House of Commons
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer) [V]
The Prime Minister set up the Office for Veterans’ Affairs because he, like me, is determined to ensure that this country becomes the best place in the world to be a veteran. In addition to excellent officials, the OVA benefits from expert advice from the Government’s Veterans Advisory Board and the newly appointed veterans adviser.
Mr Speaker
There is a little hiccup, I think. We are definitely going to have to move on.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) together.
Ian Levy [V]
In 2019, I think we all took for granted the ability to run election campaigns that could properly engage with the electorate. Campaigning for this year’s elections on 6 May will look very different, but now more than ever, there is a need to engage with our constituents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that all those who stand for elections should be able to convey their messages to voters, and will he please elaborate on how he believes campaigning should go ahead in a covid-secure way?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: democracy should not be cancelled because of covid-19. The polls that are scheduled for May will go ahead, and it is important that he and others communicate with his constituents. Of course, social media provides one means of doing so. At the moment, door-to-door campaigning and leafleting are not allowed because of covid restrictions, but we will be reviewing how we can make sure that he and others can keep faith with the constituents who elected him so memorably just over a year ago.
Matt Western [V]
The public will be expecting covid-safe and fair elections in May. Presently, households are receiving flyers for pizzas and takeaways delivered by individuals, but volunteers are not supposed to be delivering leaflets for political parties, although some are clearly ignoring that. In local elections, the public need representatives who will speak up for them and not for property developers such as the six leading Tory donors that have given £4.5 million, an increase of 400%, since July 2019. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that if only paid-for leafleting were allowed, that would be a disastrous disservice to our democracy?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a series of important points. It is quite right that some political activists have been leafleting on the ground in a way that current rules do not allow for, and we deprecate that across the House. His broader point is right as well, of course; we must make sure that our democratic processes are free from any taint of interference. He is also right that the role of property developers needs to be scrutinised when we are looking at how we clean up our politics, and I know that he will be as eager as I am to make sure that Unite the union does so as well.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The advice that came from the Government this week on local elections was welcome; however, the most innovative idea appeared to be to bring your own pencil to the polls, so I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster two specific questions.
The first is on the use of schools as polling stations. Many schools are having to use school halls for teaching, which would not normally have to happen. What support will the Government give local registration officers to find appropriate venues with appropriate ventilation?
The second question is on the issue of elections falling into different areas of the tiering system, which may well be in place by May. Might there be an unfair political advantage to one candidate if the restrictions were lesser in one area than another?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady raises two important questions. The first is with respect to schools. The Minister for School Standards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), will be writing to local authorities and schools today, alongside Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to outline how schools can be used in a safe and appropriate way, but we are also making funding available to local authorities so that alternative venues other than schools can be used where appropriate.
The hon. Lady’s second point, relating to unfairness as a result of different restrictions perhaps occurring in different local government areas, is an important one, and one that we are taking into account as we plan for these local elections.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
The UK spends £290 billion on public procurement each year. Now that we have left the EU transition period, we aim to make it simpler, quicker and cheaper for small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises to bid for Government contracts, as set out in our ambitious procurement Green Paper. We have already introduced a policy that will allow below-threshold contracts to be reserved for smaller UK suppliers, and we hope our new approach to social value will secure wider public benefit by allowing us to contract with firms that deliver more apprenticeships, local growth opportunities and environmental benefits.
Stephen Metcalfe [V]
I know that my hon. Friend will agree that our small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of our economy. I am sure that she will also agree that giving them the opportunity to bid for Government contracts will give them a significant boost and help them recover from what has been a very tough year. Will she lay out exactly how the Government will be promoting this opportunity to SMEs, so that businesses in Basildon and Thurrock can start to bid immediately?
Julia Lopez
I agree with my hon. Friend that the opportunities in this space are huge, and we think that our reforms will play a huge role in our post-covid recovery. For too long, complex and opaque procurement rules have benefited bigger and less innovative firms. Our reforms will simplify the current framework of over 350 regulations into one uniform set of rules, and move from seven procurement procedures to three. Our free-to-use digital platform, Contracts Finder, should make it easier for businesses in his constituency to find relevant opportunities. We want to make supply registration far simpler, so that data has to be submitted only once to qualify for any public sector procurement.
Miriam Cates [V]
Small businesses in my constituency would like the opportunity to bid for more Government and council contracts, but the current procurement rules are too complex and inevitably favour big firms. Can my hon. Friend assure me that we will be using our new freedom from EU procurement rules to deliver more commercial opportunities to innovative, dynamic SMEs in Penistone and Stocksbridge?
Julia Lopez
Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend, as someone who has run a business herself, understands the bureaucratic frustrations that too many of her constituency businesses come up against. We want public buyers to divide contracts into more accessible lots and allow them to reserve contracts under a certain threshold for small, innovative firms. We are also pushing ambitious targets on prompt payment, and we aim to simplify the bidding process so that it does not favour big firms, which inevitably have greater resources to devote to form-filling and box-ticking.
Danny Kruger [V]
I welcome the recent Green Paper setting out the freedoms that the UK now enjoys to create a new framework for public procurement, including a new exceptional power for public bodies to commission for wider public benefit. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to go further and make this exception the norm, ensuring more joined-up services and better overall outcomes for the public? Otherwise, we will be getting only half the Brexit dividend that we could in the field of procurement, with freedoms but not the actual implementation.
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is quite right. Our proposed procurement reforms will not in themselves deliver change unless commercial teams across the public sector actually understand how to deploy them to greatest effect. That is why we are introducing a programme of training for contracting authorities. On the matter of wider public benefit, I refer him to our social value model. We do not want to award only to those that make the cheapest bid; we also want to award to firms that offer value for money in a much broader sense, including to the community in which the service is being delivered. I know that is something he cares very passionately about, given his thoughtful review on a new social covenant.
Caroline Ansell [V]
I so welcome all that my hon. Friend has said on this. I am mustard-keen to see Government contracts open up and work for businesses and charities in Eastbourne. The latest feedback from one of my manufacturers, which has just ventured into this arena with a bid to the Ministry of Defence, highlights the absence of a published timeline on decision making for the contract, which the manufacturer says is essential information to allow it to plan for success, build capacity and ensure that it delivers for all its customers. Will she look at this situation, to ensure that the whole process is as transparent and as small business-friendly as possible?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this; she raises an important point. I am happy to look into the specifics of the case and take it up with officials, or she might want to look at the public procurement review service. All Departments, including the MOD, are actively supporting the SME agenda, and one of the ways we hope to encourage more bids from SMEs is by publishing contract pipelines well in advance, so that they have much more time to plan and resource bids, and shorten the time in which contracting bodies make decisions.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Our trade and co-operation agreement with the EU is the first free trade agreement that the EU has ever reached based on zero tariffs and zero quotas. The agreement will help unlock investment and protect high-value jobs right across the UK. We will now take full advantage of the opportunities created by this deal, helping to boost productivity, unlock investment and safeguard high-value jobs in the UK. Goods are flowing freely through our ports, with levels of freight around what we would expect for this time of year, but we are also working closely with businesses that are facing challenges, and we are in regular operational contact with EU countries in order to smooth trade.
Lia Nici [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and I know he is doing all he can to reduce the turbulence, but Grimsby fish exporters are reporting to me that despite the EU agreement on free trade, French ports are introducing additional paperwork and extra costs. They are even insisting that we hire EU nationals to do that additional work. Will he take this matter up, so that we can ensure that the people of the EU continue to enjoy the highest quality seafood in Europe, processed in Great Grimsby?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The highest-quality seafood in the whole of Europe is produced in Great Grimsby. Indeed, I remember my dad, when he ran a fish processing business, sending some of the fish that he bought at Aberdeen fish market to Grimsby for processing, and it was enjoyed on tables across Europe. She is absolutely right to say that there are still some bureaucratic obstacles that we need to negotiate and navigate. We have set up a specific seafoods export working group, which meets twice weekly, and we are engaging with our friends in France in order to ensure that we can continue to enjoy Great Grimsby fish.
James Wild [V]
Two exporters in Kings Lynn, Guy Raymond Engineering and Captain Fawcett, a gentleman’s grooming firm, have raised concerns about waiting up to 16 hours for HMRC transit documentation, delays in customs clearance in France and other countries as they interpret the rules differently, and each courier firm demanding different informational declarations. This is delaying the delivery of their products, so will my right hon. Friend take up these issues with courier firms, HMRC and our EU partners so that goods can continue to flow to customers?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that in order to ensure that we have a seamless flow of trade, each individual element in that chain needs to be working as effectively as possible, so we are working with courier companies to ensure that we can smooth any difficulties, HMRC is looking at easements and facilitations, and of course we are talking to our EU friends and neighbours to ensure that there is a consistent approach.
Anthony Mangnall
Under the terms of the EU-UK trade deal, there is a requirement to set up a sanitary and phytosanitary trade committee as well as a committee on fishing. When will those committees be set up? If the EU does not adhere to the rules and the agreements that were made, will we restrict the licence given to any European fishing vessels in our waters?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for the seafood sector; one of the largest fishing ports in England is in his constituency. He is absolutely right to say that there are means and mechanisms by which we and the EU can work together to smooth the export of high-quality seafood. There have been difficulties and challenges, but we are overcoming them and it is also important that we reserve our own rights when it comes to ensuring that the EU lives up to its side of the bargain.
Mr Robertson
Less than an hour ago, my office received a call from a haulier in my constituency who has been sending animal-based products to the continent for 40 years. The vet-checked lorry, which had its seal on, was held up at the Calais compound for 11 hours, even though it was on its way to Germany. It was eventually passed with just a cursory glance. In his meetings with his EU counterparts later today, will my right hon. Friend raise such issues and stress to them that it is not acceptable, and certainly not necessary, to do that?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Exporters have gone to great lengths to ensure that the products of animal origin that they are exporting meet the SPS requirements that are in place, and delays of the kind he mentions are unacceptable, so I will investigate that case.
Mrs Murray [V]
Fishing exporters in my constituency are having problems exporting to the EU. We signed a deal that said we could export to the EU. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that these exports happen without hindrance, and will he start boarding EU vessels in retaliation if we still see this obstructive action on the part of the European Union?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has been one of the doughtiest defenders of the fishing sector in this House for a few years now, and she is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that any bureaucratic obstructions that individual EU member states may still be applying are lifted. As I mentioned in response to our hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), we will reserve our right as an independent coastal state to do whatever is required to ensure that our fishermen are backed up every step of the way.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
The House of Commons Library described the EU trade and co-operation agreement by saying, as the Minister has:
“There will be no tariffs or quotas…provided rules of origin are met.”
However, it went on to say:
“There are increased non-tariff barriers, but measures on customs and trade facilitation to ease these.”
Given that 60% of companies have had difficulties importing from or exporting to the EU, and that 30% or more of companies have had their supply chain impacted in both directions, when will the measures to ease the problems at the borders begin to work?
Michael Gove
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his new role in the recent Scottish National party Westminster reshuffle, and look forward to working with him across the Dispatch Box. He is right to say that a number of facilitations and easements have been put in place, some before the end of the transition period on 31 December, but we are providing more support, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in order to enable them to take full advantage of their new opportunities.
Stewart Hosie
I am struggling to see the advantages and new opportunities. A firm in my constituency, Wilde Mode Ltd, imports, among other things, rolls of printed fabric from Poland. Before Brexit, the cost of delivery was less than €40, but because courier and other companies are no longer shipping to the UK the owners of that company are now being quoted €2,000 for the same delivery. As the Minister will know, that is completely unsustainable. So I ask again: when will the measures to ease these problems be put in place fully and actually start to work?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of the firm in his constituency and will look specifically at that firm’s challenges, and the position of both the firm in Poland that supplies all those fabrics and the courier he mentions, in order to make sure that any interruption in the free flow of produce from Poland to Dundee is dealt with.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
A Make UK survey shows that 61% of manufacturers are suffering disruption to their supply chain; one car company is parking hundreds of cars because of problems with its supply chain; road haulage in Northern Ireland is in chaos; the Road Haulage Association survey shows that more than one in two of its members throughout the UK are swamped by red tape; and Government officials are even advising companies to set up hubs on the continent, when we should be building British and buying British. What will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster do finally to ease such burdens on business on our great British companies, which are deeply damaging, at the worst possible time?
Michael Gove
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman on the need to build British and buy British. The procurement Green Paper that the Cabinet Office Minister Lord Agnew produced enables us to do just that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of examples of disruption. There have been some challenges, but there have also been some reports, including, I regret to say, in The Observer, that have not been wholly accurate in their depiction of the challenges our exporters face.
Jack Dromey
Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster begin to recognise the scale of the mountainous problems confronting British business? The Government left them with one week between Christmas eve and 1 January to adapt to new rules running to hundreds of pages. Then, when companies all across the UK raised their concerns, the Prime Minister dismissed them as “teething problems”. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster take this opportunity to apologise to British business for the disruption the Government have inflicted on them?
Michael Gove
I know the hon. Gentleman has dedicated his life, both before he came into this House and in this House, to supporting British manufacturing, so I take seriously the concerns he raises. We meet business representative organisations every week through the Brexit business taskforce in order to deal with any challenges and to explore additional opportunities. I should have welcomed him to his new role in the shadow Cabinet Office team. I look forward to working with him, because I know that he is dedicated to making sure that British manufacturers, the best in the world, have all the opportunities they need. I hope to work pragmatically with him to achieve just that.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government already have robust processes in place for spending public money fairly and achieving value for money for the taxpayer. We recently published detailed proposals for new and improved procurement rules in the Green Paper that I mentioned earlier, and these proposals include specific measures to strengthen transparency through the commercial lifecycle, from planning through to procurement, contract award, performance and completion.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy [V]
Last week, the Government’s own legal representatives admitted that they had breached procurement law by persistently failing to publish details of covid-19 contracts. The Good Law Project could also expose the wholesale failure to comply with obligations of transparency, and questions remain over the £500 million-worth of taxpayers’ money spent on personal protective equipment deals with companies that are Tory donors. Does the Minister agree that this is reflective of the Government’s failed response to the pandemic and that this lack of accountability has completely damaged confidence and trust in the Government?
Michael Gove
I do not quite agree with that. It is fair to say that we do need to be vigilant when it comes to the use of public money and the awarding of contracts, but it is the case that, if we look at, for example, personal protective equipment and other goods that were sourced during the course of the covid pandemic, 99.5% of the goods that were sourced were operational and effective. We were also procuring at speed. There were suggestions from across the House as to some of the companies that we should have contracts with. Not all of those suggestions were necessarily absolutely spot on, but what we did do was to ensure that we prioritised those companies that were capable of meeting the needs of the hour.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Institute for Government last week highlighted that 99% of the Government’s covid contracts had not gone out to tender. Does the Minister agree that this cannot continue and only leads to suspicion about the nature of the awards and who is getting them? Will he tell the House when the Government intend to wind down the extensive use of these extraordinary procurement powers? Can he give a date?
Michael Gove
Again, let me welcome a new member to the shadow Cabinet Office team, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and congratulate her on her promotion. It is the case, of course, that we want best practice to apply in all procurement, and the recent Boardman report that the Cabinet Office commissioned emphasises some changes that we can make in order to ensure even greater effectiveness and transparency. At the beginning of the covid pandemic, when there was a global demand for personal protective equipment, we used perfectly legitimate, well-understood expedited practices. There were, as I mentioned earlier, a number of suggestions from across the House, including from Labour MPs, of companies and firms that could help. It was important that we looked at those with speed and expedition in order to ensure that those who were capable, as many were, of providing us with the equipment that we needed were able to get that equipment on to the NHS frontline as quickly as possible.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government are committed to delivering our bold agenda of electoral reform to strengthen our democracy and protect public trust and confidence in our elections. As outlined in our 2019 manifesto, the Government will introduce measures requiring identification to vote at polling stations and to stop postal vote harvesting.
Dr Poulter [V]
The Minister will be aware that, during the previous election and, indeed, during the 2017 election, there was considerable concern about students potentially voting in more than one location. Is there more that my right hon. Friend can do to ensure that we prevent this from happening? Rather than just relying on retrospective prosecutions, can we look at improving the registration process to stop people registering to vote or potentially trying to vote in more than one location at a general election?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. My colleague, the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, is looking at exactly how we can ensure that we have effective voter registration so that either confusion or, indeed, an outright attempt to subvert the integrity of the poll can be dealt with, and we will be bringing forward more detail in due course.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government are committed to protecting and promoting the combined strengths of our Union, building on 300 years of successful partnership. It is vital that we continue to work across the United Kingdom on common challenges that we all face, such as the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccination programme. We also need together to focus on issues such as protecting jobs and supporting our NHS.
Dr Hudson [V]
As the MP for a border region, I am acutely aware of the importance of our great Union, physically, economically and historically. I welcome the Government’s plans to establish 10 free ports across the United Kingdom—a move that will help to secure thousands of jobs and regenerate communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exciting Cumbria free port multi-centre proposal, involving Carlisle airport, Barrow and Workington, with its specific strengths in Union connectivity and clean energy, would help to propel our region’s economic recovery and play a key role in the Government’s levelling-up agenda by attracting investment and jobs to our region?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Carlisle, Barrow and Workington working together can ensure not just that Cumbria and the north-west of England benefits, but that the borders region as a whole benefits. The support that this Government have given to the borderlands growth deal is an example of the way in which the interrelations between Carlisle, Dumfries, Hawick and other significant parts of this United Kingdom mean that we are stronger together.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
It is our ambition to publish Lord Dunlop’s review of Union capability as soon as possible. Of course, it is vital that we progress the joint review of intergovernmental relations as part of that.
Ian Paisley [V]
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for that answer. I look forward to the publication of the promotion of Union capabilities. The Chancellor boasts of his Unionist credentials. Indeed, he even boasted once in my local paper that he could sing “The Sash”. Today he has a chance to protect the Union in his meeting with Maroš Šefčovič. Will he make it clear that the protocol is causing societal and economic damage to the Union, and will he press on with the alternative arrangements that he previously supported and was signed up to?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is right; I do have a formidable singing repertoire. I can also sing “The Fields of Athenry” and “Flower of Scotland”, not to mention “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot”, although the last of those songs was perhaps sung with a little less fervour last Saturday than is normally the case. I am a convinced Unionist. I do believe in the strength of the United Kingdom—all of us working together. I look forward to working with him and all representatives from Northern Ireland to ensure that our United Kingdom can flourish in the future.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The Government proposed to the EU that musicians and their technical staff be added to the list of permitted activities for short-term business visitors in the “entry and temporary stay” chapter of the trade and co-operation agreement. That would have allowed musicians and their staff to travel and perform in the EU more easily without needing work permits. The proposals were developed following consultation with the EU’s creative industries, but were rejected by the EU.
Alison Thewliss [V]
The UK’s music industry is worth £5.8 billion annually and supports 200,000 jobs, so for a Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister to suggest recently that a touring visa was not compatible with Brexit goals has caused huge anger and frustration to many of my constituents who work in the sector and are seeing no benefits of Brexit, only additional costs and red tape. What is the Minister doing to secure reciprocal visa-free travel for those in our creative industries whose careers and jobs depend on it?
Penny Mordaunt
We continue to work with the EU Commission and member states to ensure that we can have the kind of opportunities that the hon. Lady describes. In the meantime, we do want to support the sector, which is why the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has set up the £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund, which is currently supporting 75,000 jobs.
Angela Crawley [V]
Radiohead have called this Government “spineless”. Whether it is Elton John, Ronan Keating or Brian Cox, there is a continuing all-star line-up of some of our biggest exports who are emphasising the importance of touring for musicians at all stages of their careers. How does the Minister feel about the prospect of major acts deciding that they need base themselves abroad because our parochial laws do not allow the movement needed to compete on the global stage?
Penny Mordaunt
It is not about our parochial laws. During the negotiations, the EU tabled text regarding paid activities that can be conducted without a visa. Those proposals would not have addressed our arts sector’s concerns; they did not deal with work permits at all and would not have allowed support staff to tour with artists. The only way we are going to get movement on this issue is to get the EU to agree to our very reasonable proposals. I urge everyone, whether they are politicians or from the cultural sector, to work with us to persuade our counterparts of our common-sense approach.
John Nicolson [V]
Brexit chaos is not just impacting bands and orchestras in the music industry. Given prohibitive new Brexit visa costs, they will need to begin hiring crew and equipment from European suppliers. What hope does the Minister offer those who face losing work because of Brexit?
Penny Mordaunt
We are, through DCMS, providing support to the sector. We want to get these issues resolved, but in the meantime we want to do all we can to support businesses and artists, whether they have been impacted because of travel restrictions or the pandemic. That is why DCMS has set up a new forum to work with the sector, to listen to its needs and to act on them, and obviously the Scottish Government are part of that.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
This Government are committed to enhancing inclusivity in our democracy. We provide funding to a number of initiatives and organisations to encourage younger people, including the National Citizen Service, the UK Youth Parliament, and the British Council. Online registration makes it easier than ever to register to vote. We are also leading a programme of work to ensure that our elections are more accessible for people living with disabilities.
Mr Sharma [V]
More than 2 million people in the UK have sight loss, and a recent RNIB report found that less than half of blind and partially sighted people are satisfied with their experience of voting. When will the Government introduce the RNIB recommendations?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We should do everything we can to ensure that people living with disabilities, including those with visual impairment, can be fully included in the democratic process, and we will be coming back shortly with thoughts about the RNIB’s helpful proposals.
Navendu Mishra [V]
Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people already experience low levels of democratic engagement, and racism, hostility and discrimination. With many lacking ID, the Government’s voter ID plans are set to systematically exclude GRT people. Instead of working to break down barriers and improve accessibility, why are Ministers putting their energy into creating barriers to voting for the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people?
Michael Gove
We do not want to create any barriers to anyone voting. We take seriously our responsibilities to ensure that all groups within society, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, have full access to all of their democratic rights.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Following my conversation with Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič last week, we have continued to work intensively to find solutions to outstanding issues that have to be addressed through the Joint Committee. I have taken forward our continued engagement in that constructive spirit, and I look forward to speaking to Vice-President Šefčovič later today.
Ruth Jones [V]
The Minister will know that Manufacturing Northern Ireland has warned that the biggest challenge facing the Northern Ireland protocol is the lack of business preparedness in Great Britain. This is important for businesses on both sides of the Irish sea, and of course for hauliers in Wales and across the United Kingdom. Why has his Prime Minister—the Prime Minister for the Union—spent a year telling us that there will be no checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland when we can all see that that is simply not the case?
Michael Gove
The protocol that was negotiated as part of the withdrawal agreement is there to ensure unfettered access for goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, but it also ensures that we can play our part generously in supporting the maintenance of the EU single market by making sure that there are processes. Those processes should be as light-touch as possible, and that is the aim of the conversations I am having with Vice-President Šefčovič and others.
Stephen Farry [V]
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be very conscious of the tensions that are building in Northern Ireland and the need for some sort of creative solution. Does he recognise that the absence of a sanitary and phytosanitary or veterinary agreement with the EU makes the scale of the problems faced across the Irish sea much bigger than it needs to be? As such, will the Government consider going to the European Union to try to negotiate such an agreement over the coming months? That would go a long way to defusing many of the tensions and problems currently being faced.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is right: there are a number of different ways in which these problems can be more effectively resolved. Thoughtful contributions from the Alliance party and others are very welcome. We want to look at a range of pragmatic solutions, and I am grateful to him and his colleagues for putting forward a potential way forward in a constructive spirit. There is no single right way forward, but, as I say, I am grateful to him and his colleagues for their constructive approach.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
The end of the transition period provides an historic opportunity to overhaul our dated public procurement regime. We undertook an extensive programme of stakeholder engagement to identify where improvements could be made, and the recently published Green Paper sets out those long-planned proposals. The changes put value for money and transparency at the heart of the new approach and will cut red tape and unleash wider social benefits from public money spent on procurement.
Kate Osborne [V]
Private providers of public services are excluded from freedom of information requests, which means that, for example, Serco does not have to reveal the 29 different businesses to which it has outsourced contracts. Does the Minister support the expansion of the Freedom of Information Act to the private providers of public services, or does she think that it is okay that that information should be kept hidden from the public eye?
Julia Lopez
Serco is an approved supplier on the Crown Commercial Service contract centre framework and gained a place on that through fair and open competition, but I accept what the hon. Lady says about freedom of information requests and I am happy to look into that further for her.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
The civil service will launch its new apprenticeship strategy next year. The first phase will have delivered 30,000 apprenticeships by next April, but going forward I want to focus not just on numbers, but on the quality of training on offer, so that Departments get much better at growing their own talent and plugging skills gaps. To that end, we recently published the curriculum and campus for Government skills, with the goal of setting the highest standard in vocational training for all civil servants, including apprentices.
Saqib Bhatti [V]
As it is National Apprenticeship Week, will she please explain to the House what is being done to make the civil service apprenticeship scheme accessible to all, including my constituents in Meriden, who she will find are some of the most talented and hard-working in the whole country?
Julia Lopez
I commend my hon. Friend on his promotion of his constituents. I have spoken previously about our ambitions to move more and more civil service roles, including apprenticeships, out of London and to the regions. That programme is moving apace, but we have already created 1,911 apprenticeships in the west midlands over the past five years. I encourage the good people of Meriden to apply for some of the live vacancies that are on offer right now. We have also got a new relationship with the Birmingham local enterprise partnership that works with schools and colleges across the west midlands to help talented, dynamic people to understand just what an exciting and fulfilling career they could have in the civil service.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Amanda Milling) [V]
This Government are committed to boosting prospects for all communities, so that everybody gets the same access to opportunities in life. During the covid-19 pandemic, the Government have protected more than 37,000 jobs in Wolverhampton alone through the coronavirus job retention scheme. The spending review also announced longer-term investments to help level up the UK, including £5 billion to support UK gigabit broadband roll-out and £4.2 billion for intra-city transport settlements.
Stuart Anderson [V]
There is no one championing economic recovery more in the west midlands than Andy Street, and it is a pleasure to work with him in Wolverhampton. Will my right hon. Friend provide the great residents of Wolverhampton with an update on the potential move by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to our great city, and will the Department seriously consider looking at the possibility of the i9 as an office location to start with?
Amanda Milling
I thank my hon. Friend for his championing of Wolverhampton, alongside Andy Street’s for the west midlands. With Cannock Chase being not that far from Wolverhampton, I can understand his enthusiasm for that great becoming home for the MHCLG. Our Places for Growth programme is working with Departments to finalise relocation plans, as we work to ensure that our geographical locations cover as representative a distribution across the UK as possible, including the west midlands, and further details will be provided shortly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The nature of our new relationship with the EU outside the single market means that there are practical and procedural changes to which businesses and citizens must adjust. I can announce today that the Government are launching a £20 million SME Brexit support fund to help small businesses adjust to new customs rules of origin and VAT rules when trading with the EU.
Rachael Maskell [V]
The institutional framework within the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement provides the UK with an opportunity to rebuild its relationship with the EU, including through a civil society forum. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say what progress has been made on establishing the civil society forum and when he expects it to meet? Will he commit today to a significant majority of participants coming from charities, social enterprises and trade unions, in the light of the central role they play in our society?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady is right that the civil society forum is one of a number of ways in which the UK and the EU can work together in the interests of all. She makes a very important point about the importance of involving not just the third sector but trade union participants in that work, which gives me an opportunity to thank the millions of trade unionists across the country who have contributed so much to our response to the pandemic.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. There are some specific issues that relate to our departure from the European Union that can be resolved in the next few weeks and months, as we adjust to a new situation, and they are a consequence of change. There are other aspects of our relationship that are a new normal, and the £20 million we have announced today is a way of ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises can be fully equipped for those challenges and also for all the opportunities that our departure from the EU brings.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Earlier this week, the Public Accounts Committee revealed that the Government’s secretive VIP procurement fast lane had dished out contracts worth £1.7 billion, yet on 18 November, the Paymaster General claimed in the House that there was “no such thing” as a high priority lane. Given the scale of public money, concerns from the National Audit Office and apparent confusion at the Cabinet Office, when will the Government publish the names of businesses awarded contracts through this fast lane and, crucially, how they got on it?
Michael Gove
The Cabinet Office and, indeed, the whole of Government moved as quickly as we could to ensure that those on the frontline received the equipment that they needed. Indeed, the hon. Lady was one of a number of Members of Parliament who wrote to me outlining firms that could play a role in this. Every single firm that was recommended to either the Cabinet Office or the Department of Health and Social Care went through a rigorous policy to ensure that they were capable of providing the equipment required. As a result of going through that rigorous policy, we were able to ensure that those on the frontline got the equipment that they needed.
Rachel Reeves
Everybody understands the need for speed in a pandemic, but so many contracts delivered personal protective equipment that could not even be used by those on the frontline, and the National Audit Office has said that taxpayers paid over the odds. Those who are able to get on this VIP fast lane are 10 times more likely to be awarded a contract, leading to PestFix and the Health Secretary’s pub landlord getting contracts. If it is honestly about what you know rather than who you know, can I ask again when the Government will publish details of who was on the VIP fast lane and how they got there?
Michael Gove
The first thing to say is that, as the hon. Lady knows, more than 99% of the goods that were supplied were capable of being used in the NHS and, as she also knows, the National Audit Office reference to paying “over the odds” reflected the fact that, in a global pandemic, when demand was dramatically outstripping supply, prices rose for every nation—every developed nation. That is one of the reasons why the Government asked Lord Deighton to ensure that we could have domestic PPE capacity, and his amazing work has contributed to making sure that our economy overall has become more resilient. Of course it is the case that, whether or not a recommendation was made for a contract from a Member of Parliament such as the hon. Lady or anyone else, every contract had to go through the same appropriate process of due diligence, and it is of course the case that every contract will be published and is being published by the Government so that there can be appropriate scrutiny of value for money.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution has been working with local authorities, returning officers and others to ensure that we can have counting carried out in a safe way. That will mean the results of elections will be a little bit later than we might normally have expected, but it is more important to be safe than sorry in these circumstances.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Michael Gove
I welcome the constructive approach taken, as ever, by the hon. Member, and we will look at his proposals. It is already the case that we are revising the way in which proxy voting can work in order to help those who may be suffering as a result of the pandemic, but I will look at the proposals that he has put forward, which do seem to be in the spirit of greater democratic inclusion and engagement.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We want to promote democratic inclusivity, but we also want to protect the integrity of the voting system. It is important, when we have elections being carried out in the circumstances that we will face this May, that we make sure that both requirements are met. Again, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution is working with local authorities to ensure just that.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Our NHS has been working to ensure that our vaccination centres are safe and accessible, and the Government have overall been seeking to communicate to every group the importance of securing a vaccination as early as possible. We will continue to work with fantastic organisations such as Scope to ensure that the needs of everyone living with a disability are effectively met.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Without taking anything away from the current Mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, I would have to say that the Conservative candidate would be even better in that important role and, I think, more accurately represent the changing complexion of the north-west, where, thanks to effective constituency champions such as my hon. Friend, people are recognising that Conservative representation in our great cities is the best way of getting Britain moving.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. His Scottish nationalist party colleague, Fiona Hyslop, who is the Minister in the Scottish Government, is working with the UK Government to ensure that we do everything we can to support the seafood sector across Scotland and, indeed, across the United Kingdom. But I cannot help but observe that if the Scottish nationalist party had its way, we would be back in the common fisheries policy and we would not be able to take control of our waters in the way that we want to.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing wider attention to this issue. It is one that the Electoral Commission and the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution are taking seriously in order to ensure the integrity of voting this May.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Michael Gove
The hon. Member makes an important point. It is vital we ensure that we can have travel for citizens across the common travel area with their pets, and we have been working with the European Union and indeed the Irish Government to ensure that that continues. I hope to be able to update the House on progress in the coming days.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an impressive pitch for the east midlands, which we know is the commercial heart of the United Kingdom and so a very appropriate location for a free port. The ultimate decision of course rests with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am sure he will pay close attention to the case that my hon. Friend and her colleagues make.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of not just his constituent but all those who were affected by this issue. He has been a very effective campaigner on behalf of the victims, and a statement will be made in the House shortly on the Government’s response. Again, I thank him and other colleagues who have been so effective in making sure that we do not forget the victims of this affair.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend accurately reflects the sentiments and feelings of many in the House and beyond. It is vital that we work constructively to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland recognise that the United Kingdom Government will stand up in every forum and in every way for their rights as integral members of this great nation.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Business of the House
(3 years, 10 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 22 February will include:
Monday 22 February—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 to the Fire Safety Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill.
Thursday 25 February—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.
The provisional business for the week commencing 1 March will include:
Monday 1 March—Motion to approve the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2021, followed by a motion to approve the draft International Waste Shipments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021, followed by a motion to approve the draft Electronic Commerce Directive (Education, Adoption and Children) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021, followed by a motion to approve the draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2021, followed by a motion to approve the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) Regulations 2021.
Tuesday 2 March—Motion to approve the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 and the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions And Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, followed by a general debate on covid-19 and the cultural and entertainment sectors.
Wednesday 3 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 4 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 5 March—The House will not be sitting.
Right hon. and hon. Members may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Easter recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 25 March and return on Tuesday 13 April.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business and for the recess dates, which I think I had not known previously. He did not mention Westminster Hall and the important debates listed there. I know the Chair of the Petitions Committee has quite a few petitions, and we will later hear the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee say that he too has a number of debates. I pay tribute to Matthew Hamlyn and his team for saying to the Procedure Committee that they are ready to go as soon as the Leader of the House brings forward the motion, so may we have a motion on 22 February to enable the House to return to Westminster Hall on 8 March? This is the only way for the House to return to Westminster Hall safely. It is quite interesting that we have a Government stuffed full of journalists, yet they want to gag Members of Parliament and our constituents.
If the Leader of the House cannot do that, will he please find time for the Petitions Committee debates, including one arising from a petition signed by over 100,000 of our constituents, about Indian farmers, whose families have taken part in a peaceful and dignified protest to protect their livelihoods? Satyagraha is the Gandhian peaceful protest that is in the Indian DNA, but we have seen scenes of terrible violence against those who are protecting their livelihoods. I have had no response to my letter to the Foreign Secretary yet.
Last week, I raised figures showing that three quarters of applications for the £500 test and trace support payment have been rejected, and it is not clear why. On Tuesday, a report that was to go to the Department of Health and Social Care entered the public domain; it suggested that areas with stubbornly high rates of covid had more test and trace support payments rejected than were successful. It also cited factors including socioeconomic deprivation and multigenerational occupation—structural reasons why areas of enduring high transmission persist. Those areas also have higher proportions of black, Asian and minority ethnic and young people. I know the Government prefer to spend £1.9 billion on their friends with links to the Conservative party—oh, there goes another one: the Health Secretary gave a £14.4 million contract to his friend yesterday—but please will the Leader of the House raise the point in Cabinet that when people are asked to self-isolate, they should be given the support as of right?
The Equalities Minister was wrong when she said there is no evidence to suggest structural or institutional racism. That contradicts the report in The Lancet on 12 November. She said yesterday that her next report will be published in two weeks’ time—that is still late—but could we have a statement telling us what recommendations in the first report were implemented, and a statement on the second report as well?
Hon. Members will know that this is the year of the ox and cow. An unelected body set up by the Secretary of State, the Trade and Agriculture Commission, said it would produce its report in six months. It started on 28 July and six months takes us to 28 January, so that report is late as well. When can we have that report published, and could we have a statement in the House? The Government can add fish to the Trade and Agricultural Commission report, too; that would be very helpful.
My constituent Andy Brown, a support officer for the Black Country Multiple Sclerosis Society, has said he is alarmed that benefits payments are to be made to bank accounts, rather than to Post Office accounts. Age UK says that 4 million over-65s have never used the internet. May we have a statement on the evidence behind that policy? The Government say they want to protect the high street, but they are actually stopping people going to the high street and using their post offices.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for the urgent question on Yemen, but there was no update on Luke Symons. Richard and Gabriella are waiting for Nazanin, and Sherry, Elika and Arriane are waiting for Anoosheh, both of whom who are held in Iran. The UK has the presidency of the United Nations Security Council this month, and President Biden has issued a raft of sanctions against Burma as a result of the coup. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we use the presidency properly to ensure that a Government democratically elected in what the Carter Center said were free and fair elections is restored in a proper way?
It is the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, and we pay tribute to all those women and girls who take science subjects. Mr Speaker, I think your daughter is a science teacher. We thank them all for their hard work and remember them today. Finally, I wish everyone a happy lunar and Chinese new year tomorrow.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As an old Hong Kong hand, let me say gong hei fat choy, Mr Speaker. I hope that everybody has a very happy Chinese new year. Today is indeed the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, a day worth noting, and it is also the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, a day to which the right hon. Lady and I will attach great importance.
As regards the British holding of the UN Security Council chairmanship, yes, of course the British Government will push for their belief in human rights, in good order and in the better coming together of the global community. That is what we are always pushing for, and our holding the chairmanship of the G7 as well as that of the UN Security Council this month is very important.
I will take up, as always, the point that the right hon. Lady makes about Luke Symons, to ensure that the Foreign Office is, once again, reminded of its responsibilities to UK nationals overseas, and indeed to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. This is a matter of great importance to the country, and the right hon. Lady is right to raise it weekly.
Let me go back to the beginning of the right hon. Lady’s questions and the point about Westminster Hall. She must remember that she was keen that it should be closed, and in bringing forward that motion I was acting only in response to representations from across the House that it was felt necessary that it should be closed. I was probably the most reluctant person to close it, because I believe in the importance of scrutiny. It has to be borne in mind that to bring it back would require extra people on the estate. I would certainly think that was reasonable, because I think it is important that we have democratic scrutiny, but those who asked for Westminster Hall to be closed must make it clear that they think it is right that more people should come back on to the estate. If that is the clear message that I get, of course I will do everything I can to facilitate its return.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Lady heckles with “Hybrid”, but even hybrid requires extra people to come on to the estate.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This has been checked, and between four and 10 additional people will be required to come on to the estate on a daily basis with the reopening of a hybrid Westminster Hall. That is the point. That may not be a very large number, but the advice from the Government is currently that people should not be coming in if they do not have to do so. The right hon. Lady asked for Westminster Hall to be closed and it was, because of people coming on to the estate, and she really cannot have it both ways. I am certainly in favour of scrutiny; I think it is good for the Government. If representations are made that this increase in numbers is proportionate, I am more than willing to bring forward the relevant motions, but it needs to be clear that people have accepted that.
The right hon. Lady mentions the payment of £500 to people through Test and Trace. It is obviously important that benefits are paid properly and efficiently to people who are entitled to them. The Department for Work and Pensions has done particularly well in ensuring that the welfare system has held up during this very difficult time, with a very large increase in the number of people requiring universal credit and requiring general support—it has been an achievement. Indeed, one of the reasons this has been so little talked about is because of how well the system has worked, but if there are any specific problems that the right hon. Lady is aware of and she raises them with me, I will take them up with Ministers.
On that subject, I note that the right hon. Lady has written to me about a response from an official rather than a Minister. Ministers should respond to Members of Parliament, as long as Members of Parliament themselves write; there is a slight tendency, which I do not think applies to the right hon. Lady, of Members getting their assistants to write to Ministers. Such correspondence is not entitled to a ministerial letter and it is not in the normal courtesy to ask assistants to write to Ministers. But the right hon. Lady is entitled to a ministerial response and I will try to ensure that she gets one as soon as is practicable.
As regards my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities, it is hard to think of a more forthright or sensible Minister of the Crown at the moment. She does an absolutely fantastic job and I am sure she will report to the House. She has a balanced, sensible and wise view, and is deserving of full support.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) [V]
Tribute needs to be paid to you, Mr Speaker, the House Service and the Leader of the House for making sure that Parliament has continued to function throughout the pandemic. The discussion that has just happened about Westminster Hall is critical to Back-Bench Members of Parliament. The Grand Committee Room is simply not fit for purpose at this time—there is insufficient airflow, too many staff would be required to be on the palace estate and it is not equipped for hybrid proceedings. None the less, there are rooms in the palace that are ready to do that. Will my right hon. Friend to reflect on that and bring forward a motion that will allow for Westminster Hall-type debates to take place in the Boothroyd Room, in Committee Room 10, or possibly even in unused time in the Chamber?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. I am certainly happy to look at bringing back Westminster Hall, if that is what the House wishes.
We have sought to take a balanced approach throughout the pandemic, and have made every effort to ensure that proceedings are in line with Public Health England guidance and safe for members of staff. My right hon. Friend knows well that I brought forward the motion to suspend Westminster Hall in the light of the rising covid-19 case numbers and following representations from across the House. I was perhaps the least supportive of reducing scrutiny, but brought forward those motions on a cross-party basis.
I will reiterate what I said to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz): to bring back Westminster Hall physically or in a hybrid fashion will require some additional people on the estate. We therefore need to be satisfied that there is a consensus that it is safe and right for the House to take that step. In my view, that is perhaps a decision most sensibly taken once we have heard from the Prime Minister about the road map out of lockdown when we return from recess.
I am grateful to my right hon Friend for setting out her view, and I am glad that she does think that it is proportionate to have a small number of extra people on the estate for hybrid proceedings. I have noted that, and if others make similar representations they will find that this is a door that can easily be pushed open.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]
I echo the comments of the shadow Leader of the House and of the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), the esteemed Chair of the Procedure Committee, in calling for action to be taken in terms of Westminster Hall-style debates. May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that, when an appropriate alternative to physically sitting in Westminster Hall is presented to him, he will immediately act to produce a motion to resume in some shape or form, following one of the alternatives that have been suggested?
We are almost a year on since we went into the first lockdown. Over that period, many support schemes have been announced by the Government that have been very welcome and needed by so many, but we still see millions excluded by this Government. Will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate or statement in Government time to outline exactly why this Government feel that these people are unworthy of support from them, especially with the Budget coming up?
Recently, my constituent Deborah Kayembe was named as Edinburgh University’s next rector. Deborah is an esteemed human rights lawyer and also a refugee, and shows us the benefits that refugees can bring to each of our communities. In the light of the Migration Advisory Committee’s saying that it is time to review the Government’s anti-family-migration rules, may we have a debate in Government time to consider the hugely positive contribution that refugees make to each of our nations and to give hope that, perhaps, some of the measures such as the minimum income requirement could be reviewed?
Like the shadow Leader of the House, I welcome the fact that today is International Day of Women and Girls in Science. With Midlothian a centre of scientific excellence, does the Leader of the House agree that promoting careers in science for women benefits us all, and will he ensure that time is allowed by the Government for us to celebrate that? I end by joining the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in wishing all a very happy Chinese new year.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin on a point of very strong agreement with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for the point that he made about encouraging women and girls to have careers in science? That is a thoroughly good thing, but we need more scientists generally for our future prosperity. Men and women will need to go into science, and we have seen the advantage of science with the roll-out of the vaccine programme.
I also very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on the great contribution made to British society by refugees. This country has long been open to refugees, going back many hundreds of years. That has helped to build and strengthen our nation, and will continue to do so in future. I cannot promise him debates in Government time on either question, but I confess that it is nice to find myself in agreement with a member of the SNP; that is a rare treat.
We are also broadly in agreement on the question of Westminster Hall. I take it from what the hon. Gentleman said that he, too, thinks it is proportionate to have extra members of staff coming on to the estate to reopen it in a hybrid fashion. If it is clear that that is the consensus of the House, I am more than willing to bring forward the necessary motion.
I think everyone has sympathy for those of our constituents who have not been supported. We have all been in correspondence with people who have difficult circumstances. The Government have done as much as they reasonably can. The support offered is very large—£280 billion for the country at large—and it covers 95% of people who receive the majority of their income from self-employment. I accept that it does not cover everybody. The difficulty is ensuring a scheme that is fair to taxpayers as well as fair to individuals, and I think my right hon Friend the Chancellor has got the balance right.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with children returning to their classrooms next month, MPs should lead by example and return to the Commons Chamber?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend very much appeals to my sympathies in this matter and makes an excellent point. We keep the approach in Parliament under review, and over the year we have made adjustments depending on the state of the pandemic. It is clear that the House works better when it is physically present. Scrutiny is better and debate is more thorough. The ability to hold the Government to account and seek redress of grievance is enhanced by physical presence. I hope we can get back as soon as possible and I share my hon. Friend’s view that we are here to lead by example, and to show the rest of the country when it is safe to do things. Our doing so would be a very good example.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Gong hei fat choy, Mr Speaker. Last week, when I asked the Leader of the House for protected time for debates aired on alternative days, he suggested—rather offhandedly, I am afraid—that I wanted things both ways. What the Backbench Business Committee actually wants on behalf of Back Benchers on both sides of the House is the number of days for Backbench debates as stipulated in Standing Orders, and that does not include general debates on subjects determined by themselves in Government time.
I echo the requests made earlier. The Chairs of the Procedure Committee and the Petitions Committee—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—and I met the Leader of the House last night. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain what measures were being put in place to open a second Westminster Hall-style debating chamber, so that debate applications from the Petitions Committee and the Backbench Business Committee may be aired using virtual or hybrid participation of Members.
We understand that the technical capacity and space alternative to Westminster Hall exists to facilitate that. All it would seem that we need is for an order to be placed, and an undertaking that as few members of staff as possible be returned to allow that to happen. That is an important facility for Members across the House, and they and their anxious constituents—and particularly the members of the Petitions Committee—want to get these debates heard. For the avoidance of doubt, I reiterate that it need only involve as few members of staff as absolutely necessary in an alternative venue, given current public health conditions.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very encouraged that the hon. Gentleman makes it clear that he does think it is proportionate for a few extra members of staff to come back to facilitate the reopening of scrutiny. As I said earlier, if that is the view of the House and people are clear that that is what they think is appropriate—although I notice that it is extra members of staff, not so much MPs volunteering to come down, which is a certain incongruity, but let us leave that to one side—if that is the consensus of the House, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier.
Last week, I said that the hon. Gentleman wanted it both ways. He did, and I gave it to him both ways, as it happens, because we had a motion to give him protected time. In fairness, at the beginning of the Session, before the Backbench Business Committee was established, the Government did make time for Backbench Business debates, and although they do not formally count in terms of the Standing Orders, they certainly are in the spirit of the Standing Orders.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is brilliant news that this Conservative Government have confirmed funding for 40 new hospitals across the country, with a further eight new schemes to bid for future funding. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on this topic and back my campaign to ensure that Airedale General Hospital in my constituency, which is due for urgent refurbishment works, having originally been constructed from aerated concrete, is listed as one of the final eight projects?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very glad that my hon. Friend supports the Government’s policy. The first £3.7 billion of funding for 40 new hospitals has now been confirmed, with a further eight schemes to be invited to bid for future funding, to deliver 48 hospitals—we are building back better and bigger than was promised in our manifesto—by 2030, so we will deliver on the commitment.
The Department of Health and Social Care is aware of the issues surrounding past use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in construction, including at Airedale General Hospital, and I note that my hon. Friend raised that. The Department is focusing on work on designing the criteria for the further eight new hospitals, which will be communicated to trusts in due course. My hon. Friend has made a plea for his own hospital, and he is right to do so, but I am sure that he may also want to make that plea to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Tomorrow, Luton’s civic mayor, Councillor Maria Lovell, is holding a “wear it red” day to help raise funds for her nominated charities this year, Luton Foodbank and the Luton and Dunstable University Hospital’s helipad appeal. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Maria Lovell and all other civic mayors for their hard work and commitment to their democratic, ceremonial and charitable roles?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is an absolute pleasure to do that, and to congratulate Maria Lovell on what she is planning to do to raise money for her preferred charities as the Luton civic mayor. Civic mayors bring a great deal of pleasure to their communities. They have an ability to thank people who work in the voluntary sector, who are unsung heroes across our communities. The hon. Lady is so right to raise this issue, because it is not just civic mayors; it is lords-lieutenant, high sheriffs—all those people who just go round and say thank you. This is a really good bit of our civic society and one we should all take pleasure from.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
It has taken the Transport for London Bishopsgate High Court case to force Lib Dem-run Sutton Council to rethink its unpopular road closure schemes. While the announcement that all schemes are to be suspended is a temporary relief for Carshalton and Wallington residents, those who have been fined so far will not get their money back; fines remain in place, and the Lib Debs are determined to find a way to bring back these schemes, despite their own consultation showing huge resident opposition. May we have a debate about residents’ voices being heard in local government rather than their concerns being ignored?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The Lib Dems hate the motorist; we all know that. They are fanatical anti-motorists. I am on the side of the motorist, as are Her Majesty’s Government. We support motorists. It is one of the great expressions of freedom; the open road, the ability to go where one wants—admittedly not under covid regulations, but normally, the ability to get in one’s car and drive where one wants is a great British freedom and one that we should celebrate and enjoy, and we should not have pettifogging lefties making life difficult for us. I am fully in support of my hon. Friend. I think he should remind us of the failings of the Lib Dems at every opportunity that he possibly can, but the best way to do that is at the ballot box, by electing a Conservative pro-motoring council.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Currently the largest protest on the planet, the peaceful farmers’ protest in India has been ongoing for months now. Given our serious anxieties, more than 100 hon. Members signed a letter to the Prime Minister seeking his intervention. Well over 100,000 constituents—incredibly, from every single one of the 650 UK constituencies—have signed an online petition, including more than 3,000 from my Slough constituency. Given those facts, and given the arrest of journalists, peaceful protesters and human rights activists such as Nodeep Kaur, who, it is alleged, has been tortured and endured sexual assault while in police custody, will the Leader of the House please facilitate a debate on this important matter at the earliest opportunity, just as we debated a petition in this Chamber last week?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises something that is a matter of concern across the House and across constituencies. The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental one, along with freedom of speech and internet freedom. India is a very proud democracy and a country with which we have the strongest possible relations. I happen to think that over the next century our relationship with India may well be our most important relationship with any country in the world. As India is our friend, it is only right that we make representations when we think that things are happening that are not in the interests of the reputation of the country of which we are a friend. The Foreign Secretary discussed the farmers’ protest with his Indian counterpart in December. The UK Government will continue to follow the farmers’ protest closely. Agricultural reform is a domestic policy issue for India. We will continue to champion human rights globally, and having the chairmanship of the UN Security Council this month is a part of that.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend consider calling a debate in Government time to discuss the current situation facing the fish-catching sector? Far from being in a position where we will have an expanded fishing sector in five years’ time, there is a real danger of vessels going to the wall now and having no sector left unless urgent financial help is given.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is such a powerful champion for the fishing industry and has been for the whole time she has been a Member of the House of Commons. The Government are focused on supporting our fishing fleet to see how it can thrive now that we are out of the European Union. By regaining control of our waters, the trade and co-operation agreement puts us in a position to rebuild our fishing fleet, and we will see our fishermen benefiting from increased quotas throughout the annual negotiations with the EU and other coastal states, starting with an immediate 15% uplift this year. Throughout the adjustment period, the UK Government will contribute taxpayers’ money to our fishing communities and do everything we can to help to rebuild the industry. The Prime Minister has committed £100 million in funding for the fishing industry, with more detail to be announced in due course, and that is in addition to the £23 million that has recently been announced to help with some of the earliest problems that have arisen. The initial difficulties that fishermen have faced are very serious, and they are not taken lightly by the Government. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Environment Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I appreciate the Leader of the House’s support for Toad of Toad Hall, the great open road and the desire for everyone to drive, but has he seen the British Lung Foundation’s report this morning saying that 6 million elderly people are at risk from air pollution, we are poisoning children and pregnant women, and we are poisoning the atmosphere that all of us breathe? Is it not time that we had an early debate on the need for powerful changes? Let people drive, but let them drive electric cars and let us stop them poisoning people with what comes out of the tailfin of Toad’s vehicles.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of air pollution, although he does not mention the great diesel scandal. Diesel was encouraged by the last Labour Government, of whom he was a supporter, and by the European Union, with figures fiddled by European manufacturers to pretend that diesel emissions were less dangerous than in reality they are. To my mind, it is one of the great scandals of modern political history, and it happened when his party was in office.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On 11 July 2019, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), now the Prime Minister, signed a solemn veterans pledge in a national newspaper that promised:
“New legislation to end repeated and vexatious investigations into historical allegations against our servicemen and women—including in Northern Ireland—to be passed before the next General Election.”
Eighteen months and a general election later, not only has this not been passed, but we have never even seen it, because the rumour is that those in the Northern Ireland Office who are responsible for the Bill have not even finished drafting it yet. Our veterans deserve better. So will the Leader of the House liaise today with the Prime Minister and our obviously hesitant Northern Ireland Secretary to finish drafting the Bill and bring it forward, and will he make time available for Second Reading before the Easter recess on 25 March?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always difficult having a time period set on general elections when we have the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was not a fixed-term Parliaments Act. I think it would be reasonable to go by the expected life of the Parliament, rather than simply when, by happenstance, an early election took place. However, the Government have been absolutely clear that they will put an end to vexatious claims against the armed forces and have introduced the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill to help reduce the uncertainty faced by our service personnel and veterans in relation to historical allegations and claims arising from overseas operations. I think that meets the first half of the promise.
The second half of the promise is in relation to Northern Ireland. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government will introduce separate legislation to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland in the coming months in a way that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of reinvestigations into the troubles in Northern Ireland, delivering on our commitments to Northern Ireland veterans. My right hon. Friend is right to raise this point. The Government take the issue of veterans closely to their heart. We have a Veterans Minister who is always on the side of veterans. This is a serious issue, and the commitment is to introduce the legislation in the coming months.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Pre-schools, nurseries and childminders in England have been asked by the Government to stay open, but, unlike schools, early years settings have been left on their own with no access to fast and regular asymptomatic testing to protect staff and families. Will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues in the Department for Education to make an urgent statement on what support early years providers, who have so far been working throughout lockdown without access to lateral flow tests, can expect from the Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government have made widespread support available to local councils, including £4.6 billion of unring-fenced money that local councils can use to help early childcare settings. Lateral flow testing is being rolled out to an increasing number of areas to allow people to be tested. Indeed, it is even available in the House of Commons for Members, Members’ staff and other people who work on the estate, if they need it, so this is happening.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I had one of those lateral flow tests last week. It was a very pleasant, if tickly, experience.
Melanie Beck, who runs the MyMiltonKeynes business improvement district, was announced as the new chair of the charity MK SNAP last week. I was particularly pleased that last October she was recognised with an MBE for community services during covid. I note that some Opposition Members, who are in fact led by a knight of the realm, recently floated the idea of doing away with the honours system. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would agree with me that doing so would be a regressive step; in particular, it would mean that we would lose the ability officially to recognise the wonderful work of community champions such as Melanie. When shielded residents needed supplies, Melanie contacted her network and offered MyMiltonKeynes resources. She even roped in family members to drive buses and vans to deliver supplies to those in need. This honour is well deserved, and we should be rightly proud of our heritage.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by congratulating Melanie Beck on being appointed a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire? My hon. Friend is so right that the honours system rewards people up and down the country who go above and beyond their duty, and who ensure that we have a better community life and community spirit. That has been so apparent during the pandemic.
Our honours system is one of the glories of our nation—one of the baubles of our nation—going back to the Order of the Garter, which was founded in 1348 by Edward III, with St George as the champion and patron saint of our nation. We have had that great link with St George since he took over the patronage of England from various other people; Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor and St Alphege were considered rather more before George took over with the Garter. Then there are the other orders of chivalry, including the Knights of the Bath. Henry VIII went through that wonderful ceremony as a baby, pretty much—a three-year-old—when he was installed as a Knight of the Bath and literally did have a bath, before the order was re-founded in 1725 in a different form.
The honours system links us to our history and inspires and encourages people to do great things. It is one of the glories of our country, and should be kept and cherished. But we do bear in mind that whenever we look at a new Labour person and scratch them, they are as red as can be underneath.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The Chemical Industries Association has described UK manufacturing businesses paying twice as much for energy as those in other European countries do, as an “ongoing blocker of opportunity”. Can we therefore have a debate in Government time on providing UK industry with a level playing field on energy prices? This is needed to give chemical companies in my constituency certainty to secure future investment, an essential driver to transition to net zero, and ensure low-carbon UK businesses and their goods are able to compete for market share around the world.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman makes the fundamentally important point that energy costs are an essential part of how competitive a nation can be. The Government’s energy strategy, with a huge increase in wind energy, will over the longer term ensure that we have both secure energy supplies and ones that are economic. May I point him in the direction of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions? Actually BEIS questions were earlier this week, but if he were to take it up with the BEIS Secretary, I think that would be the right way to go.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) [V]
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Mayor of London has announced the new taskforce for his commission for diversity in the public realm and, unsurprisingly, it seems to be made up almost entirely of left-wing political activists, campaigners and celebrities, instead of historians and experts. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about these unelected activists being given the power to interfere with London street names and monuments, and will he consider granting a debate in Government time to discuss how we can defend our great capital city’s proud history and heritage?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Its seems to me that the Mayor of London has replaced Red Ken as Red Kahn. Who would have thought that we would have a more left-wing leader of London than Ken Livingstone? But now we do, and Red Khan is he. It is quite wrong that these loony left-wing wheezes should be inflicted upon our great metropolis, and I think the Mayor, in his zeal, is potentially treading on the toes of councils anyway. The councils have the right to name the streets by and large, not the Mayor of London, and I do not think he should interfere in things that are not his responsibility. As I was saying on the honours system, we should celebrate and glory in our wonderful history and in the great heroes of our nation going back over centuries.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It has been 19 months since the Government first launched the review into a cruel benefit system that forces those who are terminally ill to prove they have less than six months to live. In that time, Marie Curie and the Motor Neurone Disease Association estimate that as many as 5,800 people may have died waiting for a decision on their benefits. Please can the Leader of the House chase the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to come to the House urgently and make a statement telling us what they are going to do, so that more people do not have to suffer?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this, because it is an important and troubling point. It is difficult in terms of administration because of the lack of certainty about somebody’s lifespan, but it is important that somebody nearing the end of his or her life should be treated more generously by the benefit system and not have that as an additional worry as their life draws to a close. I will of course take this up with both my right hon. Friends, as the hon. Lady requests.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is today meeting his opposite number in the European Commission regarding the Northern Ireland protocol. This is a major constitutional issue that affects all Members of this House. Could I press the Leader of the House to ensure that a statement is made at the earliest possible opportunity by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster so that Members of this House can question the decisions and the agreements that are being made?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in the House immediately before me and open to questions at that point, but of course that was before the meeting that is taking place. It is of fundamental importance that we ensure the unity of the United Kingdom and that any arrangements that we have with the European Union respect that. No agreement that we could ever possibly make could undermine the unity of the United Kingdom, and that must be clear to our friends in the European Union.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]
My constituents Hayley Orr and Alan Scobie are musicians whose livelihoods are affected by the lack of visa-free access to the EU. Alan’s band Skerryvore also helps generate tourism in Scotland. FMX Event Services, also based in my constituency, which provides equipment for major band tours, cannot operate across the EU, which is putting half its business at risk. When will we have a Government statement confirming how many livelihoods and businesses are affected by this Government’s pig-headedness, and setting out a solution that allows reciprocal free movement for artists and their back-up operations?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I often find that I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but I am sorry to say that on this occasion I am not, because the pig-headedness is not that of the United Kingdom or Her Majesty’s Government. The EU and member states could match our arrangements tomorrow if they wanted to, and we hope that those in the music industry who have spoken so passionately about touring in Europe will encourage them to do so. The message that he needs to take is to the European Union. We have made provisions for musicians to travel and for things to be as light-touch as possible, but the EU has not reciprocated. If I may use a musical analogy, it takes two to tango.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
I have joined colleagues from both sides of the House and across the east midlands to back the bid for a freeport in the east midlands. The freeport would be the best connected, with air, road and rail connections; would bring international investment to the region; and has the potential to create up to 60,000 skilled new jobs. May we please have parliamentary time to discuss just how fantastic the east midlands freeport bid is, and why it should be the Government’s first choice when they create the new wave of freeports in Britain?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Since this subject was last raised in the House, I have become slightly conflicted, because there is a freeport bid coming in from quite near me, in Bristol. However, it would not be right for me to campaign for my own area from the Dispatch Box. Freeports are a fantastic idea, which is why there is so much support for them and why so many Members want them in their constituencies. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his welcome efforts to campaign for a freeport in the east midlands, and I will make sure that his representations are passed on to the Treasury. He really is a great advocate for his constituents, and I hope that they will be able to reap the benefits of a freeport, but then I hope that the economy generally will be able to reap the benefits of many freeports.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) [V]
We rarely debate the Government’s poor treatment of the north, where life expectancy is falling for the first time in a century, but where we have seen the severest cuts to public health service provision of any region. There are now 195 fewer GP surgeries in Yorkshire and we have the slowest declining covid infection rates. Meanwhile, the Government sent half of the north’s vaccine supply down south. We know that they cut free school meals for the autumn break, but hunger, poverty, service cuts and covid all march hand in hand. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on their disgraceful health record in the north of England?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, I will of course bow to your wisdom on this, but I believe the word “balderdash” is parliamentary, and it applies to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government have stood with the north throughout this pandemic, with over £10 billion in support for local authorities, additional Nightingale capacity and millions of vaccine doses already delivered, and we are putting the region at the centre of our community testing plans, with 300,000 in Liverpool being among the very first to benefit. Looking ahead, we will be building on the £13 billion for transport across the region and £5 billion for the northern powerhouse, with High Speed 2; Northern Powerhouse Rail, our multi-billion pound rail investment; a £4 billion levelling-up fund, building on billions of pounds of towns fund investment; £4.2 billion for the local public transport fund; and four hospitals in construction, or about to start, as part of our 40 hospitals plan. This Government’s record in the north is second to none. We are building back better, and we are building back better in the north first.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) [V]
The Government have committed unprecedented sums of public money to a generous package of economic support, procurement of vaccines and more to secure our UK covid recovery. Does my right hon. Friend consider that this is the time for the House to receive an update on the costs of the restoration and renewal programme, and debate its affordability to the public purse?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Currently, the Commissions of the two Houses are receiving indications of the costs of the business plan. It is of fundamental importance that what happens to this House has the consent of this House, not a previous House, because Parliament cannot bind its successor, and that the expenditure is proportionate and reasonable. Everybody wants to secure this building and to ensure that it is safe, but we cannot spend billions of pounds on it. That would simply not be proportionate in view of the economic situation of the rest of the country.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker—not quite as far as Shetland today; I come to you from Orkney. I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate in Government time on the operation of the UK-US extradition arrangements, which were entered into under a treaty of the Labour Government in 2003. He will have seen press reports about the case of British businessman Mike Lynch, which demonstrate that the treaty is not only open to abuse but is being abused. We need arrangements that are equal in fairness to each side. Many Conservative Members were critical of the treaty in 2003. Can we now start a debate about getting improvements?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises has aroused concern. Any extradition treaty should be proportionate and fair between the two parties and we should always ensure that Her Majesty’s subjects are treated fairly in any legal proceedings that may arise in this country or overseas. I was always concerned about the European arrest warrant for those reasons and the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important subject.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) [V]
Given that the Transport Minister has not responded to my urgent letter of 24 January regarding an external assessment of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency homeworking potential, and further to that, given the synchronised pinging of apps this week, resulting in 40 staff from two zones being sent home to self-isolate, and the latest news that an individual’s waist measurement is now part of the agency’s health and safety homeworking eligibility criteria, will the Leader of the House please facilitate a statement that could clarify all those issues?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This issue has been raised in the House before and answers have been given. The reality is that some people at the DVLA will have to go into work and that not all its work can be done from home, for example, the issuing of licences and secure printing. As I mentioned the last time the matter was raised, some people occasionally get points on their licences and in this instance, points do not mean prizes, unless being banned from driving is viewed as a prize. That all has to be done securely and confidentially and is therefore very difficult to do from home. As I understand it, the DVLA has taken all the appropriate measures to ensure that it is a covid-secure workplace. However, if the hon. Lady has an outstanding letter to a Minister, I will, as always, try to facilitate a prompt response.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the disastrous failings of Operation Midland and Operation Yewtree, which have been heartbreakingly revealed by Lady Brittan this week? If she is right, and I have no reason to believe that she is not, how on earth have the people responsible for that monumental failure not been relieved of their positions? The only accused person left alive today who is suffering directly as a result of that failure is my former parliamentary colleague and neighbour, Mr Harvey Proctor.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I suppose the question is quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who guards the guards themselves? My hon. Friend, in his reference to Operation Midland, raises serious concerns. Like him, I have a particular sympathy for Harvey Proctor, who was most disgracefully treated by the investigation, which had a serious effect on the life he had rebuilt for himself in his career, employment and indeed housing. The treatment of Lady Brittan is shameful. That a grieving widow should be traduced in that way, with the justice of the peace who issued the warrant saying that he was misled in so doing is a matter of the gravest seriousness. I think we all feel enormous sympathy for Lady Brittan and Harvey Proctor because of the way they were both treated. It was a blot on the Metropolitan police’s escutcheon.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
Projects like the Forest of Memories are working to create a network of sustainable and biodiverse forests across the United Kingdom in memory of those who tragically lost their lives during covid-19, including those staff who served us all on the frontline of this horrific pandemic. May we have a debate on the importance of supporting memorials of remembrance at this critical time in history that understand the need for sustainable places of reflection for the bereaved, for families and for our communities, marking those tragically lost and their invaluable contribution to society?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work she is doing on promoting the Forest of Memories. As we go village to village around our country, there are war memorials, almost all of which were obviously put up about 100 years ago following the first world war. We have historically been good at remembering people who have died in particular circumstances. The hon. Lady’s suggestion in terms of a forest is a noble cause and, although I cannot promise her a debate in Government time, Mr Speaker is looking remarkably benign at the thought of an Adjournment debate.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) [V]
As we approach the anniversary of the original covid lockdown—an incredibly significant moment when the world literally changed—can the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come to the Chamber to set out plans for an annual national commemoration: a moment when we can come together to remember those who died, those who have given significant service and those who have made incredible sacrifice? In coming together as a country, remembering, learning and looking forward, it would be a real moment of unity for us all.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend, with her characteristic genius, has brought in her question at absolutely the right time, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is sitting on the Treasury Bench and will have heard her appeal for a proper memorial for what has happened over the last year. The Prime Minister said on 26 January that
“when we have come through this crisis, we will come together as a nation to remember everyone we lost”.
