 and 5 concern the imposition of serious terrorism sentences of detention in a young offender institution for offenders aged 18 or over when the offence was committed and under 21 when convicted. A serious terrorism offence is defined in Clause 2 and that definition is carried into the Sentencing Code through new Schedule 17A. Part 1 of the new schedule lists a number of very serious terrorism offences, while Part 2 lists other broadly serious offences where the judge determines that there is a terrorism connection. On Part 2, I repeat the points I made earlier on Clause 1, although here they are applied with less force because the offences are, by and large, much more serious so the aggravation of the sentence is likely to be less severe.
The structure of the sentence for a serious terrorism offence for young offenders is defined, as it is for adults aged over 21, as the aggregate of a custodial term and an extension period during which the offender is to be subject to a licence. A serious terrorism sentence is to be imposed where there is a significant risk to the public of serious harm caused by the offender in future terrorism offences where the court does not impose a life sentence and where the multiple deaths condition as defined in the Bill is met, so these are indeed very serious offences. The term of the sentence is defined as a minimum custodial period of 14 years and an extension period of between seven and 25 years. There is a very limited exception to the requirement to impose a serious terrorism sentence on detention where there are exceptional circumstances that relate to the offence or to the offender which justify not imposing the sentence.
I accept entirely that these are very serious offences so the sentences are very serious indeed, but for young offenders aged 18 they are what might be called “no hope” sentences. A period of 14 years in prison in a young offender institution would take the young offender to the age of 32.
There may be many cases where such a sentence is justified, but there are—or may be—others where it is simply too great. Our Amendment 4 would provide for a minimum term of 10 years instead of 14 years, without affecting the judge’s discretion in an appropriate case to impose a custodial term of longer than 10 years if that would be the appropriate sentence for the offence under the general provision of the Sentencing Code. Amendment 4 is balanced by Amendment 5, which adjusts the minimum term on licence upwards from seven years to 10 years.
The rationale behind these amendments is that there is a wealth of evidence for a number of propositions. For younger people in particular, the effect of very long custodial terms is particularly destructive, depriving them of their chances of education and building productive lives. For young people in particular, even those convicted of terrorist offences, there is hope of rehabilitation, deradicalisation and using educational opportunities to help turn their lives around and give them chances to make worthwhile lives for themselves even at the end of a long custodial sentence. Young people in particular benefit from the help and support to be offered by the probation service and others to offenders released on licence, and may benefit to a greater extent than older offenders from both deradicalisation programmes and education—vocational and general—which they might undertake on licence to help them come to terms with the real world on their release after what is anyway a very long sentence.
I therefore suggest that it would be of advantage to society, and to us all, to rebalance the division of a serious terrorism sentence, so as to have a greater period on licence to follow a minimum period in custody, which, while still very long, would be somewhat less draconian than presently proposed, and would not affect the right of the judge to impose a longer sentence in an appropriate case. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am always intrigued by the thought processes that must be brought into play in fixing a minimum sentence in a Bill. I would like the Minister to outline what consultation there has been concerning the minimum sentence of 14 years for a young offender between the ages of 18 and 21—a “no-hope sentence”, as my noble friend Lord Marks described it a moment ago, and I completely concur with everything that he said. I cannot imagine that it is a Minister who initially chooses the minimum number of years for imprisonment. Somebody in the Ministry of Justice must have drunk his cup of coffee and plumped for a figure to put in for the Minister to sign off on. I do not suppose he will ever have met a young offender—“Let’s just say 14 years sounds good.”
I want to contrast this with the role of a sentencing judge whose sentencing discretion is not bound by statute. The judge sitting in a serious case of terrorism would not be there if he had not had a lifetime of experience in the criminal courts, developing his instinct and his trained capacity to weigh the seriousness of one case against another. Other experienced practitioners and academics who have studied criminology have provided the judge with sentencing guidelines. They give him a guide to the accepted range and indicate what aggravating or mitigating factors he should have in mind. In addition, the judge will have the benefit of counsel’s submissions and a probation report from an experienced officer that will give him an insight into the background of the defendant. There may also be medical reports and, sometimes, witnesses prepared to speak up on the young man’s behalf.
This clause introduces an arbitrary minimum sentence as the guideline unless there are “exceptional circumstances”. There are no guidelines as to what those exceptional circumstances are: if the past is any guide, we will have to wait for the Court of Appeal to lay them down. The minimum sentence is chosen by a civil servant who, in all probability, has never been inside a court. So we get an arbitrary 14-year minimum sentence and an arbitrary seven years on licence. What is the evidence that this is the correct balance? Who said that? Why cannot a judge be left to do his job?
It seems to me that the only purpose of a minimum sentence is to make a single day’s headlines to the effect that the Government are being tough on crime, and specifically on terrorism. There is no question of looking at the individual who is before the court, and considering his future, his welfare, his rehabilitation or whatever. In putting forward this amendment, my noble friend is testing the rationale for the balance in the Bill, and I look forward to a full exposition from the Minister in due course.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, concluded his remarks by saying that the amendment was “testing the rationale” of these sentences, and that is indeed clearly the case. The first amendment reduces the minimum term in custody and the second increases the period on licence. Both the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Marks, referred to these as “no-hope sentences”. I understand the sentiment they expressed on these extremely long and very serious sentences being given to children—but they are not really no-hope sentences, are they? YOT and, more likely, probation and the Prison Service will have been working with these people for many years to give them hope that, when they get out of prison and are on licence and, eventually, off licence, they can go on to lead a constructive life.
Now this is a very tall hurdle. I understand that; we are dealing with the most serious sentences that one can imagine. Nevertheless, that is the role of probation and it is very important, I would say, for the young person to see that there is hope at the end of the period, because it is far more likely that, if they see that hope, they will engage constructively with people in prison and carry on that constructive intervention when they leave on licence. So I have some questions for the Minister. What assessment has been done of the likelihood of reform of offenders—is there any data on that? Also, what is the number of young offenders now in custody who are likely to be in custody as a result of this legislation? Are there any examples of where longer custodial sentences have helped young people to go on to lead lives in which they no longer offend?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to stand and answer points made by the noble Lords who have spoken. I first acknowledge their great experience and wisdom in the field, and the evident compassion that underpinned their observations to the Committee. I know that at least two of them have had the experience that I have of acting for a very young person charged with a crime of the greatest magnitude and severity. I can tell from the way in which their questions were framed that they are aware of the extreme sadness at the loss of potential that the advocate finds when acting for a person in such a position. I hope that noble Lords appreciate that I am fully aware, from the perspective of legislation, of the awkwardness and difficulties attendant upon arriving at an appropriate sentence for these most serious of crimes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
The noble and learned Lord very briefly answered the questions on consultation from my noble friend Lord Thomas. I hope he has in his brief the answer to the headline question of whether consultation was undertaken with probation and what its views were on the balance between custody and licence.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Will the noble Baroness confirm that she is referring to the probation service?
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I appreciate that there are levels and areas of probation. The question extends to all parts of those who provide probation services, but the central probation service, offender management, is probably more relevant to this than local probation services.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
If I may, I will respond to the noble Baroness’s question in writing.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, again I thank all who have spoken on these amendments, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton. His response was sympathetic, in that he fully recognises the position of young offenders exposed to these extremely long sentences. In return, as he recognised, we accept the seriousness of the offences that are to be visited by these serious terrorist sentences. It is right that they merit an extremely serious response. But even for the most serious offences there ought to be room in a scheme of punishment for rehabilitation, particularly of young offenders who commit these offences in their youth but are serving sentences for many years to come.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford spoke of, and asked about, the arbitrariness of the choice of the 14-year term. Of course, he has had a lifetime of practising in the criminal courts. He has many years of experience of judges exercising their discretion, and those years have left him with a favourable view of judicial discretion—a view which I share.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, questioned the formulation that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and I put that a sentence of 14 years of immediate custody offers no hope, because, he said, of the availability of help within a custodial setting. I regret that I do not agree with his optimism. Very long periods in custody allow offenders in custody no hope, or very little hope indeed. It is otherwise with time spent on licence, when a great deal of help in rebuilding their lives is available to offenders, from the probation service and other services and, we would hope, also from services to help deradicalise young offenders.
The question of rebalancing, which the Minister also accepted that these amendments were about, was explored and will be explored further between the Minister and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I invite the Minister and the Government to consider whether more discretion could be left to the sentencing judge to permit that judge to impose a minimum term in custody of less than 14 years—we suggest 10—and to recognise that there is scope for a longer period on licence to enable young, or young middle-aged lives at that stage, to be rebuilt. In urging the Government to take that position, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give the courts more discretion when applying the minimum term.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, we spoke in the previous group about young offenders, but there is in Clause 4 a very limited exception to the requirement to impose a serious terrorism sentence of detention where there are exceptional circumstances which relate to the offence or the offender which justify not imposing the serious terrorism sentence. This amendment relates to a precisely similar provision in Clause 11 relating to the imposition of such an offence on adult offenders under Clause 11(5). I should have tabled a similar amendment in relation to Clause 4, and for that I apologise, but the omission can be made good, if necessary, on Report.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
[Inaudible]—is in relation to the necessity for the judge at trial to have full discretion in passing sentence. I do not wish to repeat that, but I will add a particular comment. When a judge is faced with a provision such as this, he has to define those circumstances which influence him. He has to set out in his sentencing remarks precisely what factors influence him. Things have moved very considerably over the decades away from the swift disposal of a defendant by a judge with very little comment. What he says is important not just for the defendant to understand why he is being sentenced in that way but of course, if there should be any appeal on sentence, for the Court of Appeal to understand precisely what it was at the time that the judge had in mind. “Exceptional” circumstances is too great an imposition on the judge’s discretion and I believe that my noble friend’s proposal that it should be “significant” is right.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Thomas, have explained their thinking behind the amendment to replace “exceptional” with “significant” to give more discretion to the judge. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, in any event a judge will explain the reason for finding exceptional or significant reasons for reducing a sentence.
