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
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
Over £1 billion-worth of funding from the culture recovery fund has already been allocated across all four nations of the UK. The funding is supporting over 3,000 arts and heritage organisations in England alone and more than 75,000 jobs.
Giles Watling [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. It is great that the Government are taking the theatre sector seriously, as demonstrated by this fund, but there is so much more that we can do to help our cultural offer that is not just cash injection. I implore him to push the Government to re-engage with the European Union on visa and carnet-free travel for performers, their kit and their support teams. I know that the EU walked away from our offer, but it must be brought back to the table. Touring performers will be left with a double whammy of an industry devastated by covid and the loss of an entire continent as a venue. Will he please bang the table and get the EU back to talk on this?
Nigel Huddleston
First, I thank my hon. Friend for banging the table so well for the culture sector over so many years. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and Culture has previously said, the door always remains open should our European friends wish to reconsider our mutually beneficial proposals, which would have allowed UK touring professionals to tour more easily, but they rejected them. In the meantime, where visas apply, our agreement with the EU contains measures designed to make the necessary processes as smooth as possible. A working group has been set up by the Secretary of State to look at any obstacles that might face British performers seeking to tour. We will continue to seek to co-operate with our European friends on this important issue.
Marco Longhi [V]
The £1.5 billion culture recovery fund has provided a lifeline to the culture and heritage sector during the pandemic. Does the Minister agree, though, that public money should not be spent on ideologically motivated projects by people who hate our history and seek to rewrite it, and will he review funding allocations accordingly?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his deep interest in the heritage and cultural sector, which we have talked about on many occasions. He is absolutely right that the culture recovery fund has been a lifeline for heritage and cultural organisations. These grants are intended to help organisations with essential costs associated with operating, reopening, mothballing and recovery. I can assure him that the culture recovery fund money is awarded by our arm’s length bodies according to a strict set of criteria, and the funding goes to organisations in need of serious financial support, not for ideological projects. In addition, any grant award above £1 million is reviewed by the independent Culture Recovery Board to add additional assurance that funding is going where it is most needed.
Mrs Latham [V]
Because of the nature of the industry, many performers organise their business in such a way that they sometimes fall through the cracks of Government support. What support is the Minister making available to performers who are not in an eligible organisation for the purposes of the culture recovery fund, such as ballet dancers, actors, musicians and many more?
Nigel Huddleston
May I first take the opportunity to wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday?
The Government have supported self-employed persons in the performing arts sector through a number of pan-economic schemes, including the self-employment income support scheme. According to the latest statistics, over two thirds of self-employed people have been eligible for this scheme. Tens of thousands have been eligible within the culture sector, and they have claimed during its first, second and third phases. In addition, Arts Council England has given over £47 million in awards to individuals through non-CRF funds in this financial year alone, and that is on top of the 75,000 jobs being sustained through the CRF directly.
Jack Lopresti [V]
Aerospace Bristol in my constituency is very grateful to the Government for the support it received from its successful bid during the first round of the culture recovery fund, which was in excess of £500,000. Like many other museums, it will continue to need revenue support until it can reopen. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the current bid by Aerospace Bristol under round 2 of the fund will be given a sympathetic hearing?
Nigel Huddleston
I was very pleased that the excellent aerospace museum in my hon. Friend’s constituency received money from the culture recovery fund in the first round. It is a wonderful showcase of world-class British engineering, and I can confirm that organisations in receipt of grant funding from the first round of the CRF were eligible to apply to the second round. I am sure that the Aerospace Bristol museum will get a fair hearing as he requests, but it is important to say that all decisions on CRF grants are made by our independent arm’s length bodies, which are committed to a transparent and robust decision-making process.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) just now—happy birthday to her—I think I heard the Minister say that a third of self-employed people in the creative sector were not able to access the self-employment scheme, minus those supported by extra schemes made available by Arts Council England, which I think he said was about £47 million of support. Can he calculate for us how many people in the creative sector have been forgotten by the support schemes so far? Will he say what representations he has made to the Treasury to aid that remaining number of people?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady. To clarify, I said that over two thirds of people who are self-employed in the country have been eligible for self-employment income support. Within the arts, entertainment and recreation sector, more than 60,000 people applied for and have received SEIS funding in phase 3. Some 76,000 did so in phase 1, and 72,000 did so in phase 2. As I said, Arts Council England has given additional support to the tune of £47 million of awards to individuals through non-CRF funds already.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
The culture recovery fund was a great advent, but it will only go so far. It was never intended to cover three lockdowns and potentially 18 months of disruption. The news that the Lowry in Manchester has relaunched its emergency public appeal is a warning beacon blazing in our cultural landscape. Does the Minister recognise that more targeted help will be needed for our world-leading arts and cultural sectors? What plans are in train to deliver that help? Is a culture recovery fund 2 necessary?
Nigel Huddleston
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I take the opportunity to recognise what a champion he is for our country’s cultural and creative industries. Some £400 million of CRF funding was held back from the first round of funding as a contingency to support cultural organisations later on in the pandemic. That now forms the basis of the second round of grant funding, which is currently being processed. I can assure him that we will continue to work with organisations to support flexibility in their plans, should the wider context change following awards being made. We have already extended the time period over which some of the original funds can be spent, and we are always in conversations with the Chancellor and the Treasury.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
We remain on track to deliver a fantastic games on time and on budget. It will bring lasting benefits for Birmingham, the west midlands and the whole country. The west midlands region will benefit from a £778 million investment to stage the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, including £594 million of funding from central Government. Along with our partners, we continue to work hard to deliver the games in what are obviously very challenging circumstances.
Theo Clarke [V]
I know many people, including me, are looking forward to the Commonwealth games next year. I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but does he also agree that the games will give a much-needed boost to the tourism and hospitality sectors, as well as providing excellent opportunities and a lasting legacy for people and businesses in Staffordshire and across the west midlands?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Birmingham 2022 will be largest sporting event ever held in the west midlands, delivering a wealth of excellent opportunities, including £350 million in procurement opportunities for local businesses, world-class sporting facilities, a comprehensive volunteering programme and a vibrant cultural programme. The organising committee has created a dedicated business portal called “FinditinBirmingham”, where any business can register to be informed about procurement opportunities. To date, more than 40 opportunities worth around £250 million have been listed on the portal. In addition, our excellent, top-calibre West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, has championed a £24 million business and tourism programme to help maximise the considerable long-term opportunities for the games.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
The UK’s creative industries are the finest in the world, and this Government are, of course, determined to support them. I deeply regret that the EU rejected our proposals, which would have enabled performers, artists and support staff to work freely across Europe. In recent weeks, I have discussed our approach with leading voices from music, including the head of Universal Music globally and, yesterday, Sir Elton John and his manager, David Furnish. We are working urgently to develop a plan to make it easier to tour across all of Europe.
Gavin Newlands [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, such as it was. This Government’s Brexit reality has the live music industry staring into the abyss and sports such as Formula 1 unable to operate sufficiently. Mark Davyd, CEO of the Music Venue Trust, has said that his industry has been dealt a no-deal Brexit due to the UK Government’s refusal to get a deal on touring visas with the EU. Will the Secretary of State assure the music industry, F1 and others that he will put their livelihoods before anti-free movement platitudes and go back to the negotiating table with the EU?
Oliver Dowden
Of course we continue to engage with the EU. As I say, I deeply regret that it rejected our offer. It is worth noting that what we put forward was what the music industry had asked for. We will continue to engage with the music industry, and there are opportunities both with individual member states and with the Commission directly.
Daisy Cooper [V]
One of my constituents is the orchestral leader of two major British orchestras. More than 50% of her work with British orchestras is touring abroad in the EU, but she is a self-employed musician, so she does not have anybody to wade through all this new red tape for her. Putting covid to one side, by what specific date does the Secretary of State hope to fix this absurd, bureaucratic, self-defeating situation, so that self-employed musicians can enjoy visa-free travel in the EU?
Oliver Dowden
I agree with the hon. Lady: it is absurd and self-defeating. It could have been solved, and it could still be solved today by the EU matching the offer that we have unilaterally made to EU nationals. She talks about support. I know her constituency well; it neighbours mine. For example, The Horn music venue in her constituency, which is a home to emergent artists, has received a quarter of a million pounds under the culture recovery fund. The Goblin theatre has received £51,000. Wind and Foster has received £63,000. We are demonstrating as a Government through our actions that we are standing behind culture in this country.
Owen Thompson
The Government are very keen to blame the EU for the barriers being put in place for touring musicians, but Brexit was born and bred in the UK. Does the Secretary of State agree that the onus is on this Government to fix the abject failure in statecraft, and can he confirm what urgent steps are being taken to ensure that touring musicians do not become yet another example of the collateral damage of Brexit?
Oliver Dowden
First, I would like to reassure touring musicians and all those in the creative industry. I know how important the opportunity to tour is for them; it is something I discussed just yesterday with Elton John, and I have discussed it with many others. It is a vital part of them building their careers. That is why we have set up the working group with musicians, so that we can find ways of supporting them to continue to tour not just in Europe but across the whole world. There are huge opportunities for the industry.
Fleur Anderson [V]
I am glad to hear that you are still working with the EU bureaucrats—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am definitely not doing that. The hon. Lady is accusing me by saying “you”.
Fleur Anderson
Sorry. I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is working with the EU on this. Music is worth £5.8 billion to the UK economy, and I have been surprised at how many Putney residents and businesses rely on touring. I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is working on a future plan. Will that plan be across the EU, not requiring red tape for each individual country, which will be a huge barrier? What is the Government’s plan to ensure that creative workers do not miss out on vital earning opportunities and a chance to represent Britain on the global stage?
Oliver Dowden
I share the hon. Lady’s passion for the creative industries. That is why we have put the support in, including in her own constituency. For example, the World Heart Beat Music Academy has received over £100,000, and the Exodus track and the Deptford Northern Soul Club have received over £50,000. On what we are doing to promote touring, there are basically three threads to it: first, we are working with the industry to help it overcome barriers. Secondly, we are working across Government to overcome barriers; and, thirdly, we continue to engage both with the Commission and member states to see what further support we can provide.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I deeply regret that Ministers have rejected the EU’s offer. Like petulant weans, Ministers have walked away from negotiations on musicians’ and artists’ visas. The Government did not get what they wanted, and have given up. Stating that the UK’s door remains open is simply not good enough for the people who desperately need visa-free travel in the EU. Without it, there will be disastrous consequences. British haulage firms go on tours, but they will go bust. British crews will lose out to cheaper competitors from the EU, and all but the most successful bands will struggle to tour in Europe. The result will be bad for the economy and bad for culture. Surely the Secretary of State must now realise, as so many Tory MPs do, that renegotiations are the only option. Going off in a huff is not the answer; this is all far too important.
Oliver Dowden
To be clear to the hon. Gentleman, the reason why we rejected the offer from the European Union, which he seems so keen to accept, was that it was not binding, it did not cover touring, it did not cover technical support staff and, crucially, it did not cover work permits. Of course, we continue to engage with it, but I must say to him that the most devastating consequences for musicians in Scotland would be to rip our precious shared cultural heritage apart by pulling Scotland out of our Union—I would note that £450 million a year is generated in Scotland through domestic music tourism; 90% of the revenue is through domestic markets—and that would be terrible for Scottish musicians.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government take the issue of disinformation, including far-right conspiracy theories, very seriously, and DCMS is leading work across Government to tackle this. Our counter-disinformation unit brings together monitoring and analysis capabilities across Government, and we work closely with social media platforms to ensure that swift action is taken and authoritative sources of information are promoted.
Gill Furniss [V]
To tackle far-right extremism and conspiracy theories that undermine our vaccine roll-out, new legislation is urgently needed. Social media companies must take responsibility for the content shared on their platforms. Can the Minister therefore update the House on when the online harms Bill will be introduced, and give her assurances that the Bill will achieve this vital aim, which will keep our country safe?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As I have said, tackling disinformation in all its forms, including vaccine disinformation, remains a key priority for the UK. As we set out in the full Government response, the online safety Bill will introduce a duty of care that requires companies to address online harms such as harmful disinformation that could impact on people’s health and safety on their platforms, and that legislation will be put forward this year.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Mr Speaker:
“No one should have to accept racist abuse as the price to pay for being in the public eye”,
the Secretary of State assured footballers. No one should have to accept racist abuse full stop, and no one should be subject to extremist grooming or have their lives endangered by anti-vax misinformation, but they are, and for 10 years Conservative Governments have refused to act. As the head of UK Counter Terrorism Policing tells us, extremism has become so widespread online that it “cannot be policed”. Will the Minister say what steps she has taken to protect us and, please, no more vague assurances for the future?
Caroline Dinenage
Of course, we want the internet to be a very safe space for all users, and we are very clear that what is unacceptable online is just as important as what is unacceptable offline. That is why we are absolutely committed to tackling extremist views, racist views and views that promote violence, hatred and division against individuals and against communities. We want the internet to be a safe space for all users, which is why the online harms framework will require companies to have very clear terms and conditions about how they would respond to such hateful content, and they will be expected to implement those conditions consistently and transparently.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
Sport and physical activity are incredibly important for our physical and mental health and are a vital weapon against corona- virus. The Government recognise the integral role local leisure centres play in providing vital facilities within their communities, and last year the Government announced a £100 million national leisure recovery fund to support public sector leisure centres to reopen. Applications to the scheme have now closed, but I am pleased to say that over 99% of local authorities that were eligible for the scheme have applied, and funding decisions are currently being made and will be announced shortly.
Simon Fell [V]
Dalton community leisure centre in my constituency is badly in need of support. It is a fantastic organisation—a community-run charity with a devoted team led by Bernard McPeake—but covid has hit it very hard, with losses running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. It supports 17 schools and the national leisure centre recovery fund offers a ray of hope. What comfort can my hon. Friend offer organisations like Dalton that they will be supported by this scheme?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the pivotal role played by Dalton community leisure centre, and indeed leisure centres up and down the country, in sustaining physical and mental health in their communities. That is precisely why we announced the fund. I cannot pre-empt the award that my hon. Friend will be getting locally at this moment in time, but of course we know it will make a real impact for the reasons he articulated. Also, as we have said before, reopening sports facilities overall will be an absolute priority when the time comes to begin easing some of the current restrictions.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Now more than ever it is obvious that the value of closing the digital divide is great. That is why we have worked with industry to provide the connectivity for vulnerable users that they need, why we will continue to encourage providers to offer social tariffs, and why, to boost digital skills, adults can undertake specified digital qualifications up to level 1 free of charge.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
Coronavirus and lockdown has sped up society’s reliance on online services, but 42% of those aged 75 and above do not use the internet and Age UK says that
“there is little evidence that the pandemic has led to significant numbers of those previously digitally excluded getting online”,
so what are the Government doing to help older people access the equipment and training they need to get online, and to ensure that essential services such as NHS services and banking continue to be delivered equally to those who remain offline?
Matt Warman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the need for that equality of access. The Department continues to work across government to make sure that, whether for supermarkets or banks, there is that equality of access, and of course the NHS makes all the efforts it can, as it has recently in the vaccination programme, to ensure that people are contacted in a way that suits them. But the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the issue, and it is why the Department will also work with organisations such as Citizens Advice to tackle what is a perennial problem.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government take the issue of vaccine misinformation very seriously, and DCMS is leading work across Government to tackle this through the counter-disinformation unit. We are working closely with social media platforms to help them identify and take action to remove incorrect claims about the virus, including anti-vax content that could endanger people’s health.
Rob Roberts
My sister is bravely battling cancer for the second time, so I was excited to tell everyone who has supported her on social media last night that she would be receiving her vaccine on Saturday. Within minutes, some very special individual was spouting anti-vax nonsense on that post. In six months last year, Facebook removed 12 million pieces of content and put labels on 167 million more that failed fact checking. Anti-vax rhetoric puts lives at risk. What practical steps can my hon. Friend take to work with social media platforms to make the point that freedom of speech is not absolute if it leads to societal harm?
Caroline Dinenage
It is lovely to see my hon. Friend in real life. I am very sorry to hear about his sister’s health concerns. I wish her a very speedy recovery and I am really pleased that she has got her vaccination.
Freedom of expression is an essential quality for a thriving democracy, but the act of sharing misinformation should not be confused with well-intentioned citizens asking perfectly valid questions about the safety of the vaccine. Of course, it is really important that harmful disinformation that is designed to undermine people’s confidence in these vital vaccines is addressed and removed as quickly as possible. That is why we are working so closely with social media platforms and have secured a commitment with them to ensure that authoritative messages about vaccine safety reach as many people as possible.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Last week, I met a number of footballers to discuss the issue of racist and misogynistic abuse on social media as part of a series of roundtables on the future of football. To be clear, we will not tolerate racism in any form, and we are committed to holding platforms to account through our new online safety laws, which we set out to the House in December. I also held a roundtable this week with players and campaigners across a number of sports to discuss the issue of concussion and what more can be done to improve player safety. Of course, in the meantime, we continue to work across Government on a road map for the recovery and reopening of our sectors.
Mary Glindon [V]
The hopes and ambitions of thousands of Newcastle United fans for their great club are caught in limbo due to the ongoing takeover saga that the English Premier League helped to create. Can there be a more pressing reason for the Secretary of State to deliver the fan-led review of football governance promised in his party’s 2019 manifesto?
Oliver Dowden
I reassure the hon. Lady that I remain firmly committed to the fan-led review, and events such as the meetings to discuss racism that I mentioned will help to frame it. Certainly, the events relating to football finance over the past year have demonstrated the need for that, and we will be making further progress on it this year.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that is something that I have raised with social media companies. I know that many people are concerned that the moderators are not actually based in the United Kingdom, and speed of response is crucial. Through our online safety Bill, we will require social media companies to take swift and effective action against criminal abuse online, and as part of that we will put in place effective user reporting and redress mechanisms.
Mr Speaker
I call the acting shadow Secretary of State, Christian Matheson.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I am not quite sure about that yet, Mr Speaker, but thank you for the introduction.
The Minister for Media and Data, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who is not in his place this morning, has rightly won praise for his work on journalistic freedom and the protection of journalists, so may I ask the Secretary of State what advice he would give to fellow Ministers who respond to standard queries from journalists with public attacks and Twitter pile-ons?
Oliver Dowden
May I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his place and, on behalf of the whole Conservative party, wishing the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) a swift recovery? I know that she is doing very well.
The hon. Gentleman mentions press freedoms. I have been working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media. We will shortly be publishing the material to which the hon. Gentleman refers—that is to say, the action plan to provide safety for journalists. That will be coming forth very shortly.
Christian Matheson
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words about my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens); she will be watching and will be very grateful.
Ofcom is to become a super-regulator with a huge breadth of responsibilities and all their technical complexities, particularly in the digital sphere: online harms and safety, the BBC and broadcasting in general, security of telecoms infrastructure against hostile threats, broadband, and the Post Office. Does the Secretary of State agree that the new chair of Ofcom should have at least some knowledge of and experience in those complex sectors in order to be appointed?
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the position of Ofcom chair is vacant. I can update the House that I will shortly be launching the competition for that new role, and a number of excellent candidates have already expressed an interest.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Covid has been a stark reminder of the importance of reducing obesity, and that is why it is right that we look to restrict the advertising of those products. I have been clear from the beginning in my discussions with the Prime Minister and others that we must ensure equivalence between the approaches to traditional broadcasting platforms and online. Any restrictions should not disproportionately disadvantage broadcasters over online providers, which is why we will bring in reforms to both media at the same time.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
Oliver Dowden
Freedom of expression is one of the cherished liberties that we have fought for, and one that Members of this House have defended for generations. I fully intend to continue to promote freedom of expression. As part of that, we will be publishing the plan for the protection of journalists, which will be coming forward shortly, as I said to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson)
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
Like my hon. Friend, I am deeply concerned about the growth of online fraud, and we are working closely with industry and law enforcement to disrupt those committing crimes online. While the online harms legislation will focus on user-generated content, we are also determined to tackle fraud such as phishing and fake websites. The Government’s “Cyber Aware” campaign has been set up to inform the public about how to keep safe online.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Oliver Dowden
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Celtic Connections on the huge success of its first wholly virtual festival, with more than 27,000 tickets sold and audiences tuning in from over 16 countries. That is testament to the strength of our United Kingdom. Of course, I will continue to work to provide ways to ensure that artists can continue to tour, but it is a bit rich for the Scottish nationalist party to talk about blame games; they are virtually its raison d’être.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
Like my hon. Friend, I very much regret that there will not be fans in the stadiums for the Six Nations, particularly after the interrupted tournament last year, but we in this House all understand the reasons why. We have had to take decisive action to maintain this national lockdown, but we will be working to get fans back in stadiums as soon as it is safe to do so.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The Crown Prosecution Service offers a range of apprenticeships across the legal, human resources, finance, project management, leadership and management professions and has launched a flagship solicitor apprenticeship. The CPS has consistently exceeded the Government’s apprenticeship target. It currently employs 287 apprentices and a further 94 are about to enrol on a programme. This year, the CPS will also launch a pilot programme recruiting apprentices from low socioeconomic backgrounds to meet its diversifying law agenda.
Robert Largan [V]
I am grateful for that answer. It is encouraging to hear that the Crown Prosecution Service is offering lots of apprenticeships. However, it is really important that those opportunities are based not just in London but across the whole country, so I ask the Minister: what apprenticeships are being offered in places such as the High Peak?
The Solicitor General
A very good point. The CPS is actively contributing to the Government’s levelling-up agenda, offering apprenticeships across the board in a number of professions across England and Wales. I am pleased to say that the CPS East Midlands, where High Peak is, covers my hon. Friend’s constituency, and it has had 30 apprentices since 2016 and currently has two members of staff undertaking a solicitor apprenticeship. Upon completion of that, the solicitor apprenticeship results in fully qualified solicitor status and a role as Crown prosecutor.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
There is a backlog of 55,000 cases in our Crown courts, victims are waiting years for their cases to be heard, and CPS letters fail to be of standard nearly 50% of the time. While we welcome apprenticeships in the CPS, staff levels were cut by 31% between 2011 and 2019, so why have the Government Law Officers failed to get to grips with the fundamental crisis facing the CPS and our criminal justice system?
The Solicitor General
I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Lady puts on the Crown Prosecution Service. Indeed, it is performing very well and the inspectorate confirms that. The position, of course, is—it is National Apprenticeship Week next week—that I and the Government very much support apprenticeships, and it is right that the CPS does the work that it does to support young people and people from other socioeconomic backgrounds in getting apprenticeships. I hope that she is as supportive as we are of apprenticeships. The reality is that the apprenticeship programme has meant that currently at the CPS, 3.8% of the workforce are apprentices, and that is compared with a national target of 2.3%. This is another parameter in which the Crown Prosecution Service is actually doing very well.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The unduly lenient sentence scheme is a vital safeguard in our criminal justice system. It permits me to intervene personally in a case where I consider that a sentencing judge has fallen into a gross error and imposed a sentence that is outside the reasonable range. Sentencing judges do get it right the vast majority of the time, but in those rare cases where they get it wrong, this is a very good scheme that ensures that justice is served.
Martin Vickers [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply, but it is my constituents’ view and, I think, the view of constituents up and down the country that too many sentences are too lenient. Do the Law Officers and the Government have any plans to ensure that sentences are at a level that ensures public confidence in the judicial process?
The Solicitor General
I know that my hon. Friend speaks for his constituents and always has done. It is right to say, though, that our judiciary is admired around the world for its impartiality, intelligence, independence and intellectual rigour. It is of essential importance to the rule of law. I can, therefore, reassure my hon. Friend, and reiterate to him that it is rare for judges to get sentencing wrong. It is, of course, important that sentences reflect the seriousness of offending, and I have gone to court myself on several occasions to seek referral of sentences where we have felt they have been too low. However, generally speaking, he will find that sentences meet the gravamen of the crimes.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
I regularly meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office and her senior leadership team to discuss the SFO’s progress in tackling the top level of serious and complex fraud, bribery and corruption. The SFO takes on some of the most complex and difficult cases, and it has delivered significant successes. From 2016-17 to 2019-20, the SFO’s successful judicial outcomes rate was 95% by case and 62% by defendant. To date in this financial year, the SFO has agreed two deferred prosecution agreements, making a contribution to Her Majesty’s Treasury thereby of over £44 million, including its costs, demonstrating significant value for money.
Mr Sheerman [V]
May I remind the Minister that many people believe that the Serious Fraud Office is seriously underfunded and under-resourced? It has just abandoned its inquiry into British American Tobacco. It is not able to take on the big boys and girls that cause the real trouble here, including serious financial misdeeds. When is he going to start again, look at the Serious Fraud Office, and give it the resources it needs to go after these real problems?
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the interest he takes in the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Serious Fraud Office in particular. I know that he has a history of doing so, and we are grateful for it.
The reality is that the SFO has proper funding. The Attorney General and I meet the leaders of the Serious Fraud Office on a regular basis, and they know that this Government support them in what they do. They have, after all, obtained guilty pleas for bribery offences in the Petrofac case. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one other matter, but the reality is that they have secured convictions and guilty pleas in the Unaoil case, and agreed deferred prosecution agreements with Airbus and Airline Services. In a whole litany of cases they have secured very good results. Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point that there are always more resources that could be utilised, we will continue to support the Serious Fraud Office in its very good work.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
May I start by asking the Solicitor General to convey to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General the good wishes of myself and the members of the Select Committee on Justice, as I know she is due to start her maternity leave before we have the next session of questions to the Law Officers?
Does the Solicitor General recognise that it is not just a matter of resources? Both the current and previous directors of the Serious Fraud Office have pointed out that they are handicapped in dealing with some of the most significant corporate crime, because the United Kingdom’s law on corporate criminal responsibility—in particular, the need to identify those who are the “directing mind” of the company—does not reflect well modern corporate practice. Will he confirm that there will be swift action once the Law Commission, which the Government have asked to look at this matter, reports at the end of the year, so that we come up to speed and be able to tackle serious corporate crime more effectively, in much the same way as the United States can because it has a more modern and effective legal test?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, for his remarks. I will convey his remarks—in fact, I know my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will have heard them—wishing her well.
As far as the ability of the Serious Fraud Office to prosecute matters is concerned, as my hon. Friend knows, these issues are kept under constant review. They are very complex cases, and it is right that the law must keep up with issues at hand to enable the Serious Fraud Office and, where appropriate, the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct those services effectively. Those matters are always kept under close review.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)
The CPS continues to work with the police and other investigators to prosecute criminal cases involving fraud. In 2019-20, the CPS prosecuted more than 10,000 defendants where fraud and forgery were the principal offence. It also has a dedicated specialist fraud division to deal with serious, complex and difficult cases of fraud that can often result in huge financial loss to victims.
Nicola Richards [V]
Constituents in West Bromwich East have made me aware of some of the latest scams that criminals are using to exploit the public at this difficult time. They include text messages about covid-related grants and even criminals going door to door pretending to sell vaccine doses. Can my right hon. and learned Friend update us on any discussions she has had with the CPS about these specific types of fraud cases?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Crimes where covid is the context for exploitation and fraudulent behaviour are completely sickening. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear in his interim charging protocol that offences related to covid, including fraud, will be prioritised and that the offenders will be prosecuted. The joint inspectorate report commended the CPS’s response to the pandemic, including its ability to move to remote working without any major service interruption. That was noted as a major achievement.
Jacob Young
Those who use this pandemic to exploit vulnerable people really are the lowest of the low. In Redcar and Cleveland, we have had a number of examples of fraudsters trying to trick elderly people in particular with fake vaccines and scam NHS emails. What more can the Government do to crack down on those types of criminals?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is right to raise this sickening trend. The Government are committed to stopping criminals benefiting from their ill-gotten gains. In 2019-20, the CPS successfully used its specialist prosecutors to seize more than £100 million through confiscation orders across all offence types.
Robbie Moore
Over the pandemic, we have seen scammers claiming to be from Her Majesty’ Revenue and Customs, Royal Mail delivery scams, NatWest urging scam warnings out to its customers and, perhaps the lowest of the low, an NHS vaccine scam. Could my right hon. and learned Friend outline how the CPS is working in partnership with those organisations to tackle fraud?
The Attorney General
We are aware that cyber-criminals and fraudsters are attempting to exploit opportunities around the pandemic, as I have said. That is why the Government have invested in the National Economic Crime Centre, which is leading a multi-agency response to tackle serious and organised fraud during the pandemic. The CPS continues to play a key role in this effort, providing early investigative support in serious fraud cases.
Daniel Kawczynski
I, too, would like to join the Chairman of the Select Committee in wishing the Attorney General the very best for the birth of her child and maternity leave afterwards.
At a time when we are hearing about more disturbing cases of fraud, not just against private citizens but against the state and the public purse, will the Attorney General continue to give us information through the House of Commons Library, publicising the success stories of the CPS in following, tackling and prosecuting those fraudsters?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind wishes. He is right to highlight the successes that the CPS has had in tackling serious fraud. In recent months, the serious fraud division has brought three high-value investment scammers to justice. These include Joseph Lewis, who ran a £20 million Ponzi scheme fraud for a decade and was sentenced to five years and four months’ imprisonment, and Freddy David, an authorised financial consultant who was operating a parallel Ponzi fraud which resulted in a loss of £10.4 million to his victims. He was sentenced to a total of six years in prison and was issued with a confiscation order for just over £1 million.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
I have heard directly from members of both my pro bono committee and the Public Legal Education Committee on the impact of the pandemic on their work. I know that the legal profession has continued valiantly to undertake pro bono work throughout this crisis, and I would like to restate my gratitude to all those who have volunteered their time and experience during this difficult time. It makes me proud to be one of the Government’s pro bono champions.
Damien Moore [V]
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend how my constituents can feel confident that they can still access the pro bono support they need, despite the pandemic?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend asks a good question, and his constituents should feel confident. I was heartened to hear of the overwhelming number of legal professionals across the country who have stepped forward to offer assistance during the pandemic. It is a true testament to the very nature of pro bono; as a tool, it is there to give back and help those most in need. I heard from members of my pro bono committee in September about the impact of the pandemic on their services, and the resilience and flexibility that they have shown in the face of such adversity is very impressive and much appreciated.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The Government take tackling domestic abuse extremely seriously, as shown, of course, by the introduction of the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that justice is delivered in such cases. In fact, I personally successfully presented the first unduly lenient sentence case of its kind at the Court of Appeal last year on coercive and controlling behaviour. The CPS is working hard to deliver justice and protect the public, and has recently published an ambitious 12-month domestic abuse programme to help narrow the disparity between the reporting of these offences and criminal justice outcomes.
Jessica Morden [V]
About a fifth of crimes reported in lockdown have involved domestic abuse, and there is real concern that the number of specialist domestic violence courts seems to be reducing. Will the Minister commit to strengthen the system and increase the number of specialised courts, so that we can support the hard work of the police and support victims at trial?
The Solicitor General
That is a very good question. We are always looking at ways in which we can support those engaged in this important work. The Government have recently announced several funding packages linked to domestic abuse, including funding to deal with the effects of the covid-19 pandemic on domestic abuse. During the pandemic, the CPS has continued to prioritise domestic abuse cases. In addition to the interim charging protocol, a memorandum of understanding on the subject of domestic abuse was agreed in June across the whole criminal justice system. It supports multi-agency pre-hearing case progression for domestic abuse cases that are listed for trial.
Alex Cunningham [V]
Despite what the Minister says, domestic abuse prosecutions continue to plummet. They had already fallen off the cliff edge before the pandemic hit the justice system, with an annual decrease of some 22% in the year up to March 2020. Will he tell me what pre-emptive action is being taken now to stop this freefall and maintain the confidence of the victims of these deplorable crimes?
The Solicitor General
I hate to focus on this issue, but the reality is that of course all prosecutions have been affected by the pandemic. The whole courts system, as well as most other functioning systems in this country, are necessarily adversely affected by the pandemic. However, the hon. Gentleman has my assurance, and that of the Government, that domestic abuse cases are among the highest priority in the criminal justice system. On joint interim charging, for example, guidance issued by the police and the CPS immediately following the outbreak of covid-19 stated and confirmed that cases should be prioritised where the defendant is being held in custody, and that specifically included high-risk domestic abuse cases. So we are keeping our eye on this. These are extremely important cases and they must and should continue to be given the priority that they deserve.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I, too, offer my congratulations to the Attorney General on her forthcoming maternity leave.
As well as domestic violence prosecutions being down 19%, victims are left waiting for months for their cases to go to court and are increasingly being told to pursue civil cases instead. Despite the Solicitor General’s warm words, it is clear that the Government are letting victims down on every front. With the huge barriers facing victims of domestic abuse, will the Solicitor General join me today in backing the Bar Council’s call for non-means-tested legal aid to be made available to victims in the upcoming spending review?
The Solicitor General
Of course, I have to leave spending review issues to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer, but the reality is that the CPS best practice domestic abuse framework seeks to address withdrawal rates by delivering a high-quality service to victims, and it encourages more timely court listings. As the hon. Lady knows, we cannot always guarantee immediate court listings, but the CPS does encourage more timely court listings for this type of case. The provision of holistic support for victims—including, where appropriate, the support of an independent domestic abuse adviser—is very important. Funding is going into this issue and it is being given priority. More can be done—the hon. Lady is right and in agreement with Government Members that this is an important area of priority—and we will continue to focus on the issue.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Treatment of Uyghur Women: Xinjiang Detention Camps
(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
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment of Uyghur women in Xinjiang detention camps.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I acknowledge the strength of feeling about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, which is shared by hon. Members across the House. The BBC report to which my hon. Friend refers is chilling. It includes deeply distressing testimony of the rape, torture and dehumanisation of Uyghur women in Xinjiang detention centres. It is a further compelling addition to the growing body of evidence of the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in Xinjiang. The evidence of the scale and severity of these violations is now far reaching. It paints a truly harrowing picture. If China wishes to dispute this evidence, it must allow unfettered access to the region for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or another independent fact-finding body.
This Government are committed to taking robust action in respect of Xinjiang. That is why on 12 January the Foreign Secretary announced a series of targeted measures to help ensure that British organisations are neither complicit in nor profiting from the human rights violations in the region. This includes a review of export controls as they apply to Xinjiang, the introduction of financial penalties for businesses that do not comply with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and support for UK Government bodies to exclude suppliers that are complicit in forced labour.
These measures demonstrate to China that there is a reputational and economic cost to its policies in Xinjiang, and it is why the UK has played, and will continue to play, a leading role in building international pressure on China to change course. In October 2019 and June 2020, the UK led the first two joint statements on Xinjiang at the UN. In October 2020, 38 countries joined the UK in a robust statement at the UN Third Committee. This diplomatic action is vitally important. More countries than ever are speaking out about Xinjiang. China has already been forced to change its narrative about the camps, and its denial of these violations is increasingly hard to sustain. The Foreign Secretary has made clear the extent of our concern directly to his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and I have raised the issue with the former Chinese ambassador in London.
On the specific allegations of forced birth control, we have raised these with the Chinese authorities and used our national statement at the UN Human Rights Council last September to draw international attention to this deeply concerning issue.
I can assure the House that we will continue to work with our international partners, including with the new US Administration and through our G7 presidency, to hold China to account for its actions. The UK has called repeatedly for China to abide by the UN’s recommendation to release all those who have been arbitrarily detained, and I know that right hon. and hon. Members will join me today in reiterating that call.
Ms Ghani
I thank the Minister for his powerful statement. Yesterday, the BBC broadcast harrowing footage of Chinese state-orchestrated abuse against Uyghur women on an unprecedented scale.
“They had an electric stick, I didn’t know what it was, and it was pushed inside my genital tract, torturing me with an electric shock.”
That is the testimony of Tursunay Ziawudun. “They did whatever their evil minds could think of. They were barbarians. I felt I had died. I was dead.” Then there are the gang rapes of Uyghur women by the police in front of other camp detainees, as a form of re-education, seeking out those who look away to punish them even further.
These horrifying stories add to the huge and growing body of evidence detailing atrocities perpetrated by the Chinese authorities in Xinjiang—atrocities that may even be genocidal. These horrors have led the Board of Deputies of British Jews to compare the plight of the Uyghurs to the Holocaust. But as everybody in this House knows, there is no prospect of China being held to account through the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. So I ask the Minister: how will the Government get the court judgment they need to act when all international routes are paralysed by China? We cannot be bystanders to the deliberate attempt to exterminate a group of people. Not again.
Will the Minister make a promise today that no further deepening of ties of any kind will take place with China until a full judicial inquiry has investigated these crimes? Will he commit himself to a meeting with Rahima Mahmut, a Uyghur survivor, who is known by so many in this House? Rahima is a brave woman, risking her safety to save her family and her people. The United Kingdom cannot stand by and do nothing about the extermination of the Uyghur—mass rapes, scalping and forced sterilisations. We can act and we must act.
Nigel Adams
May I thank my hon. Friend again for her powerful questions and her speech? I know how important this is to her. I reiterate that the Foreign Secretary announced a series of measures on 12 January in response to the human rights situation in Xinjiang. This will help to ensure that UK businesses are not complicit in human rights violations. We are leading international efforts to hold China to account, and of course I would be delighted to meet with Rahima, the Uyghur lady whom my hon. Friend referred to.
Importantly, we will continue to work on this incredibly crucial issue alongside our international partners, pulling together, including making the statement that we did late last year alongside Germany and 38 other countries. We will work with the new US Administration, under President Biden. May I thank my hon. Friend again for bringing this incredibly powerful testimony to the House? Anybody who has seen the report by the BBC—I congratulate the BBC on producing it—cannot help but be moved and distressed by what are clearly evil acts.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Chinese Government’s brutal campaign of oppression in Xinjiang is a scar on the conscience of the world. The Labour party stands shoulder to shoulder with the Uyghur people. We already know about the forced labour camps, and yesterday we heard utterly heartbreaking testimonies from Uyghur women who have been systematically raped, sexually abused and tortured. This follows last summer’s harrowing accounts from Uyghur women who are victims of forced sterilisation and forced intrauterine device insertion. The Chinese Government’s own statistics show that birth rates in Xinjiang fell by a third in 2017-18—further evidence that what is happening may meet the international legal definition of genocide, which the new US Administration have already acknowledged.
Last month the Foreign Secretary rightly condemned the events in Xinjiang as
“barbarism we had hoped was lost to another era”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]
Surely the time for tangible action has now come. First, where on earth are the Magnitsky sanctions that the Opposition and Members across the House have been calling for since last June? The Foreign Secretary said that the body of evidence in Xinjiang is “large, diverse and growing”, and we know the names of the senior Chinese officials who are responsible for these atrocities. The US sanctioned them last summer. Who in Government is holding this up?
Secondly, 20% of the world’s cotton comes from Xinjiang. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken to help UK business cease being complicit in forced labour, but they did not go far enough. Companies must be accountable, not simply transparent. Rather than tinkering around the edges of the Modern Slavery Act, will the Minister commit himself to bringing forward legislation that moves us to a system of mandatory due diligence?
Next Tuesday, when the Trade Bill returns, the House has the chance to send a united message to the world that genocide can never be met with indifference, impunity or inaction. This should not be a partisan issue. Given that it is a long-standing Government commitment that courts, not the Government, must rule on genocide, will the Minister join with us and colleagues across the House to give UK courts the powers to determine genocide and therefore prevent the UK from ever doing trade deals with genocidal states?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which raised a number of issues. He mentioned the US announcement regarding genocide. It is worth pointing out that the US has a different process for determining genocide that is not linked to a court decision. With regard to sanctions, we have had targeted measures in response to this matter. On 12 January, the Foreign Secretary announced a series of robust actions to ensure that no companies profit from forced labour and we will target in a forensic way those companies that are doing so, whether deliberately or otherwise. Of course, we are carefully considering any further designations under our global human rights regime. We keep all evidence and potential listings under review.
Mr Speaker
Let us head south to the Chair of the Select Committee, Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). She is raising a central point on the humanity that we share with people around the world, including with citizens of China. I was very keen that the Government should assist companies here, because we heard only yesterday that Manchester University is in partnership with the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation unaware of its connections with the surveillance state that is going on in Xinjiang. Will the Minister commit to helping British institutions, academics or, indeed, companies to make sure that they are not complicit with any genocidal regime or any autocratic state using data or technology that they have provided together to oppress people? Those institutions cannot always know such information themselves, but the Foreign Office can certainly assist them.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, is right to raise this matter, especially around academia. UK universities are open to the world and we warmly welcome overseas students, including, for example, from China, but we will not accept collaborations that compromise our national security. We do work with academia to make sure that any links are closely monitored —whether that is with students or foreign military organisations—and we also work with British companies over the measures that the Foreign Secretary announced in January.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
The plight of the Uyghurs is a well-trodden path within the House, and evidence of the dreadful situation just keeps mounting. I really commend the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for bringing this forward today, because it is important that we keep the matter very much on our radar. I do not regard the Minister as part of the problem here. We are all supportive of his efforts that are under way, but we would like to see more. I have three particular points. I have raised before the academic links that the Chinese state has with UK institutions. Much greater clarity is needed there. On EU co-ordination, there are measures within the EU-China trade deal that could be activated. Frankly, the EU could be a bit sharper in activating them over this to trigger a dispute resolution. The most fundamental thing that the UK Government could do is to change their face on the genocide amendment, which is before the other place in the Trade Bill. At a stroke, that would change how the UK does business on this and would be a really positive sign. The time for the Government to reverse their position on that is long overdue.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his measured questions. On that last point, may I be absolutely clear that we understand fully the strength of feeling on this matter with regard to the Trade Bill? We agree that there must be enhanced scrutiny for Parliament on both the issue of genocide and also the Government’s response to this most serious crime. As a result, the Government are looking to see how we can ensure that relevant debate and scrutiny can take place in Parliament in response to credible concerns about genocide. I know that Ministers have been reaching out to colleagues across the House in this regard. We want to work with Parliament to find a credible solution—a parliamentary solution—that is both robust and properly accountable to the House.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on her question and the BBC on its programme. A litany of terrible, terrible abuse —rape, mass internment, people going into concentration camps, people being sterilised, people being maltreated, abused and tortured—which sounds like something from 75 years ago, but it is not; it is today. With respect to the Minister, it is no good anymore coming to the Dispatch Box to say that he agrees with all this. Where are the Magnitsky sanctions on individuals? We have all the evidence necessary. Finally, why, oh why are the Government going out of their way to block this amendment that is coming back to the House of Commons, which will give the courts the power to decide that this is genocide? The Minister has just said in his statement that only the courts can say it is genocide, so let us stop this nonsense, please. Allow the amendment to go through and get the courts to make that decision. It will be a leading position from a British Government—that is the way to go.
Nigel Adams
I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued interest. I know how strongly he feels about the issue. Again, to be absolutely clear, we understand the strength of feeling, in particular around the Trade Bill, and we believe that there must be more enhanced scrutiny by Parliament of genocide and our response to the crime. That is why we will work with him and other right hon. and hon. Members in that regard.
As we have said, competent courts include international ones, such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and national criminal courts that meet international standards of due process. On sanctions, we have already come up with targeted measures in respect of UK supply chains. Those are direct actions. Nobody should be any doubt. We are being very clear in our public statements about what is going on in Xinjiang. As I have said, we are carefully considering further designations.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
I echo the words of the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for obtaining this important urgent question. The best thanks that we could give to the hon. Lady and others in this House would be to actually act. What we saw on the programme was shocking, but it can no longer be any surprise. Nobody can say now that they do not know what is happening there.
The Minister has said it twice now: genocide is a matter for the courts, unlike in the United States. Surely the logic of his own arguments is that, when Lord Alton’s amendment to the Trade Bill comes back to this House next week, the Government should be supporting it or, at the very least, finding a form of words that they will bring forward to achieve the same end. I am afraid that warm words and hand wringing are no longer enough.
Nigel Adams
The right hon. Gentleman always talks in a measured and passionate way about this issue. I reiterate the comments that I made earlier to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock): the US has a different process for determining genocide, but it is not linked to a court decision. Our long-standing policy is that any judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court.
We are looking to work with right hon. and hon. colleagues to ensure that the relevant debate and scrutiny can take place here. That work has been going on while the Bill has been in the other place. No doubt there will be further such conversations over the weekend as we lead up to the Bill coming back.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing the urgent question today. It is right to shine a light on the vile atrocities being carried out in Xinjiang. The official denials by the Chinese state today are a humiliation for China on the world stage. I, too, would welcome stronger Magnitsky-style sanctions against individual officials, but is not the bottom line that we have to face up to the fact that, when totalitarian regimes become established, there is a limit to what we can do from outside? Therefore, there is all the more moral responsibility on us to confront China’s strategic aims in other parts of the world and to give support to Governments around the world who believe in democracy, freedom and the rule of law.
Nigel Adams
Again, my right hon. Friend is spot on. That is why the UK Government are leading international efforts in this regard to hold China to account. We led the first two joint statements at the UN on this issue at the Human Rights Council in June 2020 and at the Third Committee in October. The growing international pressure on China reflects the diplomatic leadership that the UK has been giving, not least in bringing together a total of 39 countries, alongside Germany, to express our concern at the situation in Xinjiang.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the case of the horrifying treatment of the Uyghur women outlined by the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) demonstrated very well, women and girls from marginalised religions or belief communities often encounter unique persecution and challenge due to their religion and gender. Other examples, such as the sexual violence suffered by Yazidi women and kidnapping and forced marriage of young Christian, Sikh and Hindu girls in Pakistan, like 14-year-old Maira Shahbaz and 13-year-old Arzoo Raja, serve to emphasise the scale and severity of this problem. What action are the Government taking to tackle issues at the intersection of gender violence, inequality and freedom of religion or belief violations?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman raises two or three horrific cases, and he is right to refer to the issue of sexual violence suffered by Yazidi women and young Christians, Sikhs and Hindus. We absolutely recognise that women and girls from religious minorities can often suffer because of their gender and faith. That is why we ensure that our human rights policy work considers the intersectionality of human rights—for example, the importance of addressing the specific issues that may be experienced by women from particular religious minority communities.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this urgent question. Many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the plight of the Uyghur community in China, and also the abuse, oppression and undermining of international agreements that is taking place in Hong Kong. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to support freedom of religion in China?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), right to raise this issue. We are deeply concerned about the persecution of people because of their beliefs or their religion. The freedom to practice, change or share faith or belief without discrimination or opposition is a human right, and that is something that all people should enjoy. We are working very hard on this. The Prime Minister recently appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) as special envoy on freedom of religion and belief. We work with and meet officials around the globe. Specifically, we met Chinese officials in 2019 and expressed our concerns, for example, on the pressures that Christians are facing. We raise cases directly. My ministerial colleague, Lord Ahmad, continues to work in this regard as the Minister responsible for human rights.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
Will the Minister explain the Government’s strategy for the G7 in Cornwall? The UK has the opportunity to work with its democratic allies to send a very strong message that China’s treatment of the Uyghur women in Xinjiang is completely unacceptable to the international community. Does he agree that actions speak much louder than words?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady raises the G7 and the opportunity we have as chair this year, and she is right to do so; ensuring that multilateral fora are at the forefront of holding China to account is really important. As I have said many times at the Dispatch Box, we have raised the situation in Xinjiang many times. We work very closely with our international partners, and I am pretty confident she can rest assured that the issue we are discussing will be brought forward as a matter of urgency with our G7 colleagues.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
It is more important than ever that we work with allies around the world to protect the values we share. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners, so that we can both monitor and combat China’s clear human rights abuses?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend talks about what we are doing internationally, which is really important. We have taken a leading international role, and the impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries that have joined our statements. We will continue to try to get the widest caucus of support, to ensure that measures brought forward hold China to account, as long as they are as effective as possible. We will continue to work with international partners, including Muslim and Arab countries and those in the region, as well as the traditional Five Eyes and European partners, to try to expand this caucus of like-minded states.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Given that the evidence of industrial-scale human rights abuse, including mass rape, torture and cultural genocide, is incontrovertible and known to the Chinese Government and the Chinese President, will the Government now give the UK courts the power to judge genocide; instruct our industries to ensure that we source our cotton not from the slave trade of Xinjiang but from democracies such as India; and instruct our pension funds and institutions not to invest in companies that are complicit in abuse, including surveillance companies? After all, our actions will be judged; our words will be ignored.
Nigel Adams
Again, I want to be absolutely clear: we are committed to ensuring that our trade policy is consistent with our international obligations. Trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. That is why the Foreign Secretary announced further measures on 12 January. We will continue to work in this regard. Our long-standing position on determining genocide is that competent courts include international courts—the ICC and the ICJ—and national criminal courts that meet international standards of due process.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this urgent question. The Minister may be aware that I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. Does he agree that there is a need to set up a PSVI body to document crimes, support survivors and lead prosecutions and that China must allow such a body of independent observers unfettered access to Xinjiang—or East Turkestan, as it is also known —so that they can report on what is occurring there?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative APPG, and I would like to wish her a happy birthday. We have made it clear that the UN human rights commissioner or another independent fact-finding body must be given unfettered access to Xinjiang. We have called for that repeatedly in joint statements and national statements at the UN. It is vital that China allows such access without delay. If, as China claims today, these allegations are mere fabrications or fake news, how can it object to granting access?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing this urgent question.
In 2018, some 80% of all inter-uterine devices used in China were implanted in women in Xinjiang province, even though they account for only 1.8% of China’s population. Forced sterilisation, rape, sexual torture and violence are happening before our eyes and are clearly documented. We know we are not the only nation that is trying to speak up on this issue. The Minister has talked about the importance of human rights access; will he update us on the conversations he has been having with the Australians, who have also been leading on this issue at the UN, in order that we can show the world a joint economic and diplomatic approach to holding China to account?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to co-operate on an international level, and we are. I had a meeting yesterday with the Australian deputy high commissioner and we discussed Xinjiang. It is crucial that we work together in all sorts of different multilateral fora and bilaterally with like-minded countries. As I have said previously, the impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries that have joined us in our statements.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this question. The BBC programme was indeed harrowing, and many Carshalton and Wallington residents have raised it with me. One of the most distressing aspects of the treatment of the Uyghurs is the sickening online propaganda suggesting that they are somehow happy with or, indeed, responding well to their so-called re-education. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and in tech about tackling this harmful online content?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Content that denies that these atrocities are going on should be judged as harmful content. We are developing an online harms regulatory framework, which will establish a new duty of care to ensure that companies have processes in place to deal with the sort of disinformation and harmful content to which my hon. Friend refers.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The public are truly appalled by the further horrific crimes that have now come to light. We cannot allow this situation to be tolerated. Will the Minister advise us on what more can be done to tighten the restrictions to prevent Xinjiang cotton and other goods manufactured by prisoners from entering UK supply chains and ending up in our shops?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise this issue; it is important that we take action in this regard. We believe that the measures announced by the Foreign Secretary in January are robust. We have led the international action in this regard. The measures in respect of UK supply chains are targeted and will help to ensure that no British organisation, whether in the public or private sector, is complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We all agree that nobody should profit from the abuse of others. Forced labour is a hideous crime. I welcome what the Minister has said regarding the use of the Modern Slavery Act, but will he consider introducing provisions similar to those used in the United States, where hot goods produced by forced labour are prevented from even entering the country, to stop perpetrators profiting from their abusive behaviour?
Nigel Adams
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she did when she was the Minister responsible for the Modern Slavery Act; it has had a huge impact. In respect of the US Department of Labour’s hot goods provision, we certainly do not rule out taking further measures. Xinjiang’s position in the international supply chain network means that there is a risk of businesses inadvertently or otherwise sourcing from suppliers that are complicit in the use of forced labour. That is why we have announced the package of measures to ensure that businesses that profit from forced Uyghur labour are not part of the supply chains. It includes the introduction of financial penalties for businesses that do not comply with the Modern Slavery Act and guidance for businesses operating in Xinjiang, and also support for UK Government and public bodies to exclude suppliers who are complicit in forced labour.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
We have heard of the Chinese regime carrying out forced sterilisations on Uyghur women as well as carrying out forced abortions and tearing children from their mothers. As if it could not get any worse, we now know they are systematically raping and torturing women in their detention camps; nowhere is safe for them. As we approach the next stage of the Trade Bill, now is the time for the Government to accept Lord Alton’s amendment to finally call this programme of abuse what it is: genocide. If the Minister’s Department continues to refuse, what exactly is it waiting for China to do before it takes this action?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is right to raise the deeply disturbing reports of forced sterilisation; we had a debate in this place late last year on the issue. It adds to the growing body of evidence about the disturbing situation that Uyghurs in Xinjiang and other minorities are facing. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government fully understand the strength of feeling on this matter; that is why we are looking to work to ensure that the relevant debate and scrutiny can take place in Parliament, where there are credible concerns about genocide in defined circumstances.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
The news from Xinjiang becomes ever more horrific, so what can the Government do to help us as consumers know when we shop online exactly where our products are coming from? Are the Government having conversations with the big online retailers so that we will know if anything we are buying is coming from either Xinjiang or China? Can the Government help in this area so our collective power as consumers can be brought to bear?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. It is important that we strengthen the measures that we announced previously on the Modern Slavery Act and that we announced in January on strengthening the overseas business risk measures, making it clear to businesses, whether online or otherwise, that if they are investing or have supply chains in Xinjiang they must not inadvertently or directly be complicit in the exploitation of forced labour. We are reviewing the export controls to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent the export of goods that may contribute to human rights violations, and, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), the financial penalties for organisations that fail to comply with these transparency obligations will be severe.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for seeking this urgent question. I have a simple question that has been asked several times already this morning, but as I have not heard a clear answer I will ask it again: why do the Government continue to drag their feet on applying Magnitsky sanctions to Chinese officials in Xinjiang when the evidence of serious human rights violations is so compelling?
Nigel Adams
We have taken action. We have led international action; we have targeted measures, as announced in January; we will continue to work closely with our partners and lead international efforts to hold China to account, including by working with the new Administration in the United States; and I can tell the hon. Lady we are carefully considering further Magnitsky designations on the Chinese regime and keeping all the evidence and the potential listings under close review.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The treatment of the Uyghurs by the Chinese regime is beyond appalling. The Minister was right to say in his statement that the initial step we need to take to resolve the situation is for the Chinese to allow unfettered access for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. What possible excuse could the Chinese regime have for preventing that, and how are Her Majesty’s Government going to bring that about?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. If China has nothing to hide and claims again today that these allegations are false, there is absolutely no excuse for unfettered access not being granted to the UN human rights commissioner, and we have constantly called for that to happen.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this urgent question, but it is the third urgent question we have had on the treatment of Uyghurs, and indeed the Foreign Secretary made a statement on the issue not three weeks ago. I reiterate the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that thoughts and prayers are no longer sufficient. What else do the Government and their international partners require to take action?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are taking action. We have taken action with regard to Xinjiang. We have raised this directly with the Chinese authorities; the Foreign Secretary has raised it with his direct counterpart, and I have raised it with China’s ambassador—now the former ambassador—to the UK. We announced a series of measures in January, and we funded the research that helped build the evidence base for what is going on in Xinjiang. We will continue to work not just on our own but with our international partners to ensure that China is held to its international obligations.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
First, I thank the Minister for his work. He is a good Minister; it is a difficult brief, and he does his job diligently. However, does the Foreign Office believe that it is ethically right to sign preferential treaties with states credibly accused of genocide? Systematic rape, sexual torture, forced sterilisation, re-education camps, forced labour, Orwellian surveillance—this is a tragedy happening in our time and it demands moral recognition, so why are the Government blocking our meaningful genocide amendment to the Trade Bill? Will they please work with us to introduce a meaningful amendment to that Bill that recognises the criticality—the moral imperative—of recognising genocide, and a genocide that is happening now, in our age?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; I knew there was going to be a “however” or a “but” at some point. I know how passionate he is about this issue. To his first question, of course it is not right that we should be entering into these agreements with genocidal countries. I can again be absolutely clear that we understand the strength of his feeling on this matter, and that of other hon. and right hon. Members. We want to work, and we are working, with hon. and right hon. Members right across the House—work that will continue in the run-up to next Tuesday, when the Bill comes back to this place.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
The extent of these crimes of sexual violence can only be considered to be systematic and a further symptom of the genocide being carried out, using a whole armoury of appalling tactics, by Chinese officials. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are considering adopting an atrocity prevention strategy to ensure that the resources of all Departments always operate in a way that is consistent with our values?
Nigel Adams
We are working incredibly hard with our international partners to ensure that there is an effective response to the situation in Xinjiang. The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. We will continue to do that. I do believe that our diplomatic pressure is having an international impact, by virtue of the fact that the most recent statement had 38 countries joining us. We will continue to work both directly—bilaterally—and internationally to ensure that China is held to account for its international obligations.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), I was appalled by the statement from the Chinese embassy condemning the BBC report about the treatment of Uyghurs, including the systematic rape of detained women, as little more than fake news. This is another example of the Chinese state denying genocide, despite it being glaringly obvious that the Chinese Communist party is orchestrating the systematic eradication of the Uyghur.
Unlike some today, I believe that whether a totalitarian state is established or not, we must have the courage and confidence to resist inhuman despotism, as this country proudly has in the past. Will my hon. Friend tell me when and which additional measures the Government intend to employ in the light of the overwhelming and still growing mountain of evidence of human rights abuses and shameless lies by the Chinese Government?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Again, I know how passionate hon and right hon. Members feel about this particular issue. With regard to the measures, we have taken action, as he knows, both at the UN and with our statements bringing together our international partners. We announced further measures in January aimed at targeting companies that are potentially indirectly or inadvertently profiting from forced labour. We will continue to look and to lead international efforts to hold China to account. We will consider carefully further designations under our global human rights regime, and we will keep all evidence and potential listings under close review. It is important that sanctions are developed responsibly, and it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated in the future.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before I call the shadow Leader of the House to ask the business question, I want to make a short statement about changes to the timings of Divisions. These changes will come into effect on Monday and reflect the fact that a large number of Members currently hold proxy votes. For the first Division, the doors will be locked after eight minutes, as normal. For any successive Divisions on the same business, the doors will be locked after five minutes. If there are Divisions later in the day, then again the doors will be locked after eight minutes for the first Division and after five minutes for any successive Divisions. If there is any problem, more time can be allowed before the doors are locked. I hope these changes will help us speed up our processes, without disadvantaging Members—we hope it will be to their benefit.
Business of the House
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 8 February will include:
Monday 8 February—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021.
Tuesday 9 February—A motion to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021, followed by a motion to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Trade Bill, followed by a general debate relating to the publication of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. The subject for this debate was recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 10 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 11 February—Consideration of a Business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill.
Friday 12 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 22 February will include:
Monday 22 February—A general debate on covid-19.
Tuesday 23 February—Opposition day (17th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 24 February—Consideration of Lords amendments.
Thursday 25 February—A general debate on the proposal for a national education route map for schools and colleges in response to the covid-19 outbreak, followed by general debate on Welsh affairs. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 26 February—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
May I start by thanking the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for all his work? We now know that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will be taking over for him, and I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for standing in for him today.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Of course, we say thank you for the Opposition day, but the Government have abstained on the past six Opposition motions in a row. Even though they have been passed by the House, the Leader of the House and the Government seem to be ignoring the will of Parliament and indeed the sovereignty of Parliament; he will know that the Executive derive their authority from Parliament.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House has read Lord McFall’s account of reforming the Select Committee in the other place in The House magazine, but I can tell him that the Lords is to have a European affairs Committee and a sub-Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol. The Northern Ireland Secretary told the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on 20 January that
“we are not at the moment in a position where we want to be looking at extending the grace period.”
However, on Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster called for an extension of the grace period, which is due to expire in March. The Prime Minister has previously said that he has concerns about the protocol and that there were teething problems, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said he would “not describe” them in that way. It sounds as though the Government are in disarray. Let us recall the Prime Minister’s election promise to businesses in Northern Ireland:
“No forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”
Will the Leader of the House look at restoring our Select Committee along the same lines as what they have in the other place—unless the Leader of the House thinks that there is more accountability there than we have in this place?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the Health Secretary will update the House on the Government’s failure of a policy on comprehensive quarantine. When are we likely to expect that—or did the Prime Minister misspeak again? The Leader of the House will know that the Road Haulage Association has said that 40% to 50% of trucks are going back to the EU empty. The Federation of Small Businesses has called for transition payments. They are saying the problems have not emerged because of stockpiling, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is now having weekly meetings of the Brexit taskforce. How about a weekly update to the House? Our businesses in our constituencies are part of the supply chain, and they want to know what is going on.
More broken promises, Mr Speaker, and more hypocrisy. The 2019 Tory manifesto pledged to “safeguard our green spaces”, but we have allotments being built on and sold off in Walsall. Two hundred and fifty residents are on the waiting list. The Tory-led council has agreed permission for 15 new townhouses on one of the two green public spaces in Walsall town centre, with no consultation with residents on a house in multiple occupation in a built-up area in Redhouse Street, and no consultation on using up a green space—again, in a built-up area—for a Traveller site. The current mayor is looking to Sandwell about green spaces, yet he is not looking to Tory-led Walsall Council and how it is using up every single green space. Could we have a debate on local councils and the lack of scrutiny?
The Leader of the House did not announce Foreign Office questions, but he will know the major incidents that are taking place around the world. He will also know that this House has supported Burma in setting up its democracy by building a library and training its MPs. The leader of Burma is in jail—the Proud Boys seem to be the same as the generals. Kameel Ahmady has escaped from Iran. Again, I raise Nazanin and Anoosheh: it is not public speculation, but parliamentary scrutiny. The Foreign Secretary’s American counterpart, Secretary of State Blinken, has spoken to all the families of those hostages. Will the Leader of the House undertake that the Foreign Secretary will do the same? My constituents are distraught at the sight of farmers—their extended families—being tear-gassed in their peaceful demonstration, so could we have a debate on foreign policy?
Today is World Cancer Day, and I am sure there is not a single person who does not know of someone who has suffered. We send our condolences to the family of Captain Tom Moore. He wanted us to remember how lucky we were to have an NHS, because he remembered when it was not there. Clapping is not enough: the Prime Minister can do something, which is make a payment to all our frontline services and NHS workers now that the Budget is coming up. We also pay tribute to Maureen Colquhoun. It is absolutely amazing that, in her five years, she managed to do so much. Perhaps the intranet and digital services can pay tribute to the work she has done, given that it is LGBT+ History Month.
I wish our hard-working shadow vaccine Minister, who is coming in later, a very happy birthday. Finally, welcome to the world, Henry George Elmore-Sedgebeer, who was born on 28 January.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Indeed: welcome to the world, Henry. There is a great joy in new life, and we must also celebrate the life of Captain Sir Tom Moore, who was an inspiration to so many people in this country. I am glad that the right hon. Lady mentioned World Cancer Day. Macmillan Cancer Support provides hotline services for those who need help and support, and I encourage people to use them if they need support. People should go to the doctor if they have any symptoms they are concerned about.
I also thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for his participation in these exchanges, and for the exceptionally courteous dealings that I always had with him privately. Our public dealings may have been occasionally rambunctious, but privately, the dealings were extremely civilised. I welcome back the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for standing in for him at short notice today. He is a very distinguished member of the Select Committee on Procedure, and asks me difficult questions there; I hope he will ask me easier questions in a moment’s time. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says not—oh, dear. We shall wait and see.
Let me come to the right hon. Lady’s key points. First, the Government have made Opposition days available in the proper course of events, in accordance with Standing Orders, and the Opposition have brought forward important matters to debate. They have been debated, and the Government have set out their view during these debates. However, she knows that there are different functions within this House and different motions that have different effects, and motions that are passed by the House on Opposition days are not the law. They are different from the legislative processes that we have and are therefore treated in a different way. The reason that the Government, under Standing Order No. 14, have the right to order business in this House is because they command a majority. It is always open to the Opposition to ask for a vote of no confidence or to use an Opposition day for that, but I do not think that it would get them very far, so I think the House is being treated courteously, in accordance with the constitutional norms.
As regards various Select Committees, there are Select Committees that can look into all the matters relating to our departure from the European Union. It is the general position of this Government and predecessor Governments that, by and large, Select Committees should reflect the Departments that they cover. Anything relating to Northern Ireland can be looked at by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is so wonderfully chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)—one of my oldest friends in the House—who does it with great distinction and can carry out any inquiries that that Committee sees fit. There are plenty of opportunities for scrutiny, as there are of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who has been the most assiduous appearer at this Dispatch Box to set out what the Government have been doing. There will be a statement later on the vaccine, but he has been second to none in his courtesy to the House and his frequency of appearances, so I think criticising him is, dare I say it, a bit unreasonable.
I think the right hon. Lady showed her characteristic courage in suggesting that the Prime Minister may have misspoken the day after the Leader of the Opposition had to make a rather embarrassing public admission of having misspoken in this Chamber, when he forgot what he had said previously. I was not going to raise this private embarrassment for the socialists until she said that the Prime Minister had done this, which he has not. He has been completely accurate in what he said, but the Leader of the Opposition—oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. It was rather awkward yesterday, and who knows what was going on behind the Speaker’s Chair later on? [Interruption.] Oh, it was the other end, was it? They kept safely away from Mr Speaker. If you were to read the MailOnline, it was a very interesting state of affairs to have going on in this House of Commons.
The right hon. Lady raises her wonderful local council, Walsall Council, brilliantly run by the Conservatives, whom I had the pleasure of visiting last year. They are doing amazing work in developing brownfield sites, which is of fundamental importance. It is a great local authority and I hope that, when it has the local elections, everybody in Walsall will vote Conservative, because that is how they get good local government.
The right hon. Lady is right to raise foreign affairs. As she will have noticed, we are having a Back-Bench debate on 9 February—the general debate relating to the publication of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy—but we must encourage countries around the world to respect democracy. What has been going on in Burma is deeply shocking, and the Government are working with other countries to try to pressurise those who have done wrong to do right. That is what this Government must continue to do. They have been doing the same in relation to other countries where there are these abuses.
Once again, the right hon. Lady raises the dual nationals who are held improperly by Iran, and I will, as always, take this up with the Foreign Secretary on her behalf. It is a matter of the greatest importance, and a primary duty of the British state is to defend the interests of its nationals abroad.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I start by echoing the comments from both Front Benchers in regards to Captain Sir Tom Moore. This week is Children’s Mental Health Week. With the closure of schools and the impact of the pandemic on all children, it is more important than ever that we consider this particular issue. I commend the work that the Government have been doing, in particular, with the Department for Education on the catch-up programme to help to tackle the attainment gap. However, mental health issues are becoming more prevalent across the country. Can I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate or a statement on the effects of the pandemic on children’s mental health and what we can do to tackle this issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an issue that has I think been raised with all of us in our constituencies. Children’s Mental Health Week is an opportunity to keep raising awareness about the importance of looking after our mental health. The Prime Minister announced a new youth mental health ambassador, Dr Alex George, who will be working with the Government to promote the importance of mental health education and support in our schools to help young people to build resilience. We are making sure that support is available for any children who may be struggling with their mental health currently. Schools have the flexibility to offer a place in the school to vulnerable children, which might include those for whom being in school helps them to manage their mental health. Schools will continue to offer pastoral support to pupils working remotely, supported by £8 billion of taxpayers’ money that the Government are providing for wellbeing, training and advice. There is also the increase in public expenditure on mental health to help to support many hundreds of thousands more children and adults who have mental health problems. I can also tell my hon. Friend that there will be an opportunity to debate this issue relating to covid on 22 February.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I thank the shadow Leader and the Leader of the House for their kind comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I know he certainly enjoyed his exchanges in these sessions, and I am sure the Leader of the House will be looking forward to the return of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I am hoping that this transition period is slightly smoother than the Brexit one.
The Oxford Internet Institute recently published a report on industrialised disinformation. Given the importance that I know the Leader of the House places on confidence in democracy, he will I am sure be worried at the report’s finding that
“industrialized disinformation has become more professionalized, and produced on a large scale by major governments, political parties, and public relations firms”,
and that the UK is listed among the 81 countries in which this is a permanent situation. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can tackle and regulate this issue, as a number of firms are springing up—65, in fact—offering this service to clients?
Yesterday, I tried to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State for Wales on the financial powers for devolved nations in tackling the pandemic and, looking forward, tackling climate change. As part of that, I was looking to see why the Treasury continues to impose unfair and unreasonable limits on the devolved nations’ borrowing powers. I would be very grateful if we could have a debate in Government time to further consider what steps we could take to consider those implications and their impact on the devolved nations, and to untie the hands of the devolved nations so that we can tackle all the challenges that face us.
With sitting Fridays currently suspended, I am sure the Leader of the House will be keen to look at the number of private Members’ Bills there currently are and to consider which could be brought forward, perhaps in Government time, or adopted by the Government. I might even take this opportunity to make a plug for my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, which I am sure the Leader of the House would be keen to see adopted, as it would further ensure confidence among Members.
Finally, as well as being World Cancer Day, today is Time to Talk Day. To support the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), I ask the Leader of the House whether he will join MYPAS—the Midlothian Young Peoples Advice Service—in my Midlothian constituency, which, among others, is having conversations about mental health with so many. This is such a challenging time that these conversations are so important.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling the House that today is Time to Talk Day. This is a really important thing to do; we should all try to do more of it. I commend him for what he is doing in his constituency. If he wanted me to talk to his constituents, although I am not sure they want to hear from me, I would be honoured to do so. This is a very important initiative.
On the question of industrialised disinformation, I think that people are wise enough to know which sources of information are reliable and that people—our voters—understand that much of the information on the internet cannot be accepted at face value. However, sometimes it goes further than that, and it is right that the Government will bring forward proposals in the online harms Bill in due course to try to ensure that the internet is properly regulated. The question of whether the internet companies are in fact publishers is a very important one to bear in mind. They seem to have many of the aspects of publishers, though they are keen to avoid any of the responsibilities of publishers.
I am extremely keen to find a way of bringing private Members’ Bills back before the end of this Session, whenever that may come. They are an important way in which Back Benchers raise issues of concern to their constituents and have them debated. I gave the commitment to bring them back as soon as is possible and practicable. That remains the case, and I am working with people throughout the House to try to find suitable time to do that, but I cannot give a date at the moment.
On the most contentious matter that the hon. Gentleman mentions—the fiscal arrangements—it is worth reminding him that £8.6 billion of UK taxpayers’ money has gone to help Scotland during the pandemic. It is the strength of the United Kingdom that, throughout this pandemic, has provided the support needed. He may chunter behind his elegant mask, but that means 779,500 jobs in the furlough scheme. It means £1.13 billion in the self-employed scheme. It is a really important Unionist level of support. We know now that the Unionist Government are helping the devolved Scottish Government to roll out their vaccine programme, and more people will be going from the British Army to help set up more vaccine centres. This is our UK Government bailing out a devolved Government. That is what we do, and we should be really proud of the United Kingdom, which has such strength as one country.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
In 2018, a terrorist plot would have meant that Members of Parliament from a UK cross-party delegation and from around the world who were attending the free Iran rally were murdered. Fortunately, the French and Belgian police co-operated, and the plot was foiled. This morning, the Belgian court announced its verdict, and the Iranian diplomat Assadolah Assadi was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, together with his accomplices. That has severe implications for our relations with Iran and for Iranian diplomatic services across the world. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the implications of this verdict for diplomatic relations with Iran and its embassies not only in the UK but across Europe?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. Her Majesty’s Government are deeply concerned about this incident and continue to work closely with our European partners on security and counter-terrorism issues. We are closely monitoring reporting on the trial taking place in Belgium. We expect diplomatic and consular missions in the UK to respect our laws and regulations in line with their obligations under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, the Vienna convention on consular relations and UK law. Who in this House can forget the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher by somebody with diplomatic immunity from Libya? Only the worst states abuse diplomatic immunity to plot acts of terror. The Iranians surely do not want to put themselves in the same category—the same class—as Mr Gaddafi’s regime.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the business programme. It is obviously regrettable, from the Backbench Business Committee’s perspective, that we have lost the previously proposed time on 11 February, but I thank him for the time now proposed on Tuesday 9 February. Could we have three hours’ protected time for that general debate on 9 February relating to the publication of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, to make sure that it gets a good airing?