While the Government’s immediate focus is on protecting the lives and livelihoods of the nation, there is none the less the need to remember those who have lost their lives and to recognise those involved in the unprecedented response.
The Government have begun planning to ensure that an appropriate commemoration can take place in the United Kingdom and will set out details in due course, but I think it is at the stage where good ideas will be extremely welcome. This needs to be a community and national effort, so if people do have good ideas, they should bring them forward.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]
I do not know whether you, Mr Speaker, or the Leader of the House have seen the really moving interview that the Welsh rugby player Alix Popham and his wife Mel gave about the brain injuries that he has suffered from playing rugby—or for that matter, the story of my amazing constituent, Adam Harcombe, who suffered a brain injury when he was attacked in the street. I know that the Government are working on this, because I found out by very secret means—well, a text message from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—that there has been a cross-departmental ministerial meeting to look at what more the Government can do about brain injury and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is now working on concussion in sport. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that when the Government have something to announce, we have a proper statement and a proper debate in the House of Commons? It is great that we are doing work on this now, but we must ensure that everybody gets the benefit of that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is right to address this issue, which is being taken very seriously by sporting bodies, who perhaps in the first instance have the best ability to look into these problems. But yes, of course, if there is a statement be made, I will do everything I can to ensure, as the ministerial code requires, that it is made to this House first.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I have had my Weetabix this morning, Mr Speaker, and I hope you have had yours. Weetabix is a world-famous breakfast cereal made in Burton Latimer in the Kettering constituency. One debate that has been dividing the nation this week, and is perhaps even more divisive than Brexit has been over the years, is whether having Weetabix with baked beans is an attractive serving suggestion for a healthy meal. We all need a little light relief in these difficult times, so may we have a debate on breakfast cereals and their contribution to a healthy diet, so that we can all arrive at the shared position that, with whatever it is served, Weetabix is a great British breakfast cereal fully worthy of promotion?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As they used to say: “Weetabix unbeatabix!” My personal preference, if I were to eat Weetabix, would not be to have it with baked beans, which I have always found absolutely disgusting—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I have upset the makers of baked beans. There was an advertising slogan—which would be thought desperately politically incorrect nowadays, and I hope the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) will forgive me—which was:
“A million housewives every day pick up a tin of beans and say, ‘Beanz meanz Heinz’.”
But when I was a child, this was corrupted to “a million housewives every day pick up a tin of beans and say, ‘Yuck, throw them away’.” I am sorry, but that has always been my view of baked beans. However, Weetabix is absolutely splendid served with hot milk and brown sugar, although for preference, Mr Speaker, you will know what I like for breakfast: it is nanny’s home-made marmalade on toast.
Mr Speaker
I think the good people of Wigan will be offended, because that is where all the baked beans for Europe come from. I can see the factory at Orrell sending letters to the Leader of the House now.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Pension Schemes Act 2021
High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Act 2021
Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021.
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Future of Health and Care
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Mr Speaker, I come to the House today to set out our White Paper on the future of health and care. The past year has been the most challenging in the NHS’s proud 72-year history. The health and care system as a whole has risen in the face of great difficulties. Throughout, people have done incredible things and worked in novel and remarkable ways to deliver for patients, and we in this House salute them all—not just the nurse who may have had to care for two, three or four times as many patients as he would in normal times, and not just the surgeon who may have been called to treat patients beyond her normal specialism, but the managers across health and care who have come together in teams, as part of a health family, at local and national level; the public health experts, who have been needed more than ever before; and the local authority staff who have embraced change to deliver for their residents—and from all, a sense of teamwork that has been inspiring to see.
As a citizen, I care deeply for the whole health and care family, the values they stand for and the security they represent. They are there for us at the best of times, and they are there for us at the worst of times. As Health Secretary, I see it as my role sometimes to challenge but most of all to support the health and care family in their defining mission of improving the health of the nation and caring for those most in need.
I come before the House to present a White Paper based firmly on those values, which I believe are values that our whole nation holds dear. The White Paper is built on more than two years of work with the NHS, local councils and the public. At its heart, this White Paper enables greater integration, reduces bureaucracy and supports the way that the NHS and social care work when they work at their best—together. It strengthens accountability to this House and, crucially, it takes the lessons we have learned in this pandemic about how the system can rise to meet huge challenges and frames a legislative basis to support that effort. My job as Health Secretary is to make the system work for those who work in the system—to free up, to empower and to harness the mission-driven capability of team health and care. The goal of this White Paper is to allow that to happen.
Before turning to the core measures, I want to answer two questions that I know have been on people’s minds. First, are these changes needed? Even before the pandemic, it was clear that reform was needed to update the law, to improve how the NHS operates and to reduce bureaucracy. Local government and the NHS have told us that they want to work together to improve health outcomes for residents. Clinicians have told us that they want to do more than just treat conditions; they want to address the factors that determine people’s health and prevent illness in the first place. All parts of the system told us that they want to embrace modern technology, to innovate, to join up, to share data, to serve people and, ultimately, to be trusted to get on and do all that so that they can improve patient care and save lives. We have listened, and these changes reflect what our health and care family have been asking for, building on the NHS’s own long-term plan.
The second question is, why now, as we tackle the biggest public health emergency in modern history? The response to covid-19 has accelerated the pace of collaboration across health and social care, showing what we can do when we work together flexibly, adopting new technology focused on the needs of the patient and setting aside bureaucratic rules. The pandemic has also brought home the importance of preventing ill health in the first place by tackling obesity and taking steps such as fluoridation that will improve the health of the nation. The pandemic has made the changes in this White Paper more, not less, urgent, and it is our role in Parliament to make the legislative changes that are needed. There is no better time than now.
I turn to the measures in detail. The first set of measures promote integration between different parts of the health and care system and put the focus of health funding on the health of the population, not just the health of patients. Health and care have always been part of the same ecosystem. Given an ageing population with more complex needs, that has never been more true, and these proposals will make it easier for clinicians, carers and public health experts to achieve what they already work hard to do: operate seamlessly across health and care, without being split into artificial silos that keep them apart.
The new approach is based on the concept of population health. A statutory integrated care system will be responsible in each part of England for the funding to support the health of their area. They will not just provide for the treatments that are needed, but support people to stay healthy in the first place. In some parts of the country, ICSs are already showing the way, and they will be accountable for outcomes of the health of the population and be held to account by the Care Quality Commission. Our goal is to integrate decision-making at a local level between the NHS and local authorities as much as is practically possible, and ensure decisions about local health can be taken as locally as possible.
Next, we will use legislation to remove bureaucracy that makes sensible decision making harder, freeing up the system to innovate and to embrace technology as a better platform to support staff and patient care. Our proposals preserve the division between funding decisions and provision of care, which has been the cornerstone of efforts to ensure the best value for taxpayers for more than 30 years. However, we are setting out a more joined-up approach built on collaborative relationships, so that more strategic decisions can be taken to shape health and care for decades to come. At its heart, it is about population health, using the collective resources of the local system, the NHS, local authorities, the voluntary sector and others to improve the health of the area.
Finally, the White Paper will ensure a system that is accountable. Ministers have rightly always been accountable to this House for the performance of the NHS, and always will be. Clinical decisions should always be independent, but when the NHS is the public’s top domestic priority—over £140 billion of taxpayers’ money is spent on it each year—and when the quality of our healthcare matters to every single citizen and every one of our constituents, the NHS must be accountable to Ministers; Ministers accountable to Parliament; and Parliament accountable to the people we all serve. Medical matters are matters for Ministers. The White Paper provides a statutory basis for unified national leadership of the NHS, merging three bodies that legally oversee the NHS into one as NHS England. NHS England will have clinical and day-to-day operational independence, but the Secretary of State will be empowered to set direction for the NHS and intervene where necessary. This White Paper can give the public confidence that the system will truly work together to respond to their needs.
These legislative measures support reforms already under way in the NHS, and should be seen in the context of those broader reforms. They are by no means the full extent of our ambition for the nation’s health. As we continue to tackle this pandemic, we will also bring forward changes in social care, public health, and mental health services. We are committed to the reform of adult social care, and will bring forward proposals this year. The public health interventions outlined in this White Paper sit alongside our proposals to strengthen the public health system, including the creation of the National Institute for Health Protection, and last month we committed in our mental health White Paper to bringing forward legislation to update the Mental Health Act 1983 for the 21st century.
This landmark White Paper builds on what colleagues in health and care have told us, and we will continue that engagement in the weeks ahead, but it builds on more than that: it builds on this party’s commitment to the NHS from the very beginning. Eagle-eyed visitors to my office in Victoria Street will have noticed the portrait of Sir Henry Willink, who published from this Dispatch Box in 1944 the White Paper that set out plans for a National Health Service, which was later implemented by post-war Governments.
Throughout its proud 72-year history, successive Governments have believed in our health and social care system and strengthened it for their times. I believe the NHS is the finest health service in the world. I believe in the values that underpin it: that we all share responsibility for the health of one another. Its extraordinary feats this past year are unsurpassed even in its own proud history. Once again, we must support the NHS and the whole health and care system with a legislative framework that is fit for our times and fit for the future. We need a more integrated, more innovative and more responsive system, harnessing the best of modern technology and supporting the vocation and dedication of those who work in it. This White Paper is the next step in that noble endeavour, and I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I suppose we should also thank Andy Cowper for advance sight of the White Paper.
We are in the middle of the biggest public health crisis that our NHS has ever faced: staff on the frontline are exhausted and underpaid; the Royal College of Nursing says that the NHS is on its knees; primary care and CCG staff are vaccinating and will be doing so for months ahead, including, possibly, delivering booster jabs in the autumn; and today, we learn that 224,000 people are waiting more than 12 months for treatment. This Secretary of State thinks that now is the right moment for a structural reorganisation of the NHS.
We will study the legislation carefully when it is published, but the test of the reorganisation will be whether it brings down waiting lists and times, widens access, especially for mental health care, drives up cancer survival rates, and improves population health. We are not surprised that the Secretary of State has ended up here. We warned Ministers not to go ahead with the Cameron-Lansley changes 10 years ago. It was a reorganisation so big that we could see it from space. It cost millions. It demoralised staff. It ushered in a decade of wasted opportunity and, of course, he voted for those changes and defended them in this Chamber, so, when he stands up, I hope that he will tell us that he was wrong to support them.
We have long argued for more integrated care, but how will these new structures be governed, how will they be accountable to local people, and how will financial priorities be set, because when something goes wrong, as tragically sometimes it does in the delivery of care, or when there are financial problems, such as the ones that we have seen at Leicester’s trust, where does the buck stop?
The Secretary of State is proposing an integrated care board tasked with commissioning, but without powers to direct foundation trusts, which spend around £80 billion and employ around 800,000 staff. He is suggesting a joint committee of the ICS and providers as well, but who controls the money, because it is from there that power flows? Both of those committees will overlap with a new third additional committee, the integrated care system health and care partnership, which includes local authorities, Healthwatch and even permits the private sector to sit on it. All these committees must have regard for the local health and wellbeing board plans as well. How will he avoid clashing agendas and lack of trust between partners, as we have seen at the ICS in Bedfordshire and Luton, for example? Nobody wants to see integrated care structures that cannot even integrate themselves. Legislation alone is not the answer to integration. We need a long-term funded workforce plan; we do not have one. We need a long-term, cross-governmental health inequalities plan; we do not have one. We need a sustainable social care plan; we were promised one on the steps of Downing Street and we still do not have one.
When the Secretary of State voted for the Cameron reorganisation 10 years ago, it was presumably because he wanted, in the words of the White Paper at the time, “to liberate the NHS”. Now he is proposing a power grab that was never consulted on by the NHS. It seems that he wants every dropped bedpan to reverberate around Whitehall again. He is announcing this just at the very moment when the NHS is successfully delivering vaccination, which is in striking contrast to the delivery of test and trace and of PPE early on where he was responsible. Again, we will look carefully at the legislation, but why is he so keen for these new powers? Why is he repealing his responsibility to set an annual mandate and bring it to Parliament?
The Secretary of State wants to intervene now in hospital reconfiguration plans, but why is he stripping local authorities of their power to refer controversial plans to him? With his new powers, will he reverse outsourcing? Will he end the transfer of staff to subcos? Will he bring contracts back in-house and block more outsourcing in the future? He is ditching the competition framework for the tendering of local services, while potentially replacing it with institutionalised cronyism at the top instead.
Fundamentally, how will this reorganisation and power grab improve patient care? The Secretary of State did not mention waiting times in his statement. It is mentioned once in the leaked White Paper. How will he bring waiting lists down? How will he improve cancer survival rates and widen access to mental healthcare, and by when? How will this reorganisation narrow widening health inequalities, and by when? Given that the Prime Minister insists that lessons cannot be learned from this pandemic until the crisis is over, why does the Secretary of State disagree with that and consider this reorganisation so urgent now?
Matt Hancock
I will take that as cautious support. I know that the hon. Gentleman sometimes has to say these things, but I am very glad that he leaves the door open for yet more enthusiastic support in the future, not least because of all the questions that he just asked. The proposals on the table—the proposals in the White Paper—are addressed directly to make the improvements that he calls for.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about the vaccination programme. The vaccination programme is one of the largest and also one of the most successful civilian operations that has happened in this country, and that is because of the teamwork among the NHS, local authorities, the Department and the brilliant civil servants who work in the vaccine taskforce. It is that combination, that teamwork and that integration which is making the programme the great success that it is.
The hon. Gentleman asked about timing, and I say to him: why argue for delay? Why stop work to integrate? Why stop work to ensure the NHS is more accountable? When people are working so hard in the NHS for us, why should we not work hard in this Parliament to give them the legislative support that they need and have asked for? That is the question he needs to answer if he wants to continue an argument for delay. If not now, when? There is no better time than immediately, so I hope that he will, on reflection and on reading the White Paper, come forward with enthusiastic support.
I absolutely look forward to debates about the details and the implementation. I look forward to the parliamentary passage of a significant piece of legislation in the future, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s engagement on that, but the removal of bureaucratic barriers cannot wait. The increase in the integration of the system should not have to wait, and accountability for this enormous amount of taxpayers’ money to this House, and through this House to the citizens whom we serve, is something that should be welcomed right across this Parliament, and I hope that it will be.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
May I start my comments by thanking the brilliant staff at the Royal Surrey County Hospital for the wonderful care they gave me—this morning, as it happens, when I unfortunately slipped over and broke my arm on a morning run. I have just come from the hospital.
It is a very big deal to do a structural reorganisation of the NHS, and I know from my time as Health Secretary how distracting it can be, but it is none the less the right thing to do and a brave thing to do, because NHS staff want nothing more than to be able to give joined-up care—joined up between hospitals, GP surgeries, the social care system and community care—and the current structures make that more difficult than it should be.
I also welcome the public health measures, particularly on obesity, given the high mortality rates that obese people have had during the pandemic. However, these integrated care systems are going to be very powerful, so my question to the Health Secretary is this: how will the public know in their area about the quality and safety of care, and whether waiting lists are being properly managed? How will they know how good all that is? Is he planning to ask the CQC to do Ofsted ratings, as it successfully does for hospitals and GP surgeries?
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to my predecessor’s work setting up integrated care systems in the first place. In a way, this legislation builds on the foundations that he laid when he was in my job, and I look forward to working with the Health and Social Care Committee on the legislation as it proceeds. We have already had discussions, and I am grateful for the Select Committee’s work so far and the insights it has provided.
The question my right hon. Friend raises about the accountability of ICSs is absolutely central, not just to accountability for the use of taxpayers’ money, but to driving up both the quality of care for patients and the health of the population the ICSs serve. It is critical that we ensure the correct combination of high levels of transparency, the role of the CQC as inspector, and accountability up from the ICS, through NHS England, to Ministers and therefore Parliament, and through our democratic processes to taxpayers. The White Paper sets out at high levels how that accountability will work. The details will be a matter for the Bill. The combination of transparency and clear lines of accountability are vital to make sure that while we use the integration provided for in the Bill to empower frontline staff to deliver care better, they are held to account for the delivery of that care and, critically, the outcomes for the population as a whole whom we serve.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Health and social care staff always do their best for their patients and residents, regardless of legislative systems, but I welcome the Government’s recognition of the damage caused to the NHS in England by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and the proposal to reverse some of its most obstructive and expensive aspects, particularly section 75, which forced the outsourcing of services, promoted competition instead of collaboration, and made pathways more disjointed and confusing for patients, especially those with complex conditions. The devil, however, will indeed be in the detail.
Which model of integrated care is the Secretary of State proposing? Will he merge organisations, including commissioning groups, or, as the NHS would prefer, create new public NHS bodies, similar to the health boards we have in Scotland? When sustainability and transformation partnerships were created, their transformation budgets were quickly used up in covering debts caused by the bureaucracy of the healthcare market, so what additional funding is he committing to bring about this reorganisation? Given the pressure of covid, the backlog of urgent cases, and extensive staff vacancies, how does he plan to create the capacity for staff to carry out such service change? Covid has highlighted the vulnerability of the care system, so what plans are there to integrate health and social care?
Finally, the Secretary of State has highlighted health inequalities, but poverty is the biggest driver of ill health. What discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and other Cabinet colleagues about promoting the prioritisation of health in all policy decisions?
Matt Hancock
Of course health is an important consideration in all policy decisions. The overall response to the pandemic has demonstrated that.
The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of integration and to ask what plans there are for the integration of health and social care. Indeed, that is at the core of the proposals, as I set out clearly in my statement, and at the core of the White Paper. The integration of health and social care has improved significantly this year as a result of people having to work together in the pandemic. Fundamentally, social care is accountable to local authorities, which pay for it, and therefore to the local taxpayer, whereas the NHS is accountable to Ministers and central Government. The combination of these two vital public services is a challenge that I think can be addressed through the integrated care systems. We have been working very closely with the Local Government Association in England and the NHS to try to effect that integration as much as possible.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of funding. Of course, the NHS has record funding right now, and rightly so, but these reforms are about spending that money better to improve the health of the population, to allow new technology to be embraced, and to remove bureaucracy. It is not about having to spend more money on a reform; it is about reforming in order to spend money as well as possible.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
When I was in the Army, I was badly hurt, and I was put under the care of the NHS. In turn, it sent me to a private practitioner, in Harley Street actually, who did me the world of good, and I paid nothing. Now, as an MP, I am frequently asked, “Are the Government intending to privatise the NHS?”. My reply is, “No, of course they aren’t, and very little of the NHS is privatised.” Could I ask my right hon. Friend to inform me how much of the NHS is privatised as a percentage and whether the plans are to increase it or not?
Matt Hancock
The NHS is not privatised at all. The NHS is delivered free at the point of care, or free at the point of use, according to need, not ability to pay. Of course, the NHS buys all sorts of things—it buys goods, technology, scalpels and services of different scales and sizes—and it employs people, and this combination is essentially what the NHS is made up of. It matters not the name of the provision; what matters is the care for the patients, and the quality of support for the population’s health. The pandemic has demonstrated that what matters is the outcomes, and the coming together of different types of provision has always contributed to the delivery of care for patients, as my hon. Friend set out. That will no doubt happen for the entire future of the NHS, which I have absolutely no doubt will go from strength to strength, not just now, after the last 72 years, but for the next 72 years, and after that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am fully in favour of a review of the NHS that brings it up to date and makes it the best healthcare centre in the world, but if he wants to make this a milestone, surely he should slow down a bit. Why not consult cross-party? At this unique time, when we have all been in this together, why can he not consult more? Why does he not to listen to the people, and consult those who work in the NHS, as well as the people who have benefited from it? Why rush this? Why not talk about it and get cross-party support? Politicians of all kinds have never ever got the NHS absolutely right. Why not work together across party lines, and consult the people who work in the NHS, and those who benefit from it? Slow down, Secretary of State, and you will get me on your side.
Matt Hancock
I very much hope to get the hon. Gentleman on side and supporting these reforms, not least because many of them were in not just the Conservative party manifesto, but the Labour party manifesto on which he stood. We have consulted extensively on the measures in this set of reforms over two years. I look forward to further work, consultation and discussions with parliamentarians on all sides before, during and no doubt after the passage of the Bill. It is an incredibly important piece of work. What I do not want to do is delay the improvements that people on the frontline have called for. The core measures of this Bill have been built on the asks of the NHS, working with local government, and I think we should get on and deliver that.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I give my overwhelming support to these proposals, particularly the drive for innovation and technology, which will improve not only access to care but care outcomes for patients. The Secretary of State will be aware that in Burnley General Hospital, we already have some advanced surgical robots that provide incredible care. Could I urge him to look, as part of these reforms, at how we can make sites such as Burnley Hospital regional centres of excellence in areas such as surgical robotics?
Matt Hancock
Yes. We care about technology in the NHS because we care about people and the improvements to people’s lives that it can generate. Surgical robots are just one example. I am very glad to hear that they are being used in such an innovative way in Burnley Hospital. I would love to come and see that for myself some time. This is exactly the sort of progress that the NHS should be making to free up the time of dedicated and highly skilled clinicians, and to enable the delivery of more high-quality surgery because of, for instance, the higher magnification that one can get in using a robot for surgery. That is just one example of the sort of thing that we can push further as a result of the measures in this White Paper.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
When you go to Burnley, Secretary of State, I know you will also put Ribble Valley, Chorley and a few other places on your list.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State may be aware that before I returned to Parliament, I had some involvement with the establishment of the Greater Manchester model of health and social care. Can I offer him two insights from that? First, social care is clearly not yet funded in the way that is needed if we are to have proper integration. Secondly, it was possible to have a Greater Manchester strategic level for the nearly 3 million people of the conurbation, but to have integration and delivery at the district level. On the integrated care systems, will he guarantee that there will be nothing that prevents the very successful model that Greater Manchester is already pioneering?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The changes in Greater Manchester, in which the hon. Gentleman had an important role, are a good example of where we can drive this sort of integration. I can confirm that nothing I am proposing would get in the way of that. In fact, I hope that the changes in the White Paper will help areas that, like Greater Manchester, are already some way along this journey to go further, and will support them by ensuring there are fewer legislative barriers to the sorts of actions that they want to take. That includes both the measures across the NHS and the integration between health and social care.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) [V]
Frontline health and social care providers have shown enormous flexibility, innovation and collaboration in dealing with this crisis. I welcome the Secretary of State’s proposals. I am particularly pleased that he suggests the need both for clear political accountability and strong local autonomy for the frontline. Will he assure me that, unlike Nye Bevan, the Secretary of State does not want to hear the sound of dropped bedpans in his office in Whitehall, and that, rather, we need a more local, more collaborative and more community-led approach to health and social care, as proposed by the Conservative Henry Willink—as he says, the original designer of the NHS?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is absolutely right. In fact, my hon. Friend put it rather better than I did. Perhaps I will take up his rhetorical suggestions for how to make this case. Accountability is important, but the more local the decision making, the better. There should be local decision making across a whole range of partners—not just in the core NHS, but by providers of services, from whatever sector they come, including the voluntary sector, which, during this pandemic, has been embraced more. We need to build on that to make sure that we have a system that can truly serve local needs. Ultimately, all healthcare is locally delivered, because it is delivered to an individual to improve or save their life. Essentially, we need to make sure that the appropriate decisions are taken as locally as reasonably possible.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
The pandemic has shone a light on massive health inequalities across the country. The Secretary of State announced the abolition of Public Health England in September, but there is still no clarity on where the vital health improvement function will sit in the future. Why are we hearing about new structures for the NHS today without also getting clarity on the arrangements for vital elements of public health and prevention?
Matt Hancock
There is a simple, clear reason for that, and I am very glad that the hon. Lady asks that question, because it is an incredibly important function. We will set out more details on the arrangements for health improvement functions, but the population health approach that is embedded within the integrated care systems set out in the White Paper will itself be at the fulcrum of delivery of health improvement and of narrowing health inequalities. If we think about it, around 20% of the impact on someone’s health is what happens in hospital; the rest is what happens outside hospital, the extra support that people can get and, of course, the choices that people make. Integrated care systems will be supported and funded in such a way that their goal is to improve the health of the local population, not just of the patient.
Health improvement is embedded in the structure and the design of the future of the NHS embedded in the White Paper, and the wider health improvement responsibilities will flow from that. We will set out the precise organisational structure of those shortly, but I needed to get the White Paper out first, because it is off this population health approach that the future of health improvement will be built.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
I welcome the commitment to more joined-up care, which must include mental health. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 committed to parity of esteem between physical and mental health. Will the Secretary of State set out how, specifically, the White Paper builds on that? Will it require and measure parity of esteem in output, and particularly outcomes, for mental health? If not, why not?
Matt Hancock
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. Parity of esteem between mental and physical health is critical, and of course it is embedded in a population health approach. It is critical that the new integrated care systems will of course have responsibilities for provision of mental health services as well as physical health services. The historical silos in the provision of mental health and physical health services need to be brought together; so often, the provision of both is critical in a world in which many people have multi-morbidities, including challenges with both their physical and their mental health.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for announcing a progressive strategy, which we all welcome. Does he not agree that this pandemic has opened our eyes to the gaps in frontline service provision and that, if nothing else, we must ensure that nothing is able to prevent basic cancer treatment from taking place as we go forward? I spoke recently to someone in the midst of a cancer battle who said that they had been trying to fight with one hand tied behind their back. How will the Secretary of State ensure that patients awaiting scans and treatment plans are able to safely access them?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. The figures out today demonstrate the scale of the challenge when it comes to cancer treatment. Of course the pandemic has had a challenging impact on cancer treatment. We are supporting cancer alliances to improve outcomes as much as possible, and to work through the backlog that has inevitably built up because of the pandemic. Cancer alliances are a very important part of the future of the delivery of care. In many cases, they will be bigger geographically than an ICS. For them and for other specialist treatments, of course some cases will have to be at a larger scale than an ICS. Alongside putting these reforms in place, we are absolutely determined to do everything we can to ensure that people get the treatment for cancer that they need as soon as possible.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome the White Paper. I urge my right hon. Friend to “think workforce” at every stage, but to ensure that prevention is the golden thread that runs through all future legislation and plans. Given that the last 12 months has very much laid bare the impact of inequalities on our public health outcomes, will we be truly bold and return to our prevention Green Paper, which the Secretary of State knows well, when it comes to facing the obesity crisis, smoking prevalence, alcoholism, diabetes and stroke prevention, to name just a few?
Matt Hancock
Yes. There are measures in this White Paper that precisely pick up the work of the prevention Green Paper that my hon. Friend did so much to shape when he was in the Department with me. In fact, many of the proposals in the White Paper are built from conversations that he and I shared. I want to put on the record my gratitude for the work that he did in shaping this agenda, because ultimately a population health agenda is an agenda about the prevention of ill health. Of course we must—and we will—treat those who become ill, but it is far better for everybody to support people to take a shared responsibility, including their own personal responsibility to stay healthy in the first place. The population health agenda that will be at the heart of the integrated care systems is ultimately a preventive agenda, and one that I am very glad to hear that he supports so wholeheartedly.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
On this day eight years ago, the Government announced and then legislated for a new funding model for social care, which the Tories then scrapped two years later. Eight years on, we have yet another NHS reform announcement, but only yet another promise to reform social care. With 25,000 care home deaths during the pandemic, what will it take for the Prime Minister to make good on his promise to fix social care, and when will the Secretary of State start the long-promised cross-party talks to find a solution?
Matt Hancock
On the contrary—this White Paper covers health and care. It covers the integration of the NHS and social care at a local level. Of course there is further work on funding, as we have committed to in our manifesto, but the integration of those services, which has been so important during the pandemic, is one of the critical pieces of the forthcoming health and care Bill.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Secretary of State on this very important plan and announcement. As he knows, the Island is already piloting some ideas, so I thank his team of excellent advisers and the Secretary of State himself. May we have more pilot schemes to support his work? As he knows, the benefit of his approach may be felt more strongly on the Isle of Wight than anywhere else in Britain, due to our excellent but unavoidably small hospital at St Mary’s, the smallest county council in England, and our age profile. We want to help him and we want to be at the front of the queue. Will he also please consider the position of the 12 unavoidably small hospitals in England as part of the programme, of which St Mary’s is the most unique because it is on an island? I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their great work.
Matt Hancock
With an ask like that, it is hard to say anything other than yes, enthusiastically. I am keen to work with my hon. Friend, who is such an incredible voice for the Isle of Wight. The services on the Isle of Wight, by its island nature, are more closely aligned together than in many other parts of the country, but nevertheless suffer from some of the bureaucratic silo requirements in current legislation. I hope that these proposals will be received enthusiastically by all those involved in the provision of health, social care and public health on the Isle of Wight because they will remove the legislative barriers to closer integration and allow them to continue in the direction in which I know they are enthusiastically working with my hon. Friend’s support.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) [V]
In the middle of a pandemic, when its implications for future healthcare are still not fully understood and when NHS staff are exhausted, with no respite on the horizon, there are real concerns that the Secretary of State is embarking on this reorganisation now. So how will these plans specifically address the lengthening backlog in cancer treatments in Halton and the north-west? How will replacing local decision making with large sub-regional health bodies allow greater local accountability and encourage local innovation?
Matt Hancock
The devolution of decision making to integrated care systems will help to join up care and deliver it more effectively. That is one reason why these proposals have been received so enthusiastically by the NHS itself and by NHS colleagues, including from local government, not least because the proposals originated from proposals from the NHS. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he works with his local NHS to make sure that this legislation goes through in the most high-quality way possible and that we have a high-quality debate on it, so that it can serve his constituents in exactly the way he sets out.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
I know from conversations I have had with the Health Secretary in Mansfield that much of this change will be widely welcomed, and joining up our services is vital if we are to have the best possible healthcare system. I just have one concern: the announcement also talks about new public health measures, and there is an obesity strategy that I fear risks increasing inequality by raising the cost of the weekly shop. Surely education is the key to public health, by, for example, teaching people to cook fresh meals, as people need the skills to make healthier choices or they just end up paying more. So will the Health Secretary ensure that the public health elements of these reforms focus on that education and do not just end up hitting people in their pockets?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course I am alive to that concern, and I look forward to further discussing these measures with my hon. Friend. The crisis has demonstrated how helping people achieve a healthy weight is important, and the Prime Minister has shown personal leadership on that in policy terms. Of course more information and education is an incredibly important part of this because it is about shared responsibility, including personal responsibility, to improve public health. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on the details of it and making sure that we can get this into such a shape that it genuinely supports the tackling of obesity in a way that supports people, as he sets out.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
A decade ago the Minister and his Conservative colleagues pushed through the Lansley reforms, even though NHS staff warned us that they would lead to fragmentation and waste. Why should we trust him now, given that he and his party got it so wrong then? How will he gain the trust and confidence of all NHS workers for his plans, and for the timing of these reforms?
Matt Hancock
The reforms that we have set out were themselves initiated and generated from the NHS, which may be one reason why I am so pleased to have seen such a strong, positive reaction from the NHS to these proposals. They are about what happens over the decade to come. Of course we always need to be improving the NHS, and each reform is a matter of the context of its times. These reforms are about more innovation, more integration and more accountability for the NHS, all with the goal of supporting those who work on the frontline to deliver better care.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
Covid has changed the way we live and work. We have all had to adapt, and our NHS has been forced to find better ways of working. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that our NHS will learn from our covid days, adopt some of the new measures in place and improve its performance over the coming years, while delivering on our commitment to recruit 50,000 more nurses and build 40 new hospitals?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. We are on track to hire 50,000 more nurses over this Parliament and build 40 new hospitals over the decade. Those were core commitments in the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I both stood on with great enthusiasm, and I look forward to delivering on them. The White Paper will help towards that, but that is on track and under way already. He is quite right about learning from what has gone well in the pandemic, during which the NHS has had to work so incredibly hard, and the White Paper will help to do that.
Some of the culture and some of the ways of working have been more flexible, more dynamic and more joined-up within the NHS over the past year, embracing more modern technology than ever before. It is critical that we keep pushing that culture forward and supporting people in driving that culture forward and do not fall back to old ways of working. The White Paper will help us to do that, but it is only one part, because it is everybody working as a team and working together that is at the core of where things have gone well over the pandemic.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
A year and a half ago, we halted the dangerous back-door privatisation of key services in Bradford’s hospitals while Ministers sat on their hands and ignored the outcry of NHS staff and local people. The proposals in the press confirm what I and many others have long said about the disaster and waste of privatisation in our NHS—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Imran, it is a very bad line, even on audio-only, but the Secretary of State is going to have a go at answering.
Matt Hancock
The irony is that the proposed changes that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about, which were halted, were ones that it is currently legally impossible for a Minister to stop without going through a whole process, which he knows about. The proposals in the White Paper will make it easier for us to work together collaboratively on the right outcome and remove some of the bureaucracy that, frankly, stops Ministers getting involved when a project is not going in the right direction. On that basis, I hope that he welcomes the White Paper.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Sorry about the gremlins, Imran, but the Secretary of State did very well in answering your question.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) [V]
Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that bringing health and social care much closer together will help to provide a more efficient, higher-quality service? Can he specifically outline how an integrated care model may help to reduce demand for emergency services in Lincolnshire?
Matt Hancock
I very much hope so. This is about being able to deliver services according to local need and, crucially, not just looking at the patients who turn up—whether that is to an emergency service or through their GP for treatment in secondary care—but trying to get ahead of that and support people to stay healthy, bringing the budget of the NHS to bear on keeping people healthy in the first place. That preventive agenda is critical and can ensure not only that people stay more healthy but that we spend money more wisely.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Having been in Parliament in 2010, I voted against the Tory-Lib Dem coalition’s flawed reorganisation, the failure of which has led us to today’s announcement. As well as sharing concerns about having another reorganisation during a pandemic, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that these changes will improve the health of my constituents when, under his plans, Hull will be lumped into an artificial hotch-potch of the Humber Coast and Vale ICS: an area of 1,500 square miles with cities, market towns and remote rural and coastal communities, with little transparency and no clear lines of accountability to local people in Hull, with our stark health inequalities?
Matt Hancock
Improving the accountability of ICSs is absolutely at the heart of the White Paper. I set out the three sections, and one of them is accountability to ensure that as ICSs get stronger powers and a statutory footing, there is the accountability that necessarily goes with that.
There is a perfectly reasonable debate to have about the geography of ICSs, making sure that they cover the right scale to be able to deliver services effectively and yet are local enough to deliver for local people. That has been an ongoing discussion. The aim is to implement the measures set out in the White Paper by April 2022 and by that time we will need to ensure that those geographies are right. In very large part they are already, but if there is further work to do in any area, I am happy to have a discussion about that.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
The demands of the pandemic on Stockport Council, GP services and my constituency hospital, Stepping Hill, have shown the benefits of joint working and data sharing to improve care and health outcomes. I therefore welcome today’s announcement. We know that when bodies work together, people receive better care.
Stockport Together’s previous journey on this path highlighted the huge benefits of health and care working together as well as the challenges of addressing silo working and the pressures of pooled budgets. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals will deliver a more streamlined system that will give seamless care and healthier outcomes for my Cheadle residents?.
Matt Hancock
That is the goal, exactly as my hon. Friend sets out. In particular, I am glad that she raised data sharing as part of the integration. It is critical that we have high-quality data sharing, with data protected for the individual but shared among those who need it for the purpose of joining up care. If someone goes to hospital, they will not have to give all their details over and over again, and their GP will know about it. Care homes, GPs and hospitals, for instance, will be able to care better for an individual without having repeatedly to diagnose. This is a very important agenda for the NHS, which it should approach with confidence as a core part of joining up care.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
In my constituency of Bedford and Kempston, patients are being left in unimaginable pain as they struggle to access even emergency dental treatment. Dental practices are struggling to stay open with the impact of covid on their businesses, and those who have survived are struggling to cope with the backlog. Imposing targets is not working, so will the Secretary of State include oral health in his future plans and agree a sustainable funding solution with NHS dentists to end the crisis in oral healthcare?
Matt Hancock
The crisis has been very tough on dentistry. By the nature of dentistry, the infection prevention and control systems in place are a challenge. I look forward to working with dentists to ensure that this sort of integration can help them appropriately. I am happy to arrange a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister responsible for dentistry to discuss these concerns.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I welcome the proposals for more integration and collaboration between the NHS and social care. However, it is vital that these important reforms do not get in the way of investment in NHS capacity and the commitment to recruit 50,000 more nurses. Will the Health Secretary assure the House that they will not and that the Government remain committed to the badly needed new urgent care centres at Stepping Hill Hospital and Tameside Hospital?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. Stepping Hill Hospital is obviously vital to my hon. Friend’s constituents. The urgent care centres are important too, especially in ensuring that people can have access to treatment closer to home for smaller, yet urgent problems. We have also introduced 111 First and people should call 111 before going to an urgent treatment centre or an A&E to let them know they are coming and to check that that is the right setting for them. That is an important part of our wider considerations, which the measures in the White Paper will help.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
Shamefully, the poorer people are, the younger they will die. That link between economic deprivation and health outcomes means that Barnsley is suffering one of the highest covid mortality rates in England. Health inequality is an incredibly complex problem, but it is avoidable. Does the Secretary of State agree that a key test of the reforms is whether they will tackle that injustice?
Matt Hancock
I do. Tackling health inequalities is incredibly important and is a vital part of our levelling-up agenda. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the gaps in life expectancy across the country. I hope that a move to a population health approach, whereby the focus of the whole local system is on improving the health of the population, not just those who ship up needing support, can help us as a society to tackle health inequalities.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
A key element of the statement today is that it strengthens accountability to this House, which I very much welcome. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this will mean that, as local Members of Parliament, we are better placed to represent our constituents in this place when it comes to communicating any concerns that they might have about unpopular local reorganisation of key services at their local hospital?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. It is important that, while the NHS continues to evolve and must evolve, it is there to serve our constituents. For a reform to take place, it needs to make the argument for why that is better for our constituents. Ultimately, when such a large amount of taxpayers’ money is spent on a public service, it is right that there is accountability to Ministers, and through Ministers to the House, for the services that are provided—that is the essence of a democracy—while preserving clinical independence, for instance, for individual decisions, and for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and decisions about appropriate advice on drugs. That is the settlement that the White Paper proposes and that I hope garners widespread support.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
Integrated care systems have their roots in accountable care organisations, such as those used in America, in which individuals take out private health insurance. It is therefore hardly surprising that there is a great deal of concern about the introduction of integrated care systems here. Will the Secretary of State give a cast-iron guarantee that he will legislate to ensure that NHS patient data cannot be used to promote or sell private health insurance or services to patients?
Matt Hancock
I do not understand the logic of the hon. Lady’s question. I have not seen the sorts of concerns that she raises about integrated care systems, which, in the UK, have provided the joined-up care that people have been looking for for so long. I am happy to look at the details she raises on the provision of data, but the White Paper is about NHS provision, not the provision of healthcare through insurance, other than the national insurance that we come together as a society to pay in order to provide healthcare free at the point of use. That is a belief that I hold dear and is shared by the vast majority in the House and the country. I am happy to reaffirm that and reassure the hon. Lady.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on obesity, I welcome this statement, particularly its promises relating to obesity policy, including limitations on unhealthy food advertising and new requirements for calorie information on food packaging. Will my right hon. Friend outline the likely timescales for the associated legislation and, in the interests of fairness and efficacy, will he ensure that there is a level playing field between advertising via British television broadcasters and advertising on often overseas online services, in terms of statutory extent and date of commencement?
Matt Hancock
Yes, these are very important measures and I am glad that they have my hon. Friend’s support, not least because of his extensive knowledge as a practising GP who has done so much during the crisis—the whole House is grateful for his commitment and work. On the timing of legislation, unfortunately I am not permitted to go into any further detail ahead of Her Majesty’s next visit to the other place, but the White Paper sets out the reforms that we hope to have in place by April 2022, and I hope that he can take from that some indication of our sense of pace.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
With one of the highest covid death rates in the world, and with NHS workers under such incredible pressure, this is hardly the best time to be talking about yet another NHS reorganisation. In his response to me two weeks ago, the Prime Minister committed to addressing the key underlying causes of the high and unequal covid death toll: primarily, socioeconomic inequalities driven by 10 years of austerity. He said that he would be implementing Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s recommendations, to “build back fairer.” How do the White Paper proposals address those inequalities and their impact on our declining life expectancy and on the highest excess mortality rate in Europe?
Matt Hancock
I gently say that I disagree entirely with the hon. Lady’s pessimism about the ability of improvements in the health service to assist in the closing of health inequalities and the provision of care. As a Greater Manchester MP, she will understand better than most the benefits that come from that sort of integration. The idea that we should fail to act on what the NHS has itself asked for because of the challenges it is facing is completely the wrong way round. I see it entirely the other way round; it is incumbent on us to act in order to deliver the improvements that the NHS is calling for.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
During the last Parliament, I sat on a joint Health and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I am pleased to be re-joining the latter Committee. That Committee commissioned a report on the future of adult care, which left open care insurance-type options to spread the financial burden, so as not to create an ever-larger NHS versus the critical local government role, and, crucially, with enhanced choice and flexibility for a 21st century care system. How will those aspirations fit into the plans that my right hon. Friend has described today?
Matt Hancock
The White Paper takes forward parts of those proposals relating to the integration between health and social care, and ensuring that it is those on the ground delivering health and social care who can decide the best way to provide that for their population. We are committed to taking forward funding reforms, as set out in our manifesto. Those funding reforms are not part of this Bill, but the Prime Minister has committed to bring those forward this calendar year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for answering 30 questions in just under one hour and 10 minutes.
Point of Order
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The petition calling on the Government to trigger article 16 to allow unfettered trade within the United Kingdom has been signed by 138,000 people as of today. These people are from every constituency of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and my own constituency of Strangford has the highest percentage of signatories. Can you confirm that this UK-wide demand upon the Government should be swiftly recognised in this House through a timely debate, and furthermore, that action to fill the shelves in Strangford and across Northern Ireland must be a priority not simply for this MP but for all MPs, and therefore for this House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving notice to the Chair that he was about to make it. As he knows, it is not for the Chair to schedule debates on petitions: that is for the Petitions Committee, and that Committee can also take other actions, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman contacts the Petitions Committee as soon as possible. As an experienced Member, he will know that there are other avenues by which he can raise the matter, as he has so skilfully demonstrated just now.
We will now suspend for a few minutes.
Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill
Thursday 11th February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 View all Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 11 February 2021 - (11 Feb 2021)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Prime Minister believes that it is quite wrong for Ministers to have to resign in order to leave work after giving birth to care for a newborn child. The Bill before the House today will make an important and long-overdue change to the existing law. It will enable all Ministers for the first time to take paid maternity leave from their job for an extended period. Thanks to changes made in the ministerial code by the Prime Minister in 2019, there are now codified arrangements by which Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and Ministers of State can take maternity leave. Their roles will be covered by a redistribution of their responsibilities among remaining Ministers. Secretaries of State or other holders of individual offices such as Law Officers or the Lord Chancellor, owing to their constitutional role and the sheer volume and complexity of their workloads, have not been able to make use of this provision.
There has been a similar failing in the situation for Opposition office holders, where the statutory limit on the number of salaries that can be paid means that there is not the flexibility for them to take leave and for their cover to be paid. The Bill provides that it is possible for Members in those posts to take extended leave. It would apply to post holders of the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Whips in both Houses, and up to two assistant Whips in the Commons.
I am very grateful to Her Majesty’s Opposition for their constructive engagement in the preparation of the Bill and welcome their support for this landmark measure.
Penny Mordaunt
If I may, I will make a little progress.
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her engagement and her commitment to the work that we wish to undertake following the Bill to address the other issues that need dragging into the 21st century.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for what she is saying. This has been a particularly difficult time for new parents, new mothers and new babies. During this lockdown period, I have been blessed with two grandchildren, so I have an idea of what it means. It has been a difficult time. The term is a “lockdown baby”. Will the Minister confirm whether there is an extended time for maternity pay? Are there incentives for companies to extend maternity pay? We really need quality maternity leave because of the circumstances of the past year.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is slightly beyond the scope of this particular Bill. In fact, the beneficiaries of this Bill are indeed very narrow and I shall comment on that further in a moment. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and elsewhere in Government are clearly looking at a whole raft of long-overdue issues. I am sorry that the pandemic has delayed responses to consultation for very understandable reasons, but his points are well made. I am sure that, throughout the course of this debate and Committee stage, hon. Members will want to touch on the situation facing people other than the handful of individuals that we are concerned with this afternoon. On moving this Bill today, I do so with humility in recognition of that.
Sir Edward Leigh
I warmly support the Bill, but can Her Majesty’s Government confirm that only a biological woman can have a baby? Will the Minister therefore explain to me why the Bill refers to “a person” and not to “a woman”? If we are going to adopt extreme gender ideology, why are the Government doing it by stealth and why can we not have a transparent debate on the matter? This insults the dignity of many women.
Penny Mordaunt
I hope to be able to go into detail about this later in the debate. I know that many Members will want to speak to this issue, and I will want to hear what they say, but I want to reassure hon. Members across the House that there is absolutely no intention of doing that. This is not a policy decision around language, and the Government will still use the word “women” in all documents, as is our policy. The issue is a particular drafting issue, and I can come on to the detail later, in Committee. I hope to be able to give all Members some comfort today about the language that we will be using. I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to leave it there for the moment, but his point is well made and very well understood by myself and the rest of Government. I hope that, by the end of today, people will be reassured on that front.
Although they are outside the immediate scope of this Bill, I know that there are considerable and long-standing concerns about the provision of support for hon. Members in this place who wish to take maternity leave. This has been highlighted by many colleagues across the House. There have been some improvements in this area in recent years, and I commend Mr Speaker and his colleagues and the House authorities for their continuing support for reform in this area, but clearly more is needed, and I hope that the cross-party work that follows this Bill may afford us some opportunities to address those outstanding matters.
Returning to the Bill, it would be reasonable to ask why the Government do not in such circumstances simply take on another Minister as maternity cover. The situation is that there are no fewer than three Acts of Parliament governing the issue of ministerial numbers and pay and, more pertinently, the relevant restrictions on them. Until now, the limits on the number of salaries that can be paid overall, and for individual officers, have left the Government with limited flexibility to appoint cover should a Minister want to go on maternity leave. In a nutshell, for someone to be appointed to cover, and for that individual to be paid, the temporarily outgoing Minister would have to resign. This Bill puts an end to that wholly unacceptable situation. Instead, it will enable a Minister to take up to six months’ paid maternity leave to care for their newborn child, subject to certain conditions and at the discretion of the Prime Minister, while remaining a member of the Government.
This provision will be similar to that available to members of the armed forces and the civil service and, significantly, it responds directly to a recommendation made in 2014 by the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. The Bill does not try to confer equal terms or provide absolute parity with maternity leave provisions for all employees and workers. Both adoption leave and shared parental leave are important provisions, but they are not included in this piece of legislation. They are complex issues that require further consideration in the wider constitutional context, but they are not impossible, and I will return to those issues shortly.
On paternity leave, the current statutory entitlement for all new fathers is two weeks. I am pleased to say that this absence can be accommodated within existing practices, should a Minister wish to take paternity leave. The Government recognise that new fathers may want even more flexibility to support their partner following the birth of a child, and I am glad to confirm that we will consider this as part of our further work. The House will also be aware that the Government recently consulted on parental leave and pay for employees, and we are due to respond to that consultation in the near future. This work will provide us with a valuable perspective on how the existing provisions function, and any future proposals for Ministers will be developed with these conclusions in mind.
Some Members hoped for this Bill to address other issues of parental leave. I mentioned earlier the significant improvements that have been made to make this House more family-friendly, and the provisions that are still needed. The Government agree that both Parliament and the Government should seek to lead from the front on working practices, providing as much flexibility as possible to office holders to aid the effective discharge of their duties. I am very conscious that this Bill relates to a subset of ministerial and Opposition office holders—a payroll of just 115 people. It is also solely concerned with maternity leave. I shall not go into the technical detail of why the other matters are not in the Bill, but let me be clear from the outset that we will bring forward proposals to address those outstanding issues. We looked at putting many of those issues in this Bill. That has not been possible, but we do want to address them swiftly and have been discussing with colleagues across the House how we might do so.
I also know that Opposition post holders—in fact, Members from both side of the House—have for a long time expressed concerns about provision for maternity leave under the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority scheme. IPSA is independent, and for good reason. In this particular respect, I am grateful for the engagement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. I know that many Members will want to address these other issues, and I will reserve the bulk of my remarks on them until my concluding speech on Second Reading. In the meantime, I draw colleagues’ attention to the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement committing the Government to present a report to Parliament setting out considerations and proposals on these issues.
The issues with the Bill also touch on the fact that a number of Lords ministerial posts are unpaid. The Prime Minister has undertaken that the Government should look at the use by successive Administrations of unpaid ministerial posts. Clearly the Bill does not relate to anyone outside the ministerial pipeline or anyone outside Parliament. In bringing this Bill to the House, which I hope will gather wide support, I do very much recognise the context. The terms for those in the armed forces and civil service are the terms on which this Bill is pegged. They are far more generous than the public sector average, and many people will be in receipt of far less than that average.
I am sure that some Members will want to focus this afternoon on other issues that people are facing, as I have already set out. I just want to outline some of the detail of the Bill, but I will be very brief in doing so and will go into further detail later. Clauses 1 to 3 deal with the designation of a Minister on leave, setting out the mechanism that allows Ministers to take up to six months’ paid maternity leave. Clauses 4 to 6 set out the arrangements relating to six months’ paid maternity leave for certain office holders in Her Majesty’s official Opposition. Clause 7 contains the usual final provisions.
The second part of the Bill makes provision for certain Opposition office holders—namely, those listed in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975—to take up to six months’ paid maternity leave. In contrast to the arrangements for Ministers, Opposition office holders who are to take maternity leave would stay in post. The Bill authorises a payment to a nominated individual, who, at the discretion of the Leader of the Opposition in the relevant House, is to cover the office holder’s role on similar terms as those for Ministers that I have already outlined.
The difference in approach reflects the fact that Opposition office holders are not appointed by the Prime Minister and do not have statutory functions in the way that a Secretary of State or a Law Officer does. It is therefore more straightforward for an individual to provide the necessary maternity leave cover while the original office holder remains in post. The arrangements may last for up to six months, and the eligibility criteria are the same for those in relation to Ministers. The Bill leaves it to the discretion of the Opposition leader in each House to appoint individuals to these temporary covering roles. Only one person can be appointed to cover an office holder’s post at any point during the period of leave. However, should the Leader of the Opposition wish to change the appointment, they have the discretion to do so.
Clause 5 builds on these provisions and outlines how the allowance payable should be calculated, how payments are administered and when payments should end. As with the provisions for Ministers, the person appointed to cover an office holder’s role should receive a monthly allowance that is equivalent to the office holder’s monthly salary. This financial arrangement should continue for as long as the individual is fulfilling the responsibilities of the role, but for no longer than six months. This allowance, as is the case with Opposition office holders’ salaries, is to be paid from the Consolidated Fund.
The final provisions relating to Opposition office holders are set out in clause 6, which establishes the relationship between the appointed individual covering an Opposition office holder and existing legislation. As is the case with a Minister on leave, where the Opposition office holder is a Member of the House of Lords, she is not eligible to claim the so-called Lords office holder allowance provided under the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 while on maternity leave. However, the individual appointed as maternity cover by virtue of these provisions is entitled to claim that allowance for the duration of the appointment. That is because the allowance is to reflect the work undertaken in the House, such as late-night sittings.
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 makes provision for both Members’ and Ministers’ pension schemes. Both Ministers and Opposition office holders are entitled to pensions under the Ministers’ pension scheme. Given that there is no material change to their position, there has been no need to make provisions in the Bill to ensure that their salary remains pensionable during their maternity leave. However, the individual appointed to cover the post is entitled to the Ministers’ pension scheme for the duration of their appointment, in relation to the allowance paid to them for the role.
Finally, clause 7 makes the usual provisions necessary for the Bill to operate in law, including defining its territorial extent, setting out its commencement arrangements and providing the Bill’s short title. The Bill comes into force on Royal Assent and will thus be of immediate benefit to those wishing to take maternity leave, should there be anyone who is in those circumstances. As I said, I am very aware of the issues that the Bill has brought to light with regard to language. I know that there are time pressures on the debate, but I will address those issues in more detail in the course of the afternoon.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his written statement on this topic last week, the Government have undertaken to look at considerations and proposals for Ministers and Opposition office holders in the other areas not covered by the Bill. We are committed to building more widely on the progress that the Bill represents and will present a report to Parliament setting out those considerations. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that all Members of the House will support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the Minister, and I thank her for the discussions we have had in the lead-up to the Bill’s Second Reading. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) on the impending birth of her baby, and I know that the whole House will want to send her and her family our very best wishes.
Let me say at the outset that the Opposition will be supporting the Bill, which is a small but welcome step in updating legislation in this important area. It is, of course, important that parents in the workplace should be supported in the challenging early months after the birth of a new baby, with the right to take paid maternity leave from their employment, whether they are in the Cabinet or in any other workplace. These changes should be made for the right reasons—because they are the right thing to do to support working parents, not because they are just politically expedient.
I welcome the Minister’s assurances that the Government are prepared to work on a cross-party basis to look at further reforms to bring us into line with best practice in this area. Further changes are indeed needed, because the proposals in their current form do not include, as the Minister recognised, any provision for paternity leave entitlement, those seeking to adopt or those on shared parental leave. As things stand, we are very much playing catch-up when it comes to parental leave.
If we are to encourage women from all backgrounds to become Members of Parliament and, indeed, Ministers, we must have modern working practices, so that it is a vocation that is open to everyone. A clear sign that further changes are needed, particularly when it comes to making Westminster a more family-friendly environment for working mothers, is the make-up of the House today. At present, 102 years after women first won the right to stand for Parliament and after reforms to sitting hours and the system of proxy voting, there are still just 220 female MPs compared with 430 men. That has to change if we are truly to reflect the country and all the experience and talent within it. I urge the Minister to work constructively with other parties and find parliamentary time to progress the further reforms that I believe many in the House would like to see.
Jim Shannon
I know that the Minister responded to my initial intervention, but the shadow Minister has referred to more reform, which I think is important. That reform has to look towards other elected representatives, including those in the Assembly and the councils. As an example, one of the ladies who works for me is a councillor, and she did not get the leave that she should have had, so I think this Bill is only the first stage when it comes to maternity leave. Does the hon. Lady agree that we can, and must, go further?
Rachel Reeves
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Elected representatives, whether here in Parliament, in devolved Administrations or in local government, and indeed those in all workplaces, absolutely deserve maternity rights which in some workplaces, including those of elected representatives, just do not exist today. I would very much support further reform in this area.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I very much welcome what the Opposition are pushing for. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that this House has a position of leadership, in relation not only to the devolved Administrations but to the rest of the country, and that is why work towards paternity leave and, particularly, shared parental leave is so important?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Paymaster General and I have been speaking about the further reform that is needed, and in a way, the case for this Bill has shone a light on the wider reform that is necessary. We should not just be reacting to events; we should be thinking towards the future and about the challenges of combining work and family life which all of us in this place—men and women—face.
I would now like to turn to some of the challenges that women in Parliament have faced over the decades, and to talk about why it is so important that we continue to modernise some of our, frankly, outdated working practices. Without the battles fought in Parliament by the women who have come before us, I do not think we would be here today, fighting for those further changes that will make us more representative of the people we seek to represent. Pioneers such as the indomitable Barbara Castle fought for years to secure equal pay for women. There was also the independent MP Eleanor Rathbone, who successfully battled to see the Family Allowances Act 1945 become law. They both helped to build the foundations for a better, fairer society, particularly for women.
There are many other inspirational women MPs who have done so much for women’s rights. However, that often came at a high price. None of the first four women in Cabinet—Margaret Bondfield, Ellen Wilkinson, Florence Horsbrugh and Barbara Castle—had children, and it is hard to see how in those early decades they could have combined their job, and the antisocial hours it involved at that time, with having much time for family life. The first woman Cabinet member to have children was Judith Hart in 1968, a full 50 years after the first woman took her seat in this place. As the then-Labour MP for Lanark, she found it very hard to combine long periods away from her family with her work in this place, and eventually made the difficult decision to relocate her family from Scotland to London.
The first woman MP to have a baby while serving as a Member of Parliament was the former MP for Welwyn and Hatfield, Baroness Hayman, who had her first baby in 1976. However, just 10 days after giving birth, she was forced to come into Parliament because pairing had been suspended, and there was certainly no proxy voting then. She had to leave her baby in the Whips Office in order to take part in crucial votes. I also remember seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) in a wheelchair in this Chamber two years ago for a key vote, as it was just two days before the birth of her son. At least that unacceptable situation has been ended by the system of proxy voting which, because of cross-party support, now enables MPs who are new parents to nominate another MP to vote on their behalf if they choose to do so.
Despite the hurdles they faced, those remarkable women built the foundations for the work in Parliament taken forward by irrepressible campaigners such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), Dame Joan Ruddock, and the late and very much missed Dame Tessa Jowell, who all tackled inequalities, injustices and rights for women in Parliament and in the country. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham has long supported the changes that we are discussing today. Under the last Labour Government, Ruth Kelly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) had babies while serving as Ministers but had no formal provisions for maternity leave. The same has been true for Conservative Ministers in the past few years. They all watch with interest and contribute to this debate. It is fair to say that their experiences of combining their work as Ministers and their roles as new mothers were mixed, and I am very much looking forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford speak later in this debate.
I have already touched on Barbara Castle’s achievements with the Equal Pay Act 1970, which came when there were just 24 female MPs and was a watershed in the fight for gender equality. We have also had the Equality Act 2010 from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, the introduction of thousands of Sure Start centres, and the introduction of child tax credits and of free nursery places, all of which have been a lifeline for so many women and families in our country.