My questions are for the Minister. What does he believe are exceptional circumstances, and what exceptional circumstances would justify a lesser sentence? In what circumstances would such lesser sentences be appropriate?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, explained, this amendment seeks to amend and change the circumstances in which a sentencing court could impose less than the 14-year minimum term for a discretionary life sentence imposed in a serious terrorism case by changing the circumstances from “exceptional” to “significant”. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord that the logic of his amendment would also apply to Clause 4. However, I respectfully disagree over whether such an amendment is appropriate.
The purpose of Clause 11 is to ensure a consistency of approach when sentencing those convicted of serious terrorism offences. It would not be appropriate for a court to be able to impose a life sentence with a lower minimum term for a serious terrorism offence other than where there are exceptional circumstances. If the circumstances of the offence and offending are such that the court imposes a life sentence, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, there should be no possibility of the offender being released earlier than someone given a serious terrorism sentence. That is what Clause 11 achieves.
By contrast, the amendment would remove that consistency, so that the court could consider a wider range of circumstances when setting the minimum term in a discretionary life sentence than when doing so for a serious terrorism sentence, although all other circumstances would be the same. While I accept that there is a distinction, in that the prisoner serving a life sentence may be considered for release only after the minimum term is served, it would be unprincipled for him or her to be released earlier than a counterpart serving a serious terrorism sentence.
A number of questions were asked about “exceptional circumstances”. That is a principle already established in sentencing legislation. It is used, for example, in connection with minimum terms that can apply to certain firearm offences. I must respectfully decline the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for a Minister to gloss from the Dispatch Box what “exceptional circumstances” might or might not be. It is a phrase used elsewhere in statute and known in law. Those are straightforward English words and it would not be appropriate or even helpful for me to gloss them on my feet at the Dispatch Box.
By contrast, I respectfully point out to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that as far as my research has indicated—I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—there is no existing “significant circumstances” principle in sentencing legislation. Therefore, if accepted, the amendment would create an entirely new test, which in our view is unwarranted and likely to lead to litigation, which cannot be in our interests as parliamentarians in passing this Bill.
As far as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is concerned on judicial discretion, we are really talking about the extent of the judicial discretion and whether the test should be “exceptional” or “significant” circumstances. The question is not to the existence but to the extent of judicial discretion. As part of the Government’s recent White Paper, A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, we have committed to changing the criteria for other minimum terms for repeat offences to reduce the occasions on which the court may depart from the minimum custodial length.
For those reasons, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary or appropriate, and I respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, and to the Minister for his response. However, I am bound to say that I found it disappointing. He is absolutely right to state that “exceptional” has a clear meaning in law and is used elsewhere. It was to that meaning that I alluded when I said that the use of “exceptional” puts the judge in a straitjacket. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is right to seek a little more latitude, because the sentence is so long and the circumstances may be very varied.
The Minister did not deal with the point that the circumstances can relate not only to the offence but to the offender. They may cover a very wide range. Therefore, it is our position that more discretion is called for. He is right that it is the ambit of the discretion with which this amendment is concerned. I invite him to reconsider it. While he does, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 16: Increase in extension period for serious terrorism offenders aged under 18: England and Wales
Amendment 7
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“( ) Section 255 of the Sentencing Code (extended sentence of detention: availability) is amended as follows.( ) After subsection (2) insert—“(3) The pre-sentence report must in the case of a serious terrorism offence under section 256(4)(b)(iii)—(a) take account of the offender’s age;(b) consider whether options other than an extension period of eight to ten years might be more effective at—(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or (ii) rehabilitating the offender.(4) The court must take account of any points made by the pre-sentence report in relation to the matters in subsection (3).”( ) The Secretary of State must at least once a year conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of this section and their impact upon offenders.( ) The report of the first review must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
Through this amendment, before the court considered whether to apply an extended sentenced of eight to 10 years to somebody aged under 18 at the time of conviction it would have to consider a pre-sentence report. That report should specifically address the age of the defendant and whether there are alternatives to the extended sentence of eight to 10 years. If the pre-sentence report considers that there are alternatives, the court is then obliged to consider that. It can reject it, but it has at least to consider it.
The amendment reflects our belief that for young adults, or people who might not even be adults, there may be, on the particular facts of a particular case, other ways better to protect a community than an extended detention period of eight to 10 years. The amendment would not require a court to accept that, but it would ensure that there is proper focus on whether there are better ways of protecting the community. I beg to move.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, I adopt what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said and will add a few words. Although it was not accepted, I suggest that, from a practical point of view, the other provisions of the Bill would fall within what the Secretary of State might want to consider in reviewing the effectiveness of the section once a year has passed. That makes such a review highly desirable.
It is always possible for something to be thought of as exceptional, which, in fact, cannot be shown to fall within that limitation. It is a very healthy safeguard if the matter has to come before the Secretary of State as indicated in the proposed amendment, because that will give an opportunity to reconsider based on the experience of actually seeing the provisions of the Bill being implemented in the Act of Parliament, which in due course will be passed.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar on what I think is his first outing with the Bill. I know where Tredegar is, but I am not sure I have ever been there. I do know, rather too well, the Brecon Beacons, just to the north, which are very beautiful but also extremely wet and cold, as I recall.
I enter this debate with some trepidation because we have a lot of clever lawyers taking part. On this occasion, I do not mean that in any derogatory sense; this is legislation, and we need it to be examined by clever lawyers who are lawmakers, but I speak only as a layman. We know what the issues are, and in this, as in so much, there is a need for balance. I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said, but we need to not be starry-eyed when thinking that a young person might not be perfectly capable of being radicalised early and remaining radicalised. We need to look at how the judiciary and the legal process can keep tabs on people who have been radicalised. That is why, in this particular case, I am certainly on the side of community safety rather than the rights of offenders.
Religious fanaticism is not, of course, confined to Islam. People inspired by ideology do not always respond well, whatever their ages. In December, Jonathan Hall said that deradicalisation using monitoring and theological programmes does not work. Therefore, we need, in exceptional cases—and there will be very few —to give courts the right, and indeed the duty, to ensure that society is protected, over and above the rights of some very unfortunate young people—young men, almost exclusively—who have transgressed in these terrorist actions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. I think we are having some problems with him, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have a slightly embarrassing confession to make. When I first decided to get involved with this Bill, I thought it was a completely different Bill. Having realised what is was about, I then realised that it is one of those bits of legislation that is a bit rushed. It reminds me of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was rushed through Parliament because of public concern about, I think, 11 very dangerous and nasty incidents of people being savaged by dogs. It proved to be, first, a not very effective piece of legislation, and then, a not very popular one. I also had not realised there would be so many eminent lawyers involved in this debate, and I feel slightly uneasy, because I am coming into this as a member of society who has a very practical reaction to this sort of legislation. I do not believe that locking people up and throwing away the key is the best way of treating them, for all sorts of reasons. I do not mean for them, necessarily, but for society and the whole prison system.
This amendment goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve when we sentence terrorist offenders. Are we locking up monsters and not letting them out again in the hope that prison is going to crush or contain them, or whatever? Or are we locking people away to protect society for as long as it takes to teach them the error of their ways and, perhaps, confront them with the consequences of their actions and return them to society as re-engaged citizens?
Statistics suggest that only a tiny percentage of people who have been locked up for terrorist offences come out and reoffend. We need to look at that and be practical about what we are trying to achieve. It is easy for the Government to appear to be tough on crime, throw red meat to the tabloids and satisfy the people who think that anything less than the death penalty for almost every crime is being soft on crime. I think there might be people on the Government Benches who think like that. But it is much harder for the Government to do the tough work of reintegration into society, which is a much more effective use not only of money but of resources. Locking people up in an extremely expensive prison service just teaches people to be better at crime while they are there.
As we have seen in the United States, extremist ideologies have spread among our own western societies. The so-called QAnon conspiracies, fuelled by Donald Trump, and promulgated across the internet, TV, and among the Republican Party, led people to hope for mass arrests and the execution of their political opponents. This is a domestic terrorism movement, which is growing and exists here in Britain. We are going to be encountering a completely different sort of terrorist: a white terrorist, just for starters. The Government have to step up. The problem is growing, and the solution is not just to lock more people up but to learn how to deal with this at source and also once people have offended. The Government need to rethink this a little bit, and be a bit more practical, and less reactive to perhaps transitory public opinion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, about the benefits of pre-sentence reports. They are, and always have been, when available, important in the context of sentencing generally. They are a sophisticated tool, bringing before a court matters that may not be known to the sentencing judge in the absence of a detailed report on the background and motivation of an offender, and their potential to be rehabilitated in future. In not requiring such a report, which covers all the matters mentioned in this amendment, Parliament would be taking a retrograde step and excluding elements that may be important in determining the length of any sentence or extension period.
The amendment complements Amendment 6 that I introduced earlier, by giving the judge not only increased discretion in passing sentence, but also the material on which he can correctly and sensibly exercise that discretion. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who described such a report as a very healthy safeguard. I urge the Government to accept the amendment for that reason. It is a question of giving the sentencing court the material upon which to make an informed and sensible decision from everybody’s point of view.
Finally, I commend the words in the amendment that provide for a review of the workings of the clause, including the amendment. I fear that we are legislating in some haste in relation to the Bill, and a review of how it is working, particularly this clause, would be extremely helpful.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for introducing this amendment, although I hope to persuade him that it is in fact misconceived.
The amendment deals with Clause 16, which relates to an increase in the extension period for terrorism offenders aged under 18. As my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton said a few moments ago, I am sure it is common ground across the Committee that when dealing with such young adults one has to have the greatest care and consideration. Having said that, as my noble friend Lord Robathan reminded us, this is a matter of public safety. I respectfully endorse nearly all the comments that he made; I say “nearly all” because, in a debate where so many lawyers are speaking, I understand the temptation for someone who is not a lawyer to say that they are “only a layman”, but my noble friend is not “only” anything. With that slight quibble, I respectfully take on board everything that he said.