On 25 February, we propose debates on a national route map out of the pandemic for schools and colleges, and a Welsh affairs debate to coincide with a date as close as possible to St David’s day on 1 March, which is the following Monday. We propose those debates on 25 February as we are highly unlikely to get any time the following week, due to the probability that the Budget and the Budget debate will take place during that week. Both the debates we have proposed for 25 February are very well subscribed, so can we have as little additional business as possible from the Government and from yourself, Mr Speaker, to give as much time as possible for those debates to be aired properly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I had a feeling that the hon. Gentleman would ask for protected time on 9 February, and I will certainly consider it. However, he has asked me on previous occasions whether the Government would be willing to schedule Backbench Business time when Government business may fall short. If we then made that protected time, that of course would extend the day, which is a different request from the Backbench Business Committee. I am saying as gently as I can that the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways, but I will think about it next week, because the Government changed business from the Thursday to the Wednesday due to the important Bill on the Thursday.
As regards 25 February, Mr Speaker, you and I did what we could to protect time for the Holocaust memorial debate. That has to be exceptional. There are important statements and urgent questions on Thursdays as there are on other days. Although there is a gentlemen’s agreement on Opposition days—[Interruption.] A gentlemen’s agreement is an inclusive term!
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, it is. Although there is such an agreement on Opposition days, that cannot be extended to all days, otherwise we would lose time for important statements and urgent questions.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]
Once again, homes and businesses in the northern part of my constituency, particularly the area around Barrow Haven, are threatened with flooding. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to update the House and my constituents on the Environment Agency’s plans to alleviate flooding in that part of northern Lincolnshire?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend, as always, is a champion for his constituents to ensure that they are properly protected and looked after. The sympathies of the whole House go to those affected by flooding, and the Government are determined to tackle the risks. Flood defences will have £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money devoted to them over the next six years to protect 336,000 properties better than they are currently protected.
In Lincolnshire, there has been expenditure of £296.8 million on flood defences since 2010—which coincides with my hon. Friend becoming a Member of this House—providing better protection for around 77,500 homes. There is planned further expenditure of £57.8 million of taxpayers’ money on flood defences for the period 2020-21, protecting around 22,800 homes. A great deal is being done, but none the less for those whose homes have been recently flooded there is no better compensation than one’s sympathy and the hope that things can be done to stop it happening in future, because the pain and distress that they bear is considerable.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
A constituent contacted my office in tears this week about the uncertainty of their immigration status. They have worked for years as a community carer for the elderly in Westminster, which has obviously become incredibly difficult over the past year. She waited two years before her initial application was refused, and she is distraught at the prospect of another lengthy wait. Please can we have an urgent debate on prioritising visa applications for healthcare and medical workers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady will know that the immigration system is being updated to ensure that we have a fair points-based system to help people. If there are individual constituency questions, they are best taken up directly with the Home Office, although if the hon. Lady is not getting answers as swiftly as she would like, I will certainly use my office to help her.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Now that Putin the poisoner has jailed Alexei Navalny for the “crime” of missing probation appointments while in a coma, may we have a statement about British policy towards Russia, so that the House can express its view on such issues as that outrage and the increasing reliance of our European friends and allies on Russian gas supplies through such follies as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is so right to raise this important and disgraceful issue. The Government have called for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Navalny. It is a completely perverse ruling. To say that somebody who has been the victim of an attempted murder, with a poison that is usually only available to state actors, has missed an appointment and therefore must go to prison is peculiar and unjust. It shows Russia is failing to meet the most basic commitments expected of any responsible member of the international community. Russia should fulfil its obligations under international law to investigate this despicable crime and explain how a chemical weapon came to be used on Russian soil.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I know we are all grateful, across this House and of course across the whole country, to the staff, teachers and everybody involved in keeping schools open over the pandemic for the children who need them most. Headteachers in Ousedale School and St Paul’s Catholic School in Milton Keynes have received particularly glowing praise in my inbox recently, and I am sure everybody here will join me in congratulating them on the hard work they have done. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate or a statement to inform the House on the efforts that are being made to recognise school staff, and the steps that are being taken to fully reopen schools as soon as it is safe to do so?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the Ousedale sixth form and St Paul’s Catholic School in his constituency. That is one way, and an important way, of recognising the contribution that people are making during the current pandemic in the education system.
We will return to face-to-face learning as soon as we possibly can, which the Government hope will start from Monday 8 March. However, before we increase attendance, we need to be confident that doing so will not increase the pressure on the NHS—not because schools and colleges are no longer safe, but because that may increase the level of contact all of us have with other households. While we are seeing signs of things starting to move in the right direction, case rates remain high across the country and the NHS is still under immense pressure, so it is too early to set out a precise timetable, but I think everybody wishes to see schools reopen as soon as it is safe to do so.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
The climate and ecological emergency has the potential of becoming an even bigger crisis than the global pandemic. Countries across the world, including the UK, were woefully under- prepared for the global pandemic, despite many warnings. Here in the UK, we do not even have a Department dedicated to working towards the enormous challenges of getting to net zero. In the year that the UK is hosting COP26, can we have not just one but several debates on how this Government are planning for and working towards getting to net zero by 2050?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, for her important question. The Government are committed to leaving the environment in a better state for the next generation. We cannot forget, after all, that it was Margaret Thatcher who led the world, with her foresight, in early efforts to tackle climate change in the late 1980s, and the Prime Minister aims to follow in her distinguished footsteps. This Government want to lead a green industrial revolution in the United Kingdom, levelling up the country, creating thousands of high-skilled green jobs and building back a greener economy, while helping to get to net zero by 2050.
The 10-point plan is the blueprint for a green industrial revolution. It combines ambitious policies with significant new public spending to deliver a vision for the United Kingdom as greener, more prosperous and at the forefront of the industries for the future. Spanning clean energy, buildings, transport, nature and innovative technologies, the plan will mobilise £12 billion of taxpayers’ spending and will support up to a quarter of a million green jobs. This year, with COP26, as the hon. Lady says, and our chairmanship of the G7, we are going to be leading international efforts in this regard.
Chris Law [V]
The Perth Road Pub Company in my constituency has been using the furlough scheme since it was introduced last March. Despite Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs approving its claim in December, this was never received. HMRC claimed that it would take 15 days to resolve, but there has been no progress since. The company has been unable to make further claims and employees have lost out on income, with over 30 jobs now at risk. I have written to HMRC and will be writing to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today. May we therefore have an urgent debate on HMRC’s delays in investigating and resolving unpaid furlough claims?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point for his constituents. I would remind him that 779,500 jobs in Scotland have benefited from the furlough scheme. It has been a really important way of keeping people in employment, rather than having unemployment figures spiralling out of control. It has been a very effective scheme. However, as with any scheme, there are inevitably occasions when things do not work. I will undertake immediately after these exchanges to take up his point with ministerial people and ensure that the question about the pub in his constituency is resolved as swiftly as it may be. If he would like to send me a copy of his letter to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I will ensure that my offices are used to pursue an answer for him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We are having difficulties connecting with Stroud, so we will instead go directly to Luton South.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Today is Time to Talk Day, which encourages everyone to be more open about their mental health. On that note, just a fortnight ago I met a number of leaseholders in Luton South who told me how the anxiety of living in an unsafe building, and the threat of having to pay for fire safety remediation that they simply cannot afford, is having a negative impact on their mental health. With the Prime Minister stating at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday that no leaseholder should have to pay these costs, will the Leader of the House outline when the Fire Safety Bill will return to this place so that the Prime Minister can back up his words with action by supporting the amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Prime Minister indeed said that leaseholders ought to be protected from large costs, but the correct Bill for that will be the building safety Bill that the Government are bringing forward. The Fire Safety Bill is in its amending stages and will return to the Floor of the House in the normal way.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Last week I joined my local antisocial behaviour team for a street patrol around central Blackpool, which has one of the highest drug-related death rates and crime rates in the entire nation. I am delighted that the Government are taking direct action in Blackpool through Project ADDER, which is an innovative approach, supported by millions of pounds of additional funding, to help dismantle organised criminal gangs and tackle the supply of drugs coming into Blackpool. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider having a debate in Government time to further assess how we can relentlessly pursue criminal gangs and tackle the devastating impact that drug-related crime has upon many communities, including mine?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an extremely serious issue. I am glad that his constituency is benefiting from the direct action that the Government are taking to help authorities tackle serious crime, and I commend him for joining the local street patrol to see at first hand the difficulties that his constituents face as a result of criminal and antisocial behaviour. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out in her statement on 20 January, the Government are providing £148 million of taxpayers’ money to dismantle criminal gangs, tackle drug supply and support drug treatment services. As my hon. Friend mentioned, Project ADDER—it stands for addiction, diversion, disruption, enforcement and recovery —will trial a new approach to drug misuse, combining a targeted police approach with enhanced treatment services. It will run for three financial years in five areas—Blackpool, Hastings, Norwich, Middlesbrough and Swansea Bay. I encourage my hon. Friend to raise this further at Home Office questions on 8 February.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We return to Stroud and Siobhan Baillie.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) [V]
It was World Wetlands Day this week and also the 50th anniversary of the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance. We have lost a third of the world’s wetlands since 1970, but they are critical blue infrastructure. We have 175 internationally important Ramsar sites in the UK and they provide the ability to store carbon, reduce flooding, support wellbeing and restore biodiversity. I am working with the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Slimbridge to promote wetlands and a blue recovery. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the issue in Government time, because of the UK’s clear focus on climate change and biodiversity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That question was definitely worth waiting for, so I am glad that we persevered with the technology.
I commend my hon. Friend for her work with Slimbridge, which is such a wonderful place. As she said, World Wetlands Day took place this week and was an opportunity to remind everyone of the crucial ecosystem services that wetlands offer to people and nature. Wetlands ecosystems deliver vital services in the UK, including by providing habitats to protected species, improving our air and water quality and providing defences against flooding, as my hon. Friend rightly noted.
The United Kingdom recognises that wetlands, especially peatlands and coastal blue-carbon ecosystems, are an important and effective nature-based solution to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. Since 1976, this country has worked alongside our international partners, under the Ramsar convention on wetlands, to promote the conservation and wise use of wetlands. With 175 designated wetlands throughout the UK and our overseas territories, the UK is proud to host the largest number of Ramsar sites in the world. We are doing our bit, but my hon. Friend encourages us to do more and is right to do so.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday, Dido Harding, the head of Test and Trace and a Conservative peer, defended there being 2,500 consultants working on test and trace who are paid an average of £1,100 a day. That is more than £2.5 million per day on private consultants. Surely the private sector should not be siphoning off public funds in this way, so will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on how we can get rid of these rip-off companies from our test and trace system and instead invest the funds in our NHS?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am afraid to say that was a completely absurd question. The pressure on the NHS is being reduced because of the work of Test and Trace. We have the capacity to process more than 800,000 tests a day, and so far more than 20 million people in this country have been tested at least once. This is an essential part of how we are tackling the pandemic and the hon. Gentleman, as always, pooh-poohs it. Typical socialist: he pooh-poohs the private sector. Without the private sector, we would not be rolling out the vaccines as fast as we are—that is another key part of our defence and action against the pandemic. Yes, the NHS is a fundamental part of our healthcare—of course it is—but the vaccines were produced by and are being produced and manufactured by private companies. We should recognise the enormous contribution that free markets have made in helping us and not pooh-pooh them.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on planning issues? In Amber Valley we have an application for a solar farm covering more than 300 acres, and although there is support for renewable energy there is not support for losing quite such a large area of countryside. It would be helpful to discuss the balance between the need for energy and the preservation of the open countryside in our constituencies.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Every Member of the House knows that we could spend every day of every week debating planning issues. They are fundamental to the representation that we provide to our constituents and are often the most contentious issues that arise. The Government set out a new White Paper on planning last year; the matter is being debated and very much thought about and will be an essential part of the Government’s programme.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) raised concerns on behalf of students affected by the pandemic, who include post- graduate researchers like my constituent Elliot Howley, who is studying for his PhD here in Nottingham. I regret that the Minister for Universities did not address the failure of UK Research and Innovation to provide funded extensions to those doctoral students who need them, despite its own survey last June in which 77% of non-final year students indicated that they would need an extension averaging 5.1 months. May we have a debate on the recommendation of the report by the all-party parliamentary group for students that studentships should be extended to allow research to be finished to the usual high standards in circumstances where lockdown has affected access to facilities and resources?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Universities have a great deal of autonomy over how they run their affairs and their courses, and that is quite right. The difficulty with extensions is the obvious one: the next year is coming and, if the choice is for an extension, where is the capacity? The hon. Lady may wish to raise the subject in an Adjournment debate.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
I was pleased to read in the Financial Times that the Government are rightly planning to relocate several of their Departments to the north of England, and yet I was disappointed not to see Doncaster on the list of places that are being considered. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, Doncaster and my constituency of Don Valley have some of the best transport links in the country, excellent housing stock and a town that could easily accommodate many civil servants. Does he not agree that the Government should therefore consider relocating at least one of their Departments to my fantastic town?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is the greatest salesman for Don Valley and Doncaster that one could imagine. His constituents should be so reassured to have him as their representative and champion. There is still somebody called the Queen’s Champion—an hereditary post—who used to appear at coronations. My hon. Friend holds a similar role in being a champion for his constituency.
The Government are considering new locations for the civil service, and it is obviously important to find the sorts of locations that have excellent transport links and housing. The Cabinet Office, through the Places for Growth programme, is finalising relocation plans and beginning their implementation following the spending review. We want to ensure that our geography of locations covers as large and representative an area of the UK as possible, with the aim of having decision makers based in locations to create and distribute opportunity, jobs and investment across the country, including Yorkshire.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) [V]
By any objective assessment, the promises made to the people of Northern Ireland—that, as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, their citizenship of the UK would not be diminished and their access to the GB market would not be disrupted—have been totally discredited. Tens of thousands of people cannot buy online from GB; horticultural supplies to gardeners and garden centres have almost stopped; businesses have found that they cannot get supplies, which has put in jeopardy their production; and petty EU rules have seen goods turned away at ports because they were not loaded on pallets acceptable to the EU, or machinery had soil residue on their tyres. All that is before full implementation of the protocol. The grace period ends in April, and what will happen after that—we have not yet even seen the impact of EU legislation being imposed undemocratically on Northern Ireland—is unthinkable. Will the Leader of the House consider a half-day Opposition day debate on those issues, which are of fundamental importance to the people of Northern Ireland, to the Union and to the integrity of the UK market, given that the Democratic Unionist party has not had an Opposition day debate in this Session?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Obviously, I listen very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s request for an Opposition day debate. The DUP does not automatically have one, but I note that in the past it often has, so that will certainly be discussed in the normal manner.
As to the mainstay of his question, this is a matter of the greatest concern. Northern Ireland is a fundamental part of the United Kingdom. The agreement with the European Union was intended to respect that, and to respect the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement —that sets out clearly that no change can be made to the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of both communities. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have been taking up these issues with urgency. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in touch with his opposite numbers in the European Union to see how things can be improved, and my right hon Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that there is no question but that we will ensure that steps are taken to safeguard the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I note that the actions of the European Union recently show that the threshold for article 16’s use was perhaps not as high as we may previously have thought.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
Captain Sir Tom Moore taught us that tomorrow is a good day. May I ask my right hon. Friend, as Lord President of the Privy Council, to use his influence to bring about a commemorative coin for this remarkable national treasure and a debate in this House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend has the most brilliantly obscure knowledge, because the approval of all coins does indeed come before the Privy Council on the suggestion of the Royal Mint. I hope that, as Lord President, I do see a proposal from the Royal Mint in due course. Captain Sir Tom Moore dedicated his life to serving his country and others, and he showed the value of all life when he, in his 100th and 101st years, showed that somebody of great age can make as important a contribution as anybody else in the country did over that past year, and it is a reminder to all of us of the value of life, and why it has been right to protect life as far as we possibly can during this incredibly difficult period.
“Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine:
et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Requiescat in pacem. Amen.”
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
On World Cancer Day, I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware that terminally ill people can only access fast-track benefits if they can prove that they have six months or less to live. In Scotland, a change in the law on benefits for terminally ill people is due to take place later this year, and in early 2022 will provide fast-track access to disability benefits. Will the Leader of the House make a statement, setting out his views as to whether he believes that this change should also apply to universal credit to avoid a two-tier system for those who struggle with a terminal illness, so that they can access the support they need from a more compassionate welfare system?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always difficult dealing with benefits at the end of life because it is not a precise science as to when that will be. It is an estimate of the end of life, but it is important that all benefits should be handled sensitively with people who are coming to the end of their life. If a devolved authority has a better way of doing things, I am sure that the Government will study that. On the other hand, devolved authorities should be careful about changing things that lead to differences that may be confusing for people at the end of their life.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
I have received emails from several constituents telling me of the increasing number of thefts of catalytic converters. Thieves simply cut the units from the exhaust pipe of a parked car and sell them on to scrap metal dealers. In December 2017, the Home Office published its review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 and said that it would give further consideration to the case for strengthening the legislation in the future—in consultation with the industry, the police and interested parties. Can a Minister from the Department make a statement on this issue and update the legislation to make the second-hand sale of catalytic converters unlawful unless purchased from an accredited dealer?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point. May I remind him that Home Office questions are coming up on Monday 8 February when it will be an opportunity to raise this further. The National Police Chiefs’ Council hosted a problem-solving workshop in November to bring together representatives from the motor industry, police and the Government to discuss what can be done to tackle the theft of catalytic converters, and the Government welcome that work. The Government are committed to providing funding to set up the national infrastructure crime reduction partnership to ensure national co-ordination of policing and law enforcement partners to tackle metal theft. It is an important question that my hon. Friend raises and one that the Government are looking at and I am sure that more proposals will be brought forward.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Can I ask the Leader of the House for some advice and help, as he has good experience in financial services? I hear this morning that LV= Liverpool Victoria, one of the oldest mutual societies in the country with 1.3 million members, is to be sold off for £530 million by an unscrupulous bunch of managers who have insinuated themselves into the mutual. The membership has not been properly consulted, and nobody can find out who will benefit from the £530 million sell-off. Can he advise me on how to get the Business Secretary and other Ministers into the House of Commons as early as possible, so that we can protect this wonderful 200-year-old mutual that employs 6,000 members of staff, some of whom are in my constituency? Can he help me with this?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was worried for a moment that the hon. Gentleman would ask me for financial advice, which I would not be regulated to give. I was never regulated to give advice to private individuals, but I am able to give advice on how to raise things in the House of Commons, though I slightly feel it is like teaching one’s grandmother to suck eggs when giving advice to such a distinguished and long-serving Member who knows perfectly well how to raise matters in the House. There are BEIS questions on 9 February, but the important issue he raises is one he may also want to take up with the Financial Conduct Authority, which is likely to be the relevant regulator.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
Reports this week show a concerning rise in alcohol harm during the pandemic, including in death rates due to increased alcohol consumption. To help the many families sadly affected by this, can we have a debate on the need for sufficient addiction recovery programmes across the country to be available, on the benefits of reforming the alcohol duty system, and on the need for a revised Government alcohol strategy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government share the concerns about reports of increases in alcohol-related deaths and we are monitoring the situation closely. It is worth bearing in mind that for the vast majority of the country, drinking alcohol is convivial, has been central to our social lives for centuries and enjoyable in moderation. As Winston Churchill said:
“I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.”
But for some families, a small minority, abuse of alcohol has been hugely damaging. This is a cross-cutting issue affecting several Government Departments, and there is a strong programme of work under way to address alcohol-related health harms and impacts on life chances, including an ambitious programme establishing specialist alcohol care teams in hospitals, and to support the children of alcohol-dependent parents. The Government have committed to publish a new UK-wide cross-Government addiction strategy. This strategy will be informed by Dame Carol Black’s continuing review of drugs, part 2 of which focuses on prevention, treatment and recovery. Taxpayers are providing £23 million funding this year for substance misuse treatment and recovery services for rough sleepers. This is a really difficult issue, because most people use alcohol well and enjoy it, but it is important to help and protect those who go to excess.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), could the Leader of the House give some indication as to when the Fire Safety Bill will be coming back from the other place to this Chamber, in view of the fact that the Queen’s Speech is not that far away and the Bill has to be back here in time to debate the relevant amendments, which were mentioned earlier?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman knows more about the date of the Queen’s Speech than I think I do. I am not sure that any announcement has been made on that or any date confirmed, but he is clearly well informed. The Fire Safety Bill will come back in the normal course of events. Bills come through and back at a different pattern, depending on the nature of business and the urgency of the business that we have to deal with.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a further debate on implementing the Government’s strategy on obesity? Having this week chaired a forum on that very subject, it really was brought home to me that as much as we talk about this growing crisis, it would appear that there is still not enough joined-up action from the Departments that are involved in delivering the strategy.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have been waiting for some months now for my hon. Friend to ask again about Southend becoming a city and whether there will be general celebration when that happens, but he keeps on delaying. We are expecting the seagulls in Southend to be taking over from the pigeons to bring us messages about city status for Southend. However, he raises a very important point. The coronavirus pandemic has thrown into light how urgent it is for us to reduce obesity, and it is one of the Prime Minister’s personal priorities. We launched our strategy, “Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives”, in July 2020. It sets out an overarching campaign to reduce obesity, taking forward actions from previous chapters of the childhood obesity plan, including the Government’s ambition to halve the number of children living with obesity by 2030, and includes measures to get the nation fit and healthy to protect against covid-19 and help the NHS. Government Departments do work closely together on reducing obesity and share responsibility for delivering the measures set out in the obesity strategy. They are also working with councils to reduce child obesity locally through groundbreaking schemes. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) about alcohol, there is the similar difficulty that the Government, in being prescriptive, may stop people doing things that do not do them any harm while also protecting people from harm. It is a matter of great deliberation to try to get this balance right.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Across our society, and particularly in universities and the third sector, women, and some men, are losing their jobs, and having their positions undermined and their personal safety put in jeopardy, simply for questioning the ideology that any man can self-identify as a woman, and for speaking up for women’s sex-based rights under the Equality Act 2010. Does the Leader of the House agree that all democrats should condemn such attacks on free speech, and can we have a debate about free speech and the importance of sex as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by saying how sorry I am that the right hon. and learned Lady has left the SNP Front Bench? That is not because I regularly agree with her, because I do not think that I do, but because she has made it clear that she is one of the most intelligent and careful scrutinisers of Government, not just on her party’s Benches but in this House. When I was on the Brexit Committee with her, her analysis and her questioning were, I must admit, second to none. As I believe that good government depends on careful scrutiny, her removal from office is a loss to our democratic system. Dare I say, perhaps ungraciously, that Mona Lott is responsible for this and it may be for reasons of internal SNP politicking?
To come to the right hon. and learned Lady’s point, free speech is fundamental, and it is disgraceful that she received threats for her views and her removal from office, to the extent where the police had to be involved. Every Member of this House should feel safe in whatever they say as long as it is within the law and is not effectively threatening violence. What is said in this House is of course completely protected. It is outrageous that she should have been placed in this position. Can I commit to supporting freedom of speech? Absolutely I can. That is what this place exists for; that is what underpins our democracy. Much as I disagree with her on so many things, may I commend her courage in standing up for freedom of speech and putting forward her views clearly in a difficult and sensitive area but one where she has a right to be heard?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Leader of the House mentioned the Queen’s Champion. Actually, my right hon. Friend, with his style, would make a very good Queen’s Champion, but unfortunately the post is held by the lord of the manor of Scrivelsby in the county of Lincolnshire. Can I suggest to him, though, that he becomes another champion—a champion for good value for money? Since the House voted by a very narrow margin to demolish a perfectly serviceable Richmond House and erect a temporary Chamber at vast cost, everything has changed. The country is broke and we have proved, have we not, that we can run Parliament virtually if we have to? So may we have an urgent debate on this matter, get on with the work, if necessary close Parliament down except virtually between July and October, and work in double-shifts and perhaps bring in Front-Bench spokesmen to a pop-up Parliament in the atrium of Portcullis House, but above all get on with the work and pursue value for money?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the pandemic has increased the eternal need to ensure that when it comes to all Government expenditure, but especially restoration and renewal, the taxpayer is only asked to pay for vital works, not gold-plating. I will confess to him that some of the figures I have heard bandied around for the total cost, and some I am seeing requested for budgets at the moment, are eye-watering, and it is hard to believe that that is what is required for the vital works.
The Palace of Westminster must remain the home of our democracy. It is a temple to democracy: that is what our Victorian forebears built it to be. It is one we should be immeasurably proud of and must preserve and use, because we need to carry on our work in this fantastic Palace, not somewhere else. But it has to be said that the “how” should follow the “what” in this regard, not the other way round: the “what” comes after we have worked out “how”, which is why hon. and right hon. Members like my right hon. Friend will have such an important role to play in the coming months in helping to determine the scale of the project—the “what” that is required. We are the ones accountable to constituents, so it is quite right that we will be the Members of Parliament—the Members of this current Parliament—who make the final decisions on how to proceed.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Last month, post Brexit, I asked the House of Commons Commission to give preference to British suppliers. On 14 January it replied:
“The Public Contract Regulations 2015 are UK law and in general they prohibit contracting authorities from specifying the country of manufacture or origin when purchasing goods. This has not changed now that the Brexit transition period has ended.”
But, as the explanatory memorandum at the time on this legislation made clear, this regulation was made to implement an EU directive, so may we have a debate to demand that our public sector backs British industry and British workers, or, better still, could the Leader of the House prevail on his colleagues to change this legislation ASAP?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Once again I welcome the right hon. Gentleman, who is such a staunch Brexiteer and who has seen the errors of the European ways and wishes the United Kingdom Parliament to make its own laws free of orders, requests, directives or regulations from the European Union. He is right, therefore, to campaign on this issue, because that is what this House is for: to make sure that we make our own laws. It does seem to me that the point the right hon. Gentleman makes is entirely reasonable: that the United Kingdom Parliament ought to be able to have its supplies entirely from the United Kingdom if that is what it wishes to do. I am not in favour of protectionism, but this Parliament is a symbol of the nation, and therefore I think he is on a very good wicket in what he says.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
Last night, in a very rare occurrence, I took a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and asked local residents what they wanted me to ask the Leader of the House about. After some great suggestions, an issue raised multiple times was the Toft Hill bypass, a much needed bypass to the A68 that will help to alleviate traffic issues and greatly improve road safety near Toft Hill Primary School. In Transport questions last week, the Transport Secretary told me that he came armed with information about the Toft Hill bypass, but I threw him a curveball by asking about a different local transport issue. However, knowing now how incredibly keen the Transport Secretary is on the future success of this bypass, will the Leader of the House ask him to meet me and local stakeholders to discuss how best to move the project forward?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I must confess I am surprised that my hon. Friend is modelling herself on the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), as I know something of her political views; I do not think hers and his particularly coincide. However, I congratulate her on holding her local authority to account in the Chamber and representing her constituents so vigorously.
The issue that my hon. Friend raises is one for Durham County Council to consider, as it is responsible for the road in question. As I understand it, no bid from the council has as yet been forthcoming. The Government cannot currently make guarantees, but the new £4 billion levelling-up fund may offer an opportunity to support this project if local leaders make a convincing case. Further details of that fund will be announced in due course. I view it as part of my role as Leader of the House to try to facilitate meetings between Members and Ministers, so I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s request to the Transport Secretary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will briefly suspend the House in order that preparations can be made in the Chamber for the next item of business.
Covid-19 Vaccine Update
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Nadhim Zahawi)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus, but before I do that I wish my shadow opposite number, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), a happy birthday.
Our nation is getting safer every day as more and more people get protected by the biggest immunisation programme in the history of our health service. More than 10 million people have now received their first dose of one of our coronavirus vaccines. That is almost one in five adults in the United Kingdom. We are vaccinating at scale, while at the same time retaining a close focus on the most vulnerable in our society to make sure those at greater need are at the front of the queue.
I am pleased to inform the House that in the UK we have now vaccinated almost nine in 10 over-80s, almost nine in 10 over-75s and more than half of people in their 70s. We have also visited every eligible care home possible with older residents in England and offered vaccinations to all their residents and staff. That means we are currently on track to meet our target of offering a vaccine to the four most vulnerable groups by mid-February.
That is an incredible effort that has drawn on the hard work of so many, and I want to just take a moment to thank every single person who has made this happen: the hundreds of thousands of volunteers up and down the country, the scientists, our colleagues in the NHS—the GPs, the doctors, the nurses and the vaccinators—those in social care, the manufacturers, the local authorities, the armed forces, the civil servants who work night and day to make this deployment possible, and anyone else who has played a part in this hugely logistical endeavour. It really is a combination of the best of the United Kingdom. At our time of national need, you have given us a big boost in our fight against this deadly virus, which remains a big threat to us all.
There are still more than 32,000 covid patients in hospital, and the level of infection is still alarmingly high, so we must all stay vigilant and keep our resolve while we keep expanding our vaccination programme, so that we can get more people protected even more quickly. We have an ambitious plan to do that. We are boosting our supply of vaccines and our portfolio now stands at more than 400 million doses, some of which will be manufactured in the United Kingdom, and we are opening more vaccination sites, too. I am pleased to inform the House that 39 new sites have opened their doors this week, along with 62 more pharmacy-led sites. That includes a church in Worcester, Selhurst Park—the home of Crystal Palace football club—and a fire station in Basingstoke, supported by firefighters and support staff from Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service.
One of the greatest pleasures for me over the past few months has been seeing the wide range of vaccination sites that have been set up right in the heart of our local communities. Cinemas, mosques, food courts and so many other institutions have now been transformed into life-saving facilities, giving hope to people every day. Thanks to that rapid expansion, we have now established major national infrastructure. There are now 89 large vaccination centres and 194 sites run by high street pharmacies, along with 1,000 GP-led services and more than 250 hospital hubs. Today’s announcement will mean that even more people will live close to a major vaccination site, so we can make vaccinating the most vulnerable even quicker and even simpler.
We have always believed in the power of science and ingenuity to get us through this crisis, and I was pleased earlier this week to see compelling findings in The Lancet medical journal, reinforcing the effectiveness of our Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. It showed that the vaccine provides sustained protection of 76% during the 12-week interval between the first and second dose, and that the vaccine seems likely to reduce transmission to others by two thirds. That is really great news for us all, but we will not rest on our laurels.
No one is really safe until the whole world is safe. Our scientific pioneers will keep innovating, so that we can help the whole world in our collective fight against this virus. I saw how wonderful and powerful this ingenuity could be when I was one of thousands of volunteers who took part in the Novavax clinical trial, which published very promising results a few days ago. Today, I am pleased to announce another clinical trial—a world-first study that will help to cement the UK’s position as a global hub for vaccination research. This trial will look at whether different vaccines can be safely used for a two-dose regime in the future to support a more flexible programme of immunisation. I want to reinforce that this is a year-long study, and there are no current plans to change our existing vaccination programme, which will continue to use the same doses. But it will perform a vital role, helping the world to understand whether different vaccines can be safely used. Our scientists have played a pivotal part in our response to this deadly virus, and once again they are leading the way, helping us to learn more about this virus and how we should respond.
It has been heart-warming to see how excited so many people have been to get their vaccine and to see the work taking place in local communities to encourage people to come forward to get their jab. Hon. Members have an important role to play too. I was heartened to see colleagues from both sides of the House coming together to encourage take-up within minority ethnic communities through two joint videos posted on social media last week. As the video rightly says, “MPs don’t agree all the time, but on taking the vaccination, we do.” I could not agree more, and I am grateful to every single Member who has come forward to support this national effort. We want to make it as easy as possible for colleagues to do so. This week, we published a new resource for Members that provides more information on the vaccine roll-out and what colleagues can do to increase the take-up of the vaccine in their constituencies. That is an extremely valuable resource, and I urge all Members to take a look at it and think about what they can do in their constituencies.
Our vaccination programme is our way out of this pandemic. Even though the programme is accelerating rapidly and, as the chief medical officer said yesterday, we appear to be past the peak, this remains a deadly virus, and it will take time for the impact of vaccinations to be felt. So for now, we must all stand firm and keep following the steps that we know make a big difference until the science can make us safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Happy birthday to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris).
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his kind words about my birthday. Of course, the gladdest tidings is the news that more than 10 million people have received their first dose. Once again, our incredible national health service has delivered for us. I visited a site in Nottingham earlier in the week, and that team of the NHS, armed forces, local councils, volunteers and many more coming together was an uplifting and incredible sight.
We welcome today’s announcement about the new clinical trial. It is clear that we will live with covid-19 and its mutations for a long time, so this is the best way to get out in front of it. We were glad also to hear the study results regarding the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine reducing transmission and maintaining protection over 12 weeks. As the Minister said, it is clear that vaccines are the way out of this pandemic. Daily cases are beginning to fall, but it is vital that the Government do not repeat previous mistakes and take their foot off the gas just as things look to be getting better. Could the Minister update us on whether he expects similar trial data to be published for the Pfizer vaccine?
The Government seem to be on track to deliver on their promise of vaccinating the top four Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation priority groups by the middle of this month. We really welcome that, and I commend the Minister’s work in that regard, but in a spirit of co-operation, I need to press him on a couple of points about what comes next.
First, regarding data, we are all concerned about the reports of lagging take-up among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, as well as poorer communities, and I associate myself with the comments about the brilliant work done by our colleagues to fight that. We know that these groups have been worst affected by the pandemic, and we need them to take up the vaccine, but I am conscious that much of what we hear is based on anecdotal stories, rather than hard data at a community level, split by ethnicity. Can the Minister say what data he has on that and when colleagues can get council ward-level data, so that we can all be part of the effort to drive up take-up? As the first phase is coming to an end, can the Minister update us on the number of care home staff who have received their first dose and perhaps what the plan is to encourage those who have not done so to take it up on reflection?
When we get to the beginning of April, those who have had their first dose will be expecting and needing their second one. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be enough supply to ensure that everyone who is due their second dose gets it, as well as, obviously, to manage those who are due their first? The Foreign Secretary would not offer that commitment on behalf of the Government recently. I hope the Vaccine Minister will be able to.
Colleagues have raised with me the fact that constituents who have received a national letter and called 119 to book are not routinely being offered local primary care network-based options. Can the Minister confirm that that should not be the case and that he would welcome hearing examples of where that is happening so that we can change it?
The Opposition fully supported the Government in prioritising those at greatest risk of dying—those in the first four categories—but as we move to categories 5 to 9, it is reasonable to ask the JCVI about including key workers. Data has shown that those who work closely with others and are regularly exposed to covid-19 have higher death rates than the rest of the population. By prioritising those workers alongside the over-50s and 60s, and people with underlying health conditions, we can reduce transmission further, protect more people and keep the vital services that they provide running smoothly, which includes reopening schools. Putting the politics of this to one side, we raised this suggestion over a week ago now. Will the Minister say whether he has had those conversations with the JCVI, or whether he will at least commit to asking it to look at how that suggestion might work?
It is HIV Testing Week. Those living with HIV are in category 6. If their doctor knows their HIV status, they will have their opportunity as planned. However, some choose, perfectly legitimately and for some profoundly important reasons, to access their healthcare through other means, such as an HIV clinic. Their doctor might therefore not know their status and they may well be missed. In this specific case, will the Minister commit to looking at a possible workaround? Allowing HIV clinics to connect those individuals directly would be one way, but we would support any effective way of doing that.
Finally, given that it is World Cancer Day, what consideration has the Minister given to vaccinating household members of the clinically extremely vulnerable, to give another layer of protection to blood cancer patients and other CEV people, an argument strongly supported by the reports that transmission is reduced by these vaccinations?
To conclude, this programme really is the light at the end of the tunnel. Our NHS has delivered, and we must support it to continue to do so by making the right policy decisions.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive way of engaging with the vaccination deployment programme. On trials, we have two running currently, both with Public Health England. The Vivaldi trial is testing residents of care homes, who were in category 1 of the JCVI categories. The second is Siren, which is testing frontline health workers, who are in category 2. As Jonathan Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer, has said, we will know the infection and transmission data from those trials in the next few weeks. Of course, the Oxford data is very promising—it needs to be peer reviewed—but those trials will also capture the Oxford vaccine, because obviously that came on site in January.
On the priority list, the JCVI looked very closely at both black, Asian and minority ethnic and, of course, other considerations, including by profession, and came down clearly on the side of age as the deciding factor in people’s risk of dying from covid. This is a race against death, hence the nine categories, which we are going through, and we will continue to do so. A number of professions will be captured in those categories. Of course, those with extremely severe illness will be captured in the category for the severely extremely vulnerable, and others will be captured in further categories down the phase 1 list.
I certainly think it would be wrong to change the JCVI recommendation, because categories 1 to 9 account for 99% of mortality. When we get into phase 2, we would welcome a debate and, of course, will ask the JCVI about including professions such as teachers, shop workers and police officers, who through their work come into contact with much greater volumes of the virus than others do, and it will advise us accordingly.
On BAME and ethnicity, the NHS now collects such data, and we are publishing it. We are doing an enormous amount of work not only across Government, but with the NHS, to ensure that we bring in local government so that we can begin to share data. I would welcome us working much closer with local government and the NHS so that we can identify, to the individual level, the people we need to protect as soon as possible.
I put it on the record that I want clinical commissioning groups to share data with MPs. Several colleagues—[Interruption.] Including you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I can see you nodding away vigorously. CCGs should and must engage with local politicians, because MPs get a lot of emails and telephone calls from concerned constituents in the top four most vulnerable categories. Of course, the NHS has plans to publish CCG-level data very soon.
As for care home staff, we had a fantastic response through the care home vaccination programme, which is category 1, and we continue to do more with staff to encourage them to be vaccinated, because we make four visits into care homes. Visit one is for the first dose, visit two is to try to vaccinate those who may have been infected the first time, because people cannot be vaccinated until after 28 days, visit three will be for second doses, and so on. We are getting greater traction with care home staff, but the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that. There is a big focus on helping them to go to hospital hubs and, of course, their primary care networks.
On the second dose, everyone who has had a first dose of Pfizer will get a second dose of Pfizer within that 12-week dosing period. That will begin in March in the usual way that the NHS does vaccinations. Everyone who has had a first dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca will get a second dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca within 12 weeks as well.
The hg is right to ask about people wanting the option of going either to a national vaccination centre or to the PCN. If right hon. and hon. Members have particular cases, please point them to us and we will do everything we can to ensure that that is facilitated.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted HIV clinics. I will take that matter away and see whether there is a workaround for those who want to have that information remain private from their GP. We will see what we can do.
This is World Cancer Day, and there is now real excitement in the scientific community in the UK about the messenger RNA vaccine, because people can begin to think about vaccines for cancers as well. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about those who care for the clinically extremely vulnerable, and we want to ensure that we deliver the JCVI phase 1 and then very quickly reach the rest of the population.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Minister on his leadership of the vaccine roll-out programme, which really is one of the most impressive anywhere in the world. Indeed, I also commend the Health Secretary for the foundations that he laid last year.
Now that we know that mutations and variants are the name of the game, I want to ask the Minister about a worst-case scenario: a variant that is wholly immune to the vaccines that we are currently distributing. How possible is it that we could see that in the next few months in the UK? Has the Manaus variant, which people are particularly worried about, arrived here from Brazil? If we did see such a variant, what is the timescale not just to develop a new vaccine that works against it, but to manufacture it and get it approved by regulators so that it is ready to go?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee for his question, and he is absolutely right. The manufacturers are already working on variants to their vaccine to take into account the mutation of the virus. Viruses will mutate to survive and this virus is no different. There are about 4,000 mutations now around the world, some more concerning than others. We have, in the United Kingdom, a genome sequencing industry that is a world leader—about 50%, or just under, of the sequencing has taken place in the United Kingdom. Not only are we working with the current manufacturers—Pfizer-BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Moderna —that have been approved, but we are also looking at how we can make sure that we make the most of the new messenger RNA technology, which allows the rapid development of vaccine variants that will then deal with the virus variants as rapidly as possible. When I spoke to the Science and Technology Committee a few weeks ago, I said that we were planning to have in place the ability to go from the moment that we can sequence a variant that we are really concerned about to the moment that we can have a vaccine ready in between 30 to 40 days, with then, of course, the manufacturing time.
We have invested in Oxfordshire, in the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre, and in the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult Manufacturing Innovation Centre in Braintree—£127 million there and just shy of £100 million in Oxfordshire—to be ready to manufacture any vaccine that we would need. The Prime Minister, of course, also visited those making what I refer to as our seventh vaccine, the Valneva vaccine. That is a whole inactivated virus, so it does not just work on the spikes in the way that the two current vaccines that we are deploying work. It works on the whole of the virus, which is much more likely to capture any mutations from the spikes and therefore be incredibly effective. We have invested in that production facility in Scotland so that we can have that vaccine as a future-proofing of annual vaccination strategies or a booster in the autumn, if necessary.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I am glad to hear his recognition of the importance of adherence to the clinical categories of the JCVI, and I also give my thanks to vaccination teams in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency, across Scotland and, indeed, these islands.
I urge the Minister, however, to think more lightly of himself and deeply of the world. Over recent weeks, the UK Government and their allies in Scotland have quite disgracefully been attempting to sow fear in the minds of our vulnerable communities that vaccine deployment is too slow. That narrative was completely debunked yesterday, yet the Prime Minister still claimed that we have today passed the milestone of 10 million vaccines in the United Kingdom, including almost 90% of those aged 75 and over in England, and every eligible person in a care home. Today, however, on “Good Morning Scotland”, the Minister was further pressed on how many vaccines had been given—not offered, but given to people in care homes in England. Even with 24 hours’ warning and following a detailed probing, he was not able to offer more than a vague 91% of those eligible in an ill-defined subset, before settling on “a very high number”, and suggesting that care home staff’s vaccination may not yet have begun in England. Can he tell us today what percentage of all care home residents and all care home staff have had their jab in England and, if not, why not?
To return to the JCVI clinical prioritisation, in a recent written parliamentary question to the Minister regarding the clinically extremely vulnerable, he chose to regurgitate JCVI guidance rather than answering the question. With the encouraging news that the Oxford vaccine and potentially others have a measurable impact on transmission, can he update the House on what steps he has taken to ask the JCVI to review current guidance for household members of the clinically extremely vulnerable, such as people with blood cancer or organ transplantation, and thus provide a vital layer of protection to those who may not be able to receive the vaccine themselves?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question, albeit, dare I say, I do not recognise his description of our collaboration. We have, over the past two weeks, been working solidly. The British Army—the armed forces—have been working to deliver 80 vaccination sites in Scotland and to hand them over to NHS Scotland within 28 days, and that work began a couple of weeks ago. So I hope he recognises the effort the United Kingdom is putting in not just in supplying the vaccines for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, but in the way we are trying to support the vaccine deployment in Scotland.
Of course, last weekend was our target to make sure that every eligible care home in England was visited, and over 10,000 care homes have actually been visited and received the vaccine. Only a handful of care homes, which were deemed to have an outbreak, were not visited. The NHS, quite rightly, celebrated achieving that target last weekend, so I am slightly saddened, in a way, that there is this politicking between ourselves about this issue.
We continue—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), asked me—to work very hard to make sure that staff in care homes are also offered the vaccine on those visits, and they also have an opportunity to be vaccinated in their primary care networks and, of course, in hospitals.
On the JCVI, those who are clinically extremely vulnerable are in category 4, and we will vaccinate them by mid-February.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking local health teams and volunteers for the incredible vaccination efforts we have seen in North Lincolnshire? I know they are keen to deliver even more. Can he give an update on the progress he is making on increasing weekly vaccine supplies?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I certainly join her in thanking the teams that have been working and delivering in North Lincolnshire. These are extraordinary people doing really incredible work, and I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart.
We try as hard as we can in the team to make sure we give as much notice as possible to local teams about when they are getting their delivery. This week, yesterday—Wednesday—everyone would have had notice of their deliveries for next week. We want to give as much notice as possible. Our limiting factor remains vaccine supply. It is becoming more stable, and we have greater visibility of vaccines all the way through to March, hence our confidence about meeting our targets. I can reassure my hon. Friend that her local teams will get the vaccines they need to meet the mid-February target of vaccinating the top four cohorts and protecting them before that date.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
It was an immense privilege this morning to visit the Stoop in Twickenham, home to Harlequins rugby, which opens today as a local mass vaccination hub. The NHS, Quins and the council have done an incredible job to be in a position to start vaccinating 500 people a day.
The Minister has spoken quite a lot about care home staff and some of the challenges in driving uptake among those staff, but we know that domiciliary care staff are also lagging behind in the vaccination rates. One industry survey has suggested that only 32% have been vaccinated so far. Could I press the Minister again: what are the latest vaccination rates for both care home staff and home care staff, what are the reasons for this lag and how can we best work together to address this problem?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. It is great to hear about the Harlequins joining the fight, as they always do, when it comes to the United Kingdom actually getting people protected and vaccinated.
Care home and domiciliary staff are both on our priority list, as the hon. Lady knows. We are working with local government, and David Pearson, who is of course a champion of the social care sector, has been working with local government to identify them. The best way to identify domiciliary staff is through local government, because a lot of people will be with agencies and, as the hon. Lady quite rightly pointed out, are hard to reach. They are in our target: they are part of the top four categories, with those who are caring for the elderly in residential care homes, and we will meet our target of offering them a vaccine by mid-February.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) [V]
British-based pharmaceutical companies have been pivotal in the global fight against this pandemic. Plants in Teesside, Livingston and Oxford, and Wockhardt in my constituency, are central to vaccine manufacture. So what conversations has my hon. Friend had with his Home Office counterparts to provide sufficient security to these vital pieces of national vaccine infrastructure?
Nadhim Zahawi
I want to reassure my hon. Friend that, through the vaccines taskforce, we have been liaising extensively with the vaccines’ developers and the related organisations to ensure that the highest level of security exists through the whole vaccine deployment chain. That has, of course, included working directly with the manufacturers, and we have a senior responsible officer seconded to the team to make sure that security is at the forefront of everything we do to deliver this programme. We cannot allow a lapse of security to get in the way of the largest vaccination programme in the history of this country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his concerted strategy and for the overall roll-out of covid vaccines. We are deeply indebted to him for the focus he has given. Does he intend there to be a route by which those who are younger and still attending front-facing work are able to access their vaccine? Furthermore, what co-ordination has there been with GPs’ surgeries to assist them in categorising need when assessing those who are vulnerable but who did not have shielding CEV letters?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. It is a priority for us and we will be saying more on it very soon, because the groups who have not received the letters but are shielding remain incredibly important. He is absolutely right to raise the issue, which is a priority for us.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
Getting to 10 million vaccines is a major milestone and a serious achievement, and I am pleased to report to my hon. Friend that, thanks to the dedication of many local people, the roll-out in Eastbourne has got off to a very strong start. However, as access and options have increased with new sites coming on stream, there has been some initial public confusion over the different routes and communications. The concern is that the “did not attend” rate, which has to date been insignificant, could now increase. Will my hon. Friend, who is doing such sterling work, assure me that as we march forward the structure of this brave new vaccine campaign is being reviewed and that we can have confidence?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I am delighted to see that in her constituency the vaccination programme has rolled out so efficiently and well. She is right to point out the issue of choice; we deliberately wanted people to have the choice to be able to go to a vaccination centre or to go through their primary care networks or hospital hub. I will make sure that each and every person in those four categories is offered a vaccine. We have a strategy, which we are now implementing because we are so close to that deadline, of reaching out to the granular level—to GPs—to go through exactly the population in each of those four categories, in order to make sure we know that everybody has been reached and offered that vaccine. I just give her that reassurance.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Pharmacies cannot contribute in the vaccine programme unless they commit to deliver at least 1,000 vaccines a week. That precludes many community pharmacies embedded within those communities where some residents cannot access the vaccination centres. So will the Minister allow local pharmacies to work together to deliver smaller volumes, so that they can reach more residents who would not otherwise get a vaccine?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. Community and independent pharmacies have a significant role to play; she may have heard me refer earlier to the hundreds that are already in the programme, delivering vaccines. The reason for the 1,000 vaccinations a week minimum is that, when vaccine supply is finite and every dose matters, we cannot afford for vaccines to just sit in a fridge in a smaller pharmacy. As vaccine supply begins to improve, we can look at bringing in more pharmacies. At the moment, 98% of the country is within 10 miles of a vaccination site; for the 2%, we will go to them with a pop-up site. I want us to get to a stage, once we have done phase 1, where we are maybe able to be more convenient and where people can pop into their local pharmacy once supply allows.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
The data concerning the Pfizer vaccination recommended that the second jab be given within three weeks. As the Minister has said today, the interval is currently 12 weeks. I am hearing of concerns from the medical world about this gap, which it is claimed risks reducing the vaccine’s efficacy. Could he update the House on this matter?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Pfizer itself says that it is up to the national regulatory authority to advise on the dosing interval. Not only the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—which is our regulator—but the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the four chief medical officers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all agreed that the up to 12-week interval for Pfizer-BioNTech is exactly the right thing to do to make sure we protect as many people as possible. They cited Pfizer’s own data that, after 15 days, up to 21 days, protection is up to 89% with the first dose.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
One of my main primary care centres only has enough vaccine supply to open for half the week. Whether this is because vaccines are being directed to other types of centre—like the major centres that we do not yet have—or are bypassing London, or because there are simply not enough vaccines full stop, targets are being missed. Only 70% of over-80s and 55% of all priority groups had been vaccinated by this week. Can the Minister look at supply to Hammersmith and Fulham, and to London generally?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I will certainly look at that specific example, if he is able to give me the details. The data that will be published at 2 pm for his sustainability and transformation partnership will show that vaccination levels for the over-80s are now over 75%, which is an improvement, but they need to go even further, so I will happily take a look at that. Of course, the recent large vaccination site opened at Network House, Wembley will also help with that.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) [V]
Frontline nurses, doctors and care staff in Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale have done an amazing job during this pandemic, working long hours under immense pressure, and it is only right that they have been included in the first phase of the vaccinations. Could my hon. Friend confirm the percentage take-up rate of vaccinations for NHS and care home staff?
Nadhim Zahawi
I agree with my hon. Friend. The fantastic NHS staff have stepped up in the most challenging of circumstances, and it is imperative that they are part of this first phase of the vaccination programme.
A significant milestone was achieved last week, as my hon. Friend will have heard me say earlier: we have now gone into every eligible care home of older adults to offer their staff and residents their first dose of the vaccine. This is testament to our remarkable care home staff and NHS workers. I urge all social care and front- line health care workers to take up the vaccine when it is offered to them. The recent large vaccination centre for my hon. Friend’s constituency is the Spectrum Community Health CIC in Wakefield, which staff can also access. We continue to make progress with staff, and our aim is to offer to each and every member of staff that vaccination by the middle of February.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
The news that a mutated form of the new, more infectious Kent variant has been found in Bristol has worried a lot of people. I appreciate what the Minister said earlier about developing new vaccine variants as we go along, but where does that leave people who have already been vaccinated or who will be vaccinated before the new vaccines come on stream? What reassurance can the Minister offer?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady raises an important point. The vaccines that we are currently deploying will work on the variants that are in the United Kingdom. Both the deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, and the chief scientific adviser have said that they would be very surprised if the current vaccines have no impact on the variants of the virus, so we continue to vaccinate at speed, at the same time, of course, as being vigilant by sequencing the new variants. Of course, we are able to react, with the manufacturers, to any future need in respect of the vaccination programme. At the moment, the vaccines are exactly the right thing to do, including because of the protection against severe infection and hospitalisation that they offer, which remains incredibly high with both vaccines.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]
Further to my question to the Prime Minister last week in which I called for a mass vaccination centre in Medway—also called for by fellow Medway Members of Parliament—I welcome the proposals by Kent and Medway CCG to increase capacity at Medway Maritime Hospital, which now needs to be added to the national booking programme. However, the Minister knows from conversations with Members of Parliament from Medway that we urgently need a mass vaccination centre in Medway. We have a population of 280,000 and are one of the areas hardest hit by covid in the country. I need the Minister to ensure, now, urgently and swiftly, that we get a mass vaccination centre in Medway, in line with our needs. Linked to that, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the fantastic NHS staff throughout Medway and at Medway Maritime Hospital, and to the great work that the CCG is doing in Kent?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend and I have had conversations about this matter because he is a great champion of his constituents. He will be aware that there has been a huge amount of work to step up vaccination services in Medway in recent weeks. Each primary care network site receives its own supply, and work has been carried out with the local CCG to ensure that the vaccine supply aligns with the number of registered patients in the priority cohort groups—groups 1 to 4. When some sites progress through their supply more quickly than others, we work with them to ensure that supplies are replenished as quickly as possible so that they can continue to vaccinate the most vulnerable. We are keeping a close watch on my hon. Friend’s area because, as he quite rightly points out, it has gone through some difficulties. I reassure him that the latest numbers I have for the Kent and Medway STP show that 86.3% of over-80s have had the first dose.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The Leader of the House and the Minister talk of the beneficence of this Government. Yesterday, soon-to-be Baroness Davidson asked Scotland’s First Minister whether she would accept armed forces help with vaccine deployment, in spite of huge increases in the roll-out in Scotland. As Scotland contributes to the UK armed forces—as do all parts of the UK—is it not time to stop using this dreadful pandemic to portray the deployment of our armed services in such a cynical and divisive way?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question, although I am slightly surprised because it is the United Kingdom’s armed forces and the United Kingdom’s vaccine that are being deployed, and I hope we can celebrate that. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) nodding across the Dispatch Box—and I think he is smiling underneath that mask as well.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]
I join others in congratulating the Minister on the incredible, world-leading roll-out of the vaccine—I would have expected nothing less from my brilliant friend and colleague. May I reinforce the plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for a Medway vaccination centre, for all the reasons he gave? Perhaps it would be helpful if we could meet the Minister to discuss that in more detail. My PCNs are doing a phenomenal job in racing through the top four priority groups, but at present they do not have access to IT systems, such as Outcomes4Health and Foundry, that would enable them to analyse and plan properly. My understanding is that access was promised but might not have happened universally, so could the Minister reassure the House that this is being rectified urgently to support the next and larger phase of vaccine roll-out?
Nadhim Zahawi
I add my thanks to those of my hon. Friend for the relentless determination of her excellent local PCNs to vaccinate the most vulnerable. I would be very happy to meet colleagues to go through in detail the plan up to mid-February, which is our target, and beyond. I am also happy to take away her PCNs’ specific concern about data sharing. Our mantra in the team is to make as much data available as quickly as possible, when we know that it is robust and actionable, so we will look at her point about Foundry and Outcomes4Health to ensure that we can share that. I want to get to a stage where every PCN can track its order, in the way we track an order from Amazon. We have reached basecamp, but we have a big climb ahead of us to vaccinate the whole nation.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
May I start by thanking all the staff in our primary care networks and in our NHS for the magnificent work they have done to ensure that as many people in the priority groups in the north-east are vaccinated? In any call and recall system for vaccines, some people will inevitably be missed, so when will directors of public health get the data they need, in sufficient detail, to be able to address those inequalities and contact those who have not responded?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that incredibly important question. Her region has done phenomenally well. I want to praise it because it has 91.8% of first doses for the over-80s in the STP. The NHS is already sharing data with local government. We need to make it more granular. We have brought into the deployment campaign Eleanor Kelly, the former chief executive of Southwark Council, so we are totally in line and integrated with local government, because they know exactly where those hard-to-reach groups are. The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point and that is a big focus for me.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
The Government have done brilliantly well in securing more than 350 million jabs, which is enough, all being well, to vaccinate the at-risk population several times over. Given the UK’s relatively enlightened and co-operative approach to vaccine roll-out internationally—in sharp contrast to the narrow and vindictive nationalism of certain quarters of the European Union, which really ought to know better—what trigger points and timetable does my hon. Friend envisage for the disbursement of our inventory of surplus jabs, and the infrastructure necessary to deliver them to countries that are less advantaged than our own?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his excellent question. My absolutely priority is to ensure that we have the inventory—as he quite rightly describes it—to allow us to offer the vaccine to all adults in the United Kingdom, and at the moment we are nowhere near that. Supply remains the limiting factor in our first target, which is to vaccinate groups 1 to 4 by mid-February, and then groups 5 to 9 as soon as we can after that, with phase 2, which we have been discussing today, after that. He is absolutely right that we have now ordered or optioned 407 million doses of vaccine. Once we are in a position to secure enough vaccine for the United Kingdom’s population, we will be able to look at where else we can help with our vaccine supply. We have also put £1.3 billion into a combination of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and COVAX. Of that £1.3 billion, approximately £480 million is going to COVAX, which is helping low and middle-income countries with their vaccination programmes as we speak.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
I was grateful for the Minister’s support for the video that I and colleagues across the House with south Asian heritage produced to encourage take-up of the vaccine throughout the UK’s south Asian communities. He knows that there is real concern about the impact of the disinformation being spread online and offline in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Worryingly, much of the disinformation appears to play on people’s faith or race. What work is he and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport colleagues undertaking to tackle the spread of vaccine disinformation online?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful and incredibly encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s brilliant initiative, taken with many colleagues across the House, to deliver that brilliant video of south Asian MPs from different political backgrounds and traditions all recommending that, when people’s turn comes, they should take the vaccine.
We have been working across Government. In the Cabinet Office, the covid disinformation unit was set up in March. It works online with the digital platforms to ensure that we identify disinformation and misinformation to them. They should be taking that down immediately. My message to all of them, whether Twitter, Facebook or any of them is this: “You must, must be responsible and play your part in taking this disinformation down as soon as we flag it up to you.”
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
I am sure my hon. Friend would like to join me in paying huge tribute to the NHS colleagues and volunteers who have rolled out the vaccine with such speed in Gloucestershire. However, is he able to tell the House whether there will be any clarity about when the nine priority categories are likely to be completed? Will that inform the Government on how they can produce a road map for a roll-out of the wider economy, as my businesses in the Cotswolds are desperate for clarity on that matter?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I will certainly join him in thanking the NHS family and army of volunteers. They have done phenomenally well. I can tell him that in his STP in Gloucestershire, 94% of the over-80s have received their first dose—that is pretty good going. He will know that we have built a deployment infrastructure than can deploy as much vaccine supply as we are able to bring in. A couple of Saturdays ago, we reached a record of just shy of 600,000 doses in a single day. That is, I guess, a demonstration of the capability of the infrastructure. We continue to grow it, as I announced today. It is very much dependent on vaccine supply. We have good visibility from here to the end of March, with more volume coming through beyond that. My focus should—I hope he agrees—be on the mid-February deadline to vaccinate those top four cohorts of the most vulnerable. That is 88% of mortality and, if we can get them done by mid-February, we will have achieved a real milestone in our fight against this virus.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) [V]
The vaccination centre in Chesterfield, the largest town in Derbyshire, is open for only two days this week and for a maximum of two days next week, because NHS England apparently imposed much smaller vaccination numbers on the primary care network hubs than the national centres get. The Derbyshire primary care network states that it could achieve the Minister’s targets if it had the same access to vaccines and the national booking system as the national hubs service. Will he explain why the national centres are prioritised over the local primary care network hubs in towns such as Chesterfield?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The primary care networks have done a fantastic job in delivering the vaccine roll-out and will continue do so as we go beyond the first four cohorts into cohorts 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and then the next phase. Of course we want to make sure that people have choice. He will know by 2 pm, I think—when the next set of data is published—that his STP has reached 89% of the over-80s, which is an incredible achievement, the bulk of which has been done by the primary care networks. We will continue to support those networks. Through him, I send my thanks and appreciation to them and say that we will redouble our efforts to make sure that they get the vaccine doses that they need to get through not just the first four cohorts, but beyond that to the deployment programme for groups 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) [V]
I am very pleased that the Government have agreed that, once the vaccines have become effective for the first four cohorts from 8 March, we can start unlocking the economy. Does the Minister agree that, once the first nine groups have been vaccinated, accounting for 99% of deaths and about 80% of hospitalisations, that would be the right time for all restrictions to be relaxed so that we can get back to living as normal, with our children back at school and the economy fully open?
Nadhim Zahawi
There is no one who wants to see the economy open and functioning as soon as possible more than my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) rightly points out, the deadline for the top four cohorts is the middle of February. If we go forward three weeks from there, that is when the protection of the two vaccines really kicks in. The plan is to reopen schools on 8 March, after which we will gradually reopen the economy. It is important also to wait for the evidence. As I said earlier, the Vivaldi study and the SIREN study will enable us to see the impact of the vaccines on infection rates and on transmission. We are getting some really positive data from Israel and, of course, from the Oxford team. That will be our own robust evidence and, as the Prime Minister said, we will then share with the House on 22 February the roadmap of how we intend very gradually to reopen the economy.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]
The UK Government have pre-purchased 300 million doses for a population of 66 million. Guinea, a low-income country, has received only 55 doses for its entire population. Given that COVAX will cover only about 20% of the population in low and middle-income countries, can the Minister explain how the UK will step up and take part as global Britain, ensuring that those people in low and middle-income countries and developing countries are able to access the vaccine?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. We will do so in a couple of ways. First, once we have enough vaccine supply to be able to offer the vaccine to every adult in the United Kingdom—every eligible group from 1 to 9 and then phase 2—we will then look at our vaccine supply strategy. At the moment, we are nowhere near having enough supply to be able to make that offer. That has to be our priority. She mentions COVAX, but that is only part of the story for us in the United Kingdom. We have put about £450 million-plus into COVAX, but a total of £1.3 billion into the vaccine initiative of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance. We are, I think, the largest donor, not only in money but per capita. We are making a big, big impact globally in both research and development, and vaccinations to low and middle-income countries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate that colleagues have complicated questions to ask the Minister and that the answers are therefore also complicated, but I must ask for a bit more speed now, because we have taken an hour. I should stop proceedings on this item of business, but I will not do so because I appreciate that there are important questions to be asked. I urge Members to go just a little faster.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
First, let me offer my congratulations to the Minister on achieving more than 10 million vaccinations. I wonder whether he will comment on how soon I will be able to wander down to my local chemist to get a jab, as I did for flu.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s congratulations. I stand on the shoulders of heroes; it is the army of the NHS family, volunteers and our armed forces that is doing the real heavy lifting in this deployment.
I visited Cullimore chemist in Edgware, a brilliant independent chemist that is delivering the vaccination programme. At the moment, the limiting factor is the ability to do 1,000 vaccine doses a week because of the finite amount of vaccine. However, as we get more volume through, I, like my hon. Friend, want to see convenience, so that someone can walk down the road to their local chemist. I look forward to doing that with him, I hope, one day.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
We know that all vaccinations are captured in real time and populate GP records within 24 hours. However, only the aggregated data is provided to local vaccination leads. It is absolutely necessary that they receive line-by-line data at citizen level to enable them to respond immediately to low uptake—for example from BAME communities—or accessibility issues in identified cohorts. When will the Minister provide local vaccination leads with the detailed line-by-line vaccination data that is required to level up the fight against this deadly disease, and can he explain why it is not already being shared?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to share as much granular data as possible with local public health officials and, of course, make sure that local government can target home by home, individual by individual, as soon as possible. I want to see the CCG-level data published, and the NHS will be doing that very soon. We continue to make sure that we work closely with local government to understand what additional data is needed, and I mentioned Eleanor Kelly joining the team from local government. That is exactly my intention, and the hon. Gentleman raises a really important question, because if we are going to target and reach the hard-to-reach groups in the BAME community, we need that information.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend and all those involved in delivering over 10 million vaccines to the most vulnerable in our communities right across the UK, including at the vaccination hub opened on Tuesday at Ludlow racecourse with support to the local NHS from Royal Air Force medics, volunteers from Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service and Shropshire Council, and many community volunteers. May I ask my hon. Friend to consider most carefully, for those areas where deployment of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine proved especially difficult —for example, primary care networks covering remote rural areas, with small GP practices and a sparse population, and lacking suitable premises to host large numbers per day, such as in south-west Shropshire—whether deliveries of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine can be prioritised to ensure that the priority group targets are met?
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of maximising the vaccine available to GPs by using both the Pfizer vaccine and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but in recent weeks the volume of Oxford-AstraZeneca going to GP sites has been higher than that of Pfizer, allowing the flex to visit the housebound and care homes and to deploy at individual practices in rural areas, as he rightly points out. Any site that wishes to discuss its vaccine allocations should do so with its local system in the first instance, and thereafter with the NHS regional team, but I am very happy to look at any specific examples.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
The Minister was uncharacteristically coy in answer to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about how we will kick on after the top four priority groups have been vaccinated. Will he give us a bit more detail about when he believes all adults over 50 will have received their vaccination? Clearly there are members of his own party who wish to open up faster than that, and with more than 1,000 people a day still dying, we have to ensure that we make the right decisions.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will keep it short, Madam Deputy Speaker. My target is mid-February for the top four cohorts. Either I or the Secretary of State will then come to the Dispatch Box to share with the House the plan beyond category 4, into categories 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) [V]
Will the Minister join me in thanking the staff of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, our GP practices and the many volunteers who have worked so hard in recent weeks to deliver more than 100,000 doses of vaccine across Aberconwy and the beautiful but rural north Wales? Can he confirm that Public Health Wales has received enough vaccine doses to vaccinate the first four priority groups in Wales by mid-February?
Nadhim Zahawi
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, the GPs and their teams and the many volunteers. I can confirm that Wales and the Welsh NHS will have received the allocation for groups 1 to 4 by mid-February for them to be able to do that, and I commend them for the work they are doing.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
Unpaid carers provide a huge service to our community in South Lakeland, especially for the people they care for directly. If they get ill, that is a huge welfare risk for the people they care for. There has been confusion over whether unpaid carers will be prioritised for the vaccine, because although the Government said that they would be in priority group 6, they are missing from other communications, including the summary list in the vaccine delivery plan. Will the Minister clarify once and for all that unpaid carers rightly will be on the priority list?
Nadhim Zahawi
We are absolutely looking to make sure that unpaid carers are on the priority list.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
Lockdown has affected the mental wellbeing of almost everyone in this country. The vaccine programme will mean that the NHS comes into contact with almost every adult in the country. With that in mind, will the Minister consider having a mental health worker at all the national vaccine centres, to provide opportunistic mental health interventions should people need it?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s excellent, thoughtful suggestion. I will certainly take that away and discuss it with the Minister responsible in the Department.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. We have covered a lot of ground. I will now suspend the House for three minutes, so that the Chamber can be prepared for the next item of business.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Space Industry
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the Back-Bench debate on the future of the UK space industry. To move the motion, I call the man in the Irn-Bru mask, Owen Thompson.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the UK space industry.
I am delighted to have secured this important debate today and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for us to consider such an important topic. We all need good news stories in these difficult times, and I believe that the growing space industry, with timely and sensible support from the Government, could quite literally provide a rocket boost to the economy and be a force for good for the country and the planet.
Space is one of the UK’s fastest growing sectors, trebling in size since 2010. It will inspire the next generation and provide fantastic opportunities in science, engineering and technology. It has huge potential for the levelling-up agenda, creating highly skilled jobs right across the UK from Shetland to the south-east of England. It can also play a crucial role in measuring and meeting climate change targets. I welcome the fact that space has been recognised as a critical national infrastructure, in that we now depend on space for navigation, communication, broadcasting, running public services and increasingly for national security. It impacts all our everyday lives and has the potential to really enhance them. So while I am delighted by the recognition of the scale of the potential for space, there needs to be a better co-ordinated and determined effort to support the industry to reach its goals, and I look forward to getting the details on that from the Minister later today.
Space is already a growing success story. It supports 41,900 jobs in 13 of the regions and nations of the UK, bringing in some £14.8 billion in 2016-17. The Scottish space industry also punches well above its weight and is home to almost a fifth of the total jobs in the UK sector, valued at £880 million in 2017-18. Scotland now hosts more than 130 space organisations, including the headquarters of 83 UK space firms. We now need to build on that strong base to be globally competitive at every stage of the process from the design and manufacture of smaller satellites through to the launch and the interpretation and application of the satellite data produced. We have our unique selling points, and we are making great progress. Glasgow is now a European capital for manufacturing small satellites, building more than any other place outside California.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is absolutely right about the importance of the space industry and the significance that it has for Glasgow’s economy. Research in the space sector is hugely important as well. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was sporting a University of Glasgow mask, just as my hon. Friend was sporting an Irn-Bru mask. The University of Glasgow has played a huge part in the identification of gravitational waves, for example, which is helping our understanding of the universe as well as driving forward technological developments.
Owen Thompson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Use of the data that we can gather from space is important in so many different ways that can contribute to so much that we can take forward.
Innovations by companies such as AAC Clyde Space, Spire Global and Alba Orbital are already driving this world-class agenda. We are leading the way in rocket development in Europe through firms such as Skyrora in my Midlothian constituency and Orbex in Forres. We are making progress in the research and analysis side of the industry, and companies such as Ecometrica, Carbomap and Space Intelligence are helping to move Edinburgh towards becoming the space data capital of Europe. Edinburgh is the only place in the world to work with a NASA robot, the Valkyrie, outside of its headquarters.
Key industry players such as Ukrainian-born Skyrora boss Volodymyr Levykin tell me that they moved here because of the connections, the skilled workforce and our suitability as a place to live. Scotland is developing a space industry ecosystem, and the more it develops, the more it triggers further exponential growth. The Scottish Government were therefore right to identify space as a key priority for future growth. Their support has helped to give the burgeoning young industry a shape and structure, with the ambition to be Europe’s leading space nation and capture a £4 billion share of the global space market by 2030.
The Scottish Space Leadership Council has helped to bring together key figures from the public and private sectors, to ensure that their views are represented at all levels of government and to drive growth and collaboration, but we need co-ordination across all levels of government. A space strategy has often been promised, but we are still waiting to see it delivered. I am sure those watching today’s debate will be as keen as I am to hear what the Minister has to say on that front. To take things forward, we need to get low-cost access to space from UK soil. It is good news that seven UK spaceport sites are working together through the Spaceport Alliance to support launch activity. It is also good news that the space hub to be built in Sutherland’s A’ Mhòine peninsula received planning permission last year. With locational advantages for flight paths and access to orbits that 95% of small satellite launches require, it is now set to be a national centre for vertical launch and could support 400 jobs in the highlands and islands by 2025.
Yet getting the regulations in place is at times more like moving through treacle than rocketing away into a new space future. We need to get the regulations to permit rocket launches, to give clarity about how the system will work and to get it right. The framework was set up in the Space Industry Act 2018, but it is still not in place, and we still await the outcome of the consultation process. When we hear the results, I certainly hope that the Government will have listened carefully to industry voices and taken their concerns on board. So far there has been a lot of dither and interdepartmental confusion, and unfortunately a lack of determined leadership from the Government on these regulatory issues. I might be tempted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to suggest that a rocket somewhere might be helpful, but I shall resist. However, it is not always clear who is in the driving seat, if anyone.
We cannot jeopardise the achievements of an innovative home-grown industry by letting it drift and losing out on launch capability to neighbouring nations. The Minister will be aware of the real threat of international competition to UK launch businesses. One of our home-grown companies, Skyrora, has already tested a rocket with a 26 km altitude, but it had to do so from Iceland, where the regulations were taken forward, with all the essential safety aspects, but more quickly and far more favourably than has been managed here.