However, there is still much work to be done on improving employment conditions for women and the culture in workplaces, both in Westminster and across the rest of the country. The decision a decade ago by the former Speaker to close a bar on the parliamentary estate and replace it with a children’s nursery was undoubtedly a welcome move and has benefited many in this House and our staff, but it was not before time. I also recall that in 2015, when I was shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and expecting my second child, a Conservative Member suggested that as an expectant mum I should not be appointed to the Cabinet if Labour won the general election, as I would not be able to manage doing two things at once. I hope that he has since revised his opinions, and I am pleased that this Bill will allow Cabinet Ministers, for the first time, to have paid time off after the birth of a child.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am sorry to hear the experience that the hon. Lady is recounting. She has been paying tribute to pioneering, so I wonder whether she will join me in paying tribute to Aileen Campbell, a good friend of mine and the first Minister in the Scottish Government to take maternity leave. At that time, the Scottish Government were able to find a way of having a substitute Minister. It is not quite the same as what the Government are proposing today. Aileen and a couple of other MSPs are, sadly, leaving the Scottish Parliament because of these pressures, so it is welcome that we are making small but steady progress along the way to supporting women in politics.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which builds on the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is important not just in this place, but for other elected representatives, that wherever they are representing their constituents they should be able both to continue doing their job and to bring up a family. We need in this place and in other elected forums to be able to represent the whole country. We say that we represent Britain or our local community, yet too often we do not look like the communities we are meant to serve. I hope that with the sorts of changes in the Bill, and with those in devolved Administrations and councils, we will make ourselves more representative.
Although the measures in the Bill amount to positive change, there is understandable alarm about this Government’s track record on workers’ rights more generally. It is important that while we today make changes to help women in this place, we also think about employment rights and women’s rights more generally. Just like this Bill, the Government’s new employment Bill should be an opportunity to extend and safeguard workers’ rights, not water them down. However, after a year of silence on that Bill, the Government have failed to deliver on their promise to enhance the rights of all new mums. Pregnant women have found widespread discrimination throughout this pandemic, with many left without basic maternity pay and instead put unlawfully on to statutory sick pay during the pandemic. Indeed, there is a stark contrast to be drawn between the Government’s urgent passing of this legislation, which we support, and their inaction on behalf of struggling pregnant women across the country. I hope that today the Government will reflect on what more they can do to help women in this country.
The Government should also be doing more to help the parents of babies born prematurely. Under the current rules, maternity leave of up to 52 weeks starts when the baby is born, but because a premature baby can spend weeks in hospital, mothers are effectively cheated of spending some of the leave with their new child. I raised this subject two years ago, as a Back Bencher, based on casework in my constituency and working with Bliss—the charity for babies born prematurely or sick that does such brilliant work. I called on the Government then to change the rules so that new parents of premature babies are not put under further unnecessary pressure; today, I again urge the Government to bring forward plans to ensure that parents of premature babies are given the time and flexibility granted to other parents to care for their baby once their baby is home.
At present, Ministers have no rights when it comes to maternity, paternity or adoption leave. If a Minister wants to take maternity leave, as the Paymaster General set out, the rules do not allow for them to continue to receive a Government salary along with the person providing their maternity cover. It is right that that should be changed to remove that barrier in a woman’s career. The Bill would end that anomaly and mean that Ministers would not have to face being financially penalised or forced to stand down from their ministerial role to care for a newborn. The changes would bring Ministers into line with most civil servants by providing them with a period of six months’ leave on full pay.
Last year, there was cross-party support for the change that now allows MPs who are new parents to use the proxy voting scheme, so they can spend precious time with their new child. The proposals before us today represent another baby step in what should be an ongoing modernisation of working practices to ensure that women do not get a raw deal at work due to failure to move with the times. It is a shame that it has taken the pregnancy of a member of the Cabinet—happy news though that is—for this Government to realise that improving the workplace rights of expectant parents should be a priority. This change will benefit family life, remove a barrier to career progression, and ensure that having a baby does not come with a financial penalty as well as the sleepless nights that none of us can prevent. However, we need to see far more progress by the Government on this issue to ensure that women and all workers are treated fairly in the workplace, including when they have children.
We are behind the times when it comes to adopting modern, family-friendly working practices in Parliament and in Government, and change is long overdue. I ask the Minister to make a firm commitment to review and explore, as a matter of urgency, further potential reforms that can be made with cross-party support to ensure that this “mother of Parliaments” is a Parliament that genuinely welcomes mothers. This should be the start, not the end of a journey by this Government to deliver more employment rights and to give workers in all workplaces and in all jobs the protection and support they need and deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Caroline Nokes, I want to set out the time limits that will apply. As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes will have six minutes. She will be followed by another Front-Bench spokesperson. Then, from Cherilyn Mackrory onwards, a four-minute limit will apply, and that may be reduced later.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I appreciate being called in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow not only my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, but the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who made a number of incredibly important points, some of which I will echo. I want to put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for having taken the time to speak to me ahead of the introduction of the Bill. It is incredibly important that we do this and that we get it right.
I start from the principle that no woman, whoever she is, should be forced to resign her job because she is pregnant and needs to take maternity leave. It is 2021, and that principle is, in my view, absolutely beyond question. I therefore support my right hon. Friend today because we have to solve the immediate issue, and we have to allow our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General the right to take maternity leave. Like everyone else in this House, I wish her well as—fingers crossed—she earns the right to be the first Minister in history who is deemed to be a Minister on leave. But—my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General knows my thoughts on this—what a mess! It is well into the 21st century before we have had to face this situation, and why oh why did it cross nobody’s mind that we might need to address this issue before it acquired the urgency it now has? Is it really unthinkable that a Secretary of State or one of our Law Officers can become—heavens above!—pregnant? Where is the Government Equalities Office in the horizon scanning, thinking about what other inequalities lurk in our procedures, our way of running Government, so that they can be ironed out sooner rather than later?
Although I regret that the legislation is coming only now, at least it is coming now. But does it go far enough? It is painfully evident that it does not. Where is adoption leave, and what about provision for shared parental leave? Can my right hon. Friend put my mind at rest that this position of Minister on leave is sufficiently flexible to allow a male Secretary of State who has become a new parent to take it up? I think there are challenges here, and while I recognise the fear that making this a more comprehensive Bill would risk delaying it, thus disadvantaging the one woman it is designed to help, I regret to say that I need significant reassurance that there will be swift action to address questions around adoption, surrogacy and the myriad issues that may well crop up in the future.
Returning to the theme, this Bill is designed to stop, quite rightly, one woman from having to resign, and indeed those who we hope will follow in her footsteps in Cabinet positions. My right hon. Friend will know that the Women and Equalities Committee published this week our report on the gendered economic impact of covid. It specifically highlighted the position of pregnant women who have been incorrectly put on statutory sick pay instead of maternity pay, and those who have been denied furlough, when they could have been placed on it, because they were pregnant. One of the recommendations in that report urges the Government to introduce legislation in this parliamentary Session to extend redundancy protection to pregnant women and new mothers. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) will say something on this later; she had an excellent ten-minute rule Bill on the subject.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has found time for a Bill for one woman, but the Government have not found time yet for a Bill for thousands of others. I urge them to do so. The report also calls for a cross-departmental strategy for dealing with pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The mere fact that we are here debating this Bill demonstrates that even in Government, in the 21st century, maternity discrimination can prevail. While I recognise that this might be outside my right hon. Friend’s remit, I hope she will take the message back to fellow Ministers that a great deal more work needs to be done. That could perhaps be in the long-awaited employment Bill, which might include provisions on such things as miscarriage leave and leave for parents with a sick child.
Finally—I do appreciate that this is a narrow Bill, and that I may be testing your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker—may I raise the issue of equalities impact assessments? There is a danger that legislation introduced at pace will overlook equalities considerations. We have seen that occur throughout the pandemic. Measures introduced with good intentions for good purposes have sometimes had impacts that had not fully been considered from an equalities perspective. Please can we try to avoid the same mistake here? By not including adoption leave or provision for surrogacy, are we perhaps inviting equalities challenges further down the line? I would like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that an equalities impact assessment will be done, and I would like that to be given to us from the Dispatch Box today.
We have to do this now. We could have done a great deal more, and when my r hon. Friend winds up, I hope that she gives me the reassurance I need that the Government recognise that the job is not yet done. There is still a great deal of work left for them to do on maternity rights, but this is a crucial step—for now.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
I also welcome this Bill in principle and as far as it goes, which is not far enough, but perhaps it is a sign that this House and the UK Government recognise that they have some way to go to begin catching up with the world around them.
On issues of equality and of acknowledging and breaking down barriers, this House deservedly has a reputation for making progress very slowly. Today we are discussing something that should surely already be in place, not simply because elected office should not be a barrier to a family, but because attitudes and practices here have a material impact on the lack of proper treatment and the prevalence of issues such as maternity and pregnancy discrimination outside this place.
It was not until 1975 that statutory maternity leave was introduced in the UK through the Employment Protection Act 1975—later than in most countries in Europe. Indeed, with this Bill, welcome though it is, progress continues to be too slow. Here, the perplexing basis for maternity leave is that the Minister must seek permission from the Prime Minister to take such leave, the implication being that the Prime Minister retains the power to say, “No, the maternity leave is not granted.” How very Edwardian in 2021.
The rest of the world has long since moved on to the position that maternity leave should be a right rather than a discretionary benefit. How we can expect people to appreciate that and act in that way if this place is so backward-looking? It should not be necessary for women to seek the potentially grudging consent of a boss to take maternity leave.
I was fortunate when I twice took maternity leave to have a supportive and encouraging boss. It was clear to me that I had the right and, importantly, the support to take the leave that was right for me and my family. I wonder how I would have felt if the ability to grant my leave was in the gift of my boss, given that we cannot always be guaranteed the supportive boss that I had. For me, that happened well before any involvement in politics.
Our representation is clearly not reflective of who we are. We are far less diverse as a political class than those we represent, and the lack of proper provision for maternity feeds into that. We cannot expect that lack of representation to improve unless we improve the structures that we work within. I wonder whether I would have wanted to stand for election to this place as a younger woman starting a family, considering the various challenges, including gaps in provision for MPs and Ministers.
We have heard about heavily pregnant MPs being wheeled through the Lobby recently, against all logic and surely against advice, because the arcane processes of this House were simply not set up to accommodate their needs. This House can and should be better than that. We have a duty to be better. We cannot simply go along with the make-do-and-mend approach that the UK Government have had for so long.
The posts of Ministers on maternity leave have been left vacant, and their responsibilities have been carried out as best as possible by colleagues who are also carrying out their own responsibilities. The one thing that has saved all that from crumbling is that no one fulfilling a Secretary of State role in the UK Government has ever tried to take maternity leave. That fact reveals a great deal about the relative importance of the issue in the minds of those at the very top.
We have rightly heard comments about the contrast between arrangements in the House and those outside it. That is important. The contrast between the speed at which the Bill has been progressed and the shocking delays in dealing with the pressing needs of pregnant women in the pandemic is stark and just not good enough. The fact that maternity allowance is just £151.20 a week, which is about half the national minimum wage for a full-time worker, is deplorable. The fact that it will increase by only 77p a week in April is frankly an insult. Those issues must also be addressed. I realise that they are not before us today, but they all fit together into a lack of care and direction from the Government.
The mechanism that the Bill identifies for repairing the current crumbling edifice of ministerial maternity cover should be uncontroversial. Any organisation needs to provide for such events, which routinely happen, so I hope that no one would seriously suggest that, in a large ministerial team, there should not be contingencies to support maternity leave. However—I repeat myself in case we lose sight of the point—it is incredible that it has taken until 2021 for the UK Government and the House to address the matter.
The explanatory notes describe provision for maternity leave as problematic or “particularly difficult to apply” to a Minister in a very senior office, such as a Secretary of State,
“because the legal exercise of functions of such roles cannot be ‘covered’ by another Minister.”
I am afraid that I do not buy that. That is just a cop-out. It sounds like exactly the kind of excuse that has been used by backsliders on this issue ever since the idea of maternity leave in employment entered our thinking. It is followed by the statement:
“The result is that a Minister in such a role who wished to take extended maternity leave would need to resign their office.”
It is breathtaking to see that kind of language. It makes us check our calendars to make sure that we are in 2021. How can we expect improvements and proper treatment outside this place if that is how we run things here?
The explanatory notes reveal exactly the kind of thinking that we all know still goes on in recruitment to senior jobs, and that results in the glass ceiling for women in so many institutions. They display the unconscious bias that underpins so much systemic discrimination in the UK and around the world.
To signal that that kind of thinking has no place at the centre of political and economic power, the SNP has tabled an amendment to remove the notion that prime ministerial discretion should have effect in relation to maternity leave. Ministers, MPs—all of us—should feel secure in the knowledge that we work for an organisation where no guilt will be piled on us if we take time off for maternity or, in fact, for family reasons. We have to be clear that there is a need to look more broadly than this very narrow issue, that this long-awaited progress does not go far enough, and that the scope of the Bill is not great enough.
These things matter, not only because the arrangements put in place by this House for the UK Government are important for the proper operation of the Government, but because they act as a signpost to other companies and organisations in the UK as to what approach they are expected to take. We do not have to look far to see the issues out there. A survey of 20,000 women by Pregnant Then Screwed last summer found that 61% believed that their maternity leave was a factor in their redundancy decision. Given the example set by this House and the UK Government today, that is perhaps not surprising.
It is also unsurprising that the UK ranks poorly among OECD countries for how it deals with maternity. The UK has the second lowest-paying rate for maternity leave, with less than a third of gross average earnings replaced by maternity payments; despite lengthy maternity leave entitlements, full-rate equivalent paid maternity leave lasts just 12 weeks. That is why, as a statement of principle, we have tabled amendments that would extend Ministers’ maternity leave from six to 12 months.
Let me be clear that that does not mean that we support one rule for Ministers’ maternity leave and another for the general public; the amendments set out what the direction of travel must be for the whole workforce. I hope that as part of the preparation for the wider review that I talked about, including the broader area of parental support provision, the Government will look carefully at that and ensure that equalities impact assessments are carried out before this business returns—quickly—to the House, so that these things can be addressed in the round.
That should include an examination of the challenges facing Members in their constituencies and their legislative roles when they become new parents. It is interesting that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority this morning seemed to recognise that it, too, needs to look at that. When the Minister looks further, I urge her to look at the words of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, which said:
“The lack of formal maternity and parental leave for MPs is entirely out of step with wider society and gives the impression that the work of a Parliamentarian is not appropriate for those with caring responsibilities.”
That is the crux of the issue. It is completely unacceptable that this House and the UK Government have got to 2021 without putting in order their own arrangements for properly supporting maternity leave.
On the basis that we need to make progress on this issue today, the SNP is supportive of what the Minister has brought forward, but if the Bill is to pass largely as drafted, I will be keen to hear from her significant commitments to returning to this issue before the summer to correct some of the glaring omissions and the lack of principle, so that we can fix this issue and send the important messages that we must send beyond this place.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With a four-minute limit, I call Cherilyn Mackrory.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her opening remarks and for ensuring that the Bill is being debated today.
Many will ask why this issue has not been addressed already. It is over 100 years since Nancy Astor entered this place, and we still have not quite got it right. The Bill is another welcome step towards ensuring that Parliament and a career in frontline politics are a realistic option for all women, whatever our time in life. It is vital that all obstacles of inequality are removed and that all important contributions can be made.
It is my hope that by passing the Bill, we will open the door a little wider for many young women considering entering Parliament in the future. Being an elected representative for their local community should be a viable option for as many people as possible, and the more obstructions that we can remove, the better. I want as many capable young women as possible to think that becoming a Minister is a viable option for them, regardless of their age or their fertility.
The Bill is highly unlikely to affect me personally, but as the co-chair of the APPG on baby loss, I have a special interest in the health of mother and baby. The Bill is a step towards improving the condition of both, with Government setting the example that the health of a mum and baby comes first. It is fundamental that in a free, modern and civilised society such as ours, we give a clear signal that this is paramount. The wheels of the Whitehall machine must not stand in the way of the most precious time that any new mum has to bond with her newborn baby. This time is important not only for the physical and emotional recovery of mum but to the continuation of the physical and emotional development of the baby, and thus to the life chances of that child.
Unfortunately, the level of pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the UK is still astonishing, with an estimated 54,000 mothers every year being forced to leave their jobs because of how they are being treated during their pregnancy or maternity leave or after they return to work. These worrying statistics are from a report produced in 2016 by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the prevalence and the nature of pregnancy discrimination and disadvantage in the workplace. The covid pandemic has made this even more stark. At present, employers can lawfully make a woman who is pregnant or on maternity leave redundant if they carry out a fair redundancy process, and the only responsibility the employer must have in these circumstances is to make them an offer of a suitable alternative vacancy. All this can, and does, lead to a crazy amount of stress for a pregnant woman or new mum at the time when stress levels should absolutely be kept to a minimum for the sake of her own health and that of her baby. Sustained strategies such as these can lead to pregnancy loss, low birth weight, and post-natal depression.
The particular nature of our job does not help. I have been very upset to read and learn of some of the shocking abuse that female colleagues in all parts of the House have taken for daring to have a baby while being an MP. That is simply not acceptable, because MPs are also wives, daughters, sisters, grandmothers and friends. It is not acceptable for any new mother to feel that extra pressure, or to be told that they are skiving, not working hard enough or should not be having a baby while serving in office. Post-natal depression, if left unchecked, can and does lead to tragic suicide. Do we really want to wait for a female MP who has post-natal depression to be pushed too far before society sits up and takes notice? MPs are not alone in suffering from post-natal depression, and I would not wish for special treatment, but society does seem to think it acceptable to target its anger towards MPs.
I mentioned in my speech last October as part of Baby Loss Awareness Week that birth is always perilous for women. I hope that the Bill sends an important signal to society that women and the contributions they make are valued.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) [V]
I strongly support the Bill and everything that has been said so far by the Minister, by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) in an excellent speech, and by the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. I also fully support everything said by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory).
The Bill formally recognises that women now play an invaluable role in public life and that women have babies, and that we should support them and not downgrade them when they do. It is true that it has taken forever for us to get here, but better late than never. I do think we must give the Government credit for bringing the Bill forward, because they could have tried the fudge, favours and verbal behind-closed-doors promises that were the best that women Ministers could have hoped for in the past. The Bill sends a big and important public signal of valuing women’s work and recognising their commitment, including at the highest level. The Government have done the right thing by the Attorney General and women Cabinet Ministers; now they need to put right the completely wrong situation for the rest of the women in this country.
Women are doing an amazing thing when they have a baby. It takes a huge toll on a woman’s body to carry a baby, and it is the most demanding thing to care for a new baby, and yet we punish them by cutting their income and making them insecure at work. Statutory maternity pay is only £152 per week—less than half of what people get on the national minimum wage—so the woman’s income is clobbered just when she needs to be spending more. Honestly, if men had babies, do we really think that maternity pay would be so insultingly low? Not a chance. The law allows a year for maternity leave, but many women are forced to go back way before that, and before they feel they or their baby are really ready, because they simply cannot afford not to, or they fear—with justification—that they will be downgraded or even sacked if they take more than a few months.
We are here in Parliament to do the hugely important job of being an MP, but we have an additional responsibility as women in Parliament to fight to improve the lives of women in this country. Therefore, as I give the Attorney General my genuine and warmest best wishes for her second baby, I am counting on her, when she comes back, to be an outspoken champion in Government of the maternity rights of all women.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has blazed a trail on so many of these issues in the time that she has been a Member of the House. It is also a reminder that although she has been such a powerful advocate for women, we still have so many outstanding injustices to tackle, with the Bill tackling one of the most outstanding ones.
It seems staggering that in the 21st century we are still having to legislate for fair treatment and equality for women. We should not demur from grappling with these challenges as soon as they materialise. All of us here who are women Members of Parliament continue to encounter discrimination, whether on our own part or when fighting for constituents. Those challenges are reflected in our having a Minister for Women and Equalities, and indeed a Women and Equalities Committee. Of course, we must tackle the fact that not all unfairnesses and injustices can be dealt with by legislation; most today are behavioural and practical in their nature. However, by holding this debate, shining a light and taking action ourselves, we can give the best possible leadership to all employers in the country—and all women in the country, to show that we are on their side.
I very much welcome the Bill as an advance in women’s rights, but I felt moved to table amendments because of representations that I have had from women about its language. I fully understand the challenges that the Government faced in bringing forward this legislation. Clearly, the need to amend existing legislation made the job more difficult, and the use of language was not especially easy. None the less, I felt it important that we reflect on that.
The fact that we are holding this debate today explains why women are anxious about protecting their rights, and why they become very sensitive about language used. We see more and more how our sex is being dehumanised by non-gender-specific terms. A lot of women do not mind. Particularly for younger women, who perhaps have not gone through the fights that some of us who are a bit older have, it does not really matter, but for a lot of women it genuinely does cause distress. It is important that we in this place at least reflect on that, challenge ourselves and ensure that we do use the most sensitive language that we possibly can in tackling these issues.
We shall discuss my amendments in Committee in due course, but I must say that I find it difficult to be challenging my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on this, because there has been no greater champion of equality than she. I was reassured by her opening comments that, whatever the language in the Bill, it does not reflect any more long-term view. However, the Government need to be sensitive about these issues, because in making a big leap forward in advancing rights, we do not want to alienate anyone with discomfort about the language used.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to be part of the debate and the work that we are doing to bring forward this legislation. Let me congratulate the Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), and wish her well in her forthcoming maternity leave. What is so powerful about this legislation is not just the clarity over her income but the clarity about her actual cover: she will be able to spend time with her child and not receive calls at three o’clock in the morning when the Attorney General is needed.
I welcome the Paymaster General’s comment that we need to do more. It is that which I wish to speak on particularly, because, as she has recognised, the Bill benefits only a very small number of women. To benefit only a very small number of women at this time in this country’s life is to fail to recognise the peril that may come from this legislation, which is not about its drafting but its scope. We are sending a message that maternity leave should be a perk conferred by an employer as a benefit—just as a company car would be—if we only pass this legislation.
The Paymaster General said that the Prime Minister believes it is wrong that a woman might have to leave work to care for a child, but in truth that is happening in workplaces across the country, and it involves thousands of women. During the pandemic, one in four women who are pregnant or a new mum have said that they have faced discrimination, and that they are losing their jobs or being furloughed. In that context, to work only with that small number of women is not just a missed opportunity, but potentially sets up a two-tier system for maternity leave in this country. As the people who make the laws, we send such a message to businesses regarding how they should treat pregnant women at our peril.
The Government are currently being taken to court by Pregnant Then Screwed because, when they calculated the self-employment income support scheme, they forgot about women who are self-employed and who took maternity leave. We have heard from many Members about our concerns for public life. It is not an accident that most women who enter public life, not just in this place but in local government and our Assemblies, tend to be older women who have already had children, or those who have chosen not to have them. Even in this Bill, we have yet to begin talking about fathers.
The Bill tells the lie that I was told two years ago when I was pregnant and asked for a locum to cover work in my constituency, so that my constituents would not feel short-changed by having a woman of childbearing age as their MP. However, as MPs, our employment status was too complicated to enable us to act. If we can pass a Bill in a day in this place to address that issue, we could do so much more to ensure that our public life is open to all women. It is a missed opportunity not just for local government, but for the staff who have worked with us in this building, who have terrible maternity rights.
Two years ago I fought for a locum. No other MP has been able to have that, even though I know colleagues across the House who have had terrible experiences of being pregnant and trying to get support. We cannot say, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” On that basis, let me be clear: the Government have made commitments today but, as the suffragettes said, this must be about deeds not words.
Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be looking and me and thinking that during lockdown I have been attacking the pies a bit, and you would probably be right. But I am also pregnant with my second child. I am early on in my pregnancy. I should not have to reveal that, but I am doing so today to be clear to pregnant women around this country that they will find champions in this place, and it is not enough for us to act only for that small group of women at the top of our society. We must act for every woman to be able to take maternity leave.
We must make sure that legislation such as that proposed by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is given time in this House, and we must stop IPSA prevaricating, as it has done for the past two years. We must give every woman in this place the same rights that we are giving the Attorney General. Please, Paymaster General, it is time for deeds not words when it comes to maternity and paternity.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The very best wishes of the House to you, Stella, on your great news.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the Bill, which was a recommendation by the all-party group on women in Parliament under the then chairmanship of Mary Macleod. I send my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) all the very best wishes for her pregnancy. There can be few who would think it fair for a Minister to feel that there was no alternative but to resign from their job because they are pregnant. This Bill means that Ministers will not be forced into that position, which is welcome.
However, being forced to leave a job for being pregnant is exactly what happens to thousands of pregnant women who we represent. In righting this wrong for Government Ministers, will the Paymaster General also undertake to right it for women throughout our country? Codifying the protection of a pregnant woman’s job is exactly what thousands of women need now. The people we represent want to know that Ministers are being treated no differently from them. Routinely identifying pregnant women for redundancy is too familiar a problem. Under this Government, record numbers of women are in work, and they are an essential part of our economy. We cannot ignore the fact that for thousands, current legislation provides protection only in theory but not in practice.
The Government’s plans to extend tribunal time will not solve that problem. It is a situation that has become more acute, as we have already heard in the debate, over the last 12 months, so will the Paymaster General please add her support for the change that I am calling for in my ten-minute rule Bill? When it comes to modernisation, there is a tendency to take small steps. We do not just pass laws in this place; we influence people, so, please, any proposals for parental support need to be brought forward swiftly. Perhaps she can indicate when in her summing up.
As the Government get their house in order, so must the House of Commons. Bringing in baby leave was a positive step, but it was a small step made in isolation of the broader issues that parents face in this place. There is no clear process in this House for how we agree changes in the way we operate. “Erskine May” says nothing on pregnancy or support for parents, and there is no clear structure in place for us to make a collective decision that cannot be blocked by a small minority, and then that decision has to be acted on. If we are to encourage more people from different backgrounds to want to stand for election, as an institution, we have to change the way we do business. If we do not take action, others might do it for us, undermining our unique position as office holders, not employees. I fully support the Bill, but it demonstrates how much more there is to do.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is an honour and privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) in this debate. There is no doubt that Parliament needs to be brought into the 21st century. In principle, this is a vital and long overdue Bill and I welcome it. It ensures that female Ministers will have similar maternity rights to other women at work. I very much welcome the further work and proposals that have been spoken about today.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who highlights that the Government must not make this a two-tier system in Parliament, with only those who have the most senior Front-Bench positions having these arrangements. That gives licence to employers to think that maternity leave is a benefit like a company car that can only be offered to some. It is a right, not a privilege.
It is important that shared parental leave is championed by Members in this House to encourage the take-up by men across the United Kingdom. Being a parent is a tough job, and men need to step up and take a more equal share in caring responsibilities.
There remains a significant barrier to women’s involvement in politics, which has been spoken about today. As a single parent myself, without the support of my mother, I would not have been able to sit on those green Benches in 2017 when elected. Very few women have that privilege, which is why removing the barriers for new mothers in politics is of great importance to me.
In Chwarae Teg’s report “State of the Nation 2021”, the figures in Wales are stark: 86% of single parents are women in Wales and 40% of women are part-time workers. Many of these households are in great poverty. I hope that we will see swift changes, so we will not be holding women back and we will enable them to make their full contribution to society and the economy. I look forward to being part of that work.
Also on a serious note, I speak in support of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I thank the Minister for the comments she has already made on this. It does seem a bit of a misstep in the drafting of the Bill and can be seen as insensitive to many people. The fact that it refers to a “person” who is pregnant and does not mention “woman”, “women” or “she” at any point is totally at odds with all other maternity rights and protection legislation. The use of “person” would be asymmetric with the rest of the law on maternity rights and protection.
I give the following examples because we need to be factual: in section 66 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, on suspension from employment on maternity grounds, all references are to “she”; in section 71, “ordinary maternity leave” refers to “she”; in section 73, “additional maternity leave” refers to “her” rights; and in the Equality Act 2010, section 72 onwards, where a woman is employed or holds personal or public office, it is all about maternity equality. I therefore ask the Minister to reconfirm that the wording of the Bill will not be rushed in through the backdoor at this very difficult time, without scrutiny, discussion or challenge. The Government can be better and can move quicker, as we have seen with the speed of the Bill’s introduction. We all have to be better; we have to do more for new mothers, and not just those who have the privilege of being a Member of this House.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
Though it is a mission of Back-Bench parliamentarians to bring this Palace to life, the service and sacrifices made by Ministers in pursuit of the common good and shared endeavour should be recognised and celebrated. They are responsible for the actions, successes and failures of entire Departments, so it is perhaps inevitable that some will become overwhelmed by the sheer scale of that challenge. But it is easy, too, for ministerial office to consume the holder, defining their decisions, both privately and personally. That is precisely why this Bill is so important. In life, irrespective of how grand or important we are, what we do should never trump what we are, as individuals or as a people. When all is said and done, it is the metaphysical, the beautiful and the relational that cultivates grateful perspective and lasting joy.
Whether as mothers or fathers, sons or daughters, parenthood, as a fundamental feature of our humanity, matters. As such, it is right that we reflect on how we as a nation, as a Government and as a Parliament support parenthood, opportunity and, in particular, as this Bill does, support mothers. How do we recognise and reward the service and sacrifice required to raise a child from birth to maturity, to shape the intricacies of a human soul with kindness, commitment, discipline and restraint? This Bill is a welcome start. It provides an example. For if we in Parliament get this wrong, how can we expect others to get it right?
That a woman at any stage in her life must be supported emotionally and financially from the moment her baby is conceived is surely the right thing to say, but also the right thing to do. There is a communal societal duty to support children, and indeed adults at every stage of life, from the first heartbeat before birth to the final breath. By formalising the process by which Ministers can take paid maternity leave while remaining in Government, the Bill will go some way towards eliminating any subtle or subconscious pressure placed on women in public life to abandon their pregnancy, or indeed to compromise the care they give in the early stages of life.
I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who has taken the Bill from its conception to, we hope, its legislative adoption. By the way, this is this Attorney General who had the courage to give up her lucrative career as a lawyer in order to enter Parliament; the Attorney General who had the will to refer the case of PC Harper to the Appeal Court; the Attorney General who is reforming the practice on disclosure; the Attorney General who successfully argued recently to increase the sentences of a rapist in the Court of Appeal.
It must be noted, however—it is too often the case with Government—that artlessness or heartlessness has allowed the capture of a well-meaning and just Bill by civil servants who have clumsily excluded the word “women”. That can be put right in Committee and I will say more about that then.
The Bill can also be the beginning of a new focus on family. I recommend the work of another hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whose manifesto to strengthen families provides a blueprint that the Government can follow to do just that. Among that report’s recommendations, alongside sensible reforms to tax and benefits, is a suggestion that we should look again at the criminal justice system.
The Bill is an important step, but it is only a step on a long journey—a journey that affirms the role of women in public life and the role that women play in families and in wider society. It is also a Bill that is proud of motherhood and, my goodness, in the mother of Parliaments, should not we all share that pride?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
I start by paying tribute to Becky Regan, the NHS worker who very sadly passed away last week after catching covid when heavily pregnant. Every life taken by this disease is a terrible tragedy, but the sense of loss is even more acute in this case, because Becky had just given birth to her fourth child. My thoughts are with Becky’s family, friends and colleagues at this desperately sad time.
I mention Becky’s case because the pandemic has been particularly challenging for pregnant women and new families. There are many areas where new and expectant mothers could and should be better supported. This Bill must prompt wider conversations about the rights of pregnant women and new parents in the workplace. The conversation should cover not just Cabinet Ministers, but the millions of parents across the UK who are struggling with inadequate parental leave policies. It is shocking that the Government are only looking at this injustice now because a colleague in a high place has run into difficulties with the unacceptable provision currently in place. It is also typical of this Government to bring in legal changes that narrowly protect one colleague, rather than trying to do justice for everybody.
The principle of the Bill is long overdue. There is absolutely no question but that the Attorney General should take paid maternity leave and then return to her post. I recognise that this legislation must pass at pace in order for her to do so, but I am looking for a commitment from Government that this issue will be revisited with broader legislation as soon as possible. We need time to give it proper scrutiny. I would also welcome a commitment that further legislation will create proper legal rights for paternity and adoption leave, as well as maternity leave. No one, whether in high places or not, should be forced to choose between a career and having children. I hope that this Bill will prompt the Government into strengthening the employment rights of pregnant women and new parents across the UK.
The Bill will allow Ministers to take up to six months of leave on full pay. In contrast, far too many families in the UK are struggling financially. The basic rate of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance is just £151.20 a week—only about half the national minimum wage. Proper paid maternity leave in the UK is among the lowest in Europe. We rank 22nd out of 24 countries. This Bill must be the start for change for pregnant women and new parents across the UK. It is our duty to do a lot better from now on.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
The thrust of the Bill is long overdue and much needed, and to that extent, it should be welcomed. For far too long, an artificial and arbitrary barrier has been put in front of women who wish to serve their constituents in government. It has been a case of naked discrimination hiding in plain sight. By allowing the Prime Minister to designate a Minister on leave, we will in some respects be bringing the world of public office in line with the world of work. It should go without saying that we should be an exemplar of workplace rights, but in truth, this place has all too often treated the many women elected to it as an irritant or an afterthought.
I still have many reservations about the Bill. Why, for instance, have the Government wasted this opportunity by making the Bill applicable only to Cabinet-level positions? If we want to see a Government and legislature that reflect our wider society, they must be a welcoming place for all those who work across them. The Government should revisit that aspect of the Bill and correct it immediately because, by continuing with such glaring gaps in the system, we are sending out a dangerous message to employees across the UK. We are saying that it is okay to think of women as secondary to the needs of the organisation, that a token effort is effort enough, that protecting the management is a job well done and that women should be grateful for whatever small breaks are afforded them. That type of thinking leads us further down a path where women are de facto excluded from decision-making roles and positions of power, while needlessly snuffing out the aspirations of future generations.
It is all well and good speaking in abstracts, but for me, this Bill is also very personal. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am both an expectant first-time mother and a first-time MP. When I stood for election, I did so because I wanted to do right by my constituents in Parliament and to stand up for a set of principles that should transcend party politics. And yet, as a Member of Parliament, with all the vast opportunity and privilege that that affords me, I am scared. I am scared about taking informal maternity leave when my baby arrives in two months; it is informal as there is no formalised maternity leave for Back-Bench MPs. I am scared that it will be used against me politically and, most depressing of all, I am scared that, beneath the warm words of good luck and congratulations, some Members will take a dim view of my taking maternity leave at all.
Today we need to fix immediately the fundamental failing of the Bill before us, even while accepting its fundamental necessity. We must view this as a chance not to fix a problem for a Minister but to right a wrong for countless women—Members and staff—and start changing the culture around maternity rights in this place. We can send a signal to all employers that this is not just the right thing to do here; it is simply the right thing to do. That is where the majority of the country is. It is time that Parliament starts to follow in the nation’s footsteps and recognise the huge benefit that women bring to this workplace and countless others.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, and I would like to offer, on behalf of everyone here, our sincerest congratulations and warmest wishes to her.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to start by echoing your congratulations to the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) on the impending birth of their children.
This debate is so timely, and it covers so many important issues. That fact is that people take notice of what we do in this place. We should be leading—we should be a leader—and I am afraid that, at times, we are not. No one should have to resign from their job—a job that they have worked hard for over many years to obtain—simply because they have had a child. I glad that this legislation will finally stop a scenario where women are effectively excluded from taking a role in Government for fear of having a child.
I was saddened to hear from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that we are losing a lot of good politicians in Scotland, due to them having to make these exact decisions. It makes our politics less. It means that we lose that quality and that insight. We lose those experiences that are so vital in debate, that help us to understand those perspectives when we add them to our discourse and that ultimately make our politics better.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) said, we still have a lot of work to do, and I do not think anyone would deny that. We need to ensure that we use this opportunity to close the gender gap. As the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) pointed out, this place is still skewed towards having too many male Members. We have to ensure that we take practical steps to at least enable a fair roll of the dice, so that people can get involved in politics.
This is not abstract. For communities like mine in the Black Country—in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton—what we are talking about today is not disconnected. If we want to ensure that people can aspire to achieve, take an active role in our politics and see people such as themselves involved in our public life, we need to ensure that having a family does not prevent them from getting involved in politics at all levels. The Bill goes some way towards doing that, but as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we must not forget about local government. One of the benefits of the Bill is that it has triggered wider discussion, and I hope that we will talk more widely about how we can extend this across all our politics and all levels of government.
As we talk about levelling up—something from this Government that I have been very proud to champion—we have to ensure that we do not exclude people based on their gender. At present, it would seem that in some ways that is happening. We need to ensure that we have a system that enables everyone to engage in our public life and our politics. As many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, we also need to end the stigma—the idea that it is somehow wrong for someone in public office to have a family, that we are not human beings and that we do not act as normal people do. This legislation goes some way towards doing that.
I very much welcome the comments of the Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), but I ask her to remember this: men have an equally important role to play. As we continue this debate and as the Bill opens up those lines of discussion, we have to ensure that men can play an equally important role in the upbringing of their children, because we know that the role of a father, as well as a mother, is so important. As someone who did not have a father growing up, I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is vital that we enable children to have that full family. I fully support the Bill and commend my right hon. Friend.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I welcome what the Government are trying to do with this legislation. I know that it is for a specific case that has come about relatively recently, but I support the idea that we should do everything we can to ensure that public life is open to all. The current rules are antiquated, so this Bill is absolutely a step in the right direction. I am particularly glad to see the inclusion in the provisions of those who, sadly, have stillborn children.
It is quite right that we are looking at this issue, although, as the Minister said, the beneficiaries are narrow. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) said, it opens up a real question around the leadership of this House and what we want to do for the future. I was particularly glad to hear that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) supports the legislation, and that following this Bill the Government are looking at proper cross-party working on paternity leave, adoption leave and shared parental leave.
There was one thing in the Minister’s opening remarks with which I disagreed: that this legislation affects the 115 people currently in positions in the Government. It does not, because it does not cover shared parental leave or paternity leave. I really hope that those matters will be considered as quickly as possible. I have several friends in couples where both partners are working, and who are in very difficult positions at the moment. For example, one partner—now often the woman—is earning a higher amount of money but might actually want to go back to work sooner than the man, and they cannot do that because there are not equal rights, in the same workplace, for men and women on shared parental leave. It is a real issue that is affecting people across the country right now. We in this House have a responsibility to put it at front and centre, and to lead the way on these issues.
The Bill is a step in the right direction. I echo some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West, particularly about the importance of men’s role in bringing up children. We are not going to crack the issue of shared parental leave and men taking more responsibility for the children they have until we move beyond the narrow debate that we are having today, and broaden it out to the issues that affect families—yes, in ministerial office, but right across the country as well.
Some important issues were raised from the Opposition Front Bench, particularly around caring for newborn children. It is hugely important that people’s careers, particularly at ministerial level, are not held back by outdated practices. I would like my right hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on some of the concerns raised by me and other Members across the House. We really want to see these issues, particularly around shared parental leave, brought to the fore. We want to ensure that people—whatever their gender—are there and doing what they can to support the upbringing of their children.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
The SDLP certainly welcomes this move in the right direction but, like others, we have some disappointment that the principle of a woman being able to take maternity leave has required speedy legislation to be put right. This should have been addressed earlier; the gap has been apparent for a while and it should have been addressed more comprehensively and systematically. This should not hinge on the situation, the pregnancy or the career of any individual having to be so intrusively and widely discussed. The swift action to correct the situation when it affects a member of the governing party’s top team feels like a contrast with the response to the rights and needs of other pregnant women and mothers in wider society.
The fact that this legislation is “just in time”, to borrow a topical phrase, is an illustration of the archaic nature of some aspects of this institution, and of the reforms that are needed to ensure that political and Government structures are fit for purpose and have equality at their core. It would be glossing over a wide range of complex structural and cultural issues to imply that fixes such as this will magically open up political opportunity to many more parents, but if correctly done, this Bill could address one of the chill factors for those who either have or are planning families, and it would be a small but visible example of Parliament actively enshrining fairness. Whatever a woman’s job might be, taking a reasonable amount of time off to have a baby should not be a perk and should not be something that has to be negotiated; it should be a right.
As others have mentioned, MPs are not employees but officeholders, and as a result are excluded from some standard maternity rights. Many self-employed women face similar penalties in relation to maternity-linked lost earnings in terms of the self-employed income support that has been available earlier this year and last year. I want to highlight the fact that we need to stop thinking about childbirth and motherhood as some sort of random occurrence or curiosity, but rather as reality—and happy reality for a very large part of the working population. It is also worth saying that the devolved institutions and councils, including the Assembly, where I previously served, are not doing very much better in this regard, and I hope that the discussion we are having today catalyses change there too.
The debate has been genuinely informative, particularly the engaging potted history of trailblazers in this regard from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). I want to commend other Members, including the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and I hope that the Government will apply rigour and adopt her proposals on non-discrimination for new mums. I also commend the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has been relentless in her campaigning for the rights of other parliamentarians.
The terms and conditions that are offered in the Bill contrast favourably with those offered to other public servants, and this highlights the paucity of offering for NHS staff doctors, for example, who are entitled to only eight weeks’ full pay, or for teachers, who, certainly here in Northern Ireland, are entitled to only four weeks’ full pay. Of course, the situation is much worse for people in other sectors, and tragically so for people in the gig economy. That is the sort of levelling-up agenda that we need the Government to actively pursue. We concede that the Government have moved fast because they want to, but they need to deploy the same speed and core purpose to raising standards for all working parents and, of course, to broadening this out to adoption and to paternity leave as well. We need to make this place not a place apart but a modern workforce reflecting the whole population.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the Attorney-General on her pregnancy and on being the first Cabinet Minister to take maternity leave. It is 20 years ago this summer since I was the first Minister to take maternity leave, and it is quite astonishing that it has taken two decades for a Cabinet Minister to be able to do the same. Three male Prime Ministers and a Chancellor have had new babies in recent years, but no women in the Cabinet have done so until now. So this is a step forward, and of course Ministers should be able to take maternity leave and have maternity cover, and if we want it to be normal across the economy and society, we have to show that it is possible in Government.
I welcome this legislation, but it is limited. Even within Government, it does not provide for fathers to do their bit in the family in those early months or cover adoption leave. It does not cover parliamentary issues and, really importantly, it does not cover councillors, with the Fawcett Society saying that just 7% of councils have a maternity policy in place. Of course, importantly, it does not deal with the ongoing and unfair discrimination that still happens in practice against women in so many different workplaces across the country, because the systems for protecting maternity rights are still too weak.
When I needed to take maternity leave as the Minister for Public Health in 2001, I asked the Health Secretary what I should do. He did not know, and said, “Ask the Prime Minister.” He did not know, and said, “Ask the Cabinet Secretary.” He had absolutely no idea, and as Ministers are Crown appointments, he said it was really a matter for the Queen, but nobody thought we should be asking Her Majesty. We then tried to work something out that was similar to civil servants’ arrangements. We did not get it all right, and the lack of proper cover arrangements caused difficulties, and while the Health Department was really supportive, that informal approach proved inadequate a few years later when I took maternity leave again. The Communities Department was not as supportive, and I had to struggle to get basic arrangements in place.
When we were drawing up those arrangements, no one had thought about this before. That was bad enough 20 years ago, but we have no excuse for a short-term, reactive approach now. The rushed and limited nature of this Bill shows that Government are still doing the same, despite the fact that many Ministers and many parliamentarians have needed to take maternity leave since then. This kind of reactive approach is, I think, still discouraging women from coming forward into public life, and that is bad for democracy. It still risks being discriminatory, particularly for councillors, but perhaps most importantly of all, it shows that at the heart of government, the civil service and Parliament, maternity arrangements for everyone still are not really being taken seriously enough.
It is great that the first Cabinet Minister is taking maternity leave and it is good that the Government have brought forward legislation to make it happen, but it is time we had a more comprehensive approach to make sure that maternity and paternity leave can be a normal part of everyone’s lives. We need a timetable from the Government about when they are going to address some of the political and Government issues in relation to Parliament, but also to look at councillors. Most importantly of all, we need action against the maternity discrimination that is still taking place, often highlighted during the covid crisis, but also deeply rooted in too many workplaces right across the country, so that many more women can properly be able to keep on working and support their families, and many more fathers can support them in doing so as well.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
It is an honour and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I welcome this Bill, but, as others have said, it does not go far enough to tackle maternity discrimination. That said, I am delighted for the Attorney General, and I wish her every blessing with her pregnancy.
I want to focus my concerns on one aspect of this Bill that has been mentioned already: why does this Bill make no mention of women? It is women who give birth and women who benefit from maternity leave. Is this a reflection of the ideological language that is now seen across schools, universities and the NHS, which bans use of the word “woman” and use of the word “lesbian”? Why must we deny the fact that there are two sexes, and why must we deny that biological sex exists? Why are the Government not complying with the Equality Act 2010? That legislation refers to pregnancy and maternity, and uses the day-to-day language of centuries: woman, she and her.
If this is an innocent mistake, then let us put it right quickly and easily by replacing the word “person” with “woman”, but if it is not, let us talk just for a moment about the erasure of women. Most women do not even know that this erasure of their sex class is going on, and when they find out they are appalled and they cannot believe it. Those of us who try to warn of the consequences of the erasure of biological reality and the reality of womanhood from legislation are often pilloried. Many politicians are now so in thrall to those who wish to erase women for the purposes of advancing gender identity theory that they call those of us who advocate for women’s sex-based rights transphobic, even when we have never done or said anything against equal rights for trans people in our lives, and even when some of us were trans allies before it was fashionable to be such.
It is not transphobic to advocate for women’s sex-based rights under the Equality Act 2010. It is possible, and right, to support both trans rights and women’s rights. Neither should be sacrificed for the sake of the other. We can have an inclusive society for everyone without doing that. Sex is a protected characteristic for a very good reason: discrimination against women is rooted in their biology. That is our lived experience. We must find a way to be inclusive without erasing women’s biology and women’s lived experience from the statute book, so why is this Bill doing that? Women are not “chest feeders”, a phrase we heard earlier this week: women have breasts, and women feed their children with their breasts. Lesbians are same-sex attracted: we are attracted to women’s bodies, not men’s bodies, and to say we must be attracted to men’s bodies is homophobic. These things need to be said, and they need to be said in this mother of Parliaments, so let us put this Bill right and reflect the reality and the law, as set out in the Equality Act and supported by the CEDAW convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
First of all, I add my congratulations to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).
As so many other right hon. and hon. Members have said in this debate, I find myself both supporting and welcoming this Bill, and at the same time being astonished at its shortcomings. Before being elected, it would never have occurred to me that representatives in this place did not have the basic provisions for parental leave that I had taken for granted during my career. Indeed, my daughter is now 24, and I was taken aback in 2017-18 when one of the first changes we discussed in the House after my election was about proxy voting for Members who were pregnant, and about maternity and paternity leave. I discovered that parents in the House did not enjoy the same rights that I had had more than two decades before, so while I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues support this Bill, we are disappointed yet again that it lacks provisions for paternity leave and other parental rights. It does not, for example, address rights for adoptive parents, and how someone becomes a parent should not determine what leave they are entitled to.
This was, as I say, a missed opportunity: an opportunity for the Government to bring parental rights up to date, and to introduce not just measures for Ministers, but measures that apply to all MPs. This place should not just pass legislation, but set a tone for so much in our society. Gender equality is something on which we should be taking a lead, not running to catch up, as we seem to be. Work practices such as shared parental leave are vital to creating new cultural norms and achieving that gender equality, but how can we expect that to happen if we do not, as I say, set the standard ourselves? As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out, if we get it wrong here, that will be reflected across the country. That is why I have signed, and support, the hon. Member’s amendment requiring the Government to produce an equalities impact assessment of these proposals. As has been mentioned, even well-intentioned legislation can, if it is rushed through, fail to recognise pitfalls. So please, let us not fall into one or fail on that account.
It is vital that the Government recognise that the Bill cannot be seen in a vacuum. It is certainly an important measure, but we must also send a message across the country and ensure that it is the correct message. It must send out a national call to action to protect the rights of all parents in all workplaces during these most difficult and challenging times.
There is still much more we need to do for parents. We need to increase statutory paternity leave, ensure that parental leave is a day one right and address the continuing inequalities that same-sex couples face. Organisations and employers must be required to publish parental leave and pay policies.
Like so many—indeed, all, I believe—of the speakers we have heard so far, I welcome the Bill. It has simply been too long delayed and does not go far enough.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am afraid that we need to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople after the next speaker.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
I too would like to start by congratulating the hon. Members for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and wishing them all the very best in their pregnancies.
Like many others, I come to this Bill with a sense of frustration. The progress is welcome, but the Government have missed an opportunity to put many other things right. I would not argue for a second that Ministers should not get maternity leave, but the Bill does not go far enough. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that it should deal with, for example, adoption. It is also a bit of an insult to working parents across these islands, who have found their own maternity and paternity leave compromised during the pandemic. It is a sign that the Government move fast when they want to, but not for everybody who needs that.
At the start of the pandemic, I asked the Chancellor how he intended to protect the rights of those who were pregnant. Some had been asked to take statutory sick pay or holidays or to start their maternity leave earlier than they should, thereby losing out on time with their baby and on the pay they needed. When I raised the matter, a cloud of bemusement swept across the Treasury Bench. It was clear that it had not even occurred to Ministers. The account by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) shows that not much has changed when it comes to male Ministers not taking account of maternity.
Almost a year from the start of the pandemic, Pregnant Then Screwed has been forced to take the Government to judicial review to tackle what appears to me to be blatant discrimination in the calculation of the self-employment income support scheme. I wish Joeli Brearley and her team all the very best in their challenge, but it should not have come to this. The UK Government have repeatedly been told about the flaws in the scheme. As with so many other issues, they have chosen to ignore those flaws and the women who have been excluded from the support schemes and disadvantaged. They must take action to put that right, regardless of what happens with the judicial review. It is simply not fair that women are losing out because they took time out of their business to look after their babies.
Bethany Power has also found that women on furlough have been told that they will lose their accrued annual leave as part of what has happened to them. The Government must correct that as soon as possible, because it is simply not right that women are losing out on their holidays because of how things have been calculated.
NHS exemption certificates should be extended for 12 months, because women have not been able to access the dental care they would usually get in the year after having their baby. That unfairness must also be addressed. They have been not been able to access the service because in many cases, dental services have been suspended.
There are so many more things I could say about maternity provision in this country, and so much more needs to be done. Maternity Action has been campaigning for a very long time to get those issues addressed. The Government are letting women down. Maternity should be a special time they get to spend with their wee one. It should not be a time of stress, poverty and wondering how to make ends meet. Too many women are still losing their jobs and being failed by their employers, but are not able to challenge that because of the structures the Government have put in place.
I urge the Government to act now on all those issues, and take them as seriously as they are taking this one case for one Minister. They should ensure that nobody gets left behind when they take maternity leave.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, in which we have heard contributions from so many trailblazing women. The two speeches that stood out for me were those from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who have really led the way in pioneering the idea of women being both parliamentarians and mothers. I also wish to put on record my best wishes and congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who have announced their pregnancies during this debate, and to the Attorney General, on her pregnancy. I hope she will be the first Minister in UK history to take full paid maternity leave.
We still have a long way to go, of course, and many of us are finding it difficult to understand how in 2021 Ministers are still having to make the decision between resignation or demotion when choosing to have children. Employment rights should not end at the doors of Parliament. Working mams in the Cabinet deserve the same maternity rights as working mams in any other job across the country, but, unfortunately, it is a sad fact that so many women across the UK still lack those basic rights. It is only when brave and formidable women, many of whom have taken part both virtually and physically in the Chamber today, have fought tooth and nail for progress that things have moved forward. Last year’s cross-party support for the proxy voting scheme came about only through the efforts of women MPs such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who was forced to work in a wheelchair because of the lack of proxy voting provisions.
Labour has a proud history of fighting for equality, from the Equal Pay Act 1970 to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the introduction of the national minimum wage. All of those progressive pieces of equality legislation were delivered by Labour Governments. Labour’s Sure Start centres were a vital step forward in providing that lifeline of support to struggling parents and children right across the country. Regrettably, deep cuts to local councils over the past decade have hollowed out those services, leaving cash-strapped local authorities without family-centred support. Clearly, an awful lot of work remains to be done, but Members from across this House can agree that no one should be dissuaded from standing for elected office or becoming a Cabinet Minister by outdated employment practices. If we are to create a truly representative Parliament, encouraging women from all backgrounds to run for office, we must start by ensuring that no one is forced to choose between family and running for office. Rights and protections for elected women seem to be stuck in a different generation, and it is a scandal that councillors in local government are not guaranteed any rights to take any kind of parental leave. I am relieved that the Government have been spurred into action, but it has taken the pregnancy of a Cabinet Minister to get us to this point.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been following this debate with interest. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak in it, because I was in Committee. In a couple of months, it will be 12 years since I was the first Minister to have maternity cover; I took six months of maternity leave and I had a named cover. It is great news that we are finally getting something sorted now, so that maternity is much better organised, particularly for Cabinet Ministers.
Cat Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that and for her support when I was expecting. It just goes to show that this is a debate that has had to come forward in baby steps. If we have learnt anything from the covid-19 crisis, it is that acting at a point of emergency is no way of bringing about good governance. With more lead-in time and perhaps more detailed consultation, this Bill could have included the right to paternity, adoption and premature baby leave. Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to bring about these changes, I am disappointed that we are unable to make those significant strides forward today and I look forward to working with the Government on bringing them about in the future.
As the Centenary Action Group highlighted, this legislation must not be seen in a vacuum but instead as an opportunity for a call to action to protect parents in the workplace in these difficult times. In particular, covid-19 has already disrupted mothers’ careers more than fathers’ careers, with nearly 70% of women with children likely to have quit their jobs due to not being able to balance childcare and work, which compares with 16% of fathers. Women are more likely to be working in shut-down sectors, to have been furloughed and to have taken on more caring responsibilities while working from home. Citizens Advice has reported worrying cases of women being selected for redundancy due to the stringent health and safety measures required to keep them in work. We know that women, particularly black, Asian and minority ethnic women and disabled women, are over-represented in precarious labour, including part-time and zero-hours contracts, leaving them more vulnerable to redundancy. It is disappointing that the Government have yet to act on their commitment in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech to strengthen the legal protection against redundancy for pregnant women and new parents. I would be grateful if in her closing remarks the Minister provided an update on the employment Bill.
Following the announcement by the Prime Minister and the chief medical officer last March that pregnant women are clinically vulnerable, employers unable to make the necessary changes to ensure workplace safety were required to send them home on full pay, but we know that many pregnant women were unlawfully put on statutory sick pay, which has affected their maternity pay and other entitlements. I hope the Minister will address that in her closing remarks, and that she will confirm that the Government are committed to cross-party working to fill the gaps that remain in the Bill. Indeed, the Bill is already out of date, given that it does not include paternity, adoption or shared parental leave. Their inclusion would add great value to the legislation. Will the Minister also commit to working with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow on a wider discussion about the difficulty facing pregnant MPs, as well as councillors and representatives in the devolved bodies?
Turning to the wider situation of pregnant women across the country, the speed at which the Government are acting to make sure that the Attorney General can rightly take maternity leave is in stark contrast to their failure to support pregnant women facing discrimination and hardship throughout the pandemic. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s progress in providing vital protections for pregnant women at work?
Penny Mordaunt
I start by offering my congratulations to the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) on their announcements today. I am sure the whole House sends all our good wishes to them. I am also sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would want me, on the record, to thank all Members for their kind remarks about her and her—hopefully—impending maternity leave. I thank hon. Members for their kindness today and their contributions to this Second Reading debate.
The Bill before the House today is specific and limited in its aims. It will make an important and long overdue change to the law, enabling Ministers for the first time to take paid maternity leave from their job for an extended period. We have heard Members from all parts of the House welcome the measure.
Meg Hillier
I have listened to as much of the debate as I could this afternoon. Ministers have had maternity leave. We took it and said that it was something that women should have. We led on that. I was lucky enough to have as Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who championed proper maternity cover. It is absolutely right that we pass this Bill and put the provision on a proper footing, especially for people such as the Attorney General, but I think it is worth putting it on the record that it is not completely unprecedented.
Penny Mordaunt
I am glad I took that intervention. This afternoon, we have heard from the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—for whose support for the Bill I am grateful—as well as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about the trailblazers who have gone before us. We have heard about the battles and trials that colleagues past and present have gone through in order to get maternity leave and to improve the situation for their colleagues in the future. We all appreciated the speech from the hon. Member for Leeds West in which she cited many colleagues who have made a substantial contribution. As well as those Members past and present who have battled to improve arrangements, we should remember that what we are doing today, although it is narrow in immediately affecting only a few individuals, will also benefit those who come after us. That is important.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) referred to the wider context. It is of course vital that we get this right for everyone in the country, and I know that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking into these issues. It is not only a matter of fairness and justice but a matter of economic empowerment. If we are to get the country back on its feet after the year we have had, we have to support women and enable them to do that.
I also thank Her Majesty’s Opposition and other parties in the House for the cross-party support and commitment that we have for the other work that we know needs to be done. I know that this is a very narrow Bill. The technical consultee is the Leader of the Opposition, but he will clearly wish to delegate to other Front Benchers and, potentially, to Back Benchers as well. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will contribute to the work that will follow. It is vital that we get those other issues addressed and, although I cannot give a timetable on legislation because we do not know what legislation would be required, I think we should be bringing this back to the House before the summer recess in order to address those other issues.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for the powerful report that her Committee has produced and for her support. I hope that her Committee will be able to play a role in the future work that looks at the wider issues, not just for Front Benchers but for all Members, particularly those who sit on the Back Benches.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) clearly referred to the Prime Minister’s power to enable people to benefit from the new provision that we are introducing today. Unfortunately, the power still has to sit with the Prime Minister. I know that the optics of that are not ideal, but I am afraid that this is hinged on the royal prerogative and that must be the case. Hon. Members mentioned various other amendments that have been tabled, and I will address those in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) focused on how maternity leave is a vital time. The Government very much recognise that, which is why we have the piece of work that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) is undertaking on early years. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, who has been such a stalwart in campaigning on these issues, outlined why, as well as the main issues that the Bill focuses on, it is vital that we get this right for women outside the House too.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for the helpful amendment that she has tabled. Again, I will explain in Committee why it has not been possible to use that language in the Bill with regard to Ministers—we have been able to use language to describe Opposition office holders—but I understand how offensive the word “person” or “persons” can be in this context. I hope that we can make some changes, if not to the legislation then to the explanatory notes, that will address some of her issues. I will come on to the detail of that in Committee.
Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I am sorry that she framed this measure as a perk. Just to clarify, this is not about rights purely for Cabinet Ministers—well, they are not rights; it is a provision. The article in The Guardian today also misrepresented that. This is a provision not just for Cabinet Ministers but for all Ministers and those Opposition posts. Only Cabinet Ministers are prevented at the moment from taking maternity leave, so that is what the Bill tries to address.
I hope that I can give the hon. Lady some assurances on the work that we want to take forward with regard to the Women and Equalities Committee and IPSA. Although, clearly, there will be other consultees involved, as well as the Government, with regard to IPSA she is absolutely right that we have to address the remaining issues both for Ministers and for all Members of the House. She has certainly set us a timetable today to try to get that resolved, and I hope to give some clarity on that later. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is vital that we get these issues right. I also want to give some assurances on the issues that have been raised about fathers. This is absolutely vital. I was brought up by my father in my teenage years. Fathers are critical. We will bring that forward in our future work. We will look at paternity leave, shared parental leave, adoption leave and a raft of other issues to ensure that all Members of this House, at whatever stage of their career and whatever Bench they sit on—Front Bench or Back Bench—can have the flexibility they need to thrive in their careers, and have and raise a family. I look forward to the future debates on that subject.
Ministerial and other Maternal Allowances Bill
Thursday 11th February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 View all Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 11 February 2021 - (11 Feb 2021)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I should explain that although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee, in these exceptional circumstances, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair. However, I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than Deputy Speakers.
Clause 1
Payment of maternity allowance: Ministerial office
Kirsten Oswald [V]
I beg to move amendment 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Ministerial office-holders.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in page 1, line 5, leave out “a person as”.
Amendment 16, in page 1, line 14, leave out “person” and insert “minister”.
Amendment 18, in page 1, line 14, leave out “person” and insert “woman”.
Amendment 17, in page 1, line 16, leave out “person” and insert “minister”
Amendment 19, in page 1, line 16, leave out “person” and insert “woman”.
Amendment 4, in page 2, line 1, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
‘(4A) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Paymaster General must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of regulations to make provision for continuity of any paid maternity leave in the event of a Minister on Leave ceasing to hold the designated ministerial office whilst on maternity leave.”
This amendment would require the Paymaster General to act to ensure a commitment to continuity of provision of maternity pay which a Minister on Leave would be entitled to in the event of ceasing to hold the designated ministerial office whilst on maternity leave, or in the event of being moved to a position which results in monies being recouped.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out “6-month period” and insert “12-month period”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders in the House of Commons.
Amendment 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders in the House of Lords
Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out
“may be made only at a time”
and insert “must be made”.
The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders.
Amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 32, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity cover from 6 to 12 months.
Amendment 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 38, leave out “6” and insert “12”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity cover from 6 to 12 months.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2A) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Paymaster General must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of regulations to make provision for continuity of any paid maternity allowance in the event of an Opposition office-holder ceasing to hold an opposition office whilst on maternity leave.”
This amendment would require the Paymaster General to act to ensure a commitment to continuity of provision of maternity cover which an Opposition office-holder would be entitled to in the event of ceasing to hold an opposition office whilst on maternity leave, or in the event of being moved to a position which results in monies being recouped.
Clause 5 stand part.
Clause 6 stand part.
Clause 7 stand part.
New clause 1—Equalities impact assessment—
‘(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must complete and lay before Parliament an equality impact assessment of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The equality impact assessment must include consideration of the implications of this Act for participation in public life.
(3) Within three months of the date on which the equality impact assessment is laid before Parliament, the Prime Minister must make an oral statement to the House of Commons on the action which the Government intends to take as a consequence of the assessment.
Kirsten Oswald
I am pleased to move the amendments that stand in my name, and also to confirm my support for new clause 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and others.
In the time available to us—which, as I think has been acknowledged many times from those in all parts of the House, does not allow for full consideration of the Bill’s defects and omissions—it is important that the Committee sets out clearly what it believes the direction of travel should be on this issue. The general principle of the House addressing issues of maternity leave is important, although the devil will clearly be in the promised detail, and we will all be watching for the progress that has been discussed by so many Members.