The amendment would require the pre-sentence report to take account of the offender’s age and consider whether options other than an extension period of eight to 10 years might be more suitable than an extended sentence of detention. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year on the effectiveness of increasing the maximum extension period of the extended sentence of detention from eight to 10 years.
The nature of an extended sentence is that it comprises a custodial term and an extension period for the purposes of public protection, as defined in Section 256 of the Sentencing Code. The effect of the amendment would be fundamentally to alter the nature of the sentence by proposing an alternative to that extension period.
The amendment is also not necessary and, I say with respect, perhaps misunderstands the provision. I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the clause simply provides for a new maximum licence period of 10 years in serious terrorism cases rather than the current eight. This is not mandatory; it is available for use at the court’s discretion, and it will remain possible to apply a licence period of any length between 12 months and 10 years.
For a youth offender to receive an extended sentence for a serious terrorism offence, the court will be required to consider a pre-sentence report. I therefore agree to that extent with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about the utility of such reports. In preparing the pre-sentence report, the youth offending team officer will always consider the offender’s age and circumstances in order to recommend an appropriate sentence. The Bill does not change the way in which pre-sentence reports are done.
However, time spent on licence is crucial for both monitoring and managing offenders in the community as well as giving them the opportunity to change their behaviour. Therefore, providing the courts with the option of imposing a longer period of supervision on licence for the most serious terrorist offenders is an important element and component of the Government’s efforts to protect the public from the risks that terrorist offenders pose while enabling a longer period to support rehabilitation.
In that context, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I am not in the business of throwing red meat to anyone or anything, be it dangerous dogs or the tabloids. This, however, is a proper and proportionate response to the very significant danger that some offenders present. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, so I call him.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his comments. Yesterday, in debating the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Government declined to include child offenders in the definition of “domestic abuse” because, as the Minister said, the Government did not want to criminalise children. In this Bill, however, they seem to be taking a hard line when it comes to child offenders. What is the difference in approach? Is it because the Government think that domestic abuse is not a serious offence where the public need to be protected but terrorism is?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, there is a strong connection between the Domestic Abuse Bill and this Bill to the extent that both lie on my desk and I have the honour and privilege of dealing with both in your Lordships’ House. However, they present very different issues. I do not want to talk too much now about the Domestic Abuse Bill, but the structure of that Bill, which encompasses both civil and criminal consequences, is very different—indeed, I might say vastly different—from the subject matter of this Bill, which is extremely serious terrorism offences. If the noble Lord has any particular comments on the interrelationship between the two Bills, I am dealing with them both, as I say, and I am very happy to speak to him further about that. However, that is my response on the particular point that he has raised. My respectful suggestion to your Lordships’ Committee is that the analogy, while tempting, is false.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has participated in this short debate. I am very grateful to those who have supported my position, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Although he did not intend to, I think the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, also supported my position but was very keen to establish how clear-eyed he was. I do not think that people like myself—who are saying that, before a court sentences someone who is under 18, it should have the benefit of a pre-sentence report that asks the question, “Having regard to the person’s age, are there better ways to provide public protection?”—are necessarily that starry-eyed.
I was very hopeful that the Minister would persuade me that I was wrong, but I am not sure that he fully grasped the nature of the amendment. Section 255(1) of the Sentencing Code says that an extended sentence of detention for someone under 18 is available, while Section 255(2) says that the pre-sentence report requirements apply as they normally would in relation to sentencing someone under 18. My proposal is not to change the basis of the sentence; it is to say that, in that pre-sentence report, the pre-sentence reporter should have regard to the question of whether there are alternatives that could provide better public safety. If there are, the pre-sentence reporter should refer to them and the judge should take them into account.
I also agree strongly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that in an area like this it is useful for the Secretary of State to consider how well or badly a particular sentence is going so that they consider what should happen to it in future.
I very much hope that the Minister will consider what I have said about what the actual import of my amendment is, because he appeared to be dealing with an amendment that had a different import. I very much hope that he will reconsider his position. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 23: Terrorism sentence with fixed licence period: Scotland
Amendment 8
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that new section 205ZC of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 does not apply where an offender aged under 18 is sentenced to detention without limit of time for a terrorism offence.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 9 in this group. Both are minor technical amendments to Clause 23. Amendment 8 would make a minor amendment to Clause 23, which introduces the terrorism sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland. The amendment would add the sentence of detention without time limit to the “waterfall” list of sentences of imprisonment and detention that a court can impose in relation to an offence. This would ensure that the new terrorism sentence was available only where a court did not impose a sentence in this list, which includes the indeterminate sentence of detention under Section 208, making the order of sentencing options clear.
Amendment 9 would simply remove a now redundant reference to new Section 205ZC(6) in subsection (4) relating to the new terrorism sentence introduced in Clause 23 due to an amendment to that provision on Report in the Commons. Subsection (4) defines the meaning of the aggregate term in relation to a sentence of detention in respect of the new terrorism sentence in Scotland, as it applies to offenders of at least 16 years of age but under 21. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister’s words brought to mind many waterfalls that I know and love in Scotland, but I will forgo the opportunity to comment on Scottish criminal law. I am sure that both these minor and technical amendments are perfectly justified and I have no more to say about them.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, for the clarity with which he introduced these two technical amendments. Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, on Amendment 8, what would the implications have been had this amendment not been made? I was not clear from what he said whether it would change any position. Secondly, in relation to Amendment 9, how many further convictions would have been included without the decision to limit the availability of the new sentence to cases of conviction on indictment?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment was to reflect the approach adopted across England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. The “waterfall” approach means that courts can impose the new sentence only where they do not impose, for example, a life sentence or an extended sentence. Within the Scottish sentencing framework, this waterfall includes the sentence of detention without time limit, which was unintentionally omitted during initial drafting of the clause. As I said earlier, subsection (6) in the previous version of the Bill was amended during the Commons debate. The amendment would simply remove a reference to a provision that no longer exists.
Just as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is aware of attractive waterfalls in Scotland, I am aware of attractive waterfalls in Wales. I hope that some day soon we will be permitted to discuss them in a friendly fashion together.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a consequential amendment required as a result of the amendments already made to the Bill to limit the availability of the new terrorism sentence introduced by Clause 23 to cases of conviction on indictment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 10
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Rehabilitation and de-radicalisation programme
Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish a strategy setting out how a programme of rehabilitation and de-radicalisation is to be applied to those sentenced under Part 1 of this Act; and(b) lay a copy of the programme before Parliament.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, I declare an interest, as my wife is an adviser on the Prevent programme in the further education sector. The importance of this amendment was driven home yesterday by comments from Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, when he said that terrorist prisoners are not being prosecuted for radicalising fellow inmates and that extremism is being encouraged behind closed doors in our prisons. Although I broadly support the major provisions of the Bill that are intended to ensure that serious and dangerous terrorist offenders spend longer in custody, they surely have to go hand in hand with a rigorous programme of rehabilitation and deradicalisation.
The Government’s claim that longer sentences will allow more time in which to support disengagement and rehabilitation is, frankly, fanciful in the light of experience over the last few years. Even the impact assessment published alongside the Bill acknowledged that there is limited evidence of the impact of longer prison terms on reoffending and that there is a risk of offenders radicalising others during their stay in custody. So far, the Government have been less than convincing on how they are to tackle the evident problems in our prisons with terrorist offenders, so my amendment seeks to ensure that Ministers have to publish a strategy setting out how a programme of rehabilitation and deradicalisation is to be applied to those sentenced under Part 1 of the Bill.
The importance of gripping this was certainly underlined by Jonathan Hall yesterday, when he announced that he has decided to review terrorism in the prison estate in England and Wales. As he said, how terrorism is detected, policed, disrupted and prosecuted when it occurs within the prison estate is relevant to the overall effectiveness of terrorism legislation. Mr Hall said that he is particularly focused on acts within the prison estate that amount to criminal offences, such as encouraging terrorism or disseminating terrorist publications, the status and influence of convicted terrorist prisoners within the prison estate, and whether there is any connection to prison gangs. His review is of course highly relevant to my amendment, and particularly to its timing, but it does not detract in any way from the need for a concerted government strategy.
It is not as though Ministers did not know that they had real problems here. In 2016, the review by former prison governor Ian Acheson warned of a growing problem within prisons. Anti-terrorism legislation passed in the aftermath of 7/7 had led to a significant increase in conviction rates for terrorist offences. He identified that, progressively, more of those offenders were held outside the high security estate and that some were proceeding through the offender management system towards release into the community. Such prisoners extended the threat of radicalisation beyond those arrested for terrorist offences. Other prisoners, both Muslim and non-Muslim, serving sentences for crimes unrelated to terrorism were then vulnerable to radicalisation by Islamist extremists. Acheson argued, four years ago, that
“a central, comprehensive and coordinated strategy is required to monitor and counter it”
and
“focus on greater coordination with the police.”
The Government responded in time by creating a new Security, Order and Counter Terrorism directorate. Specialist units were promised to allow greater separation and specialised management of the highest-risk individuals, with improved capacity for responding swiftly to serious violent incidents. Improved staff training, tightened vetting and removal of extremist literature were also promised, alongside greater focus on the safe management of corporate worship. For all those fine words, little progress has been made. Indeed, last week it emerged that only a handful of nearly 200 people in prison for terror-related offences were in the separation places recommended by Mr Acheson.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, I give my strong support to both amendments in the group: that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, and the one that will be spoken to later by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
I want to start by thanking the joint strike force on the Government Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart—who have brought a refreshingly clear and responsive attitude towards debates on quite complicated legal issues. I can say of both of them that their engagement with Members has been exemplary; the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has specialised in short, 20-minute conversations that cover everything in a relatively short time. I just hope that the noble Lords will not get over the open consultation they are giving to other Members of your Lordships’ House. It is very welcome.