The concern is that the licence application process for launch will take far too long to process, resulting in the industry being uncompetitive. I hope the Minister can assure the House in her response today that there is a development strategy in place that embraces all parts of the space industry and has a clear imperative around which the Government, regulators and industry can coalesce to ensure the full potential of space ambition.
I was slightly concerned that, despite not having our home-grown regulation sorted, the Government were so happy and keen to sign the transatlantic technology safeguards agreement, to enable US launches from UK soil, potentially to the detriment of the industry here. The TSA was signed last June and announced by press release, but the text was not made public until October. Many industry players in the UK say they did not have a chance to read and comment on the plans until that point and had not been consulted on the details, nor was there an opportunity for questions and debate in this place, despite the promise given in response to written questions that I submitted. This might turn out to be a benign agreement, as the UK Government have claimed, but there has been no process to scrutinise it, and some aspects certainly raised the concern that UK start-ups could be ousted for big US-based corporate players.
The Government must do more to allay industry fears that it could transpire to be an exclusivity agreement, and they must reassure the industry that they understand and are sensitive to the commercial context in which these companies operate. The industry remains in the dark about how the agreement will actually function in practice, and it will only see the impact once it starts to acquire export licences. That kind of scenario testing should have been conducted openly and transparently beforehand.
Some might question why we are talking about space at all, in the midst of a public health emergency and when people cannot feed their families, but space shapes all our lives. The sector helps to keep us safe, and it is precisely the sort of high-skilled growth industry that we need to support to drive the economy to recover.
There is also a responsibility—the green role that could be carved out by the space industry, which the Scottish Government are certainly very keen to pursue. Space is central to tackling environmental and social justice issues around the globe. Forget the outdated image of a space race, with astronauts boldly going where no one has gone before. The future will be very much focused on making things better where we are now. Data from satellites plays a crucial role in the fight against climate change and finding solutions for major issues that scar our planet. Some 35 of the 45 essential climate variables defined by the UN are measured from space. Similarly, of the 17 sustainable development goals set by the UN with an aim of ending poverty by 2030, satellite data plays a critical role in 13.
Data from earth observation satellites has been used to combat wildfire spread in the Amazon, to monitor glacier melt and air pollutants, to aid disaster relief operations, to measure ozone damage, to measure damage from natural disasters, such as the Fuego volcano, to track and predict malaria outbreaks and to tackle illegal deforestation and pirate fishing vessels.
It is great to see Scotland leading the way. Satellites built and launched in Scotland can monitor the environment in ways not previously possible, including mapping global carbon levels. Glasgow University and Strathclyde University focus on that work with their innovation district, and I welcome plans for the new £5 million satellite centre involving the universities of Edinburgh and Leeds, which will use cutting-edge satellite technology to help combat climate change, including helping lower the risk of people being affected by flooding.
Rocket launches do not exactly have a reputation for being green, but the new space industry must be an environmentally responsible one. Efforts must be made to reduce harmful emissions at launches, and I would like to see a role for environmental regulators such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in regulating spaceflight. The good news is that modern micro-launches being developed are a world away from the traditional massive gas guzzling old ones. Orbex, for example, built a micro-launcher fuelled by bio propane, which produces 90% fewer emissions than standard kerosene. Skyrora has successfully tested a fuel called Ecosene, which is created from plastic waste that would otherwise have gone to landfill.
In conclusion, the UK space industry is a massively positive story, but to ensure a happy ending, the Government must: give clarity on their long-term strategic goals; sort out the regulations with urgency; improve the level of scrutiny and consultation in their agreements; show an understanding and sensitivity to market forces; and show ambition in harnessing the potential of space in boosting our post-covid recovery and in tackling climate change. We are at the edge of a vast universe of possibilities for the space sector, so it is vital now that the Government provide the necessary vision, energy and direction to propel us forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As Members are aware, there is a three-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) [V]
May I declare an interest as the chairman of the parliamentary space committee? As I am sure you can appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, three minutes is not long enough to go through everything that the space industry has to offer at this moment in time—a lot is going on in the space industry.
The space sector in the UK is a growing sector that has seen a 60% growth in turnover since 2010. The sector employs 42,000 people directly, including 1,500 apprentices. In 2018, it had a turnover of £14 billion, with £5.5 billion of exports. The UK space industry has more than 1,000 companies—these sectors are vital to the UK’s growth—and it generates £79 billion turnover in a year, £46 billion of that in exports supporting over 1 million jobs across the whole of the UK. As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very big industry indeed.
This debate is an opportunity to highlight the Government’s continued interest in the UK space sector and the ambitions to build back better following the covid-19 pandemic. People do not realise that more or less everything in our lives is affected by what goes on in space, from me sitting in my constituency making this speech, all the way through to mobile phones, technology enabling GPS satellites, and even the regulation of gas flows across the UK in certain applications. It is a huge and very complicated industry.
Recently the Government have had a lot of investment in innovation from the UK space sector. We have been at the forefront of global innovation, from sustainable fuels for rocket launchers to the next generation of earth observation. Last month, Rolls-Royce and the UK Space Agency announced that they are joining forces on unique research into how nuclear power technologies could be used to part-power space exploration. Oxfordshire-based Reaction Engines is continuing to develop a SABRE—synergetic air breathing rocket engine—for propelling both high-speed aircraft and spacecraft. Some day in the future, we will be able to fly into space. The Government recently invested £500 million in a low-earth-orbit satellite communication system, and the order books are bulging, with over £2 billion-worth of investment coming in. That shows that the UK is pushing forward on its agendas and objectives for the UK’s space programme. We are definitely a big player in the space industry.
In future, we must still collaborate in the ways that we are doing, enable our terrestrial sites to have ballistic space ports as well as horizontal space tourism airspace, and hopefully give the Space Industry Act 2018 more teeth as regards dealing with the Civil Aviation Authority, which is actually stifling the space industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do want hon. Members to keep an eye on the clock because we are trying to get in as many people as we can.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has secured this debate.
As we have heard, the UK’s main proposal for a vertical launch site from the UK mainland is in Sutherland in my constituency. It would be churlish of me not to thank Her Majesty’s Government—the UK Government —and indeed the Scottish Government and the Minister for the work they have put into making this project come to the point that it has. Let me emphasise the massive local support in Sutherland for this project. It is enthusiastically supported. Local people see it as one way of stopping depopulation of the highlands, to which I shall return in a moment. At Dounreay in Caithness, we have a huge skills resource. It was, and still is, a nuclear facility, but it is being decommissioned. These people have tremendous skills and they must be redeployed. My ambition is to see the best-quality employment opportunities being offered to them as they leave the site in future.
We have the weather for this. We have a rail link to Thurso, which is nearby. We have a good road link up the A9. Most importantly, today the Scottish Government have confirmed that an SPO—specialised operations— permit will be given to Wick John O’ Groats airport in the next four years. That is crucially important in terms of the air link. The site has planning permission, as the hon. Member for Midlothian mentioned. A full environmental audit has been carried out. Both the UK Government and the Scottish Government have kept a close eye on all these aspects. This is massively important. As the hon. Gentleman said, if we get going with it, we will steal a march on other countries and we can do very well. It is important to be optimistic and look to the future once we get through the pandemic.
I started with thanks and I conclude with thanks—first, to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. This is a very simple equation. Making the Sutherland space launch become a reality will be a major factor in heading off our ancestral nightmare—depopulation and the prospect of highlanders, particularly the young, leaving their homeland to find work. That would be a tragedy. This project is one way of keeping the lights on in the straths and glens.
I have one final thanks—this may seem rather unusual—and it is to somebody who has actually gone out of his way to be enthusiastic about space launches from the UK: none other than the Prime Minister. When we come to the first launch, I hope that I will have the opportunity to buy him a dram. Indeed, I extend a warm welcome to all other Members to join us to watch the first rocket into space—I will pick up the bill.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) is right that three minutes is not a long time to discuss the enormous potential of the UK Space Agency but, then again, it takes only two minutes and 30 seconds for a rocket to leave the earth’s atmosphere, passing the Kármán line, and go into orbit, so Members can do better than that. I am proud to have been the UK’s Space Minister—twice actually—between 2018 and 2020. Not only is it the best job title in Government, but my daughter used to call me the “Minister for the Universe”, confusing that with my other title of Universities Minister.
There are enormous opportunities ahead in the 2020s. As Space Minister I created the idea of the National Space Council, with the promised national space strategy that has been talked about. I also managed to deliver a record uplift in the UK’s contribution to the European Space Agency—nothing to do with the EU—of £1.9 billion a year over the next four years. However, we can and must do more. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that this role is a huge opportunity for her as well.
Space is involved in every aspect of our lives. It is probably involved in this debate today, with satellites passing information back from various constituencies. The economic output for space in the UK is estimated to be £300 billion, rising to £340 billion by 2030. Worryingly, however, only 10% of that activity is actually UK owned. There is a huge issue of sovereignty that we need to tackle when it comes to the UK space industry. Ninety per cent. of our satellite activity is through foreign-owned satellites, so we need to look again at what we can deliver for the future.
As for Government investment in space, yes we are doing well, but we spend roughly £500 million a year, which is a third of the French Government’s budget and half of the German budget. When it comes to a new national space strategy and the future, we need to consider a few things. First, looking at the UK Space Agency, we need to create a separate UK space delivery agency so that the Space Agency is a commissioner that pushes through projects such as horizontal launch down in Newquay. Secondly, we need to double our space budget up to £1 billion a year. We should have a national procurement fund for space worth £250 million a year and a space innovation fund worth £150 million a year. That would ensure that the UK can really be on a par with other European nations and other countries, putting the space industry right at the centre of our vision for a new global Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have lost the connection to John Nicolson, so we go straight to Richard Graham.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
Today’s debate is a decade on from the space innovation and growth strategy of 2010, in which we aspired to a 10% share of a growing global sector. Today, a lot has happened, and the market has hugely grown. The Government are right, therefore, to focus on the increased market opportunities ahead.
To celebrate what has been achieved, our small satellites, led by Surrey Satellite Technology and AAC Clyde Space, have done good work around the world. For example, they have partnered with the Government of the Philippines to help their efforts at greater information for agriculture and, indeed, natural disaster awareness. Such opportunities, both environmental and security, echo across all the world’s regions, with chances to boost crop production and the livelihoods associated with it, reduce deforestation and increase carbon reduction. All of that comes in the lead up to COP26, so this is an appropriate moment to discuss our role in space. Such activity could be boosted by launches in Cornwall and the Shetlands, putting us at the front of European efforts, alongside Sweden, to have launches from the continent.
Our wider role in global navigation systems, now that we have left the European Galileo project, needs to be clarified, along with the future of the UK-based European Space Agency, as the EU creates its own entity. Although we currently stand second only to the US when it comes to providing finance for space, our Government spending on R and D, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) referred to, hardly places us in tier 2 and some way behind France and Germany.
Does this matter? My instinct is that for the UK to continue to be at the leading edge of space technology, with skills, jobs and growth benefits, we need the National Space Council to work closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the strategy promised but not yet seen. I hope that will include opportunities for greater UK supply chains, as well as for how we take forward the role of OneWeb, particularly in our aims for autonomous vehicles.
We should, as a result of all these things, be looking at a future where robotics and advanced manufacturing play a key role, with finance raised from our capital markets, venture capital and other institutional funds. This will be helped by the partnership between scientists, technology, business, markets, the regulator and Government —exactly what has been delivered on vaccination. It is an initially surprising similarity, but, as other countries and unions have found, it is a difficult one. If the Minister and BEIS can together harness the good work of the decade-old Satellite Applications Catapult—shall we just call it the space catapult?—and the new Space Growth Partnership, we may have the vehicle to do it. With a really good regulatory policy alongside this and the best framework in the world, we will attract investment and a rocket-fuelled role for our economic recovery.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
It has long been known that the Hebrides have a reputation for looking beyond planet Earth upwards. I am thinking of the heavens, in fact, and the Hebrides are of course very like heaven, as well you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the 1200s, the philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus lived here, but in the modern age the Hebrides hold another record. In 2017, the highest and heaviest object to be launched into space was launched from the Hebrides Range in Uist. It went up to a height of 155 miles, or 250 km, which is of course about 25 times higher than commercial space flight, so we have a head start in many ways, perhaps we could say over the centuries, of looking beyond the surface of the earth. We are aware that some public funding is going to Sutherland and Cornwall. There are two other areas—in Shetland and here ourselves in the Hebrides—that would be looking to get the same sort of support, hopefully, that the Government of the UK have given to these other sites.
We also want to see some progress on the Space Industry Act 2018. While regulation is welcome, there are concerns that the licensing process may be quite a lot slower than in other nations. Already we have a site earmarked, which is called Spaceport 1, and we hope to have a sub-orbital launch facility during 2021, accelerating local jobs and bringing economic growth—much needed economic growth—to the area. We can do sun-synchronous and polar orbits, using both north and south trajectories. Access to the site does not require significant local infrastructure investment; it is just about there already. The planned use with the Ministry of Defence brings facilities, and it has the expertise to do this, because obviously, when we launched in 2017 we had that level of expertise. There will be a substantially reduced development cost by using the Hebrides, and we just hope that this will come to fruition for sub-orbital launches because it could be a win-win situation for all concerned.
The expertise and the track record of the Hebrides Range proves this can be done. There is good local backing, and good local infrastructure, from Joe MacPhee and Alison MacCorquodale at the local council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. There are many things just ready to go in the Hebrides for this, and, in fact, without the leg-up that other places have had, it is probably the premier spot to do this. It already has the track record, which I mentioned earlier, of the 2017 launch, and we are ready to build on that and go further. We just need to make sure that all those around us are as prepared as we are in the Hebrides to get it going, and we are looking for the UK Government to do their bit in support, and on the legislative framework and on licensing as well, to make sure that progress comes to us to the benefit of all from these islands.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this important debate on the future of the UK space industry.
My Guildford constituency is a space hotspot and is the foundation of the local space sector. Over three decades ago, Surrey Satellite Technology was formed as a spin-out company from the University of Surrey. It is still going strong today, employing 350 staff, and has achieved worldwide success in the manufacture of small satellites. From the foundations of this company in Guildford, the number of space companies and organisations in the area has grown to 185. The wider enterprise M3 local enterprise partnership area has recently become the only LEP to have been recognised by the UK Space Agency for its rich potential. It has received an award of £70,000 for activities to stimulate further growth.
Continued investment in the sector is vital, when we think about what a company such as Surrey Satellite Technology has achieved. This includes 69 satellites launched in the last four decades and space development and training programmes for international customers, including the US, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Chile, Thailand and South Korea. I know that the Minister will recognise how important the sector is for our exports and future trading relationship with partners all over the world.
Government plans for an ambitious national technology satellite programme are extremely welcome. A long-term co-ordinated plan would allow industry to invest in developing new technologies in projects that play to the UK’s strengths, fostering innovation, economic growth and inspiring young people into science, technology, engineering and maths careers. Speaking of those careers, I am pleased to hear that Surrey Satellites offers an apprenticeship programme and a graduate scheme. Along with Surrey Satellites, the space sector in Guildford is the proud home to Lime Microsystems, MTS, Ricardo, SATRO, Thomson Environmental Consultants, Eosense, DMC International Imaging and the British Association of Remote Sensing Companies.
As I was growing up, I was not one to spend my time gazing at the stars. I was more interested in people, the choices we make and how we live our lives, but I think we can all recognise that many of the things that we use and take for granted are the result of research and innovation in the space sector—google it and the list is endless. We can be proud of our UK space industry and, with the focus of this Government, I believe that we can be assured of its future success.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The value of the UK space industry has more than trebled since 2010 and impacts on our daily lives, including the TV we watch, GPS navigation in our cars, and the covid apps on our mobile phones. While these services are delivered by large equatorial satellites, the UK would be likely to specialise in launching small, low-orbit satellites that are used for Earth observation, such as weather patterns, signs of climate damage or tracking shipping.
Scotland is a major player, with almost a fifth of UK space sector employees. Glasgow is the leading producer of micro-satellites, while Strathclyde, Glasgow and Edinburgh universities have innovative research departments. Scottish companies, such as Skyrora and Orbex, are already developing commercial launch vehicles and both have produced low-carbon fuels to minimise their climate impact. Scotland also hosts five of the seven potential spaceports, including Prestwick airport in my constituency. Prestwick already has many advantages as a horizontal launch spaceport, with a 3 km runway, clear weather, good transport links and Scotland’s largest aerospace campus.
The UK space industry is currently held back by the lack of a domestic launch site, but the licensing and regulation system of the Space Industry Act 2018 is still not finalised. The industry is concerned about the technology safeguarding agreement with the US, which could exclude foreign-launched customers from UK spaceports. It would be a failure if they just ended up as long strips of tarmac awaiting the occasional visit of a US vehicle.
The biggest unresolved issue is that companies must accept unlimited liability to indemnify the Government against third-party damage. This is disproportionate, as small satellites would largely burn up on re-entry. Without a cap on liability, though, it is impossible to get insurance, and this is already driving some micro-satellite companies out of the UK. There is also concern at the lack of consultation on moving regulation from the UK Space Agency to the Civil Aviation Authority, especially as the latter has its hands full with taking on aviation safety after Brexit.
It is critical that spaceports stimulate the whole sector, with a boost to research, innovation and manufacturing, and that they inspire more young people to go into the sector. The most important requirement is an overall space strategy so that the opportunities of this global industry are not missed.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to contribute to this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister sum up, because I wish to put a number of points directly to her.
Moray is not going to be home to a spaceport, but we have heard about other potential locations here in Scotland, particularly in the north of Scotland, from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who has been an advocate for the Sutherland centre, and I am sure we will hear later from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the plans up there.
Nevertheless, Moray is part of the process, particularly as it is home to Orbex. I have visited Orbex at the enterprise centre just outside Forres and was immensely impressed by the work there to be part of the UK’s space plans. It is great that Orbex is making high-value, high-invested jobs available here in Moray to develop and work with the Sutherland space centre. The jobs are greatly appreciated by the local community.
Chris Larmour, who heads Orbex in Moray, has been in constant dialogue with me about how we can continue to promote the company and its benefits here in Moray and about what Moray can offer as a base to Orbex and its teams. Chris was hopeful that I could put some points to the Minister and I agreed to set out some of his queries. He is looking for the Government to assist in the overcoming of any obstacles to the delivery of the Sutherland spaceport in Scotland, thereby helping to deliver hundreds of jobs and significant new economic benefit to the Moray region. Will the Minister look into what the UK Government can do to overcome any obstacles to the delivery of the Sutherland spaceport? Will the Government also consider working towards the development of reciprocal rights to launch UK rockets from American spaceports? That is another key issue for companies such as Orbex.
It is great that Scotland and Moray are leading Europe in the space sector through companies like Orbex, which has received strong support for an environmentally sustainable launch system from the UK Space Agency, the European Space Agency and private venture capital funds. This is a great news story not only for those parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom that will have spaceports, but for constituents such as mine here in Moray who can provide so much support and so many benefits to spaceports and to the local economy where they are based. We are delighted to have Orbex, providing high-quality jobs here in Moray, and I know that Orbex will appreciate the support of the UK Government and, in particular, responses to the points I have raised with the Minister.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
I declare at the outset: I am a member and officer of the all-party parliamentary group on space, like some other Members who have spoken.
One highlight of my political career was the opportunity to meet Major Tim Peake—indeed, I have met him twice—shortly after which I was able to get his biography, which is one of the best reads about the impact that space can have on an individual’s life. It challenges young people in particular never to be afraid to ask the necessary questions. Indeed, I believe that that book should be on the national reading curriculum for schools, because it really encourages young people to gain knowledge of space and understand how space can contribute in so many different ways to the nation’s wellbeing. Major Tim Peake is an inspirational character and we are very fortunate, as a nation, to have him.
I also wish to mention Airbus’s role. It employs more people in the UK space programme than the US aerospace and prime defence companies combined. The United Kingdom is actually at the cutting edge of a lot to do with space but probably does not blow its own trumpet sufficiently well to promote what it does.
Northern Ireland plays its part in the space sector. Its strategy supports the growth of the UK space sector by exploiting key upstream resources and developing world-class space downstream capabilities. Northern Ireland’s regional aerospace cluster contributes £1.3 billion to the overall UK aerospace industry, making it Europe’s eighth largest aerospace region in revenue terms, and its innovative and skilled companies are involved in every major aircraft programme globally. Northern Ireland’s space strategy programme contributes well above its weight.
Not enough is said about how space is a distinct opportunity for UK leadership on the world stage. Indeed, it underpins the ability to enable ambitious diplomatic, security and prosperity objectives. In security alone, 90% of Ministry of Defence capability is dependent in some way on our space programme. On prosperity, space technologies underpin £300 billion per annum to the UK economy, making this a massive programme. In diplomacy, space brings £150 million in official development assistance to more than 40 countries. We have before us an opportunity to build our space programmes, invest in our National Space Academy and make sure that space is the future for the UK.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
May I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for securing this debate? It is important for many reasons, not least because the space sector provides an opportunity for significant post-covid growth, and indeed growth that features high levels of productivity. A report by the London School of Economics showed that small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector are growing by more than 30% per annum. The UK is already a world leader in space science, in producing small satellites, and utilising space data; and as part of the Government’s strategy of achieving 10% of the global space market share by 2030, it has been decided that we also need to focus on space launch services. We have the suppliers and the customers; now we need the infrastructure, the equipment and the services to bring them together in the launch sector. But I ask the Minister: are we pursuing our 10% market share goal with sufficient purpose and are we prioritising the areas that will bring the biggest benefits? The largest value sub-sector of launch services, the design and manufacturing of rockets, has so far received the lowest amount of support funding from the UK launch programme. Only one UK launch vehicle company has benefited from the “LaunchUK programme, whereas seven spaceport sites have already received support.
We have heard a lot in the mainstream press about spaceports; they are, after all, a prerequisite for the UK’s launch ambitions and critical national infrastructure. However, the breakdown of the value of each launch will see spaceports gaining fees of about 2% of the total value of a launch, which compares with the launch vehicle representing more than 60%; we are talking about a difference of thousands versus millions of pounds. It is therefore clear that the UK should be doing all it can to gain this value of the upstream space market. To be clear: if another nation launches its rockets from our spaceport, we get thousands, but they get millions. The benefits of supporting more than one domestic rocket company would be immense in terms of new jobs, productivity, growth in skills, technology and benefits to UK supply chains.
However, it is not too late to correct the balance. A company in my constituency, Raptor Aerospace, is developing the next generation of suborbital launch vehicles. Yes, in among the golden waves of North Norfolk’s finest agriculture, a company is designing and building rockets to access space—it is one of only three significant home-grown rocket companies. Raptor is a start-up that has doubled in size in the past 12 months, and it will grow faster still in 2021. The company has developed a unique hybrid rocket engine facility in the east of England, and the company’s trajectory will see the launch of a development rocket from a UK spaceport later this year, with a commercial space-capable rocket the following year. We have brave companies such as Raptor Aerospace that are willing to take the first steps. We must rely on them and the advantage of the synchronicity and the boost that developing launch capability can provide for all the UK.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate, because if someone had told the eight-year-old me who was allowed to get up in the middle of the night to watch Neil Armstrong walk on the moon that I would one day be discussing the prospect of a spaceport in Scotland—of the UK grabbing 10% of the global space market by the end of the decade—would I have believed them? I suspect I probably would, because it was only in January 1961 that Kennedy promised to send a man to the moon and back safely by the end of the decade, and it was achieved in 1969. Perhaps the biggest thing that space exploration has given us is instilling the belief in an entire generation that anything is possible. I am sure the scientists who hon. Members have mentioned were inspired by that in different ways. We have already grasped more than 5% of the available space market, but we must harness that spirit of belief to achieve our goal of 10%.
While I am immensely proud of what is being achieved in Edinburgh, I am confident that scientists there and across the country would agree that a spaceport in Scotland, particularly, would be invaluable to the continued growth of the industry. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his work in supporting the development of this project by Highlands and Islands Enterprise—a project that is so important to all of us. Like Dounreay and the University of the Highlands and Islands before it, it attacks a major issue that has blighted this area of the country, the highlands, and in fact many areas of Scotland: lack of employment and an absolute absence of opportunity for young people. More than 10 years ago, as an employee of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, we carried out a survey that found that the majority of young people felt there was no career for them in the highlands.
This is where a space programme can help so many young people. It can create revenue, reverse economic decline, and give young people opportunities. We should do everything we can to ensure that girls and young women are encouraged to be part of it from the beginning, and I make no apology for saying it is a prime example of something that demonstrates the benefits of working together across the United Kingdom. The space programme gives us the power to do wonderful things for this country, and we should harness that. We should have a fund dedicated to British entrepreneurs entering the space industry. It should include groundbreaking research projects and a strong, nationwide supply chain, harnessing the almost unrivalled power of British engineering. Communities across the country are crying out for investment, and I believe this is the industry that can do it—that can build a better country for the future.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
I am hugely proud to have Harwell Campus in my constituency for all sorts of reasons, but one of them is its space cluster. It has 105 organisations working on space, which is the largest number of organisations within walking distance of each other anywhere in the world. We have a whole range of organisations, from industry and academia to Government, working together, such as RAL Space—which is building the national satellite test facility that will enable companies to build the next generation of spacecraft and test them in the UK—and Astroscale, which works on sweeping the estimated 170 million items of space debris so that we can have a more sustainable space.
If most people were asked to envisage space, I imagine they would think of astronauts and spacecraft making landings, but as has been touched on, space affects a whole range of the challenges we are facing, from our understanding of diseases to our efforts on climate change. MDA at Harwell developed the new module that was recently installed on the International Space Station, allowing its crew to send the results of their experiments to Earth much faster to aid our understanding of ageing, Parkinson’s, cancer and a whole range of other things. Then there are companies such as Rezitech, whose technology enables us to monitor water pipes that might be at risk of bursting and threats to our forests.
There is lots being learned at Harwell, and in my three minutes, I want to touch on four important things. The first is the importance of our small and medium enterprises: we have great SMEs with real expertise, and when they work together in a cluster, we can multiply their impact. The second is the importance of the commitment from Government, which is why I think the national space strategy is so important: it will encourage companies to make commitments that they would not otherwise make without that assurance.
The third is inspiring the next generation to want to work in space. Thales Alenia Space has a great Mars balloon programme that allows young people to build experiments in Kinder-like eggs and send them to a 30 km altitude, so that they can mimic the atmosphere of Mars and hopefully be inspired to want to work in this area in the future.
The fourth and final one is ambition. Everything involving space involves ambition, and I am hugely pleased with the Government’s ambition to have 10% of the global space industry by 2030. That cascades through to companies such as Oxford Space Systems, which wants to be the global leader for its deployable antenna. With that ambition, the commitment from Government and the work at Harwell, we might even exceed that 10%, but we will certainly continue to punch above our weight.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
It is exciting to watch the way in which the UK space industry is currently growing, but it is worth remembering that the roots of that growth are to be found in the civil space strategy of 2012 to 2016, which was launched by the then Minister for Universities and Science, David Willetts. I want briefly to remind the House of what David Willetts said in the foreword to that strategy:
“The possibilities of the next fifty years represent something very inspiring for this country. Our pragmatic approach to private and public sector partnerships has helped pave the way for a new era of space activity in Britain, with the UK Space Agency leading the way. So, a strategy is more than simply words. A strategy can shape the future.”
Indeed, it does.
The progress we have seen since then has brought us to the point in Shetland where we are proud to be home to the burgeoning and ever-growing Shetland spaceport in Unst, the most northerly of the Shetland islands. Last year, we were delighted to welcome the partnership between Unst and Lockheed Martin as the preferred site for its UK Pathfinder launch operation. We hope to hear further information soon with regard to its future intentions. Just this week, we were delighted to hear the announcement of the intention of HyImpulse, a German company, to launch its maiden orbital flight from Unst in 2023.
The question is, how do we go forward? That takes me back to David Willetts’s words. We were dismayed to read recently in The Press and Journal that the view of Scottish Minister Fiona Hyslop is that the Sutherland site is best placed to achieve the first launch by the target date of next year. There are opportunities for all the communities involved in the growth of the UK space sector, and that was a rather bold and ill-considered assertion. It does not help anyone for the Scottish Government to be seen to favour one site over another.
As we look for a way forward, I take the Minister back again to the words of David Willetts and encourage her to build the strongest possible engagement with the companies that are doing business in this sector—they are the ones that know it best—rather than relying on information from politicians or public sector agencies, who may occasionally have an axe to grind. The Government have work aplenty to do in creating a fresh regulatory framework. Let us leave the commercial decisions to the companies that know best and that will put their money where their mouths are.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Government’s ambition to have 10% of the global space industry in the UK. It is right that we aim to be a significant player in this increasingly important global sector. However, in order to achieve that aim, we will need to have a launch capability here in the UK. We lead the world in the design and manufacture of satellites—particularly small satellites—but we currently then ship them to the other side of the world for launch. Having our own launch capability in the UK will not only be important in an ever more uncertain world but will reduce costs and the environmental impact.
Cornwall is ready to play a major part in this through Spaceport Cornwall. Based at Newquay airport in my constituency, it will be one of the world’s first horizontal launch sites for satellites. Horizontal launch has many advantages over vertical launch, as it requires far less infrastructure, has a smaller carbon footprint and is much more accessible for smaller satellites. Cornwall has been chosen as the ideal site for horizontal launch and things are progressing well. With the successful first satellite launch of our partners Virgin Orbit last month, we are now in a position to launch satellites from Cornwall next year. That will bring much-needed well-paid jobs to Cornwall and attract business investment, which will aid the Government’s levelling-up agenda in one of the poorest parts of the UK. It will also help to inspire our young people to pursue qualifications in STEM subjects and open up career opportunities in electronics and engineering.
The thing we need now is for the regulations to be put in place. We need them in place urgently in order to be able to obtain the necessary licences. There is concern, however, that the regulations are looking to take a one-size-fits-all approach for both vertical and horizontal launch. Those two means of launch are very different. Horizontal launch, which is basically little different from a large passenger jet taking off, until it reaches altitude for rocket launch, should not be bogged down by unnecessary regulations that are required only to cover vertical launch. Will the Minister therefore look carefully at the regulations to ensure that they differentiate between launch mechanisms and are fit for horizontal launch?
In June this year, Cornwall will host the G7 leaders’ summit, and we are keen to use the opportunity to showcase the UK and Cornwall’s space sector ambitions. To do that, we would like to bring the Virgin Orbit plane, Cosmic Girl, to Cornwall for the G7. Will the Minister work with Spaceport Cornwall to do all we can to enable that to happen?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) and congratulate him on setting the scene so well.
The Government’s target of 10% of the global space market by 2030 is something we all want to see. The latest figures, from the “Size and Health of the UK Space Industry 2018” survey, show:
“Total UK space industry income grew to £14.8 billion in 2016/17”,
which is estimated to represent
“5.1% of the global space economy”.
These are lofty goals, yet seeing the skill levels of workers in our nation—for example, the workers in the Shorts, formerly Bombardier, factories in my constituency and their ability to turn their hands and machinery to new complex designs—I sincerely believe those goals to be achievable. Many independent engineering firms in my constituency, such as Cooke Brothers, Huddleston and others, are ready, skilled, able and willing to turn their hand to this and to be part of the achievement in the space industry. We need, however, to be able to connect the design firm in Bristol with engineering firms in the Ards peninsula, or Newtownards town in Strangford. There is a job to be done to ensure that the UK-wide skills are utilised for the benefit of us all and that everyone gains in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The majority of the income of the space industry— £12.4 billion—is generated by the downstream segment of the industry through space applications such as direct-to-home broadcasting. Upstream activities, including space manufacturing—launch vehicles, satellites, payloads, scientific instruments—generated an income of £2.4 billion in 2016-17. When we achieve our goal of doubling the UK share of the global industry, it will allow other areas, such as my constituency of Strangford, to come into their own and to play their part. I want to see us all gain in this great nation and to see the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy take an active role to make the connections and to support diversification of facilities UK-wide to be part of the growing global potential.
I was heartened to hear this quotation from Dr Michael McKay, the head of the strategy and co-ordination office in the directorate of operations at the European Space Agency:
“Northern Ireland possesses the high precision engineering expertise, research competence and innovative thinking that is necessary to meet the demands of tomorrow’s European and International Space Programmes and their application. Clearly identifying the opportunities where we can use these skills is the key to growth”.
Let us not lose that comment. We need to utilise that. I sincerely look to the Minister to understand how Northern Ireland will play an integral part in this tremendous opportunity for everyone.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The morning after I was appointed
the science Minister, and two years later Business Secretary, my very first engagement was to meet all the representatives of the UK’s space sector at the Farnborough airshow. I did so because I was convinced right from the outset that this was an industry where we could forge a very strong future for the UK. It was an opportunity—technologically, in engineering terms, economically, regionally and scientifically—from which we could prosper.
One thing we know, looking ahead to the future, is that the whole world is going to be using more satellites and more satellite technology, whether for monitoring crops or helping to navigate autonomous vehicles around our streets. Because our skills in all the related disciplines, from precision engineering to the analysis of big data, are so well developed and so profound, this is a huge opportunity for us. When we launched the industrial strategy, we reserved a very big place within it for space and satellites for that reason. Two of the major components of that industrial strategy were the national satellite test facility that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) referred to and the competition to have satellite launch facilities. As we have heard in this debate, if we are going to build the technology, how much better it is to be able to launch satellites as well.
The Space Industry Act went through the House at that time, through the industrial strategy. It was an exciting time for an exciting sector, but I have to say in all candour that I am concerned that, in recent months and years, the Government seem to have been a bit more ambivalent about industrial strategy than I think is appropriate given the opportunities. In the 2017 industrial strategy, we thought that we should have capacity for vaccines manufacture so we established a vaccines manufacturing and innovation centre. We thought that we should have capability in battery manufacturing; we established a Faraday challenge. We established the initiatives that we have today.
I hope that, in the months ahead, the Government might reflect that, although not everything about that strategy was right, to have a forward plan—bringing industry, academia and places all together to work together to put the whole weight of the country behind that—is a recipe for success. It is not too late to do that, but other countries are looking at the same possibilities that we have. So I hope the Minister and the new Secretary of State will take up with enthusiasm the potential of industrial strategy once again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Due to the pressures on time, Mark Garnier will be the last speaker before the Front Benchers.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) [V]
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as well as my role as an officer of the all-party group on space.
I think we would all agree that space is absolutely fantastic and fascinating for our country. We are a nation with global ambitions and it is an absolutely basic part of our global nation’s portfolio. We would all agree that we need to engage and do well in this sector. Since 2010 it has been our ambition to achieve 10% of the global space market, a win worth around £40 billion a year. As we have just heard, that was reinforced with the industrial strategy. This is a fine ambition, but it is just that: an ambition. It does not really constitute a grand strategy or a strategic goal.
I fear that we have lost our way; the reality is that we are not driving forward this ambition in the way we should be. While we are the sixth biggest defence economy on the planet, our space sector is now languishing behind that of Italy in its activities, and although we have any number of brilliant companies here in the UK engaged in this sector, international companies seeking to locate here are faced with an extraordinarily confused regulatory landscape. We have an incredibly untidy, confusing regulatory landscape with various Government Departments looking after various parts of this regime. Our new regulatory regime brought in under the Space Industry Act 2018 faces any number of problems and confusions. In addition, no one really quite understands why flight licensing has been transferred from the UK Space Agency to the Civil Aviation Authority. Even at its most basic level, we are failing so many businesses seeking to invest in the UK because we have failed to deliver a simple customer service proposition.
While it is easy to criticise a lot of the details of the space offering, I do not want to pour cold water on what we do, but our problem is that we do not have a grand strategy. We seem to lack the clarity of vision that supports the delivery of this very important sector.
The reality is that space is a component of our national power. If we want to be a global military presence, we need to have a global space presence. If we want to be a global technology leader, we need to be a global space leader. If we want to avoid the same problems that we have faced with Huawei and 5G but in space, we need to grasp the technological nettle.
We need to recognise that our space landscape is unfathomably complex and impossible to navigate. We need to develop a strategy that will make all of this work. We need to have a proper secretariat that is empowered to deliver a cohesive and coherent space policy, and that can be effective across Government. We need to create the opportunity in other areas that will be able to support our commercial space industry, and we need to do well in academia. But we also need to look at one of the greatest resources we have in this country: the City of London.
We need to come up with a three-point strategy: create a proper strategic goal that embodies our true global Britain vision in space; build a structure with a clear delivery organisation at its head; and incentivise other brilliant sectors of the economy, especially financial services, to become a world leader in supporting our space sector.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for bringing forward this important debate. I also declare an interest as a vice-chair of the parliamentary space committee.
Over the last decade, the space industry has become one of the UK’s fastest-growing sectors. It currently employs almost 42,000 people and generates £15 billion annually. In Scotland, we are rightly proud of our thriving space industry. Three miles from where I am sitting is the heart of Europe’s small satellite industry, and Scotland’s space port sites offer great potential—it was good to hear from so many Members who represent those sites this afternoon. Glasgow University and Strathclyde University are training future space physicists and engineers, and the Scottish physics curriculum has been tailored towards space.
Many Members have spoken enthusiastically about the space industry this afternoon, but enthusiasm alone will not enable the industry to exploit its full potential. In the UK there is a lack of leadership and co-ordination between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Defence. Other countries—notably the US, China and India—are developing space technologies as a fourth arm of their armed forces. So the first priority for the UK is to have a credible space strategy that makes long-term investment possible.
It is also important to recognise that space is set to get crowded. Anywhere humanity goes, we take our ambitions and rivalries, and space is no different. The national and commercial race for space power and profit is back, and many are seeing the economic potential and defence necessities in space-based capabilities. Just to illustrate that, SpaceX has launched 1,000 new satellites in the last year alone. In this crowded commercial domain, companies will launch according to where the regulations are most supportive of the industry.
So where does that leave the UK? Well, there are a number of issues that we need to address. The licensing requirements under the Space Industry Act 2018 include complex regulation that must be simplified to avoid large administrative costs for licence applicants. The third-party liability insurance costs are a major challenge for small satellite operators. These costs are excessively high and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has already explained, disproportionate to the low risks associated with this class of satellite.
Currently, one company is leaving the UK every month to launch elsewhere, and many more are electing not to come to the UK in the first place. This threatens the future of the UK’s small satellite sector and its wider supply chain, which needs focused Government support. A new insurance model is required for UK companies to remain competitive in the global market, and for the Government to leverage its space sector investments, including in launch sites and manufacturing facilities. The UK has a well-established earth observation capability, but there is growing competition. Other companies have significant national programmes and clear earth observation data and security policies, which enable greater investment certainty. Data exporters from the UK are disadvantaged because of the lack of such a policy, so that needs to be looked at urgently. As others have mentioned, the technology safeguard agreement between the US and the UK was entered into last June without consultation or scrutiny. That could be unreasonably restrictive to members of the UK industry, for example, if a company were to obtain a component from a country outside the missile technology control regime. It may also prevent companies from other countries coming to the UK to use launch facilities.
For informed policy to be developed—a policy that supports the industry—there must be suitably experienced regulatory staff to allow informed decisions to be made that take into account the global nature of the industry and enable UK operators to compete in this crowded global environment. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy drives innovation that is critical for other sectors and has an invaluable contribution to make to global challenges, such as climate change. We do have a thriving sector, but now we must develop a clear strategy with a supportive licensing policy to ensure that our ambitions are realised and our launch capability becomes a reality.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward this very important debate today. There have been so many excellent and well-informed contributions from all parts of the House and I am sorry that I cannot do them justice in my comments, but I will try to emulate their conciseness.
Space and its many unanswered questions inspire awe and excitement. For nearly 70 years, the official British space programme has been seeking to answer the big questions of our universe, drawing on the expertise of our world-leading science and research sectors. In fact, the British Interplanetary Society is the oldest space advocacy organisation on Earth. As a nation, we have a proud history of space exploration and international collaboration. In 1957, British Skylark rockets were launched from Woomera in Australia. At the turn of the millennium, the British National Space Centre was the third largest financial contributor to the European Space Agency.
The space industry is worth more than £14.8 billion per year and has grown five times greater than the wider economy since 1999. The success of this sector helps to drive prosperity across the UK. As we have heard, our UK space businesses spend around £750 million annually, with around 1,500 UK suppliers, based across every region of the UK. Many of the jobs created in space manufacturing are also highly productive, with the average salary of an Airbus UK space employee standing at £51,000, nearly 50% higher than the UK national average.
The UK’s proud history in space exploration, research and development makes it an excellent launch pad for future growth, with the right leadership. The UK and its place in the world is changing. We have left the European Union, which meant turning our back on the Galileo project that we did so much to bring about, at a cost of £1.2 billion to the taxpayer. The Government then U-turned on their plans to develop a rival sovereign satellite system, at a cost of a further £60 million.
Just this weekend, it was reported that the Secretary of State had decided to take control of strategy and policy away from the UK Space Agency, handing the almost £600 million budget directly to the Government. We are concerned that this constitutes a reactionary power grab following the controversy over the Government’s acquisition of OneWeb. Will the Minister publish the information that drove this decision, and set out the new remit for the UK Space Agency? What will she do with these new powers?
The Government talk excitedly about “global Britain”, but Labour wants to see an interplanetary Britain powered by a booming space sector. Space is not just for the stars. As we have heard, it impacts every household in the country—from climate change and rural broadband to transport and agriculture. From our smart phones to our credit cards, the UK space sector helps us all to prosper. The Government have made commitments to develop a new space command, designed to
“enhance the breadth of our space capabilities”
and help to fund high-risk/reward innovation projects, but there has been no clarity on the support provided to space research from this new ARPA-style moonshot programme.
Without a clear long-term space strategy, the hard work of our space sector—in developing spaceports and rocket launch pads, and space domain awareness projects and military-grade software, and embarking on satellite projects critical for our vital infrastructure—will not be fully realised. If we are to ensure the success of these programmes, we must understand whether we have the industrial capability to do so. Part of unlocking the potential of our space industry is knowing how we organise our industrial base to achieve our goals, and in turn where we will need further investment and finance to encourage outward investment in UK businesses.
There is no strategy for external investment, no strategy for skills—in particular diverse skills; space requires everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, region or age—no strategy for industry and manufacturing, and no strategy for sovereign satellite capabilities, or whether and how we will compete with SpaceX and others. Instead, we have the manifesto of a Government with their head in the clouds. Down on earth, as we have heard, the sector is still waiting to hear about the future of the new regulations introduced under the Space Industry Act 2018, particularly those dealing with administrative burdens and liabilities.
Nothing better illustrates the lack of strategy and transparency than the purchase of OneWeb, despite the advice of experts and the concerns of the UK Space Agency. First we were told it would be part of our sovereign GNSS—global navigation satellite system—programme, then it was not. We do not know what the Government have planned for OneWeb or whether this huge investment will even support jobs in the UK space sector, with the satellites continuing to be manufactured in Florida.
The space sector provides the UK with so many opportunities to grow our economy, push technological boundaries and boost our soft power by developing strategic interdependence with our allies. What discussions has the Minister had about progressive partnerships in space exploration and research and development?
A year ago, UKspace set out the urgent need for a coherent cross-Government space strategy. We still have not seen it. Labour would seek to support our sovereign capability in the space age and build on the UK’s proud history of technological innovation and space exploration. Labour is passionate about the long-term future and potential of the space sector. It provides high-skill, high-paid jobs, which are needed to address the major challenges of our time, but the absence of a clear and focused long-term space strategy raises many questions about how far we will benefit from the boundless possibilities of space.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this incredibly important debate and acknowledge the richness of this entire debate—there really are just far too many comments that I would like to make. I have been hearing words such as “opportunity”, “future”, “growth”, “jobs”, “inspiration”, “economic recovery”, “connectability”. All of these are just so exciting, and it is the reason why we really need to focus on the space industry.
To highlight just a couple of Members—there are too many to mention, although every Member has made such a valuable contribution—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) talked about being Minister for the Universe. I think that is really exciting; I am the Minister for the Universe now. That is so great, and I could not agree more about making sure we seize this opportunity. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) talked about Tim Peake and the inspiration he can bring. I was really fortunate over Christmas to receive one of the books that so inspired him. That is the kind of thing we need to harness and capture.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
On the subject of inspiration, I am sure the Minister will agree with me that we have the opportunity to inspire a generation of children. Aa an example, as I walked to the Chamber earlier for this debate, I received a voicemail from my boy enthusiastically explaining a new fact that he had learned about a comet. It is that kind of enthusiasm that we need to inspire among a whole generation, to take our education and our industry through to the next generation.
Amanda Solloway
I thank my hon. Friend. I know his son Freddie, and wow! That is what we have to do: inspire future generations.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) talked about Neil Armstrong landing on the moon. I remember that, and I remember thinking how important—how amazing—all these achievements were. Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) talked about how we must plan for our future. I am grateful for all those contributions, which were all valuable.
We must use space every single hour of every single day, and that is what makes it so exciting. From getting the latest weather forecast to navigating the oceans and operating the National Grid, satellites keep our troops safe, underpin every financial transaction and help scientists monitor our climate. Space innovations can and have transformed how we live and work, from automated cars to wearable technology, while space science helps us to understand our place in the universe and protect our future.
As I speak, British satellites are capturing high-resolution images around the globe to help us assess environmental hazards, manage natural resources and understand our climate. British technology is on the way to Mercury—gosh, that is incredible—making possible the European Space Agency’s first mission to study how the planet closest to the sun was formed. That is really amazing.
Satellites have kept our families, communities and businesses connected this past year, while space-powered technologies such as drones have supported the incredible efforts of our NHS, as was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). That includes enabling my 86-year-old dad in Wales to watch this speech today.
The Government’s partnership with our inspirational space sector has been at the heart of its success. Our space growth partnerships bring together the UK’s space industry, research base and Government to drive our ambitions forward, and will help us build back from the challenges of the pandemic better and stronger than ever.
We have established a new National Space Council to co-ordinate space policy. We will grow our space economy across the Union, bolster our capabilities to protect the UK and our allies, foster innovation, and make the UK a world-class destination for global talent and investment. The UK’s priority for space will be set out in the first comprehensive space strategy, which will be delivered in the next six months. I could not agree more that we need that.
Our free trade agreement with the EU, worth £668 billion, is a vital step, allowing the UK to remain at the forefront of this high-tech industry. It paves the way for the UK to remain in the Copernicus programme, where there will be opportunities for UK businesses to bid for high-value manufacturing work and access satellite data, on which we will build science and commercial applications.
Outside the EU, our £374 million annual investment in the European Space Agency is ensuring that UK scientists and engineers take lead roles in this decade’s most exciting missions, from building Europe’s next Mars Rover to searching for life on other planets and studying the sun in greater detail than ever. We are investing in new international partnerships that will boost UK space exports and strengthen our collaboration on ground-breaking science and research with other leading space nations, such as the US, Australia and Japan.
We are also establishing major new national programmes to build the space capabilities that are vital to our prosperity and security. Our space-based positioning, navigation and timing programme is exploring new ways to ensure continued delivery of satellite navigation and timing services that are critical for UK energy networks and communications in the maritime, aviation and defence sectors, all of which we have heard about throughout this incredible debate.
We plan to make the UK a global hub for space innovation. We have launched a £15 million national space innovation programme, the UK’s first dedicated fund for pioneering space technologies, which will help solve some of the greatest societal challenges. Our strategic investment in the OneWeb satellite communication constellation demonstrates the Government’s ambition to put Britain at the cutting edge of the latest advances in space technology. Access to our own global fleet of satellites has the potential to connect people worldwide, creating jobs and building on a strong advanced manufacturing service base. Our aim is to be the first country in Europe to launch small satellites.
We have kickstarted work to build the first UK spaceports, including in Scotland, supported by grants worth £40 million. We expect the first launches from 2022, creating hundreds of secure, highly skilled jobs. To ensure that the UK’s launch offer is competitive and encourages new market entrants, the UK Government are putting in place a world-leading regulatory framework, with the Civil Aviation Authority assuming responsibility for the regulatory functions of the Space Industry Act, in addition to regulating orbital activities under the Outer Space Act 1986.
We are working with our partners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to build their local strengths and drive development of their sectors. Government initiatives will join and complement our existing areas of strength as part of our developing national space ecosystem, unlocking new talent and making a career in space a realistic prospect in every part of the country.
We have a truly vibrant space sector, which stretches across the nation, going further to ensure that our space industry benefits from every region. We must seize this moment and deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the UK space industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will have a two-minute suspension to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Towns Fund
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Towns Fund.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. The United Kingdom is full of hard-working, innovative, entrepreneurial people. We are the fifth-biggest economy in the world, and we are a liberal, free, open and successful economy. A great number of my constituents have good jobs based in London, but lots do not, and many have been left behind, in a rich country like ours, even in good times of growth. It is therefore time to invest in our towns and cities that do not or cannot benefit from London. That is why all Members should welcome promises to level up and unleash the economic potential of towns, cities and rural places across the country. That is why all Members should welcome the towns fund.
The fund will invest £3.6 billion into places like Peterborough, Blackpool, Barrow, Torquay, Darlington, Norwich and Warrington. It will more than pay for itself by stimulating economic growth with a focus on regeneration, improved transport, better broadband connectivity, skills and culture. The plan is to unleash the economic potential of 101 towns and cities across the UK. The towns fund has the potential to change lives.
I want to illustrate the benefits of the towns fund by informing the House about how it will benefit Peterborough. The bid for investment in Peterborough is one of the first seven successful bids as part of phase 1. We have already had £1 million for a shovel-ready local growth project to support 14 parks across the city, but it will deliver nearly £23 million of investment for my city overall. Many other cities and bids are looking to Peterborough to see how we were successful. Where Peterborough leads, other towns and cities follow.
I pay tribute to Matthew Bradbury of the Nene Park Trust, the chair of the towns fund bid, Andy Starnes of CityFibre, the vice-chair, and all those who served on the towns fund board. That board includes councillors and officers from Peterborough City Council and me. I also serve on the board, and that is what makes the towns fund different. It is different not only because this Government believe in the economic potential of these towns and cities, but because Members of this House have been invited to be personally involved in the projects and personally associated with their success or, indeed, failure. We are accountable to the electorate and can hold Ministers to account.
Together with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who represents the southern part of Peterborough, we have lobbied for and supported the bid from day 1. I am sure that is true for many other Members. The funding will create a new library and a cultural hub on Bridge Street and a centre for lifelong learning, as well as feed into the new skills and the technical university that we are building, bringing highly paid jobs back to our city centre. It will give the impetus for the new developments of the station quarter and north Westgate. It will pump money into Lincoln Road, a vibrant high street in Peterborough that just needs focus, investment and, dare I say it, a little bit of love.
In the words of one local restaurant owner, Zillur Hussain, the fund is a fresh start for Peterborough that builds on our natural advantages, as we are only 40 minutes from London on the main road and rail arteries. We have a history of manufacturing, engineering, science and technology, and we have a wonderful, hard-working, skilful population. This fund is the shot in the arm that will unleash our potential.
The fund will benefit communities across the country and Members across this House. It should not be a partisan political issue. It is a shame that some Opposition Members have sought to make it political, instead of welcoming investment in their constituencies, and I hope that does not happen in this debate.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Given that 60 of the 61 towns allocated funding were Conservative-held or Conservative target seats, surely it is the hon. Gentleman’s party that has made it party political.
Paul Bristow
As I understand it, 101 areas could benefit from that investment. If the Labour party had not ignored those towns and cities, perhaps it would still be representing them.
This fund has happened when the Government are tackling an unprecedented public health crisis. Covid-19 is the biggest challenge this country has faced since world war two. Some might have forgiven the Government if they had paused the initiative while they focused on the pandemic, but rather than doing that, they have powered ahead, giving hope and optimism to places such as Peterborough and helping communities to build back better as we overcome the pandemic.
This funding also includes the future high streets fund, which aims to renew town centres and high streets to make them more attractive places to visit, increasing footfall, driving growth and supporting local businesses. That is exactly what Lincoln Road, Westgate and other parts of Peterborough need. The pandemic has kept people away from the high street. People are eating takeaways and restaurant meals at home, and they are shopping online. My mobile phone boasts not just Deliveroo but, as a result of the pandemic and lockdown, Just Eat and Uber Eats. As convenient as that is, and as good as the hospitality in Peterborough has been at adapting, there is a real fear that hospitality and retail will suffer as we come out of the pandemic because people’s shopping and leisure habits have changed. That is why we need to think differently about town centres and high streets and make them a destination.
We need to create new, innovative high streets offering different things, such as pop-up shops, entertainment, interactive experiences, culture, leisure and mixed use including residential, as well as fun, safe and changing nightlife and hospitality. The towns fund is the catalyst for change, because private sector money and investment will follow, unlocking the potential of our towns and cities.
It is a message of hope, and it shows these communities that the Government and their local MPs have not forgotten them. Will the Minister remain committed to the plan? Will he confirm that there are chances for more towns and cities beyond the 101 already identified to submit bids for the future? Will he stress the importance of local MP engagement and ask all MPs from across the House to get on board with the towns fund and its potential to transform lives?
To conclude, I am all pumped up for Peterborough in 2021, ’22, ’23 and beyond. We have a new university coming, Fletton Quays and a new Government hub; the station quarter, a new cinema and Queensgate expansion is planned; and the Embankment will become an all-year-round destination—and now we have £23 million through the towns fund. We are making the decisions now that will guarantee our future health, wealth and happiness in the future. I am so excited that we are going to unleash our potential, but I am just as excited about this country’s potential, and as we level up and build back better from this pandemic, this is what the towns fund can deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The three-minute time limit will now come into force. I would remind hon. Members who are participating virtually that a countdown clock will be visible on their screens. I do advise them to stick to that because we have a lot of people who want to contribute. Obviously, in the Chamber, there is the usual clock for Members to look at.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to this technology of the clock counting me down.
This is an important debate. Britain’s lop-sided economy has left many of our towns, in recent decades, feeling abandoned as we both centralise and deindustrialise our economy. Of course, we cannot halt economic progress, but we should never turn our backs on those held-back communities in the towns. We clearly need state intervention, but on a massive scale—a new Marshall plan. The towns fund simply does not hack it. Towns have been left behind by gigantic global capital flows driven by a new and even more remote phase of capitalism and by a political elite operating in the interests of capitalism, rather than of those communities.
I represent small towns and villages that at one time were at the very heart of the mighty Yorkshire coalfield. They helped create our wealth, heated our homes and powered our industries, but now too often they feel abandoned, especially as covid begins to impact more heavily on those same towns. We owe those communities a huge duty of solidarity. Large areas in my constituency—those great Yorkshire villages and towns such as Featherstone, Hemsworth, South Elmsall, Upton, South Kirkby, and the list goes on—are among the most deprived communities in the country, but not a penny has come to us from the towns fund.
Let us be honest, the financial allocation is inadequate, and much of it is anyway recycled from other spending programmes. Deprived communities are forced to compete against each other for a share of a fund that in any case is unfairly distributed. More than half the towns that get the money from the towns fund are not even in the most deprived category, and quite a lot of them just happen to be in areas of political interest to the governing party.
The distribution of financial resources and the location of economic growth are dictated largely by the whims of financial markets, leaving so many towns left behind, and then there is the apparently grubby gerrymandering of the fund itself, as I see it. It does not have to be like that. We do have the power to change things. Don’t say it can’t be done: look at how the last Labour Government used their power to intervene in the collapsing banking market. First, however, we would need to replace that part of the British establishment that serves the interests of big money rather than seeking to be its master. With a radical Government on their side and adequate funding, Britain’s towns can once again become the cradles of economic growth, cultural creativity and social justice.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]
It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), who was very positive, and the not so positive hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).
I am sure that, across this House, we as Members of Parliament and, in part, representatives of our communities have as our driving aim and ambition the wish to leave our constituencies in a better, more prosperous and equal way than when we were first elected. I am one of the few MPs sitting in this House who has lost their seat at a general election and, fortuitously, regained that same seat subsequently. When one loses one’s seat, funnily enough one has plenty of time to reflect and think back to all one’s achievements, and to those issues or projects that had been delayed. When I lost in 2017, I was able to reflect on my record, and I am proud that I was able to say that Lincoln was a better, more connected, prosperous and equal community than when I was first elected in 2010. Our two universities continue to prosper, with Lincoln recently being granted its own medical school after I engaged with other organisations to promote its existence, initially in 2011. We also had direct, fast and regular train links to London, the now-complete Lincoln eastern bypass was under construction and the average worker had a higher wage and a lower tax bill than they did under a Labour Government.
Lincoln has prospered, and continues to prosper, with a Conservative Member of Parliament fighting its corner and a receptive Conservative Government, but we now have a further, new opportunity to ensure that our constituencies level up, flourish and provide employment, incomes and livelihoods for our constituents. I believe that Lincoln’s bid for the towns fund will do this and I hope that Government colleagues share my positivity for Lincoln’s towns fund application. I would like to take this opportunity to officially thank my fellow scouser and colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who, as a former Minister, procured this opportunity for the city that I am so proud, honoured and privileged to represent.
When people arrive and exit at Lincoln train station, with its ticket room plaque commemorating the official redevelopment and reopening, they are immediately greeted by the shell of a grand old hotel, the Barbican. It has unfortunately stood empty for well over a decade. If one of the projects in our bid is successful, it will be transformed into a production and maker hub for the creative industries. The space would enable the clustering and incubation of creative businesses and the establishment of a creative business network. This would be a distinctive, visible and high-quality offer in the heart of the city. I note that, as a landlord, the Lincolnshire Co-op is an incredibly commercial landlord and has steadfastly refused in over a decade to invest any of its finances into the site.
We also have a proposal for the urban regeneration of Tentercroft Street. This project will support the redevelopment of a strategic brownfield site, to create new workspace and city living in the heart of the city centre. But by far my favourite of the proposals is the bid for Wigford Way. Once a critical artery for our city centre businesses and central road network, Wigford Way is now underused due to changes in pedestrianisation and flows of traffic, following the improvements secured through funding during my early years as the Member of Parliament for both the high street and Brayford wharf level-crossing footbridges and the east-west link road, so it now offers an opportunity for centre development, or rather, to be reimagined to improve and reconnect distinctive quarters of our city.
For all those who live, work, visit and study in our beautiful, historic and well-loved city, I will always put Lincoln first.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The towns fund: great in theory, but in practice, not a lot, and it leaves out London, bringing accusations of gerrymandering. Announced by the last PM on a hunt for votes for her doomed EU withdrawal Bill, when there was another deadline looming, it was seen as a Brexit bribe to bring prosperity after we leave the EU. By the end of the year, an election was called, and it was clear that 60 out of the 61 lucky winners were in Tory target seats. A lot of them translated into gains, such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and Bishop Auckland.
The Public Accounts Committee noted how criteria for inclusion and adjudicating success were “vague”, while Professor Hanretty, giving evidence, went further, labelling it pork-barrelling based on party politics, not need. The remainder of it is a competitive bidding process, leaving towns, which are not a commonly understood unit of analysis, pitted against one other at a time when the country needs bringing together. Why not suburbs? Marginal Cheadle got, whereas nearby Didsbury did not. London suburbs, too, are blighted by all the guidance that was initially published—ageing population, reducing economic prosperity, high streets with reducing footfall. Ealing has a housing crisis, with 10,000 on the waiting list, and a social care crisis, yet our budget has been slashed by 64% since 2010—36p in every £1 it had—leaving huge holes, even with the covid extra. Every time there is another Government U-turn, there is more expenditure in this failed tiering experiment.
Yes, our capital generates enormous wealth, but we are never too far away from pockets of poverty. In this borough, Westminster, Church Street ward is, on some indexes, the most deprived in the country—it is certainly the most overcrowded. In East Acton and South Acton, the streets are definitely not paved with gold, yet London is completely ineligible. Food bank use has doubled in the last five years. It has 40% child poverty and pensioner poverty. The fastest-growing unemployment in the country is found in London.
Small beer and a drop in the ocean, compared with the revenue that we have lost from council coffers since 2010 and the EU structural funds that we will no longer get, will not cut it. Also, pitting the rest of the country against London—this demonising of our capital—is a dangerous policy. The only transparent thing about the towns fund is its naked politicking. It said that it would take the decisions away from Whitehall, but instead it has delivered them to Conservative campaign headquarters; the decision making is taking place there now, not in Whitehall. Perhaps the Secretary of State, when he is not scrapping with his pals to get money for his own patch, should stop his imagined war on the woke, because there is work to be done.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for securing this important debate. I speak to the House today as a proud member of the Burton town deal board. The Minister will have seen for himself the plans put forward by the board, which set out a clear vision for building on Burton-on-Trent’s unique strengths. The vision behind our recently submitted town investment plan is sound, and representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors across Burton have worked hard to identify a programme of investment that will secure the town’s economic growth prospects.
The River Trent is a huge natural asset, and we must make better use of the opportunities it affords. Improving town centre living with key walking and cycling routes and improved riverside areas will offer a healthier environment to live in, as well as attracting visitors into the town. Individual projects have been identified, including bringing a regional learning hub to Burton that will provide opportunities for access to skills and training, offering residents a route to prosperity as well retaining and encouraging businesses to the area. By providing investment in Burton, this Government will ensure that our historic brewing town, full of heritage and natural attributes, has a resilient, better and brighter future ahead.
As I talk today about Burton, I that know my constituents in Uttoxeter will be asking, “What about us?” Burton has its chance to secure funding for its town investment plan, but let me tell the Minister about the potential that Uttoxeter offers. We must seize the regeneration opportunities that Uttoxeter holds. We must seize the chance to deliver a bold and creative vision that offers not just more housing—which I know from recent correspondence is not what residents want—but the chance to create a new future and purpose for this historic market town. Let us take the opportunity to regenerate the brownfield sites and high streets with community spaces, leisure and social facilities and access to expanded healthcare facilities. Uttoxeter has a wonderful GP—he is one of many—and Dr David Atherton’s contribution to our vaccine roll-out alone should afford him the chance of a bigger, brighter, more accessible practice.
I should like to make just one more request on behalf of both Burton and Uttoxeter, and that is to deliver the project B upgrade to the A50 that has been promised. This junction upgrade at heart of the midlands manufacturing corridor would not only hugely benefit residents and visitors to Burton and Uttoxeter but unlock enterprise opportunities right across the region, stimulate growth and development and provide a vital contribution to a well-functioning and highly productive economy.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]
Like many towns, St Helens has been through good times and bad. We were at the heart of the industrial revolution when we were home to the first industrial canal, and we remain the home of glass. The security glass in the Chamber was produced in St Helens. We are also the home town of the best rugby league team in the country, which I make no apology for mentioning once again. We are a proud town with a welcoming community, yet there is no denying that the past decade has been tough for the town. The impact of austerity is still felt, and the last year has made things worse. The last year has thrown a brick through an already shattered window.
There are problems with the fund, particularly with transparency and with how fairly it is being distributed, but at its heart it is a good thing and the right thing to do. The UK has the most regionally unbalanced economy in Europe, and it is not sustainable to continue like this. Even Germany, which spent the majority of my lifetime as two separate countries, the eastern part of which suffered from poverty and severe economic difficulties, has less inequality than Britain today.
People in towns in the north have felt abandoned and forgotten for too long, and rightly so. The next few years present both challenges and opportunities. The economic woes that our town and many others have experienced will hasten changes that were already happening. The world and the economy are changing, and we must adapt with it. The recovery from this crisis will be green, and it will be global. It must and will bring good-paying, high-skilled jobs to the areas that need them.
I have had the honour of sitting on St Helens town deal board. Last week, we finalised and submitted our proposal. Being green and being global is at the heart of it. The centrepiece of our bid is Glass Futures, a research and development facility. Glass Futures will work with the global glass industry and supply chain. It will bridge the gap between research and development and implementation. As our economy recovers in a green and global way, glass will be the low-carbon global material of choice. Glass is more than just windows. In fact, I am seen today through a piece of glass that almost every screen contains. The whole country has spent the past year looking at friends and family through sheets of glass in their phones or computer screens.
The global centre of excellence in the proposal will put St Helens at the heart of the global glass industry, and we ask the Government to support this as part of the global Britain strategy. A few months ago, I was pleased to welcome the Secretary of State to attend our town board to hear about our proposals. As an MP, I cover two boroughs, St Helens and Knowsley, both of which deserve and need investment. I urge the Minister to fight on our behalf and on behalf of all the towns in the country, to get the funding needed, so that all towns can get their fair share of investment.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) [V]
As the first Conservative MP for Blyth Valley, I have been given the opportunity to help breathe life into my hometown, which has been neglected for many decades. Having lived in Blyth all my life, I have seen at first hand the decay and abandonment that the town centre has experienced, despite its great potential. I was delighted when the town centre was awarded £11.12 million of funding from the future high streets fund, to allow for much-needed investment and improvement.
The towns fund provides limitless opportunities for regions across the country to unleash their full potential, while delivering on the Government’s agenda to level up. Such investment has the capacity to dramatically improve, regenerate and unite towns and communities across this wonderful country of ours. In Blyth, the funding will support the revitalisation of Blyth marketplace and Bridge Street by providing new leisure and cultural facilities at the heart of the town centre. As part of the recovery from the pandemic, the announcement on 25 September that shovel-ready projects in the constituency will be given a £750,000 boost was particularly welcome. I am extremely pleased that major work will start soon on improving Bowes Street, which will immediately make a real difference to the town.
In addition, the £1.5 million of funding confirmed for the reopening of the Northumberland rail line will transform the town centre into a flourishing, prosperous and vibrant one. This allocation of funding is a great testament to those at the heart of the community who show great resolve and overcome the challenges we face, working together, and I am confident that Blyth will have a bright and prosperous future for generations to come.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) in this important debate. The Government have talked a good game about levelling up, but it is no more than a slogan for areas like Barnsley. The Labour party supports funding for our towns, but it is crucial that it is done transparently and fairly. Sixty out of the 61 areas that were allocated money by Ministers from the towns fund were in Conservative-held or Conservative target seats. By anyone’s standards, that is not a fair approach. Labour councils have shouldered the pain of cuts to local government over the last decade. Barnsley Council has had the biggest cuts in the country, and that has had a huge knock-on effect on local services, from adult social care to road maintenance and bus services.
A recent report by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust on the impact of coronavirus on older industrial Britain concluded that towns and communities like Barnsley were
“lagging behind before the crisis”
and will therefore find it harder to recover. That is why the Government need to invest in training and skills, rethink cuts to universal credit, which has provided a lifeline for many in my community, and make sure that young people are given access to education, whatever their postcode is.
The pandemic is not a great leveller. As I said in my first speech in this place,
“not all communities are equal”—[Official Report, 12 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 347.]
and this crisis has further highlighted inequalities. The UK has had the worst recession of any major economy. The Government must now take a different approach: secure our jobs, support our high streets and strengthen our communities through investments that deliver for people in every area, not just those represented by Members on the Government Benches.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I welcome this debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and the Government for supporting the town fund and Harlow. Harlow has been my home for 20 years. It is a town of achievement, aspiration, community and opportunity. Although Harlow may not yet have enormous reserves of economic capital, it has enough social and cultural capital to fill any vault in any bank.
I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Government for the recent investments in our town. Harlow has received £50 million for the M11 junction 7A, hundreds of millions for our new Harlow hospital, and major investment for our enterprise zone. I am proud to note that Harlow College is one of the finest colleges in the country, and Harlow is on its way to becoming the skills capital of the east of England, following a recent £3 million upgrade for T-level delivery and the construction of the £12 million advanced manufacturing centre. I welcome the fact that the Government have already committed £300 million to the creation of Public Health England’s science campus in Harlow, in anticipation of PHE’s expected move. I look forward to the Government confirming the funding for the project in the next spending statement.
Despite all that, Harlow remains the second most-deprived area in Essex. It is essential that that is recognised in the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Part of the town centre is in a real state of disrepair, plagued by antisocial behaviour. Our neighbourhood centres are in desperate need of regeneration. Harlow’s towns fund bid sets out to remedy such problems and address the challenges posed by ageing infrastructure, through town centre improvements; the redevelopment of Staple Tye neighbourhood centre; measures to increase connectivity at the enterprise zone; and investment in a new institute of technology.
Sadly, we lost out on £10.4 million from the future high streets fund because the Government procurement letter stated that Harlow Council’s bid
“did not meet stringent criteria on value for money for the taxpayer”.
The towns fund bid is a chance to make up for that loss. It will be the thread that ties together all the Government’s recent investments in Harlow. The town centre must be fit for purpose to support economic growth and social capital and make Harlow a place that offers community, security and prosperity for all our citizens—a town that aspirational people want to move to and live in.
I give special thanks to the Minister, who is responsible for the towns fund, all members of the Harlow growth board, the chief executive of Harlow Council and the senior officers who are working day and night to make sure the bid succeeds. I hope that, this time, our bid will be a success and our town will get the much needed funding that it deserves.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
Castleford has put in a bid to the towns fund, and I have been working with Wakefield Council, community organisations and local businesses to draw up plans for badly needed investment here in our town; to restore some of the cuts in investment and jobs we have had over the past 10 years; to regenerate our town centre and reconnect with our riverside; and to build on our community strengths and community pride.
We want not only to restore our riverside—the River Aire runs straight past the mill here and we want people to be able to enjoy it again—but to boost Henry Moore Square in the town centre; support local jobs; restore Kingdom Hall, one of the oldest buildings in the town centre; and invest in Queen’s Mill, where the old Allinson’s flour mill has been taken over by the Castleford Heritage Trust, a local community organisation that has made it the community hub, not only supporting residents during the covid crisis but growing small businesses as well as new jobs and opportunities.
We want to boost local skills, working with the Castleford Tigers Foundation to set up a new adult skills centre, because in our town the number of adults in training and education has halved over recent years as adult skills budgets have been cut. That is shocking when we need those skills to boost the jobs of the future. Too often, our industrial jobs and proud heritage have been hit and we have not had the investment for the new jobs of the future.
I urge Ministers to support not only Castleford’s bid but all our towns, because the problem with the Government’s approach is that the towns fund simply does not go far enough. I have been calling for investment in our towns for many years, as part of the Labour towns campaign, because over the past 10 years the rate of jobs growth in our towns has been half the rate in our cites, the rate of business growth in our towns has been half the rate in our cities, and austerity has hit our towns much harder than our cities. We have lost more public services and seen more services shrink back under 10 years of Conservative Government austerity.
In Yorkshire and the Humber, 16 towns were chosen for the towns fund. The first eight were those that ranked most strongly against independent criteria on skills need, investment need and deprivation. Rightly, Castleford was chosen in that top eight, but Knottingley was ninth on the list and was left out. Instead, the Government chose to invest in towns that did not have the same level of skills need or deprivation and that had not seen the same scale of cuts—Knottingley has been one of the hardest hit by austerity over the past 10 years, losing its library, sports centre and investment in our town. We need a chance for Knottingley to gets its share of investment, and for Normanton and Pontefract to get their share too. We need a comprehensive approach, not just a towns fund.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) [V]
We will take no lectures from the Labour party, which had 13 years in power and did absolutely nothing to invest in any meaningful way in our towns across the north of England.
I very much welcome the bids submitted by the two towns that cover my constituency, Scunthorpe and Goole. I will leave it to my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), to talk about that town’s bid, but I would like to speak about the Goole bid. I thank Joseph Richardson, who has chaired our board here in Goole, and all the board members. I give a particular shout-out to Peter Campey from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—we are not supposed to name officials—for his wise counsel throughout.
As the Minister will see, our bid covers digital, town centre regeneration, leisure improvements, connectivity and, of course, a flood protection project. With regard to revenue, I ask him to be generous when he looks at our bid, particularly with reference to our proposal for the Goole to Leeds line, which of course would benefit a number of constituencies.