As it stands, this halfway house of a Bill provides for maternity leave in specific circumstances, but as the Minister herself noted, only with the by-your-leave of the Prime Minister, and only for a maximum of six months. That is not really what we should be endorsing as a long-term solution to the present inadequate situation. Indeed, it should not even be a medium-term solution. That is why the SNP tabled these amendments, and why we are happy to support new clause 1 in addition.
It is inconceivable that if an equalities impact assessment had been done, the Bill would have seen the light of day in its current form. I look forward to such an assessment being completed before we return to this issue. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, we have barely scratched the surface of the issues that we need to address if policy is to deal with the proper engagement of those in public life with family life.
Amendment 2 was tabled because the approach adopted in the Bill is wrong. It is unhelpful to those of us who want to address the significant structural issues that exist. I know that there are many on the Government Benches who would like us to revise our approach, who see the international standards on human rights as inconvenient and who perhaps hanker after days when this House and the Government it supported decided who deserved which treatment or benefit and who did not. But we have moved beyond that, as is recognised in the European convention on human rights statement at the head of the Bill. As a matter of principle, we recognise that women should not be discriminated against in the workplace, including on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity.
The Bill, as drafted, envisages that the Prime Minister would—in theory—be entitled to withhold maternity leave from a woman even when she was within 12 weeks of the expected week of birth or within four weeks of having given birth. As a matter of principle, that is wrong. No appeal to how reasonable Prime Ministers would deal with this is satisfactory enough for us to accept such a defect in the Bill. The right to maternity leave is important because it shows the value that society places on our right to family life. That is more fundamental than the role we play in the workplace, no matter how important or exalted our role may be.
There is a macho view that seems to value the idea that we should all work right up until the days of giving birth, particularly if we are in high-powered jobs, and the understanding is that we should return just as quickly. That is to misunderstand the importance for most families—for parents and children—of that vital transitional period from pregnancy through to early parenthood. As one Member said earlier, it also misunderstands the colossal impact of pregnancy and parenthood on life more broadly. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said about the importance of supporting new parents in the early years, and this House has a role to play in setting an example.
While there may be mothers and families for whom a speedy period of maternity leave works, and they are entitled to choose that route if they wish, it is absolutely not our job here to put into place or to perpetuate policies that make that seem the norm. That can only be detrimental to families across the country. We really need to look forward. We need to accept that things are simply not good enough here for Ministers, MPs or, as we have heard, members of staff.
More broadly—this cannot be emphasised enough—we cannot leave this debate thinking that maternity leave is all working well away from this place. I mentioned earlier the terrifying statistic that over 60% of women who took part in the Pregnant Then Screwed survey last year believe that their redundancy is because of their maternity leave. That is a shocking statistic, and it should cause us to reflect seriously on the situation affecting these women.
The poor state of statutory pay must not be left behind in this discussion either. We cannot just deal with one person, however sensible it is to put this provision in place, and leave everyone else hanging on by their fingertips because of the impossible financial provisions that they have to deal with. The effect of that kind of financial pressure and the lack of support can be seen in how many women do not take up their full entitlement to maternity leave. In its recent report, “The impact of Covid-19 on maternity and parental leave”, the Petitions Committee noted:
“It appears then that current entitlements are only generous to those who can afford to use them.”
We should reflect on that point. Covid and the precarious nature of so many employment relationships at present bring into sharp focus the need for proper provisions for maternity leave, parental leave and the support that families need at this particularly difficult time, which will also be so vital as we move forward out of the pandemic.
The Petitions Committee also highlighted research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2008, which suggested that less than a quarter—23%—of mothers taking maternity leave took the full 52 weeks. Only 45% took 40 weeks or more, and I suspect it is unlikely that the situation has improved significantly since then.
The reason for tabling amendment 3 is that an organisation of the scale of the UK Government should not add to that pressure by adopting a standard that says to women, “Your maternity leave is a benefit that may or may not be conferred by your boss,” who in this case is the Prime Minister. Through legislation, we should aim to reflect the standard that we expect Government to meet, which is that women are entitled to their maternity leave and organisations need to put in place proper mechanisms for supporting that.
On the wider front, this House needs to act on the continued abuse of pregnancy as an opportunity to disadvantage in the workplace, whether financially or even by removing people from their posts. That issue also affects those taking parental leave and those with family and caring responsibilities, particularly for young children, which Members on all sides have called on the Minister to look at.
That brings me to the second issue raised in the amendments tabled by the SNP, which is the duration of leave. A simple click on the gov.uk website would have told the drafters of the Bill that statutory maternity leave in the UK is 52 weeks, split into two chunks of 26 weeks. It is not clear to me why the starting point for the arrangements for designating a Minister on leave was taken to be six months instead of 12 months, and it does not speak well of what we are saying to the outside world.
Perhaps the only way to solve that mystery is to notice that there might be a pattern to the Government’s behaviour. In order to win support, they talk about the new freedoms that the UK apparently now enjoys, casting them as an opportunity to set our own standards, free from outside interference, and to set them standards higher. However, when a choice needs to be made as to whether to go for higher or lower standards, the instinct of the UK Government is to go low—to reduce standards, or to fail to act as they should.
That has been clearly shown by the dither and delay following the Government’s defeat in the High Court on the subject of personal protective equipment and health and safety protection for limb (b) workers. That growing part of our workforce, who find themselves with significantly fewer rights than their directly employed colleagues, now find that the Government are failing to act. Many of these precarious workers may find it even more challenging to deal with issues of maternity.
Those of us who are committed to maintaining high standards, whether in the field of employment, the environment or consumer rights, need to be on our guard here, or slowly but surely, hard-won protections we have enjoyed for many years will be reduced or swept away in pursuit of the so-called flexibility that we are now being told is what the UK needs as it pursues life beyond Brexit.
The amendments are about setting a marker. We can see, working from the most vulnerable members of our workforce right up to the Cabinet table, that change can be seen as an opportunity to roll back the clock and reduce and reset established rights. The Scottish National party does not consent to that process.
I will comment briefly on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. Her amendment 2 seems to offer appropriate clarification of an aspect of support for Opposition Members. It addresses the issue of someone being disadvantaged as a result of change in circumstance while on maternity leave, which strikes me as an important principle. While on maternity leave, we should not be concerned about the impact of changes at work, so I am happy to support that amendment. I ask the Minister to look at embedding the principle of no detriment in future action in this area.
There is no doubt that an equalities impact assessment is a vital way of dealing with some of the issues with the Bill. The recent Petitions Committee report that we have spoken about highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed when introducing reforms in this area. Recognising that the eyes of the country will be on the changes, we need to avoid creating a two-tier system. We cannot have a good system for Ministers and holders of other high-powered posts and a second-rate system for everyone else.
An equality impact assessment might have thrown up the need to address some of the wider issues in order to avoid that two-tier perception. It would also have highlighted that parental leave more broadly is vital to shattering the glass ceiling, and that too many barriers are still in place relating to caring responsibilities. When this Bill comes back, as the Minister has promised it will, it needs to address those issues.
If we had the equality impact assessment, we might also have noted that wider action is needed to increase the uptake of maternity leave to closer to the one-year statutory limit, because so many parents cannot afford to take the leave to which they are entitled. To address that gap between entitlement and uptake in the wider workforce, it is clear that maternity pay needs to increase, with the SNP proposing 100% of average weekly earnings for the first 12 weeks, then 90% or £150 for 40 weeks, whichever is lower.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I shall not detain the Committee unduly, given that I made many of my points on Second Reading. However, I would like to highlight how the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) illustrated beautifully how all our maternity rights legislation refers to “women” or “she” and reflects the female sex, which again makes the Bill something of a vagary.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her references to my amendments and for engaging constructively to try to work through to a solution, notwithstanding the constraints of the legislation with which she is working. My amendments would replace the word “person”, which is causing so much anxiety to women outside this place, with a word that reflects the position in employment law—in this case, “minister”. That would be consistent with the rest of the Bill, because for the Opposition positions the Bill refers to office holders. I am really grateful to my right hon. Friend for seeing whether that might be a solution. It is not ideal—I would much prefer to see “woman” placed in the Bill—but needs must, and we must pass the legislation so that we can send the Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), Godspeed on her way to enjoy her pregnancy and her childbirth.
I am not minded to press the amendment if it is not a suitable way to deal with this issue. It was tabled in a constructive spirit, to try to take the heat out of something causing distress to women. However, we must ensure that this is not repeated in future legislation regarding maternity rights. If there were an opportunity to vote on replacing the word “person” with “woman”, I would be in full support of it.
Stella Creasy
I rise to speak to a number of amendments. Before I do so, I will acknowledge some Members across the House who have done such amazing work in raising issues of equality when it comes to pregnancy and maternity in this place. I believe there is a high degree of cross-party consensus that we need to act.
I also put on the record my support for the many men who have spoken today about the importance of fathers. Let me be clear: there will be no equality for pregnant women and new mums until fathers are able to step up and equally do their bit. It is not a zero-sum game; it is about parents being able to support each other, and the importance to women’s equality of not being left literally holding the baby.
Let me put on the record my thanks for the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman); my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who was a trailblazer in her time and continues to fight for women’s rights; my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper); and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who spoke bravely and set out her own fears for what would happen. That is one of the tests we must face in this place.
I take the point that the Paymaster General is making when she says that this is not a perk, but I think it is quite difficult to make that argument when faced with another Member of the House who is in exactly the same position as the Attorney General but will be unable to access the maternity leave that we have all agreed it is important that new mums should be able to access.
I want to put on the record my support for the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). If Members have not read her books, trying to correct the record of the absence of our understanding of what women parliamentarians have done, they really should.
I also want to mention the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I said in my earlier contribution that one of the things I thought was missing from the debate was a recognition of the legislation that she has proposed to try to help women facing redundancy in pregnancy, and to make real the promise, which I think we all expect for our constituents, that we will not make someone who is pregnant redundant. As we know, even before the pandemic, 50,000 women a year were facing that situation. I think about the narrow scope of this Bill and contrast it with what her Bill could do for thousands of women in this country. If she is able to bring it forward, she will have my support.
I also want to thank the current Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is doing an amazing job. She spoke today about the importance of equalities impact assessments. New clause 1 is about exactly why that matters. Obviously, we usually expect those assessments to be done for any form of Government legislation, because we recognise that we cannot be blind to the consequences of legislation for different sections of our society.
We have an Equality Act in this country and we protect certain characteristics for a reason, because we know that not everyone in our society faces a level playing field. Pregnancy is a protected characteristic for just that reason—to enable us to say, “Actually, in our society in 2021, women who are pregnant in our communities face discrimination.” We recognise that if we address the challenges that they face and remove those barriers, we shall all benefit. This legislation seeks to do that, and I recognise that. That is why I will support it, and why I think it is the right thing to do.
However, as the Paymaster General herself said, this legislation does that for a maximum of 115 women. In a society of 70 million people, that cannot be enough. That cannot be the message that we send from Parliament. That is why it is important that we have an equalities impact assessment of this legislation, and that we recognise that it does not take place in a vacuum, but in an unequal society where women who are pregnant face discrimination. We see that in our public life. We have already talked about this place briefly, and I do want to return to that, because I think it is important.
I acknowledge that the Paymaster General has recognised the timetable that I am setting her. I want to put that on the record, because I think that should be part of an equalities impact assessment where I believe the discrimination is against those of us who are pregnant, and there are human rights elements of this. But we cannot be blind, either, to the message that this legislation, in the way it is crafted, will send to our sisters in local government and regional Assemblies, or indeed to our sisters who are employees of this House.
Stella Creasy
Happily. In fact, if I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman, I would feel that I had missed out.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for what she is saying, because I wholeheartedly agree. An example of that is a young girl who works for me. She is my PPS but also a councillor. She was able to get maternity leave because she works for me in this place, but not for her role as a councillor. I want to quote quickly from her. She cried, for she felt pressurised to return to the council after a couple of weeks, not by any person in her group but because she knew that no one else could take over from her, vote for her or speak for her. Today we have an opportunity to get this right for Ministers and for MPs, but I believe we must do the same for the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and every council. This is about equality, and we need that for everyone.
Stella Creasy
I always knew that the hon. Gentleman and I would eventually find common cause, even if we have disagreed on other human rights issues. He is right; we have a leadership role to play. Indeed, I would argue that this is leading legislation, because we know that in other Administrations there are not formal maternity provisions. That is why it is so frustrating that we are missing this opportunity to go further and help our colleagues.
Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on her happy news. I have had the interesting experience of having three children: as a councillor, where I took six months’ leave; as a member of the London Assembly, where I was the first then to take six months’ leave; and as a Minister and a Member of this House, where I took six months’ leave. It can be done, but there is an important element to consider.
Proxy voting, for example, which has an important role to play, can be seen to tether a woman to her job during her six months’ maternity leave and make sure that she has to follow every twist and turn of her job. We need to be careful in this debate that, while, of course, this Bill is a good move and while there are still many other measures that need to be put in place, we reflect and recognise that maternity leave is there for a reason. It is there so that we can bond with and nurture our child and come back to work at the point that we are ready to do so, with our child and our situation in a good place. It is important to make sure that, with some of the mechanisms that could be proposed, we are not unnecessarily tethering a woman to her job.
Stella Creasy
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The challenge that she is speaking to is the same as the one that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke to with regard to his member of staff. The Bill is not just about pay, but actual cover. As I said earlier, it is the commitment that the current Attorney General will not get an immediate phone call saying, “We know you are on leave, but we need you because of X.” Somebody else will be formally overseeing that role.
It is not by accident that when I was pregnant, I thought about what I wanted to do for my community. It was not about money, but about being conscious that if I had been awake for two or three hours at a time, I probably would not be as useful to my constituents as someone who could focus fully on the job. As I discovered with my first child, those pockets of sleep for two-and-a-half to three hours—the point at which I saw coffee as a medicinal substance to keep going—were in the first few weeks and months after childbirth.
It is absolutely right that we work to protect the family life of any woman giving birth, so that she has that time to bond with her child and to properly take time out, but we cannot do that in this job if there is nobody fulfilling the role that we are doing. It is the same for a local councillor and the same in our Assemblies. That is the challenge that we are facing here, and why it is so important that we assess the impact of this legislation.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am listening intently to the hon. Lady’s speech. She is making some excellent points. Does she agree that today, what she is asking for is even more crucial? Given social media and emails, Members of Parliament are arguably never off.
Stella Creasy
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. At this point I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who found herself being abused because she was on maternity leave. She was also abused by members of my own party. I remonstrated with them, pointing out that that was not the progressive approach to take.
My concern about the hon. Member for Stroud, and why the legislation is a missed opportunity, is that she sought to get cover. She was an MP who, like me, tried to get a locum. I had a fantastic locum. In fact, my locum, Kizzy Gardiner, was too good. People in Walthamstow were desperate to keep her, because she was an absolutely fantastic example of why maternity cover matters. Nobody in my constituency batted an eyelid about having someone else not just doing casework, but out there representing our community, working with groups, going into local schools before lockdown happened, and then when the lockdown happened, leading on that role. Watching the hon. Lady being abused and attacked, and watching her also trying to cope with those first few weeks of having a new baby alone, fired my enthusiasm on this. We cannot sit around in this place, watching as other people get those issues right, but failing to take action ourselves.
It is not by accident that the number of times pregnant women end up in this place, or in local government or in the Assemblies, are few and far between. That is one issue that an equalities impact assessment can take a look at. We all talk about wanting to get more diverse people into our politics. Sometimes the barriers to that are blindingly obvious. I know from talking to colleagues in local government just how frustrated they are. I know from talking to colleagues in other devolved Administrations just how frustrated they are.
When we pass legislation in this House, such as this Bill, we cannot be blind to the message that we are sending about how we have determined who is important enough to have that leave. If we think that is not something that should be bestowed as a discretionary pleasure, or as a benefit like a company car, then we also have to recognise the consequences of behaving like that, not just here but in other places as well. If we want to ensure that there is no trade-off between family life and public life for either men or women, we must look at the message we are sending. The honest truth is that this legislation, as it stands, sends a message that a two-tier system is acceptable.
Consider for a moment what would happen were we to look at local government and say, “Well, it’s okay for just cabinet members in local government to have maternity leave”. We would be horrified for young female councillors, or indeed for young men who want to be good fathers and spend time with their children, and want to be supportive partners, yet that is exactly what we are doing here. Frankly, in no other workplace would this be acceptable. If someone came to us in our constituency offices and said, “This is the experience in my workplace”, we would say, “Well, that’s clearly breaching various regulations. We must support you. We must get you trade union representation.” I am very proud of the trade unions, which I know have made representations on this issue already.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Lady knows that she has the support of the Scottish National party for her amendments. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) wanted to make sure that her support in particular was recorded.
Until the pandemic, the only times that I acted as a proxy were actually for new fathers in our group; we have not had a new mother, at least in the time that I have been here. I have heard the case made on many occasions that the best stride that could be made for gender equality would be equality of parental leave. If that parental leave could be shared between both parents of a child, it would be an incredible way of helping to break through the glass ceiling—if the entitlement was there for everyone. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this Bill and the clauses that we are debating just now do not make that distinction.
Stella Creasy
I completely agree with my colleague from north of the border. People’s ability to take shared parental leave is so important. Again, parental leave is not covered in this Bill, but an equality impact assessment could look at the consequences of failing to include it. That matters because the Bill talks about ensuring the income of a Minister, and, to put it bluntly, the biggest barrier to people taking up parental leave is that it is only open to those who can really afford to do so.
The gender pay gap is at the heart of some of these challenges. That is because for most women and their families, it is actually better for them to take time off with the baby than for their partner to do so. That means that they take the hit on their career and on their incomes, and we do not get the fathers’ involvement in children that we all want to support. Why are we sending the message that we are not even talking about ministerial paternal paid leave and therefore ensuring that fathers can be part of it? The Paymaster General said that it is already covered in existing provisions. That is because it is only two weeks. In the first two weeks post birth, parents are lucky if they see daylight and are able to go outside—or, indeed, to wear clean clothes, if I remember correctly—so having more time with their child is crucial.
I want to look particularly at what this legislation means for Parliament. The Paymaster General has pointed out that she gets this and she understands that we have to go much further, and I believe her. She talked about a timetable. Let me be clear why that timetable matters. I said earlier that I have a direct discrimination case, and I think that an equality impact assessment could look at this issue. She will have seen that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has come out today and said, “Yes, we’re going to consult”, and it is having a meeting again today. That is all very welcome. I recognise that the new chair of IPSA takes a very different approach from the previous administration. I have worked on these issues for the last two years and I wrote to IPSA before the last election, begging it to come out and say that it was at least looking at these concerns so that nobody of childbearing age would be deterred from standing in the election, but it refused to do so, so it is welcome that there is movement.
But, as ever, the pace of change is glacially slow—for me, literally, because yet again I find myself in a position where I cannot be confident of what I can say to my community to answer the question posed by the member of staff of the hon. Member for Strangford: “What cover will there be?” I cannot even look my own staff in the eye because of the lack of cover that we offer staff in this place. If nothing else, that makes us terrible employees.
This legislation gives the lie that this is an independent matter. I have been told for the last two years that MPs’ employment status meant that it was impossible. Indeed, it says on the IPSA website:
“MPs as independent office holders are not employees and are therefore not eligible for statutory maternity, paternity or adoption leave.”
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend will know that a Minister is on the payroll of their Department, so in that sense they are more of an employee. There is a really interesting issue here that we will need to consider carefully, and it is that MPs are not employees. We have a payroll, but we are not employees; we are obviously answerable to our constituents. That is one of the fundamental differences. For my part, when I was on maternity leave, I had a clear plan and support. Like my hon. Friend, I asked for some cover—some extra money for my staff—but it was not possible. There are certain things that an MP does that cannot be replicated by anybody else, as we know. This has obviously been well rehearsed. This is a complex area, and she is making some interesting points.
Stella Creasy
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She hit the nail on the head when she said that it was not possible for her to have that support, so she had to put in place a system for herself. In what other workplace—
Meg Hillier
I just want to make it clear that I was not unhappy about the system that I put in place for myself. It was very clearly worked out: I had colleagues who were able to step up if my staff needed any extra support, and they had the right to be signatories. However, this was during the expenses scandal, and because my name was above the door, there were some things that it would have been very difficult to pass on to somebody else. So despite the great support I had, it was difficult, and I would have liked to be able to pay some of those staff a little bit more for the extra responsibility they were taking. That was the bit that I had the most issue with at the time.
Stella Creasy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her experience. I think that speaks to the challenge of this legislation, in terms of the impact it will have in this place by setting up a two-tier system. For a member of the Cabinet or a Minister, it will now be clear what will happen and what their rights are. They can be confident and relaxed. I return to the honesty of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North in talking about how scared and worried she was and about the lack of clarity in the lack of parity on these issues, so that she felt she would be put at risk of people saying she was not pulling her weight or would not be able to support her constituents, or that she would be dragged back into work. We have a duty of responsibility and care to her, because she is in the same position as me, but a bit further on.
I want to be clear that this legislation recognises the Minister’s absolute right to a family life. That is an article 8 human right, and we need to protect that. We need to act to ensure that no one is discriminated against in that regard. The lawyers I have consulted tell me that it is arguable that this legislation breaches the human rights of those of us who are not covered by it but who are in the same position in seeking to do a job in this place, because article 14 says that we should not be discriminated against in terms of the rights that are accrued in the workplace. So for me, there is an arguable case here.
I do not want to be in the position of taking the Government to court. Frankly, I want to be in the position, especially now in the early stages of pregnancy, of being able to sit down and sleep for hours on end, and in later pregnancy probably just to sit down in general, but I know that it is vital for my constituents to have clarity about who will be covering the role that I do. The previous locum I had was fantastic, but we had to write the job description. We had to sort it out. In comparison to what the Attorney General and any other Minister will have, that is not parity. It is a form of direct discrimination because it affects the ability to have family life. I have been very clear with the Minister—
Meg Hillier
I wonder if my hon. Friend could clarify that last point, because I think we all approach our jobs slightly differently. Certainly, it was not at all an issue for me when I was laying out everything I did that would need cover. The description was really what I did already, so it was not a very difficult challenge. I would be very reluctant to have IPSA or somebody else write the job description for somebody who was providing support, whether it was my existing staff or anyone else. I would be interested if she could clarify that point.
Stella Creasy
I do not want to test the patience of the Chair of the Committee by going into what the different schemes might be.
The point we are making here is about parity, and the lack of parity as a result of bringing in this system. If we have clarity on the cover for the Attorney General and clarity about the amount of money that will be paid, it would be right to look at whether we should offer the same thing for Back-Bench MPs, and indeed set the standard for local government and the regional Assemblies, perhaps offering to work with them in terms of our experience.
My simple point is that this legislation blows a hole in the argument that has been given for the past two years that we could not look at these issues because it was all too complicated. As the Paymaster General set out earlier, the complications around ministerial employment have been overcome in a day because of the guillotine of having a clear deadline set by one Member of Parliament. One of the challenges that has created for some of the drafting is that this maternity right is following not the person who might be pregnant but the position that they hold.
My argument is that there is direct discrimination in this place because this says to my constituents that they are not as important. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch was able to get cover, and I know that Kizzy, my locum, was invaluable for my community in ensuring that they got 100% of the service 100% of the time. I believe the residents of Walthamstow are owed that. That is why I will continue to fight for this, but I also recognise that it is for every MP to make that decision for themselves. The point is that we are now making sure that that decision can be made, but only by a select few. That has an equalities impact, and we should know that and recognise its impact on public life.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I hope she will forgive my ignorance in some of my questions to her, but my understanding is that Members of Parliament are able to take maternity leave and their salary is paid for by the state, and that continues to be the case. My understanding is also that IPSA will provide contingency funding to support the offices of Members of Parliament, to allow them to have that leave and make provision for them to do so. Am I incorrect in my assumption?
Stella Creasy
The honest truth is that we do not know, because the only other MP who sought to take advantage of that system was discouraged and deterred, and was not able to do so. What I would say is that right now, it is not clear to me as a pregnant woman what support I would get. There is a conversation about pre-approved support; right now, I am one of the most expensive MPs in London because of the contingency application for maternity cover. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is not appropriate to see maternity cover as an expense that might be reported to the public in that way. There is not parity, in the way that there is parity and clarity about what the scheme is for—
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, but I hope that explains the issue to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Loder
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I am afraid I do not concur with what she has said. I think we are in one of the most fortunate situations in the entire nation. This Parliament has the ability to call on the taxpayer to support those who need to take maternity leave, to take care of their children and to physically recover from pregnancy, so if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I think she is wrong. We as a Parliament, as a state and as a nation are in the fortunate position that we do support our MPs, and we must be careful to not put out there that we do not, when there are many people who are struggling. I agree with the hon. Lady’s earlier point that across the nation, there are employers who do not necessarily fulfil their obligations, but I think we have to be careful about giving the impression to the nation that we in this place are hard done by, because I am afraid I do not agree.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just before the hon. Lady responds, I think it is quite important to note that this Bill is about Ministers, and we must not stray too far into the position of Members of Parliament as well.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. If he will forgive me, as somebody who has actually been through this process and actually understands what is available and what is not clear at present, I would gently encourage him to talk to his colleague the hon. Member for Stroud about her experiences.
It is really important that we are honest about the lack of clarity. As I have said, there is not a formal maternity leave scheme or formal maternity cover. Unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if an MP disappears for six months, nobody would notice because they do not do anything, then there is work to be covered. The point about this legislation is that it recognises that. It is not about the pay—that is a red herring in this environment. It is about having somebody to cover the work we do outside of this room: the campaigns we run, the constituency events we attend, and the casework we do. For me, it was not acceptable to ask my staff to fill in everything that I did for six months, and expect my constituents to have a reduced service as a result, rather than to have somebody cover those roles.
I am very conscious of time and I do want to press on, but I would gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at what is actually being provided at the moment. It is not the same as what we are providing in this legislation, and that is my point: we want parity, because every woman should have six months’ paid cover so that they can actually take time off. Perhaps he might want to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who was back doing casework three days after a caesarean section because, although people thought she could take maternity leave, the reality was that she could not. I know that it is not a situation in which the hon. Gentleman has found himself, but I hope that he can understand, through listening to those of us who have, why we need change. Certainly, I hope that he will join me in supporting paid parental leave for our male colleagues because that is really important. I have talked to many colleagues who find that this place takes them away from their families when we want to bring them together.
I want to highlight the other amendments that I have tabled. I recognise the cross-party support for new clause 1—I think the Paymaster General does, too—and the call for change and for us not to be blind about the messages we send from this place about the importance of paid maternity cover and ensuring that everybody can access it.
Amendments 1 and 2 are probing amendments to recognise some of the questions the Bill raises about the practical technicalities and what would happen. The Bill seems to take account of the idea that somebody might be demoted while they are on maternity leave and I am sure that the Paymaster General will want to clarify that. Although the Bill provides that no Minister would be in a financially difficult position if they were removed from their ministerial post while they were on maternity leave, it does not make the same provision for the small number of Opposition office holders. Will the Paymaster General clarify what would happen in that case? We all want to ensure that when any woman takes maternity leave, she can do so with confidence and certainty about her financial and logistical position.
There are still battles to be won, but I want every pregnant woman in this country who is facing problems right now to know that there are voices in this place that are prepared to stand up to those who tell them not to worry and to be grateful for the fact that somebody might employ them at all; not to worry about going home and being stuck with their children, and that equality does not matter to our economy. I know that there are voices and champions for the importance of not discriminating against pregnant women and new mums across the House, but it is time that we saw ourselves as we are now, and we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope if we do not understand the impact of the Bill on the messages that we send.
I know that the Paymaster General realises that we need to do the research. She is honest about how small the number of women affected by the Bill is. If she will not accept the amendment, I am keen to hear from her—because I do not want to have to take the Government to court—a clear timetable for action, a clear commitment by the Government to make parliamentary time so that we can resolve the issues in this place and support women of child-bearing age and their partners in local government and across the Assemblies as appropriate, for public life if nothing else. Deeds not words.
Sir John Hayes [V]
In George Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, protagonist Syme explains the objective of Newspeak:
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
Although there are those who do not understand or will not recognise this truth, language matters. It is through language that we understand, express, consider, challenge, think and articulate. Through language, we breathe life into sentiment. So we must ask ourselves a question. How did we get to a place where a Conservative Government bring a Bill before us that seeks in effect to abolish two beautiful words that have been used for centuries and embody goodness and truth: “mother” and “woman”? The Bill as drafted does just that. It rules those words out of law.
Is it now considered embarrassing to be described as a woman and to admit to being a mother? That seems to contradict the whole purpose of the Bill. After all, the Bill is about recognising the significance of motherhood and extending that recognition to those in the service of the Crown. Are we now acknowledging as a Parliament that the concepts of motherhood and womanhood are so radical that they must be censored?
You know as well as anyone, Dame Eleanor, that when tabling amendments, one is often seeking to make small, sometimes complicated technical changes to legislation. Today, with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), my motivation is much more straightforward: to affirm the existence, worth and eternal value of womanhood and motherhood. By the way, if the need arose, I would do the same for men and fatherhood. By saying the words and including them in the Bill, we will cement the virtues that the Bill embodies in law.
As drafted, the Bill, in effect, extinguishes the ordained particular characteristics of human types. I do not know whether that is as a result of artlessness or heartlessness, but whichever it is, it anonymises and dehumanises. That is why I have introduced the two amendments that stand in my name, and I am grateful to Members from across the House for supporting them.
My speech will be uncharacteristically short but characteristically straightforward, because this is a matter of common sense—the common sense that prevails beyond this place and, clearly, beyond the wit or will of the people who drafted this legislation. Never underestimate the power of language, for there are those—those who are extreme and immoderate—who understand its power very well and those, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, who seek to obscure the biological differences, which are, frankly, the very reason all of us are able to contribute to this debate, because we would not be here without them.
It is sad to see the attempts that have been made to blur the picture, muddy the waters and cloak this matter in denial. It is sad to see the descriptions of “drafting difficulties” and “legislative complications”, which were described to me today by one parliamentary lawyer, a distinguished one too, as entirely “clueless” and “baseless”. This is a matter not of drafting procedure, but of principle. Electors of all political persuasions and none, across our kingdom, from Caithness to Caerphilly to Cornwall, from Antrim to Arundel, from Kent to Kendal, expect us to do what they would anticipate is that common sense—to affirm womanhood and motherhood in this legislation, which is, after all, about maternity.
As Orwell understood, semantics matter, because through them, via meaning, we find truth. In the pursuit of truth, and in solidarity with every woman and mother in South Holland and The Deepings and beyond, I am proud to put forward the amendments that stand in my name, and I shall be seeking to divide the House on them at the end of this Committee stage, with your indulgence, Dame Eleanor.
Cherilyn Mackrory [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General for bringing this Bill before us today. It is highly unlikely to affect me personally, as my daughter is six and I have a very supportive family, but even with a six-year-old being a full-time working mum is a huge juggling act. I have massive admiration for mums in general, for all working mums and absolutely for any colleague who has a baby while doing this job. But why do I feel like that? Why do I not have the same feeling for my male colleagues who welcome a newborn? There have been a few of those this year.
I am sorry to say that despite how far we have come and despite how much more hands-on dads and partners are these days, the majority of the domestic load around babies and small children is still being carried by women. I will quickly caveat that by saying that all families are different and there are many families where that is not the case, but by and large women are still in charge of this mental load. We must explore in this House, and in debate more widely, the evolving role of fathers and partners, and how we can possibly improve the equality of pregnant women without looking at families as a whole. Looking into the debate on maternity leave as a whole means looking at the impact on our work and family life. Do we value family life at the expense of work? Do we look at work at the expense of family life? At the moment, I do not think we have that balance right, and covid has emphasised that. Society is starting to look at this a lot more, and Government will be well placed to encourage a society that promotes family life. Stable families, whatever shape they take, are good for society and improve life chances. We should promote best practice by companies, and ensure by doing it in this place that we lead by example. It starts with maternity leave, but goes on to much more.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in Committee, having been unable to do so on Second Reading. I start by wishing the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) all the best in their pregnancies. Indeed, it is particularly poignant for me to speak in this debate today because I am currently receiving updates on my stepson’s partner, who is in the early stages of labour; they are on the way to the hospital as we speak. Step-grannyhood awaits. I am not quite prepared for that.
The Bill corrects what is fundamentally a clear unfairness in relation to ministerial appointment legislation. Clearly, as we heard on Second Reading, there is support from all sides of the House for ensuring that Cabinet Ministers can take maternity leave, and rightly so. However, like many Members across the House, I find it worrying that this huge hole in legislation has been spotted only now. Sadly, I think that speaks volumes about this place, the current Government and—dare I say it?—previous Governments, in which my party took a part.
While today we may be updating antiquated rules, the Bill takes us not so much up to the present day as into the 1990s. Of course, a particular element of maternity leave is ensuring that a new mother can physically recover from the birth. I was a police officer for 12 years, and it was critical that we took time off work. That is why all mothers should take at least two weeks off work in the first instance. It was therefore incredibly saddening to hear of the experience of MPs who have been forced to attend this place either immediately prior to giving birth or shortly thereafter.
In 2021, there is wide acceptance of the fact that, no matter how a person is becoming a parent, they should be entitled to leave, whether it is maternity leave, paternity leave or adoption leave, to give the child that is coming into their family—the child should be at the centre of this—the very best start in life that they can. We should therefore expand the scope of the Bill beyond maternity leave, because that is clearly the direction of travel that we see in society. This must be a legislative first step, and I welcome the Paymaster General’s comments on Second Reading that it is. I look forward to hearing the timetable accordingly.
I worked for a number of different organisations throughout my career before I came into this place. I have seen a variety of policies on parental leave, and I have seen them change over time. In fact, when I was a police officer, they changed between the births of my children; when I had my daughter, I had six months’ leave, and when I had my son, I was able to take longer. However, I would have really struggled financially if it had not been for my mother, who was able to help us cover childcare. There was just no way that, as a family, we could afford the multiple days.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful speech. May I be the first person to congratulate her on her forthcoming step-grannyhood? I am sure she will be super-gran. One statistic that is very important in this debate is that a third of women get into debt when they take maternity leave. She talks about the financial penalties that she faced. Does she think that one of the things that we would need to look at if we were to have an equalities impact assessment is the different access to maternity leave and the time that people can have, due to the financial consequences for them of taking it because we have such poor maternity leave in this country?
Wendy Chamberlain
Absolutely; I agree. Continuing on my experience of maternity leave, I had to get my mother to help so that we could afford the childcare, but my husband was a police superintendent at the time of the birth of our son, and his two weeks’ paternity leave operationally did not really happen because there were a number of things going on. It just did not work for us as a family, and he certainly did not get the quality time he deserved.
I empathise with the comments made by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) about the role of fathers. I simply would not be able to serve in this House if it were not for my husband taking the lead at home, although I have warned the children that I am checking Satchel One for progress on online learning on a regular basis.
The global drinks manufacturer that I worked for prior to my election introduced a parental leave policy in early 2019, which means that, regardless of whether it is maternity, paternity or adoption leave, employees are entitled to parental leave equating to six months’ full pay. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that this has been transformative, not just for mothers but for fathers too. The biggest impact, I would argue, has been on men. For instance, the director of the global learning unit that I was part of, a man, took his full parental leave allowance, and that sent a very important message. It meant that many men on the supply and manufacturing side of the business in more operational roles felt empowered to be able to take that same leave. That is incredibly important.
Patrick Grady
As I said, one of those deciding not to stand is Aileen Campbell, whom I consider a close friend. She was the first Scottish Government Minister to take maternity leave, and Fiona McLeod, an outstanding Minister, was appointed to cover for her. The hon. Lady is talking about the difficulties that Members have in this place. Her former leader, Jo Swinson, was very negatively impacted, because not only was there no proxy voting at that point, but her pairing was shamefully broken, either accidentally or on purpose. That shows the amount of work that still needs to be done in this place despite the points that are being made about the wider consequences for society.
Wendy Chamberlain
I agree. It is interesting that the Government are now much more supporting of proxies than they have been. The challenge around the pairing arrangements is not only the risk that they might be broken—that was certainly a very bad experience for Jo Swinson—but that the role that we play in this place is potentially much more visible than it has been in the past through apps such as CommonsVotes. People in our constituencies judge us, and rightly so, on our voting records, and pairing does not give people the opportunity to have their views recorded.
Stella Creasy
I have constituents who say, “I turned on the television and I couldn’t see you in the Chamber”, and I say, “Yes, that’s because I was working.” It is important to remember that only a third of what we do as Members of Parliament takes place in this room—there is also all the build-up to legislation, all the casework we do in our communities, and the role we play as an advocate for our localities. When we are considering the cover required, thinking only about what happens in this place and the end point of voting is a missed opportunity. We have to recognise what would happen in our communities if our role there was not played. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not sell ourselves short with the idea that if we disappeared for six months people would not notice?
Wendy Chamberlain
I do agree. That would not only sell ourselves short but sell short the work done by our staff in our constituencies. Owing to the pandemic, it has been difficult for parliamentarians who came into this House in December 2019 to know what case workloads might normally look like, but I have experienced a very high level over the past year, and my staff have played a key role in relation to that. We need to be there to support our constituents. Constituents have said that they have had a better understanding of the role of MPs and what they can do as a result.
I do not want it to be thought that I do not agree with Cabinet Ministers being entitled to full pay and maternity leave. I absolutely support that; it is entirely right and in keeping with best practice, but it also potentially speaks to huge unfairness, on which other Members have touched. Secretaries of State will receive about £1,300 a week if they receive full maternity pay for six months, but millions of people around the country are eligible only for statutory pay, which after the first six weeks is just £151 a week—close to a 1,000% difference.
On Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) spoke eloquently about the deficiencies in maternity pay and allowances. It does seem odd to me for the Government to say, “This is the standard we are going to give to a Cabinet Minister,” and on the other hand say, “The statutory minimum is the standard by which you should treat your employees.” That seems a case of “Do as I say and not as I do.” The organisation that I worked for previously is now giving six months of parental leave, regardless of whether that is maternity, paternity or adoption leave. That is a big organisation.
Meg Hillier
So many others have spoken about the real difficulty for so many women out there who do not get a good package of maternity cover. Does the hon. Member acknowledge that as MPs we get a good financial package and that we are paid all the way through? As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) highlighted, we get a good deal in that respect and we must ensure that we recognise that.
Wendy Chamberlain
Again, I agree. We are not only paid on maternity or paternity—if Members choose to take time off—but we do not receive sick pay because we continue to be paid at that time as well. I acknowledge that during this period a number of people in my constituency and across the UK are really struggling because statutory sick pay provisions are nowhere near adequate.
I worked for a global organisation, but I am conscious of the impact of parental leave on small businesses. That is why the statutory support needs to be so much better. We would view it as unacceptable if the Bill said that the Attorney General would receive only basic statutory maternity rights, and yet fundamentally that will be the case for millions of people.
Hon. Members have touched on MPs’ staff and IPSA contracts, where I also have concerns. Many MPs employ staff who have worked for other MPs, especially after the churn of an election—indeed, I did that in January 2020—but to qualify for full maternity pay on an IPSA contract, a staff member needs to have worked for over a year. If staff members change MP, even if they have worked for a long time in Parliament, they effectively start a new employment and are penalised as a result. Although, like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I was pleased to see in my mailbox this morning correspondence from IPSA on this issue, it was specifically related to MPs. I urge IPSA to consider MPs’ staff as part of the review. My first 15 months have certainly taught me that having excellent staff and supporting them is critical to success in this place.
I want to reflect on the work I have done with 50:50 Parliament since my election. I have spoken at a number of its events—obviously enabled by being online during the pandemic—and the common theme in the questions that come from women interested in or considering standing either in this place, at local authority level or, indeed, at the Senedd or at Holyrood are around how to manage family time and find a work-life balance, and having children as part of that. I continue to urge the Paymaster General to regard this Bill as a first legislative step. We have a real opportunity to send out a strong, positive message about diversity in this place, but someone who has served as a Cabinet Minister for less than a year is to receive full maternity pay. As I say, that is right, but we have an issue to address when a staff member who might have worked in Parliament for years would receive only statutory pay.
It is now a month before the Attorney General’s maternity leave, and it is worrying that the Government have only now realised that this is an issue. Obviously, the business changed last week to allow us to debate the Bill today. That tells me that equalities are not at the heart of the Government’s thinking. I always think about an inclusion lens: everything that we consider in this place should be looked at in the light of inclusion and therefore we will see the issues before they are pointed out to us latterly.
Stella Creasy
I agree with what the hon. Member is saying. Does she agree that it is concerning that normally an equalities impact assessment would be produced as standard and yet we do not see that because this legislation is being pushed through Parliament at short notice? We are all aware that the Government have had a deadline to work to, but they will have known of that deadline for some months, so there could have been time to do some of the work we are asking for in the amendment, with our better understanding the consequences of the legislation as a result.
Wendy Chamberlain
I entirely agree. Indeed, earlier I joked that this legislation brings us not into the 21st century, but into the 1990s. When I was a police officer, doing equality impact assessments, whether for operations we were carrying out or for anything else that was planned, was very much part of that. So it is disappointing that we are not seeing that in this place.
That lack of focus on equalities has become apparent over the past year, during the pandemic, and it is really disappointing. The hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned my Liberal Democrat colleague Jo Swinson, who worked not only on parental leave but on gender pay gap reporting, which was one of the first business requirements to be jettisoned during the pandemic, and as yet there are no plans for its return.
When we watch the frequent Downing Street press conferences, it is usually a man we see at the lectern. These are potentially disappointing messages that the Government are sending out. In contrast, the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women, and I note the recent findings of the Women and Equalities Committee in that regard. Again, the hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke powerfully about this earlier. I, too, commend the work of Pregnant Then Screwed and wish them success in their case, but obviously I am saddened that it has got to that stage.
The Government talk a lot about levelling up, but clearly there is work to be done to get their own house in order when it comes to gender equality, both internally and in relation to the impact of their policies across the country. That is why I was very happy to co-sign new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, which calls for that equalities impact assessment for this legislation, as she described so eloquently.
There has been progress over the past 10 years. Thanks to the efforts of Jo Swinson, we now have shared parental leave, which has been an incredible success, and I know that many people across the country have taken up that opportunity. I know that more businesses and organisations have been improving the amount of fully paid maternity leave on offer, going beyond the statutory levels. That was the case with my previous employer, and indeed in the police service. However, it is very important that, as we consider the Bill, we think about how we can move forward, particularly in relation to covid. Given covid’s impact on businesses, with business margins tight, there is a concern that one of the first things to go will be provision that is above statutory levels. I am very concerned about that. Having had 10 years of progress, we cannot afford to have a lost decade when things go backwards as a result of covid. I therefore urge the Government to carry out an impact assessment on this issue. I hope the Paymaster General will address that point later.
To conclude, the aims of this legislation are very welcome but there is much more to be done. I hope that today’s debate will be the beginning of a conversation on how we modernise parental leave laws, how we encourage business to engage with that, how we recognise family life in 21st-century UK, and how we ensure that the legacy of covid is one of more flexible leave entitlements, rather than a reversion to statutory limits. Ultimately, however, the sadness of today is the Government’s failure to address the issue sooner. Perhaps they could have done that by carrying out an equalities impact assessment sooner. Sadly, that means we are talking today about one woman and the specifics of her case, and that should never have happened.
Mr Holden
It is a pleasure to follow North East Fife’s super gran, and to reflect on the views of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) that there will be no equality until fathers are able to step up. I will move on to speak about that a little later. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has dealt with her amendment sensibly and I have a huge amount of sympathy with the points she has made, so I hope that it will be properly addressed by the Minister.
I want to say a little about the equalities impact assessment proposed in new clause 1, because it has raised broader issues about paternity leave, adoption leave and shared parental leave. It is clear from today’s debate that fathers have been a bit of an afterthought. A report published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in December 2020 found that 73% of men feel stigmatised over taking just the two weeks of paternity leave, never mind any longer, and 95% of men said that their workplace culture prevents them from taking extended paternity leave and that really needs to change. In fact, a report by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has found that the proportion of fathers taking paternity leave actually fell between 2018 and 2019, from 32% to 31%, and that just 1% of parents take shared parental leave, according to the most recent figures available.
We have a huge leadership role to play here. The Minister indicated on Second Reading that this issue will be rectified later, and I look forward to her re-emphasising that commitment shortly, because at this important stage, messages from the Dispatch Box are necessary to show all of us that fathers are important, and that equality for mothers and fathers will not be achieved until we allow them to step up.
Cat Smith
The haste with which the Bill has been brought forward is perhaps reflected in some of the amendments that we see on the amendment paper. I would like to address the amendments tabled by the SNP. I think they have been tabled with the best of intentions, but if, instead of giving women the option of taking maternity leave, we make it a requirement, we would remove the element of choice, which is incredibly important for women when it comes to if and when we have children, how many we have, and how we balance work and motherhood. Similarly, the amendments that would increase the requirement from six months to 12 months would make us lose some of that flexibility, which is incredibly important.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) have been addressed by the Minister already. Indeed, the language is already in the legislation, in the sense that it talks about the offices held, rather than the women who are pregnant. That is why the legislation is written as it is, and in that regard I am very much satisfied.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has tabled a couple of amendments. She made a point about the equality impact assessment. Perhaps less haste would have led to better legislation that included fathers, adoption, paternity leave and flexibility around premature babies. That would lead to an improvement in representation in public life.
I will keep my remarks short. In conclusion, the Opposition support the Bill unamended. The Bill is the right thing to do for pregnant women, and it is imperative that it makes progress with haste, for fairly obvious reasons. It is not perfect, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and it is, of course, the next baby step in progress towards true equality.
Penny Mordaunt
Before I turn to the nitty-gritty of the amendments, I will address wider points that Members have made. I thank all Members for their contributions and their thoughtful remarks in this important Committee stage.
In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for coming to the Chamber today, and for her interventions. Her experience is incredibly valuable. One of the key points that she reminds us about is the different status that a single person may have for different aspects of the jobs that they do here. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke about the peculiar employment status of a Member of Parliament, which is distinct and different from that of a Member of Parliament who is also a Minister. A Minister is also an employee, and there are slight differences there. That is one of several reasons why this is a highly complex issue, but that does not mean it cannot be tackled.
In addition to the issues that have been raised regarding Members of Parliament and the challenges they face, there are still outstanding issues for Ministers in relation to shared parental leave, an examination of paternity leave—although, as I have outlined, there is provision there at the moment—and adoption leave. Sickness and bereavement is a grey area. We also have an additional issue for our colleagues in the other place who may be unpaid Ministers. That needs to be resolved, but it obviously plays back into the issue of maternity leave. These are very complex matters, and I reiterate again my gratitude to Her Majesty’s Opposition for their engagement on this.
Let me turn to IPSA. Clearly, it is an independent body, and in the work that follows today we will have to respect that independence, but the Government are none the less absolutely determined to bring forward proposals collectively.
Stella Creasy
Over the past two years of seeking progress on this matter, and trying to ensure that Members have the options and the support that we are giving to Ministers, one of the things that I have been told is that IPSA has asked Parliament to offer a view. Indeed, this rather anarchic approach to what our employment status is has had an effect. Will the Paymaster General therefore commit to our having parliamentary time for a debate on this? It does not need to be a Government-led debate, but we do need parliamentary time for it, and that is in the gift of Parliament. That way, if IPSA, on a very short timetable, asks the House to take a view, we will get that view, so that we can resolve the matter.
Penny Mordaunt
Although time on the Floor of this House is not in my personal gift, I hope that what I am about to set out will demonstrate to the hon. Lady that we are not just doing this as an exercise. These issues must be resolved. Yes, this is a matter that immediately affects Members in this place, but resolving this is also vital if we are to meet our ambition of ensuring that everyone who wants to sit on these Benches and is elected to do so has the working practices that they need to thrive, live their life and raise a family. That is very well understood.
We respect the independence of IPSA, and while we have to work with it—the Government have committed to supporting it—and the House authorities, all Members of the House will want to contribute to this important analysis. We want to look at custom and procedure. We also want to examine what legislative change may be required, particularly with regard to Ministers, which is the most complex issue. Recommendations by and to IPSA will be made through the usual channels. There has been quite a large amount of discussion about this already, with the help of the Opposition. As I have said, the Government will support IPSA on any of that work, and on any of the issues that we are all seeking to address. Its independence will be respected in line with its statutory footing.
Many colleagues who spoke on Second Reading are concerned about the impact assessment. We have undertaken to carry one out, but I add this caution: if Members want an impact assessment of this piece of legislation, that is very easily done, and will be really great for a very small number of people, but of no use whatsoever in advancing anyone else’s rights or opportunities. We want—we have set this out in a note that we have shared, I think with the office of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, and certainly with the Opposition; I would be happy to share it with other colleagues around the House—to undertake an impact assessment that looks at current legislation on the issues we have discussed this afternoon in relation to Members of Parliament. We will also take into account work already done, or in progress, by the relevant Select Committees, particularly the Procedure Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee. As I have said, I would be very happy to share that note with hon. Members. Perhaps the best place for it is in the Library.
There are a couple of other issues that I want to address before turning to amendments.
Stella Creasy
It is incredibly welcome that the Minister is talking about doing a much wider impact assessment. For clarity—this issue has been raised today—looking at the wording of it, can she confirm that it will look at the impact on not just Members of Parliament, but their staff? We are drawing this distinction between parliamentary staff and people who work in Parliament. We need to look at everyone, so that we can be confident that every single woman and potential partner of a woman in this place will get the support they need.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important point, and I think Members would feel very uncomfortable looking at their terms and conditions but not those of their staff. Again, that is a matter for this House and for IPSA, but the Government’s view is that we need to look at this in the round. If we are to make changes, let’s do it properly and ensure that all Members of this House and the Committees can contribute.
I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about how we can help mitigate the abuse that Members of this House have faced, and I hope will not face in future, when going on maternity leave. It is appalling what hon. Members on both sides of the House have been through, and I commend her for calling out that abuse when it is taking place in her own party; when others call out abuse from within their own parties, that is quite right, too. We need to support colleagues as they take maternity leave.
I turn to the amendments, and I apologise for the dry nature of what follows. It is the necessary part of putting a Bill through Parliament, and those tuning in at home might wish to put the kettle on at this point.
Clause 1 provides the basis on which a Minister can take paid maternity leave by setting out how and under what conditions a person can be appointed to the position of a Minister on leave. The concept of a Minister on leave is a very important one. As the Bill makes clear, the role of a Minister on leave is outside the restrictions in place at any one time, as set out in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, and outside the upper limit on the number of Members of the House of Commons who can serve as a Government Minister at any one time, as set out in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. It is through this mechanism that the Government can ensure that the twin aims of this part of the Bill are met—namely, that Ministers are able to take paid maternity leave, and can remain part of the Government, without needing to resign from office.
Clause 1 makes it clear that it is within the Prime Minister’s discretion to designate a person a Minister on leave, subject to a number of conditions. Those conditions are set out in detail in subsections (2) and (3), which make it clear that a person can be designated a Minister on leave only if they are pregnant or have recently given birth, if they are already a Minister holding ministerial office, and if they cease to hold that ministerial office at the point of designation as a Minister on leave. Subsection (5) provides clarity about the ministerial offices that fall within the scope of this Act by reference to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.
Meg Hillier
I agree with the right hon. Lady that the clause uses a dry way of saying something that I think is actually really important, which is that in all of this discussion we need to remember that prime ministerial patronage is limited by that Act for good reason. While that should not be the enemy of improvements for women who are going on maternity leave, I do think that it needs to be considered. If we think of recent Parliaments, in which majorities have been very small, it is quite an increase, percentage-wise, to the payroll if more people are added to it. I am grateful to the drafters of the Bill for having thought this through, and I hope that in any future work she does, that is seriously considered as part of the mix, so that the House at least debates any decision to change that.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for putting that much more succinctly than the clauses do, and she is absolutely right. That is part of the reason why this is so complicated. We tried to put this and other issues in the Bill, but that has not been possible.
Penny Mordaunt
It is not part of the scope of this Bill, but the Prime Minister has said in his written ministerial statement that it is one of the issues he wants this future piece of work to look at. I think it is fantastic that we have more women in the House of Lords, and we want those women to be able to hold ministerial office. If they need to take maternity leave, they should be able to do so.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Lest there be a lack of clarity, let me explain that although the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who moved amendment 3, is not here in the Chamber—and, therefore, if her voice were to call “Aye” obviously it could not be heard here in the Chamber—I am satisfied that she is well represented by her party’s Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who audibly did not call “Aye”. The hon. Lady had also previously informed me that, had there been time, it had been her intentionf to withdraw amendment 3, as she was satisfied that the matter had been fully discussed and that was her intention in tabling the amendment.
The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).
Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment (Standing Order No. 83D(6)).
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My apologies for not giving you specific notice of this point of order. We were of the view that the Prime Minister would be coming to the House on 22 February to make a statement on the roadmap out of lockdown. Various Secretaries of State have intimated that that is now the week commencing 22 February. With the two-week notice period required to allow schools to open, that would be pushing it towards Easter. I wonder whether you had had notice from the Prime Minister as to when he will make that statement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he and the House know, it is not a matter for the Chair and it is not a matter for me when the Prime Minister comes to the House to make any particular announcement. The Leader of the House indicated that there would be a debate on Monday 22 February about covid matters. At present, that is the timetable set out for proceedings of the House, but of course it is up to the Government either to stick to that timetable or to change it as they will. I am sure that if any change is made, proper notice will be given.
Covid-19: Faith Groups
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I hope that it will draw attention to the extraordinary scale and value of faith groups’ contributions in response to the pandemic, and that we will consider how to make more of the potential of faith-based groups working alongside local and national Government.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on faith and society, established in 2012. Our aim is to support faith-based contributions to communities, to help make those contributions better known and, where we can, to help remove hurdles to realising their full potential. When we started, we held a series of meetings with faith-based groups contributing to welfare to work, to health and wellbeing and to work with young people—recognising that most youth work in Britain now is undertaken by faith groups—and groups working on international aid.
It quickly became clear from those discussions that the groups often had a problem with their local council. Councils suspected that the groups were only really interested in trying to convert people, or that any service they provided would be biased in favour of their own members. In any case, from the perspective of a hard-pressed council officer, faith groups are difficult: if they work with one of them, will they offend the others? After all, these are rather odd people; they believe in God—far simpler not to get involved with any of them.
As a result, however, communities miss out on really valuable contributions that the groups could be making, so we came up with the idea, which was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), of a faith covenant. The covenant sets out ground rules for co-operation between faith groups and local councils to make clear what each should expect of the other, to try to build up confidence on both sides and support them to work together.
The first council to draw faith groups in its area together to sign up to the covenant was Birmingham City Council. It happened at Birmingham central library in December 2014, and it was a good start; Birmingham is the biggest local authority in Europe. Another dozen councils have signed up since then, covering between them about 10% of the UK population. FaithAction, the APPG’s secretariat, is increasingly drawing those councils together to network and learn from one another, together with faith groups in their areas.
However, in the last year, things have moved on to a different level. It came home to me that something unusual was happening on the morning of Good Friday last year. While sitting at home going through emails, I found two from constituents saying, “I don’t have any food. What should I do?” We have all become familiar with referring people to food banks over the past 10 years, but I knew that they would all be shut over the Easter weekend, so I did not know how to answer those constituents. But then I found an email from the Mayor of Newham, Rokhsana Fiaz, saying, “If you come across people without food over the holiday weekend, you should email the vicar of Ascension Church, Royal Docks, before 10 in the morning for a food parcel to be delivered later in the day.” I did not have any better ideas, so I gave it a try, and both my constituents received their food parcels.
My local council has never worked in partnership with faith groups before; something unusual was going on. In my constituency, Bonny Downs Baptist Church, Highway Vineyard Church, Ibrahim Mosque, Manor Park Christian Fellowship and City Chapel have all done a superb job, supported by Newham Council. Similar reports started to come in from elsewhere; the Bishop of Durham told me that a lot of the covid emergency response in his diocese was from faith groups.
Over the summer, with support from the Sir Halley Stewart Trust, the Trussell Trust and the Good Faith partnership, the all-party group commissioned the Faiths and Civil Society Unit at Goldsmiths, University of London to research those council-faith group partnerships. Questionnaires were sent to all 408 UK local authorities and 48% of them filled them in and returned them. Fifty-five in-depth interviews with council leaders and faith-based projects were conducted across 10 local authority areas. Our report, “Keeping the Faith” was published in November, and I thank Professors Chris Baker and Adam Dinham of Goldsmiths and Greg Smith and the research team for all their work. They found a big increase in the number and the depth of partnerships between local authorities and faith groups. More than two thirds of the councils surveyed reported an increase in partnership working with faith groups and 91% described their experience with faith groups as “very positive” or “positive”. It has become clear that what anecdotally appeared to us to be happening when the pandemic began is a reality across the country.
Faith groups and faith-based organisations have been integral to the civil society response to the pandemic, opening up buildings and food banks, running networks, sharing information, befriending, collecting, cooking and delivering food and providing volunteers. Across the UK, nearly 60% of councils have been working with church-based food banks during the pandemic; 24% have been working with mosque-based food banks; 11% have worked with food banks in Gurdwaras, and 10% with food banks in Hindu temples. Suddenly what our all-party group had been promoting had come about.
It has been a very positive experience for councils. One council officer told the researchers:
“My personal admiration for faith groups has gone through the roof, just in terms of their commitment there. We as a local authority didn’t know what we were getting into. And they have got involved with smiles on their faces and they’ve done it professionally.”
The researchers put to the councils a list of characteristics and asked them to characterise their experience of their partnerships “to a great extent”, “to some extent”, “not very much”, “not at all” or “don’t know”. Positive characteristics scored very highly. On
“Adding value because of their longstanding presence in the local community”,
60% of councils said that was the case to a great extent. On
“Improving access to hard to reach groups”,
40% said that that was the case to a great extent and another 39% said that that was the case to some extent.
The researchers also asked about negative aspects that are said to characterise faith groups. Asked about:
“Expressing socially conservative views which sit uneasily with our equalities obligations”,
2% of councils said that that was the case to a great extent. On
“Causing us concern about the possibility of proselytization in the context of partnership working”,
only 1% felt that that was the case. Those old fears of the pitfalls of working with faith groups simply did not materialise last year. Almost all the councils want to build on those new partnerships in future.
The report recommended that the Government appoint a faiths commissioner, working across government, to help faith groups relate to government and to make the fullest contribution that they can. We would like Ministers to encourage nationwide adoption of our faith covenant and of a framework that reflects shared values to foster trust and promote effective collaboration. We would like support from the Minister’s Department to go to each UK local authority, with examples of good faith group partnerships, to build an understanding of what works well in practice. We have proposed a new faiths advisory council, chaired by the new faiths commissioner and attended by Ministers and senior civil servants to look strategically at how faith groups can best help in post-covid Britain.
I would like to thank the House of Commons digital engagement team led by Ben Pearson. Last Friday, it issued a call for evidence ahead of this debate. They had 235 responses reporting how churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and Baha’is have fostered community spirit, provided pastoral support and delivered key services. Canon Hilary Barber of Halifax wrote that the local authority has commissioned faith communities to run food banks and night shelters and is working jointly to promote protecting the NHS and uptake of the vaccine.
Amarjit Singh Atwal, in the east midlands, wrote:
“The community established a food bank”
for
“rough sleepers. Before the pandemic it was an average of 80 meals a week. During the pandemic this increased to 300 per week. The community also provided PPE to the local health trust.”
Nick, from Christians Against Poverty, wrote of supporting
“families with debt problems over the last year, albeit by telephone rather than face to face…working successfully to get families debt free.”
I pay tribute to John Kirkby, the remarkable founder of Christians Against Poverty, who announced yesterday that he is to step down after 25 years.
I hope the Minister will join me in thanking faith groups for their efforts in supporting communities during the pandemic. I welcome his responses on behalf of his Department to the recommendations in our report—appointing a faith commissioner, promoting the faith covenant, developing and distributing a toolkit, and establishing a faiths advisory council. There is still a widely held view that religious faith is on the way out, irrelevant, maybe harmful to community wellbeing. The reality is that in this decade, and as has become so clear in the past year, it has been the faith groups that, uniquely, have had both the motivation and the resources to step forward and help. Those have not been found anywhere else. We need to learn the lesson from that and enable faith groups and faith-based organisations to make their full contribution in the years ahead.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on calling this important debate. I welcome the new Minister, who is uniquely qualified to be dealing with the overall subject of housing.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was thought that faith groups would try to convert people. That certainly has not been the case in my constituency over the course of the pandemic. I am sure the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) will agree that our Sikh temple, the gurdwara, has had what in years past would have been described as a very good war. During the first lockdown, its langar delivered 64,000 free shared meals to individuals and to the local hospice and nursing homes. At the peak, it was doing 1,300 meals a day. When the European lorry drivers were trying to get home for Christmas, it did 800, 1,000 and then 1,500 meals a day. So far in this lockdown, the gurdwara has provided over 25,000 meals, and when the local hospital ran out of scrubs for the staff, it got fabric from Malaysia, had it sewn in Leicester and then distributed the scrubs.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I can certainly attest to that. My father, who served as a president of the Gravesend gurdwara, constantly told me about the amazing work that the gurdwara does. This time round, absolutely incredibly, the Gravesend gurdwara teamed up with Khalsa Aid, a charity based in Slough, to go out and feed thousands of stranded lorry drivers on the M20. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that amazing concept—working together for the betterment of all—illustrates that faith can be a source of so much good?
Adam Holloway
I do agree. The hon. Gentleman is being modest. He also played his part in the gurdwara when he lived in Gravesend.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, while the Church is filled with imperfect people, of whom I am one, those imperfect people want to do all they can to help others. From schemes such as ringing elderly constituents regularly, delivering shopping or prescriptions, or holding distanced meetings, the love shown by those making up so many denominations, Churches and faith groups has been heartwarming. It reminds us of the scripture text in John chapter 13, verse 35:
“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another”.
Adam Holloway
Indeed, and by thy works shall we know you.