I too want to reflect on what was said by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, yesterday. Obviously, he is very concerned about the efficacy, if such efficacy exists, of deradicalisation programmes in prisons. I am given to understand that the successor to my short-lived appointment as Independent Reviewer of Prevent will soon be appointed. I wonder whether this afternoon, as a piece of instant gratification to us all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, in replying to this debate may be able to tell us who that is going to be and announce the appointment. I am given to understand that it may literally be imminent.
During my time in that role, just as I came to the end of it as a result of an unwelcome judicial review, I was about to start the sort of examination that has been announced by Jonathan Hall. There is a background to it. A whistleblower came to see me from the prison where Usman Khan, the Fishmongers’ Hall terrorist, was held. On my advice, that person immediately spoke to officials at the Home Office and the Home Office was made aware of the problems. It is clear that deradicalisation programmes in prisons are not working at all well. Maybe some are working but nobody knows which ones are working and on whom.
I draw your Lordships’ particular attention to proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 35 from my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, which sets out six criteria that need to be examined to see how these programmes are working. When I was the Independent Reviewer of Prevent, I had a review carried out of all the academic literature on Prevent, including these programmes. It exposed that no real measurement is being made of such programmes—no surprise given that the Fish- mongers’ Hall terrorist was thought to have been totally reformed. Before the programmes are put in place, they need to be carefully analysed and verified by proper, academic and, where possible, neurological research in which polygraphs are not an answer in themselves but a legitimate neurological tool as part of the armoury of an assessor.
I hope that the Government will recognise that these two amendments raise some serious issues that require the closest of examination.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has experienced computer problems, so we must move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, my name is to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It would have been added to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but I was caught out by the speed at which we suddenly arrived at these proceedings. I appreciate that there are differences between the amendments, including the time period for review, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is not confined to prisoners sentenced under Part 1. In particular, there is the criteria for assessment to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred.
Like others, I have been struck by Ian Acheson’s work. One of the many things that he has said that has been quoted widely is that:
“We cannot speak to dead terrorists. We can speak for dead victims. They demand that policymakers take risks to ensure that the people who wish to harm us through a corrupt ideology are engaged, not shunned. This should happen not because states are weak, but because they are confident the strength of their values will ultimately prevail.”
He has, of course, described prisons as incubators of radical behaviour. They are incubators of crime of all sorts: Islamic extremism, right-wing extremism, drug crime and other organised crime. Are there hothouses within the incubators? Given that resources are not infinite, what is the best balance between work in prison and work in the community? To pick up a point made earlier this afternoon, I do not regard the rights of offenders versus the public as being the issue; both are about effective means of achieving the safety of the public.
Programmes must be assessed and, no doubt, evaluation and adaptation is not a one-off but a continuing process. All this has a context: the conditions in our prisons. That is hardly a novel point. How suitable are those places for rehabilitation? How well trained are staff? Do they have the capacity to spot the signs of how prisoners are affected by other prisoners and by their experience of imprisonment?
I have not seen mention, though I am sure it has been addressed, of the recruitment of staff from Muslim communities, who may be alert to what non-Muslims would not see. In the interests of balance, I should refer—although I am not sure how—to those who might be thought of, in a prejudiced, caricatured way, as having right-wing sympathies. I am not sure how you would do that, but I want to make it clear that this is not a single issue.
If terrorists are segregated from the rest of the prison population, does that reinforce their beliefs and attitudes? Is there a cumulative experience? What if the terrorism is rooted in different, opposing ideologies? What are the vulnerabilities of prisoners to becoming radicalised? How different is that process from being drawn further into, say, drugs crime or other violent crime? Indeed, may it not require more sophistication and knowledge to draw someone into Islamist extremism, which, as I understand it—others will know much more about it—involves much teaching and studying of the Koran?
None of this can be separated from what goes on outside prison, including when a prisoner is on licence. The skills required by the probation service are considerable, especially in the face of what I understand to be increasing sophistication on the part of prisoners on licence regarding how to game the system—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, may have referred obliquely to that. I cannot begin to answer my questions, and there are not nearly enough of them, but this is the moment to ask them.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming my noble friend Lord Wolfson to his position. I can say from experience that it is a challenging but rewarding post.
It is well understood that deradicalisation programmes are particularly challenging to evaluate. There is nothing new about this. I remember attending meetings in Brussels to discuss with my fellow Justice Ministers the problem of radicalisation in prison and the best response to it. There was no real agreement on that but my clear impression was that in 2015, we were already adopting a much more sophisticated approach to the problem than were other countries within the European Union. This is not some tedious pro-Brexit point: the whole purpose of our meeting was to try to share intelligence and work out the best response. However, even the most enthusiastic supporter of the various deradicalisation initiatives would acknowledge the difficulty of assessing their success or otherwise.
As I understand it, there are already a number of programmes deployed in prisons that are targeted at terrorist offenders, and I expect the Minister to tell us a great deal more about them. I have read what Jonathan Hall said about what are, effectively, offences that are committed in prison by the radicalisation of prisoners by other prisoners. This may well have happened in the case of the murder of three men in Forbury Gardens in Reading, which many noble Lords will remember all too clearly.
In 2016, Ian Acheson made a number of recommendations. A number of noble Lords have said that little progress has been made. I await the Minister’s comments on that, but I understood that quite a few initiatives had been taken, including training officers to spot signs of extremism and increasing the number of staff with specific counter-terrorism experience or knowledge.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, is not on the call, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I would like to say everything I said on Amendment 7: we need effective rehabilitation, deradicalisation and reintegration of terrorist offenders. Right-wing extremism is growing. Research by HOPE not hate found that one in four people in Britain believe at least some element of QAnon conspiracy theories. These conspiracies allege that the world is run by satanic paedophiles who eat babies and want to kill 90% of the world’s population. The only logical solution for anyone who believes that is to fight and kill the people in charge, to stop it happening. The attack on the Capitol was only the beginning of such madness.
We are likely to see violence here in the UK too as a natural consequence of growing belief in these conspiracy theories. However, whatever the motivation of terrorists, the common theme is that they have been brought into such a deeply flawed belief system that they are prepared to inflict severe harm on other people. The only option is to repair those belief systems so that the perceived wrongs are no longer so severe as to justify harming innocent people.
I hope the Government can see that this problem will happen and will expand. We need better legislation to cope with it, and better practices inside and outside prisons.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and agreed with a great deal of what he said—and I understood it all. I realised that that was because he is not a lawyer either. Nevertheless, even as just a layman, I think we all appreciate how hugely difficult this issue is. I also listened to the very sensible comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile; he has huge experience of this matter. It is terribly complicated, and wishful thinking will not make it go away.
The strategy we are talking about is very important, but this has been going on for at least two decades and I do not have total confidence in deradicalisation or rehabilitation. Neither does Jonathan Hall, who is currently carrying out his review. We talk about rehabilitation but Usman Khan—who the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned—killed his mentor, Jack Merritt, who believed in his redemption and had faith in his deradicalisation, because Khan managed to lie successfully. Do polygraphs and lie detectors find this out? I do not know.
I agree with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others. This hugely complicated issue needs further thought and deep consideration of how, if at all, we can solve these problems. With religious fanaticism or a fanatic ideology, is it possible to deradicalise people? I do not know. Are we talking about what was mentioned earlier, those no-hope sentences? I hope not. Should we throw away the key as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, suggested some of us want to do? I hope not, because I think people have to have some hope. However, I do think we need to have greater depth of thinking in this. I say to the Minister that we need to be looking at this in such depth that it may be we are still discussing it in a year’s time.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, in view of the speeches we have had from a number of noble Lords, there is nothing which I would want to detain noble Lords with regarding this amendment. I agree that it serves a useful purpose and particularly associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with regard to the openness of the Front Bench on behalf of the Government. Like him, I hope that will be something that will happily continue.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, to his first Bill. In my limited contact with him, I think that he is more than a match for the challenge the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, alluded to. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in his assessment of the current dangers of longer prison sentences in the absence of an effective programme of deradicalisation and rehabilitation. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, also mentioned the comments of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC. His concerns seem to chime with the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I do not share the faith that noble Lords have in polygraph testing, for the reasons explained earlier by Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee rightly expressed concerns that prisons continue to be incubators, hothouses, or academies of crime—use which term you will—for crime generally, as well as places where vulnerable inmates are radicalised, whether by right wing extremists or by others. If ever there was evidence of the need for these amendments, it is what the Government describe as the
“range of tailored interventions available”—[Official Report, 21/9/20; col. 1650]
to the perpetrators of the Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham atrocities, that were designed to deradicalise and rehabilitate them while they were in prison. Unless and until the deradicalisation and rehabilitation of offenders is effectively applied to those sentenced under Part 1 of the Bill, and its impact is assessed, there is a real danger that the longer these terrorist offenders spend in prison, the greater the threat they pose to the safety of the public—whether by radicalising others in prison or directly upon their release. I intend to expand on these statements and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I agree with, when we come to the group beginning with Amendment 16.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my Amendment 35 is in this group. I agreed with everything my noble friend Lord Hunt said when he introduced his amendment. My amendment is different in detail, but the overall approach is the same—that is, to have a realistic and timed review of the various approaches to the Prevent programme which the Government is embarking upon.
I got an interesting briefing on this debate from the probation officers’ trade union, Napo. It made a couple of points, which I will repeat. It said that in the offender management and custody model, it indicates that a high-risk offender should get one hour of individual contact per month with a probation officer. A probation office’s staff have a minimum of 70 clients, so it is impossible for them to meet that requirement. The central point that Napo made in the briefing was that, when one reviews approaches and puts down procedures, the reviews need to result in practical change on the ground, otherwise they are destined to be repeated without effective change.
I was very interested to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who was a very effective Minister. He talked about his experience in that role. He also, interestingly, talked about the status of prisoners when they are in prison. I occasionally visit prisons, and I have visited Belmarsh on a couple of occasions. Belmarsh is a prison within a prison and there is undoubtedly status for the people on the inside prison; you can tell it from the tone of voice of the prison officers when they talk about the facility they are involved in managing. There is status to be gained through the way you are treated while in prison. I unfortunately know that to be true through friends of friends whose children have ended up in prison. There is a status to be gained within prison, which sometimes young men cannot have when they are outside prison.