For those who do not know Goole, we are a town and port in the north of England. It was created as a company town about 200 years ago, and my ancestors were some of the first people to move to it. We face many of the issues that sadly are common to many northern towns that have missed out on regeneration in recent decades. When I was elected 10 years ago, we had very high youth unemployment, and unemployment that was well above the national average. Although we are now below that, there are still considerable issues with skilling people up to take many of the jobs being created locally.
However, we have had a lot of good news in recent years, not least of which is the massive investment by Siemens, which is busy constructing a rail factory here that will produce the trains for the London underground. There is also huge investment from Croda, and that has happened with Government support. However, those who come to Goole will still see a hollowed-out town centre, as can be seen in many such towns. While we have improvements in educational standards, big investment coming in and hundreds of new homes being built, the town centre looks like it is still in decline, as is common across the country.
That is why the towns fund is so important. That is why it is so vital that as many of these bids that have been submitted are granted by the Government. I can see the Minister almost nodding. I am sure that he will look kindly on Goole’s bid, because although we have good stuff going on here, we still have considerable challenges in the town centre and with our college, the closure of which has just been announced. I hope that he will continue the investment that Goole has received in recent years and generously approve the bid that has been submitted.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]
The towns fund might be a good idea, but the lack of transparency in decision making has led to understandable concerns about the impartiality of the process, and from what I have seen of it in the Tees valley, those concerns are well founded.
In December, I wrote to the Secretary of State about Billingham, soon to be the home of Novavax vaccine manufacture. The town is home to 35,000 proud Teessiders as well as the Billingham Forum, which is a huge sports and theatre venue including pools, gyms and an ice rink. The town is a cultural hub, but it desperately needs help to further develop. As the singer of Maxïmo Park, Billingham-born Paul Smith, sings, it is
“where industrial tunnels were our fairytale castles”.
In short, it is a town bursting with potential.
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council approached the Government to request that Billingham be included in the cohort of towns eligible to bid for funds, but it was refused. Back in October, Billingham councillors wrote to the Secretary of State asking why other Tees towns such as Thornaby in Stockton South, with a Tory MP, were fortunate enough to have been included in the selection of the first 100 towns for the fund when Billingham was not, even though it clearly fits the criteria every bit as well, if not more so, than Thornaby—although rest assured that we celebrate with the people of Thornaby that they do have the investment that they need. The decision led to confusion and concern locally that could have easily been put to bed if Ministers had responded to the request from the Billingham councillors to explain why their town had been passed over. Instead, the Minister fobbed off the councillors’ request for information and did not even engage with their concerns.
I followed up with my own letter, which was responded to, but with only slightly more information. It said that Billingham will get the chance to apply to the £300 million levelling-up fund, which has been designated for a towns fund competition. I personally find this quite astonishing. If the Government had sufficient information to select the first 100 towns that were eligible for a deal, why do we have to have more wasteful bidding processes that pit deprived communities against each other for scraps from the Government’s table? Why can the Government not use existing data and provide investment now—and cut out the middleman, saving our councils time and money in doing so?
It does not matter what money is being dished out these days by the Government: whether it is to the NHS, to councils or for town centres—Ministers are quite happy, and not even embarrassed, to pass over some areas and favour their own. It is time for fairness in the system; time for real, true levelling up and proper resources; and time for towns like Billingham to get the support that they need.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
We promised to level up towns like Scunthorpe, and the £3.6 billion towns fund provides just the opportunity to make some of the meaningful, real-life differences that we have talked about before in this Chamber. We have a Conservative council in North Lincs. I served on it for five years. I know that it is used to getting the absolute most from every single pound that it has available to it. We are not backward in coming forward in Scunthorpe, and we have already secured future high streets funding of over £10 million, but there is more to be done.
I have lived in the Scunthorpe area all my life. I love my home town and I want our young people, many of whom I have met over the past year, to have opportunities and jobs that mean they want to stay close to home too. Scunthorpe is a great place to live, to build a family and to grow a business, and we can make it even better. In addition to this, our area has applied for free port status. Connectivity is another of our strengths, and it will amplify the returns of a towns fund investment. Situated south of the Humber, we are a strategic mid-point between Immingham dock, Humberside airport, Hull, Lincoln, Grimsby and Doncaster.
As a region, we are really ambitious. The Minister will see that our towns fund proposals bring to life the Government’s levelling-up goals. Under the diligent chairmanship of Mary Stewart, the board has listened to residents’ views, and in true northern style we have eked out the best possible value we feel we can get for our area. These proposals will deliver real bang for our buck. I hope that the Minister will share my enthusiasm both for the projects and for my home town.
Of course we must and we will continue to celebrate our world-class steelmaking and our proud industrial heritage. However, we also recognise the importance of resilience and industry diversification. This includes the delivery of an advanced manufacturing park, the creation of a new cultural arts and heritage offer in our urban centre, and sustainable, lifelong integration of skills.
Through the formidable business team led by Lesley Potts, we have seen our local council demonstrate their ability to deliver these projects, time and time again. We are a really safe pair of hands for the towns fund. We are genuinely ambitious for our area, and look forward to working with the Government on the towns fund to deliver for local people.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Charlotte Nichols, I will inform everybody how the rest of the afternoon is going to go. At 4.38, I will call Patricia Gibson to wind up for six minutes, then Steve Reed at 4.44 for eight minutes, and then Luke Hall at 4.52 for eight minutes. We are grateful to Paul for forgoing his last two minutes at the end of the debate.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Every one of us in this House wants to see investment in our constituents and our communities, particularly after a decade of Tory-imposed austerity, so I welcome the £22 million that has been allocated to Warrington from the fund. As part of the town deal board, I pay special thanks to all the stakeholders and officers of Warrington Borough Council for drawing together this successful bid. But—you knew that there would be a “but”, Mr Deputy Speaker—this is not a sustainable alternative to proper, long-term funding of our towns and their needs, and cannot and should not be sold as such by the Government.
As has already been mentioned, the past 10 years have seen core funding for local authorities cut by £15 billion, and our councils are struggling even more with the understandable impact of covid on their income streams and spending expectations, which the LGA estimates will be a further £2.6 billion. In comparison, the towns fund programme replaces only a fifth of the shortfall. We cannot expect our towns to thrive, as I would like to see, if our funding is stripped to the bone and sometimes the marrow, and we are left hoping for a special handout from Westminster once a decade. How does that assist long-term planning, or the development of sustainable local economies? We need a more holistic approach.
In Warrington, I want the certainty of a long-overdue new hospital Bill. I want assurances that there will be funding for the restoration and redevelopment of local leisure and library facilities, including Culcheth Community Campus and Padgate library. Above all, I want a guarantee that Warrington Borough Council will be reimbursed for the moneys it has had to spend because of the pandemic, or else all the work that has gone into this bid will be fatally undermined. I want towns such as mine to be self-sustaining and able to offer opportunities for young people and well-paid jobs so that they become hubs of prosperity, rather than being emptied out. We in Warrington benefit greatly from the high-skilled and highly rewarded employment opportunities provided by the nuclear industry. I want the Government to do more to deliver the next generation of new nuclear, which will provide more such quality prospects in Warrington and elsewhere, and to commit to an industrial strategy that makes levelling up the north-west about deeds, not words.
In his response to today’s debate, I hope the Minister will set out how he will judge the success of the towns fund, and how he will ensure that continuous financial support for towns is restored, rather than acting as though we should be grateful for a chance to bid for funding in a once-in-a-decade competition.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Over £129 million of Government funding has been pumped into Blackpool since my election, including £39.5 million from the towns fund—the highest single amount awarded to any town in England. I place on record my sincere thanks to the Government for the extraordinary level of funding that Blackpool has received, something never before witnessed on this scale. I know it will make a real and sustained difference to the businesses and residents I represent.
It is fantastic to see that despite grappling with covid-19 and the challenges it brings, the Government are committed to levelling up and ensuring that constituencies such as mine will not be left behind. The £39.5 million town deal is being used to fund regeneration projects across my constituency, as well to lever in private investment for new development. Most notably, the money allocated to the central development project will bring £300 million-worth of private investment into Blackpool and deliver more than 1,000 new jobs. Our famous illuminations, which are enjoyed by almost 4 million visitors every year, will also receive an upgrade thanks to the towns fund.
Unfortunately, although we received millions in our town deal and from the getting building fund, Blackpool did not receive the expected grants from the future high streets fund. Receiving a town deal is, of course, independent of any decision on the future high streets fund, and the decision not to approve any of these schemes was because of deficiencies in the bid from Blackpool Council. It is disappointing to say the least that my local authority was unable to satisfy the bid criteria laid down by the Department, and local residents will rightly feel disheartened that Blackpool has missed out as a consequence.
In that regard, I welcome the fact that the new levelling-up fund requires direct input from Members of Parliament. In my constituency, there is widespread support for reopening Blackpool airport, for commercial passengers flights and for a new rail loop to increase train services. Those proposals have received lukewarm support at best from Blackpool Council but would provide a huge boost to the local economy, by creating jobs, increasing tourism and securing investment. The levelling-up fund provides a vital opportunity for Members to submit proposals that attract local support in instances such as these, where there is potentially a lack of local authority co-operation. So many people are predicting that once the pandemic is over there will be a rise in domestic tourism, and thanks to Government funding supercharging regeneration in Blackpool, we will be able to take advantage.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak in this debate. It has been fantastic to hear the stories of how the towns fund has helped individual town centres, and I am pleased for those communities that have seen a boost from the fund. Members will know that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, have expressed doubts about the transparency of the decision making relating to the fund’s distribution. I do not want to reiterate these concerns, as they have been expanded on by various Members in this debate, but I note that the approach of selecting certain town centres for funding while excluding others is bound to lead to inequalities. Town centres that could have benefited from funding will miss out. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) made an excellent point about London suburbs, and obviously I, too represent one. There are lots of opportunities in London’s suburbs for levelling up, not least now that we are seeing less commuting, and lots of town centres will be looking for funds to revive, to help those who are working from home more often.
In the interim, our town centres have had to weather the unprecedented economic blow of the pandemic lockdown and a further decimation of the retail industry. Once the restrictions are lifted, there will be an urgent need to make a substantial economic offer to town centre businesses, not just to help revive them, but to provide jobs, and to deliver local goods and services, and, most importantly, public spaces, where local people can come together and meet each other. It is those informal meetings that we are all missing out on during lockdown. All our town centres will need assistance to bounce back from this crisis, so I call on the Government to take measures that will support all our communities, and abandon this winners and losers approach that we have seen with the allocation of funds from this towns fund.
The need to review our approach to business rates has been aired many times in this Chamber, and I hope we will hear more on it in due course, in order to level the playing field between physical and digital businesses. Similarly, I would like to see a change in the way in which commercial leases are granted and an abolition of upward-only rent reviews. I have heard that ask from many, many businesses in the past year. We should also reform local authority funding to give all councils more money to spend on investing in their own town centres. There are great opportunities for our retail and hospitality sectors, and our cultural organisations, once the lockdown restrictions are lifted, and they will bring new employment to every part of the UK. I urge the Government to put the investment necessary into those sectors to help them all recover from the current downturn.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
I am absolutely delighted to be able to say a few words about the Bridgwater town fund. Good ideas are always the simplest and this idea is absolutely terrific. It is working and it is working well. The chance to bring in brand new schemes to the benefit of the whole Bridgwater area has been put together by some of the best people in our community. It is like winning the lottery and then doing something very constructive with it. It showcases the imagination of the folk who know what they are doing and love the town. I am proud to play a small part in the town board. I was asked to join: the rules of the board insist that local MPs, parish councils, town councils and all sorts of tiers of government take part in the process. I pay enormous tribute to Sedgemoor District Council and Bridgwater Town Council, which have been marvellous.
Obviously, the people who understand this place and work in the town are invaluable. They are given seats at the table from the word go—community groups, businesses small and large, and the enterprise partnership. The Government rightly wanted to use local brainwaves to start things moving. The expertise of Bridgwater Town Council and Sedgemoor District Council is vital. They know how to make things work. We just have to look at Hinkley. If I have a niggle, it is the presence of Somerset County Council on the board. I pay tribute to Fiona McMillan who has to put up with an enormous amount as the chairman.
We could try to measure Somerset’s contribution to the Bridgwater Town Council with a very powerful microscope —it is invisible. Somerset County Council has no role to play. It is insignificant, incompetent, and quickly round the corner with public money. Many people think that Somerset has been spending Government covid grants on other things, never mind this. Its book-keeping might well have been invented by Dickens’s dodgy character Fagin—as in “You’ve got to pick a pocket or two.” I do not trust it, and I am not alone.
Let me give an up-to-the minute example. We learned today, thanks to the local news, that the county council wants to spend £3 million on a solar plant in Bridgwater. That is an enormous amount of money for a council with a debt worth hundreds of millions of pounds. It is no wonder that people wonder where it got the cash. Any sensible county council would have told Bridgwater Town Council and Sedgemoor District Council all about this in advance, but not this county council. It has nothing constructive to add to the towns fund and it cannot even be bothered to consult. That really says it all. We must look at changing that part of the rules and the Minister needs to look at this carefully.
I will say that, in Bridgwater, we have provided not only Hinkley, but one of the largest distribution centres, Morrisons, Wisemans, Mulberry Handbags, and Junction 24, the huge auction centre. We are doing our job and that towns fund has added to that. It has given us the jam, the cream on the cake. I tell you this, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are going from strength to strength and King Alfred would be proud.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
As someone who has served as a councillor for nearly 15 years, I have a strong interest in local government funding. Let me start by saying that no Labour MP will oppose greater funding for local authorities because we recognise and value the vital work that they do. I thank all those at Durham County Council who have worked tirelessly during this pandemic to keep key services running.
However, to call the towns fund scheme flawed would be an understatement. From the inadequately low level of funding, to the complete lack of transparency and fairness in its allocation, the scheme looks like yet another scandal overseen by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The towns fund is essentially a sticking plaster over the gaping wound that is the catastrophic cuts to local authority funding under successive Conservative Governments. The £3.6 billion fund is simply a drop in the ocean compared with the estimated £15 billion of cuts to local authorities over the past decade. Conservative Governments have repeatedly slashed funding for key services, while somehow expecting people to be grateful for modest increases. On top of this, the Government used a scattergun approach to selecting recipients, with some towns receiving funding, but with hundreds more left without. Surely the purpose of the levelling-up agenda is to reduce inequality and to increase life chances across regions, not to extend an existing postcode lottery when it comes to local authority resources. I fear that this is just the latest example of levelling-up for the Conservatives as a catchy, yet meaningless slogan that they do not truly understand.
Like many people, I was disgusted to see that Newark, in the Secretary of State’s constituency, has been selected for £25 million of funding, apparently to renovate a section of a castle. I mean no disrespect to the people of Newark, but it is a fact that it is only 270th on the list of the most deprived towns in the country—just think about what the more in need towns could have done with that money. Can any MP on the Government Benches say, hand on heart, that they are comfortable with that decision?
Funding for local authorities should be allocated fairly and transparently, with the money going to where it is needed most. Sadly, the Secretary of State has deliberately mishandled the towns fund to the extent that it fails these tests. While we could have been discussing a successful scheme, we are instead left debating yet another scandal.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s interest and their recognition of the importance of Royal Leamington Spa to be a recipient of potentially £10 million. As an important sub-regional shopping centre, it is a vital part of the region’s economy and quality of life, so let me praise the council officers at Warwick District Council for the quality of their original submission and the work they have done since in refining the proposals against a reduced contribution proposed by the Government. That said, £10 million is a sound amount for them to work with, and I hope it can do much to address the air quality in the town, highlighted by the World Health Organisation as an issue, while revitalising the commercial centre more widely.
However, let me cut to the chase. Over the past decade the Government have cut £15 billion from local authorities across the UK, yet handed back just £3.6 billion to some towns which they invited to bid for moneys. Members will know that back in October I questioned the Prime Minister—did I have the guts, he asked me—about how it could be that the Secretary of State could approve tens of millions of pounds for his Minister and his constituency town of Darwen, while that Minister could return the favour and approve tens of millions of pounds for the Secretary of State’s constituency town of Newark—beyond belief. But how were the 101 towns selected in the first instance? Surely, if the Government were honest in their claim to level up, they would have allocated the moneys to the most deprived communities across England, but they have not. In the past year, we have heard many cases of the Government using algorithms, or more often malgorithms, but this is back-of-a-fag-packetithm. While Housing, Communities and Local Government officials may have recommended that the Government did one thing—namely, allocate funds to the most deserving communities—instead the Secretary of State and Ministers allocated moneys to towns in the lowest priority category.
It is also worth noting that the Government chose to allocate by region, not need, so the north and the midlands were disadvantaged by their political ploys. How else could Bournemouth benefit but, shockingly, South Shields be left off? Both are seaside towns, but I think I know which is in greater need of the funding. It is something Harry Redknapp would have appreciated more than most. I will not even go into Cheadle. While Big Ben no longer bongs, this Government bung, and they are doing it on an industrial scale. A simple analysis of the towns that have received moneys underlines the political tactics laid bare. Certainly the timing of the announcement, in the last few weeks before the last general election, might give us a clue. It was carefully targeted at marginal seats. Interestingly, the impartial cross-party Public Accounts Committee concluded in its investigation that the selection process was not impartial. It took evidence from Christopher Hanretty, a professor of politics at Royal Holloway, who said that
“the process by which towns were invited to bid for money from the Towns Fund was driven by party-political electoral advantage”,
riding roughshod over any pretence to be levelling up this country. Any section 151 officer in a council would be sacked if they acted like this.
Any impartial observer will see this for what it is, and certainly the public do. It is grubby government of the worst order.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) [V]
I should declare an interest as a member of the Middlesbrough town deal board, of which I am very proud to be a part.
The towns fund is a great Conservative policy, targeting investment at proud communities that have not shared equally in our country’s success. It is a core part of levelling up—improving facilities, enhancing economic opportunity, unlocking private sector investment and boosting pride in place. We all want to have towns to be proud of. In the Tees Valley, that is no different for Middlesbrough, Thornaby, Hartlepool, Darlington or Redcar, all of which were invited to bid into the programme.
In my area, so much is going on locally to be positive about, from our free port bid—to be submitted shortly—to Teesside airport being saved and the regeneration of the Teesworks sites at Redcar by our Mayor, Ben Houchen. Indeed, only last week we had the wonderful news about the new Teesside vaccine against coronavirus. The only thing locally that is not positive is the Labour party. Earlier in the debate, we heard the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) complaining about Stockton being disadvantaged, but Stockton received £16.5 million from the future high streets fund and Thornaby, as we heard, has its own town deal bid under way. So it is just nonsense to try to pretend that his borough is being disadvantaged.
Frankly, I want to be more positive. I pay tribute to all the council officers and business leaders giving their time and expertise to their local bids. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who has been at the heart of the bid by his town; he cannot speak in this debate because of his role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary.
There is a lot for us to be excited about. We have £3.6 billion being invested—in a process approved by the independent civil service—to provide a major boost for left-behind communities like my home town. Helping the left behind used to be what the Labour party was all about; as it is, it is the Conservatives who are getting on with that job, and I am very proud of that. I am very grateful for the £20 million of future high streets funding announced in December for Middlesbrough and Loftus. I urge Ministers to show all possible speed in determining the outcome of Middlesbrough’s town deal bid, so that we can make our town a better place to live and work.
Looking ahead, I would be grateful if the Minister in his remarks will advise on where we stand on potential future competitive rounds of bidding for the towns fund and the future high streets fund, because that will make a massive difference to a number of communities. I think of places in my constituency such as Guisborough or Brotton, both of which have exciting proposals, which could be unlocked with the support of that fund. That is the kind of initiative we need to see more of. It is time we had less negativity from the Opposition Benches about us putting levelling up into practice, so that we can all move forward as one country, overcome the challenges of covid and build a better Britain for all of us.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to debate the towns fund, because transparency and accountability are vital at all times, in particular when we are talking about a process that has largely been discredited due to the way in which the fund has been handed out so far. The priority to support town centres is undoubtedly the right one, but the process of deciding where that money is spent so far has undoubtedly been the wrong one.
I have consistently talked about the importance of the high street. So many people want to have pride in their local town and to see it thriving, and the towns fund is one clear way of realising that ambition. However, is that not something that every town should have the chance to benefit from? Should not that fund be distributed fairly, giving everyone a slice of the pie? Should not we be empowering local communities to choose their own priorities, rather than making them jump through multiple hoops in a competitive bidding process that is neither fair nor transparent?
What about other funds? When will we see the new version of the shared prosperity fund? We have left the EU, so we should have had that oven-ready to go a long time ago. Communities cannot wait while another complex set of opaque bidding procedures are cooked up.
My town centre, Ellesmere Port, is struggling. It has been struggling for a long time now. As in many other towns, the rise of the internet and changes in shopping habits, accelerated by the pandemic, have led to shops closing down, sadly on an almost weekly basis. So we would welcome cash from the towns fund, but for it to be a truly transformative project, it needs to address not just the symptoms of decline, but the causes.
Where are the plans to tackle the massive disparities between the north and south, in employment opportunities, earnings and life expectancy? Why do so many young people feel they have to leave where they live and move to a city just to get a foot on the ladder? It is a scandal that where people are born and who they are born to are still the biggest determinants of their life chances. That is what this fund should be looking at, not at tarting up 12th-century gatehouses. Where has the money been spent so far? My research indicates that more than 80% of the towns fund cash to date has gone on management consultants—that is hardly the transformation we were hoping to see.
Power flows towards London and wealth flows upwards into the hands of the elite. A Westminster handout on Westminster terms, with Westminster priorities in mind, will not change that. For too long, people have felt left behind and held back by a system that does not work for them. People already feel that they do not have the power to take decisions about the most important things in their lives: whether a local hospital should stay open, where a new school might go, or even how often the buses run. To empower local communities, we need a different approach—no more crumbs from the table. We do not want divisive, politically motivated, short-term fixes that only have the electoral cycle in mind. We need a new, long-term approach that actually attempts to tackle the underlying issues, and one that empowers and enables our local communities by giving them the responsibility, the power and the resources to shape their own futures, allowing them finally to take back control.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
I have long believed in local government, and I hope that we can come to understand devolution as not merely meaning local administration—being given permission by the centre—and instead move towards local politicians being accountable to the electorate for the decisions they take locally, rather than to Whitehall to the current extent.
People often reference Lord Heseltine when it comes to localism, but I was always concerned that that vision had too much in it of local leaders coming down to London and essentially pleading with Ministers for funding. Ministers and civil servants cannot know the situation as well as those elected to represent their town. The devolution all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, has carried out a detailed inquiry into the importance of devolution, to be published fairly soon. Regeneration policy is a key part of it, and the report suggests a way forward for devolution and highlights some areas of blockage in the process that central Government may have inadvertently caused over many Administrations. However, those are thoughts for the future, and they do not mean for a split second within our current way of working that towns fund announcements by the Government are not welcome. It is the absolute opposite.
Having been the founder of an LEP, a county councillor, and even an MEP focused on regional development, I commend the vision and determination of those supporting regeneration in Northampton, both nationally and locally. We stand on the shoulders of some forceful advocates, like my friend and predecessor the late Brian Binley, but even so Northampton has suffered from a lack of investment in recent years. That is why the announcement of Northampton Forward’s successful bid for over £8 million from the future high streets fund and the proposed towns fund bid, which is currently under review, are so vital.
Being on the board throughout the process, I know how hard the team has endeavoured to create innovative proposals, and I am particularly looking forward to seeing the regeneration of the former M&S building into a multi-use facility and the creation of a cultural hub and arts facilities to be used by NN Contemporary Art on Guildhall Road. I cannot sum up Northampton’s case for regeneration funding better than Martin Mason, managing director of Tricker’s, who recently said:
“As the largest town in England, and the home of Tricker’s shoes, Northampton comes not only with its wealth of footwear history, but falls within the Oxford-Cambridge arc—an area linking the two cities together—a key focus of investment and regeneration by the UK government. The recently published Town Investment plan shows exactly why Northampton has the potential to be a vibrant and welcoming town centre for business, residents and visitors alike.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) on setting the scene so well. Owing to the benefits, it would be churlish of anyone to say that the scheme was not welcome. The towns fund was announced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in July 2019, with total funding of £3.6 billion composed of three separate strands. I welcomed that at the time, but back in November I asked about the potential success of Northern Ireland in similar scenarios:
“It is my understanding that local enterprise partnerships and investment promotion agencies across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were invited to submit nominations for the second round of the high potential opportunities scheme by 17 April 2020. I would be anxious to know the success of Northern Ireland applications for the towns fund.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 357-358.]
From the report, I see plenty of wonderful projects, and I welcome them, but I note that there is no information about the position of other countries within the UK, which I would have liked to see given the statement by the then Chancellor Philip Hammond when the future high streets fund was first announced at the 2018 Budget:
“So if Britain’s high streets are to remain at the centre of our community life, they will need to adapt.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 663.]
It is clear that that was not an England-only aim when the scheme was designed, so it should follow that Scotland and Wales, which form the rest of Britain, and Northern Ireland, which makes the last section of the wonderful UK, should have similar projects. “Stronger together”, as I always say, needs to be included at every stage. I am anxious that this House takes a holistic approach and ensures that projects in Northern Ireland see similar additional funding, whether directly or under the Barnett formula. I ask the Minister to address that in his summing up.
We are living in difficult days, none more so than for our high streets and the capital projects that the towns fund was designed to address. That includes projects to improve transport access to town centres and vehicle and pedestrian flow in town centres; congestion-relieving infrastructure; infrastructure to facilitate new housing and office space, and projects that seek to substitute underused and persistently vacant retail units with residential units. We have to look at that in the future. There are certainly worthy projects in my area, and I call on the Minister to work with all his counterparts in all devolved areas to ensure that similar goals are achieved UK-wide.
I welcome the scheme and its aim, and I look forward to seeing how it fulfils the initial goal of improving the British high street. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, we can never forget that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley. We deserve similar, and I look forward to better understanding how that can be achieved in tandem with devolved Administrations.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]
Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for securing this debate, and well done to him for his response to the initial intervention. We have heard much churlish moaning from Labour Members. Why did they not do something to help these towns when they were in government? It is this Conservative Government who are doing it.
I hugely support the town deal bid recently submitted by Leyland town board. Leyland is fabulous—it is where my parliamentary office is—but no one can say with a straight face that it has had its fair share of investment over the years. At the end of its main street, Hough Lane, stands the old Leyland works clock, which still says: “For all time”. Quite right. The trucks, fire engines and buses still grace the world—quality northern engineering—and we seek to build on that heritage.
Leyland town board was formed from local people, businesses, organisations and government officials, including—I declare an interest—me, and it is chaired by the fabulous businesswoman Jennifer Gadsdon, who deserves huge thanks and praise. We asked ourselves, “What does Leyland need to make a big positive change?” The answer forms part of the basis for our town deal bid to the Government.
We are competitively bidding for £21 million in Government grants to allow us, adding other funding in, to transform Hough Lane—outdoor space, streetscape and roadway—and create high-quality space for the community and businesses. We want to connect up bits of the town that have become separated, and create a market square and a green space. We want to regenerate our old market—refurbish, upgrade, expand—and we want to prime our natural commercial nous and skills with a dedicated base building for people to learn, work and grow.
It is three great connected ideas in one great bid. I look forward to the Government accepting our Leyland town deal bid and therefore investing in Leyland and building for our future.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
In Truro, we are at an exciting point; just last week, our investment plan was submitted to the Department for consideration. A huge amount of work went into it by everyone involved, but I want to pay particular thanks to the chair of the Truro town fund board, Carole Theobald, and vice-chair Dr Alan Stanhope, as well as Mel Richardson and all board members, who have worked tirelessly to make the Truro plan exciting, thorough and optimistic for the future of Truro and for everyone who lives and works here. It has been a privilege to play just a small part, as part of that board, in the fantastic effort that has gone on.
Granted city status in 1876, Truro is Cornwall’s only city and situated at the head of the Fal estuary. Surrounded by farmland mid-way between Cornwall’s north and south coasts, it has always been a meeting place. Its natural assets—particularly the water—and location have made it a port, a trading and administrative capital, and a centre for skills and education. That continues today. Truro is the civic, retail and health centre for Cornwall, providing employment for 30,000 people, mainly in the public sector, with Cornwall Council’s headquarters on the edge of Truro, as well as Truro cathedral, the Royal Cornwall Hospital, and the Knowledge Spa, where I recently took part in the Novavax covid vaccine trial.
Last summer, when the covid regulations allowed, we welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Truro to meet the Truro town fund team at the water’s edge to talk about plans we have to reconnect Truro to its three rivers. There used to be as many as 60 cargo ships using Truro and Newham as their home port. However, the silting of the river led to a decline in the sea trade after the second world war. Truro’s commercial centre appeared to fall out with its maritime past, and part of our bid aims to resurrect that relationship. Delivering that means overcoming many challenges that have held us back in the past.
So what do we want to achieve? We want to reinvigorate our neglected waterfront community spaces on Lemon Quay and provide a new community space where all residents are welcome to meet, learn new skills, access support and feel part of our evolving city. We want to create a sustainable transport solution, using new paths and cycle routes, and a bridge to connect the city, and digitally focused, new, innovative learning and living environments that will help to create jobs in high-growth and high-value businesses. We want to repurpose vacant buildings for commercial and residential use, breathing new life into the city centre while enhancing our heritage, and create an active leisure attraction, including an indoor climbing wall, water-based activities and sports facilities, as well as performance areas. This town deal is a chance to future-proof Truro for generations to come. By working with Government, we hope we can be ambitious for the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Jane, you are not going to get the full three minutes, and I will have to stop you at 4.38 pm.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to sneak in to speak in this debate about the towns fund, which is a policy that will accelerate the Government’s levelling-up agenda and breathe new life into so many communities.
As a born and bred Wulfrunian, I was delighted that Wolverhampton was one of the first places to be invited to bid for up to £25 million of investment. We submitted our bid last year and are eagerly awaiting some good news. Our board decided to submit a larger bid, as there is a clause in the prospectus allowing a proposal that is transformative of a wider region to bid for more money. Whether we meet the criterion is, I am sure, being considered as our bid is discussed, but I hope the bid makes clear the ambition and determination of Wolverhampton to generate, to regenerate and to prosper.
I am sorry that Opposition Members are seeking to politicise the towns fund. Wolverhampton has three parliamentary seats. Only one was a Conservative target seat before the last election, and we have a Labour council. I am really pleased that, while the Opposition is dividing the House, in Wolverhampton we are working together constructively on a cross-party basis with local businesses. Like many Wulfrunians, I have looked on as our city has declined, and I welcome this investment, which will lift up our city.
Since my election, we have already seen huge investment from this Conservative Government, with £16 million from the future high streets fund and £15 million for the national brownfield institute. I am hugely grateful to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for engaging so enthusiastically on the towns fund and for putting up with my persistent lobbying. Most of our bid was focused on the city centre, but I was determined that places such as Bilston and Wednesfield, our two towns, should also benefit.
In the very short time I have left, I want to pay tribute to the people in Wednesfield. It is a brilliant place that has been in need of regeneration, and I have pushed at every stage to get local people involved in the decision making around the towns fund. I am pleased to say that I will be meeting some of our brilliant local traders this evening to talk about how the initial accelerated funding of an additional million-pound investment is already being spent to improve the local area. I am immensely grateful for the—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, we have to leave it there. We are going to try a timing-up clock for Patricia Gibson. You have six minutes, but the clock is just to help you.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Before I begin, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who has worked very hard. I wish him well in his new portfolio area.
I am delighted to participate in this debate on the towns fund, which was unveiled to great fanfare in July 2019. This is a fund totalling £3.6 billion that was billed as a means by which towns and cities could be levelled up—a laudable aim indeed, and well done to the towns that have been benefited. However, the towns fund is mired in controversy, and allegations of pork barrel politics simply will not go away. We have heard today from a number of Members about how nearly two thirds of the towns that were awarded funds were target Tory seats in the general election that followed, a mere two months after the awards were made. Of the 100 towns invited to work with the Government on new town deals worth up to £25 million, 61 were in marginal seats.
Are we to believe that that was purely coincidence? What are the public supposed to think when towns in the constituencies of the two Housing Ministers who were involved in the distribution of the fund benefited weeks before an election? The Secretary of State will surely recall how, on the one hand, he denied any involvement in his constituency benefiting from a £25 million grant weeks before the general election, yet on the other hand, took credit during the campaign for that grant. That only feeds allegations and suspicions of pork barrel politics.
What we do know is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government drew up a ranked priority list of towns for the fund based on need and the potential for development, and another 61 medium and low-priority locations where also chosen. The smell is so bad that the Public Accounts Committee, in a damning report, concluded that it was
“not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others”,
with the justifications offered by Ministers for selecting individual towns being
“vague and based on sweeping assumptions”,
and that the system gave
“every appearance of having been politically motivated”.
This damning report is even more astonishing when we consider that the majority of the members of the Public Accounts Committee are Tory MPs. That may seem to members of the public to be what, in common parlance, might be called a fair cop.
That is why there is so much concern about the shared prosperity fund, which is also looking suspiciously like it might be perceived as just another political tool. We still do not know how the shared prosperity fund will work or when it will be made available, but we do know that the Scottish Government consultation on this fund shows a clear majority favouring a Scottish-led fund, reflecting Scottish policy priorities. We remember the grand words of the Communities Minister in 2019, when he said that, as far as the UK prosperity fund was concerned, the devolution settlement would be respected. Let us hope that that will be the case.
There is growing unease about how public funds, as in the case of the towns fund, which are supposed to be for the promotion of the public good, instead are used for political ends. That has been followed by questions about a lack of transparency and accountability in how public money is being spent, with regard to the towns fund and the awarding of contracts generally. This is why my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has brought forward a private Member’s Bill that seeks much greater accountability and transparency for the public purse. If towns funds are truly to help towns, the deployment of cash must be more transparent and based on need.
The stench around the towns fund is pretty strong, and it is deeply concerning if the same questionable criteria are applied to the UK prosperity fund. Public money is just that: it is the public’s money, not a resource to be deployed for political or other purposes. It must be used transparently and in the public’s interest. I say to the Minister that if something smells very bad, it is often because it is very bad. So what assurances can the Minister give this House, following the publication of the Public Accounts Committee report? To address concerns about the administration of the UK prosperity fund, will he commit today to ensuring that it will be administered by the Scottish Government and that the devolution settlement will be respected, as was promised, when this fund eventually sees the light of day?
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government like to talk about levelling up the country, but sadly their record shows they have done the precise opposite. Since they were first elected in 2010, the Conservative Government have imposed £15 billion-worth of cuts on local authorities, and they did not share the pain equally either. The 10 poorest council areas have faced cuts 18 times bigger than the 10 richest, as the Government embedded inequality. Initially, the Conservatives’ failed ideological austerity stalled Britain’s economic recovery after the global financial crash. Last year, they left the country so woefully unprepared for the covid-19 pandemic that we are now suffering the highest death rate in Europe and the deepest recession of any major economy.
Right now, many of our towns and high streets are at breaking point. After a decade of Conservative cuts and now the recession, they are on their last legs. Councils cannot support high street businesses because the Government have left councils with a £2.5 billion funding black hole, after breaking their promise to compensate them fully for the costs of tackling covid-19.
Conservative changes to planning rules allow developers to convert shops into low-quality flats, so that they can never reopen as shops again, creating dead zones on our high streets. Now the Government plan to choke off spending on the hope of rapid economic recovery by forcing council tax rises on families already struggling to pay the bills in these unprecedented times.
The Government spent the past decade levelling the country down, stripping out jobs, assets and investments from parts of the country they chose to hold back. They have closed nearly 800 libraries, 750 youth centres, 1,300 Sure Start centres and more than 800 public toilets. That is political vandalism on our high streets, but it goes much further than that. They have deliberately pulled our country apart by deepening and entrenching inequality. Whole regions have been starved of investment, leaving them without the infrastructure, jobs or skills to attract good new employers. People should not have to leave the towns they live in to find a decent job because all that is available back home are the low-skill, low-paid, insecure jobs that are a hallmark of this Government’s economic neglect.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) have said, opportunity should be open to everyone, wherever they live. Aspiration should not be capped because someone lives in a part of the country that the Conservatives chose to abandon. Social care should be an entitlement, not a lucky dip. Our high streets deserve a brighter future than the long stretches of graffiti-covered shutters that are the visible legacy of Conservative misrule.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) point out, the towns fund is a wholly inadequate fix for how the lost Conservative decade has blighted our high streets. The Government stripped out £15 billion of funding, and now they expect gratitude for giving less than a quarter of that money back.
Some funding is better than no funding, and we support those areas lucky enough to get something, but what about everywhere else? The vast majority of towns and high streets are getting nothing at all, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). Instead of the open and fair process that communities want to see, the Conservatives are stitching up backroom deals that carve most towns out of the funding they so desperately need.
Steve Reed
I am sorry, there is not going to be time. How embarrassing, yet how typical of this Government that the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) stitch up a cosy deal to funnel public money into each other’s constituencies, taking it from towns and high streets with higher levels of deprivation. The Conservatives are pulling our country apart. Labour wants to see our country come back together again. People living in every town in the country deserve their fair share of investments.
The real yardstick of success would be if the towns fund put new opportunities on people’s doorsteps in every town and made every part of the country a good place to set up home and aspire to a better future, but that is not what we are seeing. The Public Accounts Committee says that the Government are unclear what they expect from the funding or how they will measure its success. That simply is not good enough.
Many new Conservative Members, as we have heard this afternoon, like to trumpet how towns in their constituencies were selected to benefit from funding, but they are remarkably quiet, are they not, about the much bigger sums of money the Conservative Government took away from those places in the first place. The Conservatives took £275 million away from Bishop Auckland’s local council. They took £165 million away from Blackpool. They raided £203 million from Crewe, £324 million from Penistone and Stocksbridge, and £197 million from Wakefield. The towns fund gives back only a tiny proportion of what the Conservatives have already stripped away. It is like a burglar breaking into a house in the dead of night, stripping it bare and then expecting thanks for handing back the TV set.
We will not secure the economic recovery by killing off our high streets, and we will not protect the NHS by starving older people of the social care they need. We will not rebuild our country by choking off spending with a Conservative council tax hike that is timed to hit hard-pressed family budgets just as the furlough scheme comes to an end. If the Conservatives really want to bring lasting prosperity to towns and regions that they have held back, they have to do better than the towns fund. This country needs a real plan to bring jobs and investment to every town and high street, not the short-term fixes and back-room deals cobbled together by the same Government who pushed our high streets to the brink of disaster in the first place.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing what has been an important and passionate debate. We have heard colleagues on both sides of the House speak with passion and enthusiasm about the communities they represent. I am hugely grateful to colleagues on both sides of the House for their contributions, and I will try to address as many of the points raised as possible.
This debate has given us a chance to celebrate the towns fund, which is a cornerstone of our levelling-up agenda. It is helping to reshape towns and cities into places where businesses and communities can thrive. In 2019, we announced that 101 places had been invited to develop proposals for a town deal. The objective of these deals is to drive the regeneration of towns to deliver long-term economic and productivity growth. It has been genuinely inspiring to see town deal boards, communities and representatives of individual places work with local government to do just that.
These towns are spread right across the country. Many are birthplaces of industry that have been centres of commerce for centuries. Others are bastions of the maritime economy across the coastline. They are all different, but the thing they have in common is that they have been left behind as investment has focused on big cities for too long. Town deals are reversing that trend. They are about providing investment and confidence at a crucial time for these communities. We are investing in new uses for often derelict and unloved spaces. We are creating new cultural and economic assets that will benefit communities for years to come, and we are connecting people through better infrastructure, both digital and physical, such as the new walking and cycling routes planned at Torquay and the creation of a new digi-tech factory in Norwich.
It is unsurprising and disappointing to see the Labour party today trot out the same tired old lines attacking this fund, which is investing so much in towns that were neglected for years under the last Labour Government. We heard Labour Members say again today that this fund has been targeted at Conservative-held areas. They are wrong. The majority of towns selected are in either Labour or Opposition-held local authority areas. Those councils have worked with us co-operatively, passionately trying to put together their bids, to deliver investment in their communities, but the Labour party in Westminster is determined to reject the support for those communities and attack these local regeneration projects in towns and cities that they neglected for years and years.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I am afraid he is completely wrong. Sixty out of 61 towns selected by Ministers were in Conservative-held or Conservative target seats. Barnsley, which I represent, has had the biggest cuts in the country. How could we possibly not have been considered for the fund?
Luke Hall
I ask the hon. Lady to check the facts. The majority of these town deals are in Opposition-held council areas.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) open her speech by saying that no Labour MP will oppose more funding for local government, because she will have the opportunity shortly to vote for a local government finance settlement that will increase councils’ core spending power by 4.5%—a real-terms increase.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about funding for Northern Ireland and how the Department for International Trade’s high potential opportunities programme is supporting investment across the UK. I can confirm that DIT announced in October the second round of successful bids, with 19 new projects selected, and it is currently working with Invest Northern Ireland to explore even more investment opportunities. I am sure that colleagues in the Department for International Trade will be happy to pick that up with him.
In the face of this relentless negativity from the Labour party, in October last year we announced the first seven towns to have gone through the assessment process and have their plans approved. Among them was Peterborough. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough worked closely with the town deal board and helped to develop the ambitious investment plan. I am delighted that it was offered £22.9 million in October. That funding will help to deliver a new enterprise hub to support entrepreneurs and inward investment. It will support healthy lifestyles by making it easier to walk and cycle, and it will further Peterborough’s ambitions for low-carbon living. I thank my hon. Friend and his town board for all their support and help in making this happen.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for his remarks this afternoon. It is in large part down to his hard work, alongside that of the town deal board, that Blackpool will receive £39.5 million. This substantial investment reflects the exceptional nature of Blackpool’s proposals and the national significance of what they are planning. We think investing in this iconic British seaside resort has benefits that will reach way beyond the boundaries of the town. The plans include making Blackpool’s famous illuminations even more impressive so that they can attract visitors right around the year and have a huge impact on tourism in the town.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) raised his ambitions for the Goole to Leeds rail link and asked whether we could retain some flexibility in delivering the fund to support places requesting revenue funding as part of the deal. I would say to him that the towns fund criteria are broadly drawn, and intentionally so, to ensure that we give towns as much flexibility as possible to determine their own priorities. It is right that the towns fund is principally about capital investments, but we recognise that in some towns there might be a particular need for an amount of revenue funding, perhaps to support the implementation of a capital project, so we absolutely agree with that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) talked passionately about his town investment plan, which we received in late October last year. I can assure him that the assessment process is under way and my officials are looking at the details of the plan. I agree with him that it provides the opportunity for Harlow to determine its own future, and I will certainly join him in thanking the Harlow growth board, the chief executive of the council and all the officers who have worked on the bid.
Alongside town deals, we are also investing directly in the high streets that are at the heart of so many of our communities. Too many high streets have seen considerable decline in the past decades, and those challenges have been exacerbated over the last year by covid-19. That is why, on Boxing day, we announced the winners of our future high streets competition, committing up to £830 million to 72 places in England and giving a major boost to local high streets and the many jobs and livelihoods that depend on them.
That investment includes over £11 million for Blyth, which was raised in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy). This will deliver important new cultural and educational facilities and bring vibrancy to the town centre. The investment also includes nearly £18 million for Worcester city centre, which will benefit from the renovation of the popular theatre and the Corn Exchange, and £25 million for Swindon to modernise its town centre. Some £107 million from the future high streets fund has also been allocated to support the regeneration of heritage high streets, and we are doing everything possible to help high streets to survive, adapt and thrive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough also talked about the need to do more and go further, and he was right to do so, because there is of course more investment to come. At the spending review, we announced the levelling up fund, worth £4 billion, and that will bring infrastructure investment—
Antony Higginbotham
Burnley is looking forward not only to the levelling up fund but to the competitive round of the towns fund. May I ask my hon. Friend to look sympathetically at Burnley’s bid when that scheme opens, because we have such ambitious plans not only for Burnley town centre but for Padiham, too?
Luke Hall
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituency and I know he will champion any bids that come in, as he is absolutely right to do. I am of course always happy to speak to him about his representations.
The levelling-up fund will be open to all local areas and allocated competitively. We will prioritise bids that drive growth and regeneration in the places that need it most—those places that face particular local challenges in upgrading their infrastructure and those that have received less Government investment in recent years. We are also developing the UK shared prosperity fund, which will succeed EU structural funds and provide vital investment in local economies, free of the bureaucracy that thwarted European funding. The new fund will allow us to target funding better and support those who are most in need. The towns fund, the levelling-up fund and the UKSPF will be vital tools for levelling up in our country.
I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. The Government are levelling up: we want everybody, wherever they live, to benefit from increased growth and prosperity, and the towns fund is helping us to achieve that. We are investing in the places that need it most and putting local communities in charge of the decisions that affect them. The towns fund marks just the start of that. There is, of course, much more investment to come and much more to do through the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund. We want to see more towns such as Barrow, Torquay, Blackpool and Mansfield benefit so that everybody, wherever they live in our great country, can be part of a brighter and more prosperous future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Towns Fund.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As the Adjournment debate is entirely physical, I thank the technicians and broadcasting unit for all their help in facilitating the work of Parliament this week. In order for Members to leave safely and to allow the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes, we will suspend for a brief moment before the Adjournment debate.
Driving Tests: High Wycombe
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this Adjournment debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her attendance and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Vere, for a helpful and constructive meeting on this subject.
It is essential that we have driving tests in High Wycombe, yet the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency plans to close our local test centre. Wycombe’s driving instructors, of whom there are around 100, have estimated there are thousands of learner drivers in our town, as is reflected in the number of tests taken each year.
In October 2020, local driving instructors, students and parents were informed that the Wellington Road test site will close on 12th March
“given the low demand for driving tests”.
However, I am told by Wycombe’s instructors that our town has been a popular location to conduct driving tests for around 45 years.
DVSA statistics show that the High Wycombe driving test centre has conducted more tests than both Aylesbury and Uxbridge in the past eight out of nine years. In the year 2018-19, there were 5,549 driving tests in High Wycombe, compared with 4,323 in Aylesbury and 4,847 in Uxbridge. High Wycombe’s driving test centre also ranked 136th out of 349 in terms of the number of tests carried out in the country in the same year.
Driving instructors in my constituency tell me that Slough has eight driving test examiners, but High Wycombe has only two. Although our town had five in 2017, over time the number has been decreased. The Office for National Statistics population estimate for mid-2019 shows that Wycombe has a larger population, at 174,268, than Slough, at 149,539. To put it perhaps more simply, Slough has 85% of Wycombe’s population but four times the number of examiners at its driving test centre. That is difficult to reconcile. Our town should have more examiners to carry out driving tests. ONS figures show that between 2011 and 2019, High Wycombe saw a population increase of 0.35% a year. Although the coronavirus restrictions have halted the driving instruction industry of late, we hope soon to see driving lessons resume. If our town’s population continues to grow, demand for tests in Wycombe could soar.
Should Wycombe’s driving test centre close, the DVSA has indicated that driving instructors and students would have to carry out tests at other centres. The sites on offer are at Aylesbury, Uxbridge and Slough, but the journey from High Wycombe to either test centre is just over 30 minutes in good traffic. To be clear, the journey from Wycombe High Street to Aylesbury, according to Google Maps, in typical traffic is about 38 minutes; to Slough, it is 39 minutes; and to Uxbridge, it is 41 minutes. That is only one way, and it is too far.
It is crucial that we continue to have driving tests in High Wycombe by one of three means: first, by extending the Wellington Road lease, which I understand would be expensive; secondly, by finding a new test centre in our town; or thirdly, by moving over to mobile testing. Following a Transport Committee evidence session on 25 November 2020, the DVSA’s chief executive said that a “meet and greet system” is being considered, suggesting that that might become a pattern for the future. If this proposal is taken forward, he suggested that examiners might meet candidates at supermarkets or leisure centres. This solution seems to offer a reduced cost to the DVSA, potentially eliminating the fixed costs of driving test centres, but I think driving instructors in Wycombe would want me to say that we need to make provision for them to wait while tests are conducted.
I appreciate that the DVSA’s concerns about the lease cost of the present test centre at Wellington Road are significant. At £80,000, it is a substantial sum. Moving to a new test site in High Wycombe could be a solution to this predicament that appealed to all parties involved. In October 2020, the DVSA said that it would consider alternative sites to the centre at Wellington Road, setting out a criterion for its requirements.
In common with majority opinion in Wycombe, I believe that the DVSA would like to see driving tests in our town, which is why I am delighted that the hub space at Cressex business park is currently under review. At a reduced fee of a little over £12,000, I am told by driving instructors that the DVSA is planning to apply for planning permission and, though contracts are not finalised, progress looks encouraging. I very much hope that this is the case and that Buckinghamshire Council will look favourably on any application. I would be very grateful if my hon. Friend confirmed that that is a possibility.
There is a demand for driving tests in High Wycombe. That demand is represented in my inbox, so I am reassured that the Minister is working closely with the independent DVSA to make sure that my constituents have access to driving tests in our town. If the DVSA lets the Wellington Road driving test centre expire on 12 March, will the Minister please ensure that there is a seamless transition to either mobile testing or the hub space on 13 March? High Wycombe should not have to go without driving tests, and any transition should be smooth and uninterrupted.
I am grateful to the DVSA for seriously working towards leasing the hub space at Cressex business park, so may I ask what the length of the contract is that the DVSA intends to enter into? As the coronavirus restrictions are eased, instructors and students need clarity to plan where they will teach, where they will learn and where they will take tests.
Finally, will the Minister please seek to recruit more examiners in Wycombe? I support local instructors’ calls for a driving test centre in High Wycombe with at least five examiners. Although this would still be fewer than the eight provided to Slough, Wycombe ought to see a return to the number in 2017, at which point the DVSA can then make a further assessment about whether more are needed.
If we were not to have driving tests in High Wycombe, instructors and learners would be forced to drive to test sites in the surrounding area, with a round-trip distance of over 30 miles. Notwithstanding the environmental impact that this would have on the surrounding areas of outstanding natural beauty, this could also be a serious economic blow for instructors and for many in the town.
Many driving instructors have already seen their income dry up due to the coronavirus restrictions, and many have not qualified for Government support for the self-employed, being over the £50,000 threshold.
If students are forced to take their driving test in other town centres, it is expected that they will want to learn to drive in the area where the test will be held—Aylesbury, Uxbridge or Slough. As a result, students could find that they are hiring driving instructors in those areas, rather than in High Wycombe. Of course, our instructors have years of experience in our town and would want to continue training and testing people there, rather than seeing tests move away to other centres. For that reason, the closure of our test centre could be a serious blow to many, not just a mere inconvenience.
Closure would, of course, have a financial impact on learner drivers from low-income backgrounds. In a written question last month, I asked the Department for Transport what impact assessment DVSA had done to ensure that people living on a low income in Wycombe would not be disadvantaged by having to travel to another test centre. The answer seemed not to indicate that an impact assessment had been carried out.
It is normal for students across the country to practise test routes with their instructor. If learner students from Wycombe were forced to travel to other sites, they would need extended lessons to do so. According to Wycombe’s driving instructors, the fee for an hour’s lesson is about £32. However, we have established that a round trip to Aylesbury, Uxbridge or Slough takes a little over an hour in good traffic. Therefore, students would find themselves paying £64 for a two-hour lesson when one hour would have done in High Wycombe. For many, that could become untenable.
I can accept that it is easy to assume that High Wycombe is part of the economically successful south-east economy, and of course plenty of my constituents are well off, but my constituency has wards that fall within some of the lowest percentiles for deprivation. Levelling up, as I have pointed out to other Ministers, must not just neglect people who are hidden by taking averages across a constituency.
With just over five weeks to go until the test centre’s lease in High Wycombe expires, my constituents urgently need clarity, so I would be very grateful for any that my hon. Friend the Minister can give. I am certain that we need driving tests in our town, whether than means extending the lease at Wellington Road, turning to mobile testing or securing a long-term lease at Cressex business park’s hub space. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the urgent work that she has done on this subject, and indeed to our noble Friend Baroness Vere in the other place. I would be grateful for any reassurance she can provide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for securing this debate, and also for the incredibly informative way he has laid out the case for the continuation of driving tests in High Wycombe, which has left no Members of the House in any doubt about his passion on the subject—we would expect nothing less from him, of course. I know that he has been engaging closely with the Transport Secretary and with our noble Friend the Minister in the other place on this issue in recent weeks, making the case for the importance of retaining the ability to conduct tests in High Wycombe. I also want to put on the record my thanks to the driving instructors he has been discussing the matter with.
My hon. Friend has made very clear to us the impact on his constituents of having to undertake long journeys to alternative testing sites, were there not to be any testing sites available in High Wycombe. He has mentioned the financial and environmental impacts of people having to take long journeys to access alternative sites. He made a very good point about the importance of not forgetting that levelling up applies to every constituency in the country, not just those we traditionally think it might do.
I am very pleased to conform from the Dispatch Box today that, as a result of my hon. Friend’s efforts, and the hard work and dedication that he has put into the campaign, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is progressing a proposal to maintain driving tests in High Wycombe. The agency is at an advanced stage of discussions with a new landlord. As he has already laid out, the current driving test centre in High Wycombe is a large two-storey industrial estate on the Cressex busines park. The site can accommodate 15-plus driving examiners. However, the demand for tests at High Wycombe from customers means that just two examiners work there permanently. The accommodation is much too large, and it attracts high running costs, as he has acknowledged. It makes little financial sense to the DVSA or its customers to continue operating out of such a site.
The DVSA has a tried and tested procedure for when it needs to vacate a driving test centre. That is why, in September 2020, it began stakeholder engagement with those who could be affected. The pandemic ruled out the possibility of a face-to-face meeting. However, I am pleased to say that the agency was able to hold an online meeting in October 2020 for many of those affected—including, no doubt, many of the driving instructors my hon. Friend has been talking about. The DVSA explained during that meeting why it was necessary to take advantage of the lease break at the Wellington Road site and, while it was confident it could service demand at other nearby driving test centres, the DVSA said it would consider low-cost alternative options to enable it to continue offering a local service in High Wycombe, were any such premises available. The DVSA recognises the concerns of local driving instructors in High Wycombe, and it understands fully their determination to maintain a driving test centre there. It is very grateful to the instructor community for engaging with it to help it look for low-cost alternative premises.
As I mentioned earlier, the DVSA is now progressing with a proposal to maintain driving tests. I am sure my hon. Friend will be further pleased to know that these premises are also located on the Cressex business park, which is the location of the existing driving test centre. That would mean minimal disruption during the transition from the old premises to the proposed new site. The DVSA is keen to keep to a minimum any break in service between the closure of the existing centre and the opening of the new one, but this will be subject to a number of factors, such as planning, over which the DVSA has no control. Naturally, I understand that my hon. Friend would want to know exactly how long that period is going to be; in fact, I think he might be wishing to ask me that question.
Mr Baker
I just want to say how absolutely delighted I am that the Minister has confirmed that we will continue to have driving tests. It is fantastic news, and I pay tribute to the driving instructors for the brilliant campaign they have run, all the research they have done, and their engagement with DVSA. I will just put on the record that I very much hope that Buckinghamshire Council will look favourably on this planning application; if they did not, I think local residents would be extremely surprised. I thank the Government very much for what they have done.
Rachel Maclean
I welcome my hon. Friend’s remarks, and associate myself with his comments about Buckinghamshire Council. To be clear, that is a matter for the local planners, not for me, but we will of course work very closely with my hon. Friend on the questions he has raised with me, specifically about the length of the lease. We will also keep him informed about any progress in determining the final securing of these premises for driving tests in High Wycombe.
In closing, I am pleased to again put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend. As a result of the campaign that he and the local community have run, the DVSA is at an advanced stage of discussions with a landlord of premises on the Cressex business park in High Wycombe for a new driving centre there. I thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss this matter in the Chamber this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
An Adjournment debate with a happy ending. Congratulations to all involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Order 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has consider the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The order freezes the business rates multiplier at its current rate for the coming year. This is instead of an annual increase in the business rates multiplier in line with the retail price index.
If I may, I will start by explaining the context of the order. The multiplier is effectively a tax rate used to calculate business rates. There are two kinds of multiplier: the standard multiplier, which applies to businesses with a rateable value of over £51,000, and the small business multiplier, which applies to businesses with a rateable value of up to £51,000. Historically, these multipliers would rise in line with the preceding year’s retail price index inflation figure. On this basis, they were due to increase to reflect the September 2021 RPI figure, which was 1.1%.
At the 2016 Budget, the Government announced they would switch to uprating the multiplier in line with the consumer prices index measure of inflation instead of RPI. As Members will recall, the following year the Government brought forward this implementation date from April 2020 to April 2018. The switch from RPI to CPI is worth about £6.5 billion to businesses over the next five years, and the benefit only grows with time.
This year, in recognition of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on businesses, the Government have gone a step further. This order provides the statutory legislation that will allow the Government to freeze the inflationary increase for business rates for the financial year 2021-22 at the same rate as that for the financial year 2020-21. This means that the small business multiplier next year will be 49.9p rather than 50.1p, and the standard multiplier in 2021-22 will be 51.2p rather than 51.4p. This measure provides relief to millions of small businesses at this most difficult time and beyond, by saving firms an estimated £575 million over the next five years.
The measure contained in this order applies to England. However, the Government will provide the devolved Administrations with equitable funding. In addition, they will fully compensate local authorities for the income that they will lose as a result of this measure.
It is important to say that this is only one part of the Government’s efforts to support businesses during the present crisis. In 2020, they provided a business rates holiday worth around £10 billion for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Businesses have been recipients of a large proportion of the £280 billion of economic support that the Government have provided in response to the crisis. That includes the coronavirus job retention scheme, which has paid millions of workers’ wages, VAT deferrals, loans and grants. In addition, the Government are considering options for further support in response to the crisis, through business-related reliefs.
Of course, efforts to support small firms with business rates did not begin with the crisis. Before the pandemic struck, the Government were in the process of rolling out a series of major reforms to business rates, worth over £14 billion over the next five years. They included doubling small business rate relief from 50% to 100% for the smallest businesses in England and changing the standard multiplier threshold—steps that mean that nearly 700,000 small businesses pay no business rates at all. Combined with the business rates holiday for retail, hospitality and leisure, this means that half of all ratepayers will have paid no business rates in 2020-21.
In addition, we continue to listen closely to business owners who have voiced concerns about the fairness of the business rates system. As a result, the Government are conducting a fundamental review of business rates and greatly welcome the wide variety of responses generated by the call for evidence to the review launched last year, to which the Government will respond in due course.
British businesses are the beating heart of our economy. It is only right that we do what we can to support them through this difficult time. As I outlined earlier, this statutory instrument is one part of a much wider package of support. The order will give more certainty at a difficult time and underlines the Government’s commitment to firms large and small. That is why I commend the order to the Committee.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you again in the Chair, Dr Huq.
Throughout the outbreak, we in the Opposition have relentlessly pushed the Government to help businesses through these extraordinarily difficult times. We have made it clear that Ministers must set out what will be available in good time, rather than leaving announcements to the last minute, as has far too often been the case. We therefore will not oppose the Government’s decision today to effectively freeze the multiplier calculating business rates between 2020 and 2021, as this provides support and certainty for businesses during the outbreak.
In fact, this measure being announced and agreed fully two months before it comes into force is, sadly, exceptional for this Government. It compares well with the Prime Minister’s announcement on 31 October last year about furlough being extended, which came just five hours before the time by which the existing scheme was due to end. Even two months, however, is nowhere near being a long-term plan looking six months ahead, for which we have repeatedly been pushing the Government.
I also want to be clear that, while this measure will be welcomed, we believe that the Government should urgently be looking at and setting out how they can use the business rates regime to help businesses struggling through the pandemic. We know that earlier in the crisis, the Government offered relief from rates for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors in England during 2020-21, as the Minister has said. However, the Chancellor’s approach was, not for the first time, based on a one-size-fits-all method of doing things. In contrast, the Welsh Government took a more targeted approach to support those who needed it most, by declining to extend the 100% relief to properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more.
Fortunately, some of the big supermarkets operating in England have recognised the weaknesses in the Government’s approach and have returned around £2 billion of unneeded business rates relief that they had received from the Treasury. We see this as a welcome opportunity to redeploy that £2 billion to help struggling businesses on the high street, through a hospitality and high streets fightback fund, and also to support those who have been excluded from support right throughout this crisis. Even though we proposed the urgent redeployment of resources towards the end of last year, the Government have still not acted on it or accepted our proposals. I therefore ask the Minister again: does the Treasury agree that the £2 billion returned by supermarkets should be used to support our struggling high streets and to provide additional help to those who, through no fault of their own, have been excluded from Government support right from the beginning of this crisis, almost a year ago?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South for her questions and her speech, and I thank the Opposition for their support for this measure.
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have tried to build longevity into their policy making where they have been able to do so. That was one of the reasons why the furlough scheme was extended to the end of April. In relation to a long-term plan, she will also be aware that the Government will come forward with further plans at Budget.
In relation to business rates, I think the hon. Lady will be aware that we have done a fundamental review of the regime. We will come forward with further announcements on that in due course. It has been looking not just at the surface; it has been looking deep. She complained that the measures are one size fits all, but the fact that we have a separate rate for small businesses precisely reflects the fact that we treat those businesses differently from larger businesses. The fact that we have segregated retail, leisure and hospitality shows that we are targeting those areas, but I take her comments in good heart.
The hon. Lady asked whether we will redeploy the £2 billion that is being repaid. Of course, as she will be aware, this money goes into the consolidated fund at the Treasury, from which we are able to draw the £280 billion of support—more than 130 to 140 times the amount she discussed—for the economy as a whole. We will continue to redeploy that money to support the economy as a whole. Of course, that comes alongside all of the longer-term measures that I have already outlined in support of businesses facing business rates.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
What steps she plans to take to increase the participation of young people in the kickstart scheme as covid-19 lockdown restrictions are eased.
Dr Coffey
Kickstart has got off to a flying start and I am delighted to inform the House that to date 120,000 kickstart jobs have been approved and 2,000 young people have already started. Around 10,000 jobs are available to young people now and I am expecting a further 33,000 or so to be placed fairly soon while we work with employers to finalise the detail of the job offer. We recognise that young people have been greatly impacted by the pandemic, which is why kickstart is such a pivotal part of our plan for jobs to help them secure a stable footing on the career ladder.
[Official Report, 25 January 2021, Vol. 688, c. 8.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson).
The correct response should have been:
Dr Coffey
Kickstart has got off to a flying start and I am delighted to inform the House that to date over 110,000 kickstart jobs have been approved and 2,000 young people have already started. Around 10,000 jobs are available to young people now and I am expecting a further 33,000 or so to be placed fairly soon while we work with employers to finalise the detail of the job offer. We recognise that young people have been greatly impacted by the pandemic, which is why kickstart is such a pivotal part of our plan for jobs to help them secure a stable footing on the career ladder.
Topical Questions
The following is an extract from oral questions on 25 January 2021.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Dr Coffey
Our kickstart scheme is putting the future of young people front and centre of our plan for jobs. I have already shared with the House that over 120,000 kickstart roles have now been approved, and we want to turn those into job starts. In addition to making it simpler for employers by removing the 30-vacancy threshold for direct applications, as was set out earlier, employers who cannot currently access kickstart at all—for example, sole traders with no pay-as-you-earn systems—can now join up through the gateway-plus model that is currently provided by the Federation of Small Businesses and Adecco joint venture. It is an exciting phase as we move up a gear.
[Official Report, 25 January 2021, Vol. 688, c. 16.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).
The correct response should have been:
Dr Coffey
Our kickstart scheme is putting the future of young people front and centre of our plan for jobs. I have already shared with the House that over 110,000 kickstart roles have now been approved, and we want to turn those into job starts. In addition to making it simpler for employers by removing the 30-vacancy threshold for direct applications, as was set out earlier, employers who cannot currently access kickstart at all—for example, sole traders with no pay-as-you-earn systems—can now join up through the gateway-plus model that is currently provided by the Federation of Small Businesses and Adecco joint venture. It is an exciting phase as we move up a gear.
Petition
Impact of the M25 junction 25 improvement scheme
Written Statements
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
HMRC Powers and Safeguards
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
On 22 July 2019, I announced a comprehensive package of measures that HMRC was taking to maintain and develop public trust in its operations (HCWS1785). Today, HMRC has published a major part of this package, a report on its evaluation of the implementation of powers introduced since 2012: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-hmrcs-implementation-of-powers-obligations-and-safeguards.
I asked HMRC to engage with stakeholders, including taxpayers and their representatives, and I am very grateful, in particular, to the 16 external stakeholder organisations that have offered constructive challenge to HMRC throughout the evaluation.
Alongside changes that HMRC is already introducing, the evaluation has highlighted further opportunities for improvements that will build and maintain public trust in the tax system. HMRC is making a number of commitments as a result of the evaluation. These include commitments to improve communications with taxpayers about powers, obligations and compliance enquiries; to update and clarify guidance on taxpayers’ rights and obligations; to increase awareness of HMRC’s internal decision-making and governance processes; and to make further improvements to taxpayers’ customer experience. The commitments are designed to ensure that HMRC consistently meets the high standards that taxpayers expect, including those who do not have a tax agent, and especially when people may need extra support.
All but one of the measures that I announced in my July 2019 statement have now been delivered by HMRC. They have created the new professional standards committee, published responses to the 2019 and 2020 adjudicator's reports, and published new principles regarding help for taxpayers who may need extra support.
HMRC has also expanded the range of data published regularly to include new data that will help taxpayers to understand how HMRC approaches compliance work and how it uses relevant powers, and to assess the effectiveness of HMRC’s safeguards for taxpayers.
On the final measure I announced in my July 2019 statement, HMRC continues to take forward a range of actions to improve taxpayer experience. It has reviewed and improved over six hundreds of HMRC’s most commonly used letters and factsheets, simplifying the language used. It has put processes in place to keep letters under review, and to respond where further areas for improvement are identified. Last year HMRC also set up a new Extra Support Team to improve its identification of, and assistance to, taxpayers who may need additional help during compliance checks. HMRC has already responded to over 1,000 referrals and provided training to nearly 12,000 caseworkers.
HMRC has also made substantial progress in other areas. In particular, it is continuing to strengthen the guidance available to taxpayers to help them understand better the compliance check process, in order to reduce any stress involved and to build greater confidence and trust in HMRC. In December, HMRC launched a series of bitesize YouTube videos on key aspects of this process, and it is also trialling a new introductory pack which taxpayers will receive when a compliance check is opened.
HMRC’s programme of work on powers and safeguards is an important contribution towards the vision that the Government set out in July 2020 for a trusted and modem tax administration system. HMRC will implement the commitments in this report and continue to work with taxpayers, tax agents and their representatives, to maintain and develop public trust in their operations.
[HCWS762]
Public Service Pensions Consultation
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government published a consultation document (CP 253, HCWS380) in July 2020 outlining proposals regarding public service pensions. I have today laid in Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation: “Public service pension schemes: changes to the transitional arrangements to the 2015 schemes. Government response to consultation” (CP 373).
The main public service pension schemes were reformed in 2015 to make them fairer—especially for lower earners—and more affordable for the taxpayer. Public service pensions continue to be among the best in the workplace, providing a generous level of pension provision for public servants. Following negotiations with trade unions and other member representative bodies, the Government agreed that those closer to retirement should be either fully or partially protected from the changes and allowed to remain in their legacy schemes, known as “transitional protection”. In December 2018 this transitional protection was found by the Court of Appeal to discriminate unlawfully against younger judges and firefighters who were members of the legacy schemes before 1 April 2012 but did not benefit from transitional protection. The reformed schemes themselves are not discriminatory. As set out in the July 2019 written statement (HCWS1725), the Government accepted that the ruling reads across to other public service pension schemes, affecting around 3 million public servants.
In July 2020 I launched a consultation, seeking views on proposals to address this. More than 3,000 responses to the consultation were received, and the Treasury also conducted engagement sessions with a wide range of stakeholders. I am grateful for the many responses to the consultation we received from public servants, employers, administrators, financial advisers, trade unions and member representative bodies. They were insightful and crucial for further developing the Government’s proposals, understanding the impacts of the proposals, and coming to informed decisions.
Having considered the responses to the consultation, the Government are today announcing that they will implement the deferred choice underpin (DCU). This will give eligible scheme members a choice at the point their pension becomes payable as to whether they wish to receive benefits from their legacy scheme or benefits equivalent to those that would have been available under their reformed schemes in relation to their service between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022. In the meantime, eligible members will be deemed to have been members of their legacy schemes for any period of service between those dates.
In implementing the DCU, rather than an immediate choice exercise, we have recognised that members will have more certainty around their personal circumstances at the point they need to make their choice. This approach considerably reduces the need for members to make assumptions around their future career, their retirement, health and dependants, which would increase the risk of members, particularly younger members, making an incorrect decision. I strongly believe that the DCU is the correct approach, given its key advantage of providing members with greater certainty about their choice of pension benefits.
I am also confirming that the legacy schemes will close on 31 March 2022. From 1 April 2022, all those who remain in service will do so as members of the reformed schemes that were introduced in 2015. Benefits built up in the legacy schemes will be protected.
The reasons for closing the legacy schemes and moving to the reformed schemes are as valid now as they were when the reforms were introduced: the schemes should continue to provide guaranteed pension benefits to public servants, but do so on a fairer basis, and in a way that ensures that they are affordable and sustainable into the future. Public service pensions continue to reward public servants generously for their dedicated service.
The Government will bring forward new primary legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to provide requisite powers to deliver these changes to public service pension schemes.
Cost control mechanism and 2020 valuations update
Alongside the launch of the consultation in July 2020,1 announced that the pause to the cost control mechanism—which was introduced as a consequence of the uncertainty regarding the value of schemes to members resulting from the court judgments—would be lifted, and the cost control element of the 2016 valuations process completed. I also announced that the Government Actuary (GA) would proceed with the review to assess whether the mechanism is operating as intended.
As I previously set out, the increased value of schemes to members as a result of the McCloud remedy will be taken into account in the completion of the 2016 valuations. Given that this will lead to higher costs than would otherwise have been expected, early estimates indicate that sortie schemes could breach the ceiling. If normal statutory procedure were followed, any ceiling breaches would lead to a reduction in member benefits in order to bring costs back to target. The GA review is ongoing, and I have decided that it would be inappropriate to reduce member benefits based on a mechanism that may not be working as intended.
This means any ceiling breaches that do occur during the completion of the 2016 valuations will therefore not be implemented, and benefit levels will not be reduced. However, I have also decided that should any floor breaches occur, they will be honoured, and member benefits increased in order to bring costs back to target. These decisions apply only to the cost control element of the 2016 valuations. Future cost control policy for future valuations will be set out once the GA’s review of the mechanism has concluded and any recommendations have been fully considered by the Government.
Changes in the employer contribution rates resulting from the 2020 valuations process were due to be implemented from April 2023 for the majority of unfunded public service pension schemes. These valuations have already begun, and require intensive work across schemes, Departments and the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) over several years.
Due to interactions with wider pension policies, in particular the implementation of the McCloud remedy reforms, completion of the 2016 valuation process and the review of the cost control mechanism, work would need to be undertaken in unprecedentedly short timescales to amend employer contribution rates in April 2023.
Any changes to employer contribution rates resulting from the 2020 valuations will therefore be delayed from April 2023 to April 2024. This is an exceptional but necessary decision taken in light of the wider public service pensions landscape.
Today’s announcements set out the steps the Government will take to ensure that members of public service pension schemes are treated equally—taking an approach which is fair for members as well as other taxpayers.