The Gravesend Methodist church, in fact all the churches, found that many of their volunteers disappeared early on, because they were more elderly and often in vulnerable groups. So we saw the Gravesend Methodist church, under Minister Tony Graff, enable Vicki Clarke and Chris Ward to look after the homeless. Every Christian church—that I know of, anyway—handed out food to people, including the City Praise Centre and Terry with his van. I thank all of them.
There are not many MPs here in Parliament at the moment—there are an awful lot of workmen, I notice—but I say again to the right hon. Member for East Ham: thank you for calling this debate, because I know that an enormous number of Members of Parliament who are not here today are extremely grateful to the faith groups for what they have done during the past few months.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I would like to pass on my thanks to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for bringing forward this debate. I would also like to pass on my delight at the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), joining the Front Bench.
The response of all faith groups across my constituency of Bury South to the covid pandemic has been truly humbling. They have selflessly mobilised to ensure that those in need have been cared for, but I want to focus specifically on a group I have been intimately involved with since its inception last year. The Jewish Strategic Group was founded in order to collaborate and co-ordinate the Jewish community’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. It is expertly chaired by Mark Adlestone and co-ordinated by Marc Levy of the Jewish Leadership Council and comprises organisations including the L’Chaim food bank, Hatzola, Misaskim, the Hershel Weiss Centre, Maccabi and many others who selflessly and effectively operate in my constituency.
On a national level, I also pay tribute to the Jewish Leadership Council for the social care assistance fund that has financially supported so many charities not only in my constituency but in the Jewish community across the country. This has included organisations such as the Fed, the Friendship Circle, Jewish Action for Mental Health, Chai Cancer Care and Jewish Women’s Aid. In addition, its emergency community fund has helped to support individuals whose earnings have been affected by the pandemic. Once again, I am grateful that those living in Bury South were able to benefit from this initiative. I am sure that Members across the House will share similar experiences of faith communities coming together to support those in society who may be struggling, and I am delighted to have been afforded this opportunity to highlight their invaluable contribution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
I would like to offer my thanks to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the response of faith groups to the covid outbreak. I would also like to thank him for giving us the opportunity to send colleagues off with a sense of optimism and perhaps renewed faith in humanity. I do not agree with the idea that people think we are odd; I think we do good work collectively. We have had some great contributions, and it is lovely to see my friends here, including the hon. Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I was also delighted to hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), whose comments about the Sikh community I completely echo and endorse. I am looking forward to calling upon his experience to help and support me in my role as the Minister for homelessness. Just before lockdown occurred, I had the opportunity to visit Israel with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford)—
Eddie Hughes
Indeed. That visit was made thanks to the Conservative Friends of Israel and it was an opportunity to learn more about that country, the Jewish people and so on. I am not at all surprised by the excellent examples that my hon. Friend gave of their work in this country during the pandemic.
Mr Dhesi
I, too, am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham was able to secure this debate on the response of faith groups to the covid-19 outbreak. In Slough, although Slough Borough Council and the Slough Council For Voluntary Service created an umbrella organisation, the One Slough initiative, which is doing so much for our community, I have been so impressed by the faith groups in particular—our churches, mosques, the Hindu mandir, the Sikh gurdwaras and others—who did much-needed work to prepare and deliver food and much-needed supplies to people’s homes. Does the Minister agree that that illustrates that faith and faith groups can be so inspirational, and that faith is once again the source of so much good in our communities?
Eddie Hughes
Of course, I completely endorse those comments. The pandemic has given us the opportunity to see what good work these groups do, serving people of all faiths and none, regardless of what faith it is.
Christian Wakeford
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and the Minister. The religious communities have not only gone above and beyond; they have helped others while missing their own festivals. They deserve much more than we can possibly give with our kind words in the Chamber.
Eddie Hughes
Once again, I completely endorse those comments. I will comment briefly on the festivals that have been missed.
I, like many people, have never needed my faith more than over the previous 11 months. As a Catholic, one of the things I missed most during the first lockdown was going to church. We missed the solace of places like St Peter’s, a beautiful church in Bloxwich. We missed the breathing space we get from praying alone. We missed attending mass as a community. It was particularly hard for all of us over Easter, Passover, Eid, Vaisakhi and many other festivals, and it is with a heavy heart that I realise things still will not be the same this year. However, it is certainly right that places of worship are now open for regular communal worship. I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency of East Ham, which like mine is among the most deprived in the country, has been one of the hardest hit during this crisis and, just like my constituency, East Ham has a strong and diverse faith group.
In Walsall, the difference made by faith groups in response to the pandemic has been nothing short of remarkable. Even when places of worship were closed, faith groups and organisations found new, alternative ways to reach people. When I visited the Guru Nanak gurdwara in Willenhall in May last year—it now seems a long time ago—I incorrectly advertised that it was offering food seven days a week. At that point, it was delivering two days a week, already a huge feat, but soon after my blunder that became the reality. It decided to step up to seven days a week, with delivery three days a week and collection four days a week. Free food available to absolutely anyone, irrespective of their faith—fantastic. I also had the opportunity to join members of the Muslim community packing and delivering food boxes for vulnerable people. I thank Pound 4 Pound boxing club for organising that event.
Those are a few examples from my constituency, but in panning out from Walsall North, I do not know where to begin. Throughout this exceptionally challenging time, faith groups have played a vital role in providing leadership for many and in bringing communities and generations together. Across the way, our neighbours at the Guru Nanak gurdwara in Wolverhampton hosted a covid-19 testing pilot in November, supporting the NHS to identify undiagnosed cases to protect those most at risk from the virus. In January, imams in mosques across the UK delivered sermons at Friday prayers to address concerns surrounding covid vaccinations and reassure worshippers that it was safe to receive them.
During the pandemic, churches, mosques, gurdwaras and temples have opened their doors wide to provide essential support for the most vulnerable people in their communities, and not just those of faith. This year we have seen with our own eyes how faith groups have an ability to mobilise resources that some other civil society actors simply do not. The APPG’s report “Keeping their Faith” rightly picked that up. It is fair to say that that has surprised some people in the last few months. I was not surprised, perhaps because in my previous role as deputy chief executive of YMCA in Birmingham I saw at first hand the transformative power of inclusive faith-based organisations in people’s lives.
To turn to the APPG’s report, the statistics are impressive. While council capacity for engagement has reduced during the pandemic due to building closures and furloughed staff, 67% of local authorities have reported an increase in partnership working with faith groups since the start of the pandemic. Like the right hon. Member for East Ham, I noticed the striking statistic that 91% of local authorities described their experience of partnerships with faith groups as very positive or positive. The report shines a bright light on what can be achieved locally between faith groups and local government as this pandemic continues, but more than that, it is timely. It comes after the report from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) that delves into levelling up our communities and will complement the important review that is under way on how Government can engage with faith communities, which is being undertaken by the independent adviser, Colin Bloom.
The APPG has shown that faith communities and local and national Government can work together effectively. My colleague Lord Greenhalgh, our Faith Minister, has seen the impact of that partnership at the national level through the places of worship taskforce and the regular faith leadership roundtables that he hosts. Collectively, the Government, alongside faith leaders, were able to advise thousands of places of worship on how to keep congregants safe while still facilitating significant elements of faith practice.
We have achieved a great deal in the past year under incredibly difficult circumstances. I am in full agreement, as is the Faith Minister, that we should capitalise on these positive outcomes. We do not want to lose all this good work and the momentum that has been created. It is a great shame that potentially the lack of understanding of what could be collectively achieved has held some councils back from working with faith groups. While it has taken a pandemic for new relationships to grow, I, for one, will be building on the incredible work that has happened in my own constituency.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a number of recommendations, including the faith covenant published by the APPG in 2014 to encourage collaboration between faith groups and local authorities, engendered to build mutual understanding between them. Such initiatives can help to encourage collaborations that bring about huge benefits for communities. I encourage all councils to look at the faith covenant and take up the challenge to work constructively with faith groups.
Each report that I have mentioned is seeking to find ways in which government, local and national, can better utilise, engage and work alongside faith communities—an aim we fully support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been pushing this cause for years, looking for a step change in how government, local and central, can work together with faith groups and learn from each other to inform policy decisions and effect real change locally. This report and the actions it highlights have opened doors and changed perceptions. Together with the review by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and Colin Bloom’s report, we will have the beginnings of a framework for how new, meaningful partnerships can be brought together.
At this time, when our NHS is rolling out the country’s biggest ever public health programmes, faith groups are again at the forefront of that effort. It is the diligence and care that allowed communal worship to restart last year that now allows places of worship to transform into places where large-scale vaccination can take place for the benefit of all of us. Everyone involved in this debate knows that effective vaccines are the best way to protect people from coronavirus, saving thousands of lives and helping us to forge a path out of the pandemic. I thank faith communities for all that they are doing on the vaccine, but also challenge them to keep doing more.
Once again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for inviting me to speak at such a critical time about such critical work. Faith is a vital part of our identities and it motivates us to play a key part in our communities. The reports we have discussed point us to look ahead and establish new relationships with faith groups. I look forward to Colin Bloom’s report this year as an important further contribution to that debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, except when Members are speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members will send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The draft statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 9 December 2020, has two main purposes. First, it will make technical amendments to the Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to correct certain inconsistencies that have arisen in the light of the Northern Ireland protocol. Secondly, it will apply the provisions of the retained EU law version of regulation 2003/2003 to Northern Ireland, subject to modifications. That will enable the marketing of UK fertilisers in Northern Ireland, which was the intention of the original exit SI before the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed.
The previous SI was made in 2019. It replaced the “EC fertiliser” label with a new “UK fertiliser” label, which was to function in the same way. That “UK fertiliser” regime would have operated across the whole of the UK from the end of the transition period. However, we agreed the Northern Ireland Protocol and, as a consequence, the SI needs to be updated. This draft instrument will apply the provisions of the retained EU law version of regulation 2003/2003 in Great Britain to Northern Ireland, subject to modifications, in order to enable UK fertilisers to continue to be marketed in Northern Ireland.
By way of context, the regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of fertilisers is unusual compared with that of other agricultural products, as fertilisers are partially harmonised at EU level. That means that member states may operate their own domestic regulatory regimes alongside the European regulation of the EC fertiliser regime, which is provided for in EU regulation. Accordingly, alongside the EC fertiliser regime, Great Britain and Northern Ireland have historically operated separate domestic regulatory regimes under the Fertilisers Regulations 1991 and the Fertilisers Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992, respectively.
Manufacturers in both GB and NI, therefore, have several routes to market and are free to choose which framework to use, although they must of course comply with the requirements of whichever regime is chosen. For example, they would need to be established within the EU or NI to sell EC fertilisers in Northern Ireland. The key provision of the draft instrument is to ensure the retained GB version of EU regulation 2003/2003, which allows products to be marketed as a UK fertiliser, applies in Northern Ireland, as was originally intended in the 2019 exit SI.
Given the partial harmonisation of fertiliser legislation, making the UK fertiliser regime applicable in Northern Ireland does not affect the continued application of the EU version of regulation 2003/2003, which will continue to apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the protocol.
The draft SI is important, as a common route to market across the UK for fertilisers is required, so that a manufacturer in Great Britain who only trades in the UK may market products across Great Britain and Northern Ireland and use one label to do so. Although there are several routes to market for UK producers, there are particular concerns that, without this SI, the supply of certain products that are regulated under this regime—for example DMPSA, a nitrification inhibitor—would be reduced and that in turn could impact on the sustainability of UK food production.
We worked with the devolved Administrations on this SI, and they have given consent. The draft instrument is necessary, as I have explained, because it makes technical amendments in the light of the Northern Ireland protocol and will ensure that we can continue to operate a unified fertiliser regime across the UK. It will make life easier for manufacturers because they will be able to use one label. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue our discussions once again, Mr Robertson; I am sure you enjoy them as much as we do. I thank the Minister for her introduction, although I am not sure I am quite as optimistic about this as she is. I will explain why.
We will not oppose the draft statutory instrument today. We consulted the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and I am grateful for its advice and reassurance. It tells me that it is in the interests of fertiliser suppliers and UK farmers for the SI to be approved as it will allow detonation resistance test, or DRT, certificates to be accepted if they originate in the EU for EU-sourced products, meaning that imported fertilisers will not have to be detained and re-tested in the UK, incurring additional costs to importers and suppliers. The AIC also points out that that is significant because there is currently only one laboratory in the UK that can undertake these tests—HSL Buxton, which it tells me has at times been subject to closure due to covid-19—and that this lack of UK capacity underlines the urgent need for the SI to be passed.
The AIC also says there has been concern in the industry that the Government were seeking to use only UK laboratories to pass ammonium nitrate DRTs. The SI changes that position, which the AIC welcomes, as being unable to use EU laboratories would represent a major impediment to importing ammonium nitrate fertilisers, the predominant nitrogen fertiliser used in the UK, which would of course have a knock-on effect on farmers. The SI will extend the use of EU-sourced DRTs until the end of 2022.
The AIC also asks the Government to look at the entire regulatory strategy for fertilisers now that we are outside the EU, which it says would be welcome as it will allow a new look at DRTs and their position in primary legislation. It also asks that any new legislation should permit any International Organisation for Standardisation laboratory to conduct DRTs, rather than limit that to one UK lab or a limited selection of EU labs. It also wants to look at ways in which the industry can be less reliant on a handful of laboratories. I am interested in the Minister’s views on that.
Effectively, the SI allows for the continued application in Northern Ireland of the European regulation on the EC fertiliser regime. Since under EU law there can be a dual regime for fertilisers, as the Minister explained, UK fertilisers, so labelled, are able to be marketed in Northern Ireland, which means that there will be a UK-wide regulatory regime for the marketing of UK fertilisers, and that manufacturers in Great Britain can market their products across the UK, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. EC fertilisers can still be marketed in Northern Ireland alongside them.
We are basically producing yet another tweak to the Northern Ireland protocol. I have to say that it seems to me increasingly obvious that, given that we seem to be having endless discussions on further amending legislation to meet the NI protocol, there are some fundamental problems with it. That was highlighted in the excellent discussion in the House of Lords two weeks ago. As ever, full answers were given by Lord Gardiner of Kimble, the Minister in the Lords, but only where possible; it seems to me that, given the fundamental and fatal internal contradictions, some answers were not forthcoming. I do not blame the Minister for that, because in some cases there are no answers to be given, but it is my duty to put the questions again, to expose some of these problems.
One example followed some probing questions from my colleague, the shadow Minister in the Lords, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, on how we might deal with divergence in the future, given that EU rules will still apply in Northern Ireland. She said:
“We accept that it is important that UK manufacturers can trade products across GB and Northern Ireland using the same label. Can the Minister clarify that the existing regulatory standards will remain the same in GB and Northern Ireland?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2021; Vol. 809, c. 161GC.]
She also said:
“The Minister has explained that we are in a period of transition regarding controls over future fertiliser policy and that a consultation is being drawn up. Although it goes beyond the scope of this SI, we would welcome such a review and an opportunity to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords have said, there is clearly potential for modernisation, based on the best science available, together with a greater understanding of the need to protect and enhance our soils. Can the Minister reassure us that any new proposals will maintain our commitment to the precautionary principle and to our high environmental standards?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, Tuesday 26 January; Vol. 809, c. 161 GC- 162GC.]
In the elegant reply given by the Minister in the Lords, he avoided dealing with the first conundrum. Of course, if EU standards change in future, we will not automatically follow them. Or will we? Perhaps the Minister can explain. Baroness Jones also asked about the precautionary principle being applied. I am afraid there was no answer to that either. Again, there was an elegant answer outlining a move to a risk-based approach, which I see as being the laxer American approach, as opposed to the more cautious European approach. Can the Minister tell us which one we will be adopting in future?
There are also questions about paragraph 7.3 in the explanatory memorandum. A number of noble Lords highlighted it, and I spotted it too. It says:
“Manufacturers who market EC fertilisers will need to be Manufacturers who currently market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland will need to be established in the EU to continue to market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Northern Ireland after the end of the Transition Period.”
I studied closely the exchange between Baroness McIntosh and the Minister in the Lords, but I am not sure I am any the wiser afterwards. Again, it was a very skilful response, but it seems to me that there will inevitably be some duplication, which must lead to additional cost. To market EC fertilisers, a base will be needed in the EU to continue to market EC fertilisers in Northern Ireland. The “UK fertiliser” designation helps, but it still means there will be duplication. Ultimately, that must lead to extra cost. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister can provide clarification.
In conclusion, we do not oppose the regulations, but I echo many of the concerns raised in the other place, particularly around ongoing problems faced by importers into Northern Ireland in general. I can anticipate the Minister’s response. I am sure she will tell us that the Government are doing all that they can, but I would point out that it is a mess entirely of the Government’s own making. It did not have to be like this—there were other options—and the Government bear a heavy responsibility for the problems facing both Northern Ireland and the Union.
Victoria Prentis
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with the Agricultural Industries Confederation, which is of course the body that is most involved in this area. We work with it very closely as a Department. I will deal first with the detonation resistance test issue. We have passed legislation that allows the DRTs to be accepted, if they originate in the EU, until December 2022. That should give us time to conduct our reviews, and I will briefly set out a bit about where we intend policy to go.
We feel that the existing domestic regulatory regime for fertilisers in both GB and NI is outdated and in need of some modernisation. Leaving the EU and the current modernisation of regulation that the EU is conducting at the moment, which I think is due to be published in July 2022, gives us an opportunity to undertake a full review of our domestic framework. I would enjoy talking further to the hon. Gentleman about that outside the Committee.
Although I do not speak with the elegance of the Minister in the Lords, I do not think we will necessarily be following the American model or the EU model. We will go for the UK model in future. As I said in my opening speech, fertiliser regulation is quite unusual, because there has always been both a domestic set of regulations and an EU set of regulations. In many ways, perhaps it can provide a model for other types of regulations that are open to us in the future, so I do not think there is any need to take either one path. What is important is that we work with the Agricultural Industries Confederation, farmers and growers, and that we make the best regime for us in the future.
New powers relating to fertilisers in the Agriculture Act 2020 mean that we are now well placed to take forward the new work. We are starting the process of engagement with growers at the moment. We will of course undertake a public consultation to inform our views of where the legislation should go.
We began the process of review by considering how to use the provisions of the fertilising products regulation that became retained EU law to put in place a conformity assessment framework for fertiliser manufacture in the UK going forward. New policy will be informed by the findings of the nutrient management expert group, which has been tasked with identifying evidence-based options for reducing diffuse pollution by fertilisers, for example. We aim to have done a full consultation on the options by the end of this year. The final framework should become fully operational in the next few years.
I was asked about divergence specifically. I have dealt with that partially, but I will say that we will work with growers and other stakeholders and then consult on our new regulations. That will take into account any potential risks and impacts of divergence from EU rules. Any potential divergence is likely to be connected to some of the very detailed and technical requirements around fertiliser content and guidance on usage. As I said right at the beginning, there has always been a level of what I call divergence, for want of a better of word—a level of difference—in the regulatory regimes in this area.
Daniel Zeichner
I accept that point, but surely the difference will be that, should we end up with a different set of rules in future, that will create a different regime for Northern Ireland, inevitably. Will that not inevitably lead to additional cost—not immediately, but after 2022?
Victoria Prentis
I do not feel that our trade and future relationship with the EU should be affected by the extension of the “UK fertiliser” terminology to Northern Ireland. The EU fertilisers regulation will continue to apply directly to Northern Ireland by virtue of the NIP, so trade in EC fertilisers will continue in Northern Ireland. I think that is without prejudice to the EU’s fertilisers regime.
We will look at all such matters closely. Fertilisers are quite special in the way that they have been regulated in the past. It is important that we work with the industry to make our new regulatory framework, and I have no doubt that we will be able to do that in a perfectly satisfactory way.
With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Normal Minimum Pension Age: Consultation
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The normal minimum pension age is the minimum age at which most pension savers can access their pensions without incurring an unauthorised payments tax charge (unless they are taking their pension due to ill health). The normal minimum pension age is currently age 55. This minimum helps to ensure that tax relieved pension savings are used to provide an income, or funds on which an individual can draw, in later life. In 2010 the minimum pension age was increased from age 50 to 55. In 2014, the coalition Government announced that the normal minimum pension age would increase from age 55 to 57 in 2028.
Since the normal minimum pension age was introduced, life expectancy at birth for both men and women has continued to increase, according to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics. It has continued to increase since the announcement in 2014. Increasing the normal minimum pension age reflects increases in longevity and changing expectations of how long we will remain in work and in retirement. Raising the normal minimum pension age to age 57 could encourage individuals to save longer for their retirement, and so help ensure that individuals will have financial security in later life.
The Government therefore reconfirm their intention to legislate to increase the normal minimum pension age to age 57 on 6 April 2028 and are today publishing a consultation on how to implement the increase. The consultation is available at
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/increasing-the-normal-minimum-pension-age-consultation-on-implementation.
The increase to age 57 will not apply to those who are members of the firefighters, police and armed forces public service pension schemes. This reflects the unique nature of these occupations. The consultation also sets out the proposed protection regime for some other pension savers. The Government do not intend for this increase to apply to individuals who already have unqualified rights to take a pension at an earlier age. Protected pension ages will be specific to an individual as a member of a particular scheme, so protection will not apply to other schemes where there is no existing right held.
People in the UK are living longer, and the proportion of over-50s in the labour force is continuing to increase. The Government recognise the importance of supporting over 50s to remain active in the labour market and are committed to supporting them to find and retain employment. The Government are working with employers via the business champion for older workers to enable over-50s to retain employment and are aiming to provide early and targeted employment and skills support to help individuals move back into work, including into new sectors.
This consultation on implementing the increase in normal minimum pension age will run for 10 weeks.
[HCWS780]
Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations: External Scrutiny Team Report
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a report into the condition of the reserves and delivery of the future reserves 2020 programme compiled by the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations external scrutiny team. I am most grateful to the team for their work and I will respond to the report shortly.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-02-11/HCWS779/.
[HCWS779]
Intelligence and Security Committees Northern Ireland-related Terrorism Report
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
On 5 October 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) published its report entitled “Northern Ireland-Related Terrorism” (NIRT). Our thoughts remain with those who have been impacted by the enduring threat of violence in Northern Ireland, in particular the friends and families of those who have lost their lives.
Today, the Government are publishing their response to this report.
I remain grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its continued independent oversight and scrutiny. I would like to thank the former Committee for their work in the last Parliament, and I look forward to working with the appointed Committee in the future.
Copies of the Government responses have been laid before both Houses.
[HCWS781]
Light Dues 2021-22
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
A strong and growing maritime industry is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom and it is critical that we treasure and protect this vital artery if we are to remain a world-leading maritime centre.
The work of the General Lighthouse Authorities, which provide and maintain marine aids to navigation and respond to new wrecks and navigation dangers in some of the busiest waters in the world, is crucial to underpinning that vision whilst maintaining our vigorous safety record and continuously improving safety standards.
Light dues, which are paid by the shipping industry such that the General Lighthouse Authority’s costs are met without the need to call on the UK Exchequer, have reduced by 40% in real terms since 2010.
The unprecedented covid-19 pandemic has, however, added additional operational costs and resulted in a significant reduction in light dues income reflecting the major impact it has also had on the industry.
To ensure the General Lighthouse Authorities have the funding they need to complete their vital maritime safety work I have, therefore, made the difficult decision to increase the light dues rate by one penny to 38.5p per net registered tonne for 2021-22.
Light dues will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the General Lighthouse Authorities are challenged to provide an effective and efficient service which offers value for money to light dues payers.
[HCWS778]
House of Lords
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord McDonald of Salford
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Kamall
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
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.
After Royal Assent, Oral Questions will commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them brief and confined to two points. I obviously ask Ministers to be brief as well.
Royal Assent
Thursday 11th February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 152-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons amendments - (15 Jan 2021)
Learning Disabilities: Child Trust Funds
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards enabling access to Child Trust Funds by those with a learning disability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to making the process of obtaining legal authority to access a child trust fund more straightforward. A working group comprising the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury, HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions has met several times to consider what more can be done, and it has also met the Investing and Saving Alliance, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Money and Pensions Service. The Court of Protection Rules Committee is reviewing its application forms and considering issues raised by campaigners.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, who has only recently inherited this pressing problem. I hope that he can help the thousands of families who cannot access child trust funds without a lengthy and at times intimidating procedure. On 3 December, when I last raised this, my noble friend Lady Scott said that the new working group would
“report back to the Minister in early January.”—[Official Report, 3/12/20; col. 828.]
What progress has been made? Might he promote a simplified and streamlined court procedure to access what are normally fairly small sums of money?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that, because these funds are generally of relatively small amounts of money, it is all the more important that court procedures, which are designed to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, are both accessible and proportionate. Rules and procedures are a matter for the courts, not Ministers, but I will do all I properly can to ensure that children and young adults with a learning disability can access what are, after all, their own funds.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in December, some finance firms started to allow parents supporting a disabled youngster to access trust funds without a court order in exceptional circumstances. Some 30% of families benefit, but 70% are still required to go to court. Last week, in a meeting with the Investing and Saving Alliance, officials from the Minister’s own department refused to support this—why?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is not for the Government to comment on the development of private sector proposals and the extent to which—and whether—they comply with the relevant legislation. We are working with all the financial trade bodies to ensure that parents and guardians of young people who do not have the required mental capacity to make the decision to access a child trust fund at age 18 are aware of both lasting powers of attorney and the important benefit of making an application to the Court of Protection before they reach 18 to avoid court fees.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
Does the Minister not accept that there is an urgency about this? Many families face huge administrative burdens and other pressures when their child reaches adulthood. Child trust funds can play an important part in helping with the transition, but accessing them should not become an additional burden, especially when relatively small sums of money are involved. Will he please commit to ensuring that families will be supported proactively in these circumstances —and do this with some urgency?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I can certainly commit to that: I have arranged meetings later this afternoon to that end, and I will take a personal involvement to ensure that all that can be done is done. I will also liaise with the President of the Family Division but I emphasise that, ultimately, court rules are a matter for the court, and there is a constitutional propriety that I have to maintain.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
I ask my noble friend about capacity. Under the Mental Capacity Act, this is not a generalised presumption; it is specific to the issue at hand. Who exactly determines whether the individual has capacity? If a professional assessment of capacity is needed, who exactly is expected to pay? It can cost several hundred pounds.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of ways in which the requisite capacity, or lack thereof, can be established and assessed by the court, and those issues probably take me outside the bounds of an answer here. I will write to the noble Baroness to give more detail.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, last time this was discussed, I said that the Minister had pointed out an absurdity. He has still got his finger on it. Can he give the House an assurance that we will not only get a solution but will hear about when that is reached, and that banks and their internal bureaucracy are informed about this so it can be done quickly?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the present situation is absolutely unfortunate. One of the problems is that this does not seem to have been anticipated by the Government which put child trust funds into existence. We are doing all we can, and I will certainly report back to your Lordships’ House on the progress we make. As I have already said, I am personally committed to ensuring that this problem is solved.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that any measures taken to help children with disabilities access their own money in their child trust funds will also read across to junior ISAs, where I believe similar problems can arise? The Government may have special responsibility here, after the 2005 Government offered parents extra payments to invest in a child trust fund if they were also claiming disability living allowance.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, at the moment I do not see any conceptual distinction between child trust funds and junior ISAs. What we put in place to solve this problem ought, in principle, to be applicable to junior ISAs as well.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, those who look after children with learning disabilities deserve our help and admiration. They do not need unnecessary obstacles being put in their way. Is there any evidence that those trying to access the funds being discussed have anything but the best of motives?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Baroness is certainly right. Virtually everybody does have the best of motives, but there have been cases where the protections afforded by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 have, unfortunately, been needed. One has to remember that, ultimately, one is dealing with the funds of somebody who lacks the capacity to deal with them themselves. That is why the Mental Capacity Act puts in protections which may well be needed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
A professional actuary has been helping campaigners to identify the aggregate amount of money that disabled young people could lose from their child trust fund as a result of the current court process. The results estimate that, if one in four parents give up pursuing these funds because of the perceived difficulty in accessing the money, £107 million could be lost to those children over the next 10 years. This money is being locked away forever in individual accounts. What assurance can the Minister give that any new solution will be designed to make it as easy as possible for these families to access the benefits for young people?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I do not want anybody to give up accessing money which is rightfully theirs. There are a number of provisions in place for fees but, to sum this up, the Government’s intention is that no one who needs to apply to the Court of Protection solely to access a child trust fund will pay fees.
Lord German (LD)
Further to his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, will the Minister tell the House why it is that the scheme which the investment and savings body has put in place while waiting for a permanent solution, and has been operating—moving the system from cumbersome to semi-cumbersome, not a full solution—is not getting the blessing of the Ministry of Justice in order that it can make at least some progress in this matter?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the reason is that it is not for the Ministry of Justice to give its blessing to private sector schemes and to say whether they do or do not comply with the relevant legislation. That legislation is important: it is there to protect people. If the private sector wants to put in a scheme, that is a matter for the private sector. So far as my department is concerned, we need to make sure, so far as we can, that the court rules and procedures are appropriate, proportionate and accessible.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
I declare an interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. As Covid lockdown difficulties for the Court of Protection have now led to delays of around 20 weeks for uncontested applications, can the Government confirm that forms marked “Urgent” are prioritised and digital options are being explored by the court, to improve access while retaining the important protections from the MCA against exploitation or misuse of funds?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that two weeks of the waiting time is mandatory under the Act. For the rest of that period, if applications are marked as urgent then they are dealt with on an expedited basis. On the second point, court staff are putting in place new digital ways of working the procedure to try and speed things up.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I thank the Minister for being so brief that I could get in. I point to my entry in the register of Member’s interests relating to my work for the Investing and Savings Alliance. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said about there being no conceptual difference between a child trust fund and a junior ISA. Now that this issue has been raised, should the department now grasp simplifying legal procedures for a whole host of financial products? Can we not see, in the next year, the “Wolfson reforms” as his legacy?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I regret that my noble friend is already talking about my legacy when I have only been in this House about six weeks—in future, I will make longer answers. My noble friend raises an important point. I emphasise that the constitutional position is that court procedures and rules are a matter for the courts. So far as I am concerned, we need to make sure that the response of the justice system, over the whole gamut of civil justice, is proportionate to the sum in issue and the issues which are being argued about. To that extent, I agree with the point made by my noble friend.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked—congratulations. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Dentists: Covid-19
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to enable dentists to reduce any backlog of patients requiring dental treatment as a result of the restrictions to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, an increase in dental activity has been made possible by updated infection prevention and control guidance. NHS England and NHS Improvement have set a 45% activity target for January to March 2021, with the main aims being to increase patient access and reduce backlogs in patient care. PPE is being provided free of charge to NHS dental practices to support the provision of services, and we are looking at what role pre-appointment testing could play.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of the problem of dealing with the essential time gaps required for cleaning and sterilising between patient appointments where the dental practice has only one surgery that can be used for treatments? A significant time is required for this between patients, which means fewer patients can be treated. The BDA has had reports of tests of a very effective ventilation system which could be used to enable many more treatments to take place in the working day. It costs about £10,000 to install. After the closure of surgeries for a considerable time, the operators of national health dental surgeries are not in a position to fund this. Will the Government provide either the funding or the necessary equipment to NHS dental practices?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right; ventilation is a key issue. I took my daughter to the dentist this morning, and there were indeed long gaps between each appointment. I am not aware of the ventilation system she alludes to, but if the BDA would like to write to me, I would be happy to have a closer look at it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can I follow up on the Minister’s point about the new activity target imposed on dentists to reduce the backlog? It seems to have had the reverse effect. It has resulted in one of the biggest dental chains in the country instructing its dentists to focus on band 1 check- ups and reduce urgent treatments to meet the targets, reducing access for those who need it most. Other practices are reported to be doing the same. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this target on patients who need urgent and complex treatment? Dentists have continued working, like doctors, nurses and other health professionals, in a high-risk environment during the pandemic. But their contribution seems to have been ignored. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s appreciation of the commitment of dentists and their staff during this pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to dentists. As of 18 December, 88% of NHS dental practices were open, and that is a huge tribute to the hard work, determination and skills of dentists. She is right that they offer a spread of services; more triaging is going on, and that has successfully made a big contribution to getting through the lists. As of 13 January, 6.9 million dental patients have been triaged on the AAA service—advice, analgesics and antibiotics—but urgent dental care centres, of which there are 695, have picked up the difficult and time-consuming work for those who have an emergency need.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, do the Government plan to continue to enforce activity targets in the next financial year? The new contract is only seven weeks away, and those in the profession has heard nothing about the basis on which they will be paid next year. When do the Government plan, at last, to deliver wider NHS dental contract reform, which they committed to in 2010? The issue keeps being kicked into the long grass.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that officials are working extremely closely with the dental profession on the arrangements for the new practice. It will not be a complete renegotiation of the full contract, but we are looking at what arrangements should be in place for 2021-22. And as I said before, I pay tribute to the hard work of dentists. Activity targets are a useful way of getting a focus on increasing the throughput of dentistry. We have a big backlog, and that is one way we can try to increase the velocity of dental appointments.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, in order to deal with this backlog, should we not rely on the good sense of dentists to prioritise their patients—for instance, to treat those with pain and infection with antibiotics, then deal with the less urgent problems? Would the Minister consider the fairer solution adopted by Scotland and Northern Ireland, where new activity targets are half those of England?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Chief Dental Officer has looked at the activity targets and done extensive modelling to ensure that they are fair and safe. The noble Lord is entirely right that some dental support can be done in absence through things such as antibiotics. But it is important that face-to-face appointments are increased, otherwise, we will have a generation of people whose teeth are not in great shape, which will cost the country dearly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that should people with gum disease and swollen gums get Covid-19, they are many times more likely to die, having ended up in intensive care or on a ventilator? Would the Minister agree that oral care, which goes hand in glove with dentistry, is vital for reducing the risk of severe Covid-19 outcomes and is an important part of patient safety and the prevention of ill health?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I confess that I did not know about that association. I am not sure whether it is correlation or causation, but I completely support the noble Baroness’s observation that oral hygiene is critical, and we should put the steps in place to improve the oral hygiene of the nation.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I think the Minister needs to go back to the drawing board, because the new NHS activity target is basically forcing dentists to choose between check-ups and helping those in pain. That cannot be right. It can only increase health inequalities, let alone deal with the gigantic pandemic backlog. In secondary care, there is the particular problem of patients needing general anaesthetic for their dental treatment. These are mostly children and learning-disabled adults. There was already a waiting list of a year before the pandemic. Could the Minister inform the House how many patients are on this waiting list now? If the Minister does not have this information, could he please write to me? Do the Government have a plan to reduce this awful, and obviously very painful, waiting list?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not necessarily accept the dichotomy the noble Baroness refers to. I think it is reasonable for dentists to triage patients between those who can be treated with either advice, analgesics or antibiotics, and therefore do not need face-to-face contact, and those who need to be prioritised to, for example, the urgent dental care centres. I commend the dental profession for making good choices in that area. With regard to the treatment of children using anaesthetics, those are not statistics I have to hand, but I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness with whatever information we have.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, when I inquired, none of the dentists in north and east Cornwall was able to offer an appointment for NHS dentistry, so I know to my cost that private treatment is expensive. Would the Minister tell the people of Cornwall, whose earnings are below both regional and national averages, what should be done about this lack of NHS dentists in remote areas, leaving patients untreated, in pain and often resorting to self-care?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, as I said earlier, 88% of NHS dentists are open. I was at an NHS dentist earlier today, and I pay tribute to all those dentists that are open. I do not know the specific situation in north and east Cornwall, but those in acute pain have access to the 695 urgent dental care centres, which are around England. I have enormous sympathy for those who have painful teeth, and I urge them to hunt down an appointment at one of those centres, where the service is excellent.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, official statistics show that the number of patients seen by general dental service dentists in Northern Ireland fell from 163,537 last February to just 8,825 in June, but rose again to 49,059 in September. With many of the current Covid restrictions having been put back in place since then, what discussions have UK Ministers had with their counterparts in Northern Ireland and the other devolved regions to encourage people to visit their dentist rather than suffer pain at home?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that account of the Northern Ireland statistics, which tell a very similar story to those in other parts of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord is entirely right that those statistics tell a story of the massive challenge dentists face in order to increase the number of appointments per day. We are looking at a number of measures to try to improve that, including ventilation, which was referred to earlier by the noble Baroness. Testing is another option we are looking at. We are trying to put in place the kind of pre-appointment and point-of-care testing that can protect both the employees of dental practices and their patients. I hope that will help accelerate improvement in this area.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Schools: Online Teaching
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of children who are not eligible for face-to-face teaching who have not been able to access online teaching for more than 80 per cent of the normal timetable in (1) primary, and (2) secondary, schools in England since 5 January 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are investing more than £400 million to support access to remote education and online social care services, including securing 1.3 million laptops and tablets for disadvantaged children and young people. We have estimated the need based on the number of year 3 to year 13 pupils in England eligible for free school meals, which equates to 1.3 million. We have delivered more than 980,000 laptops and tablets to schools, trusts, local authorities and FE institutions to date.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
While leaving aside the fact that the noble Baroness has not answered my Question, I do welcome the appointment of Sir Kevan Collins to co-ordinate recovery. Does the Minister not agree that it would be sensible to lift the 25% requirement on schools in order to access the national tutoring programme, to decentralise funding for recovery and to give specific priority to those children with special educational needs who have lost out so grievously over the last 10 months?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, schools will be provided with £650 million as part of the Covid catch-up. Within that, schools can allocate funding to pay 25% of the subsidised cost of the National Tutoring Programme Tuition Partners, but the noble Lord will also be aware that Teach First has nearly 700 academic mentors currently in schools or working remotely. That is, of course, localised provision and they are the employees of those schools.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) [V]
Although the Government have spent more, the Sutton Trust says that just 5% of state school students have adequate access to devices for remote learning. Some 86% of private schools use online live lessons, compared with 50% in state schools, which is worse than last year. Only 26% of children in poorer homes do five hours’ learning a day and more than eight out of 10 teachers think the attainment gap will increase—so this is a national crisis and the Government will have to spend much more to help children catch up.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government have made clear that catch-up in education will be for the lifetime of this Parliament. For this financial year, £300 million more has been announced for tutoring, from early years through to 16 to 19 provision. Teachers should be in daily contact, monitoring whether children are accessing remote education. If they are particularly concerned about children accessing that, they can offer them a school place as a vulnerable child.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, since it looks as if we will have to cater for children working from home for several years as new variants of the virus emerge, will the DfE make a virtue of this necessity and help all schools and their pupils to become fully online-enabled by the end of this academic year?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, since the pandemic began, 6,900 schools have access through the department’s EdTech programme to get either Microsoft Education or Google Classroom—but my noble friend is correct that we hope this type of online access to the best education on offer in this country will become part of the system going forward. Obviously, the more than £400 million that has been invested is a great platform to build on.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, how many children of asylum seekers are unable to access online teaching? Will the Government encourage and fund schools and local authorities to deploy public service interpreters to help asylum seeker parents manage their children’s home schooling?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, within the figure of 1.3 million that I outlined, there will, of course, be some children of asylum-seeking parents who are eligible for free school meals. It is an allocation per pupil, so if there are siblings who claim free school meals, that can be two laptops or tablets per household. Teachers should recognise that, if there are the type of barriers the noble Baroness refers to, they have discretion in those circumstances to classify the child as vulnerable and bring them into school.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, on the issue of mobile data charges for children studying from home, the Minister very helpfully wrote to me after a previous Question, explaining that the Government’s cap, agreed with mobile phone companies, applies only in England and not in the devolved nations. Did that happen because the UK Government did not negotiate for the whole of the UK, or did the Scottish Government and others turn down the opportunity to set a cap on mobile data charges for the children they are responsible for?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, all I can do is outline the very obvious point to the former First Minister of Scotland that education is, of course, a devolved matter—but, of course, we will assist the devolved Administrations to get the kind of deals we have got from many of the mobile phone providers. Noble Lords have been concerned about these issues and I am holding a specific briefing at 3 pm today that any noble Lords are welcome to join for more details on these provisions.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has told us of the vast number of computers the Government have made available to disadvantaged students, but can she say what success the national tutoring programme has had in training and tutoring both parents and children who may have no idea how to use the technology and, indeed, may not have access to suitable broadband?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the National Tutoring Programme, there will be 13,000 tutors available to more than 100,000 students. On the issues the noble Baroness refers to, teachers are obviously the front-line staff and I give credit to the many teachers who are doing their best to assist parents who are not confident in using this technology, literally by a phone call to walk them through, step by step, to ensure that the child can get that type of access. The majority of the national tutoring partners can work remotely as well.
Baroness Wyld (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I am a non-executive member of the board of Ofsted. In addition to concerns about formal education, all children and young people are currently missing out on fresh air, exercise and social interaction with their friends. We all know that the Government are making incredibly difficult decisions about easing restrictions, but will the Minister make the case for outside, organised sport to be able to resume? When schools do return, would it be at all possible for play dates to resume, albeit within classroom bubbles if necessary?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we all await with bated breath 22 February, the date on which the Prime Minister will announce the review of the lockdown, but I am sure my noble friend will be pleased to hear that Sir Kevan Collins, the catch-up ambassador, has outlined that he views catch-up as encompassing physical education and mental well-being, as well as educational catch-up. But I will take back my noble friend’s views on the importance of outdoor education.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s new Education Recovery Commissioner, just referred to by the Minister, has said that schools could be working to help children make up for lost education for at least five years. That underscores the importance of a long-term strategy for all pupils, but particularly for those from disadvantaged families, who have received far less support during lockdown. There has been little discussion of a post-Covid digital strategy, and a longer-term approach will require universal access to digital learning well beyond the pandemic. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that every young person has a device and access to data and online education resources going forward, to counter the effects of the digital divide that the pandemic has exposed?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we are looking at the catch-up in the short, medium and long term. As I have said, it is for the lifetime of this Parliament. In the short term, looking to this summer, that means summer schools and some form of Covid premium. On digital, DDCMS is allocating funding so that areas of the country where there is no access to broadband can get on to broadband. Yes, we recognise that a digital strategy for education will be needed going forward—it will be one of the inadvertent positive outcomes of the pandemic.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister comment on the challenges facing parents with four children studying from home and maybe only one tablet in the household when schools are unable to match the timetable so that those four children can access their online lessons? Will she consider enabling some students to repeat a year as a result of those challenges?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, all the large structural issues, such as extending the school day, extending the school year and repeating a year, are matters that need to be considered. As I have outlined, if those four children are all eligible for free school meals—as 1.3 million are—a school is able to allocate four devices. It is a matter for schools and FE colleges, and we trust them to be able to identify the right students who need access to devices.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lords, the impact of school closures has hit a generation of children and has hit those who cannot access online resources hardest of all. We should have identified this problem right back in the first lockdown. But, looking ahead, are Ministers doing all they can to make sure that the surge of support from charities and businesses to offer laptops is going forward to children and not being hindered by red tape? Secondly, in recognising that digital poverty is unfortunately likely to stay with us for some time, can I ask that they consider that those children without access to online teaching should be eligible for face-to-face learning in case of a future lockdown?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the students the noble Baroness outlines would be eligible to be classified as vulnerable children. We applaud the local and national campaigns, particularly those around refurbishing laptops. Obviously, the Government wanted to purchase new devices and did so in a very disrupted supply chain last year, and we are a huge customer for that sector. We applaud the Daily Mail campaign whereby businesses are giving refurbished laptops. Indeed, they are using the same distribution portal as our scheme so that schools can get access to those as well, which I hope deals with the red tape outlined by the noble Baroness.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Refugees: Napier Barracks
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, throughout the pandemic, the asylum system has faced significant pressures, and it has become necessary to use additional temporary accommodation to ensure that we meet our statutory obligations at all times. The Government provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation that is fit for purpose and correctly equipped in line with existing asylum accommodation standards and contractual requirements.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, since I had a brief discussion with the Minister a few days ago about this issue, I have learned far more about what is going on. Surely it is unacceptable that asylum seekers—some of whom have suffered dreadfully, including from torture—should be held in conditions where Covid sufferers cannot self-isolate, where there is inadequate medical attention or support, and where there is a lack of hot food and hot water. Surely the Home Office should not be opening more barracks but should be finding decent accommodation for such vulnerable people.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I would reject the description of “decent accommodation” —this accommodation has served our Armed Forces. We are manging any outbreaks in line with Covid guidance, and everyone staying at those barracks has a decent standard of living, including heat, food and accommodation.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, the health of those accommodated in the barracks obviously must be paramount. Can my noble friend confirm that Public Health England has been closely consulted throughout this period? Can she also agree that the use of these barracks will be a temporary facility only, and that they are not really suitable for long periods? Perhaps she will share my hope that, with a reformed asylum system, the swift processing of applications will enable us to avoid using this type of facility in the future.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I repeat the point I just made to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the accommodation being good enough for our Armed Forces. I underline that the accommodation is safe, warm, fit for purpose and of an appropriate standard, with three meals provided a day. To put the current demand for asylum accommodation into context, back in 2019 the accommodation asylum population was broadly static at about 47,000, but, as of December last year, we now accommodate in excess of 61,000 people.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I fear that the Minister has been misinformed for her responses, as the information on the ground is very different, but that is not her fault. It seems that the Home Office is planning to use disused Army barracks such as Napier increasingly to house traumatised and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, often tortured asylum seekers for whom prison conditions—as conditions in Napier are described—induce untold suffering, mental health crises and, indeed, suicide attempts. Can the Minister tell the House when Napier will be closed, as it needs to be, and assure the House that barracks will not be used as accommodation to house traumatised asylum seekers in the future?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I must say to the noble Baroness that the people at Napier are not being detained. I must underline that point very clearly: they are not being detained. I have been through the standards of the accommodation with noble Lords already. In terms of trauma, the access to healthcare in the barracks is of a very high standard. We have a nurse on call from Monday to Friday, nine to five, and out-of-hours healthcare, dental provision and emergency healthcare are available as well. I would reject some of the statements being made by noble Lords.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Churches Together in Folkestone is providing invaluable support to residents of the barracks. The local MPs of all parties and the Bishop of Dover—well known to Members of your Lordships’ House—have all expressed concerns about the appalling conditions at the barracks and called for its closure. Two judgments have been made recently whereby residents have been extracted from the barracks because of their vulnerability. When were the barracks last inspected independently or visited by a Minister? If this has not occurred, can the Minister, who we know is concerned about these issues, assure us that such an independent inspection or visit will soon take place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure when a Minister last went in. I would suggest that at this current time, during a pandemic, it might not be the best thing for a Minister to go into the premises. But I can assure the noble Lord that HMIP is going in to do an inspection.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
[Inaudible]—accommodation is entirely adequate. Since then, over 100 of these people—[Inaudible.]
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I am very sorry, Lord Roberts, but I am afraid we cannot hear you. I am going to pass on, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have never been to Napier barracks but, in the past, I have seen accommodation we have provided to our servicepeople in other parts of the United Kingdom. In many cases, it is not of a very high standard, which is very disappointing. Can the noble Baroness justify to the House how we can be sure that this is good-quality accommodation? Do we not have here a public health disaster made in the Home Office?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can say to the noble Lord that, first, we are working very closely with public health authorities. Secondly, on the various aspects by which you might judge how people are living, there is drinking water, including bottled water, and three meals a day, two of them hot. I have gone through the healthcare provisions, and legal advice is also available. There is wi-fi on site, and everyone has a phone.
Lord Balfe (Con)
The Minister has outlined the very large increase in the number of people in this sort of accommodation, and I accept that the Minister and the Government are doing their best. The one thing that they are failing on is the number of people who are getting into the country as illegal migrants. What I would like to hear from the department is that Napier barracks is closed because we have got a grip on illegal migration. Can the Minister promise us that that is also a priority?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can echo the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who has said that the asylum system is broken. Over the next few months, we will see how we will change the immigration and asylum process to be firm and fair, while ensuring that it absolutely clamps down on those facilitators of illegal migration, who are criminals.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
The 600-plus people in Napier and Penally are only the unacceptable tip of an unacceptable iceberg of over 60,000 asylum seekers now waiting for an initial decision on their case. They are not allowed to work, they are expected to survive on less than £40 a week, and three-quarters of them have been waiting for more than six months. It is not just the virus; the numbers more than doubled in the two years before the virus struck. As the Minister said, it is the system that is broken. NGOs such as the Refugee Council—I declare my interest as a trustee—try to mitigate the consequences, but only the Government can mend the system. Can the Minister assure us that the Government now intend to act to make the asylum system fair?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I refer the noble Lord back to the answer that I have just gave to my noble friend Lord Balfe, and the answer is yes.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
On 28 January I asked the Minister what conditions in the barracks were like, and she assured me that they were fit for purpose. In the last few days and weeks we have seen articles in the newspapers and on the news—these barracks are not fit for purpose and we should do our utmost to find other accommodation, remembering that at some point these asylum seekers will become citizens of Great Britain, or they will go elsewhere. What will they think of us as a nation and the way we have treated them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I have probably answered the noble Baroness’s question but, absolutely, there has been additional demand on the system, and we have accommodated it. However, to go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, we need to process those claims as and when it is safe to do so and either grant people asylum or return them to their country of origin.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we now move to the Private Notice Question.
Operation Midland
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many officers of the Metropolitan Police have been disciplined in connection with Operation Midland since the publication of the report by Sir Richard Henriques The Independent Review of the Metropolitan Police Service’s handling of nonrecent sexual offence investigations alleged against persons of public prominence, on 4 October 2019.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, disciplinary action against individual officers is a matter for forces. However, my noble friend will be aware that, following Operation Kentia’s investigation into the five officers referred to it in connection with Operation Midland, the IOPC found organisational failings and issued 16 learning recommendations but found that none of the officers had a case for misconduct.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, who could fail to be moved by the following dignified yet devastating words:
“I’ve always believed that a strong moral compass is essential to every public body and especially to police forces, and above all, to its leadership … However, it just seems to me the Metropolitan Police has preferred its corporate or personal ambitions to a strong moral compass.”
Those are the words of Lady Brittan who, with the husband to whom she was devoted, our former colleague and the former Home Secretary, Lord Brittan, suffered grievously at the hands of policemen who failed to adhere to the law they had sworn to uphold. The House will not have forgotten other distinguished public figures who had their reputations traduced. Almost exactly a year ago I asked in this House:
“Is it not shocking that not a single police officer has been called to account for the catalogue of errors laid bare in Sir Richard Henriques’s report on Operation Midland, while some of those involved have been promoted to high rank?”—[Official Report, 3/2/20; col. 1613.]
I got no answer. I therefore ask the Government that question again today. Do they not understand that it is their duty to act, and act now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the IOPC has declined to investigate the matters to which my noble friend refers. With regard to higher rank, I assume he is referring to the commissioner, whose term ends in April 2022. Of course, the decision on appointment following that will be a matter for the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Those impacted by Operation Midland, and their families, were caused great distress by failings in the operation. However, it is also the case that our justice system continues to badly let down victims of sexual abuse, with prosecutions for rape at an inexcusable low. Do the Government agree with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in its report last year on the response of the Metropolitan Police Service to the Henriques report, that
“The police have a responsibility to encourage victims to come forward—and that means creating a sense of public confidence that complaints will be taken seriously.”
A great number of legitimate victims came forward following the high-profile case of Jimmy Savile. Are the Government satisfied that enough is now being done to encourage victims of sexual abuse to report such crimes, and what work is being urgently done to improve prosecution rates since victims of both non-recent and more recent sexual abuse deserve justice, and those who committed the offences should receive justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord makes a valid point. This is all about victims. It is important that victims come forward—so often they have not. When we look back at past times, perhaps when I was a child, and some of the subsequent cases that have come to light, it is clear that victims were consistently failed, certainly in the area of child sexual abuse.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
Lord Brittan’s accuser was interviewed by Wiltshire Police before he was interviewed by the Metropolitan Police, and he wrote blogs about the alleged incidents. Sir Richard Henriques found numerous inconsistencies between his Wiltshire interviews, his blogs and his MPS interviews, yet the information on the search warrant used to invade Diana, Lady Brittan’s home stated:
“His account has remained consistent and he is felt to be a credible witness who is telling the truth.”
How can the Home Office sit on the sidelines in the face of such evidence and the suffering of Lady Brittan?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not undermine the suffering of Lady Brittan but, with regards to the individual to whom the noble Lord refers, a remedy was sought. That individual was convicted of perverting the course of justice, and now sits in prison.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. There is little doubting the terrible damage done to all those targeted by Operation Midland, but I make the point that these false allegations also harm the real victims of child sexual abuse, of which there are many. How many convictions have there been to date for historical child sexual abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
First, I totally agree with my noble friend about false allegations harming the actual victims, which has never been raised in your Lordships’ House before. On historic convictions for non-recent child sexual abuse allegations, since 2015 there have been almost 5,000. Those are the victims we should really be thinking about.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I should first refer to the fact that I was a personal friend of the late Lord Brittan for 40 years; indeed, my father was a friend of the late Lord Bramall. I have the greatest sympathy for our much respected Minister having to answer questions on this matter, but we have all been deeply disturbed by the reports of the interview with Lady Brittan, and I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to meet her and the family of Lord Bramall to hear their concerns and look into this matter again. It is very disturbing, and I am sure I speak for all Members of the House in saying that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have met the family of Lord Janner. I am not sure that it would be appropriate at this point to meet Lady Brittan, which does not mean that my sympathy for her is any diminished from what it is for anybody whose family member has been falsely accused of something they did not do.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Metropolitan Police officer. The inexcusable and hapless supervision of this matter from the very top of a once proud and competent investigative organisation has left a trail of victims feeling very hurt and bitter. Spurred on by unforgivable political interference, those supervising and having overall responsibility for this investigation permitted uncorroborated evidence from a now disgraced fabricator of evidence to be believed and invested in. That fact speaks volumes for the lack of management and detective ability of those at the top of the organisation at the time, who have now been allowed to move on to more prominent roles. Are we to understand that the Home Office, as the lead government department for policing, is content for this stigma to fester; and is it not time to review the downward spiral of detective recruitment and training in the Metropolitan Police?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that anybody who has been falsely accused or caught up in some of the inadequacies of investigations has my absolute sympathy, because it ruins lives; but in terms of remedy of institutional failures, we currently have the IICSA inquiry, and I hope that that will bring some sort of closure to the families and people affected by those institutional failures.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I cannot resist asking the Minister whether the police treatment of the late Lord Bramall will ever be repeated.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, over the past few years, we have learned many lessons about what went wrong in a number of those cases. As I said, IICSA continues its inquiry. I hope that nothing like this ever happens again.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, when this report was commissioned, was it done for the purpose of preventing a repetition of what had happened; to consider the possible discipline required as a result; or did it include both?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, its primary focus was to learn the lessons of what went wrong during that period so that those mistakes would never be repeated. Obviously, the IOPC then declined to investigate further.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, Lord Brittan demonstrated that it is possible to maintain one’s dignity in adversity. In the last months of his life, he was cruelly assailed by baseless allegations made by malicious users that would have broken healthy men. It is sad that he did not to live to witness his own exoneration and that his widow is still troubled by the acts and omissions of the police identified by the Henriques report. Does my noble friend agree that police officers who have taken an oath to uphold the law but who suborn it by perverting the course of justice by deliberately misleading a judge should not just be investigated for misconduct but prosecuted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the IOPC has declined to investigate in certain areas. I know that certain cases have been given to Merseyside, as a separate force, to investigate, but it is sad that Lord Brittan did not get to see his name cleared and I understand the grief that his widow will be going through.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I take the Minister back to the question asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It was quite clear that different evidence was given to Wiltshire Police from later on. Experienced police officers should therefore have noticed a difference in the reliability of the witness much earlier. We have here an institutional as well as an individual failure. Although the person referred to at that stage as Nick has since been prosecuted, why has no officer been held accountable for their failure, which was so clear, obvious and well documented?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have given that answer several times now. Obviously, disciplinary action against an individual officer is a matter for forces; we have IICSA’s current inquiry into institutional failures and we have had a number of inquiries into different matters regarding the issues raised this afternoon.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have great sympathy with a lot of the views that we have heard, but I will try to look optimistically forward. I know that the Minister and her department have been looking at the whole question of whether anonymity should be given until a charge is made, and I wonder whether she could fill us in on where we are on that, what are her views and how that might help to prevent this happening again.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We have discussed this a lot in your Lordships’ House. There is a presumption of anonymity, and that is absolutely right. There are occasions when names may be given out to bring forward further evidence. The Jimmy Savile case was a classic case in point. Quite often, it is not the police, the Home Office or anyone but the media who gives out names.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest in that Paul Gambaccini is, I am pleased to say, a close personal friend. I am also conscious that the Metropolitan Police on occasion, when investigating such cases, has clearly shown its ability and impartiality, which is not reflected here. I come back to the Henriques report. Will that and similar reports be taken into consideration by the Home Office in future for any appointments and promotions? Many of us consider that necessary for this report.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it depends which promotions the noble Lord is talking about, but recruitment within the police is done by the police; recruitment of the commissioner, as I said, is done by the Home Secretary in conjunction with the Mayor of London.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has passed.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 10 and 14 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February
Bank for International Settlements (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the draft order laid before the House on 11 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February
Electronic Commerce Directive (Education, Adoption and Children) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February
Financial Services Bill
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Financial Services Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 3, Clauses 6 and 7, Schedule 4, Clauses 8 to 21, Schedule 5, Clause 22, Schedules 6 to 8, Clauses 23 and 24, Schedule 9, Clauses 25 to 27, Schedule 10, Clause 28, Schedule 11, Clauses 29 to 32, Schedule 12, Clauses 33 to 46, Title.
Myanmar
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this appalling action by Myanmar’s military leaders represents a flagrant breach of the country’s constitution and fundamentally undermines the democratic right of its people to determine their own future.
In the week since this Statement was first made, we have seen the people of Myanmar take to the streets to demand democracy. The police are now using rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons against these peaceful protesters. Many of those brave people have tweeted their own experiences, which I have seen. On the subject of social media, I hope that the Government will look again at how the UK’s CDC has been investing in Myanmar telecoms companies that have been complying with the country’s government-ordered repression and blockages of internet sites. They are now, of course, being used by the military in the coup.
As the military acts on its warning of violent response, the UK is the penholder of Myanmar at the Security Council and has a responsibility to stand up for democracy and against the coup. I welcome the speedy action in convening the UN Security Council and the consensus in calling for democracy, freedom and human rights. However, those words must now be built upon. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK intends to bring forward further resolutions to the council?
Yesterday, President Biden issued an executive order enabling his Administration to immediately sanction the military leaders who directed the coup, their business interests, as well as close family members. The first round of targets would be identified this week and steps were being taken to prevent the generals having access to $1 billion of Myanmar government funds held in the US, which will also impose strong export controls and freeze US assets that benefit the Myanmar Government, while at the same time maintaining support for healthcare, civil society groups and other areas that benefit the people of Myanmar directly. About an hour ago, I saw Dominic Raab’s tweet welcoming President Biden’s actions but not committing to following him. What practical steps have the Government taken to mirror and support our US ally in its actions? What are we doing to ensure, as President Biden asked, that other allies back those sorts of actions?
Across the UN system, there is much more that the UK can do to hold the Myanmar military to account. At the International Court of Justice, the UK Government, unlike Canada and the Netherlands, have refused to join the genocide case brought by the Government of Gambia against Myanmar, which would have raised international awareness of that crucial issue. In recent days, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar has called for a special session of the Human Rights Council. Does the UK intend to pursue such a session by utilising our seat on the council? Given concerns that the military is following through with its threats of a violent response to the peaceful demonstrations, can the Minister say how we will work with our allies to analyse the reports from those protests to ensure that the international community can most effectively respond to any such repression and hold those people responsible to account?
This House will be aware that there was a leaked FCDO assessment this week showing that the Government are concerned by the prospect of violence in Myanmar. As the UN penholder and president of the Security Council, it falls to the UK to lead. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will outline a comprehensive strategy today for confronting the intolerable actions of the Myanmar military.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House.
It is, indeed, extremely concerning that once again the military has taken over Myanmar. The military says that this is because of irregularities in the elections, even though, as the Government and others have said, there is no evidence of significant problems in an election that delivered an overwhelming majority to the civilian Government. Once again, we see the damage done when, in liberal democracies, leaders say that elections in their own territories are fraudulent, when there is no evidence of that, or they seek to break international law, even in a “limited way”. We need to rebuild respect for the rule of law globally.
The Government are right to say that this coup threatens Myanmar’s recent progress. There have been widespread demonstrations and we are beginning to see the army take more aggressive action, for example with the use of rubber bullets and, it seems, live rounds. A couple of days ago a woman was shot in the head and critically injured. Can the noble Lord update us on how the Government see the perceived risk of army brutality being unleashed on the protestors? Do the Government think that the military leaders in Myanmar are confident that their army will fully support them, given such widespread opposition, especially among young people? We hear that some police have crossed over to join the protestors. Now we hear of a draconian new cybersecurity law being fast-tracked, which would force internet and mobile phone providers to share their user data, which is extremely worrying. Can the noble Lord comment?
Can the Minister also comment on what role China is playing in Myanmar, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked? It is perhaps not surprising that China blocked action in the UN Security Council but I am glad, as the noble Lord said, that the UK took that action. Popular protest is not something that the Chinese Government could easily condone but we gather that they are playing a more significant role in Myanmar, which they jealously guard as “their” neighbourhood.
What is happening on the Thai border? What is the attitude of the Thai Government—also under great pressure—with protests again authoritarianism there? We will need to work proactively with others if we are to help to protect the many demonstrators from a brutal crackdown.
One key recommendation is that we should work with others to sanction military companies. The military earns a great deal from its businesses; this has funded its attacks, including this coup. The UN fact-finding mission had already recommended that sanctions be put on military companies even before this coup. I am aware that the UK put Magnitsky sanctions on 16 individuals in the Myanmar security forces. However, these freeze assets in the UK, which they do not have. I realise that these sanctions may send a warning to others in the region—they are important in that regard—but, in this case, they are not very effective in the case of Myanmar. Surely the Government, as president of the UN Security Council and the G7, should lead the way in terms of a widespread arms embargo on Myanmar. What are we doing, for example with our EU allies and others, on this or other strategies?