I welcome the review of terrorism legislation by Mr Hall. I also note that it is Mr William Shawcross who has been appointed to review the Prevent programme, and I know he has extensive experience on this matter. The purpose of both these amendments is to tease out the progress and practical changes which the Government hope to make through reviewing the Prevent programme.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their amendments, which bring us to a very important set of issues. I discern that the Committee is united in believing that data is necessary in order that we might, as much as possible, develop and devise schemes by which deradicalisation can be accomplished. The Government do not think that a new strategy for rehabilitation and disengagement nor a review of the current delivery is beneficial at this time. However, to reassure noble Lords, I want to briefly set out the important work being done in prisons and probation to turn terrorist offenders away from extremism so that they can be released safely. The Government have a clear strategy for rehabilitation programmes for terrorist offenders. The important work in prison and probation here delivers against the Contest strategy, which was recently refreshed and published. Since then, significant work has been done to strengthen our approach to rehabilitation and disengagement of terrorism offenders. This strategy applies to all terrorism offenders, not only those who will receive the new serious terrorism sentence or be subject to the changes made by Part 1 of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been an important and fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, backed up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, paid tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for their approach from the Front Bench. We have seen from the full reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, that that is endorsed by me and other Members of your Lordships’ House.
I do not pretend that this is easy. As both the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Faulks, said, deradicalisation programmes are difficult to evaluate, and we should not underestimate the challenge that any Government would face. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, there are some pertinent questions to be asked about the deliverability of the current programmes in relation to deradicalisation and the skills required by staff in prison.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the importance of considering right-wing extremism as terrorism too, and I endorse that. I also endorse the implication from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that we as lay people have something to say in these matters. Indeed we do, and I always believe it right that in some of these technical debates we hear from lay people and not just people within the legal and policing professions.
My visits to prisons in my two years as Minister in the Ministry of Justice some years ago taught me about the power of good rehabilitation programmes, which is why I am so keen that the Government have a proper cohesive strategy for taking this forward. I also believe that, as a lay person, I bring a strong sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, that it is not right for the House to agree to these longer sentences without having some guarantees of the cohesive programme of rehabilitation and deradicalisation that needs to go with it.
I welcome Amendment 35, tabled by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. It is different in detail but, as he said, overall our approach is the same. He was right to point out some of the practical issues involved, such as the fact that probation officers’ workload is so heavy, and the real issue in prisons: the cuts to front-line staff, which have caused such a problem to the whole estate and undermined the rehabilitation culture.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, in his long, generous wind-up, emphasised the importance of data. He also set out some of the initiatives that the Government have taken since Ian Acheson’s report. I was grateful to him. He also referred to a number of achievements. The question is whether those are sufficient. From my point of view, I doubt that they are. Clearly Mr Hall’s review is a potential game-changer, and it is sensible to see its outcome. None the less, the Bill is an opportunity to ensure that, whatever that outcome, there is a requirement on the Government to come forward with a cohesive strategy. I think we ought to return to this on Report. Having said that, I thank all noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 27: Removal of early release for dangerous terrorist prisoners: England and Wales
Amendment 11
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“and the prisoner was aged 21 or above at the time of their conviction”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
These are three simple amendments dealing with the sentencing framework for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill as drafted removes the chance of parole for anybody, irrespective of their age, if they have committed a dangerous terrorist offence. As I have made clear, we on this side of the House are keen that there be strong penalties, because the aim is to prevent terrorism. However, we do not think it right that the possibility of parole be removed altogether for those people convicted when they are under the age of 21.
There are three reasons for that. First, the possibility of change must be higher when you are under 21. We are not starry-eyed about this, but that possibility should be there. Secondly, it will make prisoner management easier, as all prison governors attest. Thirdly, you avoid the possibility of the detention of someone over a very long period of time, and the sense that that person has served his sentence will create a recruiting sergeant in certain communities.
Each case has to be looked at on its merits; release would occur only when the Parole Board was satisfied. Occasions when mistakes have been made are all too well known and, indeed, have inspired this Bill. But if the aim is to provide as much security as possible for the community as a whole, then removing the chance of parole for anybody under 21—and it is only a chance of parole—is a mistake. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
The law has always distinguished between the adult and the young offender in many ways. Policy has always been to make every effort to rehabilitate the young before they become hardened criminals. It is even more important not to turn them into hardened terrorists.
“What works?” asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton—the Scottish wing of the strike force. A large incentive when persuading offenders to amend their ways is the fact that they have their chance, before the Parole Board, to have release if it is appropriate and safe.
The outcome of prison is the person who walks out of the gate at the end of the sentence. What has happened to him inside? Has he been radicalised or rehabilitated? Some go in with no particular ideology and are radicalised. Others go in radicalised and must be given the opportunity to change their lives. They should be managed with the personnel and tools described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart.
Young people can rehabilitate if they are given the courses and programmes that exist to enable them to gain skills to support themselves outside the prison environment. The longer the sentence, the more difficult that is. Prisoners convicted of terrorist offences provide a further problem. Have they retained the beliefs that got them into trouble in the first place? Or are they still radicalised? I was pleased to hear of the theological and ideological interventions that are promised to deal with problems such as those.
I support these amendments, because I believe we should continue that long-held view that young people should be treated differently and given a chance to turn their lives in a different direction.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, explained, Amendments 11, 13 and 14 are intended to retain the current release provisions for under-21s sentenced to an extended determinate sentence for a serious terrorism offence. As has been mentioned, the Fishmonger’s Hall and Streatham attacks revealed the devastating consequences of releasing terrorist prisoners too early. In the Bill, we are changing the release arrangements for all offenders convicted of serious terrorism offences to ensure that the most dangerous and serious terrorist offenders serve their full custodial term, essentially for two reasons—first, to reflect the severity of their crimes but, secondly and perhaps more importantly, the intention to preserve lives.
The amendment seeks to draw a distinction in release policy between those aged over 21 and those younger. However, the Bill will introduce changes to release for both adult and youth offenders sentenced for serious terrorism offences. The extended determinate sentence already operates in the same way for adults and youths in every other aspect, and because the nature of the offending and the threat posed is so severe, these changes should align with that pre-existing approach.
For those aged under 18, instances of terrorist acts occur, although, thankfully, they are rare. I shall come back to that point later. Among those under-18s are some who are capable of extremely serious offending and present a real threat to the public. They are the dangerous few youth offenders that these provisions aim to capture. This measure, therefore, is about offenders who have been deemed dangerous by the court. That also means that, when sentencing the offender to an extended determinate sentence, the judge would have already taken into account age and other relevant factors.
In that context, I turn to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. As to the possibility of change, one has to remember that this measure is about public protection and applies only to the most serious young offenders who have committed terrorist offences that carry a maximum sentence of life and have been deemed dangerous by the court.
We are alert to the point on prisoner management and have carefully considered it. There are a number of programmes within prison to make sure that the sentences proposed here do not adversely affect prison management within the institution. Although, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, correctly said, the prisoner is likely to end his sentence as an adult, the fact is that even when sentenced at the time, the nature of the offences mandate the sort of sentence we now propose.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on radicalisation in the prison system, there are, as my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart pointed out, a number of interventions in the prison system designed to prevent radicalisation. They are extensive. I will not go over the points that he made earlier but I repeat and endorse them. As I said—I said that I would come back to this point—the number of young offenders in this regard who have been radicalised in prison is extremely small. We are alive to the noble Lord’s point, but do not believe that that is a reason not to proceed in the way in which the Bill is currently drafted.
Finally, and only because I wish to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that I read all his amendments with extreme care, these seem to be technically defective, given that the wording is to be added after the close of quotation marks and, on the face of it, would appear to apply only to new Section (2A)(iv), and affect only the provisions related to service personnel. However, I hope that I have approached his amendments on their merits. For those substantive reasons that I have set out, I respectfully invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw or not move his amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for the careful way in which he dealt with my amendments. I fully accept and am guilty of the technical error he identified. He was kind to deal with the merits of the three amendments. I very much hope that the Government will reflect on what I and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said because it is a considerable mistake to treat the under-21s the same as those who are 21 or over, particularly with regard to public safety. We will return to this matter at a later stage. With the leave of the Committee, I will withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 12
Baroness Prashar
“Release on licence for prisoners serving a serious terrorism sentence: England and Wales
(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) In section 244(1) (duty to release prisoners on licence) after “247A” insert “, 247B”.(3) After section 247A insert—“247B Release on licence of prisoners serving a serious terrorism sentence(1) This section applies to a prisoner (“P”) who is serving a serious terrorism sentence under section 268A or 282A of the Sentencing Code.(2) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to release P on licence in accordance with subsections (3) to (6).(3) The Secretary of State must refer P’s case to the Board—(a) as soon as P has served the requisite custodial period, and(b) where there has been a previous reference of P’s case to the Board under this subsection and the Board did not direct P’s release, not later than the second anniversary of the disposal of that reference.(4) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to release P on licence under this section as soon as—(a) P has served the requisite custodial period, and(b) the Board has directed P’s release under this section. (5) The Board must not give a direction under subsection (4) unless—(a) the Secretary of State has referred P’s case to the Board, and(b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that P should be confined.(6) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to release P on licence under this section as soon as P has served the appropriate custodial term, unless P has previously been released on licence under this section and recalled under section 254 (provision for the release of such persons being made by section 255C).(7) For the purposes of this section—“appropriate custodial term” has the meaning given in section 268C of the Sentencing Code in relation to a sentence under section 268A of the Code, and in section 282C of the Sentencing Code in relation to a sentence under section 282A of the Code;“the requisite custodial period” means—(a) in relation to a person serving one sentence, two-thirds of the appropriate custodial term, and(b) in relation to a person serving two or more concurrent or consecutive sentences, the period determined under sections 263(2) and 264(2).””