Copies of the Government’s response document to the consultation (CP 373) are available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office, and it is published on gov.uk.
[HCWS757]
Van benefit and Car and Van Fuel Benefit Order 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The van benefit charge and fuel benefit charges for cars and vans will be uprated by the consumer price index from 6 April 2021. The uprate will take effect as follows:
Van Benefit Charge will uprate from £3,490 to £3,500
Car Fuel Benefit Charge multiplier will uprate from £24,500 to £24,600
Van Fuel Benefit Charge will uprate from £666 to £669
This measure is being announced outside of the normal fiscal process to ensure employers and HMRC are given enough time to prepare for the uprate, ahead of the 2021-22 tax year.
The Government will lay the statutory instrument to uprate these charges before the House on 9 March 2021. A tax information and impact note (TIIN) will be published at Budget 2021 and will be available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-information-and-impact-notes-tiins.
[HCWS763]
Votes A Annual Estimate
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence Votes A Estimate 2021-22 will be laid before the House on 4 February 2021 as HC 1125. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2021-22.
[HCWS759]
Votes A Supplementary Votes
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence Votes A Supplementary Votes 2020-21 will be laid before the House on 4 February 2021 as HC 1126. This outlines the increased maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service in the Army Reserve full-time service (FTRS) and Air Force during financial year 2020-21.
[HCWS760]
Covid-19
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
On 5 January 2021, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 (All Tier Regulations) were amended. These amendments instructed people across England to stay at home and only to leave where they have a legally permitted reasonable excuse, as well as requiring the closure of many businesses and venues.
We are getting the virus under control, however the numbers of covid-19 cases, hospital and ICU admissions, and deaths remain extremely high nationally. As a result, our hospitals are still under significant pressure from covid-19.
As of 1 February, the weekly case rate in England has decreased to 294 per 100,000 for all ages, compared to a rate of 421 the week before and 233 per 100,000 in people aged 60 and over, in comparison to 332 per 100,000. There are seven local authorities with case rates greater than 500 per 100,000. Overall positivity for England is 11.9%, which is a 1.8% decrease over the last seven days.
Case rates for all ages have decreased but remain high or very high across all regions. Case rates also remain very high in the west midlands (350 per 100,000), the east of England (308 per 100,000) and the north-west (320 per 100,000). The lowest case rates are in the south-west (200 per 100,000)—a 30% decrease from last week. The highest positivity is in London (22%) and lowest in the south-west (6.9%).
The measures the Government have put in place are bringing down the number of cases/ However, these figures are significantly higher in comparison to early December, and there still remains considerable pressure on NHS systems nationwide as although hospitalisations are now decreasing, bed occupancy is still high and remains ~50% above the peak of the first wave. General and acute bed occupancy for covid-19 across England has decreased by 4,023 to 26,216 from 30,239 last week. Mechanical ventilation bed occupancy for covid-19 across England has similarly decreased to 3,366 from 3,736 in the previous week. Deaths within 28 days of a positive test remain high: there have been 7,898 covid-19 related deaths in England from 18 January to 24 January 2021.
In line with our commitments, I have kept the measures in place for the national lockdown under ongoing review. On 2 February I completed a review of the geographical allocations as required by the regulations and have determined that it is necessary for all areas in England to remain in tier 4 in order to tackle the threat posed by the covid-19. Whilst there are early indications that new infections may have started to decline in those areas which have been under stricter measures for the longest, scientific advice and the latest epidemiological data are clear that lifting restrictions now would be too early. We recognise the strain that these restrictions have placed on people across the country, but we must continue to take the necessary steps to slow the spread of the virus, protect the NHS and save lives. The restrictions are kept under continual review and will be lifted as soon as it is safe to do so.
[HCWS761]
Police Grant Report (England and Wales)
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before the House the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2021/22” (HC 1162). The report sets out the Home Secretary’s determination for 2021-22 of the aggregate amount of grants that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996. Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office.
The allocations that have been laid before the House today are as set out in my statement and provisional police grant report of 17 December 2020.
Available funding to police and crime commissioners (PCCs) is made up of Government grants and police precept. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has today set out the council tax referendum principles that will apply to the police precept, for approval by the House of Commons.
Council tax levels are a local decision and elected PCCs will rightly want to consider what they are asking people to pay to fulfil their strong desire to keep our streets safe.
The council tax referendum principles are not a cap, nor do they force local authorities to set taxes at the threshold level. Rather they are an additional local democratic check to prevent excessive increases. The forthcoming PCC elections also provide an opportunity for local taxpayers to have their say on the spending decisions of their elected representatives.
In 2021-22, the overall funding settlement for the policing system will total up to £15.8 billion, a £636 million increase on the 2020-21 funding settlement.
Depending on local decisions, available funding to PCCs could increase next year by up to an additional £703 million. This would represent an increase to PCC funding of up to 5.4% in cash terms on the 2020-21 police funding settlement. If the public were asked to approve greater increases via a local referendum, and voted for such changes, precept funding would increase accordingly.
The table, available as an online attachment, documents funding to PCCs for 2021-22, including capital grant and precept.
Attachments can be viewed at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-02-04/HCWS758/.
[HCWS758]
Local Government Finance Settlement
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Today I laid before the House the “Report on Local Government Finance (England) 2021-22”, the “Council Tax referendum principles report 2021-22” and “Council Tax alternative notional amounts report 2021-2022”, which together form the annual local Government finance settlement for local authorities in England.
My Ministers and I have held meetings with representative groups, including the Local Government Association, and with councils and MPs. Representations from 155 organisations or individuals have been carefully considered before finalising the settlement.
Social care
This Government are dedicated to supporting the most vulnerable, which is why this settlement provides access of up to an additional £1 billion of funding for adult and children’s social care, comprising £300 million in grant and a 3% adult social care precept. In the interests of stability, the Government propos to roll forward allocations of the £1.41 billion 2020-21 social care grant and continue the 2020-21 improved better care fund at £2.1 billion.
Our proposal is to use £240 million of the additional £300 million social care grant as an “equalisation” component, to level the playing field, recognising that the distribution of resources generated through the adult social care precept does not match the pattern of assessed need. The remaining £60 million will be allocated directly through the existing adult social care funding formula.
New homes bonus
Following consultation, the Government are proposing a new round of 2021-22 (year 11) new homes bonus payments. This will be the final set of allocations under the current approach.
The Government are committed to developing a more efficient and effective way of incentivising housing growth, which is why I am pleased to announce that we plan to consult shortly on the future of the new homes bonus.
Lower tier services grant
The Government are proposing a new un-ringfenced lower tier services grant in 2021-22, which will allocate £111 million to local authorities with responsibility for lower tier services.
As part of this, the Government are proposing a minimum funding floor, at a cost of £25 million, so that no authority, either upper or lower tier, will have less funding available in 2021-22 than last year. This minimum funding floor is in response to the current exceptional circumstances and is a one-off.
Minor changes have been made to all allocations proposed at the provisional settlement to take account of changes to new homes bonus allocations arising from updated house completion statistics.
Rural services delivery grant
The Government will be increasing the rural services delivery grant by £4 million, taking the total to £85 million, the highest ever. As in previous years, this grant will be distributed to the top quartile of local authorities on the “super-sparsity” indicator.
Independent living fund
I can confirm that the former independent living fund recipient grant will continue to be paid to local authorities in 2021-22. The total value of the grant will be maintained at the 2020-21 value of £160.6 million, with the same approach to individual local authority allocations. Details will be published shortly.
Council tax
The Government manifesto commits to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases, and it is for the House of Commons to set an annual threshold at which a council tax referendum is triggered. This is an additional local democratic check and balance to avoid the repeat seen under the last Labour Government when council tax more than doubled.
Next year, local authorities can increase council tax levels by up to 2% without holding a referendum and, where councils have adult social care responsibilities, they will be able to increase by a further 3% specifically for these services. To provide greater flexibility for councils that must take into consideration the situations of their residents when making council tax decisions, this 3% increase for adult social care can be deferred for use in 2022-23.
A referendum principle of up to 2% or £5, whichever is greater, will apply to shire district councils, and £15 on band D for police and crime commissioners. This package of referendum principles strikes a fair balance. The council tax referendum provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level. Councillors, mayors and police and crime commissioners and local councils will rightly want to consider the financial needs of local residents at this challenging point in time, alongside the public’s support for action on keeping our streets safe and providing key services.
Following the Mayor of London’s request, I have decided to place before Parliament a principle for the Greater London Authority which reflects the Mayor’s request for an increase of £15 (on band D) to fund transport concessions above the average level available elsewhere in England. The final decision on the increase in tax will be for the Mayor of London to take. The reasoning is set out in a letter to the Mayor, which I have placed in the Library.
At the same time as providing councils with the flexibility to set increases where they consider it appropriate, the Government also recognise the importance of providing support to those least able to pay. That is why we are providing councils with £670 million of new funding alongside the settlement, to enable them to continue reducing council tax bills for low-income households. This is in addition to the funding that is already built into the local Government finance system to fund local council tax support, which is a local discount, rather than a benefit payment.
Future of local government finance
As announced earlier in the year, the Government will not proceed with widescale funding reform in 2021-22, including the implementation of the review of relative needs and resources, 75% business rates retention, and a reset of accumulated growth under the business rates retention system.
Our decision to postpone reform has been taken in the interest of creating stability for local authorities and has allowed both the Government and councils to focus on meeting the immediate public health challenges posed by the covid-19 pandemic. We will revisit the priorities for finance reform in time for the next spending review, taking account of wider work on the future, of business rates and how best to organise and finance adult social care.
Covid-19 support
Councils have welcomed our estimated £3 billion package of support to respond to additional expenditure pressures and loss of income from the covid-19 pandemic in 2021-22. This package, on which I will provide further details shortly, includes £1.55 billion of un-ringfenced grant funding; a commitment to meet 75% of councils’ irrecoverable losses in council tax and business rates income for 2020-21, worth an estimated £800 million; an extension to the existing sales, fees and charges scheme for three further months, from April to June 2021; and an additional £670 million local council tax support grant.
Conclusion
Depending on local decisions, core spending power in England may rise from £49.0 billion in 2020-21 to up to £51.3 billion in 2021-22, a 4.6% increase in cash terms.
This settlement and the additional covid-19 resources build on the largest year-on-year increase in spending power in a decade last year, and recognise the resources and flexibility councils need to maintain critical services and their role at the heart of the national recovery from covid-19. The settlement provides further stability for the whole sector by maintaining core spending power at pre-pandemic levels, as a minimum for every authority in England. This stands alongside an unprecedented package of covid-19 support this year and next year, totalling over £11 billion in direct support for councils and £30 billion in additional support for local councils, businesses and communities.
[HCWS764]
National Preventive Mechanism
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The United Nations optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (OPCAT), which the UK ratified in December 2003, requires states parties to establish a “national preventive mechanism” (NPM) to carry out visits to places of detention to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Government established the UK NPM in March 2009 (Hansard 31 March 2009, Vol. 490, Part No. 57, Column 56WS). The UK NPM is currently composed of 21 scrutiny bodies covering the whole of the UK.
Following previous practice, I have presented to Parliament the 11th NPM’s annual report (Command Paper 366). This report covers the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020.
I again commend the important work that the NPM has carried out over the year and the NPM’s independent role in safeguarding the human rights of detainees across the UK and its role in preventing torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. The Government takes allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment very seriously and any allegations are investigated fully. The Government do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose.
The NPM report includes observations in relation to prisons, mental health detention and social care, children in detention, immigration detention and police and court custody. Notably, the report sets out the NPM’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. Government action since the beginning of the pandemic has helped to limit the spread of the virus in prisons. With the country now in national lockdown to curb the spread of coronavirus, prisons have introduced tougher measures to help save lives and protect the NHS. These include routinely testing all staff as well as new prisoners so we can better protect our staff and isolate those who test positive even earlier, and rolling out of the vaccine to older prisoners, mirroring the community roll-out and beginning with those aged 80-plus this month, to protect the most vulnerable. This is in addition to the stringent safety measures already in place to protect staff, prisoners and children in custody, which Public Health England endorsed as being effective in limiting the spread of the virus, and ultimately in saving lives.
[HCWS766]
Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The Government have today introduced the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill in order to make provision for Ministers and Opposition office holders to be able to take maternity leave. I am grateful to Her Majesty’s Opposition for its constructive engagement in preparation of the Bill and welcome its support for the measure.
The choice between taking leave to recover from childbirth and care for a new-born child or resigning from office is not acceptable in modern times. The current provision for statutory maternity pay for employees has in contrast been in place since 1987, and some form of maternity grant, even for those who are not employed, has been in place since the National Insurance Act of 1911.
Changes that I made to the ministerial code on becoming Prime Minister set out provision for junior ministers to be able to take maternity leave. However, this work-around relies on another Minister taking on additional responsibilities and cannot be used for Secretary of State or individual offices, such as the Law Officers or the Lord Chancellor.
Until now, the limits on the number of salaries that can be paid overall, and for individual offices has left the Government with limited flexibility to appoint cover should a Minister want to go on maternity leave. In the absence of that flexibility, a senior Minister wishing to go on maternity leave would likely need to resign from the Government.
The Bill creates a designation of “Minister on Leave” which provides for Ministers to take maternity leave. This will also apply to certain Opposition post holders too. Ministers on leave will remain part of the Government and be able to be briefed on matters and kept in touch with work, but will not be responsible for exercising the functions of the office from which they are on leave.
This is a necessary piece of legislation. However, it does not resolve wider issues such as adoption and parental leave, absences for sickness and other reasons, and unpaid roles. These are complex issues which require careful consideration, taking into account modern working practices and the wider constitutional context. The Government will present a report to Parliament setting out considerations and proposals. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a policy document titled “Maternity Leave and other absences by Ministers” which provides further information, including on the practicalities of these arrangements. The Bill and its explanatory notes are being published today.
[HCWS765]
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 Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I 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.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
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.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments in, or expressed an interest in speaking on, each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. 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 will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. 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 de-group an amendment for separate debate.
Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says, “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says, “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill
Thursday 4th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 146-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (1 Feb 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 1. I remind noble Lords that anybody wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 1
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Statement on consultation with the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities
Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement detailing how the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities were consulted in relation to the provisions of this Act prior to its passage.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would highlight the need for the Government to work closely with the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities by ensuring that the Government details how they worked with them in relation to the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution, I draw the attention of the Committee to my relevant registered interests: as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.
Amendment 1 would put on the face of the Bill a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish a Statement setting out
“how the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities were consulted in relation to the provisions of this Act prior to its passage.”
A property’s rateable value, which business rates are based on, has been assessed independently of Ministers by the Valuation Office Agency since 1990. The Bill will, among other things, make a change to when the Valuation Office Agency must publish draft rateable values. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has told us previously that this is to support the smooth transition of the revaluation. The publication of these draft rateable values will be aligned with the timing of decisions relating to the multipliers and transitional arrangements.
This is only a probing amendment and I am hopeful that the noble Lord will be able to set out for the Grand Committee exactly how what is asked for in the amendment has been done. If the agency and local authorities have not been consulted, can he tell us why not, and why the Government think that that is an acceptable course of action?
Amendment 6, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, would insert a new clause into the Bill. I am very much in support of this new clause, as it would provide for an impact assessment of the timing of a rates revaluation. I am sure that we will get a full explanation of the amendment from the noble Baronesses.
There is of course a wider debate to be had about the whole question of business rates and their appropriateness as an element of local government funding. It is important to note that the Government have cut £15 billion from central government funding for local government in the last decade. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a catastrophic impact on local authority finances, with income falling and costs rising. The current lockdown, which is the right thing to do, will also have a serious impact. Here, the Government need to keep their promise to fully fund local authorities for the costs of the pandemic.
According to the Local Government Association, local councils in England will face a funding gap of more than £5 billion just to maintain services at current levels. But to respond to demand pressures and plug the existing funding gap, an additional £10 billion per year in funding will be needed by 2023-24. For those reasons and many others, which I am sure we will hear from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, I support their amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I wish to speak in favour of Amendment 6, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, and to support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
I am very aware that this is a narrowly focused Bill and that it has had broad support and been welcomed. However, it is significant that, despite that, several Members of your Lordships’ House have taken the opportunity to table amendments. I believe that that shows the depth of concern around the whole issue of business rates. The amount of interest shown in both this tightly drawn Bill and the Government’s consultation for their ongoing business rates review shows how important it is for the review to be both bold and radical.
It is also significant that all the amendments seek to hold the Government’s feet to the fire with regard to the various ongoing impacts of the Bill, be they on sports clubs, the high street or local government finance—hence, Amendment 6 stipulates a timeframe of six months. This is due to the fact that the instability and uncertainty provoked by the impact of Covid-19 are exacerbating issues that were already of significant concern—and we are not out of the woods yet.
Indeed, the amendment seeks to continue to draw your Lordships’ attention to the challenging situation regarding local council finances. The latest figures from the Local Government Association show that the financial impact of Covid-19 on local authorities is an estimated £9.7 billion for 2020-21, with a further £2.8 billion of lost income from council tax and business rates. However, it must be noted that these figures were reported before the lockdown and the spread of the new strain was known. This is a significantly different set of circumstances from when the 2020-21 funding package was last evaluated, and is part of the reason for continuing concern around council finances. I am sure it is appreciated by all noble Lords just how important business rates are to the individual finances of a local authority.
One reason for the amendment is to highlight the volatility of the tax base, which is so unpredictable at present. For example, the loss of office space to residential—a topic much discussed with the Minister in this House—is a trend that is likely to continue with inevitable loss of revenue. The Valuation Office Agency is currently negotiating appeals and challenges for offices, airports and factories under a material change of circumstances appeal, due to Covid-19. A rebate of up to 25% was mooted. The reduction in income could be substantial. If a rebate were forthcoming, would subsequent losses be repaid to local government in line with the recently announced tax income guarantee? Some 75% of losses will be guaranteed for 2020-21, but nothing has been said yet about 2021-22. Of course, local government must make up the other 25%.
The amount of money that councils have had to put aside for appeals is also significant, hence local government concerns around cutting down the window of time to appeal and getting the number of appeals reduced. The more certainty that we can add to the processes the better. To date, councils have had to divert £3 billion from services to appeals. A significant amount of money is also tied up in irrecoverable losses for both business rates and council tax. With debt recovery and enforcement activities understandably limited due to the pandemic, and with limits on activities and pressures on court time, councils’ ability to recover debts and secure income as they usually would, will be restricted. These are not usual times, and more businesses are likely to fail.
I use these points to illustrate one purpose of the amendment and the volatility of this important tax base. There is much instability in the system at present, which is being masked by the current, much-needed and much-valued reliefs offered to businesses from the Government. This could change significantly when the reliefs end; it could impact on local authority incomes, but we do not know when this will be. If the amendment is not accepted, could the Government at least agree to look closely at the impact once all reliefs have been suspended? This could provide vital evidence on which sectors are most impacted as well as on local councils’ finances.
Regarding Amendment 1, it was noted by several noble Lords at Second Reading that the VOA has been formally criticised as being cumbersome and difficult to deal with, and its valuations opaque and inconsistent. This is why I endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and support his amendment and additional amendments tabled by my noble friends. In short, the amendment asks the Government how the pandemic that happening now will affect the revaluation in 2023, based on values at April 2021, which will not be looked at again until 2028.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who certainly speaks with authority in this area, not least from her time as Mayor of Watford. I speak to the first group of amendments and, as I indicated at Second Reading, I strongly support this Bill. It is welcome, it is needed, it is positive, and I hope that it passes unadorned. I thank the Association of Convenience Stores for its briefing on this subject. It too strongly welcomes this legislation.
The effect of moving the business rate revaluation to 1 April 2023 will mean, as has been noted, that valuations will be fixed as at 1 April 2021. This will prevent the base being on a very high value, or on a relatively high value, as at 2019. This Bill will, in short, ensure that the base that is used reflects the impact of the pandemic. That is welcome. It will also provide certainty to non-domestic rate payers. This is very welcome to a hard-pressed sector. However, I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. While I am very much in favour of passing this Bill, I would welcome some further reassurance from my noble friend regarding what discussions there have been with the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities about timescales and resources.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-chair of the Local Government Association.
The debate on these amendments has been a relatively short but, I trust, helpful for the Government. As we have heard from my noble friend Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Bourne, to cover the cross-party contributions to this debate, there are significant concerns about the timing of the assessment—or the antecedent valuation date, to give it its official title—of new rateable values. Some have experienced enormous challenges over the last year, none of which are of their making. The challenges of the pandemic have brought large parts of the hospitality and retail sectors to their knees. Now is not the time to undertake an assessment of rental values, which is in large part the basis of the valuation.
Will the Minister agree to discuss with the department the possibility of a delay to the AVD? This concern is at the heart of the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thornhill. A six-month review would establish whether it is practicable to assess new rental values that feed into the final valuation. A delay is preferable but, failing that, a review is essential as it would highlight the difficulties of doing this while a pandemic is rife. The concerns from those of us who have had extensive local government experience is that local authority finances will be adversely impacted. Of course, the Government have given assurances that any loss of income from business rates will be fully compensated—at the moment. However, they have not, as yet, given such a commitment for when the revaluation comes live in 2023. Will the Minister provide copper-bottomed assurance that no local authority will lose income from the revaluation, and that any necessary top-ups will be provided? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these questions, which will inform any amendments to be tabled at Report.
As we discussed at Second Reading, the Government have chosen a particularly inopportune time for the revaluation of business rates. The valuation day is set for April of this year, and I urge the Minister to consider delaying the date and accepting the proposal in both these amendments. I look forward to his reply.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I first point out my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the points highlighted by his proposed new clause. The business rates system is unusual among taxes because its implementation is split between the Valuation Office Agency, which is an agency of HMRC, and local authorities. Many noble Lords have, like myself, experience of working in local government and know and understand how important the relationship is between the VOA, local authorities and my department in running the business rates system.
As the Committee would expect, one of the issues raised in our discussions with local government has been how revaluations impact on local government funding, so I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, for tabling their amendment on that subject.
In relation to the provisions of this Bill, we have worked closely with the VOA to ensure that a revaluation in 2023 can be delivered on time. The antecedent valuation date of 1 April 2021 was set by a statutory instrument laid on 6 August last year, since when the VOA has been preparing for the revaluation. It has already started to collect the information it needs to value 2 million properties and is on target to complete the exercise to plan.
As I discussed at Second Reading, Clause 1 also moves back the latest date by when the draft rating list must be published before the revaluation to no later than the preceding 31 December. In practice, we expect this to be around the time of the autumn fiscal event, when the multiplier and the transitional relief scheme are also announced. That will mean that rating lists will come to local government a little later than previous revaluations, but we do not expect this to mean any delays in the process of billing or estimating business rates income.
Local government of course needs the multipliers and details of relief schemes before it can calculate liabilities, and it is only once that full package is confirmed that bills can be issued. That is the case whether we are in the year of a revaluation or not. Nevertheless, I can assure my noble friend Lord Bourne and the Committee that my officials meet representatives of local government regularly and will continue to discuss these matters with them to ensure the smooth delivery of business rates bills.
More generally, my department and the VOA are continuously looking at how we can improve consultation and closer working with local government. In recent years the VOA has introduced a data gateway under which it is able to share information about ratepayers with local authorities in order to support the billing process, and last year we made regulations empowering local authorities to provide the VOA with information on a quarterly basis about the properties that ratepayers occupy. This was introduced with the support of local government and will ensure that the VOA has up-to-date information ahead of 1 April 2021, which is the intended valuation date for the 2023 revaluation.
One specific matter we have discussed with local government is how to reflect in the local government finance system the changes in business rates income at revaluation—and I recognise that this is the matter on which the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, seek reassurance through their amendment. The purpose of the revaluation is to ensure that business rates bills reflect the up-to-date rental value of properties.
This of course means that some ratepayers will see increases and some will see reductions as a result of the revaluation, and it follows that the business rates income for individual local authorities will fluctuate in the same way. Some local authorities will see their business rates income rise at the revaluation and others will see it fall. Between revaluations, local authorities can increase their business rates income by supporting growth and investing in their area. Their share of this type of growth is retained by them through the rates retention scheme.
In contrast, the changes we see in local authority income levels at the revaluation come mainly from the trends and variations in the wider national economy and the commercial property market. These factors are largely outside the control of individual local authorities and the Government’s view is that such changes in business rates income levels at the revaluation should not feed through into local government budgets.
Therefore, our intention—as it was at the previous revaluation in 2017—is that we will, as far as is practicable, ensure that retained rates income for individual local authorities under the business rates retention scheme is unaffected by the 2023 revaluation. For the 2017 revaluation we achieved this by adjusting the tariffs and top-ups in the scheme to reflect the change in income at the revaluation. We consulted local government on the mechanics of these adjustments from as early as the preceding summer. This was a collaborative process and one which we intend to repeat for the 2023 revaluation. This process will give local authorities the budget assurances they need regarding revaluation. As such, the timing of the revaluation and how it affects the distribution of business rates income should not impact directly on local government finances.
I hope, therefore, that I have reassured the Committee on the degree to which my department and the VOA work closely together and in partnership with local government on business rates matters, and on the steps we will take to protect local government finances at the time of the revaluation. These working relationships are important, and we are indebted to those in local government who offer their time and expertise to support us in running and improving the rating system.
I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, will agree not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his full response on the issues raised by the two amendments. I will read the noble Lord’s response carefully before considering whether this is an amendment to which I will wish to return on Report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made a compelling case for her amendment and set out the difficult situation in which local authorities find themselves. We will come to amendments later on regarding appeals, but the noble Baroness highlighted the real problems that are faced today. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, raised further important points and questions that, again, we may need to come back to on Report. However, at this point, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 2
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Assessment of impact of timing of business rates revaluations on prosperity of towns and high streets
Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rates revaluations on the prosperity of towns and high streets.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create an assessment of the impact of timing of business rates revaluations on the prosperity of towns.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 2 in my name seeks to place in the Bill a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rates revaluations on the prosperity of towns and high streets. We need a root-and-branch reform of the business rates system to make it fairer and to help bricks-and-mortar retailers compete fairly with the online, out-of-town warehouse operations that are putting our much-loved high streets at risk.
Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw a serious decline in footfall on our high streets, and we now have the tragic situation where, on average, one in 10 shops is standing empty. Something must be done to reverse this decline. My amendment seeks to focus minds on this pressing problem. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to consider it carefully and to accept it.
Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is another that I am happy to support. It gives us an opportunity to examine whether the revaluation based on property values as on 1 April 2021 is right. There are some suggestions that property values will fall even further, and, if that is the case, we could be creating further problems for our hard-pressed high streets.
Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan, brings us back to an issue that both noble Lords spoke about at Second Reading. It proposes a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes in the timing of business rate revaluations on amateur sports. I fully support this amendment and cannot see any reason why the Government would want to resist it.
Some amateur sports clubs have charitable status and some have community amateur club status, which provide a level of tax advantage. Charitable status provides for 80% rates relief, with the ability of the local authority to offer a top-up. But many sports clubs are not charities and will not be able to secure this benefit, and I think that it is important to understand the effect of these changes on these organisations. I am sure that we will receive detailed explanations of the amendments later in the debate but, at this stage, I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 5, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, but I also make clear that I support the intentions of both the other amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Addington will speak to his Amendment 7 shortly. Amendment 2, just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, sits four-square alongside our Amendment 5 and I am happy to add my support to the case that he has put forward.
I remind the Minister that the Government’s previous intention was to have the revaluation come into force this year. They had moved that forward from the original 2022 date because of the deteriorating situation of the high street retail sector and the very clear disconnect between outdated valuations and current purchase prices and letting rates. The most obviously outrageous example of that is, of course, the underpricing of out-of-town distribution centres and warehouses.
Covid-19 has changed the situation in two significant ways, the first of which the Government have responded to, but the other is the one I want to draw particular attention to and which Amendment 5 seeks to address. As it was unrealistic to carry out the necessary work on the ground to carry out valuations because of lockdown and infection control restrictions, the date of 1 April this year was set in place of 1 April last year.
That is one of the responses, but it does not take account of the other impact of Covid. There has been a huge acceleration in the existing trend of retail transferring from the high street to online. It is interesting, indeed compelling, that the Association of Convenience Stores, which has 35,000 local shops and forecourt sites in its membership, has reported that 42% of independent shops polled would have gone out of business already if it had not been for the Government’s business rate moratorium—that is the drastic impact on income for the physical retail sector. We can see from the business pages of any national newspaper that many high street names have closed down or downsized, or are being asset-stripped by hungry online operators buying up their brand. This is an acute crisis, but also a chronic one. Everyone understands that the online shoppers newly recruited by the pandemic have found that it is an easy way to buy and is perhaps better than trudging round in the rain. Nobody expects the retail business of the high street to return to its former levels.
On these Benches, we very much welcome the 100% business rate discount that the Chancellor has introduced. We believe that, in any case, it will need to be extended until there can be a return to what I might call peacetime trading. But those peacetime retailers cannot expect to return to the same volume of sales. Every one of them knows that their turnover will be down and their already dwindling profits will be even less in the post-Covid, peacetime marketplace. When the Chancellor’s scheme ends they will face what were already unreasonably high rating valuations still in full force. Many will be forced into closure. The shutters will come down across the country, leading to a spiralling reduction in footfall and undermining the viability of what remains.
I said at Second Reading that it would be good to see some joined-up thinking by the Government, with a seamless move from the Chancellor’s support scheme for retail running through to the new reduced level of business rates that will come with this measure, as far as the high street retail industry is concerned. I must say to the Minister that it is no good the cavalry coming over the hill two years later simply to count the dead. Either the cavalry must come sooner or the Chancellor must extend his scheme to fill the gap—or a properly planned bit of both. Otherwise there will be precious few retail business left to take advantage of the lower rates bills that we all expect this measure to offer. Hence our amendment: an impact assessment, as the Minister well knows, does not just look at the impact of doing what is proposed, but poses the important question, “What other ways have you looked at to achieve the same outcome?”
Such an impact assessment as we propose would show pretty clearly that delaying implementation of the new valuations to 2023, whatever the actual valuation date, will lead to far more businesses failing and far more damage to the high street than having a 2022 start date for the new system. It would show that extending the Chancellor’s scheme to bridge whatever gap remains would be excellent value for money, bringing a huge financial and community well-being dividend to put the high street back on its feet. It would also certainly show that any gradual phasing-in of the improvement beyond 2023—so that it was in some way cushioned and delayed the benefit to the retail sector—would be terminal. I suggest also, perhaps slightly with my tongue in my cheek, that it would set an interesting precedent, where two government departments look at a policy in the round and agree a sensible way of taking in each other’s washing rather than taking separate decisions—one on the 100% business rate discount and the other on the start date of the new valuations—in two different soundproof silos.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Before I move to the detail of our amendment, this Committee provides us with the opportunity to set out the critical importance of making the case for further government measures to support sport, recreation and an active lifestyle as we emerge from the Covid epidemic.
The Government are to be congratulated on the steps that they have taken: the £300 million sport winter survival package, which specifically should help the top-end spectator sports in England and provide important support to rugby union, horseracing, women’s football and the lower tiers of the national football league; and £100 million through the national recovery fund to support publicly owned leisure facilities impacted by Covid-19. However, this is nowhere near the £1.75 billion investment package to protect the world-class arts, culture and heritage sector, which was designed to help the showcase institutions as well as the small local arts and culture initiatives across the country.
Consider the scale of this investment to help sport alongside the £2 billion announced to investment in cycling and walking, not by DCMS but the Department for Transport last May, since when—as recently as last weekend—the Sunday Times led on the front page with the impending loss of £110 million to professional sport if gambling logos are banned from sports shirts. Sport on television has provided a beacon of hope and escape for millions of people during the current Covid lockdown—a massive ray of respite amid the boredom and gloom of lockdown. In that context, there has been more coverage of the return to terrestrial television of the England-India test series starting in Chennai tomorrow than there has been of actual coverage of matches in many an overseas test series in the past.
The Government have responded well to the need of our elite sports men and women with safe and necessary exemptions from many of the Covid regulations. These exemptions will need to continue when the new travel quarantine regulations are announced shortly. The Six Nations depends on the exceptionally safe arrangements made for professional sport and the vital good sense of those involved to observe strictly the bubbles in place to protect them. Neither the French team—nor, for that matter, Andy Murray, when he resumes the ATP tour—should be required to spend two weeks in the Gatwick Holiday Inn when they arrive here.
Of course, even those who represent our country would not expect to be, nor should be, vaccinated before the vulnerable groups of all ages in society. I hope, however, that when that cohort is complete, consideration will be given to many of our Olympic and Paralympic athletes ahead of their vital international training, selection and competition schedules later this year.
That is the backdrop to today’s call to extend the business rate holiday granted to the retail, hospitality and leisure sector indefinitely, and the opportunity within six months of the passing of the Bill to publish an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rate revaluations on the viability and health of amateur sports and sporting activity. I hope to abolish them for that sector altogether.
The holiday has been invaluable to sports organisations that own their property, including national governing bodies, professional clubs and community clubs and organisations. However, the rates bill in the past has often been the anchor that dragged many sports clubs towards the rocks of administration and financial difficulties, and at this time we must focus on how we increase opportunities for everyone to follow an active lifestyle. Declining participation rates, a major drop-off in sport after school years, the loss of playing fields and the reduction in local authority spend in England—sport and recreation is a discretionary-line item spend in their accounts, rather than the compulsory priority that it should be—have collectively led to the absence of the much-hoped-for sports legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Obesity levels, boredom among the young and lack of opportunities for all pepper the landscape over the UK.
In contrast, I can only praise my noble friend the Minister’s commitment and support for sport in successive policy areas in his department. At Second Reading, he listened carefully to the representations made, as he did previously to my noble friend Lord Botham on this subject. He knows that the business rate holiday can directly benefit community sports clubs, with their sole objective of providing healthy and enjoyable recreational and sporting opportunities, ensuring that all ages re-emerge into the light stronger, fitter and more active in future years than suggested by the pattern of growing obesity and falling participation as a proportion of our growing population, which we saw in the years approaching the pandemic. That alone is one of the major reasons for the increasing call on the NHS in the 2010s. It was in danger of being overburdened before, let alone during, the pandemic.
Like me, the Minister knows that the country faces stubborn inequalities, that the activity gap is widening and that places and spaces, community sports clubs and leisure facilities are critical to providing opportunities for a more active nation to emerge from the epidemic—yet the hardest hit are in deprived communities. Such clubs proliferate in our poorer communities, not least in the East End of London, where life expectancy falls one year for every Underground station passed on the Jubilee line between Westminster and Stratford. Life expectancy is 10 years less there. That is why the Government need to support the Sport and Recreation Alliance, with its campaign to boost activity, from traditional or formal sport to the informal fun and enjoyment that many people can derive from outdoor recreation, movement, dance, and physical activity. Let us make sure that local clubs registered as community amateur sports clubs are exempt from business rates for ever.
My hope is that the case is considered to extend similar support to all sports clubs which provide community sport and recreational opportunities. In comparison to other sectors, business rate liability for the community sport sector remains unfairly high in relation to income. Community sport clubs often have limited financial resources, as they seek to increase membership subscriptions in ways that are affordable, thus enabling community participation without those subscriptions being extortionate.
The cohort of sport and recreational facilities in this country is ageing; too many are falling into disrepair. The costs to operate, repair and maintain are onerous. The result is that sport pays a disproportionate level of business rates, which in themselves are a brake on the key policy objective of making this nation healthier and more active. Sheffield Hallam University recently published a report on the social and economic value of community sport and physical activity in England, valuing it at £85.5 billion. The analysis valued physical and mental well-being at £9.5 billion, mental well-being itself as well as mental health at £42 billion, individual development at £282 million, and social and community development at £20 billion. That evidence makes a compelling case for investment in community sport and physical activity. One keyway in which that can be achieved is a major change in how my noble friend’s department and the Treasury approach a new system of support for exempting those clubs involved in community sport schemes from the business rate system.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, how do you follow that? Jeremy Clarkson being mentioned in a debate in Grand Committee is something new to me. I congratulate my noble friend in sport—my collaborator in sport; that is probably a better way to put it. The essential point is that amateur sport, its clubs and the structure around them are a vital part of our social infrastructure. No one disagrees with that. Will the rating system be a support or a brake on this? How do you generate local money for such a universally accepted good? I congratulate the Government on giving some money to it, although not enough—not as much as it has lost—considering the changes that it will have to go through.
Anybody who has gone through pre-season training will know that it is a bit of a shock to the system. When you have had a year away from it, without playing properly, and you come back to find out that you have problems raising money as well, would you want to sit on the committee? As my noble friend in sport—to use his term again—says, it is a complicated and difficult system and people do not know how to deal with it. I must draw attention to some of the activities I have helped with, including getting the RFU a guide to local government. There were people telling me then, “It is not needed because the information provided is on 53 different websites under 42 different links, and if you understand the law it is fine.” That was the general consensus. These people are amateurs, taking part for fun—and they are giving the Government what they want: activity levels, social interaction and, very often, an informal job market.
Those things are valuable. If the Government will not accept the amendment, please will they heed those words? I hope that the Minister comes away from the debate saying that he will make greater efforts to make the various bits of government talk to each other. If the DCMS proposes something, the department of health may say, “That’s a good idea,” while the Department for Education says, “Yes, but it can’t get in the way of exam results,” and local government says, “What—us?” That seems to be about the way it goes. You can start from any of those departments and stick a couple more in there as well; I will not insult the Minister by trying to mention them all.
If we can get some idea that we are taking the problems of this vital sector seriously, it will reassure many people. Also, Members of the Committee should remember that all the structural problems they see here are the same for virtually any other volunteer sector. I could have mentioned music or any other such sector. Every time that you take on some commitment to a property for a voluntary activity, you have the same problems. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us an idea about the thinking here. At the moment, it seems to be a case of, “Oh yes, that’s terribly good, we should support it, but it seems to be somebody else’s problem.” Take a stand here—say it is yours.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the impact of the timing of business rate revaluations on the retail sector and, hence, the future of our town and city centres. In the first group of amendments, we discussed the timing in general terms, but my colleagues and I ask the Government to fully consider the implications of a revaluation on business profitability and survival.
For many small businesses, business rates are a significant overhead, along with the rent for the property. As my noble friend Lord Stunell reminded us, the Government’s original intention was to have a revaluation assessment in 2019, but this was moved because of negative forces affecting retailers. That negative impact has not gone away, as he said. We support the relief provided by the Government as part of their Covid response, but these are very uncertain times. This Bill proposes to push back the date on which the multiplier is announced from the September to the December prior to the new valuations coming live—in this instance, it means an announcement in December 2022. This will give businesses just three months to analyse the implications for them of the new rates bill they will be paying from April 2023. The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell would enable the Government to consider the consequences of the new valuation for particular business sectors and particular regions before the multiplier was determined. An impact assessment would have to consider all the angles of the proposal and would throw light on the effect of the revaluation. It is a positive amendment which would help the Government get to a fair outcome in the revaluation of business rates.
As the Minister will know, in 1990, when the system was created, the multiplier was 34.8%. In 2020, that had risen to 51.2% for large businesses and just under 50% for small businesses. The multiplier is a crucial factor in the final business rate bill. The consumer prices index is the relevant figure used for the multiplier. Does the Minister think it is now time to reconsider the level of the multiplier? I suspect that the answer to my question will be that we should wait for the business rate review that the Government constantly promise. That will give no comfort to businesses, who will know from this Bill that they are expected to pay business rates under this outmoded scheme for at least another five years. There is obviously an effect on the profitability of individual businesses, but there is also the cumulative effect on town and city centres. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, reminded us, one in 10 shops currently lies empty.
The revaluation is just one of the uncertainties that businesses are having to grapple with. The town centre funds and high-street funds that the Government have announced are all well and good, but they just paper over the cracks while the main issues affecting business survival are largely ignored in policy definition and implementation.
My noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have raised an issue close to their hearts: the effect of business rates on amateur sports clubs. Both were right to do so and made the case with knowledge, experience, and powerful arguments which we fully support. Every community will have an amateur sporting activity at its heart, one that provides enjoyment and an opportunity to develop skills and teamwork through physical activity. They are vital ingredients of a healthy community. I urge the Minister to take note of the arguments made and come to Report with a proposal for action to help amateur sports clubs. I look forward to his response on all the points made.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments allows us to consider the impact of the 2023 revaluation on rates bills, the multiplier and, specifically, our high streets, town centres and amateur sports clubs. Understandably the Committee, businesses and all ratepayers would like to know how the 2023 revaluation will affect rates bills. However, it will be some time before we know that. The carrying out of a business rate revaluation is a significant exercise which requires the careful application of the considerable expertise within the Valuation Office Agency. The two-year gap between the date on which valuations will be based, 1 April this year, and the date on which the next revaluation will be implemented, 1 April 2023, is necessary to ensure accurate rateable values. For this reason, we will not know the result of the revaluation until much later, in 2022. The Government will not therefore be in a position to make an assessment of the next revaluation in respect of any specific sector or the rating list as a whole within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, as is sought by some of these amendments.
However, I can say that, once enacted, the Bill will ensure that business rate bills from 1 April 2023 will be based on rental values as of 1 April 2021. This means that the business rates due on properties based on our high streets and in our town centres or in the leisure sector will be up to date and better reflect the impact of the pandemic.
Certainly, an important part of rates bills when we reach the 2023 revaluation will be the level of the business rate multiplier. It may help the Committee if I explain more about the process of setting the multipliers for 2023-24. As with all years, we are required to finalise the multipliers as soon as reasonably practicable after the local government finance report has been approved, normally in February. For example, at the last revaluation in 2017, the multipliers were confirmed on 9 March. Therefore, we expect to finalise the multipliers for 2023-24 in late February or early March 2023. In contrast, the new rating lists will not be compiled until 1 April 2023. Therefore, it would not be possible to publish the assessment sought in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, before the multiplier was confirmed but after the list had been compiled.
Nevertheless, I appreciate of course that noble Lords and businesses will want to understand the impact of the revaluation as early as possible and before the multipliers are confirmed. In practice, we will announce provisional multipliers and the transitional relief scheme much earlier in the process, at the time of the autumn fiscal event.
It is our intention at the same time to publish the entire draft rating list. This means that, as well as being able to see the sectoral or regional impact of the revaluation, individual ratepayers, be they on the high street or in the sports sector, will be able to check their own rateable value and calculate their own rates bill. This will give an overall picture of the revaluation and allow ratepayers several months’ warning of their new rates bills.
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the process of setting the multipliers is controlled largely by rules in legislation. We are required to make an adjustment to the multipliers for 2023-24 to offset the estimated change in total rateable value due to the revaluation after allowing for inflation and forecasted future appeals. It is that adjustment which drives the level of the multipliers in 2023-24.
We cannot by law set multipliers higher than that calculated from the adjustment. The Chancellor may by order set a lower multiplier, however. Noble Lords will understand that that is a fiscal matter decided by the Treasury as part of the normal Budget process, balancing the pressures on businesses with the need to fund vital local services, but I assure the Committee that the Government will have full regard to the impact of the revaluation before deciding whether to exercise that power and set a lower multiplier.
Our town and city centres are important hubs of our communities, and I am proud of the steps that the Government have taken to support this crucial part of our economy. While this Bill represents a postponing of the next revaluation, I know from the comments made at Second Reading that noble Lords appreciate that this is a step taken in the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. However, as I have said, once we reach 2023, the new rateable values will better reflect the impact of the pandemic on rental values in locations such as the high street.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate.
I was not particularly convinced by the Minister’s response to my amendment. We are asking only for an assessment of the impact of the timing of the business rate revaluation on the prosperity of towns and the high street. I would have thought that the Government would have wanted to do this anyway, to arm themselves with some data, facts and information so that they make good, sound decisions that will have the right long-term effects. So we may come back to this amendment on Report.
I very much support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I fear, though, looking at the Government and their record, that the soundproofed silos referred to by the noble Lord are firmly in place and contribute significantly to the issues and problems that the Government face. We often hear that departments do not talk to each other. The Government have a lot of issues here, many of which can be traced back to the way in which the Government operate on policy matters.
I also agree with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington. I very much support the call for further support for community sport, particularly in our poorer communities. The call to exempt for ever community sports clubs is the right thing to do. We want to see everybody get active, fitter and healthier. Almost every night of the week, we see those adverts from the Government asking us all to be healthier, get fitter, walk more and do more sport, so that is absolutely the right thing to do.
If we support providers of community sport and improve our health as a nation, the savings to the NHS and the Exchequer will repay the relief many times over. In that sense, it is a no-brainer. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these clubs give us the activity levels that we all want to see—so, again, I very much support his amendment. Indeed, I hope that he and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will bring their amendment back on Report. I assure them that, if they do not get the assurances that he wants from the Government then, we will happily support them if they want to divide the House at that stage. Perhaps we need to pass this amendment to give the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little more encouragement to do the right thing. But at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 3
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Assessment of the impact on appeal waiting lists
Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on business rates appeal waiting lists.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create an assessment of the impact on business rates appeal waiting lists.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 3, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has added her name, raises the important issue of business rate appeal waiting lists.
As we heard at Second Reading, there are still 40,000 unresolved rating list appeals from 2010—11 years ago. As a result of this backlog, local authorities had to divert more than £3 billion from services to deal with the appeals risk from 2010 and 2017. This is an unacceptable situation; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, would agree with me on that. Local authority finances are under extreme pressure, and this unacceptable situation is being made even worse.
The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct and then publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on business rate appeals. This is an opportunity for the Minister to explain the position of the Government and how they are working to deal with this backlog of appeals. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to which I have added my name. I am familiar with rating appeal tribunals from my previous life when I sat on domestic rating appeals. Some had been waiting in the pipeline to be heard for a very long time. The noble Lord referred to these timelines.
However, this is about business rates. Some years ago, before the Government transferred the retention of business rates to local authorities, unitary and district councils were responsible for collecting business rates but had no say in setting them; nor were they able to retain the rates collected. If the local authority had no major facilities in its area that would attract business rates, this was straightforward. However, if there were major infrastructure projects—I use this term loosely—this caused huge problems as, for reasons best known to the Government, these facilities were expected to pay business rates despite not trading as businesses.
I can speak only from my experience of Somerset but feel certain that this situation will have been replicated across the whole country. Taunton Deane Borough Council and South Somerset District Council were lucky enough to have major infrastructure in their areas. In Taunton Deane, it was the MoD camp at Norton Fitzwarren and a large hospital at Musgrove Park, in addition to several superstores. In the case of South Somerset, it was the MoD Royal Naval Air Station at Yeovilton and Yeovil District Hospital, as well as superstores. The MoD bases and NHS facilities are of course funded from central government budgets in the first place. All these assets attracted business rates covering millions of pounds. The MoD, NHS hospitals and superstores appealed against their business rates—the latter were in a slightly different category as they were trading businesses and, hopefully, making a profit, but millions of pounds were at stake.
The Government informed local authorities that they could, if they wished, agree a lower figure with the appellant. However, any difference from the figure originally set and the lower figure agreed by the local authority would have to be made up to the Government from local householders’ council tax. Many of these pending appeals waited four, five, six or even seven years to be heard. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has just said, we have now been waiting more than 10 years for the 2010 appeals. All this time, local authorities were wondering whether they would be faced with massive bills in unpaid business rates that the Government would be expecting to receive. When appeals were heard and were successful, this money was passported back to central government. However, there was also an expectation that any shortfall would be made up by local authorities, so it was a win/lose situation for local councils and their taxpayers.
We now have a situation where local authorities operate under a business rate retention scheme. However, with high street retail outlets and other town centre businesses under extreme pressure because of the Covid pandemic, huge numbers of appeals against business rate assessments are likely.
Household rates and housing benefit levels are set on a sub-regional basis by the valuation office. Our valuation office was based in Bournemouth; the price of a property in Bournemouth was vastly different from the value of one in South Somerset. Can the Minister say whether business rates are similarly set on a sub-regional level and whether the buoyancy of the local economy is considered?
Previously, our town centres have been made up of well-known retail high street clothing stores, yet these have all but disappeared. The brands are being snapped up by online businesses that buy the brand and stock but not the premises, as we have seen this week. My noble friend Lord Stunell has already referred to this. How are local authorities that now depend on business rates to balance their budgets to proceed with an increasing number of empty properties?
Many businesses will survive: insurance agents, estate agents, solicitors, food outlets and supermarkets. However, many supermarkets have long since withdrawn to retail business parks, where there is a significant turnover of retailers as each goes into administration. Mothercare, Staples and Homebase are examples; their premises are often left empty for a considerable time. It seems that now is the time for a radical rethink of just what the Government expect business rates to deliver and what type of business they propose to be classified as liable for business rates. This will now include large warehouse facilities servicing online purchases.
The exponential rise in online shopping has been the saviour of householders who have either been subject to lockdown or, prior to lockdown, isolating to protect themselves due to their underlying health conditions. From my office window, I have an excellent view of the C-grade road that serves the 12 houses in our area. The number of delivery vans going up and down has dramatically increased since Christmas. Whether it is with home deliveries from supermarkets or deliveries by DPD, Yodel or another, they are extremely busy and often call long after it has gone dark. Apart from the supermarkets, the vans are delivering goods that householders have ordered from online businesses. Surely now is the time for these businesses to play their part in the local economy and pay business rates; the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, referred to this.
Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling this amendment. I declare my interest as set out in the register. I also take the opportunity to thank the surveyors Gerald Eve for their time and assistance in preparing for this debate.
My concern is the rapid rate of the collapse of high-street businesses—not just the well-known brands that have been referred to but small family businesses, private enterprises and start-ups serving local markets while hoping to succeed, expand and grow. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, commented, the system needs root and branch reform. These retailers’ rating assessments are currently based on pre-crisis levels of rental value, but those values have really collapsed. They were set at a time when there was a healthy economy, with low interest rates and constructive market tension in the leasing marketplace, arriving at competitive rents that were exactly what supply and demand required. That has been lost—which is to say, the values have collapsed as turnover has collapsed—and the rates applied and being paid today are much too high.
We have seen this collapse in values for several reasons; the rates payable by these businesses are the final straw. They can appeal, but there will be long waiting lists. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, say that there were 40,000 still hanging over, some from 10 years ago. I am afraid, too, that hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses will be forced to pay the published rates until appeals are heard, whenever that may be. They will of course have long gone and disappeared as businesses by then.
This is why I am absolutely certain that an impact assessment on appeal waiting lists arising from this Act is so important. I consider six months the absolute minimum period to attempt the impact assessment. It is unfortunate—the sooner the better—but I do not see how they can do it in less. The surveyors may be stretched to their limits to process the appeals.
The process involves a check, challenge, appeal programme, which puts the onus of setting rental value for rateable value purposes on the appellant. The only way to arrive at rental venue is to look at comparable properties and find the latest rental evidence from the marketplace, which is then applied. But there is virtually no evidence. The markets have been sliding, both for offices and retail, and we know that the rating assessments are now significantly in excess of what they should be.
I mentioned retail, but imagine the difficulty of estimating rental value for offices in two months’ time, when the date occurs. Many office buildings are empty or on a skeleton staff rotation. If they are more than a couple of floors tall, social distancing means that you cannot get into a lift. Businesses are, as we speak, considering their future office needs. Working from home, like so many of us are in this debate, means that less square footage is likely to be required. As I said, in the bottom of the trough of this rental crisis, experts will have great difficulty estimating rental values.
Will the Minister please impress on the Government the importance of urgency in addressing this rateable imbalance? Businesses are collapsing in all communities. I support the impact assessment on appeal waiting lists, but it is difficult not to imagine that the appeal process will struggle under the weight of appeals, and I urge the Government to prepare for that probability.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because he has more or less stolen my thunder, which means I can be really quite brief. He outlined very clearly a common thread in all the debates so far today: the absolute urgency of getting this problem fixed. We all know that it needs a longer-term fix, with a complete overhaul of the system, but, if we are to stay where we are with the current system unamended while we wait for that golden day of amazing reform, I fear that many businesses in the country will collapse and fail, not just in the high streets, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, so elegantly and persuasively said, in the office sector and elsewhere. Something has to be done in the meantime—which, of course, was the burden of some of the earlier debates.
The point of the amendment and the impact review is to challenge the Government by saying that what they propose to do—or, perhaps more accurately, what they propose not to do—will leave many businesses in profound despair about how they will manage in the next 18 months or two years. It is obvious that many people will appeal. The number of appeals will be large, not small, and if we start with a backlog from the previous system, that will get worse still.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell asked the Minister some piercing questions that I hope he will respond to about the efforts being made to train panels and find the expert support needed to get the appeals in the system moving through at a proper level. What about the waiting times? Is the Minister, or indeed the VOA, setting a target to deal with this backlog to make sure that it does not pile up behind the new unfolding situation? The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has already pointed out the 40,000 appeals. I know that some of those are very specific to one or two topics, but that is not quite the point: one or two specific topics might crop up in this round of appeals and this revaluation that will cause similar problems.
So I strongly support the thrust of the amendment and I believe that we do need an impact assessment. We need some positive action from the Government and I look forward to hearing how the Minister proposes that that should happen.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on the appeals waiting lists. The Government recognise the importance for businesses and local government of having an effective appeals system. The process we have put in place allows ratepayers to understand how their rateable values have been assessed and how to challenge those valuations where they feel that is necessary. Of course, changes to the revaluation cycle can impact on the appeals process, so I welcome the opportunity to consider this through the amendment.
I will first explain the system for appealing rateable values. The Government introduced the check, challenge, appeal system in 2017, known as CCA, because the previous system was failing. Over 1 million cases were received from ratepayers on the 2010 rating list. Many were submitted with little or no evidence and around 70% of Valuation Office Agency appeals resulted in no change. This delayed the VOA’s ability to deal effectively with well-founded cases.
The CCA system introduced a new “check” stage, at which ratepayers must first check and confirm the details of their property. This ensures that factual matters are resolved without any further action. At the next stage, “challenge”, the ratepayer must set out the basis of their case. This provides that only substantive cases progress into the system to be considered by the VOA. The final stage, “appeal”, allows the ratepayer access to the independent Valuation Tribunal, but only where they have exhausted discussions with the VOA. The amendment as drafted is concerned only with the last stage, “appeal”, but I trust that the Committee will want me to discuss more generally the CCA system.
By March 2020, the VOA’s CCA system had been showing modest volumes: around 158,000 checks and only 31,000 challenges. Of course, the pandemic has increased these numbers, and as of 31 December 2020 the VOA had registered over 440,000 checks and over 90,000 challenges. Of these, the VOA has resolved over 400,000 checks and 24,000 challenges.
Nevertheless, I know that some ratepayers and agents have concerns about how CCA operates. The Government acknowledge the issues ratepayers faced when CCA launched, particularly with the software and the use of the system. However, the VOA has improved, and continues to improve, its service for ratepayers. This includes changes to enable CCA users to submit multiple property claims, as well as improvements to the registration process to make it simpler and quicker to register.
In February last year my department published an interim review of the CCA system. Although we recognised that it was still too early to fully judge the system, the review concluded that the reforms were helping to reduce the number of speculative appeals and to improve engagement between ratepayers and the VOA.
I know that noble Lords are also concerned with a number of cases—around 50,000—that have been outstanding for longer from the 2010 rating list. In fact, the majority of the 2010 appeal backlog cases concern ATMs and were stayed pending the outcome of a Supreme Court case. So these cases did not impact on most businesses and the delay was largely outside the VOA’s control. The Supreme Court issued a decision on this matter on 20 May 2020 and I can assure noble Lords that these outstanding 2010 cases are now being settled quickly.
As the amendment we are considering highlights, the CCA process is, of course, affected by the frequency of revaluations. Looking specifically at the Bill’s provisions, to ensure that rateable values better reflect the impact of the pandemic, the Bill will move back the next revaluation to 2023. This of course will give the VOA and the Valuation Tribunal at least an extra year to clear cases on the 2017 rating list ahead of the next revaluation.
More generally, as I set out at Second Reading, the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of business rates. This includes a commitment to look at more frequent revaluations, and we would need an appeals system which supported that. The fundamental review will therefore also examine what reforms might be necessary to the CCA system to support more frequent revaluations.
The call for evidence on the review was published in July and asked respondents to provide proposals for changes to each stage of CCA to improve the system, while recognising ratepayers’ desire for a quicker resolution of cases and greater transparency. The Government are currently considering the responses to the call for evidence, and the review will conclude in spring 2021.
I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships about the importance that we place on delivering an effective, functioning appeals system that resolves cases in a timely manner. The proposed new clause raises important questions about appeals and the frequency of revaluations, which the Government are already fully considering as part of the fundamental review. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, can agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I agree with all the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. She is right when she calls for all online businesses that deliver goods bought online to pay their fair share of taxes.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made a compelling case for intervention to stop the rapid collapse and decline of businesses on our high streets. No one wants to see, in effect, an end to our high streets, but that is what we will face if the Government do not take urgent, effective action. I fail to see why they are not acting with more urgency on this. They have given no convincing reason or justification either today or previously when these matters have been discussed.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made about offices is exactly the conversation that we are having at MHS Homes, where I am a non-executive director. We have a fantastic office in Chatham, where all the staff, except those working on the ground, were based, but we are now wondering what our operation will look like in the future. There is nothing unusual about that—many organisations and businesses are having exactly the same conversation about what to do.
I will look carefully at the response from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, but I may well decide to bring this issue back on Report. However, at this stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 4
Baroness Pinnock
“Impact of timing of business rates revaluations: high street and online businesses
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Government must carry out a review of the impact of this Act on local high streets.(2) The review under subsection (1) must make an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rates revaluations on high street businesses and their ability to compete with businesses operating mainly or wholly online.(3) The Government must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require an impact assessment of the timing of rates revaluations on local high streets, particularly looking at the impact on their ability to compete with businesses that operate online.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 4, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley, is to open up a debate about the revolution taking place in the retail sector. It is a revolution that is being accelerated as a consequence of the pandemic, which has resulted in the non-food retail sector being in shutdown for many months, with a very large transfer of shopping to online retailers. Retail analysts suggest that this significant change in shopping habits is here to stay.
Recent reports on the retail sector make the same points. Bill Grimsey, in his report in 2018, described the effect of business rates on the retail sector as “malevolent” and one that hinders growth. Business rates are, of course, just one inhibiting factor that affects the vibrancy of the physical high street. However, it is like a weather vane, indicating that all is not well with the retail elements of our town centres.
The array of shopping giants that have closed in recent years is a health warning that the Government do not appear to be heeding. Toys “R” Us, Maplin, Poundworld and others closed their doors in 2018. This year, a staple of the high street, Debenhams, is finally closing its physical presence on the high street. The Arcadia Group, which includes a string of well-known brands in many towns, is in administration. There seems little prospect of any of them reopening their shop doors; the businesses will simply go online.
The combination of closures is a large hit on many towns, as those businesses provided both an attractive shopping experience and business rates income for local authorities. The Government really do have to address this with some urgency. The problem is well known: physical retailers have financial overheads that their online equivalents do not.
The comparison of overheads in terms of business rates is stark. In my own town of Cleckheaton in West Yorkshire, an average-sized shop on the main street with 30 square metres of floor space is paying at the rate of £250 per square metre, resulting in a rates bill of around £3,750 per annum. A large Amazon warehouse adjacent to a nearby town in Yorkshire has 40,000 square metres of floor space. The rate per square metre for this giant in the retail sector is £45 per square metre. This results in a business rates bill of £900,000 per annum. If Amazon, as an example—there are others—were required to pay at the same rate as this smallish shop in a small town centre in West Yorkshire, its rates bill on this warehouse alone would be £5 million per annum. That is why attempts to save our high street will fail unless this hugely unfair advantage enjoyed by online retailers is addressed—hence the amendment from the Liberal Democrats.
The very least that the Government should do is to review the impact on local high streets and assess whether the new revaluations harm even further the ability of the retail sector to compete successfully with online businesses. We cannot, like the myth of Canute, hold back the tide of change in shopping habits. However, what the Government can and should do is provide a level playing field for retailers. This is not a problem that can be kicked down the high street in the hope that the sticking plasters of high-street and town funds from the Government will stem the demise of town centres; nor is there an easy solution, but then Governments are elected to deal with difficult problems.
There is an urgency in finding a solution, as I have indicated. Will the Minister provide any certainty for high-street retailers that the Government accept that a revolution in retail habits has to be accompanied by a revolution in business rates? I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.
Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling this amendment, together with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
There is no doubt that an impact assessment of the new valuations on the high street is worthwhile and important. It is actually vital. We have already seen the change in the high street referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The former retail parades that once flourished now see nail bars, estate agents, coffee shops and charity shops proliferate. I am delighted, of course, for the charity shops and their sector, but please understand that many of these shops are paying a 20% rates bill and are there because their landlords heave a sigh of relief that they have found someone to relieve them of the burden of the empty premises rates that would be applied after they have lost their traditional tenant.
Our high streets and shopping centres are the focus of local communities. Social health and welfare to some extent depend on them. We cannot afford to lose them because of unrealistic operating costs. I was very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, referred just now to the Government’s recognition of the importance of vibrant town centres. The health of those centres lies in the gift of the Government, right now, and in their ability to construct fairness in the apportionment of the NDR burden.
This amendment includes reference to the ability of high streets to compete with online. It is an often-discussed subject, and the urgency of rebalancing the rates burden could not be more pressing. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned Amazon. I saw in today’s Times an appalling reference—appalling to me, anyway— that £1 in every £20 spent on retail is spent through Amazon. I assume this was a reference to last year, or to the last accounting year.
Amazon, of course, is a giant, but there are hundreds of online retail businesses and we are right in the midst of a massive societal transfer of shopping habits from the traditional shop or store in or out of town, in or out of a covered shopping centre, to online. Covid, of course, has forced that rate of change to accelerate faster than it otherwise would—but it was a concern many years ago.
There are numerous constructive proposals to recoup a fairer contribution from the online sector to the tax base. To equitably rebalance the transfer of sales between online and the high street may require a 40% reduction in the high street burden. That is a huge reduction. I am afraid that the Treasury cannot expect revenue neutrality by simply transferring this across to other commercial sectors. The slack is just not there, particularly if we have to take a reduction from the office sector as well. Logistics, industrial and warehousing will not fill the gap. That is a real worry and a concern. Local authority funding has been referred to already, but I am afraid that it is something that needs addressing.
I support the amendment. The health of the high street cannot wait for the results of the fundamental review that was discussed at Second Reading and has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. I was very grateful for that, but the issue is too pressing.
My principal concern remains the difficulty of assessing rental value in these most uncertain times. I do not think that it will be possible. Appeals may descend into chaos. Certainly, I predict long delays. Rental values will have to be assessed post Covid, not in eight weeks’ time. A short-term arrangement will be necessary for the non-domestic ratepayers on the high street and in the retail sector to cope with the transfer to online, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make some constructive comments to help give comfort to all of us who are concerned.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I first remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has made some very salient points, notably that it is vital that urgent action is taken to help high street businesses by reducing their operating costs. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, saying at Second Reading—and again today—that it would prove very hard to estimate rentable and hence rateable values for the traditional retail sector even with this deferral, because new lettings will for the time being be rare events.
When I spoke at Second Reading, I pointed out that retailers pay over a quarter of business rates in England and Wales. That is a very large amount of money, but it will now decline significantly as less is generated from high streets. There is, though, an immediate opportunity to even up business rate receipts by switching a greater burden from the high street to online businesses through the revaluation process itself, because we do not have a fair balance at the moment.
At Second Reading, the Minister said the Government would report in the spring on its fundamental review of business rates. He said he was
“sure that the fundamental review will look at alternative taxes to capture the shift in our shopping habits.”—[Official Report, 18/1/21; col. 1069.]
I welcome that and hope it happens, and I draw his attention to the potential for an e-commerce levy on online businesses.
As we have heard, the move online of Arcadia brands and Debenhams in recent days represents what seems to be an irreversible trend—but that cannot be allowed to mean lower rents and rates for online businesses at the cost of the high street. This proposed new clause would require an assessment of the impact of any business rates revaluation on local high streets to be undertaken within six months, looking in particular at the ability of high street retail outlets to compete with the huge retail businesses that operate online.
The timing could fit well—if the Government wanted it to—with the fundamental review of business rates, and I hope that they will take the opportunity provided by the amendment. It would be strongly and warmly welcomed by high street retail businesses because, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said a moment ago, the matter has become very urgent.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 4, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill which, as we have heard, would require an impact assessment of the timing of rates revaluations on local high streets and, importantly, would look at the impact on their ability to compete with businesses that operate online.
We have a serious problem with our high streets. The problem was in many cases a crisis before the pandemic, as we have discussed today on previous amendments. We can all point to the closed and boarded-up shops in areas that we know. The pandemic has created an even more serious problem for high streets and has put many businesses at risk. We need action from the Government to deal with all the issues that are destroying our high streets and our shopping parades.
We will all have seen the news that Boohoo is purchasing Debenhams and that ASOS is purchasing Topshop, but they are purchasing the names and not continuing with their high street presence. Why they are doing that is the question we need to look at. Clearly, they have taken the view that they do not need, or that it is too expensive to operate, a high street presence. This is why urgent action is needed. The issue with online retailers needs to be addressed. It has been discussed in the other place. My honourable friend the Member for Manchester Central, Lucy Powell MP, has said:
“The pandemic has accelerated changes to the way we shop, yet the government continues to disadvantage bricks and mortar businesses against online companies … The support on offer for struggling business has been a series of sticking plasters. Unless the Government puts in place a long-term plan to help high street businesses survive this crisis and recover on the other side, we will see more well-loved high street names vanishing, and many more jobs lost.”
I could not agree more. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that we need vibrant, healthy town centres. As he said, the power to help the high street is in the hands of the Government. I hope the Minister will address that point.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for a further opportunity to speak about our high streets. As I outlined when we debated the second group of amendments today, we will not know the impact of the revaluation on rates bills until later in 2022, so it would not be possible to produce now the report outlined in the amendment we are discussing. However, we can be sure that, once we publish draft rateable values alongside the multiplier and the transitional relief scheme later in 2022, ratepayers will be able to see precisely how revaluation will affect their rates bills.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised an important point about online businesses compared to those that operate on the high street. Businesses which sell mainly or wholly online do not avoid business rates. They may also operate shops—many high street retailers also sell online—and they will require significant warehouse and distribution facilities, often in high-value locations. Nevertheless, business rates are a tax on the use of property and the rates bill is based on the value of the property. It follows that business models that occupy less property and perhaps operate from less valuable locations will pay less in business rates.
Property taxes have several key advantages over other forms of business taxation: they are relatively efficient to collect, they provide a relatively stable source of revenue to local government that helps ensure the provision of essential public services, and they provide relative certainty for ratepayers from one year to the next. However, there is undoubtedly a click-and-collect revolution, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The Treasury’s fundamental review of business rates is considering alternatives taxes, including a potential online sales tax. The review will need to consider matters such as the economic impacts of such a tax and assess the concerns and risks that have been raised in the call for evidence.
Supporting the high street is a priority for us. In this year alone, no retailer on the high street is paying business rates. With the assurance that the matter of online business is being considered as part of the fundamental review and the updating of rateable values to better reflect the impact of the pandemic which will come from the 2023 revaluation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, can agree to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this short but very important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has stressed again the nigh impossibility of assessing rental values in the current climate. I hope the Minister will discuss with his department how rental values are to be assessed while the pandemic is rife.
My noble friend Lord Shipley reminded the Government of the potential of an online tax to create a level playing field for all retailers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support. All noble Lords who have spoken have emphasised the urgency of responding to the situation facing our high street retailers. A revolutionary reform is needed. How much longer are online businesses to escape a fair assessment, compared with physical retailers? I am pleased that the Minister has just said that the Government are considering online taxes in the business rates reform, but I remind him that town centres cannot wait much longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, that concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the House is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Economy: Remittances
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of remittances (1) on the United Kingdom economy, and (2) from the United Kingdom to the economies of developing countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, remittances are a significant source of funds for developing economies and have a positive impact on the UK economy. Money service businesses trade around £1.8 trillion daily through the UK. The World Bank estimates that in 2019 UK remittances totalled around £23 billion, £8 billion more than the UK overseas assistance budget. Remittance payments typically flow to households and increase income and resilience to economic shocks. Let me assure noble Lords that the UK is committed to working with the G7 and G20 to ensure that remittances are sent as cheaply, accessibly and securely as possible.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, with the total value of remittances to low and middle-income African countries three times higher than official development aid—which is now being cut—and with a dramatic Covid-related reduction in remittances in 2020, will the Minister look at the gains that could be made by remittance matching and cutting the 6.5% cost in fees when sending remittances from the UK to meet the UN goal of 3%? Will he also say what the Government are doing to follow up the recommendations in chapter 5 of the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report on sub-Saharan Africa relating to remittances?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s first point, I can give him that assurance. The cost of transactions for remittances in Q4 2020 stood at 6.48%, which is beyond the SDG target. We will use our presidency of the G7 and G20 in pursuit of that aim. He is right to raise the report, which I have looked at carefully, and the work that needs to be done in that respect. As we said in our response to the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report in September, we are committed to supporting innovative mechanisms that can leverage sustainable sources of finance.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, does not appear to be on the call, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said so far. What opportunities have the Government identified specifically to support greater access to local secure remittances as a consequence of their work with the World Bank and the UK’s Financial Sector Deepening Africa programme?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to working with the World Bank. It is noticeable that the World Bank has talked about the challenge of the decline in remittances. Across the key countries, including in sub-Saharan Africa, we are working to ensure prioritisation of access and looking at more innovative schemes. Last year, as my noble friend will recall, we launched an initiative with Switzerland in this respect.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I offer the Minister an innovative idea, to which he referred. Given the pressure on overseas development budgets and programmes to create growth and employment, might it be time to consider that the global tax system should be turned around and restructured, whereby taxes are not paid to a country where a company is domiciled but remitted to, or shared with, the origin country in which a purchase was placed or a service delivered? Would the Minister conceivably advance this thought to the powers that be as a possible G7 discussion over a Cornish pasty?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that I will do just that.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
While the whole amount of remittances is clearly more than UK aid to developing countries, it is not targeted at national strategic objectives being mainly used for housing and business development. Have the Government been able to make any analysis of the proportion of remittances that went to those sectors, or education?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. Our priority for remittances has been key countries across the world, in Africa and Asia in particular, and key sectors focused on the most vulnerable. I will write to the noble Baroness with a specific breakdown if that is available.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, the sustainable development goal target is to reduce the transaction costs of migrant remittances to less than 3%. However, the most recent data from Our World in Data tells us that countries in sub-Saharan Africa were, at 9%, paying the highest remittance costs of any region as a proportion of the amount remitted. This is morally repugnant. As well as raising the subject at the G7, will the Minister raise it with his colleagues at the Treasury?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, let me assure the noble Baroness that, in preparation for the G7, we are working across government to ensure that the targets, including the SDG target of 3%, can be met—and we will work to ensure that other countries also commit themselves to that.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, acknowledging the significance of remittances is particularly important at the moment, with the global impacts of Covid-19 and as our own development assistance to low-income countries is being cut so substantially, so I welcome my noble friend’s reassurance that this subject will be discussed at the G7. There are many stakeholders who need to be involved in improving the ease and cost of remittances, and some years ago the Government established the Action Group on Cross Border Remittances, chaired by Sir Brian Pomeroy, which brought those groups together. Can my noble friend tell me whether that group continues its important work and, if not, what it has been replaced by?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work in this area. The action group last met in person in 2019. Its current membership and format are under review, and I will, of course, share with her the outcomes of those discussions.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this issue is, of course, one of the untold benefits of migration. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it accounts for three times the amount of FDI and ODA flows. Last year, the UN Conference on Trade and Development forecast that ODA and FDI flows will have contracted by 40%. To pick up the point made by my noble friend, what steps is the FCDO taking to ensure that funds that are remitted are turned into productive investment and help pave the way to economic prosperity for all?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s opinion. Indeed, in my own family, when my father first arrived in the early 1950s, remittances were an important part of supporting his family in the sub-continent. In answer to the noble Lord’s specific point, remittances have been shown to be more resilient than, for example, capital flows—but they also tend to be countercyclical. As for the specifics of where they are going, they are aimed at the most vulnerable; as I said, there is further information on the sectors available, and I will share that with him.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has admitted how vital remittances are to individual communities and families. Yet most of that money is used on basic purchasing and family needs. Will the Government look at exploring the possibility with the banks both here and there—wherever “there” is—a holding pools investment strategy to make money from the money while it is being transferred, and pre-transfer, and put that into jobs, trade and infrastructure? Will the Minister meet me to discuss this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Of course, I look forward to meeting the noble Lord on that last point. We are looking at particular processes, especially in countries such as Ghana, Nigeria and Somalia, and I am sure that will form the basis of our discussions.