The US has just placed sanctions on those who led the coup. Is the UK engaging with the US on how to make such sanctions as effective as possible? Do the US plans include military companies? The asset freeze announced by the US on Myanmar Government assets in the US certainly sends a strong signal that this regime is illegitimate.
In addition, the UK should formally join the ICJ genocide case in The Hague; here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Can the Minister update us on that? The Government have said that they are considering it. Now is surely the time to do so.
Can the Minister also comment on the very vulnerable Rohingya and other minorities in this situation? What emerged from his discussions with the Bangladeshi Government last week? What preparations are being made in case of an increased outflow of refugees? We do not want borders closed, as we saw before, but we recognise Bangladesh’s need and that the refugees need to be properly supported. As the Minister knows, more than 1 million Rohingya refugees have fled Myanmar over the past few years.
The military leaders in Myanmar’s brutal assault against the Rohingya were described by the UN as a
“textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.
We cannot stand by and allow further such crimes to follow this coup. Can the Minister tell us what effect the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget will have on their ability to sustain the level of humanitarian and development funding that has gone to Myanmar and is for the Rohingya refugees?
In this very worrying situation, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their contributions. They rightly raised a series of issues, which I will seek to address.
In her remarks, the noble Baroness asked for an assessment of the current situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also noted, it is a week since we last discussed this matter. Let me assure both of them and your Lordships that we have been not just monitoring but acting. Clearly, the situation over the weekend of 6 and 7 February saw large-scale protests; the noble Baroness rightly pointed to the scale of them in both Naypyidaw and Yangon. Notably, we have seen largely—I use that word deliberately but carefully—peaceful protests.
The noble Baroness is quite right to note that, in many instances, the police have been restrained when many people perhaps expected otherwise. However, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said, we are concerned by further reports of crackdowns on protestors in Naypyidaw on 9 February, including, as the noble Lord noted, the firing of rubber bullets and the use of water cannons. It remains unclear whether the security forces discharged live rounds, although that was being reported. When I looked into this, I came across a particularly shocking case where, as has been widely reported, a lady was shot in the head.
On the noble Baroness’s point about the cybersecurity law, I, too, have heard about proposed actions in that respect. She will have noted the internet blackouts that have taken place; we are concerned about these as they have made the flow of information in and out of the country that much more challenging. We are clear that internet services must be maintained and freedom of expression protected.
In that regard, I want to pick up on the point rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the CDC. The CDC carries out due diligence for every investment it makes, including in its contract with Frontiir. The investment was made to ensure low-cost internet availability and focused primarily on key areas, including Yangon. In March, there was a Myanmar Government directive to all ISP providers to block websites, which Frontiir and others have followed. Of course, the UK has taken a number of steps over the censorship of websites, but I note carefully what the noble Lord said in this respect. It is part of our strategy to ensure that the internet is restored at the earliest possible opportunity. I would also add that the investment was made with the good intent of providing the most vulnerable people with internet access.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord rightly mentioned the recent announcement from President Biden and his Administration. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary tweeted this morning about our support for the actions taken. I know that if I were sitting on the other side of the Dispatch Box, I would find this frustrating at times, but let me say that we are looking actively at all the tools at our disposal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly noted the 16 sanctions. To put that in context, 14 of them have been directly rolled over and become applicable in UK law; this is part of what we led on with the EU. There were another two, most notably against the current commander-in-chief of the army and his deputy. They were part of the first tranche of global human rights sanctions that we introduced, and will also stay in place. The noble Baroness mentioned the UN fact-finding mission. Six specific individuals were named in it, and I assure her that all of them are part of the UK’s current sanctions regime.
I note the point made in the context of both individuals and other organisations and firms. All I can say at this juncture is that we are of course looking at the actions of the United States. I come back to the point that this requires co-ordination. While signals may be sent, as I have said repeatedly—I know that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord share my views on this—it is when we act in conjunction with others that we see the best benefit against those we seek to target.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked what actions the UK has taken. He rightly pointed out that we are penholders, particularly on the issue of the Rohingya. However, we are also the current president of the UN Security Council. In this regard, we convened a specific meeting on 4 February. I totally concur with the noble Baroness’s assessment of the importance of China’s role, not just in the current crisis but in terms of the continuing challenge of the situation and suffering of the Rohingya community. China has an important role to play. Through our bilateral engagement and engagement at the UN Security Council, we continually remind China of its important role in this respect. It was notable that, although there was no resolution, a statement was issued by the UN Security Council on the worrying nature of the events and military coup in Myanmar. We will continue to look at the situation during our presidency for the remainder of the month.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the actions that we have taken, including at the UN Human Rights Council. Again, I, as the Human Rights Minister, have prioritised this. Together with our European Union colleagues—I somewhat expected the noble Baroness to ask me about the EU, but I will proactively provide her with this information—we worked at the Human Rights Council and will convene a meeting tomorrow on the situation. Of course, we are formal members of the Human Rights Council as well.
On action by the International Court of Justice, which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to, we are supportive of the Gambia’s action. To put the UK’s formal intervention into context, we are looking at that. A number of countries have stated their intention to intervene but are yet to do so. There is a structured process at the ICJ, part of which is for Myanmar to come back on what has been levied against it by the Gambia and others. I believe that Myanmar has responded, while the other countries which have said that they will formally intervene are now considering their position, as will we, to see when a formal intervention, which we would support, would be best suited to give greater credence to the role of the ICJ in this respect.
I hope I have responded to some of the specifics put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will appreciate that we are engaging on this issue proactively across our roles, including in the G7. They will both have noticed that on 3 February we issued a statement as part of the G7. We are using our role at the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council. I would add one further piece of information. Through our ambassador, we have also attended a briefing with the military-appointed Foreign Minister. We used the occasion to communicate directly to that representative of the current military leaders of Myanmar who are in charge our unequivocal condemnation of the coup.
We join all countries in calling for the release of those who been arbitrarily detained, not least Aung San Suu Kyi. I shall pick up the point about elections raised by the noble Baroness. As we all know, some of these elections are not the most perfect one could imagine. Nevertheless, there were external observers, and it is not for the Myanmar military to call them into question, given the general reports. Putting the disenfranchisement of the Rohingya people to one side, others in the country participated fully and the result was conclusive. I can assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that, through engagements beyond the Chamber, I will continue to update them both about the ongoing situation and will seek to provide briefings in a timely manner.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of questioners. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Helic.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement and the update he has offered. There are immediate actions which must be taken. I draw his attention to those being taken by New Zealand. It has suspended all military and high-level political contact with the country, including a travel ban on its military leaders. At the same time, we must look at this moment of crisis and recognise the depth of the challenges in Myanmar and to its fragile democracy. Progress will be impossible without action on a range of fronts, including on racial discrimination and violent conflict, true inequality and underdevelopment. I hope that our engagement with Myanmar will move beyond this immediate crisis to look at the endemic problems that the country has been suffering from.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I take on board what my noble friend said about the military and the need to look at the situation regarding the arms embargo. As she will be aware, the UK is a long-standing supporter of an arms embargo on Myanmar and, together with our EU colleagues, we played a key role in the embargo imposed following the 2017 Rohingya crisis. Since we left the EU, we have transitioned that into domestic law. My noble friend also made a broader point about the importance of stability in Myanmar. We are working in the region, particularly with ASEAN, which has an important role to play in this respect.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, I noticed the Minister’s warm words about co-operating with China and drawing the importance of this matter to its attention. However, does he accept that the military coup would have been impossible had the military, given its very strong relations with China, not been given the nod by the Chinese Government? This is another geostrategic win for China while the West stands by helpless. What long-term plans does the United Kingdom have to reform the United Nations Human Rights Council so that countries such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are prevented from making a mockery of global human rights?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that I have warm words for China; I was merely reiterating our practical engagement with that country. We should not forget that China is a P5 member of the UN Security Council. As I have said a number of times on various issues, where we have direct challenges with countries that are P5 members, we must continue to engage with them, albeit in very candid terms, through the international fora of which the UN Security Council is an important part. I strongly believe in doing this because I have seen for myself the benefits.
The noble Baroness also raised an important point about the Human Rights Council. I agree that there are members of the council which do not reflect in any way the value system we subscribe to. I can assure her that, through our engagement at the council, we look carefully at the human rights records of those countries that put themselves forward for election to the 47-strong membership. While the council is still not without its challenges, it provides a very useful forum in which to bring these issues to the fore at the top level of international diplomacy.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the civic and religious leaders in Myanmar, including the respected Buddhist monk, Myawaddy Sayadaw, who is now in prison, and Cardinal Charles Bo, the Archbishop of Yangon, whose published message last week spoke out strongly against the coup, called for the release of everyone who had been detained, and implored demonstrators to remain non-violent? Given the cardinal’s words to the international community that
“Engaging the actors in reconciliation is the only path”,
how are the Government, through the channels of communication to which the Minister referred, pressing the military to engage in a meaningful process of dialogue with the democracy movement? At the same time, to pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, how will a new peace process be pursued with the country’s ethnic minorities, which could prevent an escalation in armed hostilities and lead to a genuinely inclusive political settlement for all stakeholders?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I join the right reverend Prelate in paying tribute to the courage of many voices in civilian society, including those of religious leaders who are calling for peace. The situation with the Rohingya underlines how religion can sometimes be used as a divisive tool used to target particular communities because of their faith or ethnicity. On the issue raised by the right reverend Prelate about engagement with the military, our assessment is that there is a real fear that, even under civilian administration, we can see the challenges as the situation plays out. I do not feel that, at the moment, we are on the cusp of any real hope of seeing a resolution of the internal civil issues confronting Myanmar. However, we will continue to work through all channels in pursuit of that common objective.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy in Burma. The Minister has talked about sanctions by the United Kingdom. While those are welcome, they will be directed at individual members of the Tatmadaw. Does he agree that the brave activists in Burma need to see tangible action by the international community against the institution of the Tatmadaw? The best way to achieve that is not by withdrawing trade privileges and preferences, which would impact on ordinary Burmese people, but by robust and targeted sanctions on military-owned and controlled companies and their substantial business associates, including those around the world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the targeting of sanctions, as and when we impose them, is intended to identify the individuals and organisations responsible for the most egregious abuses of human rights. As I said in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we are keeping the situation very much under review. We have noted the actions that others have taken, most notably the United States.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, yesterday I sought to encourage the Minister to support President Biden on the issue of arms exports. It will therefore come as no surprise to him that I equally seek his support for President Biden’s initiative on sanctions. But may I raise with him the question of live ammunition? In their discussions with the ambassador from Myanmar, have the British Government impressed on him that the mere presence of live ammunition carries the dangerous risk of misjudgment, potentially resulting in fatalities? Live ammunition should neither be on display nor should there be any question of it being used.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I concur with the noble Lord. I assure him that we have called in the ambassador of Myanmar and conveyed to him that people’s right to protest peacefully should be respected in Myanmar. We have also urged all forces, the police and military in particular, to exercise utmost restraint and to respect human rights and international law. As I said earlier, there have been reports of live ammunition being used, which is appalling, but I concur with the noble Lord’s views.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, both the Government’s Statement made here and the measures announced by President Biden are encouragingly robust, but does my noble friend agree that sanctions that isolate Myanmar as a whole will merely drive it further into the arms of China? They should therefore rightly be targeted on military leaders, Magnitsky style, and the businesses that they control, as others have rightly argued. Does my noble friend also agree that this is the time for a strong Asian coalition? These steps must have the full support of Myanmar’s main Asian investors, such as Japan. If China wants to regain any respect at all on the international stage, it should support or at least not counter these moves.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, again, I assure my noble friend that I agree with him. Our challenge is not with the people of Myanmar and they should not be punished for the military coup. He is right to point out that our sanctions regime targets these specific individuals or organisations, which is the right approach. He also raises a key point about the region itself. We are working very closely with ASEAN partners on this. My colleague Minister Adams, who is responsible for that part of the world, has been speaking directly to counterparts across ASEAN to discuss how to respond to these events directly.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, this is an appalling state of affairs. Will the Government ensure that democracy must prevail, with severe consequences for coup leaders for not coming to the table immediately? I trust that we will convene a G7, and underpin and implement a new electoral world order, global standards and processes. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the G7. However, given that the probability of a coup was on the cards in the days prior, what representations and actions were taken by diplomats to avert this fiasco, including the assurance of continuous support for those brave and principled people of Myanmar who stood up for their rights, as also occurs elsewhere?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure you, and as I already alluded to, we are working on the ground through our ambassador. He is co-ordinating with other like-minded partners within country, and we are working directly with allies, such as the United States, ASEAN partners and others, to make the points that the noble Lord has just reflected on.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister confirm whether the Government will work with other like-minded allies to impose a global arms embargo on Myanmar to underpin human rights, particularly as the UK has the presidency of the UN Security Council?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already indicated, the UK is a long-standing supporter of the arms embargo and it is already being applied. Since we left the EU, we transitioned the arms embargo regime from the EU into UK law. The UK autonomous Myanmar sanctions regulations prohibit the provision of military-related services, including technical assistance to or for the benefit of the Myanmar military.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Collins has already raised the question of the assets of the military leaders and the companies that they control. The point has been made by a number of noble Lords about the support of President Biden. I can say from overnight conversations that President Biden’s Administration are looking very hard at what steps we propose to take, in the same light. The Minister said that we were looking at all the tools and that he feared he would frustrate us in not answering on them, but I know that he is a man of great integrity. What do the Government know about assets held in London and the overseas territories? Will they take steps to sequester and hold them, until they can be provided to the people of Myanmar, for their future? Will he make progress reports to the House on this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, who served as a Foreign Office Minister himself, knows that I cannot make those specific commitments from the Dispatch Box, but I have noted what he said very carefully. As I indicated in my earlier answers, we are looking at all options to ensure that those who have committed and are behind the coup are also held fully to account. That includes all tools. We have noted the sanctions that the Americans have already acted on and, as I have said several times, when we act together on sanctions, we see a better result.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister’s indication that the Government are thinking of formally intervening in the Gambia’s genocide case against Myanmar, at the ICJ, is welcome. Given the Government’s preference for Parliament to express its views on genocide now, rather than taking things to a court, could the Minister tell the House whether parliamentary interventions and suggestions on how to intervene would be welcome?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I always welcome interventions from parliamentary colleagues. On the specific issue of the ICJ intervention, as I said before, our long-standing position is to support the action that the Gambia has taken. We regard a formal intervention as something that should be measured and timely to make sure that the issue can move on. It does not mean that we are not supportive, because we have not formally intervened. I further assure the noble Baroness that we have been engaging with the APPG, for example, which is looking carefully at these issues. Recently, Minister Adams and I convened a meeting with, among others, my right honourable friend Jeremy Hunt and Rushanara Ali to discuss this very issue.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have a very close friend who has a son working in Myanmar. He has informed me that the British embassy has ceased to register British residents in the country. Could my noble friend confirm whether this is correct and whether the embassy is fully staffed? Does he agree that our presidency of both the Security Council and the G7 gives us a special opportunity to become global Britain? Will we convene a special meeting of the G7 and undertake to keep this very deplorable situation on the agenda of the Security Council?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I believe that I have already answered the question that my noble friend raised on the G7 and the Security Council. On the other issue, we have advised all British nationals to remain at home where possible. There is a nationwide curfew, which makes it a challenge, but if any British national needs to engage, if my noble friend provides me with that information, I will follow up that issue.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, Aung San Suu Kyi was hailed by world leaders as the person who established democracy in Myanmar, through her efforts and sacrifices. However, she was accused of failing to protect Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims during the 2016-17 persecution. There was a worldwide outcry citing her as complicit in the crimes against the Rohingya. Aung San Suu Kyi is being detained by the army, at present. Notwithstanding the Rohingya issue, world leaders should support her as before, while supporting sanctions. Can the Minister tell us what chances there are of democracy returning to Myanmar again?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I cannot state firmly what the chances are, but I assure the noble Lord that we are doing all we can to ensure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the return of the democratically elected Government.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a credible inference that, in seizing power, General Min Aung Hlaing and the military were partly motivated by the desire to protect themselves and their families from investigation of their corrupt and lucrative financial deals and economic holdings by a strengthened democratic Government. It is certain that they have managed to squirrel away stolen assets in this country, the British Overseas Territories and other democratic countries. Following on from my noble friend Lord Triesman’s question, and recognising the limitations that the Minister is under, beyond sanctions, do the Government have the power and intent to trace, seize and freeze these assets so that, in due course, they can be returned to their rightful owners: the Myanmar people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the imposition of sanctions means that any accounts held or travel undertaken is limited, so there are specific powers in the sanctions regime.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, as chair of the International Development Committee in the House of Commons I heard and saw at first hand the brutal atrocities committed during the last era of military rule. Given that the Myanmar economy is largely owned by the army, can we ensure that sanctions are targeted to force the military to recognise that the development of Myanmar and its own interests are incompatible with military dictatorship, and that they are applied in a way that helps those protesting against the coup and avoids hitting the poor hardest?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, that should exactly be the approach of the sanctions regime.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, many years ago, when the military were last dictating the country, I visited Myanmar and heard directly from victims of torture about the terrible things that happened. We have the same bunch of people in charge of the country again. I have two questions. First, do the Government have any evidence that the military regime is using torture against its political opponents in Myanmar? Secondly, does the Minister agree that we have to be very careful before any sort of development aid goes to Myanmar, because it will be used to prop up the infrastructure and help the military? We should really oppose any such aid going to Myanmar, except at a local community level.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first question, in all our interactions with the Myanmar authorities after the military coup we have stressed that those held in arbitrary detention must be released immediately, and that while they are in detention they must be afforded all their rights. I am certainly not aware of any evidence of torture. On his second question about support, Myanmar is at a crossroads. That entails a real challenge. We need to ensure that sanctions or any other tools available to us target those behind the coup and do not lead to long-term instability in Myanmar and the surrounding region. However, I accept the point that we need to ensure that the support we give Myanmar at this crucial juncture is targeted at the most vulnerable. Our aid and support in this respect is certainly targeted to do just that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for questions on the Statement has now elapsed.
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
That the draft order laid before the House on 18 January be approved.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, a few days ago many of your Lordships will have listened intently to and reflected on the debate on the Armed Forces Bill as it passed through its Second Reading in the other place. I hope your Lordships were struck by the number of very positive things that the Bill proposes to do, including embedding further into law the Armed Forces covenant; implementing the sound recommendations born out of the Service Justice System Review; introducing flexible service for reservists; and addressing the issue of posthumous pardons. These are just a few of the subjects that many of your Lordships are rightly passionate about.
As was explained during the Bill’s Second Reading, Parliament renews the Armed Forces Act 2006 every five years through primary legislation. However, in the intervening years an annual Order in Council must be made and approved by both Houses for the Act to continue to remain in force. The 2006 Act is currently due to expire on 11 May this year, so a further annual order is needed to keep it in force. The draft order we are considering will keep the Act in force until the end of 2021. Primary legislation, in the shape of the Armed Forces Bill, is needed to keep it in force beyond 2021.
If the 2006 Act expires, certain major problems arise. For example, it would be impossible to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies. Service personnel do not have contracts of employment and so have no duties as employees. Their obligation is essentially a duty to obey lawful commands. If the 2006 Act expired, members of the Armed Forces would still owe allegiance to Her Majesty, but there would be no sanctions for disobeying orders. Moreover, other disciplinary offences would cease to exist, commanding officers and service police would lose their statutory powers to investigate offences and enforce discipline, and the service courts would no longer function.
Discipline in every sense is fundamental to and underpins the existence of our Armed Forces. Indeed, it is the reason for their success in the discharge of their remarkable range of duties, whether here at home, tirelessly supporting the emergency services, local communities and assisting with the mass vaccination across the UK during the pandemic; supporting our British Overseas Territories by delivering vaccine doses; protecting our safety and security; tackling the ongoing threat of cyberattacks posed by hostile states; actively safeguarding the world’s main waterways and escorting ships to deter the scourge of modern piracy and ensure freedom of navigation in disputed waters; playing their part to counter terrorism or to combat drug smuggling and people trafficking; taking a central role in the ongoing United Nations peacekeeping operations in Mali; distributing vital humanitarian aid; continuing the war on terror by assisting and building capacity with partner nations to defeat the likes of Daesh in Iraq and Syria; maintaining our forward presence in the Baltic and northern Europe to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security; or monitoring our sovereign air space to identify any threatening presence. All that reflects a huge and remarkable range of diverse activity.
The requirement for Parliament to regularly consent to the maintenance of the Armed Forces dates back to the Bill of Rights in 1688, when the existence of a standing army was contentious. While this is no longer the case, the debate on this order to keep the 2006 Act in force is also an opportunity for us in this House to record our thanks by permitting the Armed Forces to continue for another year.
That is a summary of the background to the statutory instrument. I hope that your Lordships will support the draft continuation order. I beg to move.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I pay tribute to our Armed Forces personnel for their service to the nation. I had the privilege of working with them, as Armed Forces Minister and later as Secretary of State for Defence, and I never ceased to be impressed by their selfless commitment, abroad and at home. They have shown it once again during the present pandemic. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.
The Armed Forces Bill, as the Minister pointed out, is the foundation of military command, discipline and justice. It is also the bedrock of the democratic civil-military relationship, so I of course support that Bill and this Motion. Specifically, I broadly welcome several measures in the Bill, including the update of the service justice system and the new service police complaints commissioner, modelled on the civilian police’s Independent Office for Police Conduct, and in particular, I welcome Clause 8 of the Bill, which puts the Armed Forces covenant into law. In the limited time that I have I will focus on that.
This should have our non-partisan support across your Lordships’ Chamber. The covenant had its origins as the Armed Forces charter by the last Labour Government over a decade ago. Under the coalition and Conservative Governments, that has been built upon and, whatever deficiencies remain, there has been an undoubted shift in the right direction in looking after our forces and their families. This Bill quite properly aims to build further on that but, as presently constructed, it is unnecessarily restrictive in that respect. As the Royal British Legion, among others, have pointed out, the range of issues that have a significant impact on the Armed Forces community include health, housing, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, education, criminal justice and immigration, yet the Bill covers only aspects of health, housing and education.
There is also no reference in the Bill to any enforcement mechanism. The Government could surely have gone a bit further in both respects. Moreover, the Bill imposes a duty only on local councils and local agencies to have regard to these areas, not on national Government itself. Yet many of the areas in which Armed Forces personnel and veterans have problems are the responsibility of the national Government or are based on national government guidance. It therefore has a flavour of “do as I say, don’t do as I do” about it, which will undermine its effect, especially since no specific duty to act is imposed, even on local councils and agencies.
The context in which the Bill is being debated hardly encourages confidence that the morale of our Armed Forces personnel will continue unharmed. As noble Lords will know, our Army is 10,000 below the required strength, with the MoD revealing only last weekend that every one of our infantry battalions, with the exception of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, now fall short of battle-ready personnel, some significantly so. Military pay has fallen behind since 2010. This is surely a missed opportunity in the Bill to make the recommendations of the independent Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body binding on Ministers.
Accommodation remains a serious problem. I do not underestimate that challenge, and I pay credit to the Government for the Forces Help to Buy scheme, under which many personnel have been helped on to the housing ladder. However, the quality of much of the Government’s provided accommodation remains seriously deficient, as last week’s National Audit Office report illustrates.
I wish the Bill well but hope that Ministers will listen in Committee—a rare Hybrid Committee—and be prepared to incorporate sensible suggestions to improve the Bill. As I said, the covenant attracts wide cross-party support and, therefore, there should be no impediment to the Government listening to others who have constructive suggestions. Everyone, especially our Armed Forces, would thereby benefit.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, something I did on many occasions when we both spoke in defence debates in the House of Commons. I begin, as others have, by paying tribute to the professionalism and commitment of all three of our Armed Forces. This proceeding has great constitutional significance of course, as has already been pointed out, and is sometimes regarded as the first illustration of human rights being made available to the citizens of this country.
The short debate provides the opportunity to reflect, to some extent, on the state of the Army. I shall not anticipate the issues that are likely to be raised when we come to Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, which passed that stage in the House of Commons last Monday. The point I raise arises from the used of the phrase “standing army”. Standing implies substance, both quantity and quality. That is why I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, in relation to the issue of numbers. It is an extraordinary, and some might say curious, consequence that the figure of 10,000, which the Army is said to be short of, is equivalent to a rumour that the Army will cut 10,000 members. I hope that this is mere coincidence and not an acceptance that recruitment is unlikely to improve.
The Minister may remember that some weeks ago I asked her a number of questions, mainly about the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I was, as I suspect she was, taken aback by the rather alarming shortages that these questions revealed. That provokes me into asking: what analysis is being made of the reasons for these shortages? What assessment is being made of the impact on capability and employability as a result of these shortages? As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has just indicated, last week, in a national newspaper, some of the most famous regiments were revealed as being substantially below strength. What analysis is being done of the reasons for this and what impact has there been on capability? If these are the figures for regular soldiers, what is the position in the reserves? In recent history, in engagements abroad we have had to draw very substantially upon our reserves. So, if the regulars are so poorly below strength, what is the position with the reserves?
We are waiting for the comprehensive review. It sometimes feels like “Waiting for Godot”. Godot never came, but hopefully the comprehensive review will finally be upon us. We are led to believe that it is an opportunity to address new strategic objectives. There will be no point in having new objectives if we do not have the resources to implement them. I listened recently to a most challenging speech by the Chief of the Defence Staff—in truth an excellent speech—setting out a new strategic concept. I hope that he will excuse me if, for the small purpose I have today, I sum it up in the rather ugly way of “fewer tanks and more drones”. That does not do justice to the intellectual and far-seeing nature of the speech, but the cornerstone of defence is deterrence. Faced with a variety of threats, we must maintain a full spectrum of deterrents, and therefore, of capability. If an adversary mobilises tanks, we can hardly rely on the nuclear deterrent as an effective one.
I have one final point. We lead the battle group in Estonia, which is part of the enhanced forward presence of NATO and a deployment of very considerable military and political purpose. If we are to reduce the Army by 10,000, might it be that when asked by NATO to take charge of a deployment of that kind, we will be unable to do so by reason of a shortage? That would be a grave embarrassment.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Army Reserve and would like to focus my comments today by giving a taster of the soon-to-be published Reserve Forces 2030 review, of which I had the honour to be chairman. It is an enormous pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and I can perhaps answer one of his questions and reassure him that in recent years the reserves have been growing in numbers.
While it may seem archaic that we debate this SI today, the requirement for your Lordships’ House to give approval for the continuance of our Armed Forces Act underpins the relationship between Parliament, society and service men and women, a relationship that many other nations view with envy. At its heart, in part at least, is the citizen soldier, the reservist. Indeed it is worth noting that the two oldest units in the British Army, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers and Honourable Artillery Company, are reserve units tracing their history back to 1530s, predating even the Bill of Rights of 1688.
Like that of many fellow reservists, my service has been part of a fairly consistent juggling act between the competing demands of a hectic professional career, private life and soldiering. In reflecting on my own time as a reserve, so much has changed over the 32 years, going from an almost entirely contingent force that trained at weekends and annual camps, recruited locally and was encapsulated by names such as the Territorial Army and Royal Auxiliary Air Force to the Reserve Forces we have today, across all three services, delivering daily support and skills as part of a semi-integrated force, the true value of which we have seen in recent months during the current Covid crisis. To take just one example, the Nightingale hospitals were designed and delivered in part by the Engineer and Logistic Staff Corps, industry experts donating their skills unpaid to the nation via the volunteer reserve.
Since Haldane’s creation of the Territorial Force in 1908, which subsumed the militia and the Volunteer Force, reserves have always embraced change. It is perhaps because reservists are both drawn from and a part of society that one of their key strengths over many years has been their enduring capacity to adapt to the needs of the day. The relationship between the military and society, in which the Reserve Forces play a crucial role, is complex and changing, and the challenges the country has faced during Covid have underlined how important that relationship is.
The most recent reform was the Future Reserves 2020 review, which focused on growth and investment in the single service reserves. Until that point, the Reserve Forces were viewed by some as being in decline, having been used almost solely as a source of individuals to bolster Regular Forces exhausted after years of campaigning. Building on the undoubted success of the implementation of that review over the past 10 years which has seen the size of the reserve grow, the terms of reference for the latest review were rather different. Rather than looking down and in at the use of reserves by the single services, we were tasked with looking up and out. At its heart, the review is about people and skills and how defence, industry, government and wider society can share them. This means looking at how the Reserve Forces can provide capability across government departments, deliver networks into industry and academia and reinforce national resilience and homeland security as well as renewing and strengthening the link with society in general.
The national experience of the Covid pandemic has demonstrated in no uncertain terms how the nation needs to pull together in time of crisis and how government, Parliament, state institutions, industry and the general public rely on each other. In harnessing this latent appetite to volunteer, the latest review looked at how UK Reserve Forces can provide a nucleus for this activity as well as support the creation of non-military reserves, such as an NHS reserve. It became quickly apparent that the latest review could not just be another review focused on reserves. Rather, it needed to be a review on the provision of defence capability in the round. It is apt, therefore, that our work has been able to inform the integrated review, and we have drawn on the integrated operating concept published last year. The review will be published shortly, but suffice to say many of the recommendations go far beyond those that many have been expecting.
The vision the review describes is of empowered Reserve Forces that are further integrated with their regular counterparts and the wider defence enterprise, while at the same time providing greater utility and assurance across a broader range of military capabilities with access to civilian skills. We have sought to break obstacles for people to join the reserve and to promote a spectrum of service from full-time uniformed, to part-time, spare time and non-uniformed service that will enable individuals to contribute their skills. We have also looked carefully at ways to ensure those who have left the Armed Forces can continue to contribute. At the very core of the review though is the reservist and a recognition of the need to ensure that, just like it was to their predecessors, the offer of service in the Reserve Forces remains not only attractive to the individual reservist but is valued by their families, employers and wider society too.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who holds the rank of brigadier, and to give my support to this draft order. The House will shortly be debating the quinquennial renewal Bill, which will be an opportunity to consider in detail its proposals. As time is limited, I have just one general trailer point for now. The Armed Forces Act 2006 incorporated the three single service discipline Acts into one overarching Act. There is a good case, with which I believe the Minster is in sympathy, to ensure that all enactments that deal directly with the Armed Forces should be brigaded under a single Armed Forces Act. I have raised this suggestion a number of times, first in 1998 when debating the interaction between the Armed Forces Acts and the Human Rights Bill and mostly in debating the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Other Acts, such as those concerned with complaints and flexible working also spring to mind. I hope the Government will give serious thought to this suggestion and set about doing it for present and future, if not for past, legislation.
Apart from that, I have just one peripheral query. I was intrigued to realise that the Armed Forces Act is due to expire not five years from its last enactment, which was in May 2016, but that it can be extended by order until the end of the calendar year. In 2011, I had an amendment to the quinquennial Bill affecting the inclusion of an Armed Forces covenant report, which was accepted, and another amendment which I moved on Report and which was carried against the Government’s wishes. It was October and the renewed Armed Forces Act had to be law by November, so there was no time for ping-pong or consulting. The revised arrangement with a government concession was agreed following a meeting I had with the then Defence Secretary which allowed me to withdraw my amendment and the Bill returned to the Commons without further delay. No attempt was made by the Government to extend the Act beyond 8 November, although with the sixth order it could have gained a period of grace of almost two months. It would be interesting to know how frequently in the past this “extension” by means of a sixth order, in this case from May to December 2021, has been used. In the 30 years I have spoken in debates on these Acts, I do not recall that it has been invoked previously.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I acknowledge the almost ritualistic nature of this debate, which is required under the terms of the Armed Forces Act 2006. None the less, it offers this House a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to the brave service men and women who serve our country with honour, valour and skill. At a time when we are being urged to remain at home and stay safe because of Covid-19, members of our Armed Forces remain out front and in harm’s way across many different settings.
Last summer, in an interesting blog on his website, the Minister for Defence listed five examples of ongoing overseas operations involving UK military personnel. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, alluded to, they included the Royal Navy ships stationed in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean; UK forces from all services based in Kabul, Afghanistan; a UK deployment forming part of the NATO presence in Estonia and Poland; Royal Airforce jets in Lithuania as part of NATO’s air policing mission; and UK troops engaged in UN peacekeeping missions and training operations.
More recently, when winding up the Grand Committee debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who I am delighted to see is in her place today, informed your Lordships that more than 6,000 UK personnel were deployed on 39 operations in 46 countries. These are truly remarkable commitments for a country that some critics say has lost its place at the top table of global affairs. At home, we have all witnessed our service men and women playing an absolutely vital role in guiding us through the pandemic.
Last month, Robin Swann, the Northern Ireland Health Minister, announced that more than 100 medically trained military personnel were being deployed to the Province to assist local nursing staff on the wards. In normal circumstances, given the history of the Province, that might have been seen as a controversial move. However, in a statement which was somewhat unusual, to say the least, Sinn Fein publicly supported the decision. It added that
“any effort to make the threat posed by Covid-19 into a green and orange issue is divisive and a distraction.”
Since the initial lockdown last March, specialist planners, medics and logistics experts from across the Armed Forces have worked at the heart of the national COVID Support Force. Noble Lords will recall the remarkable job that UK troops did in building Nightingale hospitals around the nation. Within a matter of weeks, and sometimes days, sport stadiums, convention centres and entertainment complexes were converted into fully equipped, top-of-the-range community hospitals.
Later, when the UK Government finally got their act together to launch the national Covid testing programme, thousands of our military personnel were deployed at short notice to operate hundreds of mobile testing centres, which carried out hundreds of thousands of tests. Most recently, as the long-awaited vaccination programme began to roll out, it was again our highly skilled men and women of the UK Armed Forces whom the Government turned to. Not only have our service personnel been at the fore in distributing the vaccines to all four corners of the United Kingdom but many, as well as military veterans, have also been engaged in giving jabs to the public. I was also pleased to hear the Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, say in another place week that UK Armed Forces had delivered thousands of doses of the vaccine to the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the Ascension Islands. He also provided an assurance that the Ministry of Defence stood ready to support vaccine delivery to all British Overseas Territories.
Given the vast array of activities and achievements that I have outlined, it is obvious that all members of our Armed Forces should expect the strongest possible support from Her Majesty’s Government, not just in terms of resources but in other areas. To that end, I look forward to delving deeper into some of these issues when the Armed Forces Bill is debated in your Lordships’ House later this year. In the meantime, I fully support the order before us today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, is not available at the moment, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Empey.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, in her opening remarks, my noble friend the Minister listed the areas where our service personnel are currently deployed. These range from a very difficult deployment in Mali to deployment on European soil, in Estonia and Lithuania. Of course, there is still Afghanistan and the situation in the Middle East as well, and threats are emerging in the South China Sea. It is perfectly clear that the variety of fields of operation continue to be significant.
The Minister referred to discipline, and of course that is part of the processes that we are debating today. But it is the legal position that I want to reflect on for a moment. I think that many people in this country and in this Parliament are still reeling from the implications of the cases and abuses undertaken and led by sleazy lawyers, who tried to exploit the position when soldiers were deployed in very difficult environments, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. I just want to check with the Minister what training our service personnel receive on the legal aspects of their deployments in different locations around the world. Does she believe it is adequate? Does it take into account potential difficulties that soldiers, sailors and air personnel could be putting themselves into through their activities in these areas?
We also discussed the covenant. This was a considerable innovation and a very welcome one. Apart from the assistance provided for the Covid situation, most of the services in our country at the moment tend to be deployed on other things, including, from time to time, bomb squads deployed not only in Northern Ireland but around the country. However, that was not always the case. The situation regarding the covenant concerns me somewhat because, although it has been operating reasonably effectively here in Northern Ireland in recent years, there are still several weaknesses in its establishment.
A moment ago, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to the annual report that the Secretary of State produces, usually in December each year, on how the covenant is operating. Members need to be aware that at no stage since its commencement have the Northern Ireland Executive produced a report of those activities. That has been done by the other devolved regions—Scotland and Wales—and those have subsequently been incorporated into the report. However, no such report has been made in Northern Ireland, so Parliament is not seeing how the covenant is being operated there. I have no doubt that we will come back to that when the Bill comes before us, but I wanted to draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is a missing link. If the Secretary of State cannot get a report from the Executive in Northern Ireland, he may have to find other means, and he should be provided with the powers to do so. The covenant is UK wide and defence is a non-devolved issue, so I do not believe that the Secretary of State should be left in ignorance of what is happening on the ground.
We all wish our Armed Forces well. They face many challenging times. We will see the first deployment of the “Queen Elizabeth” carrier force in the next few months and that will be a huge step forward, but I believe that we have underfunded our defence for many years and I hope that this overstretch is not allowed to continue further.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the events in Myanmar over the last few weeks have demonstrated the dangers of a politicised military. This statutory instrument, which appears every year, gives us the opportunity to stop and reflect on the position of the military in our own country. It is the mark of a major constitutional principle that the military is under the control of Parliament.
The Armed Forces Act, which the instrument renews, as the Minister reminded us, concerns itself centrally with discipline. The Army, the Navy and the Air Force are not structured like limited liability companies; the personnel are not employees with the right to trade union representation; and they are not democracies where the personnel vote for their officers. Yet the Act provides that soldiers can be punished if they refuse to obey a lawful order or if they absent themselves from their unit. As the Minister has commented, obeying orders without question in a chain of command is fundamental to the military. That is how it can function as a powerful unit within the state.
The norm is that the Armed Forces are subordinate to Her Majesty’s Government. Only once in my lifetime has there been any threat or challenge to political control. In the period after the 1974 election when Harold Wilson returned to the premiership, there was much talk that he and his Government were Soviet agents. Speculation was abroad of a military coup to replace his Government with military rule led by the late Lord Mountbatten. This was of course the height of the Cold War. You can imagine that, if Mr Corbyn had won the 2017 election, there might have been widespread talk on social media to similar effect, Cold War or no.
At that time, in 1974-75, I was privileged to be allowed to lunch every day in an officers’ mess based in the same complex of buildings as the assize court where I habitually practised. Whether Harold Wilson was a Soviet agent was a subject of lunchtime discussion in the mess—although mainly, I have to say, by the retired and elderly officers who customarily frequented it. In case it is suggested that I am exaggerating about what I heard, it was serious enough for Mrs Thatcher, when she subsequently became Prime Minister in 1979, to set up a committee to investigate it. It concluded that there was no real foundation for the rumours that had widely circulated—now I am not so sure.
Myanmar reminds us of the importance of this measure today. I pay tribute to the armed services. I am sure that when they go abroad on operations they are fully trained in the rules of engagement. That only 10 court martial trials have emerged from both Iraq and Afghanistan out of some 3,000 investigations shows how much they are up to the standards that we expect of them.
The civil war between parliamentarians and royalist forces in the 17th century shook the foundations of this country. After the Restoration, when James II started to replace Protestant officers in the British army with Catholics, it led to the invasion of Protestant continental forces under William of Orange. His variegated army was strengthened when Churchill defected to his side—that was, of course, John Churchill, the commander of the English forces, later Duke of Marlborough. His defection drove the monarch into exile. The Bill of Rights 1688, repeated in 1689, was that deal: no standing army in Britain without the consent of Parliament. That is the consent that we are giving today. William of course took his army over to Ireland to confront the Catholics at the Boyne, with consequences that face us today.
Since the Falklands, Parliament has asserted the right to vote on the commitment of British forces to active operations. We shall shortly be debating the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Overseas Operations Bill on whether Parliament’s consent should be a necessary precondition for a British Government to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in overseas operations. This Government’s proposal is that they should have the sole power to derogate under the Royal Prerogative. I hope that when we come to debate that proposition, we shall give it a Churchillian gesture.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and his tour through history, which was certainly very instructive, especially for some of us who have studied history over a number of years.
I support the order before us. The other place has debated the Armed Forces Bill and for the first time the Armed Forces covenant was put into law in Clause 8, which is very welcome. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the covenant. The idea of a covenant and charter, as has been said, has been around for over a decade. The point about the covenant is that it is a broad promise by the nation to ensure that those who have served in the Armed Forces and their families are treated fairly. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has just said, members of the Armed Forces do not of course have employment contracts, so they rely on the Government to treat them properly.
I do not want wish to repeat things that noble Lords have already said during this debate. However, I wish to raise a point about the overall state of the Armed Forces, which was raised by a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Reid of Cardowan, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Empey. We cannot fulfil the covenant—which is so crucial for our Armed Forces personnel, their families and veterans—and our national security requirements if the Armed Forces are understrength, demoralised and having difficulty retaining personnel. As has been mentioned, our Armed Forces remain 10,000 below the total strength that Ministers said was needed in the 2015 strategic defence review. As has also been mentioned, the Ministry of Defence recently reported that the battle-ready strength of our battalions at the moment is seriously under par.
Another issue that has been raised is that of Armed Forces pay, which has declined significantly since 2010. Although of course I welcome the £24 billion of extra defence spending over the next four years, I am concerned that, if it is spent almost exclusively on kit, that will be at the expense of our defence people. In his Statement last November the Prime Minister said:
“Reviving our armed forces is one pillar of the Government’s ambition to safeguard Britain’s interests and values by strengthening our global influence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 487.]
Those are very fine words.
The delayed integrated security, defence, development and foreign policy review told us that the Government wish to define ambitions for the UK’s role in the world and the long-term strategic aims for our national security and foreign policy. Her Majesty’s Government made the spending announcement before figuring out what the strategy should be. There are rumours, as has been mentioned in today’s debate, that the Army will be cut further to pre-Napoleonic levels. Surely there is a strategic disconnect here.
Finally, in the other place the Secretary of State for Defence said on 8 February that
“in the end, if we do not invest in our people, we will not have anything for the future of our armed forces.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/21; col. 126.]
If Her Majesty’s Government really believe in global Britain, they need to invest in their service personnel first and foremost.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the last things said by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and I welcome his comments.
I should declare two interests before I go any further. The first is that I have a son in the Army. He is currently enduring sleeping out in the snow in the Sennybridge training area, poor chap—but I like to bask in his reflected glory when people pay tribute to the Armed Forces. The second, more pertinent interest is that I have been in the receipt of an Army pension for over three decades.
I of course support this continuation order. Indeed, I think I took it through the Commons in 2011, although I have not checked Hansard. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lancaster’s comments: he is absolutely right that this is about the relationship between Parliament, the people and the Armed Forces. That may be historic, but this is an extraordinarily important measure, because without it we would be in a very different position.
I will take this opportunity to look at wider defence and Armed Forces issues. I welcome the Government’s pledge of an extra—I think—£16.5 billion over the next four years but, regrettably, and I hate to say this, it is not enough. Yes, we need to have good equipment and ships. Defence procurement, by the way, is always a mess; we thought we had got it sorted about eight years ago when I was working at the Ministry of Defence, but I am afraid that cost overruns continue to be absurd and it always needs to be sat on very closely.
I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said because I fear that the reduction people have been speaking about—the plans to cut the army to a ceiling of 72,000—are true. Now, this is nuts. It is completely bonkers. I would like to quote Kim Darroch, who was our ambassador in the United States and is now the noble Lord, Lord Darroch. He was addressing a defence committee recently, and I thank the right honourable John Spellar for pointing this out to me. The noble Lord, Lord Darroch, said:
“I would be really worried about reducing further the size of the British Army. I say that in part on the basis of my experience in Washington. I would go into the Department of Defense and occasionally to see General Mattis myself or to take people in to see him and his predecessor under the Obama Administration. One of the things that both would say consistently is, ‘You are already too small—in terms of your Army. I mean, 80,000 just isn’t good enough. You need to be above 100,000. It is a big mistake to reduce to the level you are at. For goodness’ sake, do not go down any further and expect to retain your current level of credibility in Washington.’”
Those are powerful words from a noble Lord who sits as a Cross-Bencher, not as a Conservative.
The current coronavirus crisis shows the need for manpower—perhaps we call it people power in these politically correct days—in helping to organise the Nightingale hospitals, as my noble friend mentioned, and for the vaccinations that are still being done through military personnel. I think we used to call it military aid to civil authority. You need a disciplined force for that, and as an insurance policy to cope with the unexpected. By the way, we are about to face rocketing unemployment levels, so recruitment should become easier. We do not want to add to that unemployment.
I turn briefly to the threats. Have we forgotten that President Putin has invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea? Have we forgotten MH-17, the airliner shot down over Ukraine by Russian rockets in 2014, or the poisonings in Salisbury with Novichok, which was then used against Mr Navalny in Russian territory? Do we not understand that President Putin thinks in Cold War terms, as a former KGB officer? He wants to make Russia great again, to coin a term. China is also flexing its muscles with cyberattacks while building bases on reefs in the South China Sea, threatening Australia and now us over Hong Kong. There is also the recent ban on the television network CGTN. It talks about civil-military fusion; Chinese trade, by which we all benefit, is linked to its plans for aggrandisement.
I was born after the Second World War and we have been cutting the Armed Forces ever since, often for very good and sensible reasons: the end of the war and of national service, the withdrawal from empire and the end of the Cold War. In 2010, the strategic defence review, in which I was a participant, talked a lot about asymmetric warfare but I do not recall any serious discussion about resurgent military power in either Russia or China. We fondly imagined that the world was getting safer. We may not like it, but it is actually getting more dangerous. As the world changes, so we must change too in our own interests. There is a report in the press today that France and Germany spend more on defence than we do, which rather undermines our proud boast to be the second-largest defence spender in NATO. I rather hope that my noble friend the Minister might be able to comment on that. By the way, my Army pension comes out of the defence budget, which is absurd.
We need to acknowledge these threats—I have not mentioned ISIS or terrorism—and the utility of a flexible Army. It will be more worrying if there is a further reduction in our forces. We will not be taken seriously by our allies in the United States and in NATO itself, nor by the rest of the world, including China and Russia, if we send the wrong message. Of course, we need cyber and space programmes; we need new technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones as we usually call them. But we also need people—boots on the ground and trained personnel able to defend our country and our interests.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Ministry of Defence. The SI
“provides for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006 … which would expire at the end of 11 May 2021”.
This instrument will continue in force until the end of 2021. As the Explanatory Memorandum says, its territorial application is worldwide. It
“applies to members of the armed forces wherever they are in the world and applies to civilians subject to Service discipline in certain areas outside the United Kingdom or on Service ships or aircraft. Civilians subject to Service discipline are … defined in Schedule 15”.
These groups are
“principally of persons who work or reside with the armed forces in certain areas outside the United Kingdom or are travelling on Service ships or aircraft.”
As it then says,
“the 2006 Act would cease to have effect one year from 12 May 2016 … but for the fact that Her Majesty has power to make Orders in Council, each extending the life of the 2006 Act for one year … The central effect of expiry of the 2006 Act would be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. They have no contracts of employment, and so no duties as employees. Without the 2006 Act, the powers and procedures under which the duty to obey lawful commands is enforced would no longer have effect. Commanding officers and the Court Martial would have no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to Her Majesty, but the power of enforcement would be removed.”
The Act provides all the necessary powers for the commanders of the Armed Forces, which are among the UK’s most valuable assets. They defend our country during wartime and, in some cases, give their lives for the country. In return, the UK has a duty to ensure that when the soldiers retire or are killed, there are proper pensions for them and their families. Are the pensions and support structures in place to ensure that these individuals and their families are protected effectively?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clear way in which she explained the purpose of today’s order to the House and for setting out so elegantly the extent of the work and service undertaken by today’s Armed Forces. I add to what other noble Lords have said by paying tribute again to our Armed Forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We owe such a debt of gratitude to the service men and women of our Armed Forces for their courage, professionalism and outstanding devotion to duty, which is unparalleled in the world. It must never be forgotten that the sacrifices of our Armed Forces, at home and abroad, enable us to carry on our daily lives, protected as far as possible from hostile action and secure in our democracy and our liberties.
No one epitomised more the best qualities of our veterans than the late Captain Sir Tom Moore, who will never be forgotten. I also pay tribute to all those organisations and charities which have done so much for veterans, through delivering services and helping to champion their cause. Each and every one of them, and the many volunteers involved, deserves our highest praise.
This order is one of the more significant parliamentary processes that we undertake each year, as it enables the Armed Forces to continue to exist—and to exist as disciplined bodies, subject to annual parliamentary renewal. The debate gives us the opportunity to discuss a number of issues with the Minister. I will raise first the Armed Forces covenant, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords. The covenant is so important, given that it represents the promise between our country and those who put on the uniform to serve it and protect us. It is our solemn responsibility to look after them while they are in service and afterwards.
I welcome the provisions in the Armed Forces Bill—it was debated in the other place on Monday—to strengthen the statutory underpinning of the Armed Forces covenant and to reinforce it in law. I am pleased that this legislation will apply to the whole United Kingdom. We must be vigilant in ensuring that veterans in all parts of the United Kingdom benefit equally and in full from the protections in that covenant. We have been campaigning for that for some considerable time. It was recognised in the New Decade, New Approach agreement and I am pleased at the progress that the legislation represents.
Sadly, as has been referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, there have been attempts to block and somewhat impede the implementation of the covenant in Northern Ireland—with some even trying to deny that it applied there. This is in a country where, despite making up less than 3% of the population of the United Kingdom, our people contribute in much larger numbers proportionally than elsewhere to both the Regular Forces and the Reserve Forces. As will be recognised, veterans in Northern Ireland have particular difficulties and challenges, given that many of them live where they also carried out operational duties.
The Government could be more ambitious in looking at the Armed Forces covenant and as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. I ask them to go further than covering health, education and housing. I join the noble Lord, Lord Reid, in asking the Government to include other areas such as employment, pensions, criminal justice and social care, to name but a few.
The other issue I would like to raise is protection for members of the Armed Forces who served in Northern Ireland in Operation Banner but are not covered by the provisions of the legislation recently introduced in Parliament to protect against vexatious and other claims where there has already been an investigation. The repeated investigations of ex-service men and women, some of them many years after the events, are a really serious problem. It is excellent that legal protection is given to veterans who served overseas, but it is essential that those who served in Northern Ireland receive the same protection. I welcome commitments from the Government stating that
“Legislation will be coming in due course”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/21; col. 50.]
but given that such legislation is to originate from the Northern Ireland Office, can the Government give a firm commitment that it will not be held up by that department as a result of political manoeuvring? We really need action on this issue, which also affects members of all the security forces who served in Northern Ireland.
The passing of this order is fundamental to the protection of our country. I unreservedly support it and I am grateful for the opportunity that its annual discussion affords to raise issues of concern to our service men and women, and our veterans.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this order is what remains of what used to be an annual Army Act to legalise our Armed Forces—an important relic to reinforce our repugnance of military rule by Cromwell. Indeed, my first speech on the Front Bench was on the Army Act and the estimates. Looking across the world, particularly at Myanmar, one can see that nothing has changed and the patterns are still the same. Today we are fortunate in that our Armed Forces not only protect us but have provided such an important role in their assistance to the civil power—namely, the National Health Service—in the pandemic.
I welcome the enshrinement of the military covenant in legislation, as my noble friend Lord Reid has done. It is also appropriate that Mr Kevan Jones MP reminded the other place that the starting point was
“in 2008 with the Command Paper under the last Labour Government”,
which advocated not only
“putting the covenant into law but giving it teeth”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/21; col. 56.]
I welcome the reduced version in the new proposal mandating the covenant, despite a lack of enforcement proposals, again referred to by my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan.
Today in my few minutes I wish to concentrate on Clauses 2 to 7 and Schedule 1, which deal with court martials. As a young, inexperienced and newly called barrister and subaltern I appeared in quite a few court martials in Germany in the course of my national service. Even in your Lordships’ House there cannot be many ex-national service men still around. Other than that, however, I took no professional or other interest in court martials. That was until the case of Sergeant Blackman, which aroused considerable publicity in 2017, following which I secured a short debate in your Lordships’ House. I suggested the need for a review of the system, and the MoD acted with unaccustomed speed—I suspect encouraged by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who was then Defence Minister—to set up an inquiry under the former circuit judge Shaun Lyons. We are grateful to him for his report. Former Judge Advocate-General Blackett had expressed concern about the working of the court-martial system. As I understand the Bill, it is a great loss of opportunity to fully take on board the anxieties expressed at the time.
Clause 3 provides for the Lord Chief Justice to nominate a circuit judge to preside over court martials. I had thought it was the President of the Queen’s Bench Division who allocated judges, but I may be wrong. From time to time—at present, indeed—a High Court judge has been nominated to preside on serious cases. I welcome this provision as I have appeared from time to time before licensed circuit judges in murder cases. The important point is that such cases in the court-martial system are rare. There are about six or seven a year, and it is experience in handling such heavy cases that matters, hence the need for a judge.
Schedule 1 makes minor amendments to the personnel and numbers in a court martial. In the numbers set out there remains the possibility that, in a serious case such as murder, a verdict by a majority of one—3:2—could achieve a conviction. The numbers are not announced following a court martial. Since our Armed Forces are now very much reduced in numbers and cases can involve civilian dependants, the chasm between the system prevailing in our civil criminal system and the court martial remains. When I discussed the anomalies and differences with one of the highest judges in the land, it was suggested that in such cases we should consider moving to a system that provides for ordinary citizens: that is, justice by trial by jury. I regret that I did not pursue this more radical measure more fully.
New Zealand, I am told, and as I told the House then, has moved to a system where the verdict has to be unanimous. I am conscious of the decision of the Court Martial Appeal Court under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in the case of R v Twaite that the system is ECHR-compliant but, with respect to the court, a majority verdict as proposed needs very careful reconsideration. The proposals in Schedule 1 tinker with a system. A system that allows the finding of guilty of murder by a majority of 3:2 is not fit for the 21st century, particularly when the figures are not announced as they are in civil trials by jury in our country.
I welcome the statutory protocols in Clause 7 regarding the direction of service personnel and giving the DPP the final decision, but I hope that the supervision of the Attorney-General remains as it does for other court martials.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is very frequent that Ministers talk about wide-ranging debate when they are summing up. In winding up for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I indeed comment that this has been an extremely wide-ranging debate on one of the shortest statutory instruments that I have ever seen, but clearly one that is very important.
However, it appears that legislation linked to defence and the Armed Forces is a bit like buses, in that we have three pieces of legislation almost simultaneously: the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021, the Armed Forces Bill 2021—currently in the other place—and the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Inevitably, there is some overlap between those three pieces of legislation. While, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I will focus primarily on the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021 today, it is necessary to think about the other Bills—precisely because, while I, like other noble Lords and clearly the Liberal Democrat Benches as a whole, fully support this continuation order, it is vital that we have our Armed Forces. Given that they may not be maintained within the kingdom without the consent of Parliament, in line with the 1688 Bill of Rights, it is vital that this order goes through.
It is also vital that the Armed Forces are not just maintained legally, with the support of Parliament—although that is vital—but supported with money and the support that is needed for service personnel to enable them to fulfil their functions. The continuation order might be primarily about service discipline, but, as many noble Lords have pointed out this afternoon, there are issues around recruitment, retention and the size of our Armed Forces. In particular, while this order simply agrees that we should have Armed Forces, I have several questions that I would like the Minister to answer this afternoon, if possible; they are particularly associated with the size of our Armed Forces.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem pointed out, there is an essential question of a standing army, there are questions and concerns about shortages and various noble Lords have asked questions about the size of the budget. They have pointed out in particular that the size of the defence budget, in and of itself, is not the only issue that matters; what matters is ensuring that we are supporting our Armed Forces, not simply putting money into capabilities such as tanks. I note that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, is not speaking today, but, if he were, he would probably be talking about ships.
However, we also need to consider the size of the Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, raised the issue brought up by the United States about the size of our Armed Forces, suggesting that 80,000 was too small. Could the Minister confirm whether it is indeed correct that the size of our Armed Forces is due to slip to 72,000, and what assessment the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State has made of their size and whether this is appropriate for the United Kingdom, particularly at a time when the United Kingdom Government are talking about global Britain?
We have heard about the many very important roles of the Armed Forces, to which I pay tribute. Some of them have been domestic: one of them was at the 2012 Olympics, but they also supported the NHS in relation to vaccinations and other authorities in relation to flooding. Internationally, they have dealt with humanitarian questions, and they also deal with all those other defence issues that one expects the Armed Forces to be dealing with: humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping and military involvement, supporting NATO and the United Nations. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the size of the Armed Forces and our global commitments? Are they fit for purpose, or should we be looking for an expansion of our regular forces? As has been suggested, at a time of pandemic and rising unemployment, there may well be a pool from which to recruit people.
However, there is also a question of retention. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the facilities available to the Armed Forces? In particular, is service accommodation now fit for purpose? The National Audit Office suggests that it perhaps is not and that SLAM accommodation needs to be looked at; what assessment have the Government made of this?
Finally, there is a whole range of issues that the Liberal Democrat Benches and Members across your Lordships’ House will clearly wish to raise in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill and, in particular, the Armed Forces Bill—so these are just a few questions to flag up concerns that will come forward over the coming weeks and months.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
As my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan and noble Lords have said, we are discussing this order a few days after a national newspaper leaked what it said was a Ministry of Defence report revealing that 32 out of 33 infantry battalions are seriously “short of battle-ready troops”. The chair of the Commons Defence Committee was reported as saying:
“Britain's role on the world stage is at stake and our relationship with the US.”
We need a proper defence strategy without further delay.
I also want to thank all the men and women of our Armed Forces, including, but not only, those deployed to standing commitments in Cyprus or the Falklands, those serving as part of our NATO defences in Estonia or the UN peacekeeping in Mali and those helping this country through the Covid crisis.
British forces are respected worldwide for their professionalism and for their values which we most admire: integrity, loyalty, discipline and service. Therefore, we welcome the order to extend the present Armed Forces Act 2006 from the end of May until the end of December, not only because expiry of that Act would end the provisions that are necessary to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies but also so that Parliament has the time to give the proper scrutiny to the new Armed Forces Bill, which has just had its Second Reading in the other place—and to have the time for cross-party work to improve the legislation. We support the Armed Forces Bill and stand firmly behind our Armed Forces. We recognise their ongoing efforts to make our country and the world safer.
The Bill presents a real opportunity to make meaningful improvements to the day-to-day lives of our Armed Forces personnel, veterans and families. However, the Government’s focus appears too narrow, and, as currently drafted, the Bill is a missed opportunity that fails to develop a future framework for our Armed Forces, veterans and their families—or to deliver on the laudable promises made in the Armed Forces covenant. We believe that the covenant represents a binding moral commitment between the Government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. From substandard housing to veterans’ mental health and social care, the promises made in the covenant often do not match the reality experienced by our service communities. However, the Bill does little to tackle these issues head-on.
The Bill also looks at the service justice system, and we welcome the new service police complaints commissioner—but we want to improve the confidence in, and results in, cases of murder, manslaughter and rape and to solve the problem of reinvestigations.
With the extension of the Armed Forces Act 2006 under this order, I hope that the Government will use the time provided to work constructively and cross-party to get the best for our Armed Forces.
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon; it has been both passionate and constructive, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. What has shone through without exception is a shared desire to do the right thing by those who do right by us—and a shared determination to recognise our bravest citizens. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, that it is because they are our people that we will do the right thing by them. I also seek to reassure my noble friend Lord Robathan that, according to NATO criteria, we are the highest defence spender in Europe; these criteria are established and robust.
It is worth reminding noble Lords that the purpose of this debate is to provide for the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as it currently is, not as it would be if amended by the Armed Forces Bill, which, as has been noted, had its Second Reading in the other place on Monday night. This House will have a full opportunity to debate the provisions of that Bill when it comes to this House in due course. Having said that, the Bill has been introduced and I understand why noble Lords have found comment irresistible. I will therefore say a little this afternoon in response to some of the points raised, knowing that we will return in much greater detail to these topics later in the year.
I was pleased to hear the support for the Bill, though the acceptance from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was just a little grudging, if I might say so. I hope that, as we proceed to a fuller debate later this year, we will be able to reassure him of the many positives in the Bill. It takes forward matters of considerable importance relating to the implementation of the service justice system review and the Armed Forces covenant. I note the areas in which noble Lords feel the Government could be taking a different approach in the Bill. I have listened to the comments on topics such as the covenant being too narrow in its scope and its legal duty not being strong enough and concerns raised over aspects of the service justice system. I will try to deal with these accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and other noble Lords argued that the scope of duty for the covenant is too narrow—that it should be broadened beyond housing, healthcare and education. We have chosen these remits carefully and, importantly, in consultation with the Armed Forces community, because we know that they will make the greatest improvements to family life. Significantly, the Bill contains provisions for us to expand this scope into other areas through secondary legislation at a later date. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and your Lordships, that the scope of this provision will be reviewed regularly. This is not the end of our legislative effort; it is the beginning.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and a number of other contributors, argued that the legal duty is not strong enough. They were concerned that creating a legal duty to “pay due regard” to the principles does not, in their estimation, give enough clout. There has been talk from the Opposition Benches in the other place of needing to set “measurable national standards”. Throughout this, our challenge has been to try to strike a balance. On the one hand, we wanted to ensure delivery against the covenant principles but, on the other, we wanted to avoid the sort of prescriptive approach that puts bureaucratic barriers in the way of practical delivery. I assure your Lordships that public bodies were consulted extensively. Our decision also reflects the diverse nature of public services across the United Kingdom, not least in the devolved nations, as a number of noble Lords referred to. The devolved nations have responsibility for these areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the issue of awareness of implementing the covenant obligations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. These changes will make the impact of the covenant more local. That will possibly raise a desire to make more obvious just how that is benefiting Armed Forces personnel and veterans. I remind noble Lords that the Bill honours the promise to give the covenant the legal standing needed to deliver for everybody in the Armed Forces community, right across the whole United Kingdom.
I move on to the service justice system, about which a number of comments were made, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The Government have considered the reviews of His Honour Shaun Lyons and Professor Sir Jon Murphy. It is their recommendations that underpin the improvements to the service justice system that we are taking forward in the Bill. I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, welcomes the broad thrust of the improvements, but I noticed his particular concerns and look forward to him pursuing these matters when we debate the Armed Forces Bill later in the year.