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the principle aim of the amendment is to ensure that the Parole Board retains its vital role in assessing risk to determine the safe release of terrorist offenders given a serious terrorism sentence or an extended sentence. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Ramsbotham, for supporting the amendment.
The amendment would remove Clause 27 and replace it with a new clause, which would provide for parole-authorised release for terrorist offenders given a serious terrorism sentence in England and Wales. The amendment is modelled on equivalent provisions on the extended sentences contained in Section 125 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. In line with these provisions, an offender sentenced to a serious terrorism sentence would become eligible for parole-authorised release at the two-thirds point in their sentence. The release test applied is the same as those for other sentences for dangerous offenders, whereby the board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. If that test is not met, the amendment provides for the offender to be retained in prison until the end of the custodial term. During that period, the offender is entitled to a parole hearing to reconsider their case every two years.
It should be noted that the changes to serious terrorism sentences introduced by the amendment would apply only in England and Wales. Equivalent provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland would need to be drafted for the changes to be fully workable. The amendment would also remove the changes to the release arrangements for terrorist offenders given an extended sentence in England and Wales introduced by Clause 27. Following the deletion of Clauses 28 and 31, other amendments would be needed to make equivalent changes to extended sentences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This would mean that convicted terrorist offenders sentenced to an extended sentence for which the maximum penalty is life would continue to be eligible for parole-authorised release at the two-thirds point.
This amendment addresses the concerns raised by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, as well as by me and a number of other Peers on Second Reading. They relate principally to how the new serious terrorism sentence and the changes to the extended sentence will result in a loss of the benefits of both a risk assessment and an incentive to reform which the parole process provides.
The parole process contributes to public protection in a number of important ways. First, it helps to ensure that dangerous people are not released when they would represent an unacceptable risk to the public. The Parole Board deals with some of the most serious and complex cases in the justice system. It rightly takes a cautious approach when assessing whether the statutory release test by Parliament is met. However, it also decides that around 10,000 prisoners need to stay in prison for the protection of the public. This means that fewer than one in four prisoners meets the Parole Board’s stringent release tests.
Secondly, parole hearings provide an opportunity to give careful consideration to the risk presented by an individual and to put in place arrangements to mitigate the risk, if they are authorised for release. While no system for assessing future risk can ever be perfect, the Parole Board has an excellent track record when it comes to limiting the dangers posed by offenders on release. As Jonathan Hall has stated, with the new serious terrorism sentence and changes to the release arrangements for terrorist offenders serving extended sentences,
“the opportunity to understand current and future risk at Parole Board hearings has been removed.”
Thirdly, the parole process provides hope and incentive for good behaviour and rehabilitation, particularly for offenders serving lengthy sentences. It can act as an encouragement for prisoners in the often difficult work of rehabilitation and reform. Poor behaviour and lack of engagement inevitably lessen the chance of release at parole hearings. Removing parole-authorised release removes a clear incentive for prisoners or authorities to engage in efforts to address their offending behaviour. It also reduces incentives for prisoners to comply with the prison regime more generally, which could put staff at risk of violence.
The changes introduced in the Bill also give rise to some significant anomalies in the sentencing framework for terrorist offenders. Under the provisions of the Bill, a life sentence will continue to be the most severe penalty available to courts. Unless an offender is given a whole-life sentence—there are currently just 62 prisoners with this sentence—these prisoners will be ineligible for consideration by the Parole Board once their punishment period is served. However, under the new serious terrorism sentence, an offender receives a 14-year minimum sentence, which must be served in full. Once that term is served, the prisoner is released automatically on an extended licence, without a risk assessment. Similarly, a terrorist offender given an extended determinate sentence, convicted of an offence for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, would have to serve the entire custodial term. However, once that term is served, they are released automatically on an extended licence—again without a risk assessment.
These provisions are also more confusing given the welcome changes that the Government have made elsewhere to strengthen the role of the Parole Board in its risk assessment of less serious terrorist offenders. In February 2020, the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act ended the automatic release of terrorist offenders at the halfway point of their sentence. Under this Act, these prisoners will be released only at the two-thirds point of their sentence if they can satisfy the Parole Board that their risk can be safely managed in the community.
It is surely worth considering parole participation in these new sentences to ensure that the benefits of both risk assessment and incentives to reform afforded by the parole process are not lost. As chairman of the Parole Board from 1997 to 2000, I have seen the incentives that parole provides at first hand. I too welcome the two new Ministers to the Front Bench and the open way in which they have engaged in Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that he spells out for me the rationale for removing parole from this set of offenders.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, it was an honour to put my name to this amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, with her experience as a former executive chair of the Parole Board for England and Wales. As she said, Clause 27, which this amendment would replace, aims to remove the role of the Parole Board in the case of certain dangerous terrorist offenders who have been given a determinate sentence. Clause 27 would do this by amending Section 247A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, itself dating from only last year, which currently requires the Secretary of State to refer terrorist offenders serving any determinate sentence to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point of the custodial term.
There are instinctive attractions—including, no doubt, electoral attractions—in providing for all dangerous terrorist offenders to serve their entire sentences in prison. But the notion that such offenders are uniquely incorrigible is not supported by the facts. I remind the Minister of a Written Answer that I received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, last February, revealing that, of the 196 terrorist offenders released from prison in England and Wales in the seven years from January 2013, only six—barely 3%—had committed another terrorist offence by the end of that period. This illustrates a pattern of surprisingly low terrorist recidivism rates around the world, expertly analysed by Andrew Silke and John Morrison in an ICCT policy brief of September 2020 aptly entitled Re-offending by Released Terrorist Prisoners: Separating Hype from Reality.
This is not an argument for complacency. It most certainly does not mean that all is well in our prisons, but it is something to consider before we dispense with the Parole Board in the circumstances that Clause 27 would effect.
My successor but one as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, has been referred to today with wholly justified approval by at least two Ministers and numerous other noble Lords, so we should listen to the three reservations that he has voiced on Clause 27. First, it would remove the possibility of early release
“as a spur to good behaviour and reform for offenders who are going to spend the longest time in custody”.
At the same time, it would deprive the prison authorities of an important tool for prisoner management. Secondly, it would remove the opportunity to explore current and future risk at Parole Board hearings. Thirdly, it would remove the opportunity for early release of
“child terrorist offenders, whose risk may be considered most susceptible to change as they mature into adults”.
I endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said about that and the public safety implications in the last group.
Those reservations are addressed by this amendment and by the following group. I look forward to hearing what the Minister, whom I welcome warmly to his place, has to say about them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We have been unable to reach the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, so we now move to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Bill has been broadly welcomed, in light of the Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham attacks, by noble Lords across the House. One could add to that sad litany of attacks the murder of three men in Forbury Gardens, Reading. Noble Lords accepted the need for legislation such as this with something of a heavy heart. There have been anxieties expressed in Committee today and at Second Reading about some aspects of the Bill. I particularly noted the comments at Second Reading of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who described himself as “horrified” by the reduced role of the Parole Board.
I share, I am sure, with all noble Lords very considerable respect for what the Parole Board does. Decisions about serious offenders are particularly challenging. The boards, which have enormous experience, are given a great deal of material to make their decision, which they do with scrupulous care. I do not see that the purpose of the Bill in any way excludes or marginalises the board. The purpose, surely, is to ensure that serious terrorist offenders spend longer in prison and longer on licence, and it is that fact that removes the Parole Board from the picture, not any lack of respect for what it does.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about the statistics on reoffending by terrorist offenders who are released, and I am sure that he is absolutely right to make that point. I would add just one gentle caveat, in the sense that a terrorist who commits another offence, maybe of the most extraordinary gravity, is not comparable to, say, a burglar who breaks into a house repeatedly, serious though that can be.
The offenders who will no longer be susceptible to review by the Parole Board will have their licence condition, when they are released, set by prison governors on behalf of the Secretary of State. As I understand their position, prison governors will be informed by the probation service, the multi-agency public protection panels, and presumably by information gathered about the prisoners in the prison or prisons where they have served their sentence, which will be something of an incentive for them to behave well. Prison governors have much experience of this process.
The Bill is certainly concerned with the protection of the public. Keeping the most serious offenders in prison for longer and removing their opportunity for early release is what causes the reduced role of the Parole Board. The removal of its involvement for what I understand is likely to be a very small cohort of 50 or so—perhaps the Minister can help—seems to be justified in the public interest.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that we are dealing with the determination of licence conditions in the context of terrorist prisoners having been sentenced to longer sentences. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who has very considerable and relevant experience, and with my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich that the Parole Board has an important potential role to play in these cases.
It is said that the determination of licence conditions can adequately be dealt with by prison governors. That may be true in some cases, but prison governors do not have the range of expertise, the judicial discipline and the clear legal accountability of the Parole Board. It is therefore my view that this task should be undertaken by the Parole Board, which has all the relevant qualifications to do it. If the Parole Board was placed in that position it would command the confidence of the public. Indeed, those who believe that too much control is being taken of prisoners by government would be able to see that there was a thoroughly independent, accountable, quasi-judicial organisation dealing with these cases empirically and on their merits.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment incorporates significant changes to Clause 27. In particular, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, with all her experience of the Parole Board, and by other speakers, the suggested replacement for Clause 27 would preserve the Parole Board’s role. I regard the amendment as entirely helpful on the basis that, with some exceptions, the Parole Board has had an extremely good record of balancing the safety of the public with the need to rehabilitate offenders in society.
I will largely cover what I have to say on the principles involved in this amendment in my part in the next group. However, it seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made the very important point that Clause 27, as drafted, involves automatic release on licence without any assessment of the safety of that release by the Parole Board. I accept that prison governors would be involved, but that, in my view, is no substitute.