Lord Risby (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend agree, particularly in current circumstances, that it would be desirable to have an international drive to scale up digital solutions, complete with the integration of fintech, if we are to be more innovative in facilitating less costly cross-border transactions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The UK supports the Financial Stability Board’s work to enhance cross-border payments, and we will work through the ambitions set at the last G20. I have alluded to the work of the G7; as I said, the UK encourages innovative fintech solutions connecting cross-border mobile wallets, because it is much easier and cheaper to send remittances in that way. We support that objective.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the figures showing a very significant reduction in the level of remittances, and the wider impacts of coronavirus on the economies of lower-income countries. In light of those figures, can he conceive of a worse possible time for the Conservative Party to decide to betray its manifesto commitment on 0.7%, when the poorest people in the world are in the greatest need?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s last point, we have had various discussions on the announcement made on the reduction in ODA. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, we will look to return at the earliest opportunity to 0.7%—but the fact is that we will still be spending one of the highest sums of any G7 country, amounting to £10 billion, on our ODA commitments. Equally, on the subject that we are discussing today—remittances—we are working, and indeed leading the world, in innovative solutions to reduce the cost of transactions and increase the number of remittances. As I said in my original Answer, remittances far outweigh ODA in developing parts of the world. Our eight countries of priority reflect the very objectives of our ODA spend, which is helping the most vulnerable around the world.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question.
Rail Fares: Flexi-season Tickets
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by Transport Focus Fairer fares: the future of rail commuting, published on 18 August 2020, in particular the recommendation to trial flexi-season tickets and other marketing initiatives to encourage rail travel as Covid-19 restrictions are lifted; and what discussions they have had with railway operators about conducting such trials.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome the Transport Focus report on the future of rail commuting post Covid. We are working closely with the industry on a range of initiatives to benefit the passenger, including looking at solutions that offer better value and convenience for those who commute flexibly.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but to press her a little further, has the Department for Transport actually received proposals from the train operating companies to promote flexible fares to encourage passengers, including less frequent commuters, to return? Will the department allow any of the train operators which want to implement trials of such options to do so?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government proactively asked the train operating companies to come up with ideas for fares and other innovative passenger-led solutions as we come out of Covid. At the moment, we are building the evidence base to support the proposals—for example, on flexible season tickets—and assessing the potential commercial impact of these new products. How they are to be implemented will be published in due course.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that even before the pandemic, we were seeing big changes in working patterns? A growing proportion of the working population no longer expect to go to the workplace five days a week. Does she accept that the Government need to show more leadership here so that we can move on from ticketing systems that reflect the work patterns of the 1950s?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I believe the Government are showing leadership on this issue, which is precisely why we proactively approached the train operating companies and made it absolutely clear to them that, going forward, we are going to see a very different type of train system—one that is really focused on the passenger and that provides punctual and reliable train services, but at a price that is fair to the taxpayer and the passenger.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Minister referred to the Government looking at a number of solutions. Will she indicate whether those solutions include enhanced ventilation systems and particle filtration—and, ideally, air disinfection protection measures—as part of the means to encourage people to use the trains in a safe manner?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right; the one thing we are going to have to do to get people back on to the railways—indeed, the public transport system as a whole—is to improve passenger confidence in the system. One way to do that is to be at the forefront of being able to provide the most up-to-date air filtration systems and secure the best enhanced cleaning contracts.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords may have wonderful, imaginative ideas for playing around with fares, and there may indeed be a commercial case for flexible season tickets, but does my noble friend agree that the future of the railways is best secured if they maximise their own revenues and that the fundamental purpose of commuter fares and season tickets must therefore always be, as with airlines, to increase yields to the railways, thus saving expense for the taxpayer?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I somewhat agree with my noble friend in that, if this were being done in purely commercial terms, that would be the case, and we certainly want to minimise the amount of subsidy from the taxpayer where appropriate. However, the state might also want to intervene for other reasons and use pricing levers; for example, to encourage modal shift and get people out of their cars and on to the rail, particularly for certain types of journeys, and that might include commuting.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, the roads are congested and the trains are empty. Does the Minister accept that, as this report shows, passengers will return to the railways only if there is reform and modernisation of ticketing that offers better value for money? As the Government now control the railways, does she accept that the Government need a greater sense of urgency in this modernisation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am afraid the Government do not accept that. We are undertaking rail reform. As the noble Baroness will know, now is probably not the right time to do it, in the midst of a pandemic, but as the course of the pandemic becomes much clearer, we will continue to work, as we have done for quite a while now, with Keith Williams on his root and branch review. We remain in close contact with him and he fully supports the ERMAs we have put in recently. The noble Baroness also said that the roads are congested. I do not know whether she has been outside recently, but they are not.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, any trial flexi-season ticket system needs government approval before it can start. Can my noble friend say whether she is looking at a national scheme with common rules, to avoid complexity, or whether each individual franchise will develop its own scheme? Will she ensure that any new scheme will be contactless, in order to keep down costs and save time?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is trying to push me a little further every time. I cannot say whether it will be a national scheme or whether we will have competitive schemes from different rail operators. Certainly, a national scheme would be simpler for the passenger, so each option will have advantages and disadvantages. We are looking at those at this time. Smart ticketing, which I think is the digital solution that my noble friend refers to, is at the heart of what we want to achieve. We really need to get to a stage where we do not have paper tickets; we must have smart ticketing systems that can cope with season tickets or, indeed, any ticket at all.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, in this part of mid-Wales, just about the only way for many people to get to Birmingham, Manchester or London is to take the beautiful Heart of Wales line, which then goes up to Manchester. The problem, as I see it, quite apart from the fact that you sometimes have to flag down the train or tell the driver when you want to get off—not an intercity problem—is that the fares and timetable are not always co-ordinated to allow an affordable way of commuting to these cities. Will the Government look at this when they are talking to the companies? Indeed, will they talk to their own people about how we could make this work better?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Train services and fares are, of course, devolved in Wales, but I recognise the noble Lord’s point about passengers who want to go from Wales to England for work, for example. I encourage him to raise this issue with Sir Peter Hendy in his union connectivity review, because it is really important for people who need to travel for employment reasons that the means of travel are there in terms of the services, but also that the fares fit as well.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
First, how will the pending increase in fares encourage people back on to our trains, bearing in mind that much passenger business is optional leisure travel, and commuter traffic will become more price-sensitive as home working for at least part of the week is likely to become a permanent option for many? Secondly, if cheaper fare promotions are going to be used to encourage people back on to our trains, who, under the present contractual arrangements between the Government and the train operating companies, will have the final say on what those cheap fare promotions will be: the Government or the train operating companies?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The recent increase in fares was 2.6%, 1% below inflation. This is the lowest increase for four years. In addition, the Government delayed the increase by two months to 1 March. But it is case that taxpayers have been spectacularly generous to the railways in terms of support over the Covid period. We must ensure that there is a good balance between the taxpayer and the passenger, so we are content with a small increase in regulated rail fares. On the potential schemes and other measures that may be put in place, the Government will be working very closely with the train operating companies. All ideas are welcome, and when it is time to get people back on to public transport, we will put those in place.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, the recent pulling of the funding by the Government for Transport for the North’s scheme for smart ticketing across the north of England seems extraordinary in view of what the Minister has already said. Is this not a blow for the railway across the north of England and an indication that “levelling up” is no more than a slogan and has no substance? Will the Minister go away and get this reversed?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Not at all: TfN was allocated £150 million at the 2015 spending review for this integrated and smart travel programme. It was always the case that that funding was going to expire at the end of the current financial year. To date, TfN has managed to spend £24 million, and that is a good start, but we are now considering how best to deliver more effectively—and perhaps more quickly—a rollout of smart ticketing to improve passenger services across the north.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and I apologise to the two noble Lords who were not able to be called.
House of Lords: Proceedings
Lord Farmer
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what plans there are for proceedings in the House of Lords to revert to physical only proceedings once the restrictions in place to address the Covid-19 pandemic are lifted.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
My Lords, at the moment, it is not yet clear when Covid-related restrictions will be lifted, so the point at which we will be able to remove the restrictions on the number of those who can be in the Chamber at once is not yet known. It follows, therefore, that we assume that we will need to continue to work in hybrid proceedings for at least the next few months.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, including for his diligent, well-executed review of committees. Iron sharpens iron far more effectively when we share physical space. This is vital to proper scrutiny of government and to the stimulation and spontaneity of debate. Clearly, there is a very high interest in this Question. What discussions has the noble Lord had with the Government Chief Whip and usual channels about a Chamber debate on the future of hybrid proceedings?
The Senior Deputy Speaker(Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his Question and comments. As I think his Question acknowledges, I am not in a position to offer time on the Floor of the House, but I know that the Chief Whip will have heard his request. He is correct that we, as a House, need to find a way to talk through what has worked and what has not and any features of hybrid working we may want to retain beyond the current pandemic. I believe that the House would benefit from the experiences and ideas of the noble Lord and others across the House. For my part, I will reflect on how Members’ views might best be sought.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, none of us enjoy working remotely. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is right that it does not allow the House to work at its best, although thanks to our remarkable digital teams and staff across the House we have been able to do so much more effectively than some thought was possible. However, we long for a return to normality. As the vaccine is rolled out, those who receive it have protection but can still transmit the virus. Restrictions therefore remain vital to protect colleagues and our staff who have not yet been vaccinated. Our return to normality cannot be ad hoc; it has to be properly planned. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker confirm that, working with Public Health England, we should now start that planning process in the interests of the work of the House and all those who work here?
The Senior Deputy Speaker(Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, the kernel of which is: will we instigate a route back to normal? I anticipate deliberation of that at the commission and, thereafter, as appropriate, at the committee dealing with procedural aspects. As she says, we have to be informed by the best advice of Public Health England alongside the representations and views of Members of the House, while taking into consideration staff views and interests. The noble Baroness makes an excellent point about a route back to normal and I am sure that we will take that up at the commission as a first step.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Hayward.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I first express disappointment at those Members of the House who continue to move around the building without wearing reasonably requested masks. At this stage, I do not want to change social distancing in the Chamber. However, by 15 February some 50% of all Members of this House will have had their first jab. It is therefore reasonable that the House should give serious consideration to, post-recess, our eating and meeting on a reasonably socially distanced basis at tables alongside each other, and not separated at a distance as now.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I mentioned in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, when taking up this issue in the commission, points such as those should be taken into consideration. The current public health advice is that those who are vaccinated should continue to follow all existing social distancing measures. This is because, although many Members will have received one dose of the vaccine, most staff will not and we do not yet have certainty on whether the vaccines prevent transmission. Therefore, I urge all responsible Members to follow the measures in place on the Estate in order to protect other Members and the staff who support the House. From my point of view, if I see someone with a mask, I take that as a visible act of generosity and solidarity with others. After all, no one is safe until all are safe.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the idea of a plan to see how quickly and safely we can return to normal working in the House, recognising that we have lost a great deal in terms of the quality if not the quantity of the work we have done over the past year. May I suggest to the Senior Deputy Speaker that, as well as a debate on the Floor of the House, it would be good if a group looked in detail at and evaluated the changes to our processes and procedures, taking into account evidence from people throughout your Lordships’ House, which would help to inform the work of the commission and the Procedure Committee when we do return?
The Senior Deputy Speaker(Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
The hybrid House has worked very well and we have been commended for that, within and outwith the House, including by the media. It is extremely important to evaluate what has happened, because the pace and significance of the change in working practices has been unprecedented. We have been at the forefront of adapting, with not much time for reflection, so that at all points we have been able to continue to do our important job. As the noble Baroness says, there has to come a time for reflection when we can step back and think about what we want to keep and what we do not. Such matters will fall to be considered by the commission and the Procedure Committee in the first instance. Following the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we hope to start that process in the commission and welcome noble Lords’ views as we develop them.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
While congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McFall, on his great care in making sure that we do not put at risk the health of Members of the House of Lords and all our wonderful staff, I do not agree that we have a great deal of improvements that we could use. In many ways, for example, Question Time is now a disaster. We no longer debate issues and we cannot come to the Speaker very easily with supplementaries. People are reading their speeches and are unable to debate any more. If we are to be a powerful House with influence, we need to preserve that. I urge the Senior Deputy Speaker to consider how we might return to proper working as soon as possible.
The Senior Deputy Speaker(Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
In terms of what we have done in the hybrid House, I would point to the committees, which have been an excellent and innovative success. In other areas, the debates are stilted, as the noble Lord points out. The Procedure Committee has sought to improve the spontaneity of proceedings—for example, by introducing a way for noble Lords to email the clerk to ask to speak after the Minister to ask questions of elucidation on some business. We are actively considering whether there is more we can do. We also know that ensuring virtual participation can contribute to live proceedings. It takes more stage management than in the past, without which our proceedings might be confusing and chaotic, given the number of noble Lords taking part. We agree with the noble Lord’s main point that proceedings are stilted and there is no substitute for human engagement and getting back to normal. The Procedure Committee is alive to that.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Will the Senior Deputy Speaker reflect on how the hybrid House enables noble Lords to contribute remotely to proceedings when they might otherwise be prevented from doing so through disability, caring responsibilities or duties elsewhere?
The Senior Deputy Speaker(Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
That is a very valid question, for which I thank the noble Lord. As I mentioned, the Procedure Committee will be meeting soon and I will bring his and other Members’ comments to its attention.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and I apologise to the noble Lords it was not possible to call. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Biodiversity: Dasgupta Review
Baroness Boycott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review, published on 2 February.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, at the start of an important year for global action to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change, the Government thank Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta for his independent review and welcome its publication. The review is a strong example of UK thought leadership on an important environmental issue with clear but often overlooked economic consequences. The Government will examine the review’s findings and respond formally in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—I beg your pardon. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her reply. I am very glad to hear that the Government welcome this extremely important review, which looks at the loss of biodiversity through an economic lens. But if we are indeed to act on this report, have the Government assessed what mechanisms can be put in place to ensure that the principles of the report are adhered to? For example, will the Government include these measures in departmental plans, government spending reviews and, indeed, all future free trade agreements?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, while the Government have only just received the report, I reassure the noble Baroness that we are already taking action to include some of these measures in our decisions. For example, the 2020 Green Book and its supplementary guidance on valuing natural capital and climate effects continues to take significant and world-leading steps forward in appraising environmental policies.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for getting the order wrong. I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, given that precious ecosystems are being existentially endangered and that remedying the problems identified in this brilliant report requires international co-operation, can my noble friend explain how the recommendations will be incorporated into the planning for COP 26 and our economic planning?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has agreed five policy themes for COP 26, and one of those is nature. In our nature campaign, we are committed to protecting and restoring the natural habitats and ecosystems on which climate, air, water and our way of life depend. This year we also have COP 15, for biological diversity, in China, which will be another important opportunity for global action on biodiversity.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Public Accounts Committee’s recent excoriating report said with regard to the Government’s record on the environment that “progress is disappointing” and that the pace has been “painfully slow”. Dasgupta also calls for transformative change, and he suggests that financial actors and institutions could help to drive this change—for instance, through transparent measurement and disclosure that could influence investors. Does the Minister agree, and, if so, does she think that the markets alone will achieve the necessary radical change or that government intervention is required?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with the PAC conclusions, but I agree about the importance of the financial sector in making progress on this issue. In December, the Chancellor announced the UK’s intention to make climate-related financial disclosures mandatory across our whole economy by 2025 and to have a significant portion of mandatory requirements in place by 2023—becoming the first country in the world to make these disclosures mandatory. This will be an important step, but not the only step; we will also need government action on this issue.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the report identifies the tripling of the world population, from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7.6 billion in 2019, as a major contributor to unsustainability. As well as the need to look at family planning policies, Professor Dasgupta asks what else the review should consider in developing options for change. Is not voluntary euthanasia an option that could be considered? Would the Government ask him to look at that? That would reduce the numbers in the world.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, that question has taken me into unchartered territory on the topic of biodiversity. We will consider all the findings of the review very carefully and come back in due course.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, Professor Dasgupta outlined that to protect 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030 would require $140 billion annually. Will the Government publish their assessment of the investment required to meet the PM’s welcome commitment to protect 30% here in the UK and assign that amount to the next spending review?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as part of the spending review process, all departments are required to look at their bids in terms of their commitment to climate change and our targets in that respect. We have made a number of commitments on UK progress towards protecting 30% of our land and oceans by 2030, including additional funding at the 2020 spending review.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Sir Partha Dasgupta has produced a truly landmark document which will fundamentally change life in many societies in this world of climate change. The Agriculture Act 2020 provides us with one means of progressing with some of the recommendations, but do the Government intend to press ahead and integrate other findings of the report in the Environment Bill, which they intend to introduce next year?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in his assessment of the importance of the Dasgupta review. I reassure him that some of the measures in the review touch on areas where the Government are already taking action. We will consider the findings of the review carefully. The Environment Bill already contains world-leading proposals, including for mandatory biodiversity net gain for development, and I believe we will be taking it forward this year.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, if we are to value nature in all that we do, then nature needs to be part of our education system. Will my noble friend therefore ask her friends in numbers 11 and 10 Downing Street whether they will encourage the Department for Education to give a fair wind to the very well worked out proposal from OCR for a natural history GCSE, and will she let me know what they say in response?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will be very happy to undertake to make those representations and will let the noble Lord know the response.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, the oceans are surely the greatest asset—economically, as well as in many other ways—both for the planet and for humanity. Yet we have already depleted this asset by enabling 5.25 trillion macro and micro pieces of plastic to find their way into these great waters. What are the Government’s latest plans to prevent plastics reaching the oceans? Do they have a date when plastic will no longer enter the oceans from this country? If so, what is that date?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are taking world-leading action on preventing the use of single-use plastics and their presence in our ecosystem. That includes banning certain single-use plastics and microbeads. I will come back to the noble Baroness on her request for a date on the progress of those issues.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, what plans do the Government have to include the financing of nature-based solutions as one of the objectives of the national infrastructure bank to make sure that finance flows to projects that will enhance our natural assets and encourage nature’s recovery?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government set out our green finance strategy in 2019. It contained a host of measures that we are going to take on green finance, including climate-related financial disclosure and green-proofing our ODA spend. I will come back to the noble Baroness on how that relates to the national infrastructure bank.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]
My Lords, this excellent report makes the point that conservation is much more important to biodiversity than restoring land that has been degraded. In the light of that, what will the Government do about the destruction of ancient woodlands along the path of HS2? Will the Minister also comment on whether now, in the face of this report, they will restore the ODA spending for those countries that cannot afford conservation, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, our commitment on international funding for climate-related projects and specifically for nature-based solutions is unprecedented. I believe that we have committed £15 billion over the next spending period to help those countries in the developing world ensure that they have nature-based solutions to climate change.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for being unable to call him.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Border Controls
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of (1) the withdrawal of local and European Union officials from border control posts in Northern Ireland, and (2) the suspension of inspections on goods entering Northern Ireland at the Ports of Belfast and Larne.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True)
My Lords, I know that the whole House will join me in strongly condemning all threats and intimidation. These will never guide the actions of Her Majesty’s Government. But there has been strong concern right across the community at the EU’s actions on Friday. Urgent action is now needed to restore confidence and address outstanding issues with the protocol, which we will take forward urgently with the EU next week.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, while all intimidation by members of paramilitary groups must be totally condemned, does my noble friend agree that the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland is the entirely predictable consequence of the one-sided approach adopted by the European Commission, which has only ever seen these issues from an Irish nationalist perspective? Indeed, I warned Monsieur Barnier directly of this when I saw him in June 2018. Does my noble friend agree that the time has come for the Commission to show flexibility, pragmatism and sensitivity over the implementation of the protocol, respecting all parts of the Belfast agreement and the constitutional and economic integrity of our United Kingdom? If it does not, then surely the Government must consider more robust measures.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I underline what I said in my first Answer. It is clearly hugely disappointing and surprising to many that the EU proposed to take such a significant step without any notification—indeed, without even notifying the Irish Government. I profoundly agree with my noble friend that it now behoves us all to take appropriate and lasting action to address the questions of concern.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Michael Gove has said that the problems with the protocol are not just teething problems. What did he mean by that? Does he now recognise that the protocol was a flawed document in many ways but that repudiation would be a political disaster and, indeed, a longer period of grace on its own would not resolve the problems? What is needed now is not a blame game but an intense period of co-operation between the officials of all four jurisdictions to make the total system work, north-south and east-west.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree that we need practical and urgent action. I certainly do not engage in any blame game; I simply draw attention to the fact that it was the EU that invoked Article 16.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, the threats against port staff in Larne and Belfast are totally unacceptable, as is the graffiti that has been sprayed on Alliance Party offices, including on the office of my friend Stephen Farry MP. Does the Minister agree that it is time for calm language and concentrating on finding practical solutions to make the protocol work for all, such as working to achieve an EU-UK veterinary agreement, which would genuinely UK food producers?
Lord True (Con)
I strongly agree with the noble Baroness’s remarks about violence. The safety of staff at our ports is our top priority and we are engaging actively with the PSNI to understand and follow the situation. Again, I would agree with her that it is now incumbent on all parties, including the EU, to address practical and lasting solutions to the issues that remain.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I applaud the Minister’s answers. I am sure he is right. I am also sure that the joint committee could agree and will agree extensions of the grace periods until trusted trader schemes are up and running. However, SPS checks, which we agreed, and some supermarket shortages cannot possibly constitute the exceptional circumstances that annexe 7 to the protocol says would be required before Article 16 action was envisaged. Yet we have—the Prime Minister has, on 13 January and again yesterday—clearly threatened Article 16 action. Does the Minister believe that, if we were to destroy the protocol, the European Parliament would proceed to ratify the trade treaty?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Lord in a litany of “what ifs”. We should address “what now”, and the EU has a responsibility to help to address that.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]
My Lords, the red tape of the protocol has made much business between GB and Northern Ireland uneconomic. EU spokespersons have publicly advised that the way in which to avoid the cost of the checks is to source more goods, particularly food, from the south. Is not the risk that the Northern Ireland economy will gradually drift away from the UK single market and east-west trade will be increasingly replaced by north-south trade? That will have potentially profound political implications. Is it not that which is alarming people? I ask my noble friend to confirm that, if these matters cannot be sorted out through the joint committee, the Government will not rule out unilateral action.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the position of businesses and the impact on them are obviously something that the Government monitor and watch with concern. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has told Vice-President Šefčovič that our focus must be on making the protocol work in the interests of people and businesses in Northern Ireland. As to the last part of my noble friend’s question, I do not resile from, indeed I support strongly, what the Prime Minister said in the other place yesterday.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, cool heads and dialogue are needed in such difficult circumstances between all the institutions of the UK, Ireland, Northern Ireland and the EU. I welcome the joint statement’s commitment yesterday to the Good Friday agreement and to avoiding disruption to the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. What further changes to arrangements for the movement of goods arising out of the joint committee agreement of 17 December are still to be enacted, and when will they be?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this is an ongoing process and obviously, as the noble Earl will know, my right honourable friend sent a further letter to Vice-President Šefčovič this week embracing a wide range of matters that we believe need to be addressed. However, I certainly agree with the noble Earl’s original remark that cool heads are required in this situation.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while condemning the intimidation aimed at border control staff and deeply regretting the European Commission’s attempt to invoke Article 16 or, indeed, any attempt to do so, does the Minister agree that what is now needed is calm negotiation between the Commission and the Government and, above all else, between the political parties and their respective leaders in Northern Ireland itself?
Lord True (Con)
I strongly agree with the tone of the noble Lord’s remarks and recognise his experience and wisdom in this area.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, some of the disarray of recent days is a result of the insistence of the EU and the acceptance by the British and Irish Governments that all significant bilateral issues must be dealt with by UK-EU meetings instead of British-Irish meetings. How many times has the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference established under the Good Friday agreement met since the triggering of Article 50? What were the dates and venues of those meetings? If the Minister is unable to provide that information at the moment, which I would understand, will he write to me and put a copy of the letter in the Library?
Lord True (Con)
I certainly undertake to do that. The noble Lord has asked a number of detailed points and I will write to him, but while I am on my feet, I will say that I believe that the Irish/UK strand is an important one that might help in assisting to resolve some of these problems.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]
Is the recent imposition by the EU of a land border between southern and Northern Ireland, for however brief a period, by invoking Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol and without even informing the parties to the agreement, including the Irish Prime Minister, a serious violation of the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, to which the EU claimed to attach so much importance during the withdrawal negotiations?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I believe that it is highly regrettable, and this point was made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday. We should all attach importance to the Good Friday agreement and I hope that the Commission will now give lasting attention to that point.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I join other colleagues in condemning the intimidation. Northern Ireland has been used shamelessly by the EU and others as a political football during the recent negotiations. However, to what degree are Her Majesty’s Government prepared to look at genuinely at alternatives that can be negotiated with the European Union and with the parties in Northern Ireland, and will those parties be properly consulted about the way forward? I ask this because many feel that they have been ignored.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point and he is quite right about the involvement of the parties. One of the sad aspects of this has been the bypassing of the parties in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend set out a detailed set of proposals which are in the public domain, and he has indicated in those that if it is not possible to agree a way forward in the way we have proposed, the UK will consider using all the instruments at its disposal.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Irish protocol does of course contain the flexibilities that can resolve this impasse and it is a treaty that is backed by Parliament. Surely the Government must accept that the chaos facing many Northern Ireland businesses trading across the Irish Sea is the predictable consequence of their hard Brexit stance, which is backed enthusiastically by the DUP, coupled with the Prime Minister’s ludicrous promises of unfettered access from day one. It is no good complaining about the protocol when it is the consequence of the very hard Brexit that the Tories and the DUP wanted, despite Northern Ireland voting decisively against that.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we have moved from “what if?” through to “what now?” to “what then?” The fact is that a decision was made by the British people to leave the EU customs territory and the single market, and we must proceed having accepted that solution.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will the Government follow the precedent they set after our formal withdrawal from the EU with regard to the transition period and lay down with the EU a firm deadline for the reform of the protocol as a stage towards its replacement by arrangements that are capable of commanding the confidence of our fellow country men and women in Northern Ireland, as the protocol patently cannot?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not anticipate from this Dispatch Box what might be the progress of negotiations. I take note of the point made by my noble friend, given his great experience. In the first instance, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Maroš Šefčovič must get together to address, we hope, the substantial range of points set out in the Chancellor’s letter.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
I too condemn all threats made against anyone in Northern Ireland, including the previous threats made by republicans against those working on the Irish border. Last week, the European Union showed no regard for Northern Ireland. It demolished the rationale behind the Northern Ireland protocol, lowered the bar for the triggering of Article 16 and demonstrated its one-sided, pro-nationalist approach by disregarding the Belfast agreement. Does the Minister agree that the problems are real, having been brought about not by the Government and the parties in Northern Ireland but by those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, advocated the Northern Ireland protocol? They need to be fixed either through renegotiation or through action by the Government. Will he robustly defend the need for this Parliament and Government to protect the internal market of the United Kingdom?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I will end as I began, by condemning all violence and threats of violence. Flexibilities have been invoked. They are required on both sides, as are pragmatism and proportionality. In the negotiation, we need to provide a reassurance that all parties will respect the basis on which the protocol was agreed. That includes full recognition of Northern Ireland’s status as an integral part of the United Kingdom, respecting its place in the UK’s customs territory and internal market and recognising the integral social, economic and cultural ties that bind the UK as a whole, and safeguarding the streamlined flow of goods between Britain and Northern Ireland on which so many lives and livelihoods rely. We are also respecting the need to maintain the support of both communities. That is our objective and it is the one to which Her Majesty’s Government are dedicated. I hope sincerely that our counterparties in the European Union will address the same agenda.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, all the supplementary questions to this Question have been asked.
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Baroness Quin be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Whitty.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this debate on the Statement made in the Commons on Tuesday. I start by joining the Minister and everyone across Parliament and government in sadness at the death and in celebration of the life of Captain Sir Tom Moore. I also join everyone in celebrating the fact that 10 million people, 15% of the population, have now been vaccinated with a first dose. That is a fantastic achievement and I am so grateful to the NHS and all those who have contributed to this amazing national effort. Another Statement about vaccines is being taken in the Commons today, so I think we can see that this is a fast-moving world that requires Parliament to be quick on its feet to make an input and provide both scrutiny and support.
However, we are all aware of some people who are refusing the vaccine, including care workers. Can the Minister advise the House how many people in the priority vaccine groups have refused the vaccine? If he does not yet have these figures to hand, can he say when the figures, broken down by area, age, gender and ethnicity, will be available? This data seems to be crucial to understanding and tackling vaccine hesitancy moving forward. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the research carried out by Professor Tim Spector and his team at King’s College London into why people are refusing or doubtful about the vaccine. Only yesterday there was a webinar about this. What was quite clear from that is that communication and example setting are important, and I hope that the Minister can share some of the thinking that may be going on about how to tackle this.
I turn now to the vaccination of the most vulnerable. I thank the Minister for his letter today in response to my question last week about how the bedridden and the homebound, and their carers, are being vaccinated. I would appreciate it if we could have some numbers showing how many people are in this vulnerable cohort. Only yesterday on the news we saw the example of an elderly man living alone who is recovering from cancer. He is isolated and his family are very anxious indeed that he has not yet been vaccinated.
According to recently released figures, Covid-19 deaths in care homes in the week ending 22 January represented 46% of all deaths in homes. That was the highest proportion of deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, surpassing even the previous high of 39.2% set last May. During that week, 1,817 care home deaths involved Covid-19, taking the total to more than 25,000. Gavin Terry, head of policy at the Alzheimer’s Society, said that, given the worsening figures
“staff vaccinations must be urgently prioritised along with rapid rollout of second jabs.”
The Government are being optimistic in saying that vaccines have been offered in care homes—but that is not the same as them having been taken up. Time is rolling on for older people who have not been able to see and touch their loved ones for almost a year. We all admit that this is cruel. In many ways, it underlines the dreadful inequalities that Covid has revealed in our society and its care of the most vulnerable.
If the current rate continues, the UK will be on track to have offered a dose to everyone in the top four priority groups by mid-February and to complete the remaining five priority groups in early April, when the need for the second dose begins.
The Minister will be aware of concerns as to whether medical and administrative staff can continue at the current pace for many months at a time, when many are already working seven days a week. What steps are the Government taking to relieve the pressure on staff and ensure that the pace of vaccination remains sustainable in the weeks and months ahead?
The new research from Oxford shows that the AstraZeneca vaccine is 76% effective after one dose and can reduce transmission by 67% over 12 weeks. This is fantastic news. Will the JCVI review this evidence and consider using the AZ vaccine to help prevent spread of the disease—not just serious illness and death—once everyone in the priority groups has received two doses? This would allow public health directors to speed up the vaccine rollout in more deprived communities, including among black and ethnic minority groups, and in hotspots where the disease is threatening to run out of control.
We all agree that children’s health must always be a priority. On current plans, how many teachers will be vaccinated as part of bands 5-9? How many teachers and support staff will have to wait until the period between Easter and summer to be vaccinated? Last September, it was reported that 25,000 teachers had been off sick with Covid-related illness, further disrupting children’s learning. How can the Government ensure that we do not see the same disruption again from March, when it is hoped that the schools will return? I hope that the JCVI will prioritise this as part of its review because, once schools have reopened, we need them to remain that way.
Finally, high infection rates, death rates and the identification of the South African variant in the community and the E484K mutation in the infectious Kent variant are deeply worrying. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, claims that this was
“something that none of us were able to predict”,
the Minister must know that scientists have long warned of new variants as the pandemic unfolds and that the likelihood of mutations increases when there are high rates of transmission. It is more urgent than ever that this hole in our defences is fixed.
Increased testing is always welcome but will ultimately be insufficient unless test and trace is made to work for everyone. This week, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, advised that at least 20% of people—she reckons approximately 20,000 a day—who should be self-isolating are not abiding by the rules. These figures demonstrate the need for both decent sick pay to break the chain of transmission and for test and trace to work properly.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, we also express our condolences to the family of Captain Sir Tom Moore. He was an inspiration and an example to so many.
The health Statement reminds us that this is HIV testing week. HIV Prevention England rightly says that the message about early HIV testing must be well publicised. I pay tribute to our Lord Speaker for his key role as Health Secretary in the 1980s in managing urgent and uncompromising messages to the public about HIV and AIDS. This Government could learn much from those campaigns about communicating clear messages.
From these Benches, we also echo the excellent news that 10 million people in the first four priority groups have been vaccinated so far. Last week, I asked the Minister whether the vaccine dashboard could break down vaccine take-up below national level. I note that this Statement says that this is happening at local health and local authority level. However, there is still no breakdown between health and social care staff. On Tuesday, the United Kingdom Homecare Association reported that only 32% of its staff had been vaccinated so far. It said that invitation to vaccinate care staff was a local lottery, with some areas having excellent arrangements, but others not. Live-in carers face even harder access to vaccines, as they are often completely left off local vaccination lists.
Further, we know that some care staff have concerns about taking the vaccine, so dialogue is vital. Recently, there was an excellent radio interview with a GP from the north-east who explained how they had talked to staff who were worried about vaccinations at the care home where they worked. Those staff were reassured and were vaccinated. Too many social care staff are just referred to large vaccination hubs with no opportunity to discuss it with a known and trusted GP. Will the Minister ensure that GP surgeries can still have vaccine doses for everyone in groups 1-4, including social care staff, so that the barriers to vaccination are tackled and removed? Please can we see the NHS and care staff separated out on the vaccine dashboard?
This Statement also raises the emerging problems with the South African variant, with further restrictions in some postcodes. These, as well as the new changes to the UK variant discovered in Bristol and Liverpool, remind us that Covid-19 is still challenging us at every turn. I say well done to the local directors of public health and leaders of councils, working with their local NHS, on their excellent speed of response and the clarity of their local messages to people in the relevant postcodes.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, Ministers have said that the new South African variant problems were discussed and planned for last Thursday. So why was there not an announcement before the weekend, ensuring that affected residents could protect themselves and their neighbours as soon as the risk was apparent? Secondly, the Statement says that everyone in these areas must have a PCR test—good. However, a letter sent from the NHS to hospital staff said that no staff were to go to work until they had had the results of a PCR test. Given that hospitals already have a large number of staff off sick or self-isolating, what help are they getting to deal with further staff absences?
The Minister will remember that I have urged the Government to include unpaid carers in the priority list in order to protect those they care for. The announcement of their inclusion in priority group 6 is welcome. However, they are not in the summary lists in the vaccines delivery plan. Will the Minister commit to clear up any confusion by explicitly including unpaid carers in government communications and by publishing specific guidance on making sure that they are vaccinated as part of group 6?
Finally, we look forward to hearing the Prime Minister speak on 22 February about the route map out of this third lockdown. Progress on vaccination is vital, but test, trace and isolate is also essential if we are to avoid a fourth national lockdown. We on these Benches believe that people who are self-isolating should be paid their wages and have access to a proper care package, as in Germany and Taiwan. We have been asking for this for 11 months. The failure of people to comply with self-isolation rules demonstrates that the current system is not working. Will the Government urgently review the arrangements for isolation and encouragement to comply?
Yesterday, Chris Whitty and the Prime Minister were clear that this third lockdown cannot be lifted until it is safe to do so. Yet already MPs and some Peers are pressuring the PM to open schools immediately. Strong, clear messaging is needed every day—as strong as on the AIDS campaign by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, 30 years ago. We know from polling data that the vast majority of people want to do the right thing. The Government’s role is to tell us what and why and to provide support for those who need help to do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to both the noble Baronesses for their thoughtful and provocative questions. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in paying tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore. His story touched on something we have talked about in this Chamber this year: the way in which someone, in their 99th year, can make a tremendous impact on the whole country, bringing us together and raising money for NHS staff. It was an amazing achievement so late in life. It demonstrates that every year of every life, however late in that life it is, is valuable. That is why this Government are extremely proud of the measures that we have put in place to protect the lives of, and avoid severe harm to, the elderly and infirm.
I also share in the noble Baroness’s tribute to NHS staff and the vaccination rollout. She is entirely right; there is huge mental and social attrition across the NHS at the moment. The hard work that goes on, particularly in intensive care, is having a tough impact on those who work there. We hear of the need for some form of respite for NHS staff, loud and clear, but I have to be candid: when we are done dealing with the hospitalisations for Covid, there will be a massive wall of work to manage the huge backlog and restart business as usual. We are looking at the human investment needed. I pay tribute to my colleague Helen Whately, the Minister who covers the NHS workforce. She speaks to the NHS and social care workforce daily. We are looking extremely carefully at the investment that will be needed to support healthcare staff in the difficult year ahead.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about those who refuse the vaccine. I am afraid that those statistics do not exist, because people do not identify themselves as vaccine refusers. However, the overall picture is extremely positive at the moment. Those in categories 1 to 4 are stepping forward for the vaccine in tremendous numbers, and we are extremely encouraged by that. I take on board the insight of Tim Spector and others who have spoken thoughtfully about the barriers. I pay tribute to civic and particularly religious groups, which have often put vaccination sites in their temples, synagogues, churches and other religious settings. That is exactly the kind of trusted civic engagement that has led to vaccine deployment reaching deeply into communities that might otherwise have been worried or suspicious.
The challenge that we will face will be when we turn our attention to the younger. To answer the other question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, we will be rolling out the vaccine to all age groups. The very good news from AstraZeneca about the vaccine being an extremely effective agent against transmissibility is exactly what we need to know, because it gives a green light to using the vaccine to avoid not just severe illness, hospitalisation and death, but transmissibility. We have to get the message across to those whose lives are not necessarily saved by the vaccine—it saves someone else’s life—that taking it is important and something they should feel trusting about and obligated to do. That will be the second phase of the vaccine rollout, and we are thinking carefully about how to do it as effectively as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded to staff vaccination. She is entirely right about the very high number of Covid deaths in homes at the moment, and I reassure her that vaccines have been offered to every person in every home. There is an email address, which I would be happy to share with all noble Lords, for anyone who thinks that they have not been offered the vaccine. There is an absolute backstop for anyone who thinks that they have been overlooked or have missed out. We are doing our level best with an effective deployment and rollout programme to ensure that all social care homes, whatever their status, and all staff in them are protected by the vaccine.
I will say a word about schools and teachers. I completely support the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and many other Peers who have spoken thoughtfully and emotionally about the importance of getting schools back. The Government and I agree that this is our priority. I spoke to the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, about this yesterday. I pay tribute to the work of the Department for Education in rolling out testing in schools. Either today or very soon, we will have had the millionth test in schools, which is a great tribute to the work that schools, teachers and the DfE have done on asymptomatic testing in schools. It is an important way to cut the chain of transmission and to protect all those in schools, from both the disease and being agents of transmission to those who are more vulnerable. I support all the measures on social distancing, PPE and testing that we can put in place to keep schools open.
When it comes to vaccinating teachers, I emphasise that saving lives and avoiding severe harm is the priority for the vaccination programme. While we are sympathetic to teachers and will definitely have them on the prioritisation list, the protection from harm and death is our current priority.
We take the news on mutations from South Africa, Brazil, California, Kent and Bristol, and all the other manifestations of mutations, extremely seriously. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, spoke about not expecting a mutation, but of course it was not the virus mutating that was not expected—that is commonplace. The CMO spoke about that impactfully and early, in February and March; he utterly predicted that mutations would lead to a second wave. But the virus had not mutated much last year. In fact, it was a phenomenally rigid and consistent virus for a long time. What was not easy to predict was that a highly transmissible disease would emerge that completely outperforms its previous classic manifestation. We saw that only when the infection rates started to climb extremely quickly. We changed our tack accordingly, and we continue to change our tack.
As I have said from the Dispatch Box previously, we are in a different game now. Previously, the focus was on keeping a lid on infection rates and getting the prevalence levels low. That remains an important feature of our battle against Covid. On the other hand, we have to protect the vaccine. We are aware of the potential for a mutation to emerge that escapes the vaccine. That has been seen in other diseases and could be seen in this disease. That is why we have mobilised Operation Eagle to track down the South African variants that have landed in the UK, where we do not have a clear chain of transmission. That is why we are going door to door, offering PCR testing to all those—around 10,000 people—in each of the relevant postcodes, to put a lid on any community transmission. That is why we have deployed a special team, tracing variants of concern, which is tracking down the origins of each infection to stamp out and suppress variants of concern, where they emerge.
This is exactly the kind of capability that we need to put in place should a highly transmissible vaccine-escaping variant manifest itself. I pay tribute to those in test and trace who have put together this capability extremely quickly and are implementing it so thoroughly.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, alluded to the important issue of isolating. I hear those points loud and clear. We support those who are isolating, and make a £500 payment to those on benefits, who need it. Charities and local authorities support those who isolate. But I hear the point made about additional measures, and we are looking at further ways to support those who are required to isolate, either because they are infected themselves or because they are the contact of someone who is infected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke thoughtfully and movingly about the role of the Lord Speaker in fighting HIV and AIDS, and I join her in paying tribute to the Lord Speaker, whose 83rd birthday was earlier this week. The messaging in that campaign was poignant, it cut through and we all remember it very well.
I also pay tribute to those in the communications team who have, during the last year, put through some incredibly impactful campaigning around the Covid messages. There has been massive societal behavioural change because of the clarity and the impact of the campaigns that we have done. Those campaigns have got better and better, and the most recent “look into my eyes” campaign, as it is now called, is one of the most impactful. When we look back on this campaign, we will think very highly of the marketing and communication skills of those in the Department of Health, the Cabinet Office and other departments, who have worked so hard in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, alluded to the vaccination of social care staff. She is absolutely right to allude to lists. One of the current difficulties is that we do not have proper lists of all those who work in various roles in social care, either as domiciliary staff or in unpaid roles. My colleagues are looking at this, and we are moving quickly to address it. I know that the noble Baroness feels very strongly about the vaccine dashboard; I have taken it back to the department and spoken to the vaccine team about it and I will raise the matter with them again. Regarding the unpaid carers and the delivery plan, I will take that to the department again. I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief, so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, science has got us this far and will get us through in the long run. In that context, the recent report from the British Society for Immunology stresses the importance of knowing the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines across all age groups and the need for immune monitoring across the vaccinated population. With the great news of over 10 million people having been vaccinated, we must know the nature and length of time of immunity that each vaccine delivers. The UK is in the best position to obtain this information that will help to plan future vaccination programmes, but we must start nationwide post-vaccination immune monitoring now. Will the Minister consider meeting the president of the society, Professor Arne Akbar, to explore this further?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord alludes with characteristic insight to one of the great frustrations and mysteries of Covid. It seems to me, a lay person and a neophyte in this area, that understanding the body’s immune response to something as simple as a virus such as Covid should be straightforward, but it is one of the unlocked mysteries of Covid. We are working extremely hard to unlock the mystery of it all. We have invested a huge amount in immunology and the detection of antibodies in the British public. I pay tribute to the UK Biobank study, a massive survey which has been going on for six months. It has found that 8.8% of the UK population had been infected by December 2020; 40% of them did not have a single classic symptom of Covid, and a quarter of those with antibodies were completely asymptomatic. We are doing other assessments as well—through the ONS, REACT, blood donors, the RCGP and others—and I would be very pleased to meet Professor Akbar to discuss this work further.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con) [V]
My Lords, in asking my noble friend the Minister about schools, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Last week, Public Health England confirmed that the health risks to and from the primary school population were very low, and that teachers are not at greater risk than the rest of the population of getting Covid or suffering its consequences. Other countries with similar case rates, such as the Netherlands, are planning to reopen their primary schools next week. Does the Minister agree that the toll of school closures is particularly acute on younger children and their parents, because those children often are unable to work independently, while the health benefits of these closures are minimal? Should the primary schools not be the very first institutions to open on 8 March?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend hits the nail on the head. Nothing could be a greater priority to the Government than the opening of all schools, and primary schools are at the top of the list. I pay tribute to all those parents and, if I may be so bold, particularly the mums, who have taken on the bulk of the work in dealing with young children at home while juggling other commitments to care and work. This is one aspect of one of the greatest emotional tolls on the British public. My noble friend is entirely right that the opening of schools is a massive priority. It hits hard those communities that depend on schools for care, and those that do not have the resources for at-home teaching. I completely agree with his assessment and assure him that it is a primary priority of the Government.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister also hits the nail on the head when he talks about a highly infectious new variant that is resistant to the vaccine. As he knows, the scientists have been pointing out that we will be living with this virus for a very long time, and other viruses like it will emerge in due course. I refer to an answer he gave me last week when I asked about antivirals. There are a number of antivirals in development at the moment in this country that look very promising, an interferon beta-based compound by Synairgen and ACTIV-2, which could be used for ambulant patients in the early stages of the disease. If we got people as soon as they had symptoms and tested positive, we could do a great deal of good and reduce the risk of mutation in the population. Have the Government any plans to do what they did excellently with vaccines: pre-order antivirals as they come through phase 3?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right to raise this issue. There is the awful possibility that the mutant vaccine escape virus could get around the vaccine altogether. We need a plan B, which might be dependent on antivirals as an alternative way of managing the disease. That is what happened with HIV, as we discussed last week. The therapeutic taskforce is looking at antivirals and putting together a plan to upscale our investment in that area. I am aware of Synairgen and ACTIV-2, but he is entirely right that this should now be a greater priority. I will take the matter back for the department to look into further.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, virologists tell us that, even with vaccines, we will be living with Covid for years to come. The Statement says:
“Our mission must be to stop its spread altogether and break those chains of transmission.”
To ensure that this happens, what changes have been made during this lockdown to improve the outcomes of the £22 billion test, trace and isolate system, for when the restrictions are eased?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay immense tribute to the test and trace system, which, at 11 am, published remarkable performance figures, as the noble Lord probably knows; 92% of tests were turned around before the next day, and 86% of contacts were traced. This is an incredible performance. On his specific point, the creation of a variant-of-concern tracing group that is targeted at those rare appearances of VOCs in the community is the important development that we have put in place in reaction to the mutant variants. I pay tribute to Steve McManus, who is running that programme, for the impact that he has already made on the problem.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, with the emergence of new variants, questions over vaccine-induced antibody response to these and the risk of children as asymptomatic carriers, will the Government ensure that schools’ policies are flexible, adapted to each child’s needs, so that children shielding a very sick parent or sibling at home will be able to continue with home schooling and not be forced back through punitive threats on parents; while children needing the security of school can continue to access school as at present and when the majority have the benefit of being able to return?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that we are absolutely putting the arrangements for pupils in the hands of schools themselves, because they know best how to look after their pupils and their teachers. The role of test and trace is to provide testing facilities and the resources to make schools safe, but it is up to the Department for Education, the local authorities and the schools themselves to protect those who need special arrangements, either because they are shielding or because they have other needs.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that everything possible must be done to ensure that this is the last national lockdown. To that end, is it not important that all information on vaccines, however sensitive it may be, is shared with Opposition leaders, if necessary, on Privy Council terms? Would it not help to avoid confrontations inside and outside the Chamber of the other place if the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition were to have a scheduled weekly meeting?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, they do have a scheduled weekly meeting: it is called PMQs. It is up to either side to decide how well it goes. To reassure my noble friend, we publish absolutely everything on the vaccine. We even publish the formula of the vaccine itself. The data is shared with local authorities—it is out there on the internet—and we could not be more transparent if we tried. We have worked very closely with the Information Commissioner; we have a massive data analytical team; and we are as open as we possibly can be because we believe that trust in the vaccine is absolutely essential to uptake, and therefore it is in our interests to take an open and transparent approach.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister said, quite rightly, that the priority for the vaccine is saving lives. Adults with learning difficulties have death rates comparable to those of the over-80s. Given the success of the vaccine rollout, is there any flexibility now for prioritising highly vulnerable groups, particularly when we know that the variants have to be controlled with extra vigilance?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right, and I am grateful to her for giving me sight of her question in advance. Her point is completely valid and I support her interest in this. The JCVI has made it plain what the initial rollout of priority groups 1 to 4 will be, but there is a mechanism whereby it reviews and reassesses the rollout of further priority groups. That will be the moment when it can look at the kind of questions she raises about groups, such as those with learning difficulties, who have a high rate of mortality. I can reassure her that it is conducting a rolling review of the rollout of the vaccination and will take these matters into account.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Since the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has withdrawn her name, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, I ask the Minister about British citizens working overseas. I declare an interest in that my son is in this category. We have done such a fantastic job here on the vaccines to date, but there are many British citizens working abroad in a volunteer, business or diplomatic role. They recognise the need for quarantine and the need for vaccinations to enable them to work between their UK base and their overseas commitments. How best can the Government include those UK citizens in our vaccination programme—clearly, not giving them priority but to ensure that we protect their health, as well as that of people living in Britain at the moment?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Government take very seriously their commitments and obligations to those British citizens who live overseas. It is a matter of considerable concern that they be included in the vaccination deployment. However, there are certain practical challenges with this, so we invite those who want the vaccination to return to British shores so that they can be part of the vaccination process, and to ensure that they are registered with their GPs so that they are included in the list. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are putting border measures in place that will ensure that we are protected against mutations and variants. Once again, therefore, I invite all those living overseas who want the vaccination to ensure that they have thought-through arrangements in place to return to this country to get their vaccinations.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is evidence of hesitancy to take Covid-19 vaccinations, particularly among some minority communities. I am involved in a national campaign that is actively encouraging everyone to take the vaccine. I raised this point in your Lordships’ House on 13 January, and my noble friend Lord Callanan arranged for us to meet virtually with senior officials from the Vaccine Taskforce. We have had two productive meetings with officials and are moving forward in a satisfactory manner. We received support from Nadhim Zahawi’s office as well as support and participation from a number of other Members from both Houses. Kawsar Zaman, who is a young, bright barrister, is undertaking the bulk of the work on our side. I thank everyone who is rendering this support and assistance, including my noble friend Lord Bethell. I hope that if we all work together, we can achieve the right results in the country. Does my noble friend agree?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his work in this matter. I am extremely pleased to hear that the meetings with officials have gone well. I pay tribute to all those parliamentarians in this House and the other place for their spirit of collaboration and for the unity with which those with an ethnic background, in particular, have worked together to champion the message around the vaccine. It is only through example and trusted influencers that we can get our message across. It has been one of the really refreshing and uplifting moments of this awful disease to see the kind of cross-party collaboration that we have in this matter. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and all his colleagues for the work they are doing in the community to get our message across.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be aware that domiciliary care workers are very vulnerable. They toddle around from person to person, they visit people’s homes, and the people whom they support are also vulnerable. Will the Minister ensure that domiciliary care workers are given the maximum protection, whether through vaccines or through other protective measures?
Secondly—I could not give the Minister notice of this because I only got the details a few minutes before we started—refugees are being held at the Napier Barracks in Folkstone. I am told that there are people there with Covid who are sleeping in the same dormitories as refugees who do not have Covid. There is very little medical support. Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, have a look at this and see what can be done?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have done an enormous amount for those who have been working in domiciliary care. The noble Lord is entirely right to shine a spotlight on those who play such an important role in the community, caring for the elderly and the infirm. The amount of itinerant travel, where these workers move from one person to another, has been dramatically reduced—partly to reduce the fear of infection. PPE has been used and we are putting testing in place for those working in domiciliary care. I am extremely pleased to report that this has had a huge impact on infection rates, and we will ensure that they are prioritised in the vaccine rollout accordingly.
I did not get the full details of the particular issue raised by the noble Lord in his second question, but if he would be kind enough to send me an email, I would be glad to look into it as he requested.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, on antivirals, I raise the issue of monoclonal antibody production. The work of the Government in establishing an enduring manufacturing capability and rollout capacity for vaccines is deeply impressive. Why, then, do they appear to be stepping back from the push to rapidly manufacture antibodies, which was a core part of Kate Bingham’s Covid strategy?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether we are completely stepping back from the production of monoclonal antibodies. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the briefing that he shared with me last month and for the opportunities to look at how we can onshore the manufacturing of monoclonal antibodies. He is entirely right: this is a critical area of life science production where Great Britain is frustratingly massively behind. In the resilience of our healthcare supply chains, we have a huge gap in this country, and it is one that we are keen to address. The Therapeutics Taskforce is looking at monoclonal antibodies as a way of supporting our response to Covid and we have, through Project Defend, a workstream to look at how we can encourage onshore manufacturing of these essential healthcare supplies.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, recent laboratory tests by scientists at Cambridge University show that one dose of the Pfizer vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies to kill off the virus, particularly for the over-80s, leaving them at risk of catching the South African variant. Will the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of these findings and what plans they have to speed up the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine for the over-80s and all care home residents?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the reminder from the noble Baroness. The analysis we have done of the Pfizer vaccine, and indeed of all vaccines, is extremely encouraging and the impact it has on the body’s antibody production rate is profound. In fact, for many vaccines it might be that a longer delay, of 12 weeks, to the second dose might have an improved impact on the body. The second dose is really important for longevity rather than for efficacy, and therefore, with the data we have at the moment, we do not have any plans to change the pace of the rollout, but we are making sure in absolute terms that the second dose is delivered to all those who have had a first dose, promptly and on time.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister repeated the statement earlier that said that all care home residents and staff have been offered vaccination, but this is not true for homes for people with learning disabilities. I was pleased to hear in the Minister’s reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that the JCVI is still considering priorities for groups 5 and 6. Is the Minister aware that 80% of the deaths of people with learning disabilities in England were Covid-19 related in the week ending 22 January, compared with 45% of the general population? Does he anticipate that all people with learning disabilities will be included in group 5 or 6?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have taken the noble Baroness’s insight on this to the department where it is being plugged into the Vaccine Taskforce and the JCVI. Her championship of this cause is to be lauded. The statistic she just cited is heart-rending, and I will definitely return to the department this afternoon and follow up, to ensure that it is being taken seriously.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, such has been the success of the vaccine rollout campaign that it seems that, by Easter, many millions of people will be due their second dose. Can my noble friend indicate how supplies will be allocated between them and the many millions of other people, often in public-facing jobs, who might still be awaiting their first?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend makes a key point on the dilemma we face. Do we prioritise the second dose or do we try to get the first dose to those who need it? Our policy is crystal clear: the second dose at 12 weeks will be delivered. Everyone who has had a first dose should get a letter or a contact in their 10th week and an appointment in the 11th week. That is our commitment, and we believe we have the supplies to see that through.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I would like to pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lady Thornton about what is being done about refusal of the vaccine. I was rather alarmed by the Minister’s reply that there are no statistics on this. I accept that the Government have shown great transparency on vaccines, but the fact that there are no statistics on refusals is a worry. Do the Government think that more could be done by local authorities responsible for domiciliary care and care homes in their area to check on this? Could they be more active in trying to identify ethnic minorities on their lists who have not been vaccinated, so that something could be done?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am afraid to say that the noble Lord’s point makes no sense to me whatever. We are not going to go around the country asking people whether they refused to take the vaccine. We have a dialogue with the whole country, and we wait patiently for people to step forward. I cannot give statistics on people who have refused because it would make no sense at all to ask people whether they are in that category.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the risks presented by aerosols, which, unlike droplets, are small enough to remain suspended in the air for hours and which expose individuals at distances beyond 2 metres? New evidence is emerging all the time, the latest just this week from the University of Bristol. Does he agree that we need a clearer position and stronger messaging on the risk of aerosol transmission indoors and the importance of ventilation, particularly as the vaccination programme rolls out, which will inevitably lead to calls to release restrictions and to reduce the 2-metre rule? We may need to add a fourth word, “ventilate”, to the mantra “hands, face, space”.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right that understanding of the role of aerosols is growing. Frankly, I find it quite terrifying. She is right that we need to look particularly at the way our office spaces are ventilated. The statistics I have seen on the potential cost of rebooting the ventilation of the UK’s workspaces in order to make them Covid-friendly are that it would cost tens of billions of pounds. Our focus is therefore on vaccine deployment, but work is going on to reimagine and envisage how workspaces could be made safer, not just for this pandemic but for the future. I can imagine a world where ventilation is given greater hygienic priority in future.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was rather alarmed at my noble friend describing himself as a neophyte. He rather strikes me as being a battle-hardened veteran by this stage. I shall ask him about convalescent plasma. We had high hopes of it a year ago, yet the recovery trial at Nuffield College has now been ended and the BMJ has concluded that there is no convincing evidence of its effectiveness. And yet the NHS website is still seeking volunteers, and just this morning I heard a radio advertisement pleading for more volunteers to come forward. Will he clear up the apparent confusion there? Is it still a possibility that this might be something we are pursuing, or has it been put to one side?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is right. The story of convalescent plasma is heartbreaking. I had extremely high hopes that it would be a rather wonderful way in which those who had been hit hard by Covid could be agents in the recovery of those who were newly in hospital. Convalescent plasma has a very successful record throughout history of being a source of therapeutic help, but the science is the science and we have to be respectful of the clinical trials, however heartbreaking the news is. We have massively downgraded our expectations. There is hope that convalescent plasma could be used in primary care in a very early intervention, but there are problems with the delivery of that medicine and primary care is not in great shape at the moment to be plugging blood into people just because they show some symptoms of Covid. We are continuing our collection until the last clinical trials in primary care are finalised, but I am afraid to say that our expectations in that area are much less than they were a few weeks ago.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern about the lack of clarity in the rules for visiting care homes and the impact on the right to family life. Who must be vaccinated in a care home before relatives can visit? Is it all residents and all staff? If so, does that not seem unrealistic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have huge sympathy with those looking at the human rights of those who cannot visit care homes. We have taken a huge hit to our civil liberties in our fight against this pandemic; no one can be under any illusion about that. However, I must say that the noble Baroness is wrong to hope that the vaccination gives any short-term hope that this will be changed. At the moment we are still living in a world where not enough people are vaccinated in order to stop the transmission through society, and where the rules on the transmissibility of the disease by those who are vaccinated have not been fully clarified. Therefore, even those who have been vaccinated should be staying at home.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Secretary of State rightly led his Statement with praise, mentioning the NHS and the many who have contributed to the successful jab results so far. However, he did not happen to mention the contribution made by members of the Armed Forces. Can the Minister say how many service men and women have been tasked with supporting this programme, and will the Treasury require the normal interdepartmental contribution to the defence budget to meet these military aid efforts?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not have the precise figures that the noble Lord asks for at my fingertips. All I know is that the armed services have performed an enormously important role in the deployment of the vaccine. Their logistical expertise and hands-on implementation of the jabs themselves have been invaluable. But, without making too much of it, this really has been an NHS-led achievement. It has been the NHS at its best, and I pay tribute to those in social care and on the front line of the NHS who have led this remarkable deployment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I regret that we have not been able to call everyone on the list but we have now come to the end of the 30 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I shall give a few seconds for Members and Ministers to change around before we continue.
National Security and Investment Bill
Thursday 4th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 January 2021 - (large version) - (20 Jan 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill represents a major upgrade to the Government’s powers to screen certain acquisitions on national security grounds. Through the new investment security unit within my department, the new regime provided for by the Bill will act as a vital new tool in the Government’s armoury to protect national security in a rapidly changing world. The UK’s current powers to intervene when mergers or acquisitions pose national security threats date from the Enterprise Act 2002. Apart from some limited exceptions, businesses must have a UK turnover of £70 million or meet a share-of-supply test for government intervention.
The world is of course a very different place now compared to when the Enterprise Act received Royal Assent in November 2002. When it comes to investment, we are seeing novel means to undermine the UK’s national security that go beyond traditional mergers and acquisitions and the reach of our current powers. The case for action in this area could therefore not be clearer.
The Government have carefully considered these reforms over time. We first published a Green Paper in October 2017, followed by a White Paper in July 2018. We have further considered what powers are necessary to reflect the modern economic and investment landscape in the UK. The Bill before us today is the culmination of all that work.
However, none of the provisions in the Bill change the Government’s position when it comes to foreign investment into the UK. Simply put, the UK economy thrives as a result of foreign direct investment. Since 2010-11 over 600,000 new jobs have been created thanks to more than 16,000 foreign direct investment projects. Inward investment stimulates economic growth in every part of our United Kingdom. In 2019-20 over 39,000 jobs were created in England thanks to FDI projects, with over 26,000 over those jobs coming outside London.
We have designed the regime with business in mind. For the first time, timelines for assessments will be set out in law, not decided by the Government on a case-by-case basis. This will give businesses certainty about the length of the assessments that they are subject to, and the Government will be able to revisit decisions only in exceptional circumstances.
The Bill brings our approach into line with many of our closest allies, including the United States, Canada, Australia, France and Germany, but it does not represent any change in our appetite for investment coming into this country from overseas. I will now go through some of its main provisions. Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill provides for a “call-in” power that the Secretary of State will be able to exercise if he reasonably suspects that a trigger event has taken or may take place that could give rise to a risk to national security. Any decision to use that call-in power could follow the receipt of a notification from parties, or could be a proactive choice on the part of the Secretary of State if an unnotified acquisition meets the relevant criteria.
The call-in power must be exercised within six months of the Secretary of State becoming aware of an acquisition, and within five years if he was not made aware of it. However, the five-year limit does not apply to acquisitions subject to mandatory notification. The scope of the call-in power applies to trigger events taking place from 12 November 2020—that is, the day following the Bill’s First Reading in the other place. This is to ensure that no acquisition can be accelerated to avoid scrutiny while the Bill is making its way through Parliament.
Before the call-in power can be used, the Secretary of State must lay a Statement before Parliament setting out how he expects to exercise the power. The Secretary of State published a draft of such a Statement when the Bill was introduced in the other place. I must be clear to the House that the criteria for use of the call-in power are deliberately tightly drawn on the grounds of national security, and the Government have no intention to widen this to introduce any further “public interest” criteria.
Chapter 2 of Part 1 sets out the trigger events that are subject to the scope of the call-in power. There are broadly two types of trigger events: first, the acquisition of control over entities such as companies, limited liability partnerships and trusts; and, secondly, the acquisition of control over assets, including land and intellectual property.
In respect of entities, the Bill sets out situations where the acquisition of certain levels of shares or votes constitute trigger events. I will not set out the individual thresholds to the House now, but broadly speaking they correspond to the ability of parties to pass or block types of company resolution. The Bill also retains the concept of “material influence” over an entity, as used in the Enterprise Act 2002, as a trigger event for the purposes of the Bill.
When it comes to assets, trigger events occur when parties are able to use a qualifying asset or to direct or control how it is used. Chapter 2 also sets out instances where notifying the Secretary of State of some acquisitions in certain sectors is mandatory. Again, I will not explore each one in detail, but the Government have been careful to ensure that only those scenarios where parties can reasonably self-assess whether their acquisition qualifies are captured.
Parties involved in acquisitions that do not meet the criteria for mandatory notification, but which believe that they could pose a national security risk, will be encouraged to submit a voluntary notification to the Government. The Secretary of State will need to take a decision on whether to call in an acquisition for a full national security assessment within 30 working days of accepting a notification, or instead let it proceed. Once he has taken this decision, he cannot revisit it unless false or misleading information has been provided.
To ensure that mandatory notification continues to work as envisaged in the future, the Government propose taking a power to be able to update the situations where notification is mandatory. The power would also allow the Government to exempt certain types of investor from mandatory notification requirements.
In terms of the sectors where some acquisitions will be subject to mandatory notification, the former Secretary of State published a consultation alongside the Bill introduction on the statutory definitions of the proposed 17 sectors. That consultation closed on 6 January of this year. We have had a good number of responses and I thank all of those who took the time to provide valuable insights. We are now working hard to respond to that consultation and to bring forward draft regulations for consideration as the Bill goes through this House.
I would like to stay with mandatory notification for a minute or two longer. Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 1 set out the mechanics of mandatory notification and the consequences of proceeding with a notifiable acquisition without clearance from the Secretary of State. Put simply, if parties proceed with such an acquisition, it has no effect in law. The Government recognise that this approach represents a harsh deterrent to parties that do not comply, willingly or otherwise. I will make just two points on this. First, it is vital for our national security that parties are strongly disincentivised from trying to avoid scrutiny by this regime. This is even more pressing in the sectors of the economy where the notification of certain acquisitions is mandatory. Secondly, affected parties will have recourse to apply to the Secretary of State for retrospective validation of such acquisitions, as set out in Clause 16.
Clause 15 also obliges the Secretary of State to either call in a non-notified mandatory acquisition or retrospectively validate it once he becomes aware of it, if no national security risks arise. Clause 17 obliges him to retrospectively validate a non-notified acquisition if it is called in and subsequently cleared to proceed. The Secretary of State cannot, in other words, simply allow an acquisition to remain void once he becomes aware of it: he must take action, either to grant clearance and retrospectively validate it, or impose remedies. It has to be this way around: that is to say that non-notified acquisitions should be able to be retrospectively validated, rather than retrospectively invalidated.
The remainder of Part 1 provides for a voluntary notification mechanism whereby parties can formally submit a notification to Government. As with mandatory notification, once the Secretary of State has taken a decision to let an acquisition proceed, he cannot revisit that decision unless false or misleading information has been provided. The Government are committed to giving parties clarity when it comes to this regime and voluntary notification is a key part of that. The Bill also provides for information-gathering powers for the Secretary of State to be able to come to fully informed decisions. There are also safeguards on the use and disclosure of such information.
I turn to Part 2, which provides for the assessment process and any remedies following a call-in. The Bill provides for an initial assessment period of 30 working days once a call-in notice has been given, with an additional period of 45 working days. A further voluntary period is possible if certain criteria are met. I believe this represents a significant improvement on the current process under the Enterprise Act 2002, whereby the Secretary of State sets the assessment timetable on a case-by-case basis. For the first time, timelines for assessment will be set out in statute so that investors can build them into their own plans.
In the course of the assessment period, the Secretary of State may wish to impose interim orders to mitigate any national security risks that could arise as he undertakes this investigation. Such orders could be imposed, for example, to stop or prevent parties doing certain things that they would normally do prior to completing an acquisition, such as exchanging sensitive information. At the end of the assessment period, the Secretary of State must either give a final notification to allow the acquisition to proceed, or a final order if he believes that national security risks could arise as a result of the acquisition. All orders must be kept under review and parties are free to request that they are varied or revoked.
The Secretary of State will be supported in making decisions by the investment security unit which, as I said earlier, is being set up within my department. This new unit will be fully resourced to manage the administrative process for screening notifications and undertaking national security assessments. It will draw on expertise from across government and from the security services. If noble Lords permit, I will go through the rest of the Bill a bit more swiftly as I know there are many who wish to speak in this important debate.
Part 3 provides for a range of offences, along with associated criminal and civil sanctions, although I expect criminal cases in relation to offences committed under the regime to be exceptionally rare. Parties will, of course, have recourse to judicial review in relation to certain decisions made under the regime. Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill contain a number of miscellaneous provisions. Clauses 54 to 56 provide for smooth and timely information sharing when relevant between the Government and overseas public authorities, HMRC and the CMA. These are important clauses to ensure that time is not lost to administrative red tape and that information is appropriately handled.
Clause 61 provides for an annual report to Parliament, which will provide details of the number of notifications received, the number of call-in notices given and the sectors of the economy where they were served, among others. I will return finally to the fundamentals of the Bill before us. It is imperative for any Government to have the tools they need to protect national security in what is a rapidly changing world. This Bill will keep the British people safe. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. He will be pleased to know that, as he will have gathered from its passage through the Commons, the Opposition are fully supportive —we might even say “at last”. We will, however, be wanting to make a few changes to ensure that it works even better than the Government envisage.
Today’s debate, not unusually for your Lordships’ House, will bring together an experienced group of speakers with expertise in industry, defence and security. I particularly look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Woodley, who will speak from his own knowledge of the field. Some of his former trade union members, whom he represented, worked in defence sectors and thus played their role in the defence of the realm.
We hardly need to repeat that national security is the number one priority for any Government. We welcome the changes the Bill makes to ensure that investment, whether in companies, land, assets or know-how, never jeopardises our security. Our only surprise, as my honourable friend Chi Onwurah pointed out in the Commons, was that the impact assessment
“regrets that national security is an area of market failure requiring that the Government do something about it.”
As she said about that quite astonishing claim:
“National security is not a private concern first and a Government afterthought second. National security is the first reason for Government. It is not undersupplied by the market; it is outside the market altogether.” —[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/21; col. 998]
Putting that to one side, we welcome the new and updated regime for intervening in business transactions that might raise national security concerns. We applaud both the requirement for automatic pre-acquisition referrals in some areas, as well as a voluntary notification system and the ability to call in acquisitions of sensitive entities and assets where it is thought they need a national security assessment.
I do, however, wonder whether sufficient thought has been given not just to tangible or IP assets but to the brain power which is vital to dealing with the security threats of today. It is not simply a matter of retaining domestic control over key assets, but also of ensuring that we grow and nurture the skill sets needed for this rapidly changing technology, where we need ability and domestic capability here in the UK. Could the Minister reflect on this when he comes to reply? Could he also comment on whether crucial national infrastructure is likely to be covered in the automatic notification part?
The Bill as it stands should be capable, subject to some issues over capacity which my noble friend Lord Grantchester will address when he winds, of protecting vital security interests. Our questions are twofold. First, they are about the security capability and cross-departmental working within BEIS. Secondly, they are about parliamentary scrutiny, which appears woefully thin.
Much of the business department’s work is to foster and promote inward investment, for the best of reasons. The UK has twice the direct foreign investment of France or Germany. That is good for our economy but potentially risky for security. Because of that dual responsibility, it is surely challenging to give the business department almost the opposite role to that of a cheerleader for investment: to check and sometimes prevent such investment. Indeed, it almost looks like a potential case of moral hazard. Can the Minister confirm that, at least, there will be strict Chinese walls within the department?
Perhaps even more fundamentally, it is hard to see how the Minister’s department can be close enough to departments dealing with land use, defence, supply chains, higher education, foreign relations, transport, science and medicine to be fully aware of what is happening across those areas. Traditionally it has been the Cabinet Office that handles such significant cross-departmental or multiagency working.
Having looked carefully at the draft Statement setting out the three types of risk to be considered by the Business Secretary—the target risk, a trigger event, and the acquirer risk, according to the Minister—it is clear that while judgments as to degree of ownership or control of a business fall within his department’s expertise, some of the other security judgments listed, such as the hostility of a particular state or knowledge of our security services, are not among those traditionally made by business specialists. The backgrounds and expertise of the advising personnel will need to be drawn from across other departments, and many of them will require high-grade security clearance. The decisions taken will be serious and could impact on our international and diplomatic relations, including with close allies.
I recognise that this remit has been with the business department to date, but the increased remit of the Bill—the sheer number of cases and their increased sensitivity—makes the future quite different from what was correct in 2002. Is the Minister therefore confident that the passing on of intelligence and advice from around Whitehall will work smoothly in the new set-up?