Noble Lords raised a range of issues in their contributions. I will try to deal with these as best I can. The noble Lords, Lord Reid, Lord Campbell, Lord Truscott and Lord Rosser, my noble friend Lord Robathan, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other noble Lords all raised the size of the military. The integrated review, which is not yet published but is expected soon, will detail the forward shape of our whole defence capability as we look to a new age of threats. Any speculation about Army force structure at the moment is purely that—speculation. I reassure noble Lords that we are confident that we have the numbers and the capabilities to do the job. We have discharged our core obligations to protect and secure the nation against threat, despite the challenges of Covid. That has been entirely down to the professionalism, competence and commitment of our Armed Forces personnel.
I want to include the reservists in that. My noble friend Lord Lancaster helpfully outlined the extremely positive position in relation to the reservists. We hope the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill will be a further encouragement to them.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, raised a matter which is dear to his heart: a consolidation of Armed Forces legislation; a desire to see it all under one legislative umbrella. He was, perhaps, imputing to me a view which I have not yet formed. I want to look at this issue in considerable depth. The noble and gallant Lord has approached me on the matter, and I will respond to him on it, but I make clear to your Lordships that I have not formed any view on it at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the important matter of training of our Armed Forces personnel. There were echoes of the overseas operations Bill when the noble Lord made that point. I can confirm that serious regard is given to training and we deliver all necessary training. It is important that all our service personnel, at all levels, fully understand the obligations placed on them by both UK law and applicable international law. I can confirm that the training is also reinforced ahead of deployment on operations. For example, civil servants deploying in key roles to operational theatres and in key operational policy roles in the MoD also receive training in the law of armed conflict. In addition, each commander deployed in a military operation will have a dedicated military lawyer available at all times to give them specific legal advice. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that we endeavour to service this important issue in the best possible way.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, raised the issue of pensions to dependants. I undertake to write to him separately on that matter.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, that is the accepted lexicon of any wide-ranging and interesting debate, but that is just what this rather unusual continuation order debate has been. It is unusual because the debate is on continuing the current Armed Forces Act 2006 but, in doing so, we have an opportunity to see the Government’s proposals for the future of the 2006 Act. Today’s debate has made it clear to me that there will be an extremely interesting and lively debate on the Armed Forces Bill later in the year.
In the meantime, there is the much simpler task of continuing the current Armed Forces Bill. Everyone in this House agrees that we owe our men and women in the Armed Forces a tremendous debt of gratitude. We have seen them at their very best, particularly in the past year. The support of noble Lords for this draft order not only contributes to Parliament upholding the constitutional position—so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—that the Armed Forces may not be maintained without the consent of Parliament but it reflects the deep affection this House holds for our servicepeople through its support of the draft continuation order.
Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (Claimants previously entitled to a severe disability premium) Amendment Regulations 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:45 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness Sherlock’s Motion - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 248 - Motion agreed.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House regrets that the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (Claimants previously entitled to a severe disability premium) Amendment Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/4) will result in claimants in receipt of the Severe Disability Premium in legacy benefits moving on to Universal Credit without ensuring that all will be fully compensated for the loss of the Premium; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to extend to legacy benefits the same uplift given to Universal Credit in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to ensure that claimants are advised before moving from legacy benefits to Universal Credit that they could suffer financially as a consequence.
Relevant document: 42nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to move this Motion standing in my name. These regulations are the latest twist in a long-running saga that concerns the severe disability premium, or SDP, which provides support for the extra costs of care incurred by severely disabled people living alone without a carer. It is worth about £67 a week and is paid on various means-tested benefits.
The latest government figures I could find suggest that over 500,000 working-age households get SDP. But when the Government created universal credit to replace legacy benefits, they chose not to include an equivalent of the SDP. As a result, although some disabled people are better off, many of the severely disabled people getting this premium will be much worse off on universal credit. That is a wider pattern: some people are better off on universal credit than legacy benefits and some much worse off.
To deal with that, the Government pledged a system of transitional protection, so that, at the point of transfer, no one would lose out in cash terms. But they will apply this only during what they call mass migration, the point when the DWP closes down legacy benefit claims en masse and tells people they have to claim universal credit instead. If someone moves on to UC before that point, which is called natural migration, they get no transitional protection.
Unfortunately, many people have no choice. You cannot make new claims for legacy benefits, and if you are already getting them but your circumstances change—say you lose your job, have a baby or move house—you are forced on to universal credit. Two people getting the SDP found themselves in this position when they moved home. They were forced on to UC and were much worse off. They went to court and in 2018 the High Court ruled that this was unlawful discrimination. So the DWP created something called the SDP gateway to stop those getting the premium naturally migrating to universal credit and losing out. Those who had already crossed over were given compensation for the lost premium, although that was originally set arbitrarily low, so that was challenged in court again, and it is now based on the lost SDP.
These regulations remove that gateway and give some compensation to those who will then be moving over to universal credit. But it is not full compensation; it does not compensate for the loss of the enhanced disability premium, only the severe disability premium. Nothing is paid where the SDP is attached only to housing benefit. And it is a fixed sum, which is reduced when any part of your universal credit rises, even if that is only because your rent has gone up. So claimants will see the support they receive fall in real terms, year on year.
If someone moved on to universal credit during a managed migration, they would have transitional protection based on all their legacy benefits, not just the SDP. That managed migration process has been paused. Can the Minister tell us what the new target date is for completing it? Zacchaeus 2000 points out that Covid-19 has increased rates of redundancy and caused changes in working hours, increasing the number of people on legacy benefits experiencing a change in circumstances. More claims will therefore end up moving on to universal credit with no transitional protection or with just the transitional SDP element.
Some vulnerable people risk losing a lot of money. Marie Curie, in its excellent briefing, points out the impact on people with terminal illnesses or life-limiting conditions. It says that the loss of the two disability premiums could leave new claimants up to £84 a week worse off. Then there is the related issue of the £20 uplift to universal credit. That was not applied to legacy benefits, many recipients of which are disabled people or carers. This is incomprehensible, as well as unfair. Since there is meant to be a pandemic measure, many sick or disabled people have spent the last year shielding at home, with spiralling energy costs and lots of additional costs such as home deliveries, PPE and much more.
Astonishingly, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Thérèse Coffey, suggests that claimants should simply claim universal credit if they want the £20. This is terrible advice. Some people will be worse off on universal credit than they were on legacy benefits, even with that extra £20. Others, who would be better off on universal credit because of the £20 uplift, will be worse off if it is taken away. How will they know? It is really complicated. The DWP says that it cannot advise individual claimants, so why on earth is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions telling people to switch?
If someone applies for universal credit, there is no going back. Noble Lords may have seen cases of people in the news of people getting tax credits who then applied for universal credit and were rejected because they had savings; UC has a savings threshold, unlike tax credits. But then they were not allowed to go back to tax credits, so they got nothing. We surely cannot have that apply across all kinds of other categories of claimant.
What should be done? First, the Government should urgently address the flaws in their strategy for dealing with people in receipt of severe disability premium who are going to be forced on to universal credit. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee said:
“The DWP should introduce an equivalent to the Severe Disability Premium. This should be a self-care element for any disabled person who does not have someone assisting them and claiming the carer element of Universal Credit.”
Many charities agree. What is the Government’s response to this?
Secondly, the DWP should address the process of claimants moving from legacy benefits on to universal credit. We need an urgent update on managed migration. We need mass communication, and we need personalised advice for anyone thinking of moving so that they know the consequences before they make that jump.
Thirdly, the Government should extend the £20 uplift to legacy benefits. They should do the right thing and make that uplift permanent. The Economic Affairs Committee put the case simply:
“We believe that the increase shows the original rate was not adequate … The Government should commit to making the increase in the standard allowance permanent.”
That original rate is not adequate as a result of years of benefit cuts and freezes. The House of Commons Library figures show that, excluding Covid-related increases, most working-age benefits were between 9% and 17% lower last year than they would have been if the Government had simply uprated them by inflation since 2010. The OBR estimated that the 2015 Budget would cut over £9 billion from social security spending by the end of this financial year. No wonder that before that £20 uplift, unemployment support was at its lowest level in real terms since 1992.
We need action. Temporarily extending the uplift will simply temporarily extend the confusion and uncertainty. The Government should do the right thing, address the problem with SDP, extend the uplift to legacy benefits, make it permanent and announce it as soon as possible, so that people have certainty and can judge for themselves whether they will be better off on universal credit or legacy benefits. The case for taking action on this matter could not be clearer. I hope I do not have to press the Motion to a vote, because I hope the Government will realise what is at stake and do the right thing.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has withdrawn, I call the next speaker: the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. This is a most difficult issue and I have every sympathy with my noble friend the Minister and the Government in their efforts to support those who have been affected by the pandemic and urgently need help with living.
I recognise that there are calls for the £20 uplift to be extended to all legacy benefits. However, my suggestion to the Government is that, unless there is the appetite and the funding to extend the £20 to everybody, it seems unwise to commit to a further 12 months of the uplift, as has been called for, given that we are hopeful—I certainly am—that the impact of the pandemic will be behind us to a large degree in 12 months, and we will be into a recovery within the next few months. I would certainly not support any calls for a major one-off lump sum payment to offset the loss of the £20 uplift. I support the Government’s move to add £20 to the existing benefit as a temporary measure in light of the pandemic and its dreadful impacts.
However, I also believe that, in the context of this particular discussion on the severe disability premium and the loss of the EDP as well, it would be worth the Government considering whether a self-care element might be added, as recommended by the Economic Affairs Committee. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, suggested, can my noble friend the Minister update the House on what is happening with managed migration? To what extent are we seeing success in the Government’s moves to help people back into work and ensure retraining —after all, this is the fundamental rationale for universal credit and the reorganisation of the benefits system? Those who are able to work and are helping people to get back into work are the ones we are trying most to assist in our social security system.
To what extent are we moving away from the extraordinarily complicated layers? Indeed, today’s debate and all the issues we are discussing highlight the extraordinary complexity of the regime, with a bit of benefit for this and a bit of benefit for that and one level of disability and another level of disability. The claimants themselves need financial advice to figure out what benefit they are better off on and what benefit they should be claiming. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is correct to identify this as a problem, but I hope that we can proceed with the aim of simplifying the benefits system through moving to one payment, with perhaps one or two additions, rather than one or two hundred additions, which can be the case over the entire benefits system.
I am unable to support the regret Motion moved by the noble Baroness. As I have said, I welcome the Government’s efforts—and, I know, those of my noble friend the Minister and the department—to really assist those who are struggling through the pandemic.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
I support everything that my noble friend Lady Sherlock said in moving her regret Motion.
I have some experience of the grinding juggernaut of universal credit—a High Court reversal here, the occasional telling-off there by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I served for a couple of years—with the Government’s policy being that nothing will stop this managed migration. I think that it should be stopped. Remember, universal credit was never universal in the first place. It did not cover most disability benefits, it did not fit the needs of the self-employed, and the minimum income floor is a particular burden during the pandemic.
Some of the structural problems are coming home to roost. Even now, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had to remind the Government that they should include in their Explanatory Memorandum the fact that, because the gateway closed last month, people moving to UC may face an erosion of their benefits. Independent advice is vital and will not be readily available to those people who receive the severe disability premium.
These allowances are not a luxury; they help to cover the extra costs that disabled people face—particularly during the pandemic, with extra heating costs and increased food costs. Many of us can afford broadband and take it for granted that we can do our grocery shopping online, with a minimum spend of £40. The Disability Benefits Consortium’s report on disabled people on legacy benefits found that
“82% of disabled claimants have had to spend more money than they normally would during the pandemic”—
mainly on food shopping and utility bills. Charities and campaigning groups on poverty issues have called for the extension of the uplift to legacy and related benefits. The disabled, carers and those with a long-term illness are in the poorest 10% of the population. Quite simply, it is not good enough for the Minister in the Commons to say that this will take several months to implement.
The £20-a-week uplift is due to end in April 2021, unless the Chancellor decides to extend it. The poorest households would lose 10% of their budget. Policy in Practice says that stopping the uplift would mean that
“683,000 households, including 824,000 children, would no longer be able to afford to meet their essential needs”.
Citizens Advice has said that this
“would push those just about managing into debt.”
Even more worryingly, BASW—the British Association of Social Workers—suggests that
“low income is a driver of children being investigated as part of child protection concerns.”
Support targeted at the lower half of wealth distribution in the UK or the unemployed is two to three times more effective at increasing spending in the economy than a universal stimulus, as low-income households spend a higher proportion of their budget on essentials. A case study provided by the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, a small charity, outlined the experience of Lee, who was incorrectly moved on to universal credit despite being in receipt of the severe disability premium on a legacy benefit and the SDP gateway still being in place. She went into serious debt and rent arrears. She was moved back on to legacy benefits and she would not want to go back on to universal credit. The overworked DWP did not always acknowledge her inquiries, or looked only at the most recent correspondence rather than at her whole history.
Seriously unwell and disabled people such as Lee do not need the added stress of UC’s failing system, especially during a pandemic. The Government must look at this again.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. Her outline of the structural problems of universal credit was excellent and her testimony of the suffering in our communities was powerful.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on her regret Motion and offer the Green group’s strong support for it. I also endorse all her asks in providing a basic, decent level of benefits.
Many noble Lords may have seen a photo that was shared widely on social media yesterday. It showed a queue for a food bank in the snow in Glasgow. People were so desperate to get the basics of life that they endured those conditions. It is very clear that our economic and welfare systems have utterly failed.
The Minister may be aware of the McKinsey & Co report that came out this week. It made an interesting international comparison and showed that countries with minimal welfare provision, such as the US and the UK, have had to pay out huge amounts more in the conditions of the pandemic. We are, of course, in an age of shock and can only expect more shocks. Not providing basic, decent benefits on a regular basis ends up costing a great deal indeed.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for making the case for a simpler benefits system. She highlighted the difficulties in what you might call the “old regime” of a mix of benefits. We also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the incredible complexity that disabled people face with the severe disability premium, which we are addressing today. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, laid out very clearly the case for a universal basic income. I have one direct question for the Minister, to which I would really appreciate an answer: are the Government finally considering this obvious, simple, clear, fair solution that means that no one falls through the gaps?
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, referred to some personal accounts and experiences and I should like to do the same. I have an account from someone who suffered a traumatic brain injury and spent a year in hospital. It is posted on the North Staffordshire Green Party website—I will tweet out the link. This is a long story, but it is the kind of experience that many people with a severe disability premium payment would have gone through. This man received the disability living allowance in 2004, not after the original application but after being forced to go through an appeal process. The payment was awarded for life. A decade later, that was replaced by the personal independence payment and the man had to reapply. I will now quote a few of his own words because we should listen to these experts from experience. He said:
“We entered a small dimly lit room with a young male assessor. He told me he had worked in mental health for several years to which I replied—good, you’ll be able to understand my brain injury. I left the assessment extremely tired but rather dazed … It was only a few weeks later when the award letter arrived, I realised why I was feeling dazed—everything in the assessment conclusion letter was a blatant lie—I wasn’t bothered that I had been declined—I felt demoralised and degraded. I revealed to the assessor some of my most intimate moments. As I was reading the assessment I felt as though I had been contradicted with some of the information being made up. It was this moment I realised I had been interrogated not assessed. This sent my mental state of mind tumbling into an abyss of depression—you can appeal, I was told. How can you appeal blatant lies, I thought; and did not appeal.”
Many Members of your Lordships’ House will be well aware that recipients of the severe disability premium have been through experiences such as that, often again and again. Yet we are subjecting them to the level of complexity that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, outlined.
The payments exist because our society is discriminatory, as it does not exist in ways that meet peoples’ needs without their requiring the special extra payments because of their disability. As I pointed out at Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill, if we make a society that works for those who are vulnerable, we make a society that works well for everybody. All of us are only one accident, one medical emergency, one crisis away from needing payments like this. Knowing that those payments are there—reliably, certainly and sufficient—is vital to us all.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I receive DLA. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for tabling this Regret Motion and speaking so lucidly about the issues that we are concerned with.
The interaction of universal credit with the severe disability premium is not for the fainthearted, as noble Lords will understand. It is a fiendishly difficult subject. What is clear and absolutely shocking is that disabled people on the legacy benefits, including SDP, have received no £20-a-week uplift in response to the pandemic, unlike those on universal credit, as we heard. Unless this particular cohort of claimants gets good advice on whether to migrate to UC, they are likely to lose out over time, as we know that there is no SDP in universal credit. It is very much thanks to our committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, that the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear what is happening over time.
Some people would argue that it does not matter because of the disability benefits of PIP and DLA, which are regularly uprated. But we are talking about working-age severely disabled people who will have a great deal of expenditure in their lives, such as installing and regularly servicing appliances, paying for care, extra heating, transport, food and all kinds of things. Being disabled is extremely expensive and we are hearing from many people that they are really struggling. As for the jobs market, it was difficult for disabled people before the pandemic and will be even harder now, with so many people unemployed. People will therefore need all the help that they can get. The Regret Motion should be supported.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to hear from her first-hand experience.
The severe disability benefit, as we have heard, awarded to people with existing disability benefits such as ESA and PIP, is by definition for the most complex disabilities, including physical and learning disabilities, autism, mental health challenges and, as we have heard, for people who are terminally ill. The excellent Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, states that when moving to universal credit claimants should be,
“advised before moving from legacy benefits … that they could suffer financially”.
This is perhaps, in many cases, one of the groups who find it most difficult to obtain advice. For many, access to, or even ability to use, IT will be a challenge in itself when the benefit system is becoming almost exclusively an IT facility.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of this House examined the Explanatory Memorandum and discovered that it did not make clear that transitional payments would erode over time. The Government responded to that point and revised it to include further information at the request of the committee. However, if it takes a scrutiny committee of the House of Lords to identify that people are going to be worse off under a system, what hope is there for many people outside this House who do not have that expertise, knowledge or understanding? There is a responsibility on the Government to be absolutely transparent and make sure that before people make the move to universal credit, which, as has been said, is a one-way system—there is no going back, once people are in it—they do not erroneously put themselves at a financial disadvantage.
I know that my noble friend the Minister understands these things. She, of all people, with her experience of work before she came into the Lords, understands only too well how disadvantaged people live. I have a high regard and respect for that knowledge and I am glad that she is there to bring it to her department.
I mention one thing in passing and I hope that noble Lords will not think that it is too sexist. This debate has predominantly been contributed to by women. I sometimes wonder whether that is because it is women who take the responsibility in the family for the benefits of relatives and dependants. Maybe that is why women have a more instinctive understanding—I have no doubt that people will complain about this—of the real impact of these issues on day-to-day lives.
A lot of the disability groups have made their case about the financial impact this will have, including Disability Rights UK, among others. Disability Rights UK has made very strong statements, which I am sure the Government are aware of. But on the question of managed migration, my experience is that this group, who are the most severely disadvantaged because of the level of their disability, have been subject to all sorts of changes and disadvantages. But we have not had this spelt out in debate in either House.
My noble friend will know that last year, after 30 years of experience in Parliament of personally dealing with casework—I cannot imagine how many I have dealt with—I actually struggled to engage with the Government’s website to apply for ESA for a young woman in a very difficult situation with an advancing degenerative disease. In order to apply for ESA, the computer made me keep going to universal credit. This woman was married to a man in receipt of the support level of ESA, and the only way the computer would allow me to apply for even universal credit for her was if that man agreed to forfeit the right to his ESA. I know my noble friend has taken this up, and I hope she has made some progress with it. But this is what people are facing. They deserve a lot better than this.
Viscount Chandos (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak briefly but vehemently in wholehearted support of my noble friend Lady Sherlock’s regret Motion.
I was privileged to be a member of the Economic Affairs Committee when it conducted its inquiry into universal credit. It began in January last year, before it became clear that Covid-19 would indeed spread from China and have such a devastating impact on British society and the economy, although our resulting report was published in July. It was therefore able to reflect and comment on the action taken by the Government in response to the pandemic crisis. The chronology is important because we set out to review the workings of universal credit quite independently of the pandemic and to make recommendations for times in the future which, even if they will be inescapably affected by the pandemic, will be more normal and comparable to circumstances before that crisis.
The specific issue of the severe disability premium, which this Motion is about, should be seen in the broader context of universal credit, its design and its agonising phased introduction over the past 10 years against the background of the Conservative-led Government’s premeditated reduction in welfare spending. Professor Jonathan Portes, who was, inter alia, chief economist at the DWP between 2002 and 2008, recently wrote:
“The overwhelming case against cutting Universal Credit: not the pandemic, but the extraordinary cuts to unemployment-related benefits over the last four decades.”
The majority of these cuts, which took benefits from 25% of average earnings in 1979 to under 15% in 2019, were implemented by Conservative Governments. However, disappointingly, I have to acknowledge that the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 did not do anything to reverse that trend.
What is true broadly of the inadequacy of universal credit is even more so in relation to its failure for so many of those with disabilities. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates that 31% of disabled people live in poverty, compared to around 20% of the population as a whole. Half of all those in poverty are disabled or live with a disabled person.
The Economic Affairs Committee was advised that the introduction of an equivalent to the severe disability premium would cost approximately £1 billion per annum. If 10 Downing Street can employ three times as many official photographers as the White House, surely it would agree that the sum of £1 billion to alleviate the poverty suffered by 50% of all disabled people would represent extraordinary value for money. Can the Minister give us the comfort that this will be addressed, allowing my noble friend to withdraw her Motion? In the absence of that comfort, I would have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend’s Motion if she chooses to press it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on her regret Motion and particularly on its content. I support that Motion because I am of the view that these new measures will result in claimants who are in receipt of the severe disability premium on legacy benefits moving on to universal credit without ensuring that they will all be fully compensated for the loss of the premium. That is the fear of many of the disabled organisations, as well as of Marie Curie, which has supplied many of us with a briefing paper on this particular issue.
When universal credit was introduced, I was a Member in the other place and opposed it at that particular stage. I saw and viewed it as a benefit measure that would heap further misery on people and push individuals towards food banks. With the pandemic, that has become a greater reality, and permanent financial measures are now required to help people who are increasingly in financial need.
As other noble Lords have referred to, it is worthy of note that the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew attention to the erosion rules, stating that:
“The Explanatory Memorandum did not make clear that these transitional payments will erode over time”.
I note that the Government revised those to include further information at the request of that committee. In addition, this committee noted the widening
“eligibility to the transitional SDP element to both ex-partners after a couple receiving SDP separate”,
and observed that the Department for Work and Pensions had estimated
“that this eligibility change will benefit a few hundred claimants overall.”
It is worthy of note that Disability Rights UK stated that, from October 2020, these transitional payments were no longer ring-fenced and separate from other universal credit elements. Under the new rules they were classed as a “transitional element” only. In such circumstances, a claimant will not, in fact, receive an increase. Disability Rights UK has stated that the new regulations will mean that,
“after transitional help is eroded after time, UC for disabled people will be significantly less generous than ESA and the other legacy benefits it has replaced.”
Marie Curie, which provides such strong support for cancer sufferers, believes that everyone nearing the end of their life should have the financial support they need for a decent quality of life. No one should spend the end of their life facing poverty or material deprivation. Marie Curie has particular concerns regarding the move to universal credit for people with terminal illness who live alone without a carer, and the impact that the loss of severe disability premium will have on that group. In that regard, will the Minister provide assurance that the disability Green Paper planned for publication this spring will review the financial support available to disabled people living alone and without a carer to look after them? What discussions have the Government had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that any new claimants for universal credit who would have been entitled to SDP under the legacy benefits scheme are able to afford all the care and support they need and are not left more socially isolated by the abolition of this component?
In summary, I support the regret Motion. I urge the Minister, as I urged her yesterday, to urge her colleague to undertake a root and branch policy review of the social security system to ensure that it is fit for the needs of this era, with all the accompanying problems that have been challenging us with the pandemic.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the regret Motion that my noble friend Lady Sherlock has tabled. I congratulate her on a brilliant introduction to what is a very complex area.
The brutal consequences of the pandemic, added to the trend of increasing levels of poverty under benefit cuts and the growth of inequality, have left families trapped, with no prospect of improving their situation. Millions of people on legacy and related benefits did not receive the £20 uplift applied to universal credit and working tax credits. As many speakers have said in this debate, this is particularly important, as most people on legacy and related benefits are disabled, carers or have a long-term illness. The majority of these fall within the poorest 10% of the population and are the very people who are likely to have been unable to work for an extended period and are less likely to have any savings to fall back on. As the Disability Benefits Consortium has said, they still face higher costs as a result of the pandemic, due to increased food, fuel and phone costs and needing extra support from paid carers.
Into this situation, the Government now intend that people on legacy and related benefits should move to universal credit. Therein lies a very big problem, so eloquently explained by my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I am grateful, as other speakers were, to the briefing from Marie Curie, which makes a compelling case, outlining the difficulties for people living with terminal illness who are living alone and do not have a carer in receipt of carer’s allowance to look after them. They will face terrible consequences from the change that is being proposed. As has been said, under universal credit the severe disability premium and the employment support allowance are both being scrapped. That leaves many of those who would otherwise have been entitled to severe disability premium much worse off.
Although the Government try to make compensation arrangements, Marie Curie provides the example of a gentleman who is 55, who has applied for ESA and has a life-threatening illness. As a result of these changes, if he were moved to universal credit he would be more than £44 a week worse off, on an income that is already very small indeed. It cannot possibly be the Government’s intention to severely undermine the financial position of those in receipt of these benefits, particularly at a time of pandemic. As has already been made clear, claimants in receipt of transitional payments will not receive the annual uplift in universal credit; their support will therefore fall, in real terms, year on year. As the Explanatory Memorandum on transitional protection puts very clearly, the Government’s policy is to gradually eradicate the additional income received by former severe disability premium recipients—in other words, to cut their benefits.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked two very important questions to add to the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Sherlock. The Minister must tell us how, in discussion with other departments, the Government will ensure that those affected by this change will still get the care and support they need and will not be left socially isolated as a result of these changes. She also needs to tell your Lordships’ House when the Government will bring forward the special rules for people living with terminal illnesses. Better still, she should tell the House today that these poorly timed changes, which will only increase anxiety and uncertainty for disabled people, will be withdrawn and that the Government will think again.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to make a general point about universal credit, because nobody, as far as I can see, has had a good word to say for it in this debate. I believe that, as a general system, it is a great improvement on the old system. I remember, as a local MP, trying to help constituents with all kinds of welfare problems through the maze of different regulations. It was almost impossible to find the exit from the maze and I suspect that, on many occasions, DWP staff were almost as bewildered as I was. I welcomed the change to a much simpler system of universal credit. I accept that it suffered from cuts made in the amount available to it, and that I much regret, but I do not regret the simplification.
On the severe disability premium, other noble Lords have spoken very eloquently of the importance of this to people at the lowest end of the scale, and I have every sympathy with that, but my understanding is that it is not immediately being withdrawn. I should be interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what sort of erosion is likely to take place and over what timescale. Is it to be months, years? That makes a great deal of difference to how people are being treated. I should also be interested to know the numbers of people who are enjoying this severe disability premium. Again, it would be very helpful to have some idea of the scale of this.
In addition, I feel very strongly about the £20 addition, both for people in general and for those getting the severe disability premium. I am at one with others in the Chamber who feel that they should be receiving it, and I hope this will be possible. I imagine that it rests with the Chancellor of Exchequer, and I hope my noble friend will make very clear to him the strong feelings in this House, which I warmly share, about the value of keeping the £20 premium in the present circumstances, and in making sure that those on the severe disability premium are included. I feel very strongly about it.
None the less, I understand the difficulties my noble friend faces. As I think my noble friend Lady Browning pointed out, we know that her heart is very much in favour of the underdog and, from her previous work as a leading member of a charity trying to improve people’s lot, she will have a full understanding and knowledge of what is at stake. I hope very much that she will use all her persuasive powers on those in government who want to see that people at the bottom end of the scale are well and fairly treated. I look forward very much to hearing what my noble friend has to say.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Sherlock on bringing clarity to the dauntingly complex in expressing her regret. We should be clear, to quote Scope, that this change affects a group with some of the highest support needs and extra costs. These are the people we are putting at risk, many of whom are shielding at home and facing spiralling energy costs. I, too, quote Marie Curie, because it is such a reputable organisation, about those living alone with lifetime illnesses and the cut in SDP. It says that without this money available, many more people are likely to struggle to afford the costs of care. That is likely to reduce social contact, increase their social isolation and have a devastating effect on many people nearing the end of their lives.
I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister is committed to enhancing the well-being of those with serious disabilities, but regrettably, as so powerfully articulated by my noble friend and reputable voices on behalf of those with disabilities, the new regulations will give rise to detriment for some severely disabled claimants. The loss of SDP under universal credit leaves new claimants worse off. Vulnerable claimants might not understand that they could suffer financially by moving from legacy benefits to universal credit. Not all existing claimants will be fully compensated for the loss of the severe disability premium when moving on to universal credit, and the transitional compensation that is made available has limitations. Claimants on those payments will not receive any annual uplift in their universal credit, so the support erodes away. The payments are insufficient to match the combined losses under universal credit. The payment could be lost through certain changes of circumstance, and the managed migration has been paused.
The Explanatory Memorandum did not initially make it clear that these transitional payments will erode over time. That is ironic, because these regulations present one of the harshest examples demonstrating why legacy benefits should be uplifted in line with universal credit throughout the pandemic and that the £20 weekly uplift should be retained after April.
In February, the Disability Benefits Consortium reported that over 2.5 million people are claiming legacy benefits, the majority of whom are disabled. Pre-pandemic, nearly half the people in poverty were disabled or living with disabled people. The pandemic has compounded their difficulties.
On 8 February, I received the letter that the Minister issued to all Peers, highlighting the great efforts made by DWP staff during the pandemic, which I completely endorse; I am full of admiration for the effort they have put in during the pandemic. However, she went on to refer to public expenditure on job protection, sustaining the welfare safety net and interventions to get people back into work. That and other public expenditure has to be assessed against the economic costs of not undertaking such state intervention. Yes, the Chancellor has challenging judgment calls to make, but the efficacy of those judgments does not hang on cutting the income of those with the severest disabilities. He has far more powerful fiscal measures in his armoury. Nothing about the saving, which targets such a vulnerable group of people, will seriously contribute to the challenges he has to deal with.
The complexity and downsides of these new provisions will make them very difficult, if not impossible, for some severely disabled claimants to understand. As Citizens Advice said:
“Everyone’s situation is different. That’s why it’s important to seek independent advice before making a voluntary move to Universal Credit from another benefit which includes a severe disability premium. You won’t be able to reverse your decision … you could end up worse off, despite the temporary uplift to Universal Credit.”
I add to the compelling questions posed by other noble Lords: where can claimants go for this advice? Where will they find the sources of this advice and will the DWP pay charities to assist with advice provision? As I said on opening, this is a sad tale.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
I also add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for tabling this Motion, which we will support. Many have highlighted the evidence of the severe impact of the pandemic on people with disabilities. Scope’s disability report highlights many of these difficulties, such as accessing food and essentials. Many disabled people feel forgotten and isolated, beset with anxieties about their future. Buying food and accessing essential services has been problematic for many who live alone. Difficulties in accessing benefits and delays in payments have often left disabled people financially insecure. The crisis has further highlighted existing flaws in the system, as other noble Lords have said, and the introduction of temporary changes has introduced uncertainty.
Scope calculates that the cost of the pandemic to people with disabilities is as much as £583 a month related to their impairment or condition, even factoring in benefits designed to meet these costs. For those still on legacy benefits, as others have drawn attention to, there has been no temporary uplift, despite the increasing costs and the worsening circumstances of those still on legacy benefits.
Severe disability premium is received by people who are severely disabled and living alone without a carer to look after them. They often have life-limiting illnesses, as the Marie Curie briefing tells us. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on her explanation of how the new circumstances have come about. These are complicated and detailed. I certainly note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who has highlighted the inaccessibility of these to the people they most affect.
However, as legacy benefits are gradually being absorbed into universal credit, new rules provide the criteria for a flat-rate transitional payment to those currently in receipt of SDP who make a claim for universal credit after that date. However, this payment, as has been explained by many noble Lords, will gradually erode due to lack of uprating and deductions for changing circumstances, leaving people formerly receiving SDP significantly worse off over time. This is quite shocking, as many noble Lords have said. Has an impact assessment been conducted and what are the results? I would also like to know the numbers of people who have now gone on to universal credit through their changed circumstances but will not be eligible for the transitional payment.
How can it be right to penalise people already suffering from debilitating disabilities, including those living with life-limiting illnesses? It means that many new claimants who would have been entitled to SDP under the legacy benefits system will be unable to afford the care and support they need and will be even more socially isolated as a result. It is important to recognise the very high extra costs faced by those without a carer, who have to pay for almost every job or service they need.
We have heard just what a severe impact the pandemic has had on many people with disabilities and their families. It seems particularly unfair that no uplift has been made to legacy benefits to provide support for those in such severe need. It is particularly shocking that measures to further disadvantage people with severe disabilities have been introduced under the auspices of migration to universal credit. I very much hope that the Minister will raise the very many serious issues that have been discussed in this debate and urge the Government to work with the disability charities to make much better arrangements for people with disabilities.
I support the Motion. I support the aim of extending the uplift of the £20 a week to legacy benefits, and I would certainly support the provision of extra advice about migration to universal credit. However, as we have heard from other noble Lords today, I also believe that the system needs a review, to be able to support those with the most severe needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for bringing this Motion to the House, and I thank all noble Lords for their valuable and heartfelt contributions to the debate, which I am extremely grateful for.
Let me say first that we are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in society and in this financial year alone we will spend £55 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions in Great Britain. Since this awful virus attacked, that commitment has been shown in the way we have mobilised our welfare system like never before to protect vulnerable people and those who are affected by the pandemic. I hope briefly to provide some reassurance about the protections and support that are in place for those moving from the severe disability premium to UC.
On the question of whether claimants migrating to universal credit will be worse off, importantly, it is not true that everyone who moves to UC who was entitled to the SDP loses money. The regulations ensure that the arrangements for providing financial support to those previously entitled to the SDP continue from 27 January this year. We are not reducing the levels of the SDP-related transitional payment; they remain the same as now. Additionally, through universal credit, disabled people in receipt of the limited capability for work and work-related activity addition receive more than double the equivalent monthly rate available to those in the same circumstances on legacy benefits. Those who are moved to UC by the department and have no change of circumstances will benefit from transitional protection if their UC entitlement is less than what they were receiving on their legacy benefit.
I also take this opportunity to bring to your Lordships’ attention new regulations that will also take effect from 27 January 2021. This is a positive change to existing regulations and will ensure that, in circumstances where a couple who are entitled to the SDP separate and make a new UC claim, both ex-partners will be eligible to be considered for the transitional SDP element in UC.
We have already introduced transitional payments worth up to £405 a month for people previously entitled to the SDP who are eligible. By September 2020, we had paid transitional payments to more than 16,000 people, and by 2024-25, approximately 25,000 claimants will benefit from the total package of support provided by the SDP gateway and the SDP transitional payments, worth an estimated £300 million over six years.
The SDP group is the only one to receive a form of protection after moving to UC following a change of circumstances, because we recognise that it is a distinct group, with people frequently seeing a reduction in award when moving to UC and who are less likely to be able to work. The SDP-related transitional payments are set at levels which broadly reflect the amounts for SDP only, with an adjustment made for people who are receiving the UC limited capability for work and work-related activity addition.
Many, if not all, noble Lords in the debate raised the UC uplift. We will continue to keep everything under review as the situation evolves. The Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister meet regularly to discuss all these issues and will consider the economic and health context before making any decisions. The Government will continue to assess how best to support low-income families and a decision on the uplift will be made in due course.
Noble Lords also raised the issue of extending the uplift to legacy benefits. I have to be straight and truthful: there are no plans to do that. It has always been the case that claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for UC if they believe that they will be better off. On the important point that noble Lords raised about advice to be given to people before they make that decision, I would encourage those contemplating such a move to go to GOV.UK or contact the citizens advice bureau to determine, based on their household circumstances, whether they would be better off on UC. That is because of the point noble Lords raised already: claimants cannot return to their previous legacy benefits once they have claimed and been awarded UC. It is very important that they satisfy themselves that they will be better off financially in the new system.
From 22 July 2020, a two-week run-on of income support, employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance is available for all claimants whose claim to UC ends entitlement to these benefits, to provide additional support for claimants moving to UC.
I will now deal with some of the points that noble Lords raised. I will do my best to fit all of them in; if not, I will write to noble Lords after the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of what the Government are doing about bringing forward long-awaited changes to special rules for people with terminal illnesses. We take the issue of terminal illness very seriously and treat people in such circumstances with the utmost speed and sensitivity. Our processes for dealing with people who have a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less have been designed specifically to enable decisions to be fast-tracked at all stages. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, also made a point about this issue. I can confirm that universal credit provides enhanced personalised support for those with a terminal illness, and that it is done in the most sensitive and appropriate way possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about a decision on the uplift. I have already covered this; the decision will be made at the time the Chancellor has said, and all circumstances will be taken into account.
I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for her thoughtful and considered contribution, and for raising the point that what we really want to do is get people back to work. All our energies and time are being spent doing this, because it is one of the best ways to help people in these circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and my noble friend Lady Altmann asked about an update on managed migration. The move to the UC pilot was suspended following the outbreak of Covid-19 and currently no confirmed restart date has been set. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and my noble friend Lady Fookes raised other issues about universal credit. I understand that people have serious concerns about it, but I would ask all noble Lords to consider the fact that, as my noble friend Lady Fookes said, had the legacy system been in place, it would have buckled and would not have stood up in the robust way that universal credit has done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised the issue of a universal basic income. I will say as politely and straightforwardly as I can that the Government have not changed their position on this and have no plans to introduce it. She also cited the case of a person who has obviously had great trauma and felt badly treated—that is probably an understatement. I will say to the noble Baroness again that, if she gives me the details of the case, I know that the Minister for Disabled People will want to look into it.
I turn to the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, who I personally have the utmost respect for. First, as of 27 January, SDP claimants have been able to move to UC, should they wish to do so. Secondly, the transitional SDP element is treated in the same way as the transitional element for those who are required to move to UC by the department. It is eroded only if a claimant is awarded a new element in their UC or an existing element increases, with the exception of the childcare cost element. At this point, although the transitional element will reduce, the overall money will remain the same.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Primarolo, said that disabled people find it difficult to get work and that, in the current circumstances, that difficulty is all the more pronounced. I know that the Minister for Disabled People is absolutely committed to doing all he can. We are already helping disabled people stay in work and enter work through a range of programmes: Access to Work, Disability Confident, the Work and Health programme and the Intensive Personalised Employment Support programme.
My noble friend Lady Browning speaks from personal experience that has been very difficult for her. I can only say that the door is open to continue the dialogue and that I will make sure that that happens. I will get into hot water if I make any comments on the points she raised about women, but I do think that they have merit.
I am sorry, but as much as I am prepared to answer the questions put by noble Lords, time has eluded me, so I shall now hand over to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her support in helping to make the case for this Motion. Likewise, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for supporting the Motion and for reminding us of the human face of suffering in that terrible picture of people queuing in the snow to access a food bank.
My noble friend Lady Drake described compellingly the damage these changes can do and why they sit poorly alongside the Government’s moves to support people in the pandemic. I know that the sums may not sound life-changing to some, but they really are. My noble friend Lady Primarolo reminded us of the poverty facing so many severely disabled people, which is being aggravated by the pandemic. She pointed out the severe losses that many will now face. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, being disabled is extremely expensive. It is wonderful to see her taking part in this debate and I am grateful for her support and for sharing her experiences and expertise.
I am grateful too to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who has long been a champion for disabled people. I thank her for her support and for reminding us of the additional challenges facing so many people with complex disabilities as they contemplate a move to universal credit. I do not think that just going to GOV.UK and testing it out for themselves is the answer. I also note her celebration of the wisdom of women in this regard. That makes me thank in particular our sole male speaker, my noble friend Lord Chandos, for his well-informed reflections and for the work that he and his colleagues on the Economic Affairs Committee have done so well to take apart many issues around universal credit and to flag up the challenges that need to be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has once again given her strong support for the Motion and analysed the real problems that this move will pose to severely disabled people and those with life-limiting conditions. I am grateful to her for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, spoke up for universal credit, but highlighted the problems caused by underfunding it. I am grateful to her for speaking out so strongly for the £20 uplift. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, does not want the £20 uplift to be extended to legacy benefits or made permanent and has argued that getting people into work is the answer. But, as I am sure she knows, universal credit is paid to people who are both in and out of work. Moving someone into work does not solve the problem at all; it simply relocates it.
This debate has highlighted the vital role played by the severe disability premium in enabling sick and disabled people to get critical care. As my noble friend Lady Donaghy pointed out, disability premiums are not a luxury; rather, they help cover the extra costs that disabled people face. The Minister said that if claimants can hold out until managed migration, they will get full transitional protection—but she could offer no information on when even the pilot would restart, never mind when the managed migration programme would be finished. She also said that some people will be better off. I acknowledge that, but the fact that some people will gain is not much help to those who will be much worse off.
I had hoped that the many powerful speeches today would have persuaded the Minister of the case for the changes set out in my Motion. Perhaps they did, really, but she is not in a position to concede them. I hope that, if the House were to endorse this Motion, it might add strength to her arm when she goes back to the Secretary of State and tries to persuade the Government to do the right thing. Again, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken but, to that end, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn briefly until 5 o’clock.
Town and Country Planning (Border Facilities and Infrastructure) (EU Exit) (England) Special Development Order 2020 (SI 2020/928)
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Randerson
That this House regrets that the Town and Country Planning (Border Facilities and Infrastructure) (EU Exit) (England) Special Development Order 2020 (SI 2020/928) will have considerable implications for the haulage industry and the local areas that these measures will affect, and regrets that the failure of Her Majesty’s Government to prepare for Brexit has required these measures to be implemented. Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 26th Report
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I make it clear that I in no way question the need for the proposed border facilities to take pressure off some of our ports. Many port sites are too congested to process the number of vehicles they deal with, now that border checks are so much more complex. Unfortunately, in keeping within the strange time warp within which we now operate in this House, we are debating something that is already in force. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew our attention to it in September.
I am moving this regret Motion to question the use of the special development order as the procedure of choice for the Government. It is apparently only the second time, since its introduction in 1990, that this procedure has been used—in this case, to grant temporary planning permission until 2025. The process allows the Government, in the form of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to give themselves planning permission, applied for by the so-called border departments. There is no statutory obligation to consult the public.
I ask the Minister for some explanation of why so little was done by the Government until it was too late to provide satisfactory democratic accountability for the siting of border facilities. Not surprisingly, local residents are concerned about traffic congestion, environmental and noise impacts, air quality and more. I ask why the haulage industry does not yet have the support and facilities it urgently requires, because inland lorry parks are needed to provide food, toilets and rest facilities for drivers.
In 2016, the UK voted to leave the EU. In January 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May made it clear that the UK would not remain in the single market and customs union. From that point onwards, the negotiations were only ever going to make a marginal difference to the complexities of doing business with the EU. Time and again, the Government were warned, by hauliers, haulage representatives and exporters, of the need for early preparation. Therefore, I find the repeated pleas of urgency in the Explanatory Memorandum completely unacceptable. The Government have had four and a half years to prepare for Brexit; it is no good shouting “emergency” now.
The special development order in Schedule 1 gives the Government development powers over great swathes of England. The list of 29 areas includes whole counties and most of the south coast. Seven actual sites have been approved so far. There are several in Kent, because Dover is the busiest port and is very congested. Surprisingly, Birmingham and Warrington are there, because they are needed to service Holyhead port, 100-plus miles away.
In Kent there is the controversial proposed White Cliffs site, a rural site that is close to an AONB, but there is no environmental impact assessment for the application. The site includes an ancient Roman right of way. The residents of the neighbouring villages of Whitfield and Guston are disgusted by the way that they have been treated by this process. Letters arrived for them on 31 December telling them that the Government had acquired the site and it would be used from July. Their rights to protest or even to know what is going on are minimal. This week Dover District Council dealt with the issue. Councillors say they were not allowed to see the application until 24 hours before the meeting, and that they had to do so in secret and were not allowed to disclose details to others. Residents have not seen the detailed plans. Will the Minister specify exactly what information, plans and reports will eventually be made public?
Inland border facilities are only one part of tackling the provision of adequate port facilities. The Government set up the Port Infrastructure Fund, to which ports made bids to adapt their facilities, but it was seriously underfunded, so ports, already badly overstretched by the combined impact of Covid and Brexit, are left with a major shortfall. Portsmouth, for example, is some £5 million short.
SMEs are struggling with the major complications of new customs checks; an estimated one in seven is at risk of going out of business. Even for the largest companies that can employ specialist staff, there are big additional costs. Both Logistics UK and the Road Haulage Association urged the Government a year ago to speed up the employment of new customs agents to help with the process, but so far we have only 10,000 of the 50,000 required.
The anticipated long queues of lorries waiting to be processed have not yet materialised. Instead, traffic into ports is way down on previous years, reported as a 68% fall in volume of exports to the EU so far, while up to 75% of EU lorries are going home empty. That reflects a huge fall in business activity by UK companies. Many businesses are moving jobs to the EU because even if you are the only lorry in the port, the procedures and preliminary form-filling now required are time-consuming and expensive.
Welsh ports are particularly hard-hit by the Northern Ireland protocol. Rather than using the Great Britain land bridge, hauliers are driving straight down to the Republic to take ferries to mainland Europe. There used to be three sailings a week from Rosslare to France and Spain; now there are 15 and rising. Obviously, this hits the survival of Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock.
My purpose today is to shed some light on the factors behind the headlines and, in respect of the special development order, to demonstrate what the Government are doing, and how they have chosen to do it via a planning process designed for emergencies, when they are dealing with an entirely predictable set of consequences of a decision made over four years ago. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in speaking about this Motion.
I have had a lot of communication from the site that the noble Baroness mentioned in Guston near Dover, which I know quite well because I spent 15 years building the Channel Tunnel just next door to it. I am as astonished as she is that the Government do not seem to be following even their own pretty flawed regulations for this so-called emergency. I am particularly interested to look at the Explanatory Memorandum that comes with this draft regulation—well, it is not a draft any more—because, as the noble Baroness said, the Government have had four years to think about this and plan for it, yet the first that the residents heard of it was on New Year’s Eve.
The first thing I shall mention is that paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The SSHCLG’s approval must be sought”—
it clearly has been sought—
“and given before the development of a specific site can start.”
It also states that evidence needs to be submitted for why a site is necessary and why it is the right site and that there needs to be an environmental study, as the noble Baroness said, and a construction management plan.
Can the Minister confirm that, before CLG gave approval, all this documentation had been prepared and submitted to it? Will she say when it was submitted and why the local residents, the local parish council and others did not receive a copy of that documentation? Will she put all this documentation in the Library of the House so at least we can see it, albeit retrospectively?
One of the most important things is—why Guston? My understanding from a long time ago until now is that the most important, first-priority route for trucks going to or from the Channel Tunnel or the port of Dover is the M20. As we all know, one or probably two sites have been designated and are apparently in use. Ministers told us only last week that there were no more traffic jams at Dover, so it is interesting that they have suddenly decided that they need to have a third site on the A2, which is partly single carriageway. Why is it needed there? The consultation with the stakeholders clearly did not have any effect on the residents, but the port of Dover was consulted and I understand that it suggested an alternative site further up the road. Will the Minister explain why that site was rejected and on what grounds?
This is the most disgraceful means of trampling over local people’s rights to live. There was no environmental study on the noise pollution for 24 hours a day, or light pollution. Is the site really needed at all? Will the Minister say who was consulted before this went to CLG? Paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Government officials have had numerous discussions with a range of stakeholders including individual ports and established government forums with industry.”
What it does not mention is the poor people affected next door. Perhaps the Minister will also put in the Library a list of all those who were consulted and say why the local villages were not consulted and what the effect is on those villages. This is one of the worst examples I have seen of government trampling over local people when the need for this has not been demonstrated to them or anyone else. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to this order, I express delight that I am following the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as he and I worked together, cross-party, on a number of issues.
I find myself in a dilemma today. I support all that the Government are doing to try to ease the adjustments and complexities of Brexit. They are right to speed up the planning process to provide for border-control measures and to provide for associated facilities and infrastructure. They have been preparing for some time, as I recall concerns expressed two years ago by the horticultural industry that the portaloos that it hires for their farm workers each year had been appropriated.
It was good to hear from the Minister earlier today that traffic is flowing freely, that only 2% to 3% of lorries have been turned back in Kent and that most relate to Covid tests or paperwork issues of their own making. I thank her for her courtesy. We both have links to Wiltshire, of course—she to Bybrook and I to Chilmark—and she has had a distinguished career in local government. I noted that representatives of Logistics UK told the EU Sub-Committee earlier this week that, in the experience of its members, delays have been relatively few and isolated in respect of specific sectors and routes. That is more promising than the prophets of doom expected.
On the other hand, as with so much to do with government at present, I am not happy about the lack of opportunity for scrutiny of this instrument. This measure, which, if badly managed, could have a profound effect on individual citizens and communities, was made as long ago as 3 September 2020 and came into effect on 24 September. Seven facilities have been approved, and I believe that a more controversial one near the historic white cliffs of Dover—already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—may be in the pipeline. This SI was drawn to the attention of the House by our excellent scrutiny committee on 17 September. It is now 11 February, nearly five months later. I am shocked by this. In that time, we have debated many less important measures and on many days the Grand Committee Room has been empty.
I am also very concerned that in the words of the website:
“There are no associated impact assessments for this legislation.”
This is exactly the sort of measure that would have benefited from that sort of analysis and, as it will last for five years, there is no excuse for not providing one. I know from being both a civil servant and a Minister in the past that, even if an impact assessment is partial, with several “tbcs”, it helps good decision-making and communication by identifying the benefits and who will be hurt and how. It forces a conversation with those likely to be concerned—small businesses, including cafes or garages, hauliers of all kinds, those constructing the facilities, government agencies, local and parish councils, civil society and so on. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, such analysis and consultation is a critical part of an effective planning system, whether leisurely or accelerated, as I accept has to be the case here. Moreover, I have noticed over the last 50 years that government departments, which are doing the constructing, have been responsible for some of the worst eyesores, although I recognise that here we are talking about temporary structures and car parks.
I note that the SI sets out a lot of detail required for each planning application—possibly too much, given that the permissions are temporary and that we need to avoid bureaucracy wherever we can. But, given the wide-ranging powers that the SI gives over the countryside and any buildings, perhaps the Minister can kindly provide more information today on what has been done, and is being done, under these special powers, how local people and local and national businesses are being affected, who has been consulted—a point made by the other speakers—and her plans going forward.
Finally—it is this that prompted me to speak today—I find it extraordinary that the measures will last for so long. Developments can take place until 31 December 2025 and the required reinstatement works have to be completed by 31 December 2026. This is an age away and well beyond the next general election. Why is the Minister not seeking renewal of these powers annually, as with some other emergency measures, so that we can examine what has been done, applaud progress that has been made by the Government and renew these draconian powers only if we all feel that that is justified? However, those reservations are certainly not sufficient for me to vote in favour of the regret Motion, which I do not support.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for the way in which she introduced her regret Motion. I support what she said. I am deeply unhappy with this order. I declare an interest: I have a house midway between the Ashford and proposed Dover sites.
I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who always has something new and interesting to say. However, I am puzzled that, two years ago, the Government were snapping up Portaloos—presumably for these intended lorry tailbacks —yet did not at that stage think about seeking permission for the sites on which they might be used more permanently. I therefore wonder whether the Minister can explain when she comes to wind up why it was so late in the day that the Government decided to seek these emergency powers and go ahead with building parks that it was quite obvious would be required since we were leaving the single market.
It is clear that trade is significantly down at the moment. If that remains the case, presumably we will not need anywhere near the amount of provision currently being sought. So, what are the Minister’s projections, or those of her department, of how many of these sites will be required? That might give us an indication of how optimistic the Government are about the future of British exports.
Like other speakers, I am particularly concerned about the lack of consultation and the areas in which these lorry parks are being housed. Noble Lords have referred to Guston. Apart from having a port, Dover is a great tourist attraction because of its magnificent and extraordinarily well-managed castle; I recommend paying a visit to anyone who has not been there. However, it is short on car parks and facilities. If there were to be provision in the neighbourhood for extra car parking, it would be useful to see that accommodated more sensitively than what is currently proposed: a huge lorry park on the A2, where, as others have said, there is only single-lane traffic in some places. There is already deep concern in Ashford that if traffic builds up to the level it was before Brexit, there could be tailbacks, making it extremely difficult for the emergency services to get through. Local communities are really concerned about that.
They also feel that their opinions are simply not taken into account, and not just in the case of lorry parks. Last year, the Napier barracks, discussed earlier this afternoon, was turned into a hostel for asylum seekers. They have to be housed somewhere but the conditions there are appalling. The locals would not wish anyone to be housed in such conditions, but they do wish that they had been consulted before such a facility was put in their midst. That did not happen. Equally, now, those in Guston and the villages around there face a transformational development going ahead in their midst without prior consultation. Consultation taking place once the bulldozers have started work, which is what happened in this instance, does not strike me as consultation at all. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me how she views the process of consultation if work on the site has already begun.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and to listen to her fight on behalf of the villages around where she lives in Kent. Perhaps I can move a little further north.
Prior to 1 January, Holyhead port carried 1,200 lorries a day, inbound and outbound. The consequences of the ending of the transitional period are that traffic has been reduced by 50% at present, and that Stena Line has moved one of its ships to the Dublin to Cherbourg service. The Government say that this fall-off is temporary only—teething troubles—and that we can shortly expect the transit of lorries to resume its previous volume.
Meanwhile, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Warrington South has said that the proposed Appleton Thorn inland border control point will deal with 350 lorries per day, inbound and outbound, with only 69 parking spaces available on the site. He pooh-poohs concerns voiced by the local Liberal Democrat councillors, Judith Wheeler and Sharon Harris, that figures previously released suggested 700 vehicles per day using this facility and that they would use Barleycastle Lane for access, which is not wide enough for two lorries to pass each other.
Given the normal flow at Holyhead of 1,200 vehicles and trailers a day, how can this site cope with the expected traffic? Do some of these lorries simply disappear into the wilds of north-west Wales? The proposed site to deal with Holyhead-Ireland traffic is more than 100 miles and a two-hour drive away from Holyhead. Where, incidentally, is the traffic from Northern Ireland to Liverpool to be dealt with?
I am a frequent traveller in the proposed area since Appleton Thorn lies on the route from north Wales into Manchester and is at the junction between the M56 and the M6, if you are going north to Scotland. I know only too well that the junction of the Liverpool-Manchester motorway, only two motorway exits further on over the Warrington viaduct, is an area which frequently snarls up. I am an expert on the rat-runs around that junction. Perhaps that is why the site chosen has been deserted by the large Shearings coach company. I cannot expect the Minister today to pass any opinion on the suitability of the site, but I would welcome a definitive undertaking to provide up-to-date information on what the current travel figures from and to Holyhead, and those forecast for the future, are. That is the sort of information a proper planning application would provide. I also want a definitive statement on the expected capacity and use of the Appleton Thorn site.
This one site and its problems illustrate how inadequate the preparations have been for Brexit, and for the problems involved in placing the border with Northern Ireland in the middle of the Irish Sea. I do not believe that the process outlined in this measure, with temporary planning permission granted by the Secretary of State, is a satisfactory solution at all, particularly having regard to the minimum consultation requirements it contains. This procedure, used only once, as my noble friend Lady Randerson said, is not appropriate for this type of huge development, with such an impact on the surrounding countryside. I am sure the Government’s response will be, “What else can we do?” I hope that the people of Holyhead, and the people of Appleton Thorn and Warrington, will take full knowledge of the absolute failure of this Government to look after their interests.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I share many of his interests in protecting Holyhead and other Welsh ports. I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for setting out the issues as clearly as she did and, once again, highlighting some of the problems that are being experienced, and will be experienced, by ports in Wales.
The background to the order is clear, and I do not deny that there will be a need for such sites as we are being asked to approve the designation of. I am less clear on how this need only recently made itself obvious. We have this need even though we have an agreed EU exit and an agreement at the end of transition period. If we need these processing centres and holding bays under benign circumstances, then a fortiori we would have needed them without agreements also. I am not clear why this need has become urgent so recently, because it should have been obvious earlier. I would welcome some explanation of that from my noble friend the Minister. It may be that there is a perfectly simple explanation, though it is not clear to me. That is the prime question I have: why were these centres not planned for longer in advance?
Like others, I think that the usual planning procedures, with their democratic checks and balances and controls, are something that we should normally follow. Like my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, I cannot understand why these procedures are needed until the end of 2025. That does not seem very temporary. If we have an urgent need now, does that continue for another four years? I cannot understand why we are not able to revert to normal planning procedures once the immediate urgency, which is apparent, has passed. As I have indicated, I am certainly not against the provision of sites and the need for that is clearly there, but I have some further questions for my noble friend.
The affected local authorities are listed in a schedule to the order—I think there are 29. I am not quite clear on why some authorities are in the list and others are not. The list includes, for example, Devon but not Cornwall, Somerset but not Gloucestershire and Essex but not Hertfordshire. I would welcome guidance from the Minister on the basis on which these local authorities were listed. What discussions have there been with the local authorities concerned about the listing and what can be expected? Is it to be expected that all 29 authorities may have holding bays placed in them?
Furthermore, how were the sites themselves chosen? It is not apparent. If for example, I could ask about North Weald in Essex: where is this processing centre for and how was it chosen? The Explanatory Note makes it clear that owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site and access routes, parish councils, planning authorities, fire authorities, police authorities and environmental bodies are
“given an opportunity to comment”.
I very much welcome that. I have studied some of the background in relation to Birmingham Airport. I can see that fairly detailed restrictions and conditions have been imposed there. I take reassurance from that; there seems to have been a thorough process. But I have concerns about why it will be as long as to the end of 2025 and I have concerns about why we have not acted earlier.
I also have concerns about the Welsh ports. What discussion has there been with the Senedd about the Welsh ports and the challenges they face? Has there been discussion about possible processing centres within Wales itself with the Senedd? I would welcome some reassurance on that from the Minister.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
Many Members of this House came into politics through local government. Their motivation was to make things better for local communities, usually through improvements in local services. It was my motivation. There was always a problem with funding, but real choices and compromises had to be made. For some years, funding for local government has been systematically reduced and the statutory duties which must be met have increased. This has reduced the attractiveness of becoming a local elected representative, as all you do is make unpalatable cuts or apologise for the inevitable reductions in local services. This causes experienced councillors to resign and less good candidates to put themselves forward.
On top of this bleak scenario, there is an increasing tendency towards centralising power and decision-making and towards central government setting aside the established means of checking the abuse of such powers. Before turning to the matter before the House today, I will point out the democratic deficit that is emerging in my home county of Oxfordshire. There have been some extraordinary examples over the last year, where decisions on Oxfordshire’s life and environment are being taken by unelected, unaccountable and remote bodies.
Perhaps the most notable example of this is when the Secretary of State Robert Jenrick intervened in South Oxfordshire, where a newly elected Administration was forbidden to take forward its local plan and where he ordered their officers to put forward a plan prepared by the previous Conservative Administration—a process described by the Oxford Mail as
“an extraordinary affront to local democracy”.
I now turn to my latest example of the pushing aside of local democracy. It has been proposed that a substantial number of large lorry parks be created under special development orders, to be sited around the country, adjacent to ports and motorways, for lorries awaiting processing through the new customs clearance arrangements arising from the decision to leave the European Union. The Government either did not foresee the need for such facilities or were not very keen to explain the likely consequences of our decision to leave the EU. The local authorities covering the areas subject to the special development orders are not able to mount any meaningful protest about the establishment of the proposed lorry parks. While provision is made in the special development orders for the eventual dismantling of a site, there is also provision to extend their use.
Who is going to manage and pay for these lorry parks? Is there to be proper oversight, or is the cheapest contract going to be let to a company like Serco or G4S, with minimum-wage staff in the worst of conditions? These places have the potential to become centres of crime, with theft of loads, people smuggling, drug crime et cetera. They are likely to cause a lot of noise, light and air pollution. Unless they are properly managed, they will be a persistent cause of problems. I hope the Minister has the answers to some of these questions because I cannot see the local authorities, which have been trampled on, wanting anything whatever to do with them.
Organisations such as the CPRE, the National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts and other bodies concerned with the environment, as well as local government, are dismayed by the number of major planning issues which are now being taken above their heads. I hope that the Government will give serious attention to these reservations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, who speaks with such knowledge on these issues. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her presentation of the key issues here, many of which I agree with. I declare my interest as an honorary president of the United Kingdom Warehousing Association. I approach this issue from a northern perspective, and I ask my noble friend in particular about why Teesport, for example, does not seem to be included here? The local authority representing that area is not in the list in Schedule 1, despite obviously being a major port.
Throughout the year, I meet a number of local businesses, particularly in north Yorkshire, two of which have a background in cold storage, logistics and distribution. I would like to share with the Minister that they have impressed on me the clear need for greater prioritisation and use of these northern ports. I am thinking in particular of Immingham, which now has three berths, because it has reclaimed a number of them; there is extra capacity at Hull, because we have sadly lost the passenger route between there and Zeebrugge; and I would also add Teesport to these, as it is not too far away. To what extent can we develop and use the extra capacity, and build on the existing capacity, at these northern ports? That would ease the bottlenecks that we have seen so clearly at the southern ports, as identified by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, who lives in Kent.
The other sad thing to record is the closure of a lobster and crab firm, Baron Shellfish of Bridlington, which had been exporting live lobsters and crabs to Europe, most particularly Spain and France, since we entered the Common Market, and has ceased trading. It claims that one of the reasons for this is the forms and extra bureaucratic and administrative barriers in place since 1 January. To what extent are we in the situation where we need the planning permission set out in this order because we have not gone down the path of digitalisation? We are relying entirely on paper-based forms. Yet as other noble Lords have said, we had four years to prepare for this situation; it was the will of the people to leave the European Union, including, we were told, the single market and the customs union. I firmly believe that we would not be in this position today if we had identified and progressed an advanced digitalisation procedure. I appreciate that my noble friend may not have the details today, but I would be grateful if she could write to noble Lords who have participated this afternoon. By concentrating more on northern ports and a programme of digitalisation, we could have eased some of the bottlenecks that we have seen.