In summary, it is my view that this amendment would be an entirely acceptable way to address the problems with Clause 27 as drafted, the most important of which are its removal of the involvement of the Parole Board from the release process altogether and the concomitant results that offenders under Clause 27 would be automatically released, less likely to be rehabilitated and also more difficult to manage while in prison.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
This is a significant debate. There are two circumstances that one has to consider. First, when one is dealing with a terrorist prisoner who is over 21, should the Parole Board, in the circumstances set out in Clause 27, have the power to direct early release? As I understand it, the effect of the Bill is that in certain specified circumstances early release is not possible for over-21s. Although it is hard, we are dealing with very dangerous situations. I am not sure that we would object to that, but I would like it to be clear: are we dealing in this amendment with the possibility of early release? If we are, then apart from those who are under 21 at the date of conviction, we would not wish to change the provisions of the Bill.
The second situation is where what the Parole Board is being asked to do is to either determine or advise on what the release conditions should be for somebody who is going to be released in any event. In those circumstances it would seem sensible for the expert risk assessors to determine not whether they should be released but what the conditions should be. I would be interested in the Minister’s views on both situations I have posited: one where we are dealing with early release, the other where we are dealing with conditions only.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in this amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whose experience in this area is profound, proposes replacing Clause 27 with an amended set of provisions. Certainly as I read them, their effect—and to deal immediately with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton—is to provide that all prisoners subject to an extended determinate sentence or a serious terrorism sentence would be eligible for relief by the Parole Board at the two-thirds point of their custodial term. In concept, therefore, this is similar to the intention tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, which he referred to— we will come to it shortly—as he opposes Clause 27 standing part of the Bill. With this amendment, the noble Baroness goes further: to replace Clause 27 with a new provision. If I may say respectfully, the noble Baroness is correct to identify that without Clause 27 there must be some replacement provision included to provide the legislative authority to release those sentenced to the new serious terrorism sentence.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very open response and all other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I support and agree with my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, because the points they made reinforce the points I was making. I respectfully disagree with my noble friend Lord Faulks about governors setting the licence conditions. Although the Minister explained carefully how that will be done, I do not see why that should replace an assessment made by the Parole Board, which has a great deal of experience in assessing risk.
Having said that, I think the principles of why parole is an essential part of our criminal justice system have been rehearsed. It is about public protection and the better management of prisoners. I do not think that it is fair to say that early release could lead to false compliance, because those who assess risk are very familiar and can assess whether the prisoner is serious or it is a false claim. I very much hope that the Government will consider the points made in the course of this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Noble Lords should be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have withdrawn from this debate, so the speaker after the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will be the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, as was said on the previous group, Clause 27 as it stands would mean that offenders serving serious terrorism offences sentences and those serving extended determinate sentences for an offence carrying a possible sentence of life imprisonment would be excluded from the operation of subsections (3) to (5) of Section 247A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Those subsections presently govern the involvement of the Parole Board in the release of offenders at the two-thirds point of their custodial term.
In answer to some who spoke about early release in the debate we have just had, the description of release at the two-thirds point, which is what is largely envisaged, is not, on our traditional understanding, early release. We have long recognised that there is a benefit in a remission system whereby release generally takes place at the two-thirds point of a custodial term before the offender’s sentence has been concluded.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out, subsections (3) to (5)—the present arrangements—were themselves the result of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act, the so-called TORER Act, which we passed last year, ending release on licence after the halfway point in an offender’s sentence. However, in the section concerned, we preserved the role of the Parole Board in cases where generally an offender had served two-thirds of his custodial term. That was emergency legislation. I invite the Minister to explain what has changed to justify removing the Parole Board’s involvement since that emergency legislation, which retained it. I venture to suggest that no further justification has arisen since we passed that Act.
Subsections (3) to (5) presently require referral by the Secretary of State to the board for consideration after the completion of two-thirds of the required custodial period, then consideration by the board as to whether it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be detained. Only if it is so satisfied does the board direct release on licence. The effect of Clause 27 on the offences to which it applies is that release before the conclusion of the custodial term is excluded altogether and the Parole Board is not to be involved in relevant offenders’ release. Clause 28 and Schedule 10 apply similar provisions to Scotland, and Clause 31 to Northern Ireland.
One effect of removing the prospect of early release is that the Bill removes an incentive to behave acceptably in prison, which makes offender management in prisons far more difficult. It also makes it less likely that prisoners will engage with deradicalisation programmes within prisons—partly because there will be less incentive for them to do so, but also because deradicalisation, like rehabilitation more generally, is advanced by hope and inhibited by hopelessness. It would increase, in those subject to these sentences, the sense of hopelessness, powerlessness and hostility in prison from all around; I urge those who argue that hope and some sense of power in a prisoner’s own destiny are important to the welfare of society at large to accept the weakness of that position.
One reason why I make these points is that all those subject to these sentences will be released one day, unless their sentences outlast their lives; for that reason, their rehabilitation is important. Nor should we forget that the reoffending rates for terrorist offences are in fact low, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out when he referred to the response to the Question he raised last February, in which the Ministry of Justice calculated a recidivism rate of 3.06% for terrorist offences, as opposed to a rate of 28% for other offences. Of course I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that any reoffending by a terrorist offender is or may be disastrous, but I venture to suggest that excluding any involvement of the Parole Board, with its wealth of experience in weighing up risks to public safety, would be an unhelpful way of improving public safety; indeed, it would not improve public safety at all.
The central question that the Parole Board is directed to consider is whether continued detention is required by a continuing risk to the safety of the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, repeatedly described this as risk assessment; that was the correct description. She rightly highlighted the importance in this process of the Parole Board and its hearings. Of course I accept in all this the point made in response to her amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that a replacement for Clause 27 would be required if that clause were to go. Whether or not that would have been the replacement proposed in Amendment 12 by the noble Baroness and others matters not. What does matter is that the present proposal does not help public safety, and has very serious adverse ramifications.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. No? We will come back to her. Let us try the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have once again signed up to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I do not want to repeat what I said on the last grouping, so I will raise just two additional points. The first is the risk of inconsistency that Clause 27 and its companions could bring into the law. They of course apply only to determinate sentences, so does this not raise what the independent reviewer has described in a recent series of tweets as the
“uncomfortable possibility that offenders may be ‘better off’ if sentenced to life imprisonment than extended sentences”?
He illustrated that observation with the case of the Anzac Day plotter—recently released on the recommendation of the Parole Board, having been convicted at the age of 15—and the decision last week of the Court of Appeal in the case of the St Paul’s suicide bomb plotter. The Minister and others might want to reflect on those cases, and on the observations of the independent reviewer before Report, when I suspect that we may need to come back to this.
Secondly, since the Minister accepts that the prisoners who would be affected by Clause 27 are not always incorrigibly violent, and since he does not take issue with what I said about the very low terrorist recidivism rates, is he not tempted to accept that there might be cases—perhaps rare—in which the Parole Board would feel able to recommend their release?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We still cannot reach the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Bill makes a welcome change to the sentencing, release and monitoring of terrorism offenders by toughening up the law. This is a time of higher risk—something that has not been referred to by our noble friends the lawyers. I am no lawyer, but I study the Middle East and south Asia in some depth, and I have lived abroad for a number of years. I have very good contacts in those parts of the world and, in my judgment, the risk of terrorism at this time is higher than we have ever experienced.
I might say as a side issue that I get concerned when organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others call vociferously for the deletion of Clauses 37, 38 and 40. I am, frankly, not impressed by their objectivity. I wish I could be, but they and others I could mention, such as Freedom from Torture, do not in my experience bring objectivity to these types of cases. I contrast that with the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC—although it is not involved in these cases on the whole—and Médecins Sans Frontières, both of which are involved in issues relating to torture, and they are very objective in their assessments.
It is objectivity that one wants. The British public has to understand and be convinced that any change that is made will help to deal with terrorism. I think, on having looked at the Bill, that Clause 27 is right. It is all very well for noble Lords to say that the numbers who abscond or the cases where people are released early are small, but the number of people who were killed in Manchester was not small. In most places where there is terrorist activity, the numbers are not small. I see my role in the upper House as being one where I look after the British public. It is not a risk assessment. The only risk is that someone will reoffend. When facing the challenge of that situation, I do not think that we can suggest to the British public that some of these men and women who have carried out heinous crimes should be released early on an objective risk assessment.
I make one other point. As it happens, I am doing a bit of work on national service, something which older Members of your Lordships’ House may well have done in the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. In my case, I was a pilot in the air force. I think of myself at the age of 21. We were all 18 years old when we did our national service. We were young men who were risking our lives and we were ready to fight; many lost their lives. I wonder whether 21 is too high an age; I personally would drop it to 18, which was the age at which you had to do your national service. However, that goes rather wider than what we are considering here.
As far as I am concerned, the Government are taking absolutely the right road. We have to toughen up on sentencing and we have to toughen up on early release and the monitoring of offenders because the risks at this point in time are very real.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) (V)
My Lords, by coincidence I am once again following the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I would remind him that there have been high-risk periods before. His words reminded me of the Brighton bomb case, in which I took a part. The person I represented had been involved in a bombing campaign that covered some 28 seaside resorts, and the Brighton bomb case was the final one. When I look at Clause 31, I reflect on that case, because that clause, like the other clauses we are dealing with, is the one which says that there should be no parole for terrorism offences committed in Northern Ireland. In the Brighton bomb case, those who were convicted and sent to prison within weeks of the Belfast agreement were returned to Northern Ireland to serve out their sentences there—and within a very short time they were released. We have faced problems like this before.
The benefits of a two-thirds release system have been outlined by previous speakers: they encourage people to behave while in prison and to engage in deradicalisation and rehabilitation courses. That is done to persuade the Parole Board that the individual is safe to be released—to advance by hope and decrease hopelessness, as my noble friend Lord Marks put it. The Parole Board ought to have a role in this, and I was impressed by the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that perhaps the Parole Board should at least have a role in advising on the conditions of release as opposed to the governor taking on the role, as is being proposed.