Allied to the nature of this work is my second question, which is about whether the Bill allows for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions which will fall to the business department. A strong case was made in the Commons for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be given an explicit role in scrutinising the working of the Bill; indeed, its chair spelled out very clearly how it was well within the committee’s terms of reference to handle it.
The response of the Minister in the Commons was rather disappointing, to say the least. He said that the Intelligence and Security Committee could ask for extra information or invite the Minister to attend if it wanted. However, as a Nobel laureate commented
“they do not know what they do not know.”
Indeed: the committee will not know what it has not been told until and unless it sees a report. The Intelligence and Security Committee, with its security clearance, would be able to do a proper job on behalf of Parliament in seeing how these powers are—or indeed are not—being used.
We need therefore to amend the Bill, along the lines suggested in the Commons, to ensure that reports are made to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on whether this would be best achieved via a government amendment.
We welcome the Bill, which, as I said, is in some ways sorely overdue. We will scrutinise it seriously and call for changes to be made, particularly in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and ensuring that the new unit has the skill set, working methods and resources to ensure that its decisions are timely, cross-departmental and forward-looking, so that it safeguards our future security. I look forward to working with the Minister as we take the Bill through the House.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
I too thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction. I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of the corporate finance faculty of the ICAEW, whose members comprise business owners, advisers to business and investors.
I believe that there will be little argument during the Bill’s passage about the principle involved of protecting national security. There will, however, be considerable debate about its scope and practical operation. Foreign investment is crucial to UK businesses and the economy. On these Benches we accept that it is important to put in place legislation to protect against national security risks posed by such investment. But this is a major change from previous provisions under the Enterprise Act, and must be done in a way that is workable and does not deter productive investment.
The Government have argued that it is necessary to give the Secretary of State greater powers to scrutinise investment in the UK, considering the technological, economic and geopolitical changes that have taken place over the past 20 years. However, the scope of the Bill and of the Secretary of State’s powers risk being far too broad, while lacking any industrial strategy to frame them or any clear geopolitical focus. Indeed, there is no definition of what constitutes national security.
How too will the Bill fit within the integrated review? Ministers have made it clear that the Bill is about the protection of national security, not national interest—but where does national security end and economic or commercial security, or critical infrastructure, begin? Will there be overlap between regulators, such as between the ISU and the CMA?
There is also the retrospectivity, which goes back to November and could already be having a chilling effect on inward investment and causing uncertainty in the investment community, not least in pension funds. For such funds the investment environment is crucial, and as a university chair I am only too well aware of the concerns expressed by USS. As the largest private pension fund in the country, its concerns should be taken very seriously. Arguably even more importantly, as the Russell Group has pointed out, the Bill could have a potentially damaging impact on university/business collaborations.
Many of my noble friends will focus on these issues in today’s debate. The key elements needed to achieve the balance required of the new regime will be achieved by pre-empting and mitigating the inevitable risks for the market by setting out a clearly defined scope. The Government have engaged in a long—some would say leisurely—process of Green Paper and White Paper consultation leading up to this Bill over the past three and a half years, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty around how it will work in practice.
The current sectors, as set out in the consultation, are incredibly broad. For instance, in respect of AI, the development of which I am reasonably familiar with, the definition is so wide that it captures any company developing any kind of application involving machine learning or deep neural networks.
We look forward to seeing the outcome of the promised consultation during the passage of the Bill, but we need to considerably narrow the width of the sectors captured. This in itself would not resolve the fact that many, if not most, technologies have both civilian and security uses, which potentially opens every deal to challenge. Taking dual-use biotechnologies as an example, how do we manage national security concerns without stifling innovation?
We also need to question the low thresholds adopted for market share and turnover, and the generous time given to the Secretary of State to intervene—especially given the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial powers.
We need to reduce uncertainty to a minimum. Even a mandatory notification system for transactions means instituting an open pre-consultation process with market participants. In particular, it is essential, as the ICAEW has emphasised throughout, that the investment security unit publishes meaningful market guidance notes akin to the practice notes published alongside, but not as part of, the takeover code.
The Bill includes the requirement for the ISU to publish an annual report, but formal guidance will be much more useful, and, as they say, it is an important way of dealing with asymmetry of information among the investment and advisory community. A particularly good example will be in respect of trigger events that involve securing influence or control over qualifying intangible assets, such as know-how and intellectual property. It is possible to gain access to intellectual property through means other than ownership, so the question is: how might those intangible assets be applied in ways that could prejudice our national security in some way? The new unit may initially assess that on a case-by-case basis, but it will need to quickly come to establish a basis of precedent for its decisions. Along with the corporate finance community, I believe that the requirement for market guidance notes should be incorporated in the Bill.
All this means properly resourcing the ISU, which will need to determine which of some 1,000 to 1,800 transactions are to be analysed: 70 to 95, it seems, although many think this an underestimate. This compares to just 12 acquisitions reviewed under the Enterprise Act’s national security provisions since 2002. Otherwise, this will result in a huge number of mandatory notifications, which will overwhelm the new unit. The bottom line is that we need to make sure that a proportionate and last-resort approach is applied to government scrutiny of, and intervention in, these transactions.
In addition, given the low turnover thresholds involved—I have noted the Commons debate—many of us are concerned about the impact on SMEs. The impact assessment suggests that “80% of transactions” in the scope of mandatory notification under the Bill would involve SMEs. However, the assessment failed to consider the costs faced by the acquired companies or the impact on funding for start-ups.
However much we try to circumscribe the Bill, it will not always be possible to reduce uncertainty and risk. It will depend on the culture of the ISU to a great extent as well, so, when considering the Bill, we should heed the warning of John Fingleton, former chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading, in his recent article in the Financial Times. We must not let this Bill become an investment killer; it needs to be very clearly targeted and proportionate. I look forward to the debate and the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I remind the House of my interests as recorded in the register.
I am instinctively against all forms of protectionism, including those that apply to inward investment. Our current minimalist framework, set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, with a few recent tweaks, has served us well. As my noble friend the Minister has reminded us, the UK has benefited considerably from inward investment: UK companies with foreign direct investment links accounted for over 30% of UK employment and 40% of GVA, according to the latest detailed analysis by the ONS. Our investment partners, led by the US, are very largely from similar open democracies.
However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the security of our nation is the top priority for any Government, and that is why this Bill has my support. It is our duty as Parliament to ensure that the Government have the powers they need to keep us secure.
Most investments are undertaken with a sound commercial logic, but we know that not all investment is driven this way. In particular, it is right to question the investment motives of organisations within states that do not share our values—or, to put it more directly, assets that are important for our security should not fall under the influence of China or Russia—and a few other states, although they do not on the whole have the resources to make significant acquisitions. I support the Government having powers to achieve that.
At the same time, we must ensure that the Government’s powers are proportionate to the threats and that they do not have unintended consequences. This is especially important in the context of the major economic renewal that is necessary as we deal with the pain inflicted on our economy by the Government’s lockdown policies.
I have some reservations about the Bill, which I look forward to exploring further in Committee. The first—which has been mentioned—is about whether the wording of the Bill gives the Government a secure armoury. It is firmly framed in terms of “national security”, but that is not defined in it, and there are no powers in it to do so. I believe that this is too important to be left to the courts. Instead, the Secretary of State will make a Statement about how he will use the power to call in transactions, including the sectors to be targeted, but Parliament’s involvement is only via the negative procedure. That feels weak.
I also have a concern that the Government’s current view of “national security” is insufficiently comprehensive. The Government are consulting on 17 sectors on which they plan to focus the new powers. While that sounds like a lot, the list does not coincide with the separate list of critical national infrastructure, drawn up by the Government’s Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure. In particular, I cite water and financial services: two quick ways to bring the country grinding to a halt are a lack of clean water supplies and the failure of payment systems. Why would the Government not want to be notified about potential takeovers of major players in these industry sectors as well?
I am concerned about the Bill’s impact on investment in both large and small companies—this has already been mentioned. I fear that the necessary power to block transactions that are undesirable on national security grounds could have a traumatic impact on investment transactions more broadly, and indeed I fear that the UK may lose its reputation as a good place to invest.
It will obviously be necessary for all the mandatory notifications to be handled efficiently, but the volumes will be critical to this. The impact statement has some very wide ranges in terms of the number of transactions that need to be handled, and the Government have very little idea about the volumes of asset rather than share-based transactions, which will come within the ambit of the Bill.
I am absolutely sure that, if there is any possibility of a transaction being within the scope of the legislation, lawyers will recommend notification; the penalties involved make this a no-brainer. If you add to that precautionary voluntary notifications, There could be very large volumes of notifications and they will not be confined to the early days, as people get familiar with the topic, because the risks to transactions will remain throughout the life of this legislation. We will need to explore in Committee how best to ensure that the system is not overwhelmed, with resultant harm to investment activity generally.
The core purpose of this Bill is good, and that is why I support it, but it will need careful scrutiny in Committee to ensure that the balance is right between protecting the UK’s security and growing the economy.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, business investment will be central to shaping our competitive and dynamic economy. I am attracted to this Bill because it is a further building block in defining the country we are becoming in a new-look UK. After passing through the parliamentary labyrinth, the Bill should ensure that the UK remains one of the world’s top destinations for foreign investment, which is achieved by maximising its attractiveness for investment, while safeguarding our national security. The Government are setting out our stall with clear messaging of being a force for good, and they are setting an example to the world that we are not just open for business but mindful of standards and accountability.
Care should be taken, however, that safeguards do not unintendedly hamper UK competitiveness or limit investment that does not pose a national security risk. I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. The mandatory reporting regime for transactions should be narrow and based on evidence of real risk, and should not result in unintended consequences.
The Government’s call-in power under the Bill will be proportionate, sufficient to address any residual concerns that could arise in relation to transactions involving active or passive infrastructure. There are challenges, however, regarding the call-in power, which provides for the Secretary of State to call in transactions triggered by a person gaining control of a qualifying entity or qualifying asset that is considered to give rise to a national security risk. A significant extraterritorial impact also arises from the drafting of Clause 7(6), as these call-in powers could be construed to apply to every export deal from the UK to overseas. Understandably, UK exporters and overseas customers will want to mitigate the risk of call-in by the UK Government, so removing ambiguity from the scope of the call-in power is important—all the more reason to ensure that extraterritorial reach does not become an inadvertent consequence of any ambiguity in the drafting and interpretation.
As things stand, the likelihood is that UK exporters, particularly in sensitive sectors such as defence or military dual-use, will err on the side of caution and seek additional clearances from BEIS for such transactions in addition to making standard UK export licence applications. This interpretation of the Bill could lead, in practice, to a significant annual increase in the volume of voluntary notifications as the means of mitigating the risk of, and uncertainty over, future call-in on national security grounds. I venture, therefore, the need for a targeted amendment to this primary legislation, and for statutory guidance from BEIS, to remove uncertainty.
If I might express this differently: our proposed amendment to the primary legislation could be to the effect that where qualifying assets are authorised for export through the Export Control Act, a transaction or acquisition is automatically exempt from call-in and/or the voluntary notification regime.
Moving on to intellectual property issues, IP licences and assignments are a fundamental offering in business transactions and are inextricably linked with technology offerings both within and outside the UK. The UK export control regime already serves as a robust former national security screening regime for IP assets. Adding a parallel or second national security review under this NSI regime seems unnecessary. Would the Minister be minded to clarify the interplay between these two regimes? If this is the intention behind the Bill, the department will need to publish clear guidance to explain this extraterritorial reach and the interplay. This could bring technology platforms, sales, in-service support contracts with existing foreign customers and in-country technology transfers of capability—whether under Government-to-Government arrangements or in direct sales to a foreign Government or government-controlled entity—into the scope for call-in by the Secretary of State. Such proposals and resulting contracts will be subject to, and conditional on, stringent UK export control licensing processes in addition to any applicable pre-clearances through the MoD Form 680 process, which requires companies to obtain approval from the MoD to release information or equipment classified “official sensitive” and above to foreign entities.
Clauses 7 and 9 will also catch IP offerings that form part of offset transactions related to prime contracts with overseas Governments. This bring licences, assignments and transfers of IP into scope. Clause 7 defines qualifying assets as including
“ideas, information or techniques which have industrial, commercial or other economic value”.
Examples include
“trade secrets … databases … source code … algorithms … formulae”
and “designs”. Clause 7(6) further provides that IP assets are in scope only if they are used
“in connection with … activities carried on in the United Kingdom, or … the supply of goods or services to persons in the United Kingdom.”
Clause 9 states that
“a person gains control of a qualifying asset if the person acquires a right or interest in, or in relation to, the asset and as a result the person is able … to use the asset, or use it to a greater extent than prior to the acquisition, or … to direct or control how the asset is used, or direct or control how it is used to a greater extent than prior to the acquisition.”
Would the Minister comment on these aspects in his response or, at least, commit to a considered response in writing?
In conclusion, the Bill is a good starter for 10.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill and congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on bringing it forward.
At the beginning of each day this House sits, our prayers recognise the delicate balancing act we have to perform. On the one hand, our precious democracy depends on the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the realm. It is this social capital, this trust, this commitment to the common good, which sets people free to go about their business and allows for innovation, trade and wealth creation. This is fundamental to all we do. On the other hand, our prayers acknowledge that sometimes malign forces at work will look for opportunities to take advantage of us, and we cannot ignore, as the prayers put it, the enemies of the state, which we pray will be vanquished and overcome.
This balancing act has to be maintained, as we have left the European Union and are seeking to establish the role we want to play in the world—the global village. We know that there is strength in collaboration and in sharing information and technology for the sake of the whole world. We want to maximise this, as has been mentioned, in our universities in particular, which are one of our huge success stories. How can we set these groups free to capitalise on all the opportunities ahead? The development of the Covid-19 vaccines is a classic example of the benefits we get when we work collaboratively across the world. Nevertheless, we have to make sure emerging technologies and science are harnessed for the common good and not exploited for the military, economic or political ends of those seeking to undermine what is, nowadays, a fragile democracy, as we see threats in various parts of the globe.
In the past few days, Members of this House have been struggling with questions of how we use our legislative clout and moral leadership as we stand up and defend human rights. I take the Minister’s assurance that the Bill will be tightly defined. Nevertheless, we are going to be operating in a world where horrific stories of the persecution of the Uighurs, the Rohingyas and Christian minorities in places such as China and Myanmar immediately come to mind, which is why I hope, as we work on the details of the Bill, we will come back to the wider context in which we are set.
Some nations are not slow to use their economic power to further their own aims. Think, for example, of the Chinese increase in tariffs on Australian wines last November. We are aware that previous Governments supported Chinese foreign investment, potentially leaving critical national infrastructure under a regime that seems to be diverging further and further from our values and everything I hope we will stand for in the future.
As the Bill works its way through its various stages in this House, I know a number of us will be pushing for clarification in several areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted, there is a need for more careful definition of what we mean by “national security” and which areas are simply “national interest”. We need to do that so that we do not hinder people. There is a danger that the notification process, as others have put far more eloquently than I can, could introduce more red tape and delay at a time when we need our entrepreneurs, especially SMEs, to be agile, nimble and exploiting opportunities more widely.
Despite the promise of an annual report, we need to look at the extent to which Parliament will be able to scrutinise what is going on. We know that in periods of transition, as we have seen in our ports and at customs, we can sometimes be overwhelmed suddenly and get backlogs that harm us. There are vital issues here about making sure there are adequate resources to help this scrutiny go forward.
I will close by saying that I hope that the Bill ushers in a larger conversation about strategic industries within the UK. Perhaps one of the enduring lessons of the pandemic is that when a global crisis comes along, solidarity can quickly go out of the window, as each nation looks after their own. Free trade is important and can bring prosperity but it can leave poorer nations vulnerable. It is important that, should another large crisis occur in the future, we are not only resilient and able to avoid shocks; we also need to think about wider areas such as food security, medicines and access to resources in order to safeguard strategic industries and ensure that we are prepared for what feels like an increasingly vulnerable world that we are living in. I look forward to working on the Bill with others in this House.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and remind the House of my interests, as registered. Thus far, the Bill has enjoyed qualified support from all sides of both Houses during its passage through Parliament. However, I confess some concerns about its scope. For instance, I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that essential elements of our critical national infrastructure appear to be inexplicably missing from the coverage of the Bill.
However, today I want to focus on one general point that I believe may prove potentially dangerous for our economic well-being and, ultimately, our national security. I refer to the Secretary of State’s assertion that the Bill strikes the right balance between encouraging inward investment and protecting national security. That remains an assertion since, inevitably, at present it remains untested and unproven. It can and will be affirmed only by successful implementation.
Colleagues from all Benches have offered several amendments intended to ensure a successful outcome of that balance: all thus far have been defeated. I say to the Government that in due course they may find that their victories on this are proved pyrrhic, so I hope that they will be more open-minded to some of these constructive amendments in the course of our following debates. There are some areas where we can agree. We can surely agree that in a networked world it has become clear that a qualifying entity or asset of concern can no longer be defined just by the size of the venture, its market share or its direct involvement in the defence sector. It is right also that the threshold for concern, the “trigger event”, is changed and that consideration extends for a five-year window.
Yet the threshold for change is no easy matter. Colleagues on all Benches are right to raise questions about basic definitions—not least for “national security” —which made filling the scrutiny gap helpful rather than a hindrance to the intended legislative outcomes. We should proceed with care. Now is not the time for the United Kingdom to hamper productivity gains.
Vaccine nationalism has given us a taste of how counterproductive any isolationism can be. Likewise, many of our most severe national security challenges are global. If “build back better” and “levelling up” are to support a “global Britain”—all slogans at the forefront of the Government’s mind—then imposing disproportionate and unaffordable costs on the wellsprings of productivity will be most unwise. Large organisations may absorb these transaction costs, but networks of small and medium-sized enterprises, not to mention start-ups trying to scale up and, above all, the universities from which these arise, will struggle to absorb such transaction costs.
It is not so much the land or tangible assets that are the problem. It is that amorphous third category of qualifying asset—ideas. Those will be the hard cases. If we are wise, we should track the implications of the Bill back to our universities. The evidence over decades is clear. It is not financiers, nor the entrepreneurial state per se that catalyses innovation-driven productivity —it is our universities. You have only to look at the genealogy of our biggest unicorns to see how much they owe to universities, both directly and with ideas created from research, and in enabling start-ups to scale up with highly educated workers. Ultimately, our security rests on a productive economy. Everything flows from that, and that has to be innovation driven.
The Government’s consultation listed 17 sectors, 15 of which covered almost all growth areas in which SMEs, start-ups and universities catalyse the uptake of innovation. Asking them to master the tracking of dual-use, beneficial ownership or agents of influence seeking to take control is a tall order indeed. If our future productivity is not to experience a severe chill, the sector-specific guidance offered by BEIS’s new investment security unit will have to come with much support from competent staff and adequate resourcing to support SMEs and other organisations or networks unable to fully or adequately provide them themselves. It would be wise too, as several noble Lords have mentioned, for the unit to be properly scrutinised.
If these things are not done, the potential for harm may be hard to overestimate, making a nonsense of the assertion that a proper balance between national security and productivity has been struck. In short, we cannot ignore the evolving security risks and the Government are right to address them in this Bill, but we need to be able to handle them in a pragmatic and proportionate way. Otherwise, in the long run, that would be a real threat to our national security.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, as ever, some very wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, with his vast experience. Of course—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am afraid we cannot hear the noble Lord. Can he get closer to his microphone? We may have to come back to him.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes that is much better. Can the noble Lord start again, as we could not hear?
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
Yes, so long as I get the time. My Lords—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord needs to point his head upwards. As soon as he speaks we cannot hear him again.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
I will try again. Any Bill with the phrase “national security”—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am really sorry but we cannot hear the noble Lord. We will ask the broadcasters to check the connection and we will come back to him.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I really do have to declare some interests in the context of this Bill. I am the senior partner of Cavendish Corporate Finance, which specialises in advising owners of SMEs on their exit, typically by trade sale or to private equity. I started Cavendish some 30 years ago, and mergers and acquisitions has been my line of work for some 35 years. My business has grown, as nowadays entrepreneurs frequently start a business specifically to grow it and then sell it after a few years, to let another organisation take over with different skill sets as the business outgrows its original founders. In days gone by, family businesses were just that—kept in families for generations. Although I have sold an eighth-generation family business, that is very unusual. Years ago, selling out used to have negative connotations; today, it is seen as mark of success and to be applauded. As a result, SMEs have flourished in the UK, accounting for over 95% of enterprises and some two-thirds of employment.
The UK is seen as a world leader in facilitating new businesses to start up and grow. Much has facilitated this explosion in entrepreneurial flair. Recent Governments have made it easy to start a business, and the combination of relatively low regulation, easy access to finance, and a can-do attitude—unique in Europe—has prevailed. I only hope that the Government do not bring it all to a crashing halt by increasing capital gains tax rates in the Budget next month, but that is not a subject for today.
What is for today is to recognise that FDI here has been a tremendous success. We are consistently second or third in the world, and have long been the first in Europe—and those investors can choose to invest anywhere in the world. When they are asked why, one reason cited is our high standing in the World Bank index of ease of doing business; that includes our flexibility in the labour market, which is second to none. I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, who may address that subject.
Another really important aspect, and top of many investors’ lists, has been our rule of law. Investors are hugely attracted to the unique UK legal system, and one of its key features is certainty. We may be about to lose that key plus point.
Many speakers here will, like my noble friend Lady Noakes and me, instinctively want the Government to push for economic growth through market freedom, allowing business to flourish away from government interference. Indeed, I am the chairman for the Lords of the Campaign for Economic Growth. Our president is my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham—a role model for many of us—and we see the dilemma that the Government face, brought into sharp focus by the issues concerning 5G and Huawei.
Economic decisions taken for political reasons rarely lead to good results. As we see in this Bill, the definitions are hard to determine. Few companies are in one sector alone; they are in many. Large numbers of acquisitive, seemingly British companies, particularly those backed by private equity, are in fact technically owned by funds based in Guernsey. Uncertainty in investment leads to only one thing: an increase in the return demanded as compensation, so lowering the price, as a result of the risk factors, and of course lowering subsequent tax revenue.
We can readily observe overseas investors stalling transactions at the moment, just to see where this is going. Why risk investing in a UK company if, when the company becomes so successful that it attracts overseas interest, the process to sell it is hampered, and may even be barred, thus reducing its value? I say “may” even be barred, because it will not be possible to give certainty. Warm words might come from this Government, which have been rightly trusted by business, but this legislation will give less competent and less business-friendly Administrations in the future—they might occur—the power to make life difficult for investors from a particular country that they just do not want to make welcome in the UK.
A former Trade Minister told me this week that he wanted to see 10 Downing Street look at every piece of new legislation through the prism of an SME. Is it helpful or is it unhelpful? This Bill is not helpful—or at least, aspects of it are not helpful. So I hope that BEIS, under its new excellent Secretary of State, will table some of the amendments that were discussed in the Commons, and were suggested by organisations such as the corporate finance faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, of which I had at one point the honour to chair.
The proposed investment security unit may well be swamped: there are some 10,000 M&A deals every year. I cannot see how anyone could have made the estimate of up to 1,830 referrals a year—what an odd number. In any event, how can people possibly know? We need to look at really good precedent models like the Takeover Panel, whose appeals committee I served on, which gives guidance, help and advice to ensure an efficient market. Its practice notes could be emulated, and we must have a fast-track pre-clearing system, together with a big hike in the thresholds and the creation of sensible white-list exemptions to avoid a massive crunch in transactions.
We need much greater clarity on what is national security, and fast problem-resolving mechanisms, with a recognition that some industries, such as cybertech, will have real dual-use issues, whereby a small proportion of their business might be caught, thereby prejudicing their chance of attracting investment, as the exit will be hampered.
The UK has a proud reputation as an excellent place to invest and do business. The phenomenal growth of fintech in the UK did not happen by chance. Look at the people running these businesses, and look at where the money has come from. They have chosen the UK as they believe in the UK as a country with a mindset for standing back and letting business get on with generating wealth for our citizens. Let us not disappoint them.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the National Security and Investment Bill has a number of provisions: a separate national security screening regime, a broadening of the range of investments in scope, a statutory requirement for parties to notify relevant transactions in the most sensitive areas of the economy, and a new process for business investors supported by a call-in power to enable the BEIS Secretary of State to assess deals that may give rise to national security risks. The Bill allows for a retrospective call-in decision for up to five years, with criminal sanctions attached, and a predictable statutory process.
The CBI, of which I am president, supports the principle of the legislation in protecting national security, which will always be a priority. However, the current drafting makes the practical application of the Bill difficult for business. It could lead to additional burden, complexity at a micro level and, potentially, an unintended deterrent to investment at a macro level.
We heard from a wide range of businesses and members who share concerns about the Bill in its current form, from technology and digital to facilities management, to pharmaceuticals, to higher education, to financial services and to defence. There is a concern for a broad subsection of the business community. For example, the Russell Group says that if reporting under either the mandatory or voluntary regimes leads to delays or concerns from the business community over its ability to do business with universities, this could harm its members’ ability to attract investment to all parts of the UK in future.
With no set de minimis thresholds for transactions caught by the legislation, there is a risk that a high volume of notifications will inadvertently represent relatively low-risk activity driven by a maximalist approach from legal teams and counsel. The extraterritorial nature of the provisions of the Bill means that many transactions involving target suppliers supplying goods and services outside the UK will be caught in the notification requirements. Against a backdrop of the maximalist approach in business, there is a real concern about the Government’s capacity to process the projected number of notifications while the regulation is in its infancy.
According to the CFIUS annual report, 231 notices were filed with the US investment screening regime in 2019, with 113 resulting in subsequent investigation. The Government currently estimate that there will be up to 1,800 annual notifications under the regime, and there is concern that the true predicted estimates could reach up to 10,000, although the Government say that the number of transactions called in would be no more than 100. Can the Minister confirm that?
To allow for greater efficiency in the system, the UK might wish proactively to utilise the benefits of a white-list process for countries and/or companies. That could be incorporated through future trade deals if the legislation provides flexibility. However, this investment regime should not have the unintended consequence of deterring foreign investment just when the UK needs to increase its attractiveness to foreign investment, and just as we have come through the pandemic and established the UK as an independent trading nation post Brexit.
We are the second or third largest recipient of inward investment in the world. We have always been a gateway to the European Union, and we need to continue to be a gateway, including for foreign direct investment. The requirements for mandatory reporting in 17 sectors across the economy will vastly increase reporting requirements for business, damage the competitiveness of key sectors such as the tech sector, which relies on investment in start-up and scale-up, and create an impossible workload for British officials.
Companies across key sectors of the economy, from finance to universities, are also concerned that the UK regime is more onerous than its equivalents in the US, France, Germany and Australia, with more stringent thresholds for transactions and less clear guidance in areas. I ask the Government: have they carried out clear benchmarking and taken the best of all other existing regimes before coming up with our legislation now?
We should not forget the SMEs, which do not have the legal departments to wade through the complex provisions of the Bill. We want to work with business, and direct engagement with the Business Department has so far been very good. The Government have shown a willingness to consider targeted changes to the Bill, to ensure that business can help to make it a success.
I will run through a few of these changes, which could include a de minimis; making sanctions for transactions for mandatory filing that has not been made more workable; reducing the extra-territorial application of the call-in power; and introducing a fast-track process for less risky transactions, clarifying the time limits on the exercise of the call-in power. That could include creating checks and balances beyond the threat of judicial review, such as appraisal from an expert panel drawn from Whitehall and industry, introducing detailed guidance for investors. When qualifying assets are authorised for access for export through the UK Export Council regime, consideration should be given to exemption for the call-in. Further changes could ensure that for key sectors there is scope for the mandatory regime to be as clearly and narrowly defined as it is for those sectors that are of material interest to national security. There should be clarifications that IP provisions would not mean that companies exporting sensitive goods with de facto transfer of IP would not need to double report, if they had already received an export licence.
The City of London has given feedback and commented that the Bill represents a significant expansion of the UK’s FDI regime, given that since the Enterprise Act intervention regime was introduced in 2002, nearly 20 years ago, there have been just 12 interventions on the basis of national security. It appears that a new regime will see a large increase in the Government’s workload. Once again, the City of London said that it seems to be a much stricter regime than those brought in by other countries, including the USA, Australia, Japan and many in Europe. City sources also said that they recognise that it now sits alongside the new Office for Investment, a unit designed to attract high value and strategic FDI into the UK.
To conclude, the University of Cambridge—I declare my interest—says that it stands ready to work with the Government to protect Britain from emerging national threats by hostile foreign actors. The university understands and fully supports the dual thrust of the Bill materially to expand the Government’s ability to manage risk and foreign investment on national security grounds while avoiding adversely impacting the UK’s economy, global competitiveness and attractions as a forum for inward investment. However, it is concerned about the possible adverse impact of some elements of the Bill on higher education and the rest of the business sector.
Lord Woodley (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to join your Lordships’ House and speak in this debate today. Turning to the subject of the Bill, I believe that critical national infrastructures should be controlled and operated in the public interest, and certainly not run for private profit or sold off to corporate investors in a way that jeopardises jobs, safety and the security of the British people.
Before I continue, I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House, all officials and staff for their very warm and hospitable welcome. I also extend sincere thanks to my two distinguished supporters, my noble friends Lord Collins and Lady Blower. I also thank Jeremy Corbyn, for giving me the opportunity to enter this illustrious House, and Gordon Brown, for giving me the encouragement to accept a peerage.
I understand the privilege that I have been given; I also understand poverty. I was born in Wallasey on the Wirral and had a humble upbringing, with my parents fighting to put food on the table each day for me and my sisters in our two-up and two-down house, with no hot water and an outside toilet. They were often unable to pay the rent. Free school meals were a must in those days to feed us kids. Shamefully, as many in this House recognise, 60 years on, the need is as great today. On a lighter note, if I ever see prunes and custard again, I will give up the will to live.
As a merchant seaman at the age of 15, I travelled to most areas of the Far East and beyond, watching the exploitation, poverty and child abuse. The unfairness in our world, at home and abroad, had the most profound effect on me. It helped to create my moral compass and the progressive politics that have driven my life ever since. I became a workers’ representative at Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port, a shop steward and convener, and the last general secretary of Britain’s most famous union, the Transport and General Workers’ Union and a creator of Unite the Union.
Personally negotiating and working with many of the world’s largest companies, CEOs and Ministers, particularly in the automotive and manufacturing industries, has been great. Yes, we had our disputes, but I spent more time working for and with companies for investment, protecting jobs and plants, than we ever did fighting each other. I have always said that I have known many good bosses, but I have never known a generous one.
While we have many good examples in the Bill we are debating, particularly those given by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, privatisation and outsourcing have all too often become a blight of our lives, leading to the fragmentation of services, operational inefficiencies and the short-termism culture that puts the interest of shareholders before the interests of workers and the wider public. Privatisation has failed again and again. We recently witnessed this with the failure of the part privatisation at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, responsible for no less than the design, manufacture and support of warheads for the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons, which had to be brought back under direct control of the Ministry of Defence. Need I say more?
At least the Bill represents recognition from Ministers that there is an over-riding public interest in stopping essential assets from falling into the hands of nefarious interests. The general thrust of the Bill is to be welcomed, and I look forward to debating the details as it completes its passage.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
It gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Woodley’s maiden speech and welcome him. While growing up, I am sure very few, if any, of our friends would have ever believed that we would end up here in your Lordships’ House. I have known Tony for many years, through my time at the GMB and his at the Transport and General Workers’ Union. We all know, and we have heard, how proud Tony is of his time as a shop steward, a union officer and general secretary of TGWU, and now Unite.
However, there are a couple of interesting, even surprising, activities that he does not often shout about. He is rightly very proud of his role at Vauxhall Motors Football Club where, as chairman, he has led a committed team in developing the facilities. The club has a new all-weather pitch—a number of pitches—and a new club house. Thousands of children and young people have got involved and played on those football pitches at Ellesmere Port. Forty-seven teams compete in the league from the age of five upwards—it is a real community.
Tony has been involved in the Cuban Five or Miami Five campaign for many years. Not many of us can say that we have been involved in a prisoner swap, never mind one that involved the Pope, our Prime Minister and the US President. In late 2014, the prisoners’ release and exchanges, including Jewish American prisoner Alan Gross, were all secured during the end of a 16-year campaign, and we saw for a short time a step change in the Cuban-US relationships. Tony, welcome to the House.
Turning to today’s debate, I would like to focus on two issues: first, the importance of clarifying national security and, secondly, accountability and oversight. Before I do, allow me to make a few introductory remarks. Safeguarding our national security has always been critical to our nation’s future, but never more so than now. I support the Bill, which strengthens the powers of the Government to intervene when corporate transactions threaten national security. However, I believe that the Bill would be strengthened by a number of amendments, which I am sure will be forthcoming from all sides of the House as it passes through. The scale and sophistication of national security threats have materially increased since the current limited screening regime was introduced by the Enterprise Act back in 2002. Importantly, the Bill follows—if not offers a little UK catch-up—similar moves by many other countries, as outlined by the Minister in his introduction.
Turning to how the Bill should clarify national security, it gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State but does not give any statutory guidance on the meaning of national security. Surely it would be sensible to include guidance on factors that would be captured by national security, outlining references to critical national infrastructure and economic security specifically. Such guidance would also provide much needed clarity for business.
Although the Bill is aimed at all investments—not just foreign investments—foreign companies, sovereign wealth funds and other international finance vehicles seeking to invest in companies and projects could pose a particular threat, whether that is relevant to critical infrastructure, personal data or cutting-edge technologies. The decline in democratically accountable Governments is highlighted by the Democracy Index, which recently stated:
“The global score of 5.44 out of ten is the lowest recorded since the index began in 2006.”
This is a real cause for concern. Any investment, not just critical national infrastructure, should automatically raise a red flag.
As we heard earlier, Part 3 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State quasi-judicial powers by allowing them to act as the key decision-maker for all decisions under the new regime. As we have heard, BEIS has previously been a cheerleader for Huawei and others, overly open to investment and pro-market to an extent that requires meaningful checks and balances. I do not believe that the Bill as drafted offers these. One option would be for a cross-departmental body to oversee the call-in powers. I listened to the Minister talk about the investment security unit in his introduction but I am not sure that that was clear, as my noble friend Lady Hayter outlined in her introductory remarks. Some further clarity on that would be much appreciated.
Finally, I worry that the Bill does not go far enough on takeovers, mergers and acquisitions outwith the realm of national security. For years the Government have refused to do more to protect growing UK companies so that they are less likely to be taken over, asset stripped or gutted by overseas businesses—which are often anti-trade union. Developing a robust takeover regime is essential if we want firms in our key sectors to grow and provide good jobs here in the UK. It is notable that we are coming into line with other countries on national security but not on takeovers; given the economic impact of coronavirus and potential corporate vulnerability, the case is now stronger, not weaker. The Bill is a missed opportunity to bring forward a comprehensive industrial strategy to help businesses to recover, grow and create jobs.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord McNally, again.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hope I am coming through loud and clear now, otherwise we will have to give up. I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I am very pleased that I am now able to follow him.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans posed the moral dilemma of how we trade with the world while standing up for human rights and democracy. I have no direct interests to declare, but I have been a long-time supporter of expanding our relations with China. I say this because the Bill is being interpreted in the media and among policy analysts as mainly aimed at China. I remember, not so long ago, Conservative Prime Ministers extolling a new “golden age” of trade, investment and collaboration with China. We need a very clear statement of where we now stand in these matters. Are we at the start of a new cold war with China? What range of inward and outward investments will this legislation bite on? Will there be guidance on what goods and services will be covered? Will there be national security implications that bite on third countries and trading blocs with which both we and China have relations? We need clarity on this.
My other interest is in the space industry. I act as spear carrier to my noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Randerson, who lead from the Front Bench on these matters for the Liberal Democrats. I am also a member of the all-party space group, and my son is a space engineer working for a Franco-German satellite company in Munich. Last week, I attended a round table with companies involved in the space industry. Concern was expressed about the implications of the Bill for both companies and universities, and about where this legislation draws the line on collaboration and joint working. I am old enough to remember when Britain last tried to go it alone in space with Black Arrow and Blue Streak, and I worry about the extent to which this legislation is a dangerous step away from international co-operation in space. It has even been suggested that this legislation will mean that security and military considerations will dominate future space policy.
It is a reflection of where we are going that in the last century, at the height of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were able to co-operate on the international space station and multinational space flights, yet today US law prevents collaboration in these fields with China. The outcome could well be that the next boots on the moon have “Made in China” on them. During the 20th century we were able to de-escalate the Cold War with a series of treaties. Should we not be pressing ahead with international treaties to prevent the militarisation and weaponization of space?
On a broader front, I have been concerned with the number of bodies—from international infrastructure investors to the City of London, the Russell group of universities and the Law Society—which have raised concerns that will need to be explored in Committee, including the expansion of bureaucracy implied by the Bill.
I have no doubt that the Bill will pass. But during its passage through the House I hope we will stress-test its proportionality and explore where it will take us, both in space and other sectors, and assess the chilling effect it will have on relations with those with whom we wish to trade and co-operate.
I thank noble Lords, and I thank the technicians for getting me in touch.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Bill addresses the real concern of the need to safeguard UK national security and reflects the changing nature of threats to that. Indeed, there is much concern now about the rise of China, as my noble friend Lord McNally has just noted. There are clearly both opportunities and threats here. The debate over Huawei reflected this concern, as did Chinese involvement in our energy infrastructure. The concern that our technology might be stolen is also a huge area.
Devising a legal structure that deals with these potential threats has clearly been a challenge. The Law Society of Scotland points out that:
“It is a complex task to create a system which will balance the need to maintain an open business environment and promote fair competition with the need to protect national security.”
There is a real risk that the Bill will constrain investment into the United Kingdom—as the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Bilimoria have just said—at a time when, post Brexit, that is necessary, or that the EU might regard us as protectionist and penalise us. Clarity and transparency are therefore clearly vital.
As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans pointed out, national security is not defined, and this therefore leaves much in the hands of Ministers. Difficult as it will be, a definition is surely required. There is huge scope in the 17 sectors which fall under the Bill. Given all the other pressing matters that the Government will have to deal with post Brexit and post coronavirus, their unit is likely to be overwhelmed. On this point, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—a rare event for me. Companies and their lawyers are indeed likely to err on the side of caution and refer themselves in. The Government have probably made a gross underestimate of the number of cases they will need to assess here. The Government have said that they will bring detail through secondary legislation, but that is itself concerning, as this is presented to Parliament on a “take it or leave it” basis.
As for where we see security challenges, we have already seen concern during the pandemic about overreliance on China; for example, for PPE. Who would have thought that cotton could be seen as a national security question? We must add in the Foreign Secretary’s recent announcement that businesses must, rightly, examine their supply chains and not source from the labour camps of Xinjiang or other centres of human rights abuses. We cannot rely on such appalling sources. Given that much PPE may have originated there, the challenge becomes even clearer.
The integrated review of the defence and security of the United Kingdom should surely have preceded this legislation, so that we could see what the Government think are the major threats facing the country: whether cyber, pandemics or other threats. Will the noble Lord tell us when that review is now expected, so that we can look at it alongside the Bill? The pandemic and Brexit have indeed shown us the risks of outsourcing as much as we now do.
How does the Bill sit with any industrial strategy? As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones noted, we need that too, to understand better the key areas in the UK economy and the threats to them. In 2012, when my right honourable friend Vince Cable drew up his industrial strategy, he emphasised the biosciences. Investment in the Crick Institute, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, and elsewhere was increased, and that has paid off in spades in this pandemic, where we have led the world in genomics, vaccine research and much else.
We understand that the integrated review will also emphasise the UK as a science or bioscience power. Tackling climate change must also be part of that, for the UK but also globally. However, we also know that these are areas where China intends to excel, and surely has the resources to do so. China has disproportionate control, for example, over the minerals required for electric vehicle batteries and wind turbines. So, are these areas where our security is at risk? If so, how will the lines be drawn? How will our universities and research centres be impacted by the Bill, as others have asked? The Russell Group points out that they drew in investment worth over £1 billion in 2018-19, and they are concerned about the scope of the Bill, about uncertainty and delays.
This is a challenging area. There are, indeed, new threats to the UK that were not anticipated when the Enterprise Act was passed in 2002. The balance between encouraging investment and maintaining security needs to be carefully considered. As other speakers have said, there are questions here whether the structures proposed will manage adequately to support that investment while also defending national security. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, let me say at the outset that I welcome the proposition that underpins the Bill—the proposition that we need to act to protect our critical national infrastructure from the possibility of malign actions by external agents operating under the cover of legitimate businesses. We live in an era when those who wish us ill will not confine themselves to traditional forms of confrontation; they will seek to exploit weaknesses in the fabric of our social and economic structure. Technological advances bring with them exciting opportunities to do new things, or to do old things in new ways, but unfortunately, they also introduce new vulnerabilities, and the more complex and interconnected society becomes, the more vulnerable it is to shocks. It is this vulnerability that we must address.
The proposed involvement of Huawei in the UK’s 5G network certainly brought the issue to the fore, and although there were some exaggerations on both sides of the argument, people were right to be worried about the involvement of a foreign Government—the claim that Huawei is a private company free from any influence of the Chinese Government is, frankly, risible—in such a crucial part of our infrastructure. So, in my view there is certainly a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The question is how well this Bill contributes to that process. It is, I think, a good starting point, but we need to take care that it does not end up being more of a hindrance than a help.
I return to my central point: those things that advance the capabilities of our society introduce new vulnerabilities. However, the reverse is also true: those things that introduce new vulnerabilities also advance the capabilities of our society. The free flow of ideas, inward investment, the introduction of new business processes; all these things contribute to the health of our economy, to the opportunities within society and, indeed, to aspects of our national security. So, in constraining a laissez-faire approach—and it does need to be constrained—we must be careful lest we do more damage than we prevent. Our constraints need to be carefully balanced and well targeted, which of course begs the question of how we decide on that balance and on the appropriate targets.
Key to that is our definition of national security and our judgment of how far it needs to be applied to business questions. In thinking about this, we should realise that in our world, there is no such thing as perfect protection. We cannot foresee, let alone protect against, all eventualities. We will make mistakes, since error is a fundamental part of the human condition, and these will undoubtedly come back to haunt us. With that in mind, we should take as our aim not the complete elimination of danger but the creation of resilience.
Resilience depends, in part, upon redundancy. In order to provide such redundancy within critical sectors of our society, we may well need to broaden, rather than narrow, the involvement of overseas companies and inward investors. We must be careful that, in seeking to exclude potentially malign actors, we do not also deter those whose involvement would actually improve our national security. Resilience also depends upon agility, the ability to react swiftly and decisively to changing circumstances, or to challenges that we did not or could not foresee. The potential danger lurking within the Bill is that it could create a rather sclerotic bureaucratic process. Taken together, the mandatory and voluntary schemes are likely to result in a flood of applications. If the mechanisms set up to implement the measures in the Bill become clogged with endless paperwork and ponderous deliberations, we risk a situation where the focus is on process rather than results. Nothing could be further removed from the kind of agile, responsive system that we need. We would not only hamper innovation and flexibility within business, we would also increase, rather than reduce, the risk of a successful attack by a potential and perceptive enemy.
For me, the Bill is not about principle but about practice. How will applications be triaged so that effort is focused on the true risks? How will judgments be reached that strike the appropriate balance? How will they be monitored in a rapidly changing world, and how will they be adapted to take account of such changes? My concern is that government departments are not traditionally good at responsiveness and agility. It seems to me that the composition of the investment security unit within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be an important factor in this regard. If it operates as a fairly standard departmental committee, I fear we will not see the outcome intended in the Bill. To what extent will the new unit draw in external expertise from both the business and security sides of the equation? To what extent will it be able to maintain a long-term view of issues? Will it be able to form a cumulative picture of risk, rather than just looking at each matter on an individual basis? How will its work be audited, assessed and reported?
I support the Bill, but before it is passed into law, I believe we need some firm assurances that the mechanisms and processes set up to give it effect will be fit for purpose in this complex and dynamic world.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on a critical piece of legislation and to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, to the House and congratulate him on his maiden speech.
There can be no dispute that the powers in this welcome Bill are absolutely essential to protect this country from hostile forces that would undermine our national security. The legislation has been a long time in gestation. The current statutory basis for the scrutiny of takeovers is the Enterprise Act 2002 and our partners have long since updated their legislation to bring it into line with the massive technological and other advances of the past 20 years. It is high time that we did so, too.
The powers in the Bill should be used only on the grounds of national security and not for intervening for wider economic purposes or, of course, political reasons. I ask the Government to clarify how they intend to ensure that that will indeed be the case if “national security” is not defined in the Bill. While protecting national security, we need at the same time to ensure that we do not unnecessarily hinder foreign investment through uncertainty and unnecessary extra administrative burdens. The United Kingdom has always attracted considerable foreign direct investment and my own area, Northern Ireland, has one of the highest proportions of FDI per capita of regions in the United Kingdom outside London and the south-east. The Bill is the National Security and Investment Bill—I stress “and Investment”. It is important that there is proper balance between protecting national security on the one hand and making sure that the United Kingdom remains fully open for business and foreign investment on the other.
The new investment security unit in the business department that has been mentioned a number of times will be crucial to the smooth operation of the new regime and must be properly resourced from day one. We have been told that there could be up to 1,800 notifications a year, although the voluntary notification system could result in a much higher level of work than is currently anticipated. In the early days at least, many companies are bound to seek reassurance, which could lead to the authorities being swamped. People will err on the side of caution. I understand that at present there are about 60 notifications a year to the Competition and Markets Authority, for example. Will the Government ensure that staffing levels will be sufficient, and will the staff and officials in the unit have the training and the technological and other resources to cope from the outset? If there is a greater level of notifications, resources will have to be increased rather than there being any extension of the administrative timelines for the declaration of notifications.
Particular attention, as has been said by other noble Lords, needs to be paid to the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises. Under the previous regime, a business to be acquired must have a UK turnover of more than £70 million and the merger must meet a minimum 25% market threshold. That meant that sensitive smaller companies were not covered. I totally accept that nowadays it is not the size of the business that should be the test of whether threats may be posed by foreign investment, so it is right that the Government take powers to intervene in the case of smaller businesses. But they must ensure that that does not threaten investment in small firms and stifle their growth.
It is expected that small and medium-sized enterprises will now make up some 80% of the transactions under the new regime, so steps should be taken to provide timely guidance to SMEs in particular about the impact of the new regime. It may be that the Government should consider setting up a special unit to engage with smaller and medium-sized companies to help them negotiate the new rules, and they should certainly keep that under review and monitor how the new rules are affecting that sector.
No doubt, many of these issues can and will be explored more fully in Committee but I add my welcome for the principles of the Bill and there should be no question about getting this legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Bill. It has been a long time in coming. I intend to look at the context of the Bill and its genesis. Over a decade ago, when I was working in the MoD, we saw newspaper reports that 90% of cyberattacks on the UK came from one house in Shanghai. This Bill is largely about Chinese influence being embedded in our critical national infrastructure and that is why we should concentrate on China. I wish the Chinese people well but the Chinese Communist Party is pursuing a policy of hegemony and aggrandisement. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, agreed that this has been generated by China.
I will cite a few examples. The Chinese have been building military bases on reefs built out of concrete on islands in the South China Sea, which they now claim to have territorial waters around. The belt and road initiative, which is eight years old or thereabouts, was welcomed by the media and, seemingly, western Governments. But, in fact, China has been buying up Africa, Sri Lanka and elsewhere with its belt and road initiative. I was in Ethiopia 15 months ago, where there is a brand new airport in Addis Ababa. Ethiopia may find that some of these debts do not get repaid but that is for another day. Over a decade ago, we knew about Chinese reverse engineering whereby they get hold of sophisticated technology and military equipment, work out how to build the stuff themselves and then use western secret technology against us. I hope we understand that now the scales have fallen from our eyes at last. Charles Parton of the Royal United Services Institute, speaking to the Commons Committee on the Bill, described the Chinese Government as pursuing a policy of “civil-military fusion”. That sums it up.
As we can now see, we can believe reports about Chinese treatment of the Uighurs, which perhaps we denied for some time. There are BBC reports today about systematic rape. We know about organ theft [Inaudible] million people. We can see what is happening in Hong Kong, where the Chinese are breaking the terms of the joint declaration, a legally binding international agreement. We can see the military threat to Taiwan and, I fear, the chance of war. We can see Chinese moves to building a military and commercial empire, and using threats and economic muscle against, for instance, Australian wine exports after that country dared to criticise the Chinese and suggest that the virus came from Wuhan.
I support the Bill for those reasons because our national security is under threat. The Government have got the message rather late—Huawei being excluded from 5G is a particular point that I raise—but it is not six years since Xi Jinping was entertained here and declared the UK to be the best Chinese partner in the West. Indeed, George Osborne said that this would be
“a golden decade for the UK-China relationship”.
Today, Manchester University has cancelled an agreement with a Chinese electronics technology company because of that company’s involvement in surveillance in Xinjiang. Ofcom has—again, this day—revoked the licence of Chinese broadcaster CGTN because the company is
“ultimately controlled by the Chinese Communist party.”
Although Cambridge University has helpfully sent us all a briefing paper saying how important Chinese money is to it, I should have thought that the exposure by the noble Lord, Lord Moore, of Jesus College and others in Cambridge and their close ties with China would have shamed it a little, at least.
Surely nobody can doubt any more the unfriendly intent of China. The genocide amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, two days ago showed that the House of Lords understands that the behaviour of the Chinese needs, at the very least, close examination. Sadly, the EU has just signed a huge trade agreement with China, which is regrettable. Yes, we want inward investment, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, and economic growth. We want to trade with the world, including China, but we need to protect ourselves and peace first, and the Bill goes some way towards doing that. I know that Governments do not always get legislation right, so we will watch the progress of the Bill, and amendments will certainly be needed as it progresses, but its spirit is correct and I support it.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend, no longer in his place, on his maiden speech. I have to say, though, that Jeremy Corbyn is not my cup of tea, but clearly my noble friend Lord Woodley is a decent fellow, because he is an ex-sailor.
For several years, a number of us have been concerned about the impact of inappropriate takeovers and dual ownership of firms that were key to our critical national infrastructure and essential sovereign capability of cutting-edge research, technology, and equipment production and control. Some seven years ago, the ISC became very aware of this, and it was clear to it that national security issues around investment decisions were not properly being taken into account, so it said to the Government that they should take some action. I am therefore pleased to see this Bill progressing through Parliament. The legislation is vital to protect the UK’s security across a range of areas.
Having waited seven years for the Government to bring forward legislation, it is beholden on us and them to get it right, and there is one rather large hole in the Bill: there is no proper oversight by Parliament. In Clause 61, there is provision for an annual report to this House, but that report will contain the bare minimum of detail. The Minister has told the other place that the BEIS Select Committee will provide further oversight, and indeed that is the case when it comes to the economic aspects of decision-making. The BEIS Select Committee cannot see detailed classified national security material and, by their nature, decisions made under this legislation will require deep engagement with sensitive material and a clear-eyed understanding of the possible conflict between encouraging business and protecting our national security.
There is currently no provision for oversight of national security material on which decisions will be taken. The ISC was established in 1994 to provide exactly that oversight: to examine matters that Parliament could not, because they are too sensitive to be discussed in public. It is therefore surprising that the Bill, as drafted, does not provide for oversight by the ISC. The investment decisions that the Bill covers are currently taken, in modified form—as has been mentioned by a couple of previous speakers—by national security elements within the Cabinet Office. Therefore, they are within the purview of the ISC. As these decisions will move to BEIS, that oversight will now be removed, so the Bill is in fact a step backwards.
During the passage of the Bill through the other place, it was proposed that the ISC should receive an annual report on the sensitive issues covered by the Bill. In response, the Minister said that the ISC could always request that information from his department. That is, frankly, not good enough. As my colleagues on the ISC have already noted, without statutory provision for routine ISC scrutiny in the Bill, there is a possibility that, no matter how well intentioned this Government may be, future Governments may refuse to provide such information to the ISC. The Minister had already argued in the other place that the ISC’s remit does not extend to oversight of BEIS work, which undermines his later claim that the ISC can request information.
Therefore, unless the Minister says something to change my view, I intend to submit an amendment that would expand the current reporting requirements to include reporting to the ISC, incorporating details of the national security decision-making process into the existing annual report in Clause 61, allowing the Secretary of State to redact those matters from the report laid before Parliament and instead provide them to the ISC by way of a secret annexe. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that this is a constructive approach, in that it would lessen the burden upon the new BEIS investment security unit. If, for some extraordinary reason, the Minister is unable to accept this, the alternative would be to assure this House that the work of the new unit will be brought within the remit of the ISC by including it within the memorandum of understanding that sits underneath the Justice and Security Act.
It is critical that there is oversight of matters that Parliament itself cannot oversee. This House should not be passing legislation that allows for action in the name of national security without providing for oversight of that action.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his excellent maiden speech. I welcome this Bill to ensure that our national security is better protected. For too long, it has been far too easy for foreign interests to take over and strip this country of vital companies, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. Concerns were also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord West. As noble Lords have identified, some of these interests represent hostile Governments and entities; others do not, but the impact on some crucial sectors and the ability of this country to protect itself are just as severe.
Our previous attempts to intervene on grounds of national security have been woefully inadequate, dating back most recently to the Enterprise Act 2002 and the limited role of the Competition and Markets Authority. Forget about hostile state actors, for a moment. Under this legislation, we lost defence giant GKN and satellite firm Inmarsat. We face losing British chip giant Arm in a £30 billion takeover and a buyout of security firm G4S, which is a government contractor at prisons and nuclear power stations. Another UK defence giant, Cobham, was sold in January 2020 to US equity firm Advent, despite security concerns. As noble Lords know, Cobham is a world leader in air-to-air refuelling. Lady Nadine Cobham, daughter-in-law of the firm’s founder, rightly said that such a sale would never have been allowed by the US, France or Japan.
The UK has been behind the curve in protecting sectors vital to our national security from foreign takeover. Take the United States: CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, was established back in 1988. It has a history of actively blocking takeovers that are deemed not in the national interest. A federal inter-agency committee, it is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury. Additional members of CFIUS include the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, Energy and Labor, the Attorney-General and the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Americans take this very seriously. Perhaps Her Majesty’s Government should take a leaf out of the Americans’ book and set up a similarly high-powered co-ordinating committee. An underresourced investment security unit in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as proposed in the Bill, is hardly the same.
We are not only well behind the US, but behind the EU. The EU is to beef up investment screening rules to block foreign takeovers of European companies tied to national security. Agreed last March, this came into effect in October. The European move was stimulated by Germany’s experience, back in 2016, after the successful bid by China’s Midea Group for industrial robotics specialist Kuka, which prompted a national outcry.
The UK has been slow to wake up to the dangers. Her Majesty’s Government’s national security risk assessment identified the threat in 2015, only after it had been pointed out in Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee report, published two years before. At that time, the ISC investigated Huawei’s involvement with BT and the potential threat to our critical national infrastructure, or CNI. The vulnerability of our CNI, including our communications and national grid, represents one of our greatest security challenges. A debilitating attack on our national grid could cost thousands of lives and billions of pounds. There can be no energy security for the UK where the possibility of interruption to our energy supplies remains.
As one senior nuclear engineer, who has spent decades in the industry, told me, there is no way a country could prevent a foreign-designed or foreign-operated civil nuclear power station from having the means to control it embedded in its systems. We would simply never know. You have to be pretty sure you know who your friends are when it comes to that sort of investment in the UK’s nuclear sector. The ex-diplomat Charlie Parton, who was quoted earlier, said that the Chinese follow a policy of “civil-military fusion”, where it is difficult to see where the state ends and the private sector begins—or vice versa. They are not the only ones globally.
I have a couple of points on the Bill itself. I do not agree with those in the other place and in your Lordships’ House who have talked about amending the Bill to include a definition or framework of national security. The Government must have maximum flexibility to meet any security challenges as they arise. We cannot legislate now for the threats of the future and it would be foolish to attempt to do so.
Secondly, the proposal for an annual report to the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as to the House itself, is a good idea. Dr Julian Lewis, chair of the ISC, rightly pointed to what would otherwise be a scrutiny gap, as was mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord West. With proper scrutiny, however, this legislation cannot come too soon.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is about intervention when there is a transfer of control that puts at risk our security, and possibly vital supplies and critical infrastructure. I recall concern about vulnerability in the Economic Affairs Committee’s 2017 inquiry and then report, The Price of Power, regarding electricity markets. Indeed, concerns do not have to relate to hostile foreign Governments, and that raises questions about how geographic lines will be drawn for the purposes of this Bill and what part trade agreements play. Will measures under the Bill constitute security measures that trump trade and investment agreements? How far is the Bill directed at not losing technology and R&D capacity more generally, given that undertakings during takeovers are often useless?
The Bill before us has one basic element, the notion of a trigger event relating to control, and then it is rather like a puzzle book. Has the Secretary of State got every possibility covered? Schedule 1 is particularly entertaining to try and design around, but what does it really mean in practice? One thing seemingly left out is an export-only manufacturer. I suppose that export licences would cover security issues, but could that not still be a loss of knowhow? While on that subject, why are licences or intellectual property rights not explicitly mentioned in Clause 7, and perhaps other choses in action—or are they “things in action” nowadays?
If one accepts the “trigger” notion, it becomes an exercise in how to make it work and where the burdens lie. For one thing, it will require people with a wide range of knowledge, including in cutting-edge science and engineering, to do the scrutiny. Notifications will hit at a rate of more than four a day under the Government’s estimate, and may be much higher if there are lots of precautionary submissions. How much time does the Minister consider it takes an individual to scrutinise technology and understand the ramifications? How much reliance depends on the notifier, and what level and volume of information and data will be needed in a notification? A real problem is not where it is already known that there are security implications, but where that is a theoretical potential.
I have experience of battling over secrecy restrictions on patent applications, when key words would trigger a secrecy order because that was all the designated official could understand. Words with dual use implications such as “radar”, “laser” or “spread spectrum” in their time almost always gave spurious, annoying triggers—spurious because when it was known that there were security implications, that was made clear in advance, and annoying because it would be several months before the “all clear” from the MoD review would come back. An insecticide that could be nerve gas famously slipped through. Can we be assured that arts graduates will not be in charge of analysing scientific information? Let us hope that that is a thing of the past, but the scope of this framework Bill has raised concern from universities faced with how to comply with yet unknown notification requirements and the implications of delays when there are short timescales for concluding competitive contracts with sponsors for research.
The unfiltered sectoral scope is presently staggering. Looking at the list of materials, which is of particular interest to me as a solid-state physicist, apart from it being huge, I wondered how on earth people would know at early-stage developments whether something was notifiable if there had not been a specific notifiable type of target use? When designing materials to provide protection in car crashes, would their use in armaments always spring to mind? How early does speculative usefulness count? “Speculative” is a difficult concept in an academic world that demands hard evidence to substantiate claims.
Call-ins do not commence until there is a statement about how powers will be exercised. It is expected that the statement will narrow things to a more manageable scope, but Clause 1(8) says that statements are not actually limiting. Will the Minister confirm that that is meant as an emergency power rather than a regular fallback?
Once the Bill passes, there is a Damocles’ sword over everything in the 17 sectors, which is a problem for businesses needing to plan ahead for investment sources. The statement is all important and I would like to know more about it. Is it to be one big statement covering everything or is it going to be staged in some way, and why does Parliament get a vote only at the end, with no advance consultation or ongoing oversight of any kind? This is an instance where information on the scope of the statement is vital before legislation is passed and before consultation on a draft statement. Can the Minister give an example of what is envisaged in any area to enable a feel for the type of narrowing or detail under consideration? I am not against the notion of interventions, but the Bill should be more than notion and compulsion, and I hope that it is possible to include more direction and balance.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to what is already an interesting debate. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his introduction because it has helped us to see the Bill’s shape very well. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and look forward to his contributions to our debates on this Bill and in the future.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on what became the Enterprise Act 2002. I do not think that we lacked an understanding at that time, in the wake of the terrorist attack in 2001, of the nature of the emerging risks of asymmetric and unconventional threats to this country. The point is that the Enterprise Act is limited since it relates to qualifying mergers, and of course to some extent it is a post hoc regime when what we need is something that gives people clear notice of and predictability about the nature of any intervention. The scope and the need for these interventions under this legislation is warranted and I support the Bill.
My noble friend the Minister said that there are, as it were, complementary or parallel regimes in other countries. Actually, they are different, and what is being proposed here by the Government for this country is better. For example, the EU regulation relates essentially to the screening of investments across a wide range, but of course, that is not limited to national security. It includes, for example, the media sector because that concerns national security and public security, and it drifts into public order. The fact that we are focused on national security is important. Indeed, one can see from the way the scheme is implemented in France, where it is focused on foreign ownership, that it also drifts into strategic autonomy, which is the new phrase of the moment in the European Union.
We might want to be more autonomous in terms of our supply chains, but this is not the mechanism for doing that. This Bill is about national security and it is rightly focused on that—“project defence”, as my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to it. If we want resilient supply chains, we must have mechanisms which focus on that, but let us not confuse them with the proposition that these necessarily represent a threat to our national security; let us focus on these things separately. For example, promoting foreign direct investment remains an objective that we all support, and the Office for Investment within the Department for International Trade is a welcome step in that direction.
We have a series of distinct purposes with distinct regimes. I will not go on at length because many noble Lords have already helpfully illustrated where we need to look in Committee, particularly at how the regime is going to work. I shall mention some points that I think will be important.
The first is that we have to think about how this regime interacts with all the others. How does it interact with the public interest regime, for example? My noble friend talked about the financial services sector, and of course there is a public interest intervention regime under the Enterprise Act as well, and there is the question of how the competition regime is to work. We want to secure ourselves against risks, but we do not want so to diminish competition as to harm consumers.
We need to look at other regulatory regimes. For example, we need to look carefully at the question of critical infrastructure in the water industry and the utility regulators.
A number of noble Lords have referred to SMEs. If indeed literally 1,000 or more SMEs a year are having to make notifications, we have to think very hard about how we look after their interests and help them through the process.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the higher education and university sector. The relationship between the kind of technologies that we are dealing with here and higher education and research and development is an important interaction that we need to understand.
That brings me to the point that a number of noble Lords have talked about: defining national security. In this respect I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. We cannot define national security directly but it is already the case in the Bill that, if one looks at the consultation on the specified descriptions, the 17 sectors and how they are described—I have to say, a document that exceeds any other in including terminology that I do not understand—and asks whether there would be a risk if control of all these assets, technologies, activities and infrastructure were to pass into the hands of hostile actors, then by definition you have defined national security. You do not need another definition because it is already there in the Bill.
My final point is that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. What he proposes in respect of parliamentary oversight on the security aspects of this is absolutely right, and I hope the Government will listen positively to what he had to say.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, that was an excellent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Woodley. I have no interests to declare but I note that vested interests on all four sides of the House have been well out in force today, and I encourage the Minister to stand firm on this issue during the passage of the Bill, to which I give my full support. It has been a long time in gestation.
I have fully supported many of those Tory MPs concerned in recent years in a very vocal way at the activities of Huawei in the UK and elsewhere in the West. I have never believed a word of the Huawei PR machine operating in Westminster. There is a pattern, and you can see it now, around Burma and China: when you strip away the covers, you find that the revolutionary guard, the army and the Communist Party actually own the companies and the capacity of the country. Free trade is a good, but it is one that needs looking after. It is the very openness of the West that is used against us by those who seek to oppose and undermine our way of life. How far we go in protecting our openness by clamping down is a paradox. In my view, the Bill is a step in the right direction.
I welcome the speed with which the Government are operating now that the Bill is with us—it is less than three months since the Bill was introduced and published on 11 November. I fully accept that, to protect the economy, it was not possible to publish well in advance the sectors of the economy where notification to the Secretary of State was required. I hope that definitions of the sectors will be well-defined, so as to avoid loopholes emerging. I await with interest, as will others, the secondary legislation that will list the sectors in detail.
I also think attention needs to be paid to the mainly London-based blue-chip accountants and legal firms that facilitate foreign investments, particularly those where it is going to be found that they fall down on national security items. A fortune has been made by some of these companies in recent years, but they operate under the cloak of respectability, and that needs stripping away. The Bill needs to be operating as soon as possible.
If I may just turn around the title of the Bill, I think we need a Bill to encourage investment in manufacturing as a means of enhancing national security. If the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, had made it to Prime Minister, we would have had such a Bill a long time ago. Yes, I approve of foreign investment in the UK—after all, we do a lot of it overseas—but we need more homemade investment to give our economy greater security. I am not for turning the clock back to, say, the 1960s and 1970s, when I worked in UK-owned factories making and exporting things that we no longer make or export, but the shift against manufacturing at home has gone too far. We should pull some of it back, particularly from areas without the rule of law, such as China.
Remarkably, with the Covid crisis, the manufacture of PPE is being pulled back from abroad—relating to national security, when one looks at it that way—and that is a step in the right direction. Obviously it has been born out of the tragedy of the virus, but it ought to be part of our national plan. We have plenty of land for new premises, by the way; only 12% of England has been built up, so there is no argument that we do not have the space, and we certainly have the people. I hope the Bill can make a difference.
A figure in one of the briefings caused me to go back and check an issue that a previous speaker has mentioned: only 12 transactions have been reviewed on national security grounds since 2003 under the current regime, whereas in table 1 in paragraph 83 of the Bill’s impact statement, the estimate is that between 1,000 and 1,830 transactions are expected to be notified in a year. As a previous speaker pointed out—who had loads of interests to declare, although I am not criticising him—1,830 is a very peculiar figure. It could have been from 1,000 to 2,000. You cannot be that precise in these circumstances. The point is that this is serious work compared to what has happened in the past, so it will need key resources. The Minister has to convince the House that the resources will be there.
My final point is that I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord West of Spithead regarding oversight. There is a big gap here. The Bill is a step backwards, leaving it to the BEIS team. The ISC must be involved; it is clearly fit for purpose. My noble friend’s suggestions —there were more than one—are very positive, and I hope the Minister’s response is equally positive.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his distinguished if somewhat combative maiden speech.
I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill. It raises some fundamental principles, standing as it does at the intersection between the needs of the nation on the one hand and the rights of the individual on the other. The fact that respect for individual property rights in this country stretches back for getting on for 400 years should not be underestimated as a factor in making the country an attractive investment destination, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, and it is one that we fiddle with at our peril.
I have a second reason to congratulate the Government. I chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. Early last autumn, we scrutinised the two regulations that are referred to on page 4 of the excellent Library briefing on the Bill, one lowering the thresholds and the other extending the range of categories laid down in the Enterprise Act. Our committee was pretty concerned because we felt that important decisions like that ought to be in primary legislation and were not appropriate for secondary legislation. The Government response then was that primary legislation would come forward when time allowed, and I have to say that my committee was not entirely impressed with that reply. So it is good to see that the Government have acted promptly, and I congratulate my noble friend.
Having complimented him, I was at this point going to give him a mild kicking. I was going to say that it contrasted unfavourably with the slow response to the undertaking that he gave to the House last June about pre-pack legislation, but only half an hour or so ago, at 3.25 pm, a letter from his department pinged into my inbox—he no doubt thinking that I was going to raise this—and I now have to read the letter before I can let the kicking commence.
I go back to the Bill. Of course I understand the macro risks to our national security and I agree that we have to have adequate safeguards in place against them, but in my remarks I want to focus on what may be the practical implications if this Bill does not provide a clear, balanced and stable policy framework. In doing this, I draw the attention of the House to my career in private equity as an adviser, investor, director and chairman.
As the Government have removed the turnover test and extended the categories covered, the number of companies that fall within the provisions of the Bill has grown exponentially. Investing in early-stage companies is, as they say, a tough paper round. Out of 10 investments, probably at least half will fail, two or three will limp along, known in the trade as the living dead, and one, or if you are lucky, two will provide the reward to compensate for the money lost on the others. To get sufficiently attractive returns, the individual company will almost certainly have had to expand overseas. The UK market alone is not really large enough, and that brings the company to the attention of overseas investors and Governments.
Noble Lords can see where I am heading: just as the investors are about to reap their reward, the Government step in with a call-in notice. That is not just devastating to the investors, who the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was slightly dismissive about; it will be a huge shock to the operations of the company itself. Markets being markets, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out, they will react as the new regime beds down and begin to price in the risk. Due diligence schedules will be amended to include a new inquiry as to whether the company operates in one of the designated sectors. As a result, those sectors, in which we in this country probably wish above all to encourage investment, may find it more expensive to obtain funding.
Much can be done to offset this if the Government can provide maximum certainty about what lies ahead—and I was glad to hear my noble friend’s remark that they understand this. As we go into Committee, I hope that we can discuss more about what constitutes national security, what constraints there are to be on the Government adding more sectors, the need to publish codes of practice on the Government’s detailed approach and to ensure that they are updated frequently in the light of experience and, last but not least, as many noble Lords have said, the need adequately to staff the investment security unit to meet the 30-day deadline—and with an estimated 30-plus references a week, that will be no easy task.
In my last minute I shall make two small points. In our discussion so far, we have tended to talk about successful companies, but there will be unsuccessful companies in the designated sectors which may find that a foreign investor is the only port in the storm. What is the policy response then? Is it to provide the necessary funding from the public purse under Clause 30, to let the company collapse and disappear or to allow the foreign takeover to go ahead?
Finally, in my last 30 seconds, the House should be aware that under this new regime we will be considering not just professional investors and managers but family businesses, men and women who after a lifetime of effort involving considerable sacrifice in building up a successful business now wish to reap their rewards. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Government could prevent the sale of such companies. Will Clause 13 provide compensation for a lifetime’s work in those circumstances?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Bill has arrived in this House from the other place unamended, and across the House there has been general recognition of the need to reform takeover and investment rules to take account of national security considerations. However, for the Bill to be effective and proportionate it needs a clear statement of government strategy on what comprises national interest and security. At the moment, the provisional list of sectors is a catch-all and needs more detail. The Law Society of Scotland has stated reasonably that the Bill should be clear and that definitions of national security and details arising should not be left to secondary legislation. Without clarity, businesses and investors will face uncertainty about whether an acquisition or an investment in an influencing stake should trigger a referral, as other noble Lords have already stated. Should the fact that a foreign agency has a stake or qualifying interest in a UK-based company in any of the key sectors be, of itself, a reason for referral? The Law Society of Scotland and others believe that with a lack of clarity the number of referrals could be high, and that has been raised by a number of noble Lords.
There is also concern that, as the briefing states, almost anything purchased could conceivably be employed to attack national security. Examples are computers, drones, cameras and HDMI cables. So a medium-sized contractor preparing to start a contract could find itself subject to a referral, so delaying the contract and leading to extra costs and potential penalty clauses. This could even arise out of a malicious complaint from a competitor.
The society also highlights issues with Scots law relating to securities. This could be resolved if Clause 8 were amended to make it clear that nothing is triggered where the party taking security does not factually take control. Will the Minister consider this as failing to do so could specifically deter investment in Scottish companies?
There are also concerns that the possibility of referral could have an impact on the investment management industry, which is also important to the Scottish economy. The Institute of Directors, while accepting that the Government’s powers to intervene in the economy on grounds of national security need to be robust, is concerned about politicisation if the law is not clear. It is concerned that there will be a huge increase in workload, with real burdens on SMEs and that this, in turn, could, as the IoD puts it, have a chilling effect on investment.