There are dangers in automatic release at the end of a sentence. No doubt the full sentence has been completed, but the automatic release at the end of that time without any Parole Board involvement is a danger, as my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, have argued. I do not think that the solutions that have been developed and put into the Bill are necessarily the right ones, so I support my noble friend in his attempt to have these clauses removed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) (V)
My Lords, we have had interesting debates on both this and the previous group. In closing the previous group, the Minister said that the proposed lack of involvement of the probation service in this particular group of prisoners was a consequence of the sentencing structure and was not a reflection on the Parole Board itself. I understand the point he has made, but what has been said repeatedly on both groups is that there is expertise in the Parole Board. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer asked whether there were two elements here. One is the possibility of early release, while the second is a point raised again just now by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the conditions of release for a prisoner who has served their whole term. I do not understand why that level of expertise should not be accessed when considering these types of prisoners.
I shall make a couple of other brief points which are different from those which have been made by other noble Lords. They arise from briefings that I have had from the trade unions. The Prison Officers’ Association believes that removing hope from prisoners puts its staff at risk. It is a point that the association makes repeatedly and is an important one to feed into this debate. The second point has been made by the National Association of Probation Officers—that is that the workload of probation staff working on the ground in prisons is so high that they are not managing to deliver to their required standards. They are being allocated around 70 prisoners each. I understand that the Minister has talked about these various programmes, and I know that we are talking about a very extreme group of prisoners. Nevertheless there is the practical working position of prison officers, probation staff and others in prisons to consider in trying to make these institutions work and to reduce recidivism when prisoners are released.
Even so, both the group of amendments we are speaking to now and the previous group illustrate the potential for changing the Bill to bring the Parole Board back in. That would reduce the potential risk to the public.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will appreciate that there is a significant overlap between this and the previous group. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and indeed no other participant in this debate, will regard it as discourteous if on some occasions I take as read, as it were, points that I made in the previous debate. If the Committee finds it helpful, I propose to say a few words about each of the clauses and schedules to which objection has been taken and then come back to address some of the particular points raised by participants in the debate.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have had two serious and thoughtful debates on the last two groups, and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister, who, on his first outing on a Bill, has undoubtedly impressed us all with the care and the courtesy with which he has approached the amendments discussed today. We have one further group today, but nevertheless I express the hope that further consideration between now and Report will persuade him and some of his colleagues in government to compromise when they see the faults of some of these amendments.
All of us—and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, not only those who see Clause 27 as an unmitigated, good toughening-up of terrorist sentencing—approach these issues from the perspective of what is best for public safety. That involves consideration of how to improve behaviour, and with behaviour the atmosphere, in prison.
I take the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the safety of prison staff. It involves consideration of how to avoid reoffending, how to rehabilitate and deradicalise even terrorist prisoners, and how to ensure fundamentally that when prisoners are released, that release is safe.
The Minister responded to my question on what has changed since the TORER Act to justify the removal of consideration by the Parole Board of the release of offenders, or removal of release at the two-thirds point, but for the moment I am not sure that I accept the distinction that he made, though I will read what he said with care.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 15
“Parole Board
(1) The Secretary of State must, within three years of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a report on whether the removal of the Parole Board from considering certain types of terrorist offences leads to bad behaviour in prisons.(2) A Minister of the Crown must make an oral statement in the House of Commons on his or her plan to address any issues identified in the report no later than three months after it has been laid before Parliament.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be very brief on this amendment. The two previous groups have been groups of substance, and serious questions have been asked about the way forward. The amendment in my name would create provisions for a review of whether the removal of the Parole Board from considering certain types of terrorist offences leads to bad behaviour. That is a central point in many ways in the last two groups, but it has also been mentioned as an issue in many of the amendments that we have discussed today. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, to our House. It is brave of him to start his parliamentary career in your Lordships’ House by going up against so many noble and learned Lords. It is going to be absolutely fascinating watching that.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for bringing this amendment. I wish I had signed it, because it is very good. It is about whether we want to rehabilitate prisoners and bring them back into society or just want them to rot away and hope they disappear.
I am sure noble Lords will know that the new independent reviewer of Prevent has been announced. It is William Shawcross, whom I do not know at all. As somebody who is a critic of Prevent—I have seen the good and the bad in it—I would say that the optics are not good. Having a white man from Eton and Oxford is possibly not the message that this Government should be sending out when you have critics of a programme that could have been fantastic.
I saw one case of a Prevent programme—in Birmingham, I think—where a young man had been recovered, or rehabilitated, from a radical programme. He had been a right-wing activist, but he responded to being found a job and a house. I am not saying it is always this easy, but rehabilitation was based on taking him out of poverty and deprivation. That is something that we do not see enough of.
However, to return to the amendment, it would require the Government to review the situation and report to Parliament, and I support it very strongly.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, the town of Tredegar is noted for its town clock, which was erected, or at least its plinth was, as a result of funds collected at a bazaar. I believe that information to be correct—and from my position in my home I think I can see the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, nodding in agreement with those facts. The Tredegar clock is always regarded as a symbol of the stability of the town—a town that has been through thick and thin, having been a place where coal was mined and steel manufactured.
The Parole Board has become one of the pillars of our prison system, and the board is seen as being as reliable as that town clock as it has developed over the years. I therefore join the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, in being really rather determined to persuade Ministers that they should take another look at the role of the Parole Board in the sentencing and licence provisions provided for by this important Bill, which I support in principle, as someone who believes that the sentences for terrorism should be long but subject to a proper, just and reasonable form of review that gives reasons if it finds against a prisoner.
I am happy to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, not for its content but for the principle that it raises, and I invite the Minister to reflect accordingly.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for any inconvenience caused by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and me not speaking in the last group, where our names were included in the speakers’ list in error.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, addresses the serious question of the impact on prisoners who have no prospect of being released early or of being released at all, something that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, spoke about in an earlier group, as did my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Some indication of the potential impact comes from a report in the Times, dated 20 January 2021, on inmates at the only remaining isolation unit for extremist prisoners in Her Majesty’s Prison Frankland. These isolation units were designed to keep the most dangerous ideological prisoners away from the general prison population so that they could not radicalise vulnerable inmates, as other noble Lords have mentioned in today’s debate. One of those units was mothballed before it was opened, another is empty, and the one at Frankland houses five prisoners out of a capacity of eight. There are currently about 200 terrorist prisoners in the UK.
According to the Times, a report by the independent monitoring board at the prison says that inmates in the unit have become more entrenched in their views, that they are refusing to co-operate or to engage in activities and programmes—except for the gym—and that they are distinguished from other prisoners by a lack of progression. They display antagonism and hostility to staff, with one of the prisoners responsible for a serious assault on a prison officer in the centre.
Locking people up with no incentive to behave or co-operate is likely to be counterproductive, and the Times report supports that assertion. We support the amendment.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would require the Government to report on whether the removal of Parole Board consideration of certain prisoners’ release impacts their behaviour in prison. We return once again to the quite proper desire of the Committee for objective data to allow proper evaluation of the usefulness of measures. The point is an important one, but the Government do not think that a review and a report such as the amendment proposes would be practical or beneficial at this time. I will set out why in brief terms.
To carry out such an exercise would require there to be clearly defined factors influencing prisoner behaviour in custody, against which one could evaluate the distinct impact of the prospect of Parole Board consideration in a sentence. Such an evaluation method is simply not feasible. It would be impossible to measure the behavioural effect of a prisoner sentenced under provisions in this Bill expecting a future Parole Board hearing, compared to a counterfactual in which the Parole Board would consider the case. The amendment goes further, implying that the removal of Parole Board referral for some cases could impact on prisoner behaviour more widely. This would be even more impracticable to assess.
The policy intent across these measures is clear; the sentences available to the courts for terrorism offences should be proportionate to the gravity of these crimes and provide confidence for victims and the public. In some cases, this will mean that terrorist offenders spend longer in custody before release. To provide some reassurance further to what we have given from the Dispatch Box this afternoon about what will be done in that additional time in custody, I will make two remarks.
First, there is the hard work of prison staff with prisoners in their care, whatever their sentence or release arrangements. As your Lordships will have gathered, we deploy specialist counterterrorism staff to work with terrorist offenders, and we are recruiting more of these officers than ever before through the counterterrorism step up programme.
Secondly, the new counterterrorism assessment and rehabilitation centre, which your Lordships have heard about from the Dispatch Box, will drive the development, innovation and evidence-based delivery of our rehabilitative interventions. The centre will transform our capability to intervene effectively with terrorist offenders, including those sentenced under this Bill and those who will be released automatically. The Bill will be scrutinised in the usual way, including a statutory review after three years.
I now turn to contributions from Members in this short, but hopefully valuable, debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb; she succeeded in doing from her Benches what I was unable to do from the Dispatch Box earlier in answer to a direct request, by identifying Mr Shawcross in his new post. I hope the noble Baroness will accept my further assurances as to the seriousness with which the Government take the points she raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, in an elegant allusion to the values of the town clock at Tredegar, drew our attention to the important work of the Parole Board. We on this side share the noble Lord’s high estimation of the Parole Board. I promise, on behalf of myself and my noble friend and colleague, that we will reflect carefully on the observations made by the noble Lord and by others in the course of debate.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. First, turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as a fellow layman I thought she gave a good summary of rehabilitation. I see rehabilitation as three things: to have something to do with your time, so either a job or education; to have a roof over your head; and to have stable relationships. Stable relationships are very important in all our lives. The problem we may be dealing with regarding this particular category of prisoners is stable relationships which are not conducive to people not reoffending. Nevertheless, I appreciated the noble Baroness’s contribution.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Paddick, spoke about the principles of some sort of review. The Times article that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to reminded me of two or three visits I have made to prison gyms over the years. Absolutely invariably, I have been told by the officers who manage the prison gyms that there is never any trouble in a prison gym. That is because the prisoners know that that would be the first privilege they would lose, which they do not want to lose. So prison gyms, from what I have been told, are trouble-free areas.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, gave quite a lengthy answer to my amendment. He described it as potentially counterfactual and impractical. I will have to read properly what he said. However, he slightly mitigated his view on the amendment by saying that he was happy to consider any further submissions I might make. I therefore know there is a potential open door for a later-stage amendment, and with that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.