Writing in the FT John Fingleton, former head of the OFT argues that the Bill goes far beyond measures introduced elsewhere in terms of its scope and in the measures that it introduces, including calling in deals up to five years after they were concluded. The Bill is also retrospective and applies to deals concluded the day after it was published, yet deals that may be affected can be referred to a new investment and security unit. Can the Minister say how that will be established and resourced because, as many noble Lords have said, the workload could be enormous and the specialisation should be very specific?
Both Fingleton and the IoD are concerned that, as the legislation is framed, it could lead to political lobbying for intervention with the possibility of Ministers using subjective, topical, political criteria. With this amount of uncertainty, there is a real danger that potential investors in UK businesses will be deterred and will look elsewhere. Many successful small and medium-sized businesses look for foreign investors to enable them to grow. They may find it harder if they are in one of the key sectors. The time and delay for an adjudication could be a decisive factor in preventing new investment or urgent refinancing or restructuring.
The current UK Government have been driven by their determination to deliver Brexit. The fall-out from the TCA will be felt for many years. What is not clear at home or abroad is what the Government’s strategic objectives are for the UK’s trade and investment future. Where is the industrial strategy? They have decided that our geography is not a prime asset. Why else would we tear up market access in Europe for as yet unquantifiable access to markets on the other side of the world? We have world-class universities and research and areas of technical excellence. I do not suggest that the Government should pick winners, but surely a strategy for building our economy based on our strengths and actively seeking international partnerships is a reasonable task. Of course, security threats may not be anticipated, and the Government need to be able to act when we are threatened, but a clearer set of criteria would balance national security against the need to keep Britain open for business.
In that context, I want Scotland to continue to offer an attractive location for inward investment. It is key to building a modern economy, developing new skills and improving the balance between the public, private and mixed sectors. We can be in the forefront of 5G, AI and quantum computing as well as biosciences and space and science technology, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Brexit presents bumps in the road, but uncertainty over Scottish independence could create roadblocks. Let not this Bill become another obstacle to investment. If it is clear, targeted and proportionate, it can protect our national security and investment promotion, and I hope that when it leaves this House it will do precisely that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his arrival in the House. He commented powerfully on the failure of privatisation. They are remarks I welcome and to which I will circle back.
Two Greens are speaking in this Second Reading. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will talk about the national security aspect of the Bill and I will speak on the investment part. My noble friend will focus on the major, long-identified threats of the climate emergency and the nature crisis, with its many linked dangers, including that of pandemics. On those and other issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, noted, it is nonsensical that we are debating this Bill while still awaiting the integrated review. I want to focus mainly on the investment part of the title and on another element of national security—poverty, inequality and how the finance curse contributes to them.
There is increasing academic focus on the importance of giving macroprudential regimes a sense of social purpose, including in respect of national security. Excellent work is being conducted at the University of Sheffield, particularly by its Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute, known as SPERI. We have an oversized, overactive, extractive financial sector. A SPERI report conservatively put the cost of the finance curse between 1995 and 2015 at £4,500 billion. That has to be seen as a threat to our national security. Money that could be strengthening our society is lost, as is control over a commodity as essential to a modern society as water or air. The finance curse is built on a sector that, as we learned in 2008, is as fragile and dangerous as an oversized dictator’s statue teetering on an inadequate, narrow pillar.
The other security threat lies in the extractive processes. There are huge and widely acknowledged issues of corporate culture and priorities, as well as regulatory loopholes and blind spots which allow financial funds and senior corporate management to loot companies and hollow out balance sheets. As a society and as a Parliament, we have lost control.
This issue arises particularly in the context of this Bill, where we are talking about investment by foreign companies in foreign states. We might hope that some pressure could be put on domestic companies to act in socially responsible ways by directing at least some of their funds to things we need to keep society running. They have, after all, to exist in this country, even if they seldom keep their profits here. The same constraints do not apply to foreign investors. While we know that a huge percentage of profits from even UK investment ends up in offshore tax havens, we can be sure that those profits will not help us where there are foreign owners.
I want to focus briefly on the nature of a curse—be it finance or resource. We look around the world at nations often identified as suffering from resource curse, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela, Iraq and South Sudan. They have huge problems of national—and internal—security. Oil is sucked out of their rocks. Our society is milked for cash. Meta-analyses of the resource curse show there is nothing inevitable about this. The quality of governance, the rule of law and the functioning of democracy are crucial to prevent it. Which is where we come back to this law—and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley.
In the UK, through continuing decades of privatisation, we have sold off the family silver. We are now down to the rather small teaspoons. When, in 2016, the people showed that they wanted to “take back control”, that reality was hidden, but the Government no longer have flamboyantly presented fictions about Brussels to hide behind. When they champion “Singapore-upon-Thames”, they will be held responsible for the consequences. Noble Lords working on this Bill, but particularly the Government, might want to focus on that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, to the House and congratulate him on his maiden speech.
The aim of this Bill is to reform the way in which inward investment into the UK is investigated to ensure that hostile Governments or other entities do not use it to undermine the UK’s national security. It follows calls for reform, including from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, to which the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, has already referred.
The purpose of this Bill is to prevent international economic crime impacting on major businesses in the UK, but a lot more bureaucracy and resources will be required to execute its provisions. Combined with the provisions in the Financial Services Bill, it will give the Government more legislative teeth with which to address economic crime and corruption. But will the legislation actually benefit businesses and university research? We are still in the Covid pandemic and it will take some time to come out if it.
The Government have argued that these powers are necessary because of the resurgence of state-based threats to national security and the risk of UK businesses being controlled by entities with close ties to hostile foreign Governments. It is important to stress that inward investment and global competitiveness should not be compromised as a result of these new measures, which are undoubtedly the result of private Chinese interventions in the digital sphere. We need to be open for business and to have a continued inward investment platform. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, has already mentioned, in Northern Ireland we rely significantly for our manufacturing and business sectors on foreign direct investment. We also work directly with the universities on technology transfer. It is important that those industries are not impacted or undermined further by these proposed legislative developments, because it would have major repercussions for our fragile jobs sector. Our fragile business economy—particularly the aviation sector—must not be further threatened. High-level research must be encouraged and supported.
I want to concentrate on several areas. First, we need to increase parliamentary scrutiny of how the Secretary of State may use the powers in the Bill. This has been referred to during debate on the various stages in the other place. Businesses need clarity about how the powers in the Bill would be used and the definition of national security. We also need to ensure that this is not straight-down-the-line protectionism. There needs to be a mechanism for greater reporting to Parliament about the use of the powers. The Intelligence and Security Committee should have a role. The Secretary of State should publish guidance about the Bill and the regulations made under it within six months of it being passed. Will the Minister ensure that government amendments come forward in Committee or on Report to address the need for greater parliamentary scrutiny?
It is also important that small and medium-sized businesses are not undermined. There is a fear that the notification process could become burdensome on such businesses, which would now fall within the scope of the new regime. The possible impacts on businesses of the new regime must be properly assessed, and legislative measures put in place to ensure that they are mitigated. Will the Minister commit to protecting small and medium-sized businesses in this way?
I turn to the position of universities which host incubators and start-ups. University research and innovation are vital for the UK. They have close links with inward investment and the business and industrial sectors. This must not be compromised as a result of these new legislative measures.
Like many other noble Lords, I have received a briefing from the University of Cambridge, which is involved with the business sector, especially with university technology transfer. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in BEIS will find some solutions to deal with those issues.
Let us remember that national security has been invoked in the past in the context of Northern Ireland. This led to a major demolition company losing a big contract, with investment and job repercussions. All these issues must be addressed. We need to achieve a balance in the contents and proposals of this Bill.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part at Second Reading. I declare my interests and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his maiden speech. I am supportive of the Bill and wholly supportive of the comments of my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Leigh of Hurley. It is right that we salute innovators, founders and entrepreneurs, those who produce something where nothing existed before. They deserve all our gratitude.
We have the right environment for investment in this nation. The policy environment and the rule of law make the UK an excellent place for inward investment, and indeed, there is no contradiction. Our national prosperity is inextricably and rightly linked with our national security. In my comments I will cover definitions, the notification regime, the ISU and some associated points.
On definitions, we have a national security Bill with no definition of national security. Without broadening the scope of the Bill, does the Minister agree that a broad definition of national security would be helpful here, without taking it to the extent of other nations, where yoghurt producers and bottled-water manufacturers can come within scope of critical national assets? Similarly, it is right to note where national security and national interest come up against one another and sometimes overly overlap. We have seen in recent times, when the pressure was on, Australia reducing the quantum for referrals in its regime to zero. Similarly, with share ownership under the French regime, it has gone from 25% to 10%. These changes are at least interesting.
As for the notification regime, I am a supporter of the identified sectors—but there are difficulties, as other noble Lords have pointed out. Artificial intelligence, for example, is not a vertical sector or even horizontal, but more a coming ubiquity, and how it is dealt with is central to what is within this Bill. Similarly, on the numbers of referrals—12 in the past 18 years under the previous regime—as other noble Lords have commented, with 1,000 to 1,830, if you apply a multiple to that you will probably get closer to the level of referrals that will occur. Can the Minister say why a business would not refer, for want of certainty?
Similarly, on the impact assessment setting out those numbers, there does not seem to be any basis on which those numbers have been arrived at. I worry that, although it is positive that the information required for notification has dropped by two-thirds, microbusinesses are included, which could cause an unnecessary burden for them. We already have a significant scale-up problem in this nation.
On the ISU, there are questions about its digital capability, level of budget and number of personnel. It could, in reality, through notification, suffer from swampification. We have already seen this with the National Crime Agency. Can the Minister tell us what is being done about those 100 people in terms of their skills, their security clearance and their deep knowledge of the technologies involved?
With retrospection, we see a five-year period. Five years is quite a way from what was originally set out in the Green Paper and the White Paper. As for the overall intent of the Bill, I am supportive, of course. However, in Clause 7 most corporate entities are covered, but there seems to be a loophole in terms of individuals. No matter how small it is, is that a loophole that the Minister would consider closing? On oversight, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord West, that there needs to be an addressing of this democratic accountability deficit, and the ISC is the proper place for this to occur.
In conclusion, we have a good Bill. Does the Minister agree that with delicate, nuanced and proportionate amendments, we can make it a great Bill for national prosperity, national interest and national security, for today and for all our tomorrows?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend Lord Woodley to our House, and I thank the Minister for a comprehensive introduction to the debate. My only disappointment was that he sounded almost apologetic when he should be proud to be introducing this Bill to the House. Like my noble friend Lord Rooker, I was interested in the number of declarations of commercial interests by a number of speakers in this debate. I declare that my only interest is that of national security.
I welcome this Bill. It is long overdue, and I fear that we may already be too late in some areas. We may be closing the stable door after a few of the horses have bolted. At the risk of being labelled an “old leftie”, I felt much safer from assaults on our vital infrastructure a few decades ago, before the frenzy of privatisation, particularly during the Thatcher era. We were, for example, at the forefront of all aspects of nuclear technology, including electricity supply, when it was in public ownership. The United Kingdom built the world’s first nuclear power station and was at the forefront of the production of material for civil and military use when it was in public ownership. We felt secure because the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the immensely innovative North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board were all in public hands and in no danger of takeover by hostile investors.
Similarly, our telecommunications, railways and water supply, all key infrastructure, were all publicly owned and therefore by definition secure. The blitz of privatisation has resulted in all of them—except, thankfully, water in Scotland—being potential prey to hostile interests. The desire among a few of those who are already wealthy to increase their personal wealth has put the vast majority of the population at risk. It has certainly helped the billionaires, but the workers have not been helped to a great extent. Even some of our defence installations are being sold off, and government buildings in Whitehall are the target of the private investors. I have more faith in Governments, even this Government, to look after our national interests than I do in Capita or G4S. So, unlike some others, I am not inclined to ask for a watering-down of the powers in this Bill. Indeed, such strong action is long overdue.
When I was a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I became increasingly aware of the threats to our infrastructure, not just from Russia, China and other countries, but also from non-state interests. As others have said, the ISC, in its report, called for action as far back as 2013, so the delay is regrettable. Some investments may well have been made in anticipation. Thankfully—I commend the Government for this—some interim strengthening has been made by secondary legislation. I also understand and accept that not all these discussions should be in the public domain as we move to protect the interests of our people, because of the sensitivity.
I agree with those who have suggested that a wider definition of national security might be necessary to take account of technological changes—particularly in relation to the internet and social media—and the expanding range of hostile interests. I am disappointed that the Minister seemed to rule this out, even in his introduction. I hope he will think again.
Finally, I agree with Dr Julian Lewis, the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my friend and colleague Kevan Jones, who is a member of that committee, and, of course, my noble friend Lord West, in their view that the ISC should clearly be closely involved in the oversight of this. The committee has the membership and the modus operandi to make it appropriate to undertake this task. Since this House is represented on the ISC by my noble friend Admiral Lord West, we can be assured that our interests are well represented there. I strongly support his proposed amendment, and I hope that the Minister will say that he accepts it in principle and that we might even get a government amendment to that effect.
I end where I began by expressing support for the Bill. I hope that we can get it into law without any delay.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the aim of the Bill is to reform the way inward investment in the UK is investigated to ensure that hostile Governments or other entities do not use this to undermine the UK’s national security. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament actively called for this reform. The Bill would give new powers to the Secretary of State to call in acquisitions, including takeovers, to assess any risk to national security. The Bill would remove the existing business turnover thresholds, meaning that small and medium-sized enterprises could be subject to a national security assessment under the new regime.
The Bill would also establish a mandatory notification regime for certain sensitive sectors of the economy. Under this new regime, any acquisition would need to be registered with the Secretary of State. The Bill would also establish a voluntary notification regime, whereby parties to an acquisition would need to be registered with the Secretary of State. The Bill would also establish a voluntary notification regime, whereby parties to an acquisition not already covered by the mandatory regime would be able to notify the Secretary of State about the potential risks to national security. The Bill sets out the procedures for how a national security assessment would be conducted and resolved.
The Government have argued that these powers are necessary because of the resurgence of state-based threats to national security and the risk of UK businesses being controlled by entities with close ties to hostile foreign Governments. They have argued that the Bill strikes the right balance between encouraging inward investment and protecting national security. In this globalised world, there are many rewards and risks, types of money, and companies registered in tax havens that will hide those companies’ real owners.
My concerns are mainly about the tenders issued by the Government for defence materials. These are international tenders and it is obvious that price cannot be the only consideration unless the Government are certain that whichever company wins the tender is open to scrutiny about who is the ultimate owner and controller of the winner. I submit that where our defence sector is concerned, the Secretary of State for Defence must have full powers to reject the winner of the tender if there is any doubt about its the ownership or integrity.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. It follows on from the Financial Services Bill and the Trade Bill, and all of them follow on from the Brexit Bill. I know it is unusual, but I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Callanan on the Front Bench. He has been involved in all these Bills and frankly his work output is quite exciting to say the least.
Our nation has a clear determination to build our economy worldwide. As one who has lived and worked in south and south-east Asia, I find this period very stimulating. On the Bill specifically, I welcome the powers to call in and the extension to small and medium-sized enterprises. I have a small question: am I right to assume that “small” includes partnerships? I am also not clear what the linkage is with the City of London Corporation, particularly in the remembrancer’s department—that is the corporation’s legal side—and those commercial lawyers specifically dealing with international trade and inward and outward investment. That is something we can look at in Committee.
I have looked at the sensitive areas—all 17 of them. I wonder why the pharmaceutical and chemical industries are still not there. In addition, unsurprisingly as an ex-pilot, I wonder why aviation is excluded. If I added these three there would be 20, but at the moment all 17 will be watched over by this new investment security unit in the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy. That is quite a challenge for those civil servants. I question what we are doing about having a closer link with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Our embassies and high commissions could be our eyes and ears if they are properly briefed and if, at the coalface of wherever our representatives are, there is somebody senior who is properly briefed.
I note that there was concern in the Commons, particularly from the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He tabled new Clause 4, which would have added a framework of factors that the Secretary of State would have to consider when assessing a risk to national security. The chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee also expressed concern and stated that there was a “scrutiny gap”. Have the Government reflected on the new clause, which was unsuccessful in the Commons, or certainly on the concerns raised? If so, will Her Majesty’s Government respond with their own amendment?
The Government are enthusiastically championing free trade. That is really good and exciting, but I have just one word of warning. There was considerable discussion on the Trade Bill on whether we should not trade with people allegedly committing genocide. The first reaction to that is: yes, correct. However, there are all sorts of allegations of genocide and we need to tread carefully. Far more frequently we have issues of alleged human rights abuses. We had that in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill and other Bills. Here in the UK we often see groups of former asylum seekers who seek to get back at the country where they were before with extensive lobbying against that country and any involvement with it. Yes we must have our own high standards, but we must take care not to be overinfluenced by every vested interest or pressure group. Equally, we must avoid a quagmire of mandatory and voluntary notifications, as highlighted by the Global Infrastructure Investor Association. Having said all of that, this is a hugely important Bill for the future of our nation.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we were all delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Woodley’s maiden speech. I welcome him to your Lordships’ House, and I suspect noble Lords will find him a unique and distinctive voice in this House in the years to come.
I declare my interests as chair of the new National Preparedness Commission, which brings together business, government, academia and civil society, with a purpose of promoting better preparedness in the UK for a major crisis or incident.
The last five years of political discourse have been supposed to be about “taking back control”, allowing this country to make its own decisions and operate independently of other nations—the Minister may recall some of those discussions. However, this is a time of rapid geopolitical change, as US pre-eminence gives way to a multipolar world. China is emerging as a dominant economic power, and the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, described the process by which it is strengthening its world role by ostensibly benign investment. Russia is using hybrid means to maximise its influence, and there are, of course, other nation states that are potential hostile actors. As such, we have little Britain in the world, surrounded by powers that may not be entirely benign.
There is no use taking back control if that independence is a fantasy because other nation states have the ability to control your infrastructure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says, such matters as our water supply or financial payments system are not included in the definition of the critical national infrastructure—but we would very rapidly notice if they were compromised or damaged in any way. Of course, it is not just ownership but what goes into the infrastructure: the components. This brings us to Huawei, to which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. However, as the latter pointed out, this Bill does not address the concerns that many people had about Huawei.
We have to recognise that we have a growing reliance on ever more complex and interconnected systems, which creates vulnerabilities, as, in critical services, new systems are overlaid on top of legacy systems in a way that, in some cases, is now almost impossible to disentangle and beyond the experience of many of those responsible for running and maintaining them. This creates its own risks, even before you consider the possibility of external threats being placed at the heart of such complex systems and potentially being manipulated by overseas interests.
Therefore, the Bill is necessary but not necessarily sufficient. Clearly, mechanisms in it need to be proportionate and speedy; I am sure your Lordships’ House will return to this in Committee. Similarly, security issues need to be reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, as my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord West have said. This has to be written into the Bill, so why is it not there? I hope that, when he responds, the Minister will be able to reassure us that this will be corrected by the Government without this House having to intervene.
The other side of this is: we must not stifle research and innovation. However, we have to recognise that cutting-edge research may be precisely the areas where security is most important, so balancing inward investment in that research needs to be looked at very carefully in the context of security and what that cutting-edge research could deliver.
When he introduced the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, reminded us of the importance of inward investment, but, of course, with that, there is a form of dependency. If we are talking about a nation that is able to “take back control”, we do have to look at these issues, at that form of dependency and at the potential infringement of our security.
My noble friend Lord McNicol talked about the need for an industrial strategy. He is absolutely right: we need to balance our need for external investment with our national security, which means that we need what is fundamentally an holistic and systemic approach to the security of our infrastructure and to inward investment. If having an explicitly named industrial strategy is a step too far for the Minister, perhaps he will at least acknowledge that our approach to these questions should be holistic and systemic. He could tell your Lordships’ House how this will be done and who will be responsible for delivering that balance. I am not sure that this Bill provides such an approach, but it is a useful start and step on the journey to taking back control in a meaningful sense.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it a great pleasure to follow that tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his excellent maiden speech—I know from having served with him in the other place that he will be a formidable addition to your Lordships’ House. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Callanan for all his incredible hard work over many years on so many different trade Bills and trade issues.
I think all of us in this House welcome the National Security and Investment Bill. I recall when I was a Minister looking at the potential implications of the takeover of some of our leading companies by companies from states which were perhaps not aligned with our interests and considering how on earth we would deal with that situation. Of course, I was the Minister who looked after, as it were, Huawei when it was still part of our infrastructure system, so national security is an issue that I have taken a great interest in.
It is quite right to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was saying. We find ourselves in the 2020s in a very different situation from the one we were in perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, in that state actors are now able to use corporate entities to prosecute their foreign policy. It is quite right that we are effectively looking at updating the Enterprise Act and creating a framework for national security.
Clearly the balance has to be struck between ensuring that hostile actors do not intervene with some of our greatest companies while not putting off much-needed inward investment. I refer to my entries in the register of Members’ interests before I continue with my arguments. It is quite clear from the many excellent speeches during this debate that the Government are now well aware of where the most vigorous analysis of the Bill will take place.
Many noble Lords have made the point that the Bill is drafted in a relatively relaxed fashion at the moment. One can see the combination of civil servants wanting to give Government Ministers the maximum flexibility to react to situations which they perhaps cannot anticipate colliding with very highly paid lawyers who will not want to be sued by their clients and so will give them robust advice to report each and every transaction to the new unit.
Therefore, I think that the bizarrely accurate figure cited by the Government of 1,830 referrals is a woeful underestimate of what is likely to happen when the Bill becomes law. I agree with noble Lords who have said that we are looking at something like 10,000 notifications a year, at least in the first instance. I also share the concerns of those who see normal day-to-day activity, such as research and development partnerships, being caught by this legislation, although I acknowledge, again to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was saying, that the role of universities in our national security is a crucial one that requires some scrutiny. I also share the concerns that the routine purchase of assets, such as software licences, could also inadvertently fall within the scope of the Bill. The general point has also been made that there is not yet a clear definition of national security in the context of the Bill.
I want to use my time in the Second Reading debate to highlight three issues that I hope to be able to concentrate on in Committee. The first is the proposed sanction of automatic voidness for transactions that are completed in breach of the mandatory filing requirement. It is my contention that significant sanctions should certainly apply in these circumstances, but I understand that there is considerable concern among investors about the practical difficulties that arise if the proposed approach is adopted.
I understand that the Government’s position is that the French have a similar system but I understand, certainly in my discussions with experts in this field, that the French system is much more flexible. It seems perfectly sensible to echo what happens, for example, in Australia and the US, so that we have a flexible system of sanctions even when somebody has not complied with a mandatory reporting requirement, so that we will get to a point where the Bill will, I hope, incorporate a voidable power instead of a mandatory voiding.
The other issue is the proposed extraterritorial application of the Government’s call-in power to non-UK companies. Again, this power is out of sync with similar regimes in France, Spain, Germany, Canada and Japan, all of which restrict their transactions to involve targets registered in their jurisdiction. Finally, there is significant concern that the Bill will have a deterrent effect on investment in the UK tech sector, with many of the 17 sectors specified in the Bill being very widely drawn.
I hope that in the short time allotted to me I have highlighted three important areas, which have been highlighted elsewhere. I will not yet get on to the need for parliamentary scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which will, I am sure, come up in Committee.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Bennett for flagging up that I will be speaking about our environmental crisis. I very much enjoyed her speech, particularly the bit about offshore tax havens: that is something that the Government really ought to mop up very fast, because we lose so much money through them.
Several noble Lords have mentioned that it is odd that a Bill titled the National Security and Investment Bill does not even attempt to define or provide any example of what is meant by “national security”. I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was the first to mention that, right at the beginning. Business types might say that not having a definition might be bad for business, because it makes things uncertain. My concern is that it could also be applied far too narrowly, so that the Government do not take the important actions needed when problematic takeovers and mergers are proposed.
We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Parliament has declared this already. Some will try to argue that the Bill should not stray into other issues, such as nature, biodiversity and the environment, but that would be to completely misunderstand the threats we face. The climate and ecological emergency will affect our national security, and global security, for this century and beyond. The Dasgupta review, for example, has warned that humanity must:
“Ensure that our demands on Nature do not exceed its supply”—
its sustainable supply, that is. Greens talk about that quite a lot, but somehow the message does not get through. Dasgupta also says that we should adopt different metrics for economic success. That is obvious, because if we are destroying nature, we have to take that into our calculations. Lastly, it says we must:
“Transform our institutions and systems”.
A changing climate will affect everything and put us at war with nature. Rising sea levels will capture large tracts of territory all across the world. Drought will starve populations and spread wildfires. Habitat loss will inflict genocides on millions of species that can never be recovered—and, of course, uncertainty, resource scarcity and hoarding will cause stresses and create mass migrations and military conflict. This shows us how important climate and nature is to our survival.
If we faced this existential threat from any human or country, it would be blindingly obvious that was a national security issue. But I worry that because it is seen as more esoteric and ethereal—perhaps a bit fluffy—the Government will not use their power to ensure that business and investment is controlled to protect against the huge risks we face. These are not soft issues; they are the hardest and most significant challenges facing our nation and humanity as a whole. The Government must start understanding their role in interfering with ecologically damaging business ventures. We cannot worry about Huawei’s risks to the world wide web when we give a free pass to the thousands of businesses that threaten the world’s web of life.
Undoubtedly, this needs global co-ordination beyond the UK Government. I would be overjoyed if the Minister would give us some plans to address this—for example, by leveraging our presidency of the G7 and COP 26. It would be absolutely incredible and wonderful if we could go into COP 26 with a plan for how to deal with this and get other countries to sign up to it, and understand the danger that we all face.
However, we do not need to wait for global agreement. Our Government should be acting unilaterally as well as bilaterally. The security of our earth impacts the security of all its nations and we have to stop the ecocide. I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he please define national security? Secondly, how does the climate emergency come into that?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on so ably introducing the Bill, with its ambitions to control foreign investment. I welcome the Bill in the broad and in principle, but I would like to highlight a number of points that I wish to explore during its passage.
The United Kingdom has a long and proud tradition of being open to foreign investment. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on foreign investments within the remit of the Bill, especially in terms of British technology and manufacturing sectors?
Both the Law Society of England and the Law Society of Scotland have highlighted a number of issues: in particular, why there is no definition in the Bill of national security. Also, the remit of the Bill is very loose and broad. While I appreciate that this is to be refined by secondary legislation, my noble friend the Minister will appreciate that we have very limited powers to review and scrutinise secondary legislation.
I welcome the consultation; I notice that transport is included within that. However, why have the Government proceeded with the Bill without the results of that consultation being known, processed and put before the House? I understand that the Government will put more detail in the secondary legislation, particularly on the transport aspects. But, once again, there is limited scrutiny over that secondary legislation, whereas if it was on the face of the Bill—as the 17 original sectors are—that would give us more powers to scrutinise and discuss this through its passage.
Like my noble friend Lady Noakes, I would like to ask specifically why the water sector is not covered. The provision of water to households and businesses is a strategic matter. It seems an oversight that it has not been included in the remit of the Bill. There may be a good reason for that, and I should be delighted if my noble friend the Minister would share that with us today.
In principle, I welcome the scope of the Bill and the opportunity we have today, and through its passage in Committee and further stages, to scrutinise it. The full remit of the Bill and particular definitions need to be properly understood. I welcome the opportunity that the passage of the Bill will provide in that regard. With those few remarks, I wish the Bill a fair wind today.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, following the last speaker, I will have to be very inventive in saying anything that is worth saying. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on coming into the House and wish him good luck. We look forward to hearing his views. I will start with his views, given the nature of the national security issue. I will confine myself to the old-fashioned definition of national security, and not the one about biodiversity—I have only six minutes.
National security is something which, if you define it, you lose. It is one of those things you have to keep very general and as undefined as possible, because people will find ways around any definition that is given.
Software rather than hardware is the nature of warfare now. Russia is able to undermine American security, or any kind of security. It no longer has superior weapons; it has superior hackers, and hackers make the difference. It is not manufacturing industry that makes the difference any more; it is not the space race, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was saying. We were all quarrelling about Huawei, because what Huawei does by way of software for 5G is going to make more difference to national security than anything solid. So, while I welcome this Bill, it is cast very much in the old mould, when manufacturing industry was important and people used to aggress on each other through it.
I also agree that we should not do anything that restricts the entry of foreign investment into this country. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, “Well, if the Bill creates problems, it creates problems, but there are good things and bad things and we should welcome bad things as well as good things because they interact on each other.” Ideally in a Bill of this sort, the first clause would say that national security means whatever the Government decide it means and the second clause would say that the Minister will do whatever the Minister thinks it is essential to do. We would have a good ISC that would keep guard on the Minister and we would make sure that there was parliamentary scrutiny on secondary legislation—but, of course, that is not possible.
The nature of warfare has changed so much that the next war, when it happens, according to an article in yesterday’s Times, is bound to be nuclear. There are now so many nations with nuclear power that it is hard to predict which way it will go. So, given that sort of background, we have to be inventive and cautious.
I will say one more thing. The importance of universities is overwhelmingly larger than it used to be. The commercial arms formed by universities are important, but so are the reasons students come to universities. Here again is a dilemma. We ought to have open immigration of foreign students, because you never know where a bright man or woman will come from. Their knowledge is useful because they interact and things are created. At the same time, we must be very careful that, in regulating universities, we do not kill research. To give one example: the entire nuclear programme was triggered by a bunch of absolutely unpractical theoretical physicists leaving Europe and going to America. They created the first atom bomb, because all they could do was nuclear physics, which was completely unpractical. So nowadays it will be the universities that determine whether we can fight wars efficiently or not.
So, while this Bill is very welcome, the way it is implemented and the way the Secretary of State restrains herself will depend very much on how intelligent, rich and flexible a definition of national security we have. I say to the Government, “Don’t put it on paper. We trust you. Just have a parliamentary committee that will keep tabs on you—and, those two things being given, the rest will follow.”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for cheering us all up with predictions of nuclear war. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his maiden speech, and welcome him. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I hope that his distinctive voice will be heard on a regular basis.
No Peer has stood up and said that the pretext of the Bill is wrong—because no one would. But at the end of his speech the Minister said categorically, “This Bill will keep the country safe.” Actually, I think it is the implementation of some of the principles within the Bill that might help keep the country safe; that would perhaps be a less ambitious statement. It is your Lordships’ job—all of us together—to try to make sure that the law of unintended consequences does not overtake the good intentions of the Bill. That will be the challenge, and that should be our purpose.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, there is already a more laissez-faire way of dealing with security issues that the Secretary of State has had for some time—but this Bill proposes a substantial change of gear. That, I can only presume, has been sparked by the Government’s view of a changing geopolitical situation. In fact, it would help the Bill if the Government set out how they see the geopolitical landscape—in other words, what is inspiring this change of gear.
My noble friend Lord McNally suggested that we might be entering a cold war with China. What is the Government’s view on that? With that kind of analysis, understanding the Bill would become a much easier task for the rest of us. As many noble Lords have said, there is no definition of national security. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I shall make an observation on that later.
On the wider strategy, we are already seeing elements of what I would call mission creep. The questions that this debate, and the subsequent legislative process, will have to answer are: how much agency do the Government want to exercise in the market, and how do we ring-fence genuine security concerns from a given Secretary of State’s wider industrial economic plans—or do we want to? How can we be sure that future Governments and Secretaries of State will not be more ambitious, or more interventionist, in using the powers that this Government have decided to put in place? That is a big challenge, because it addresses not just what one Secretary of State says, but the future.
As we know, the Bill puts the onus to report on businesses, and on research and finance organisations, and reduces the trigger levels to report transactions. It introduces costs—it must do—and it slows things down; I will come to that later. It also brings smaller transactions into scope than would previously have been the case. It is mildly retrospective and, unlike comparable regimes, it captures domestic transactions and does not include an exemption list.
As noble Lords have said, there are many respectable external voices suggesting that the Bill as drafted could, or would, inhibit investment, and put at risk innovation funding. There is also the scope of the Bill. As we have also heard, there is a separate document outlining 17 sectors of technology, ranging far and wide. Some would like them to range further and wider. There is a consultation, as the Minister set out, and we are looking forward to seeing that more focused document, because it will be very important for the progress of the Bill that we see it.
The list of technologies is extraordinarily wide. Frankly, it would cover almost anything, and we need to see what the focused version will say. But, given that the list is amendable by secondary legislation, and also given the risk that others are very reticent about challenging the secondary legislative process, this is, in effect, a blank cheque. We should also note that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, observed, most technologies have dual use—civilian and security use. This opens up many deals to challenge, which might not be necessary. So this calls into question the methodology, and comes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about security risk.
Basically, the Government are seeking to build a comprehensive list of everything—every possible technology—using language that few of us understand. That may be good or it may be bad; we do not really know. So this requires an immense amount of forethought to make the list comprehensive, and it also raises speed bumps in front of all sorts of innocent deals going forward.
The key here is what the technology would be used for. What harm could it cause, or what would losing access to that technology prevent the United Kingdom doing? There is a more methodological approach to this than simply listing everything that could possibly harm us, because that is not possible.
Looking forward, how are the Government going to weigh up the need for the scale-up of technologies? Scale-up organisations need an injection of funds on a regular basis, and delay will be a problem. What is the Government’s view on losing control of this technology—potentially to an ally? For example, is it okay for a US company to buy a UK business and carry this technology off to the United States? I have experience with this, and repatriating the technology to the UK after it has been in the US can and has been stopped by the US Department of Defense. This is not a matter simply of China or Iran; it is a matter of technology moving among our allies as well. We need to understand the Government’s view on these kinds of transfers.
We heard from my noble friend Lady Bowles about how this fits in with free trade agreements. Do clauses in FTAs allowing free market activity override the Bill? If the Bill overrides the FTA, what price an FTA? Overall, what is the principal concern here to the Government? Is it losing access, losing control or handing access to someone we do not like—or is it a formula of all three? How does this work? How does the Bill discriminate between each of these?
Then we have the mechanics of reviewing the deal. The CMA is carved out of this, and a new unit is being set up. How will they work together? Who will guide the market on this process, and how? A previous speaker was very clear about the need for this. As noble Lords have said, there will be at least 30 deals a week—actually, it will be more than that—over 17 different complex technology sectors. How is this unit going to handle, sift and manage these sectors? How big will the unit be? What is the budget? What will its relationship be with other organisations across the sector? We need to understand the mechanics of this operation.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State great power to intervene in the market, and it is unclear which of all the assets will be within scope. Universities in particular have a great deal of concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, just mentioned. There is a lot to be said around universities—how they will work with research deals and through scale-ups—as I have already said. It is quite clear, post Brexit and as we are coming through Covid, that the market is very nervous. How will the Government make sure that the essential flow of the right sort of investment into technology continues?
The Bill is being launched into a vacuum. The integrated security review is not there yet; as I have said, we need a better picture of the geopolitical outlook. Furthermore, there is no solid marker on genocide, and we are already hearing it come up here. The Government should and could have allotted time to deal with that in a separate Bill, and they are reaping the whirlwind of not doing that. Of course, there is also no industrial strategy. I firmly believe that work on one is necessary—not so that this Bill can enact industrial strategy but so that there is a separate process. People who want to have an industrial strategy are now wishing it upon this Bill. It is well past time that that discussion was had.
It is inside this vacuum that the Secretary of State will exercise these new quasi-judicial powers, currently with no meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. Free from strategies and unfettered by the nature of regimes, this is a blank cheque. This debate has to work out the constraints for how it will operate. The investment community, space industry, venture capitalists, universities and lawyers—lots of people—have raised legitimate concerns today. Yes, there was a consultation and, yes, there has been some movement, but there is generally much further to travel before the Bill achieves what the Minister set out at the beginning: to make the United Kingdom safer.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I start by thanking everyone who has spoken in today’s excellent debate. It reminds me just how extensive the array of expertise present in the House is, especially from the security, defence, technology and business sectors. I join colleagues in congratulating my noble friend Lord Woodley on his maiden speech. My noble friend Lord West welcomed him as a fellow sailor; I welcome him to your Lordships’ House as a fellow Evertonian. I look forward to his further contributions during the Bill’s passage.
As my colleague and noble friend Lady Hayter said in her opening reply to the Minister, national security is Labour’s top priority, as it should be the first and foremost task of any Government to protect their own citizens. That is why Labour strongly welcomes the Bill and agrees that it is necessary. Inward investment is crucial for businesses across the UK and our economy. It is also crucial that the UK Government have the correct powers in place to scrutinise and intervene on business transactions that could have implications for our national security. It is essential that the balance of the Bill is correct to ensure that it does not deter foreign direct investment, while being certain that national security is protected.
Nevertheless, it is regrettable that, once again, Ministers have acted too slowly in bringing forward these changes. They have acted slowly in comparison with other countries, including the US, Germany and France, all of which have already taken steps to update their legislation in line with evolving security threats. In Committee in the Commons, Charles Parton of the Royal United Services Institute—many have quoted him—said that
“the Government have not really been attending to the problem with the attention that they should, given the nature of the threat, particularly from the Chinese”.—[Official Report, Commons, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24/11/20; col. 5.]
The Government have acted slowly in relation to technological change. It was only last year that artificial intelligence was added to the relevant section of the Enterprise Act. The Government have been somewhat behind the curve in recognising this critical sector, explicitly highlighted by the takeover of DeepMind by Google. Naturally, they have acted slowly again on this Bill. Last January—a year ago—the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, promised that the Government would soon be
“publishing a draft national security and investment Bill, to strengthen the Government’s powers to investigate and intervene in business transactions … to protect our national security”.—[Official Report, 9/1/20; col. 438.]
But this—and any pre-legislative scrutiny, as argued for by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—never happened. This slowness might have implications for our national security, so we are ready to help the Government pass this legislation as soon as possible and will work on this Bill with all colleagues around the House to achieve this.
I turn now to the Bill. Labour will be seeking assurances in some critical areas. During the debate, a number of common themes have emerged, perhaps five main ones: the scope and meaning of national security with enterprise policy; the investment security unit workload and the implications of the process on business; competitiveness, risk and agility; intangible assets, IP and algorithms in a networked world, not forgetting fintech. My noble friend and colleague Lady Hayter mentioned an important fifth theme highlighting how we will look for improvements in scrutiny and a greater role for Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. This was echoed by my noble friend Lord West. We need to have proper oversight of security issues, to which my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Foulkes added their cogent comments.
Returning to the themes, most importantly, Labour will be probing to make sure that the new investment security unit to be set up by the Bill will have the capacity to handle its workload and is properly resourced to help small businesses through the challenges they may face. It is hard to overestimate the extent of this challenge for the new unit. It will have to respond to a large volume of notifications within the tight timeline set out in the Bill. The impact assessment estimates that more than1,800 notifications will be made each year, and many speakers have wondered how imaginary this number is.
During an evidence session in the Commons, the head of national security for the financial firm, Skadden, Michael Leiter, said:
“I am concerned that no Government are ready for that rate of change.”—[Official Report, Commons, National Security and Investment Bill Committee, 24/11/20; col. 41.]
A submission from the Russell Group of universities—I thank the group for its briefing—states: “Research institutions and businesses across the globe require regulatory environments that allow deals to be concluded at pace.” The investment security unit will have to track the development of fast-moving and highly complex technologies, and monitor each of the listed markets. The Secretary of State will have to take decisions on the advice of the unit, which can be challenged in court in the context of highly sensitive information and its wide-ranging powers. The unit will need to develop policy, practice and precedent to provide clarity and certainty to a wide swathe of the economy.
In Committee, it will be important to consider how the new unit is to be sufficiently resourced, have the right skills to monitor a fast-moving landscape and be able to turn cases around fast enough not to hold up possible investments. Many speakers, notably the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Hodgson and Lord Leigh, have defined the Bill as “difficult for business”. We need to probe whether the unit will be sensitive enough to assist SMEs which themselves might not have the capacity to deal with the increased administrative burden being introduced by this new regime. We believe that a specific SME engagement division within BEIS may be needed to assist and support SMEs through the national security screening process. A reporting requirement on the Secretary of State is needed on staff resourcing for the unit.
Another critical consideration will be how cross-departmental working will be assured via the unit, as this will not happen if it is merely siloed away within a department. This cross-departmental independence could be enhanced, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, through representation of all the relevant departments, Armed Forces personnel, and security and foreign policy expertise. It is interesting to note that the Office for Investment was set up only two days before the Bill was introduced to the Commons. How will this cross BEIS-DIT body work with the investment security unit to ensure overall effectiveness and focus? The Office for Investment will need to inform the department on my third and fourth themes of competitiveness and modern intangible assets, as well as the ISC on security implications. The impact assessment states that
“Geopolitical, economic and rapid technological changes are producing an evolving national security landscape.”
Focusing on geopolitical changes, how will the Bill’s measures fit in with the soon-to-be-published integrated review, of which national security will be a key component?
That will lead us to probe again why the definition of “national security” has been omitted from the Bill —the first and foremost theme throughout the debate. Ministers will argue that there needs to be flexibility—a point on which we are not totally unsympathetic. Nearly all speakers examined the implications of that oversight. The Commons considered that a way forward might be provided by a framework scoping key features, while determining national security and flexibility on a case-by-case basis. We will examine how these possible solutions can be made more transparent, as this will be very important for business.
Finally, although it is important legislation, the Bill does not provide the basis for a more active industrial strategy. However, it suggests it and presents a further opportunity for considerations to be made on bringing forward a more comprehensive industrial policy to support and grow British businesses. My noble friends Lord Rooker, Lord Woodley, Lord McNicol and Lord Foulkes all drew attention to the potential benefits of the enhanced security that this might bring. Let us not make this a missed opportunity. Considering the current levels of unemployment, there is a need to encourage businesses to rebuild and create jobs as the country emerges from the pandemic.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this important Bill. There is clearly a wealth of expertise on this subject across the House and, as is usual in your Lordships’ House, we have had a thorough and engaging debate, with thoughtful speeches coming from all corners of it.
I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his excellent maiden speech. It is a pleasure to see him in his place today, and I am glad that he has chosen this debate to make the first of what I am sure will be many well-informed contributions. I am glad, too, to have his support for the Bill.
I was contemplating what I had in common with the noble Lord, despite our obvious political differences. We are both from the north, him being from the north-west and me from the north-east; we are both football fans, the noble Lord being a fan of Vauxhall Motors, while I am a fan of Newcastle United; and of course we both have reasons, although different ones, to be profoundly grateful to Jeremy Corbyn. I wish him well, as I do Vauxhall Motors, which, it seems, was on a fine run of form before being stopped in its tracks by the latest national restrictions. Listening to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, it seems that his all-weather football pitch would be particularly appropriate on a day like today.
I will do my utmost to respond to as many as possible of the issues raised, but, as always, my door is open to anyone who wishes to discuss the Bill further as it goes through the House.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for the constructive tone in which they delivered their speeches. I am glad that a sort of consensus is emerging across the House that the Bill is the right step forward. I even find myself in the very unusual position of having the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and that self-declared old lefty, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—two of my most trenchant critics on other pieces of legislation. These are indeed strange times. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I am indeed proud to introduce this Bill, so he can put his mind at rest there.
I turn, first, to the concerns expressed about the investment security unit being within my department and its potential caseload—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Reid of Cardowan, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Rooker and Lord Bruce. I assure them and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who also raised it, that the unit will not work in isolation from the rest of government and will not in any way compromise on its duty to put national security first.
When it comes to the operation of this regime, we will not have informational barriers with other government departments. We will work closely with them to ensure that we use skills and experience from right across government. We will, though, have appropriate walls in place with those responsible for promoting investment —some walls but not others. Indeed, other departments and the security services are actively contributing to the design of the unit, thus ensuring that the plans for it take a cross-governmental approach. We have worked closely with our allies around the world on how to create an investment screening process fit for the 21st century.
I reassure noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord Bruce, Lord Fox and Lord Rooker, that the unit will be fully resourced to ensure that the Government provide a slick and predictable process for all parties involved. Officials will have a mix of national security, business and casework experience. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, spoke forcefully about the importance of having that mix of expertise, and my noble friend Lord Holmes emphasised that important point.
On the caseload for the investment security unit, I stress that the Government expect a fraction of acquisitions across the economy to be affected by the new regime. Once it beds in and investors become familiar with the process, we expect the number of notifications to decrease further. Of the transactions notified, we expect that fewer than 10% will face a detailed national security assessment and, of those facing one, only a small proportion will likely result in government intervention. We have been clear that businesses and investors will be encouraged to come to the investment security unit in advance of any formal notification, allowing for early discussions with officials about deals, although any final decision will be for the Secretary of State.
A number of noble Lords raised concerns about the impact of the regime on business investor confidence, including in relation to small and medium-sized businesses —a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. Among those who also spoke on that issue were my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Vaizey, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Reid, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Bhatia, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. The Government are committed to making the regime work for business. We have already published guidance for business on GOV.UK that sets out how the process is intended to work.
Noble Lords are entirely reasonable to expect further high-quality guidance from government to help businesses and investors navigate the regime. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts was right to raise that point. On the issue of prepacks, I am pleased that he received my letter in time for this debate and I look forward to further discussions. I know that he has strong views on that subject. That is why we will bring forward further guidance well in advance of commencement to give businesses as much clarity as is meaningfully possible on how the regime will function in practice. We will work directly with businesses and their representative organisations to make sure that we get that guidance right.
More broadly, the Government will never stand in the way of innovative, high-potential businesses setting up in the UK. Our record demonstrates that. Our investment in the British Patient Capital fund has attracted £1 billion of venture capital investment to date and we will continue to invest. By investing alongside the private sector, British Patient Capital aims to support £7.5 billion-worth of investment for British businesses. We have also announced a £7 billion investment in R&D over five years as a first step towards our target to raise total R&D investment to at least 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and 3% in the longer term.
Many noble Lords spoke about introducing a definition of “national security”, including my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Reid of Cardowan, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. The Bill does not set out the circumstances in which national security is or may be considered at risk. That reflects long-standing government policy to ensure that national security powers are sufficiently flexible to protect the nation. National security risks are multifaceted and constantly evolving. What may not constitute a risk today may do so in future. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Desai, recognised that point. The ability of the Secretary of State to safeguard national security would be limited if the Bill set out the circumstances in which national security is, or may be considered to be, at risk. By defining what national security is, we would, of course, also define what it is not. This could have grave implications and deliberately show hostile actors where the Government could not intervene. It would also have unintended consequences for other national security legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester, and Lord West of Spithead, spoke eloquently on the issue of parliamentary scrutiny with a particular emphasis on a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in overseeing the work of the regime. I am grateful for the discussion that we had with the noble Lord, Lord West, last week.
As I set out in my opening remarks, Clause 61 provides for an annual report to Parliament, which will be crucial in ensuring parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the investment security unit and the broader functioning of the regime. The Government will very much welcome the Intelligence and Security Committee’s review of the annual report. There are of course no restrictions on the committee requesting further information from the unit or the Secretary of State. Parliament will also be able to scrutinise the Statement, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted.
The former Secretary of State laid a draft of the Statement on introduction in the other place and we would, of course, welcome Parliament’s views on its content. We will carefully consider these views and look to reflect those in the next draft of the document, which will be published for formal public consultation, where the Statement can be fully scrutinised.
Many noble Lords spoke about the sectors subject to mandatory notification, including how they interact with other critical national infrastructure sectors. Considered arguments on this point were made by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Naseby, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Reid, Lord Woodley, Lord McNally, Lord Truscott, Lord Rooker and Lord Foulkes. The list of proposed sectors covered by mandatory notifications has been carefully developed across government, with input from all relevant departments and from the intelligence agencies. Put simply, the Government have sought to identify the sectors where certain types of acquisition could give rise to the greatest risks, while balancing this against the need to minimise the burdens on business.
As I set out in my opening remarks, we are working hard to bring forward regulations in time for your Lordships’ consideration. Some sectors, including water, as raised by my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Lansley and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are part of our critical national infrastructure. However, the Government consider that other safeguards provide sufficient protection to not require their inclusion in the mandatory notification sectors. In the water sector, for example, water supply and sewerage licenses are granted by Ofwat based on an assessment of a potential operator’s managerial, financial and technical competencies. Regardless, the Secretary of State will be able to call in acquisitions of control across the economy where the legal test is met. As such, not being in a mandatory notification sector does not mean that acquisitions of control over water, financial services or other critical sectors are exempt from the regime altogether.
Given some of the appalling news around at the moment, it was right that many noble Lords spoke forcefully about human rights—my noble friend Lord Robathan, for example—particularly the situation in Xinjiang. As noble Lords will be aware, the Foreign Secretary made a Statement in the other place setting out a series of measures that the Government are taking in response. The Government are gravely concerned about the human rights situation in Xinjiang. There is growing evidence of large-scale forced labour in the region, alongside the use of extrajudicial political re-education camps and severe pressure on religion and culture. We have been clear that we want a mature approach to China and that we must work together to address global challenges, but we will never hesitate to stand up for human rights as a force for good in the world.
Finally, a number of noble Lords raised the question of the effect of the regime on academia and universities, citing concerns raised by the Russell group. These included the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Reid of Cardowan, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Desai and Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I assure them that my officials have been engaging closely with the Russell group; we will continue this engagement as the Bill goes through the House to ensure that universities have smooth engagement with the new regime where necessary.
I thank all those who have spoken today and reiterate what I said in my opening remarks: this Government will always be absolutely committed to the free flow of trade and investment. The Bill does not change that; rather, it is a vital upgrade to our current powers that will keep the British people safe. I look forward to discussing it further in Committee but, for now, I commend it to the House.
Health Measures at UK Borders
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as of yesterday, more than 109,000 people in the United Kingdom have died because of Covid-19. We mourn all those lost and think of their families, for whom life will never be the same again. We must learn from past mistakes. Rather than being world-beating or world-class, we have the highest death rate in the entire world, with, on average, more than 1,000 people dying each day. It is a shameful and tragic figure.
Right from the start of this pandemic, we have had too little, too late; we have ignored the problem, denied the problem and then panicked and made a U-turn. We all know the Prime Minister is not a man for details or consistency. We were told we were going to build a world-beating test and trace system. He told the country that we would turn the tide by June, then in July, he said that there would be a significant return to normality by Christmas. When the leader of the Opposition suggested a two-week circuit break, he was mocked by the Prime Minister, only for the Prime Minister to do exactly what he called for weeks later and weeks too late. And then there was the dreadful performance when he accused the leader of the Opposition of wanting to cancel Christmas, only to announce new restrictions on 19 December. The Prime Minister has ignored medical advice and there has been error after error, which has cost many lives.
Let us be clear: the vaccination programme is going well because of the fabulous NHS, the GPs, other health professionals, the military, the police and the volunteers who are working to get the country vaccinated. We thank them for their brilliant work. No contracts have been awarded without proper tendering procedures and no companies have been mysteriously formed and given millions of pounds without obvious identifiable experience or a track record in the area in question.
One key area where the Government have clearly fallen short is on protecting our borders. The measures outlined are another example of too little, too late. Limiting hotel quarantine to countries from which travel by non-EU residents was already banned means that the Home Secretary’s proposals do not go anywhere near far enough.
Mutations of the virus are undermining the efficiency of the vaccines and threatening life and hope. We cannot know where a mutation will emerge next. The truth is that the Government are once again behind the curve. This announcement is too limited. It leaves huge gaps in our defences against emerging strains. We know that strains that emerged in South Africa and Brazil have already reached these shores—that is little wonder given that the controls have been so lax, with just three in 100 people quarantining having been successfully contacted, and with border testing introduced only 10 months after the first lockdown. Even then, the start had to be delayed because the Government could not get the necessary systems in place.
Can the Minister tell the House how we can be assured that travellers will not arrive with emergent strains via countries that are not on the control list? What support has been made available to ensure improvements in quarantining compliance and the Isolation Assurance Service? Why has it taken so long to step up checks, when we know that the system has been failing for months? What discussions have taken place with hotel chains to ensure the availability of rooms? How often will the list of red list countries be reviewed and updated? Will it be based purely on the country of risk or on the capacity of UK quarantining facilities?
Travellers arriving in Scotland from any country outside the British Isles will be forced to quarantine in a hotel, whereas in England, only travellers from the red list countries will be required to quarantine. Does the Minister accept that the greatest barrier to a four-nation approach is the Westminster Government dragging their feet? For those people travelling out of the country, why is enforcement being stepped up only now?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s approach to border biosecurity appears to be all over the place. They previously had travel corridors in place, but they then scrapped these and imposed the requirement of a negative Covid test and 10 days’ quarantine on all arrivals into the UK, unless travellers pay for an expensive test-to-release scheme, where a further negative test five days after arrival in the UK can shorten the quarantine. Enforcement of these rules appears to be lax, to say the least.
The Government also introduced travel bans on direct flights and on non-UK citizens travelling from countries where the variants first identified in Brazil and in South Africa are prevalent, including Portugal, where many flights from Brazil arrive into Europe. The reason the Government gave was that this was on the basis that further research needed to be carried out on these variants to establish whether they were more contagious, more dangerous and more vaccine resistant. How closer are the Government to answering these three questions about the new variants and what criteria will need to be met on how contagious, dangerous or resistant they are before a decision can be made as to whether these restrictions can be lifted or varied?
The Government say that they are going to introduce compulsory hotel quarantine on UK nationals arriving from these so-called red list countries. How many rooms will be required? UKHospitality, the trade body representing the country’s hotels, said yesterday that it had no information on how the system might work, and leading hotel chains around Heathrow told PoliticsHome that they have not been contacted to assist with any type of scheme. When will the scheme be in place?
Her Majesty’s Official Opposition are calling for all arrivals into the UK to face compulsory hotel quarantine. The argument appears to be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has said, new Covid variants could occur anywhere in the world. However, Labour want the existing list of exemptions from quarantine on arrival into the UK to be maintained. This includes, for example, workers who travel at least once a week into and out of the UK.
Sir Keir Starmer said yesterday that 21,000 passengers arrived in the UK on Monday. What are the Government’s estimates of the hotel capacity required were all arrivals into the UK to face compulsory 10-day hotel quarantine? Taking the example of Australia, which has adopted such a policy, there are hundreds of thousands of Australian nationals unable to return home because of limited Covid-safe hotel capacity or because they cannot afford the cost of compulsory hotel quarantine. Do the Government expect similar problems here in the UK?
What consideration have the Government given to, at the very least, extending their ban on direct flights or on non-UK nationals from entering the UK, and extending their compulsory hotel quarantine policy for UK nationals, to include countries where there is no rapid genomic sequencing capacity? There, a new or existing Covid variant is unlikely to be identified quickly enough to prevent infections in the UK.
How much of a risk do travellers from outside the UK actually present? In the light of the high level of infections in the UK, both in terms of total numbers and as a proportion of the population, what is the probability that a new, more contagious, harmful or vaccine-resistant Covid variant will result from a mutation of the virus within in the UK, compared with the probability that this will occur in a country with few or no Covid infections? Is the recent E484K mutation of the variant first identified in Kent, that is similar to the variant first identified in South Africa, an example that the threat of dangerous mutations lies as much, if not more, within the UK as it does overseas?
Taking the examples of Australia, New Zealand, the Isle of Man or even Norway—where I am speaking from now—where Covid infections are low or non-existent, test and trace is effective, and where there is rapid genomic sequencing capability, what is the reasoning behind quarantining arrivals from such countries when they arrive in the UK. In short, what is the basis for the Government’s strategy towards border controls—if they have one? It certainly does not seem to be based on either science or common sense.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in mourning the 109,000 people who have died. It is a terrible time, and our hearts go out to their families. Both noble Lords asked a series of interesting questions. I say from the outset that the strategy is based on two things. One is reducing transmissibility; the second is supressing any new variants. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked a very interesting question about the probability of a new more deadly virus, both from without and within the UK. That is a question that nobody can answer until it actually happens, because viruses mutate all the time: some in a weaker form, some in a stronger form. We know that new variants that we have seen recently are more transmissible, not necessarily more deadly, but supressing new variants because of the danger that the noble Lord talks about is absolutely the right thing.
I do not agree that we have got the strategy wrong, or that the strategy has been all over the place. All along, the strategy has been guided by the science. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, makes accusations about the Prime Minister. We do not often have spats like this, but his right honourable friend Keir Starmer has been heard to say he mourned the passing of our use of the European Medicines Agency. Thank goodness we did not follow the Opposition’s strategy. The noble Lord also talked about how pleased he was about vaccinations. It is absolutely incredible: over 10 million people vaccinated. In terms of the vaccines’ interaction with the new variants, we think from results so far—although it is quite early to tell—that there is still some protection from some of the new variants we have seen.
All along, we have followed the FCDO advice. The regulations and powers that we have been making under the Coronavirus Act have come regularly. One thing to be borne in mind is that we have reduced travel by 90%, and of course self-isolation as a practice has been in place since last year.
With regard to review of the red countries, countries are of course under review all the time. In Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was saying, everyone has to isolate. That is as may be, but we think the strategy we are employing is absolutely the right one.
It is important that we reduce the risk by reducing the number of people who enter the country who could be a new threat in terms of the variants and mutations, as I have said. We have already implemented numerous measures and protections to reduce that risk, but of course, last week new additional levels of protection at our disposal were announced. Some are forthcoming regarding hotels, as noble Lords have said. I understand that the DHSC will be leading on that and announcements will be made in due course.
I understand that the IS will be checking more than 5,000 people coming into the country and will contact all those who have arrived 10 days prior, as it has been doing and naturally has been asked to do, with regard to self-isolation. There will be an increase of about 1,000 targeted follow-up visits a day from that enhanced police presence at ports, borders and airports.
On enforcement, I understand that, as there have been, there will be fines for not complying with this, and of course the enforcement being done by police and Border Force will be stepped up. Capacity in hotels is a piece of work that DHSC will be carrying out.
I understand the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about compulsory 10-day quarantine in Australia. That has been very effective there but of course, Australia has some features that are entirely different from ours and which make it easier for people to quarantine.
The noble Lord also asked about countries with no genomic sequencing, which I thought was an interesting point. We are lending our expertise to countries to help them with their genomic sequencing because, of course, this is a problem not just for the UK but for the entire world. Genomic sequencing capabilities that help us will help the rest of the world.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be very brief so that I can call the maximum number of people.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we all support the Minister in what is a very difficult job. The Statement says that people should be staying at home unless they have a valid reason to leave, and that going on holiday is not a valid reason. I could not agree more; that is absolutely right. However, I ask the Minister to realise that there are some legitimate reasons why people need to travel. If I heard correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is in Norway at the moment, presumably because he has a very good reason to be there.
I wish to ask the Minister two questions. The Statement says:
“We will introduce a new requirement so that people wishing to travel must first make a declaration as to why they need to travel. This ‘reason for travel’ will be checked by carriers”.
When will this come into force and will it be available online? It says, “checked by carriers”, so presumably the carriers will be given some guidance. Can the Minister clarify whether the result of a negative lateral flow test done by the NHS is acceptable when presented to Border Force as proof that the bearer is not infected and therefore eligible to travel?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, guidance is always issued when the rules change, and it is absolutely right that it would be issued in this case. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the rule is to stay at home unless there is a legitimate reason to leave. Of course, some people do have legitimate reasons to leave and I know that he is one of them.
NHS tests cannot be used for predeparture travel purposes, and it is not because of the type of test—for example, the lateral flow test. It applies to any NHS test, and that is because we believe that the NHS testing capacity should be used for health purposes and not for the purposes of travel. However, I take his point about the necessity of him having to travel. Protecting public health remains our top priority and we need to reduce the risk of importing Covid. All business is important, but we acknowledge that a high proportion of work can be done online—not his, I know—and people should limit travel where possible to essential journeys. I am afraid that exemptions from the self-isolation passenger information and predeparture testing requirements will not apply to business travel. A limited number of jobs qualify for exemption, which are vital to maintaining the flow of critical goods, protecting essential services, protecting national security or facilitating government work.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister give her insight into the extraordinary delays at border control at Heathrow, where a three-hour wait was recently recorded in inappropriate lines? I do not wish to pour cold water on the Government’s strategy under what are extremely difficult circumstances. I should at this stage remind the House that I am resident in Portugal. Why are the Government focusing on quarantine hotels as a solution when the technology, testing and vaccine capability is readily available to deploy digital travel passes, and in the process create safe travel routes, open up airports, and reboot the airline sector? Can any indication be offered as to how long the hotel quarantines will go on for? I am informed that the ICC AOKpass scheme is successfully operating between Rome and New York. That organisation stands ready to work with the Government to test the process on an international route, and I am sure that it would welcome hearing what contribution it could make to help the Government in this area.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion. Of course, the Government are open to any suggestions that might make the process more efficient. In response to his question about how long this will go on for, we are completely guided by the numbers. Obviously there have been very pleasing developments recently—the numbers are going down. The noble Lord is absolutely right that technological advances are always very useful in this regard. As to the three-hour wait, even though air travel is 90% down, I suspect that the reason for the wait to which the noble Lord referred was because of the step-up in checks and procedures at the border.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has a well-earned reputation of being very assiduous, and she has shown that today in answering the questions. May I test her a little further? In a nutshell, on 27 January, the Home Secretary, when she was announcing that we were going to have to tighten up our borders, said that there were
“too many people coming in and out of our country each day.”
That was eight days ago and, as I understand it, we might have to wait another 10 days before the Government’s new policy is implemented. I know that the Government—and especially the Minister—are very thorough, so can she give me some advice about the Government’s estimate of the number of individuals who enter this country every day who may be carrying the disease and how that will mount up over the days? How can the Government justify taking so long to implement this new policy?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is very nice to see him after so long; I have not seen him for ages. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary did say that too many people were going in and out of the country, which helps to spread the virus and risks new variants going in and out. I have a very old figure for the percentage of individuals who may be carrying the virus into the country, but I suspect it is out of date. That figure is 2%, but I am going back nearly a year now. If it is wrong, I will give the noble Lord a more up-to-date figure. I suspect it is not correct now.
Why are the quarantine hotels taking so long? I presume that was the question. It is a DHSC matter, and it has to procure the hotels and put Covid-secure arrangements in place for people to quarantine. Some of the arrangements in Australia are incredibly stringent.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We have a technical problem with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, so the next speaker will be the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I confess to being taken aback by the opening comments from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—so full of inappropriate political opportunism and so out of character for the noble Lord. The Government are right to take the layered approach that my noble friend outlined. A dynamic, agile risk assessment should mean that we find the balance between controlling the virus and protecting the economy. I ask my noble friend what consultations the Government have had with the overseas territories to maintain air corridors, particularly in light of our obligations to support urgent medical evacuations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question about negotiating with the overseas territories. Commercial flights continue to maintain direct air links with the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Gibraltar. Special chartered flights from St Helena, arranged in conjunction with its Government, have provided a direct link during the pandemic, allowing people to travel to the UK for medical treatment. Military flights continue to provide access to the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island. I am pleased to say that the FCDO has been supporting the overseas territories throughout the pandemic. As of today, with the support of partners across government, we have delivered vaccines to nine territories. That is good news and returns to my earlier point about this being a problem for the whole of the world.
Since 18 January, all travel corridors for people arriving in England were suspended. Since travel corridors were introduced, we have constantly kept the risk factor of individual countries under review and have, at this point, decided it is necessary to restrict international travel, as critical analysis shows that the risk of transmission from Covid is still too high. Exemptions from self-isolation requirements to enable individuals travelling to the UK to attend medical treatment remain in place, and air ambulances are exempt from travel bans for high-risk countries, allowing urgent medical evacuations to take place.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, I want to press the point from the noble Lord, Lord Clark, about the numbers coming in while we have this ongoing delay—eight days now. We also heard in the Minister’s opening remarks that approximately 21,000 people came in either yesterday or the day before. The maths are simple: this means that, over those eight days, there have been 160,000 people. The problem with not quarantining in hotels is that these people potentially travel around the country, using public transport and spaces, shopping and buying food; in other words, potentially spreading the virus. The Minister may take comfort from the fact that they may have had Covid tests, but the authenticity and accuracy of Covid tests is an open question in many countries, where people are still allowed in.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, because I do not have figures before me, but she is absolutely right about people coming to this country and travelling around, which is why these quarantine measures are so much needed and why checks at the borders and enforcement have been stepped up.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick mentioned Norway. Have the Government considered emulating the successful Norwegian system, whereby only nationals and those with legal residence are allowed into the country at all, there is testing of everyone on arrival and seven days later, paid for by the state, and of course there is an excellent test and trace system? If the Government have not considered copying such a system, why not? May I just correct the Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister on another matter? Being under EU law and the European Medicines Agency in the transition period could not and, indeed, did not prevent the UK doing its own thing on vaccines, as it took advantage of a national derogation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that we were being pressed last year to go with the EU in its vaccination programme and we said no, and it was the right thing to say no. I am not going to harp on and make political points, but we did the right thing at the right time. I do not say that from a position of carping: we did the right thing at the right time; we procured at the right time; it was absolutely the right thing to do and we should be really proud of that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government and all in the National Health Service, whether staff or volunteers, on the marvellous rollout of the vaccine programme: thank you for all the hard work. Last week, during the repeat of the Covid update Statement in this House, I asked the Minister some questions about the proposal to use quarantine hotels. The response was that further details would follow this week. I am therefore asking once again, as I find the proposals on quarantine hotels set out in this Statement appear more watered down that those the Prime Minister spoke about on 27 January.
I know that Australia has been using this system of quarantine hotels for some time, and now it has quite a high profile, with the Australian Open tennis players in isolation in hotel quarantine at the moment. What are the plans for quarantine hotels here and who is it envisaged will use them? This Statement refers to their being only for those who “cannot be refused entry.” Given that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, tells us in the track and trace report that only 60% of people isolate when asked to do so, should not all travellers to the UK be made to quarantine in hotels on arrival, to ensure isolation?
In addition, I understand that travellers are also going to be asked to make a declaration as to their reason for travel, and that is going to be checked by the carriers. I drew attention recently to the fact that in Australia they are now reporting problems with people pretending to come from other parts of the country, where they have not come from at all, in order to be untraceable. Will the Government confirm that there will be a penalty for carriers and travellers alike, as such a declaration about where you have come from can be effective only if the carriers refuse to transport people not travelling for legitimate reasons, and this cannot be just a ticking of the box exercise? We have also heard a lot in the press about private jets being used to circumvent restrictions. Will the same rules apply to them and how will these be enforced?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I ask the noble Baroness to finish. Thank you.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, in light of increasing concerns around new variants, mandatory quarantine measures for those arriving from high-risk countries are the next essential step to safeguard public health. It is also crucial that those who wish to travel to the UK from high-risk countries do so in full knowledge that our overwhelming priority is to protect the health of the population. The fact that not all travellers will be quarantined should be seen alongside other measures. It is illegal to leave home, including to travel abroad, except for a limited set of reasons. Where travellers enter the UK, there are strict isolation measures in place to prevent onward transmission, and the Government will apply quarantine measures in respect of travellers coming from high-risk destinations. We are working urgently to finalise the details of our quarantine plans. I can confirm that operators face a fine of £2,000 for each passenger conveyed to England without proof of a negative result, and £2,000 for each passenger conveyed to England without a completed passenger locator form. These requirements apply to all inbound passengers to England.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, those arriving in the UK are obliged to provide a polymerase chain reaction test. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out, only 60% of those people go on to obey the self-isolation rules. Can the noble Baroness therefore explain how we are making sure that people arriving and handing over their PCR tests are providing genuine evidence that they do not have the virus, rather than making use of the enterprising people already forging these certificates and charging significantly less than the official rate?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point, because there has been a lot of fraudulent and scam activity around the coronavirus. The only thing this leads to is misery, because if you produce a false test—a false certificate to say that you have had a negative test—you put yourself and others around you in danger. I am sure that our good Border Force has measures in place at the border to try to spot some of this fraudulent activity. In relation to compliance, we have stepped up some of the enforcement measures and the follow-up work to ensure that people are self-isolating, and we are also checking more people at the border.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Lord Bradshaw, could you please ask your question?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I suggest that we move on to the next speaker.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
That was exciting, my Lords. Can the Minister say what the delay is in putting the hotel quarantines together? The Government have known about the problem of the variant in South Africa for weeks—since well before Christmas. They have been advised by SAGE and NERVTAG about the need to take action, yet this morning we heard from the chief executive of the Best Western hotel chain, which has global experience of running these operations, that there has been virtually no detailed discussion with that company—or, I assume, with other companies. What on earth is the delay?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, this is a DHSC lead matter, but that does not mean that I will try to evade answering the question. I imagine that some of the procurement activity that is taking place—making those hotels Covid secure—is a challenge. I can say, however, that the Government are working as hard as we can to get these hotels up and running as quickly as possible.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, despite what many seem to think, this is extremely complex. I have a great deal of sympathy for those trying to find a way through this hugely difficult problem. One thing I am struggling with is how it is possible to identify transit and stopover passengers arriving in this country who are originating from high-risk areas. Are we just relying on the honesty of those passengers filling in their locator forms accurately?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Obviously, there are travel bans from certain countries, but in terms of transit—which is what the noble Lord is talking about—we ask anyone who arrives at our borders to fill in the forms. We do follow up on those forms and we are, to some extent, relying on the good will and honesty of people in doing so. People will always try to find a way around the system, but I think we are relying on people’s honesty to a certain extent.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it seems that international arrivals in the United Kingdom will be under certain common rules. Will the Minister make sure that, in her discussions with the devolved Administrations, we do not end up with a system of divergence just for divergence’s sake? If we have compulsory quarantine requirements, surely they ought to apply in the same way to the whole of the United Kingdom if they are underpinned by rational scientific decisions.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think the noble Baroness makes a really good point. We might be four nations, but we should be acting as one nation. That is the most effective and efficient way to try to control the virus and save lives.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, was right in pinpointing the difference of opinion that seems to exist between what the Home Secretary has said and what the Prime Minister says in this Statement. Could the Minister tell us whether the Home Secretary has full confidence in this Statement, after the comments the noble Lord, Lord Clark, made earlier?
According to the Statement, police have stepped up their action—quite rightly so, nobody disputes that—but how do we ensure that this does not have an adverse impact on BAME communities, as research has repeatedly shown about this type of contact with the police? What mechanisms exist to make sure that people can appeal against some very heavy fines? I do not believe that many students who receive fines of up to £2,000 or £10,000 have any capacity to pay that sort of money.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think there should be a principle we accept that if people are fined, they have been not only acting against the law but putting the lives of other people in danger. I take the point about students being able to pay fines, but there is an obligation on each and every one of us to keep each other safe. On the noble Lord’s point about the BAME community, there is obvious evidence that the community is suffering more in terms of symptoms and illness than the population at large. The way in which we all behave has an effect on the well-being, or otherwise, of our BAME friends in this country.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to my noble friend the Minister, who has been working a gruelling schedule in very difficult circumstances for many months now. Much of what I was due to raise has already been raised by my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes, Lady Wheatcroft and Lord Randall, but may I press my noble friend? The Government announced the new rules about overseas travel on 4 January, some five weeks ago, yet it still does not seem clear what current checks are in place to ensure that those travelling to and from the UK are doing so only for necessary and essential travel. Does she, for example, have any figures on how many passengers have been prevented from boarding flights since the new criteria were introduced? What are the checks to ensure that the passenger locator forms are accurately and truthfully completed, so that the system we have in place is effective?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend is right about the importance of the passenger locator forms being accurate and people being honest, and of some of those follow-up checks, with enforcement if necessary. As I said to earlier speakers, those checks are being stepped up. People are flouting the rules because they do not think they apply to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, 109,000 people have died, and it is very important that people stick to the rules so that we can protect the NHS and save lives.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
Finally, with any luck, I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I wanted to ask the Minister whether the rules apply to general aviation as well as to ordinary civil aviation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think so. The noble Lord has tried to get in three times now, and he has asked me a question that has slightly flummoxed me. May I write to him?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Okay; I will check that out and get back to the noble Lord.