I entirely agree with those who have regretted the lack of consultation on, and parliamentary oversight of, the order before the House today. We are told that, under the order, land used for this purpose has to be reinstated by the end of 2026 unless there are environmental benefits, such as biodiversity and drainage. Who will pay for that? I hope that local authorities are not going to be left to pick up the extra bill. This has presumably been worked out and thought through.
In paragraph 9 of the 26th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government states that:
“Those invited to make representation must have had no less than 14 days to do so; copies … received must be provided to MHCLG.”
It would be helpful to know to what extent the ministry has publicly refuted any of those concerns.
I will not be voting against the order, but I do regret the manner in which it has been adopted.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, 80% of heavy goods vehicles from the Republic of Ireland use ports in Wales—Pembroke Dock, Fishguard or Holyhead, with the vast majority using Holyhead. With Brexit, big changes came about, and I know that in Dublin they spent €30 million on adapting and modernising the port there. When I phoned Holyhead, I asked a number of people in the area what changes they are seeing. None at all. I do not know whether money has been spent since, but money is needed. We need that 14 acres for extra lorry parking and longer lorry parking, we need new rest and refreshment accommodation, and we need registration.
With registration, there are new documents—a lot more documents than they used to have. They come over on the ferry from Ireland and there is nowhere to go in Holyhead, Anglesey or north Wales; they either have to go to Warrington, 100-odd miles away, or to Birmingham, which I am told is nearer 170 miles away. This is total nonsense and shows a total lack of preparation by the Government. We asked them some time ago, “What is being done? For instance, have you got planning permission?” Yes, they had planning permission for a park. But had they bought it? No, nothing had been purchased. So we are lagging behind, and in lagging behind we are creating new problems.
The road from Holyhead through to Manchester or Birmingham, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will be more congested, more polluted and noisier. Why have the Government not prepared for this, instead of just saying that it will happen and it will be okay? I am afraid that it might be some ruse—and as a Welshman, perhaps I can bring this up—and they will abandon the Welsh ports and encourage direct sailings from Ireland to mainland Europe. This would mean that Holyhead, which 20 years ago was the poorest community in the whole of Wales, will assume again that title. Already, Sealink has halved the number of its ferries. This is for a number of reasons, of course. The pandemic takes some blame, but Brexit takes a massive part of the blame.
Even last week, one-quarter of the labour force at the docks at Holyhead has been put on hold—they have lost their jobs for the time being. Are we going to see this happening at all the ports, which mean so much to us in Wales, given what they bring into the economy? What will happen, say, if Holyhead is bypassed? I asked whether the Government would provide compensation, but oh no, there is no intention to compensate. How on earth are we going to tackle this poverty, once again, in Welsh port areas?
I want the Minister to give me an assurance that the Government will proceed, even at this late date—and it is massively late. I asked this last October and was told that it would happen when the transition came in, but nothing happened when the transition came in. They are not ready. I think this is possibly the most incompetent Government of all time. The folk in these areas certainly need to be protected, their jobs need to be secured and we need to be absolutely sure that Wales will not become a black hole of this Government.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow those powerful remarks and to echo the concern about the state of the country and the poverty of the country. Whatever happened to the levelling-up agenda? I begin by declaring my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I find myself, for the second time today, backing a powerful—unarguable, really—regret Motion against the actions of the Government. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling it. I do not see how any reasonable person could not regret the situation of the communities that have had these inland border facilities dumped on them without notice or control, or any hope of having control over what happens in them—facilities that are going to transform their lives and environment. I do not see how anyone could possibly not regret the fact that we are running the country through emergency powers, without proper democratic oversight, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, alluded to earlier.
There has been some discussion during the debate on this Motion about what is happening on our borders. I go to an independent source, Bloomberg’s Supply Lines, which quotes the logistics platform Transporeon saying that freight volumes from the UK to the EU were down 25% last week from the same period a year ago. I echo questions asked by other noble Lords about whether the Government are considering the level of change in these facilities and how they will manage it, and the fact that we might see large surges and drops in this potentially fast-changing domain.
I will focus on four sets of questions for the Minister. The first has been nagging away at me since the end of last year. We saw a Brexit deal agreed on 23 December. On 30 December, both Houses of Parliament met for a single day to debate this enormous, dense document of great complexity. The following day, we saw residents of the villages Whitfield and Guston receive letters telling them what is happening with these inland customs facilities. This is a question about timing: did the Government plan such timing to avoid democratic scrutiny and oversight, or was it simply mismanagement?
My next set of questions is about the people in those villages. I am thinking particularly of a report in the Guardian about a parent of a disabled child, who had just taken a five-year mortgage on a home because of the peace and quiet of the vicinity. Will the residents affected by all these facilities, right around the land, be fully compensated and given the option of being bought out, with all their financial and moving costs, given that this has been dumped on them by the national Government, without them having any control?
My final questions pick up from what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said when he asked who will run these sites. Will they be run by outsourced minimum-wage workers, working for contractors? There will obviously be great concerns about the impact of air pollution and litter. How will those issues be monitored? I hope that these questions can be answered today—or perhaps the noble Baroness can answer them later by letter.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. She has covered a challenging discussion, put forward some suggestions and covered a huge amount of ground. Frankly, I look at the port of Dover as the weakest link in the post-Brexit implementation strategy, which I understand to be under the control of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose attitude at times—I am sorry to say this—has seemed to be pretty cavalier.
There are three dimensions to the story of Dover. Pre 2020, there was the practice of closing down the M20. Well done; that was good planning. One does ask why they did not take it a little further and recognise that the A2 is not sensible at all and that other practices should be tried around the M20.
Secondly, we have evidence that Her Majesty’s Government, and particularly this department, were behind the curve in the recruitment of customs officials. One would have thought that the department would have thought about that, but we are still behind the curve.
The Road Haulage Association asked for instructions on the new software just before Christmas, but none were forthcoming. Then we had the announcement, almost out of the blue, about the Kent access permit on 14 December, to be implemented by a 31 December deadline. That is not a very sensible way to move forward. According the chairman of the Business Application Software Development Association, Bill Pugsley, the problem is not the IT system itself, but the fact that it arrived too late for people to learn how to use it. It needed to be phased in, in his judgment, over a period of six months.
The HGV and Kent access permits are only part of seven key IT systems, all linked to a successful international trade in 2021 and beyond. I am told that the key determination is the CDS, originally supposed to be launched in April 2020 to give developers time to test it and roll it out to the customers. But that only happened in mid-December. Now, the Secretary of State, Minister Gove, is, in some of the publicity, blaming the traders for not being ready. Frankly, this is no different from the doctors who offered their services to help with vaccinations—and I am married to a doctor—having to fill out 15 forms with 21 pieces of evidence.
To get back to this important topic: there is no doubt that there has been a fall in traffic. Whatever the department may say, for every 1,000 lorries that went out pre Brexit, only 820 are going out today—and of those, the number going out empty has grown. What worries me more and more is: what are we doing to solve this problem? Others have commented on other aspects, but I do not see that, once we have got all this IT working properly, we need to stretch it out to 2025.
I would like to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: think about the poor hauliers themselves. They are the absolute salt of the earth; they are tough men and women; they are skilled; they are working very long hours. Why do we not have a truce and look after them a bit? We know the government software was delivered late. Let us admit that and improve the facilities for these people. That, at least, will take some pressure off local residents as well. After all, we all want Brexit to succeed. That should be our priority, so that our exports can move swiftly abroad.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and I thank my noble friend Lady Randerson for her extensive introduction and for ensuring this debate took place. This is a piece of legislation to bypass the normal planning system to create temporary inland border control posts, as everybody has said.
As an ex-councillor, I am concerned that the Government are taking planning powers to themselves without any of the consultation normally attached to planning applications. The border control posts appear to be in areas where the Government believe goods may enter the country because of their proximity to ports, coastlines or large inland waterways such as the Manchester Ship Canal. Twenty-nine English local authority areas that may be affected by these temporary planning permissions are listed in Schedule 1, including Devon, Dorset and Somerset.
Despite plenty of warning, no action was taken to be ready for exit from the EU. These temporary border posts are to be started immediately. The temporary permissions lapse on 31 December 2025, and all structures must be removed, and sites cleared, by 31 December 2026, when the sites will be reinstated to their former state. The construction industry will have to move fast to meet these deadlines.
We are left with the impression that these structures—which must not be higher than 25 metres and are, by their very nature, quickly constructed and easily removed —are likely to be self-assembled. The countryside is therefore likely to be littered with shanty-town structures acting as temporary border control posts. However, the facilities that the border posts must provide are extensive and likely to require large areas of land to accommodate facilities for drivers, vehicles and staff.
Given that the SI is subject to the negative procedure, today’s regret Motion is the only way in which Peers can raise their concerns. The SI gives very specific restrictions on what cannot be harmed by the structure or where they should not be constructed. They should not be constructed in a national park, near a historic building or in an AONB, and ancient trees are to be protected, et cetera. My noble friend Lady Randerson gave some examples of where the restrictions in the SI are being ignored. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has also given examples of these new regulations being flouted.
Some of these control posts are likely to be some distance from the port of entry, so how will the Government ensure that traffic will not take a diversion to avoid inspection? There is, therefore, a possibility that animal products and plants will be allowed into the country without proper checks. This is in direct contradiction to the reassurances that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has given on numerous occasions during debates on statutory instruments around animal and phytosanitary plant movements. The public and the businesses involved must be assured that animal and plant health will always be protected from the import of disease and substandard products.
I note that in Schedule 2 there is mention of the movement of nuclear material and dangerous goods, which may not be moved through these border posts. Can the Minister tell us how nuclear material and dangerous goods will be transported and cleared if not through these border posts?
With regard to reinstatement, the site operator must submit their plan to the Secretary of State on or before 31 June 2025. This does not appear to allow sufficient time for approval before site clearance begins on 31 December 2025. Can the Minister please comment on this?
I am extremely concerned about the implications of this SI, and fully support the comments of my noble friend Lady Randerson. This SI drives a coach and horses through local planning procedures. I support the need for temporary border posts; however, this is not an emergency and is entirely predictable. It is a demonstration of an appalling lack of forethought. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am proud to note my vice-presidency of the LGA and am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who shares with me a long career in local government, as does the Minister. With that background, we will always bring a pragmatic and reasoned approach to any issue. After all, it is local government that gets things done, though after more than a decade of unremitting cuts I marvel at how it manages to do anything. As this pandemic has shown, we have a local government structure—thank goodness—that is managing to function and is run by elected members and government officers, who do indeed have the authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made a most comprehensive and detailed opening speech. She raised many apposite points regarding this emergency legislation, including noting the 29 local authorities listed in the measure and whether there has been appropriate consultation. I do not intend to repeat those points other than to emphasise the core argument: the giant lorry parks that this instrument facilitates stand as a symbol—indeed, a metaphor—of the Government’s failure to plan properly for Brexit.
We have heard many noble Lords speak with knowledge and experience on these matters from both a political and industrial perspective, including my noble friend Lord Berkeley, with his Channel Tunnel experience. Frankly, it is inexplicable how the situation has come about, other than to view it as incompetence, inaction and inefficiency.
I have four main questions for the Minister. How much will these parks cost? How will they operate? How can the Government reassure businesses that fear being pushed to bankruptcy over these problems? How can the Government reassure the significant concerns of residents who understandably fear that these sites will make their lives a misery? In recent weeks, we have seen reports of residents in villages such as Guston who have been told that the fields at the end of their gardens will be taken over without consultation and as part of back-door plans to cover up how the Government have been unable to prepare for what we all knew was coming down the line.
In Ashford, too, the enormous inland border facility is not only a nuisance for those in the immediate vicinity but lost lorries are causing havoc in Sevington after being given the wrong postcodes by the Government. The facility next to junction 10a of the M20 has been housing truckers since last December but several villages in the area have reported problems with drivers getting lost and causing chaos.
This chaos in Kent is not inevitable but the Government have simply not been prepared. However, the huge sums of money that they seem to be wasting in that area is, frankly, astonishing. According to one report, close to £4 million was handed to consultants to find a location for, and alternative to, Operation Stack. That is, of course, on top of £470 million spent on control posts and other infrastructure and £235 million on computer systems and hiring new staff. That is more than £700 million. Just imagine what impact that would have had on public service budgets.
Most incredible of all is that despite the chaos that has been caused to the people of Kent, and despite the vast sums of money that have been wasted, the Government still have not worked out how the system will operate in the months ahead. Jimmy Buchan, the chief executive of the Scottish Seafood Association, said that it had seen little improvement since the new rules were in place. He noted that these are not minor impediments to trade. The industry in Scotland has basically ground to a halt. Businesses that employ hundreds of people in communities around our coastline are losing money and, in some cases, are close to going under. He urged the Government to get a grip on what is now a full-blown crisis before severe and lasting damage is done to the sector.
Hauliers have been reporting that UK traders have been put off by the cost and hassle of the new customs paperwork required for exporting to the EU. They complain of a general confusion about the new rules and a shortage of customs agents to process the required forms. They also say that the Government’s IT systems are not reliable and have a tendency to stop working. Richard Burnett, the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, says that it warned the Government for months about their lack of preparation. He continues to urge them to act on this matter now and not shrug it off as teething problems.
The fact that the Government have not even completed an impact assessment for these regulations indicates that they do not have any interest in reflecting on their mistakes. I will ask my questions once again. How much will these parks cost? How will they operate? How can the Government reassure businesses who fear being pushed into bankruptcy? How can the Government reassure the significant concerns of residents? Finally, I should add a further question. Can the Government explain to the House how we have ended up in a situation where at this late hour, through emergency legislation, the Government are concreting over the countryside to build lorry parks?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for tabling the Motion. I also thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their contributions. I should say up front that the 10 minutes available to me will not be enough to answer their questions, although I would have loved to answer every one. Please accept my apologies if I do not get to them all but I will make sure that I write to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and put a copy of my letter in the Library.
First, the suggestion in the Motion that the special development orders have needed to be implemented because the Government failed to prepare for Brexit is incorrect. We have prepared extensively for Brexit, as, indeed, have many others involved in our borders and the trade that flows across them, including our hauliers.
Very soon after the result of the 2016 referendum on this country’s membership of the European Union, we knew that part of taking back control of our borders as a sovereign nation would mean a change to the procedures at those borders, and that the sorts of checks and inspections which have routinely been carried out on goods traded with the rest of the world, even while we were a member state of the EU, would be extended to trade with the EU.
The Government, as well as hauliers, ports, airports, traders and other businesses, have therefore been preparing for the introduction of border controls and checks for some time. In recognition of the additional challenges faced by traders and hauliers due to the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, last year we announced a phased introduction of those checks—between the end of the transition period on 1 January and 1 July of this year. These intensive preparations have meant that we have successfully avoided disruption at the border following the first round of changes at the end of the transition period. Freight flowing through our ports is now at or approaching the levels that we would expect for this time of year, and traffic is flowing freely to and from those ports.
Ministers have been clear that full customs, sanitary and phytosanitary inspections on products imported from and exported to the EU will come into effect from 1 July. We published our border operating model, most recently updated on 31 December last year. This document provides clarity on how and where we expect border checks to be made, and the infrastructure that will be required to facilitate them.
We should remember that how to provide for the checks necessary at the border is a commercial decision for ports, airports and rail facilities. If they wish to operate as a port, to serve and facilitate trade with other countries, they must provide the infrastructure and have it accredited by the relevant inspection authorities. In usual circumstances, such businesses would be expected to finance the provision of the necessary infrastructure themselves but, in recognition of the unique situation of Brexit, the Government have provided a significant amount of public funding to support ports, airports and rail facilities to build that required infrastructure.
In July last year, the Government announced £470 million of funding for infrastructure as part of the wider package of £705 million for border-readiness. Two hundred million pounds of that was provided for the port infrastructure fund, with provisional grants allocated to ports at the end of last year. Contracting with ports, and the subsequent payments of grants, which will not need to be repaid, is progressing rapidly as we speak.
In addition to the port infrastructure fund, where it is not possible, due to a lack of space, for ports to build infrastructure on site, the Government are delivering inland border facilities away from ports, for which Her Majesty’s Treasury have provided £270 million. As noble Lords would expect, these sites require planning permission. Although there had been considerable work at pace by the border-facing departments to deliver these sites, due to the impact of Covid-19, and in the light of the Government’s decision that the UK would leave the single market and customs union, it was determined in early 2020 that there would be insufficient time to follow the planning route via local planning authorities to ensure that planning consent, site preparation and construction of the required strategically important inland sites could be completed by 1 January 2021. As such, and due to the number of inland sites required, a single overarching special development order—an SDO—was made as a statutory instrument to ensure that the sites could be delivered on time. This answers a number of noble Lords’ questions about why it was done at this time.
Special development orders, such as the one referred to in the Motion, are a long-established part of the planning system, designed specifically to handle planning proposals of national significance. Our border infrastructure is essential to maintaining the integrity of the border and thus to the security of the UK and to support for the UK’s foreign policy and national security objectives. The SDO has therefore been made available so that we are able to move quickly to develop the inland sites and ensure that they are ready for use by those trading across the border.
The development and use of land for inland border facilities in England was approved under the town and country planning special development order 2020, which came into force on 24 September 2020. This SDO grants temporary planning permission for border processing, the associated stationing of vehicles entering or leaving Great Britain and the provision of infrastructure and facilities. To date, MHCLG, as the department responsible for taking planning decisions under the SDO, has used it to approve the temporary use and development of seven sites. These inland border facilities are at Warrington and Solihull, to serve Holyhead and the short straits, North Weald, Manston, Ebbsfleet and Waterbrook and Sevington, both in Ashford, to serve Dover and the Eurotunnel.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others have expressed a lot of concern about the site at the white cliffs of Dover. Just to make it clear, it was purchased at the end of December 2020 by the Department for Transport. It will be used by Defra as a border control post and by HMRC as an office of departure and destination. The site will not be used as a lorry park.
Further, the statutory engagement period started on 13 January and concluded yesterday—10 February. We offered residents a 29-day engagement period rather than the 14-day period specified in the SDO. As we have with all these SDOs, we will continue to engage with residents, MPs and local authorities as the project moves forward. I should also say that Dover District Council has welcomed this site because of the jobs that the development will bring. The site does not have planning permission as yet; no decision has been made. We expect a proposal for use of the site to be submitted at the beginning of March. I just wanted to update noble Lords on that.
It is important to note that these are temporary provisions, necessary to address a temporary need. The development must end, at the very latest, by 31 December 2025, with all reinstatement works completed by 31 December 2026. In many cases, as has been said, the provisions will not be needed for that long—and probably for only a short period of two to three years. I hope that answers the questions asked by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. A number of noble Lords asked about the cost of the reinstatement works, which will be met by the Government.
I want quickly to get through one or two more points before I finish, although I doubt that there are many I can address. First, there was no debate on this SI because special development orders follow the negative procedure. The order was laid on 3 September. After 40 sitting days, no prayer Motion was passed in either House so it did not come up for debate.
I have come to the end of my time, as I knew I would. There are so many other interesting and important issues to respond to, so I assure noble Lords that I will send a letter as soon as possible and put a copy of it in the Library.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response. I am sure she will forgive me if I say that I find some of the Government’s arguments very unpersuasive. However, I look forward to her letter explaining the additional issues that I fully understand she did not have time to address.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Across the parties here today there has been a very high level of unanimity and great concern about the loss of local democratic processes and the potential level of environmental damage involved in this.
The Minister finished by commenting on the time lapse, which other noble Lords have mentioned. I am afraid that is an issue with our current procedures, but in the light of that time lapse this Motion today could only ever be a probing Motion. In that spirit, I am therefore prepared to withdraw it.
Covid-19 Vaccines Deployment
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that we will live with Covid-19 and its mutations for a long time, so a full vaccination programme seems the best way to get out in front of it. Obviously, everyone was very pleased to hear the study results regarding the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine reducing transmission and maintaining protection for over 12 weeks. While the daily cases begin to fall, it is vital that the Government do not repeat previous mistakes and take their foot off the gas just as things look like getting better. Could the Minister update us on whether he expects similar trial data to be published for the Pfizer vaccine?
Would the Minister care to comment on the—how can I put this?—forceful comments of his honourable friend Sir Charles Walker MP on “Channel 4 News” when he accused the Government of robbing people of hope and said:
“We cannot cancel life to preserve every life”—
whatever that means? Apart from the fact that, in my own view, that sounds like a petulant child, it is concerning that these are the pressures being brought to bear on the Government, and it is to be hoped that they will bear up and previous mistakes will not be repeated.
It seems that the Government are on track towards their promise of vaccinating the top four Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation priority groups by the middle of this month. That is to be applauded. Regarding data, though, I think everyone is concerned about the reports of lagging take-up among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities as well as among poorer communities. We know that these groups have been the worst affected by the pandemic and we need to get 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 community level split by ethnicity. What data does the Minister have on that? When can colleagues get council ward level data so that they can be part of the effort to drive uptake?
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 up the vaccination?
It appears that one in five over-80s in London has yet to be vaccinated; that is what the latest figures suggest. Some 78% of over-80s in the capital have had a first dose, lower than for other groups, while the figures are 83% for the 75-to-79 age group and 79% for the 70-to-74 group, so we still have some way to go in London.
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 will get it?
Also, we do not want the vaccine rollout across Britain to be undermined by a vaccine-resistant strain entering the country, which the Government’s failure to secure our borders risks jeopardising—but we will be coming on to that in the next Statement.
Will the Minister say what conversations are now taking place with the JCVI and what changes might be made to the priorities of the people who will be due the vaccination? For example, will the JCVI be reviewing 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 over-60s and people with underlying health conditions, surely we can reduce transmission further, protect more people and keep the vital services that they provide running smoothly—which, of course, includes reopening schools.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by congratulating everyone working in the vaccine sector: the scientists, still working behind the scenes to ensure that there are vaccines that will be effective against the South African and Manaus variants; those involved in the manufacture and supply chain; and all those on the front line, making sure that the vaccines are delivered into arms safely and swiftly by clinicians, with administrators, staff, the military and volunteers helping. A notable reason why the UK has been able to manage this so well has been the expertise of Professor Chris Whitty and our vaccine research community, which has so many years’ experience in epidemics, including the Ebola outbreak in west Africa.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has also kept our focus on who should be protected first, and the government delivery group, led by Kate Bingham, has also done well. The numbers vaccinated in the top four priority group continues to grow and I, for one, hope that the target for next week will be achieved.
The Statement says:
“We … 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.”
However, I still cannot find the actual number and percentage of social care staff vaccinated, whether those working in care homes or domiciliary care staff providing essential support to keep people living in their own homes, so please can the Minister provide the number and percentage of social care staff who have now had their first dose of vaccine? Once again I ask: why are care staff not disaggregated from NHS staff in the published data?
The target of “offering” a vaccine to those in or working in homes is, frankly, no target at all. We know that, after Christmas, an alarming number of cases were diagnosed in care homes, which has resulted in residents and staff being refused vaccine until all cases are over in those homes. With very limited visits by families, the only way that Covid could have come in is, unfortunately, via staff, who probably picked it up from others over the Christmas break. Today, the ONS has said that one-third of all Covid cases in hospital during this pandemic have been over the past month. That is truly shocking.
Was the Prime Minister’s bold statement last year that Christmas should not be cancelled and his encouragement to allow people to mix, against all the expert advice from SAGE and alternative SAGE, worth it? How many deaths will have resulted from those cases, which could have been avoided if that expert advice had been followed earlier?
There are reports of some surgery teams arriving at care homes with enough vaccine only for residents and staff being redirected to large hubs, many miles away. This is unhelpful when staff work shifts and are on low wages, with no access to the transport needed to get to a hub. What is planned to ensure that all care home staff can be vaccinated at their place of work by their local vaccination teams?
Another bit of ONS data this week has shown that there were more than 30,000 Covid-related deaths of disabled people between mid-January and mid-November last year, representing 60% of all Covid-related deaths in that period. I remain concerned that many of those under 70 who are disabled or learning disabled and live in homes are still not on a priority list. We know that those requiring close personal care are at very high risk. The ONS data proves that. When will the Government add them to the top four priority lists?
The opening of large hubs is welcome, but they must not replace very local access to vaccines, whether through GP surgeries or local pharmacies. Worrying reports are emerging of GPs running out of supplies and being told that the large vaccine hubs are being prioritised over them. I thank the Minister for the excellent briefing that MPs and Peers had earlier this week on vaccines and possible treatments for Covid-19. The Statement says:
“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.”
It goes on:
“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.”
However, the green book on the vaccination programmes states:
“For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for a vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available … it is reasonable … to offer a single dose of the locally available product”
to complete the schedule. If safety has not yet been established, why does the green book say that potentially unsafe dosing regimes can go ahead?
The Minister is correct to say that no one is safe until the whole world is safe, and it is good that the UK has made a commitment of £548 million to COVAX with match funding to provide 1 billion doses of vaccine this year to developing countries. I hope that the Prime Minister will use his chairing of the G7 to encourage other countries to donate their share to make this happen. The examples of the South African and Manaus variants are a wake-up call to all of us that we must work as a global community to protect all people and the world’s economies from Covid-19.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the thoughtful questions from the noble Baronesses. They are entirely right to applaud the progress of the vaccine. I start by sharing some pretty formidable statistics on that. An absolutely remarkable 95.6% of those aged 75 to 79 have received their first dose. I have never seen a government statistic quite like that. It is an astonishing figure. Such a very large proportion of a target population have come forward, have been efficiently vaccinated and are now protected from the worse effects of this awful disease. It is an enormous success story. Of those over 80 years old, 91.3% have received their first dose and 74% of 70 to 74 year-olds have received their first dose. Up to 9 February, an astonishing 13,580,298 people received their vaccine. These are extraordinary figures. It will have a huge impact not just on the personal lives of those who have been vaccinated and their families but on the workings of the entire NHS. It is a massive game-changer and will dramatically reduce the amount of hospitalisation for and deaths from Covid. We are determined to take full advantage as a country of this enormous success story.
We are enormously pleased with the WHO readout on the AstraZeneca vaccine. It is exactly what we hoped for and what we understood from the clinical trials of the vaccine, and it is pleasing to see worldwide recognition that a 12-week gap between the two doses is the right approach and that the AstraZeneca vaccine is good for over 65 year-olds. I greatly thank those at the WHO who have done that. We are completely committed to the vaccine rollout and we will not take our foot off the pedal in any way.
I completely understand the point of those who are concerned about the impact of the lockdown. The noble Baroness alluded to the words of Charles Walker, who is entirely right that the lockdown has a huge impact on the economy, the public mood and particularly on those who cannot make it to school. However, the approach we are taking—a slow and steady approach of not rushing into anything—is exactly the one that will pay the greatest dividends for the economy. It is hugely supported by the general public and it will mean that, when we release the lockdown and return children to school, we can do it with the confidence that we will not have to go back again.
We are concerned about the lag in take up, particularly in black African communities. There are clearly, among the really good stories of take up, one or two areas where we are concerned. The work of the communications team on anti-vaxxers’ stories and the support we have got from social media firms has been really good across the board, but this is one area where we are enormously focused. The data is not always crystal clear, and we have not published it all yet, but this is one area where the noble Baroness is entirely right and we are very concerned.
The noble Baroness asked for reassurance on the second dose: will everyone get a second dose, and are there enough supplies in the warehouses for everyone? I reassure her and all noble Lords who may be concerned on that point that we are absolutely committed to the second dose. Everyone will get it, and they will get it on time. The supplies are in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about whether it was our policy to give a difference second dose to the first. I will be crystal clear: this is not our policy. If you are given a dose of “A” then your first dose will be “A” and your second dose will be “A” as well, and not “B.” We are looking into clinical trials that seek to understand whether an “AB” combination might be safe and may even be better. There are examples in other spheres where mixing two different vaccines can have a benign effect on the body and can stimulate a greater antibody response. We are looking at this very carefully. The COM COV clinical trial has been given £7 million to look into this. It is a long-term clinical trial and we are not expecting a readout any time soon but, if there are benefits, we will chase those down.
I completely agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, on variants of concern. We have all been alerted to the grave danger that a mutation might have enhanced transmissibility, increased severity and escapology. Should such a variant emerge that could somehow jeopardise the Ming vase of our massive vaccination success story, we would be extremely concerned to address it. We are shortly having a debate on borders, and I shall save my comments for that debate, but I completely endorse the concerns of both noble Baronesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned Professor Chris Whitty. To all those who missed it, I mention the presentation he gave yesterday on the investment in therapeutic drugs and antivirals, which was unbelievably impressive. We are enormously lucky to have someone like Chris as our Chief Medical Officer. Indeed, the Deputy Chief Medical Officers, Jonathan Van-Tam and the others, have all served us extremely well. I also praise others who have stepped up to public life in our time of need, including Kate Bingham and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. They have both done an enormous public service and deserve enormous praise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about disabled people. She is entirely right: there are those who are disabled or who have learning difficulties, and we are concerned about the impact of Covid on them. Many who are clinically extremely vulnerable are already in the priority level 4 and will already be in the prioritisation list. Others will be in prioritisation level 6. We are looking at whether we should change the prioritisation system in any way, and the JCVI keeps a running watch on this. I reassure the noble Baroness that all those in a high-risk group will be prioritised in a reasonable fashion. We will be reaching prioritisation level 6 very soon indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about the importance of sharing vaccine with other countries. Tedros is absolutely right: we are not safe until everyone is safe. Britain has taken leadership role in CEPI, Gavi and ACT; we continue to support the global distribution of vaccines through our contribution of IP, our massive financial contribution and our diplomatic leadership. We remain committed to that, and we will continue to use our chairmanship of the G7 to influence other nations to step up to their responsibilities.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 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 Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the vaccine programme. After a pretty disastrous war against Covid, it looks as though the Government may be winning the last battle, which is the one that counts. What happens to people who have received the jab and are registered under the test and trace system? Will they be forced to isolate, despite inoculation making it very unlikely that they will catch the disease or transmit it to others?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that is not the view of the scientists at the moment. I am extremely glad about all those who have had their first jab, but the very strong recommendation is that everyone has to abide by the lockdown rules at the moment. The transmissibility is still there: a person who has had the jab can still, and often may well, be infected by the disease, carry it and communicate it to someone who has not had the jab. They remain a danger to the community and, until a very large number of the population have had the jabs, those protocols will remain in place.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will first follow up on an earlier question. I am not sure that the Minister managed to reply on the issue of when and if we are expecting evidence on the interval levels between doses on the Pfizer, rather than the AstraZeneca, vaccine?
My main question is about how, given the impressive and successful vaccine programme, we have to recognise that it has mobilised enormous effort and resources. There is growing evidence that Covid will be with us long-term, so it is not a one-off exercise. Can the Minister share government thinking on the sustainability of the programme—for example, the potential for future programmes to be combined with the annual flu vaccination drive or for a single bivalent vaccine against both diseases?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that the interval protocols for the Pfizer vaccine have been completely endorsed by the JCVI, the CMO and the MHRA. They are extremely clearly endorsed by the British authorities, and she should feel enormous confidence in our approach to that.
However, the noble Baroness is right: I do not know, and cannot say for certain, what the long-term prognosis is. We do not know what the transmissibility of the disease will be with the current vaccine. We are working on new versions of it that should address the South African variant, but we do not know for sure whether that will prove dominant in the UK. It is the view of the CMO, Jon Van-Tam, that it will not beat either Covid classic or Covid Kent—but it is not certain whether that is the case right now.
We do not know whether there will be a rolling programme of mutations that roll on to the shore and require us to update the vaccine regularly—or whether we will have to hold our borders as they are now until we have the kind of vaccine development programme that can turn around refreshed vaccines within, say, 100 days. Those are all possibilities; we are putting in place the necessary plans in case that should be required, but it is my confident hope that the current vaccine will have a massive impact on Covid and that we can return to something that approaches normal in the very near future.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I too add my congratulations to Her Majesty’s Government on an extraordinarily rollout of the vaccines. I pay tribute to all those involved, not least one group not often mentioned —the practice managers, who often work through the night. Can the Minister comment on the community champions scheme? Faith leaders across Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, where I live, have been waiting to use our huge, extensive network of people on the ground to communicate with hard-to-reach groups, such as ethnic minorities and so on. Only now are we being brought into that opportunity. Will the Government commit to working with us, since we are keen to use all our resources to help get those messages out to those hard-to-reach groups?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the right reverend Prelate for mentioning practice managers. Managers in the NHS are sometimes given a bit of a hard time and are too often overlooked. But, my goodness, if the vaccine deployment has been a success and been run smoothly—and if the constant reports I get of two-minute turnarounds, accurate invitations and appointments made briskly and accurately are correct—it is because of those managers. The NHS practice managers are running a tight ship and delivering huge value for the NHS. They are too often overlooked but, boy oh boy, have they delivered on this occasion.
The right reverend Prelate is entirely right to raise the issue of not only community champions but volunteering overall. It has been one of the toughest aspects of our response to Covid to make use of the hundreds of thousands of people who have stepped forward in various schemes to help with it. There are returning practitioners from healthcare; there are community champions, which he rightly described, along with the faith groups; there is also St John Ambulance and the vaccinating volunteers. Quite often, hygiene protocols and the necessity to put in place measures to avoid transmission of the disease have meant that it has been difficult to mobilise the army of volunteers. One thing that we should look back at, when we do our post-mortem, is how we as a country can deploy civic society more effectively.
Regarding the faith groups the right reverend Prelate specifically mentioned, I pay tribute to their role in the vaccine deployment. The sight of vaccines being given out in synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras and temples up and down the country surely has a huge part to play in their successful deployment among many difficult-to-reach groups.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, may I press the Minister once more on care homes, as mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton? The progress on vaccinating residents is indeed impressive. Are there now plans to also vaccinate as a priority, with encouragement if necessary, the staff who work in care homes and to offer the vaccine to relatives who wish to visit, so that family life of some sort can be re-established?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have done an enormous amount to prioritise care home staff, for the entirely pragmatic reason that it would make no sense at all for vulnerable care home residents to be infected by the staff who come and serve them. It is not always possible to put care home staff in exactly the same queue as those residents, sometimes because they are the ones delivering the vaccines. There is in fact a hugely sophisticated NHS route for care home staff to get their vaccine. However, I hear loud and clearly the concerns of noble Lords on this area. Let me please look at it more closely and I will correspond with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, if I can provide her with any more details that would be helpful.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, some GPs in Sheffield have told me today that their hubs have a zero supply of vaccine and have been closed for over a week. However, they have not yet vaccinated all of their high priority patients. Those patients are now being directed to travel by bus up to 10 miles to the mass vaccination centre, but the most nervous and vulnerable say that they will not go there. What can the Minister say to GPs who are waiting and able to vaccinate patients but have no vaccine because it has all gone to the distant mass vaccination centre?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have heard the noble Lord’s concerns about this matter when he has brought them up previously, but I simply do not recognise the story he is telling. I would remind him that 95.6% of those aged 75 to 79 have had the vaccine. This is not the story of people who are concerned about going to mass vaccination centres. There are GP centres up and down the country that are closed because they do not have supplies, and it is supply that is undoubtedly the rate-limiting factor. That is because, as he knows, the supply comes in large boxes. If GPs do not have enough people to use up a large box, we have to prioritise those who have longer lists.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about the Moderna vaccine. I understand that we have 17 million doses on order, the first batches of which are likely to arrive in the spring—let us say, in May. Where will the vaccine be used? It seems that with a trial taking place in America of its use among 12 to 17 year-olds, there is an argument for it to be reserved for use in vulnerable younger people or, indeed, given its relative significant effectiveness, to be reserved for use later in the year as a booster vaccine for the most vulnerable groups. Can he tell us the Government’s thinking about the use of this vaccine?
Lord Bethell (Con)
As ever, my noble friend is extremely perceptive in his insight. The Moderna vaccine is indeed an interesting one that may well prove to be a useful complement to the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, which are the bulwarks of our vaccination deployment at the moment. As he probably knows, the MHRA has already sanctioned the use of existing vaccines in some children where there may be a strong clinical need, and under the advice of their clinicians. However, it is our aspiration to spread the vaccines as widely as possible. Unfortunately, children are a vector of infection and it may be that there are strong arguments for vaccinating not just vulnerable children, but perhaps a large number of children. We will look at various different vaccines for that, and Moderna may possibly be a candidate for the kind of A-B double-dose vaccine that I alluded to earlier.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, as we move towards group six, we are getting into a rather complex situation where vaccination is not determined only by age but by health conditions and their severity. Can the Minister say something about how we will communicate to the public the kind of conditions and the level at which they have them that will lead them to be vaccinated so that people have a clear understanding and GP practices are not inundated by the task of having to give that information out?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. We are entering a different phase of the rollout where definitions are not based so clearly on age and where more choices have to be made. Noble Lords have raised special groups and interests for which they have made a good case for them to be prioritised. We are reaching the moment when that communication will be made more clearly. I cannot say for certain what it will be because I do not yet have the information in my gift. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that, when that moment comes, the communication will be done very clearly and all the arguments that have been made in this Chamber will be listened to.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have two concerns about a generally impressive vaccine rollout. The first is the advice not to book a summer holiday. Even if it is cancelled later, planning for a break can have an important therapeutic effect on people at a very difficult time. The second is the policy of not allowing visits to relatives in care homes until all staff and residents have been vaccinated. However, I am reliably told that the vaccination take-up among staff in some homes is as low as 20%. Does the Minister agree that a policy which bars vaccinated relatives while giving unvaccinated staff unrestricted access needs to be revisited urgently?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord touches on one very positive subject: summer holidays. I entirely agree with him on the therapeutic effect of planning one’s holiday. I spend far too much time looking at Scottish cottages and the North Coast 500 to inspire me about the months ahead.
The noble Lord touches on the very difficult subject of care homes. I do not avoid the fact that this is one of the most awkward and regretful circumstances of the moment we are in. The bottom line is that care homes have many residents of different ages. A care home epidemic is unbelievably difficult to control and leads to mortality and sickness. I do not recognise the 20% figure that he articulated, but he is right that in many homes it is not the case that 100% of residents have been vaccinated. It is certainly not the case that everybody who would wish to visit one has been vaccinated. We are in a strange lacuna where visits are not possible—at least not indoor visits, only outdoor ones. I hope that we can end this awkward and difficult moment with the swift and emphatic deployment of the vaccine.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that Wales had become the first of the UK nations to have vaccinated more than 20% of its population? Will he confirm that the availability of vaccine supplies for all four homes nations has been co-ordinated by the NHS centrally? That being so, can he reassure me that adequate supplies will consistently be made available to the NHS in Wales to keep up this rate of vaccination, and to enable it to give to all those who have had their first jab their second follow-up jab within 12 weeks?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the Welsh for hitting that remarkable number. I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for bringing it to the House’s attention. I absolutely assure him that distribution of the vaccines is done in very close concert between the four nations. These numbers are assessed and gone through in great detail on a weekly call on Thursday evenings between the Secretary of the State and his opposite numbers. The JCVI and Emily Lawson, who is running the vaccination programme, are in close contact with their DA counterparts. The figures I have seen suggest that the supply to the nations is more than the target numbers that we had originally planned.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, is it not the case that, however brilliantly successful the vaccine rollout has so far been, we still know too little about transmissibility for it to be wise to switch at a stroke from lockdown to the previous normality? While this uncertainty persists, will the Government put caution before risk in their approach to the lifting of restrictions?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right that there are many mysteries of immunity that we do not fully understand. While we have some strong evidence on the transmissibility of the disease after vaccination, it is not crystal clear. The evidence we have is that it reduces infection by two-thirds, but that still means that a third of people who have the vaccine might get the disease and be able to pass it on. That is an extremely serious risk when the vast majority of the population have not been vaccinated at all. We do not want a situation where a small minority of the population might be spared sickness and death, but a very large amount of the population become infected with a disease that might hospitalise them or lead to other infections. That is why we are cautious. We are also conscious of variants of concern, which remain a potent threat as long as the vaccine has not been rolled out.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will press the Minister a little further on the low take-up of the vaccine by some care home staff, which has already been raised by other noble Lords. Recent research from the National Care Forum has shown that some of the significant factors accounting for this low take-up include vaccinators coming to homes with enough vaccines only for residents, and staff being expected to travel to vaccination centres if they are not vaccinated in the home, but not being given time off. Those not on shift when vaccinators come, such as night shift staff, are missed, and some fear having to take unpaid time off if they develop a reaction to the vaccine. Could the Minister say what steps the Government are considering taking to tackle these very specific barriers?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do hear the noble Baroness and I would be happy to look into this matter further. However, my understanding is that the vaccination rates among care home staff are much higher than she describes. It is not unusual for care home staff to have their health provided for by the local NHS, and for them to be required to travel to receive that support. That is quite normal for anyone getting a vaccine, even if they work in social care. It is entirely in our interests to make sure that social care staff are vaccinated, so there is no way that there is any kind of policy or deliberate effort to avoid vaccinating care home staff. However, I will be glad to look into this further and, if I may, I will copy the noble Baroness into the correspondence that will clearly result from this debate.
Lord Farmer (Con) [V]
My Lords, having vaccinated the vulnerable tiers, at what level do we revert to normal, bearing in mind, first, that the remaining population is highly unlikely to require hospitalisation or to die from Covid; and, secondly, the mental health stresses which are starting to unravel our social fabric? On that note, do any members of SAGE have recognised expertise in mental health, so that their advice is weighted to this consideration as well as to others?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the honest truth is that I cannot lay out a timetable for my noble friend. That will happen in the week of 22 February and the Prime Minister has made that clear. He is entirely right that the vaccine dramatically reduces hospitalisation and death. Target groups 1 to 4 account for nearly 90% of the deaths, so this is a dramatically improved situation. However, it does not remove the threat of Covid altogether. At the moment we have an infection rate of around 2% in the country. Were we to open up tomorrow, that infection rate might lead to a much higher rate: 10% or 20%. If we ran at a rate of 20% we would have a very large number of young people who would end up in hospital one way or the other, and who might experience long-standing damage from the Covid disease. We would also increase the rate of mutations in our own country and we would have a great displacement of that effect on the rest of the NHS system.
So this is not a binary game in which we have suddenly hit the moment where we can lift everything. We have to tread cautiously on that. However, I agree with my noble friend that the mental health impact of the lockdown is intense. I reassure him that two members of the SAGE subgroup SPI-B are members of the British Psychological Society. SPI-B presents the independent expert behavioural science to advise the top SAGE—the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—and it brings to the debate a very clear insight on mental health and brings to our awareness the impact of lockdown, which, as my noble friend quite rightly points out, is immense.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for Back-Bench questions on this Statement has now elapsed. I apologise to those whom I was unable to call. There will now be a short pause to allow for some changes before taking the second Statement.
Covid-19
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, a hotel quarantine policy has been debated for months and was finally announced two weeks ago, yet the legislation underpinning the scheme has not been laid. That means that, yet again, Parliament cannot scrutinise and vote on the regulations until after they have been brought into force. Can the Minister advise the House when they will be published and when we will get the opportunity to debate them? I hope that he will be able to assure me that they will not be laid at the 11th hour, as so many other coronavirus regulations have been, which would mean that people who are impacted by this policy and need to implement it will have to get up to speed very fast indeed to make the necessary arrangements.
The UK’s quarantine policy is due to come into effect on Monday. It is exactly a year to the day since I raised this exact issue in your Lordships’ House in response to a Statement repeated by the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood. Her answer was basically that the Government would be putting the resource into dealing with quarantine immediately. A year later, “immediately” has not really happened, which is a shame. We have possibly borne the burden of deaths as a result of that, too.
It is also clear to see that there are gaping holes in the Government’s new hotel quarantine system. Figures suggest that thousands of people travelling from higher-risk countries will be missed by the scheme every day. Analysis of passenger data suggests that 10,000 passengers will arrive in the UK on Monday from countries where the South African or Brazilian variants of Covid-19 are circulating but which are not yet on the Government’s “red list”. These people—roughly 19 out of 20 passengers —will avoid hotels and ask to quarantine at home. Yet just three in every 100 people are being checked to ensure that they comply with home quarantine. Does the Minister think that that is good enough? Given that we know that the South African and Brazilian variants of the virus involve a key mutation, E484K, which may help the virus evade antibodies and render the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines less effective, the Government’s failure to secure our borders risks jeopardising the fight against Covid-19 just at the moment when it looks like we are making significant progress. So I hope that the Government will urgently review the policy and extend quarantine to all travellers arriving in the UK.
I turn to the implementation of the policy. Will the Minister update the House on the number of beds in hotel rooms that have been secured for travel quarantine measures? Can he confirm whether they are seeking to expand capacity in anticipation of extending the policy to further countries? What steps are being taken to ensure that staff in quarantine facilities are given adequate PPE? I would also be grateful if the Minister could outline what support and financial assistance will be in place to help people seeking to return to the UK from “red-listed” countries who cannot afford the up-front £1,750 quarantine cost. This is very important, given that, among the numerous categories of travellers, there are likely to be people who had to go abroad at short notice for family emergencies.
Finally, it has been announced that people found to have omitted to reveal that they have travelled from a “red list” country could possibly face up to 10 years in prison under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. While the penalties for non-compliance are a core part of any regime, does the Minister accept that a 10-year prison sentence is really disproportionate? It is more severe even than sentences given out for some violent and sexual offences. Sir Keir Starmer has, quite rightly, pointed out that pretending judges would sentence anyone to that long in prison, in court cases that—given the current backlog—will not be heard for several years, is not going help anyone and probably will not deter anyone.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister is right to say that it looks as if the corner has been turned on cases, and even on hospitalisations, in this most recent surge. I too, like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, look forward to actually seeing the quarantine regulations being laid in Parliament. We keep asking for sight of them as early as possible. We have known that this quarantine arrangement was coming in—leaks started in December.
The BMA and other medical groups are concerned that those without GPs must have access to the vaccine. Last week, the Government announced that undocumented migrants can register with GPs for a Covid vaccine without fear of being prosecuted by the Home Office. This is good news, as we need everyone possible in the country to be vaccinated, to keep us all safe. However, the law currently requires the NHS to report those without a defined migration status. This amnesty announcement, based on the suspension of so-called immigration data sharing between the health service and the Government, is temporary, only during the pandemic. What safeguards are there that this data will not be shared after the pandemic is over? A temporary amnesty will not encourage people to come forward if their data can later be shared.
According to Ministry of Justice data, 2,400 Covid-positive cases were recorded in prisons in December—a rise of 70% in a single month. Given that the Government have a legal duty to provide equivalent healthcare to those in prison, can the Minister explain why prisoners in priority groups 1 to 4 started to be vaccinated only from 29 January?
Will the Minister answer a question I asked earlier this week without a response? There have been number of reports of Sitel and other call centre contractors having their contracts reduced by government and immediately sacking track and trace staff because, as a Sitel manager said,
“At this point in time as a business we need to reduce the number of agents because we have done our jobs.”
Can the Minister please confirm or deny that the Government have asked for track and trace staff numbers to be reduced? Do the Government still believe that test, trace and isolate remains a vital part of coming out of this pandemic, or are they totally relying on the vaccine? Everything that the scientists and doctors are telling us is that we will have to continue to take all precautions, such as “hands, face, space”, and will also need all the protection tools, such as test, trace and isolate, for some time to come, otherwise we will be hurtling towards yet more cases, hospitalisations and deaths.
That brings me to borders. On 22 January last year, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I asked the Minister’s predecessor what steps were being taken to monitor flights from places where Covid-19 had been confirmed or was suspected. I have repeatedly raised worries that the UK was not following either the World Health Organization advice or the actions of the CDC in America, which has resulted in many cases coming into the UK from China and the Far East and, during February, through those returning from skiing holidays in Italy, France and Austria. Every step of the way, the Government have been too slow in making arrangements to monitor passengers, whether placing them in quarantine at home or, as is now proposed, in quarantine hotels.
Some countries have learned through experience that early action at borders is vital. South Korea, Australia and New Zealand are notable examples. Taiwan should be a role model for us all. It began monitoring passengers arriving as early as 31 December 2019, and shortly afterwards created formal quarantining, both at home and in hotels, with electronic monitoring by health teams. Its Government’s clear communication with its people, providing the carrot of a support package for anyone quarantining, as well as the stick of substantial fines, has meant that a country of 23 million people had, in 2020, fewer than 800 cases, with only seven deaths. One city alone has 3,000 hotel rooms reserved for quarantining; the Government here are proposing 4,000 for the whole of the UK. And the fines in Taiwan are not small, at up to 300,000 New Taiwanese dollars—about £7,500—with one businessman who breached quarantine seven times in three days fined more than £26,000.
Taiwan’s approach is as much about self-isolation as it is about quarantine for those coming from abroad, and the view of the Taiwanese public is that everyone should do their civic duty, helped by the clarity of messaging from the Government and their medical experts. So it is a shame that our Government’s key message is all about the maximum prison sentence. We need as much of the carrot in our approach, rewarding people for self-isolation, preferably by paying their wages and by supporting them with care calls and delivering shopping and medicines, most of which has been notable by its absence to date.
Two things are clear from the worries over the new variants. The UK public want to do their duty. The vast majority of people are complying with lockdown. They also understand that the nature of Covid-19 is changing, and that new variants mean we must change the way we live too. So will the Government please make the changes that we on these Benches have asked for, for over a year, regarding borders? Otherwise, we risk losing all the progress made with vaccinations, we risk children not returning to school, and we risk further and substantial damage to our economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the questions from the two noble Baronesses. By way of introduction, both the noble Baronesses are entirely right that the variants of concern have been a massive game-changer and the reason for this profound inflection point in our approach to border control. Having invested so much in vaccine deployment, having got it right so emphatically, having been ahead of the world in the identification, development, purchase and now deployment of vaccines, and having got so many people who were at threat of sickness and death into a position of safety, it seems entirely right that we now protect the country from mutations that might escape the vaccine by taking tough measures on the border.
That is different from the situation of a year ago: we had comparable infection rates and were all facing the same virus, which did not seem to mutate for months on end. At that point, the priority was to keep our borders open in order to keep the flow of goods, medicines and essential supplies in the planes, trains and boats that are necessary to support Great Britain. But the variants of concern have completely changed that view. That is why we brought in this new, robust and emphatic regime. It depends, in very large part, on existing legislation, but I reassure noble Lords that our plans are to bring in new regulations, where necessary, at the earliest moment. I hope that that will be very soon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about international surveillance. That is an important part of our overall plan. In Britain, as noble Lords know, we have the most advanced investment in genomic sequencing anywhere in the world, by far. We are hugely investing in a great dash on capacity, turnaround times, accuracy and the geographic distribution of that surveillance in the UK. But we are also investing in international systems. We have made an open-hearted, big and generous offer to the countries of the world to do genomic sequencing for them, wherever necessary. If anyone wants to send their specimens to the UK, to the Sanger at Cambridge, we will do that for them. We are sending machines, often from Oxford Nanopore, the British diagnostic company, to diagnostic centres in countries that have some genomic capability, to enhance their testing and speed up their turnaround times.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the enhanced measures we are putting in place to check when people arrive in the UK. I can reassure her massively, because the system for the passenger landing form has been digitised and hugely enhanced. We have dramatically increased the amount of validation of the data put into the PLF. The pretesting certificates are linked directly to the PLF, and we are working on linking it to the hotel booking and testing forms. We are also putting in enhanced surveillance of those isolating at home, which includes phone calls, SMSs and an increased investment in police time to follow up where there may be suspicion of a breach. We are also making a crystal-clear communication to those who have access to private jet travel that we will not tolerate those who have the resources to pay the fines but feel that they can, or want to, get around these measures.
The application of the hotel quarantine measures to all countries—both red list and amber—is something that we keep under review. There is a rolling review of the red list, and we are putting in place the necessary infrastructure, should it be required, for a blanket hotel quarantine protocol on all travellers to the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, kind of answered the question on the number of hotels, for which I am enormously grateful. We have currently booked 16 hotels with 4,600 rooms. However, I reassure her that this is an on-call framework, and we will have access to a massively increased number of hotel rooms if that should prove necessary.
But I have to be clear: the signal from the British Government and the instruction from the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care is that there should be no need to travel other than under the most exceptional circumstances. We are not trying to encourage anyone to travel, and we expect the number of people travelling to and from the UK to remain at a low level for the foreseeable future. For those who are currently overseas and seek to return but are experiencing some hardship because they were not expecting, did not plan for and cannot afford the considerable cost of the hotel quarantine, we will publish schemes to spread the payment of that to help people out.
Regarding the legislation, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made a big point of saying that a sentence of 10 years was too long for a breach of contract. I remind her that Section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces a number of ways of committing it, including fraud by false representation and fraud by failure to disclose information. Committing fraud is a very serious offence. Not everyone who commits their first fraud will get a custodial sentence, but if people repeatedly breach these restrictions or put the lives of others at risk, it will be up to either the magistrates’ court or, ultimately, the Crown Court to decide on the sentence. The maximum sentence is 10 years and it is quite right that it should be. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very good point when she referred to Taiwan, which I shall mention in a moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the data flows on undocumented migrants and the temporary amnesty. I reassure her that it is absolutely our intention to get everyone in the UK vaccinated, whatever their status. We are completely status blind when it comes to distribution of the vaccine, but we need to know who you are before we inject you with drugs—that is a basic clinical need and one that we cannot avoid.
She asked specific questions about the flow of data and whether this would be a temporary amnesty or would last longer. I do not have access to the precise answer to that question but am happy to commit to write to her on that important point.
The noble Baroness asked about prisons. She is entirely right to be concerned. We have had a terrific track record on protecting prisoners from this disease over the year, but she is right that in recent weeks epidemics have emerged in prisons. We are working incredibly hard to deploy a very large amount of testing and, where necessary, implementing isolation, and the vaccine has been rolled out to those who are qualified.
Turning to Sitel managers, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that we are enormously thankful to all those who have contributed to the tracing operation. We balance the workload between a variety of providers, and Sitel is just one of several that we have. There is no question of our backing off from our tracing operations—quite the opposite. Test, trace and isolate remains an important part of our armoury and it only increases. In recent times, we have doubled up on our commitment to the Lighthouse labs, which have proved cost-effective, accurate and fast. The genomics turnaround in tracking variants of concern has been remarkably efficient. On tracing and VOCs, Project Eagle is working extremely well and I saw incredibly impressive numbers on that this morning. Pharmacovigilance around the vaccine is being supported by test and trace, and the creation of the NIHP is apace.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned Taiwan. Given that I am married to a Taiwanese wife, I can absolutely bear testimony to the remarkable achievement of that island nation. Taiwan was hard hit in 2003 by SARS, a time I remember well, since my Christmas was cancelled. It learned the lesson and applied important measures. The island has the advantage of social cohesion, but both the stick and the carrot were thoughtfully used, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out. It created a green list country with a remarkably low level of infection and death, and that is a lesson we can all learn from.
The public are doing their duty and absolutely understand the threat of variants of concern. It is incredibly impressive and I am optimistic for the future.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
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, I support the government plans for travel quarantine to reduce the risk of importing new variants of SARS-CoV-2 that may be more contagious and get around vaccine-induced immunity. Both Australian and New Zealand studies have shown that, despite testing prior to flights, the risk of transmitting the virus on flights, particularly long-haul flights, remains as shown by the New Zealand study. My question relates to airline crew, particularly on long-haul flights. What measures do the Government plan against the risk of transmission from an infected crew member?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is, as ever, cutting to the chase. The role of hotel staff, transport to and from airports and the flight crew themselves is incredibly important. As the noble Lord probably knows, the outbreak in Melbourne that hit Australia hard was caused in part by the bus drivers from the airport to hotels becoming vectors of infection. That created an unfortunate outbreak, which was hit extremely hard with a long lockdown to squeeze out the outbreak. We are putting in all the right, responsible measures to segregate crew, keep them apart from the rest of the population and ensure that they are, wherever possible, vaccinated against the virus so that they cannot be vectors of transmission.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, having flagged up the quarantine restrictions, tens of thousands of people from around the world have been returning to the UK in advance of Monday’s deadline to avoid unaffordable costs in hotel bills. This is resulting in many connecting flights across the UK being unexpectedly packed. I understand that this is leading to large numbers of passengers, on arrival at major UK satellite airports, waiting shoulder to shoulder around baggage carousels for their luggage, without airline or baggage-handling staff in evidence, no social distancing and a serious risk of exhausted passengers with low resistance being prone to Covid infection. Will my noble friend the Minister consult colleagues and ensure rigorous application of all social distancing restrictions around all domestic baggage carousels over the remaining three days and beyond?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the question but my information is slightly different from that articulated by my noble friend. Passengers overseas have heard the message loud and clear, and there has not been, as far as I understand, the kind of rush that he describes. In fact, there has been a lot of sensible behaviour by passengers. We are grateful to London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London City, Birmingham and Farnborough, which to date are the authorised red list airports and have put in place exactly the kind of social distancing measures around transit from the aircraft to the PCP, from the PCP to the baggage hall, and from the baggage hall to the transport to the hotel. A huge amount of thought has been put into the personnel, signage and arrangements to ensure that that is done in a way that applies the best possible hygiene measures.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister knows that I have great respect for him, but I want to put a slightly colder note into this debate, which also reflects on the debate about the previous Statement. We have heard a lot of hugely optimistic and very confident statements from Members of the House and the Secretary of State. It strikes me that we must be a bit more cautious. As the Minister knows, the one country that has conducted more vaccinations than us, proportionate to the population, is Israel. It has also had a complete lockdown of airports, so that there is no ingress at all into the country. Yet puzzlingly, and not even the Israelis can explain this, the infection rate has not gone nearly as well as predicted or expected. Can he comment on that?
Furthermore, what does the Minister intend that the Government should do with regard to poor students returning, as they need to, for their exams? These students are deeply needed by the country and, if they have a good experience here, they were support us in the future when they are adults and working. I would be very grateful for his answer.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is right to cite the example of Israel. It is indeed extremely worrying. I touched upon this point when replying to my noble friend Lord Hamilton on the previous Statement. Undoubtedly the fear is that you vaccinate a large proportion of your most vulnerable population but those who have not been vaccinated—mainly the young—feel a licence to go out and socialise and create an enormous problem by spreading the disease on a large scale among the wider population. As I alluded to in my earlier answer, we currently have an infection rate of between 1% and 2%, It is not impossible that it could rise to 10% or 20%. Should that happen with the kind of proportions of people who then end up being hospitalised whatever their age, or suffering from long-term impacts of the disease, we would have a very big problem on our hands. That is why the Government are moving cautiously. I strike an optimistic tone in my answers, but I am extremely cautious and considered in my approach to policy, as are the Government.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, hotel quarantine measures, albeit late and incomplete, are nevertheless welcome—better late than never. However, as things stand, mankind cannot outpace the mutating virus without a global vaccine plan in place. When do the Government think that the time will be right to call for a leader’s summit to develop a global collaborative effort to deal with this pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Baroness. As I said earlier, we are not safe until we are all safe. That is an absolute axiom. It will soon become a cheesy remark but that does not make it any less true. Britain is totally committed to the principle of global distribution of the vaccine. We are extremely proud of AstraZeneca, which has a profit-free approach to the intellectual property around the vaccine. It is quite possible that as a cheap, easily administered and portable vaccine, it may become the common global standard for vaccination. It is my hope that it will be rolled out globally, and that it is updated as necessary, as mutations and variants of concern begin to affect it. Britain is very committed to CEPI, Gavi and ACT. These are the major financial commitments that the world has joined in to get the vaccine to the developing world, and we are using our chairmanship of the G7 to champion that agenda.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
The variants of concern are already here, so self-isolation is vital for those who test positive in the community, yet many fail to do so because they will lose wages. Four million people in the UK have had Covid. The NAO says that the Government have spent over £270 billion on the pandemic so far. That is the equivalent of £67,500 per person infected. If that is the cost of each person who is infected by those who do not self-isolate, how low would the R number have to be for it not to be cost effective to pay at least £1,000 to everyone who tests positive, to ensure that they self-isolate?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s fascinating mathematics, but there are other principles at stake here and I am not quite sure that his arithmetic can be leaned upon. One of those principles is personal responsibility. We cannot pay the entire nation a huge wage to stay at home for the entire epidemic; we have neither the cash resources nor the value base to do that. We must look to people to do the right thing. If we do not, we will end up with a country that is dependent on the Exchequer for its money and has the wrong values for the kind of enterprise economy that we need to build to get out of this epidemic.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Does the Minister realise that the imposition of a 10-year prison sentence for providing an inaccurate travel history on Covid forms is wholly disproportionate? Existing powers should not be misused for this purpose. Such a measure would require proper reflection and parliamentary debate, and it should therefore be in a new Bill if the Government wish to persist with it. In the meantime, will the Minister amend the present proposals significantly?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I do not agree with my noble friend on this in any way—fraud is fraud. If you put people in danger, you deserve to serve the consequences. It will be up to either the magistrate or the Crown Court to determine the sentence. The sentence is laid out in law, not by me or any new measure. Those who put the entire nation at risk by bringing variants of concern into the country should be aware that the courts may take an extremely dim view of their actions.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I am going to pass the baton to the next speaker as the points I wished to raise have already been addressed. However, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, whose performance as a torchbearer at the Dispatch Box is exemplary by anybody’s standards. I have recently been jabbed myself, and the whole vaccination process from start to finish is commendable for being conducted with efficiency and courteousness, making one proud to be a Brit. We will be on to a winner if we replicate that in global Britain.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful for the noble Viscount’s kind remarks. They are rightly directed at those responsible for the deployment of the vaccine. The NHS itself has been a central player in all that, as have our academic colleagues, particularly at Oxford University but also Imperial, as well as others who have contributed. I will take his remarks back to the Department of Health and Social Care. It has been a very tough year, and I am extremely grateful for his remarks.
Lord Beith (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister is right that there must be a penalty for lying about which countries you have been to in these circumstances, but I am surprised at how confident he is that the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 is a good tool for this purpose. Some offences under it do not attract a ten-year maximum but a two-year maximum, and it seems unlikely that a court would impose a substantial custodial sentence when comparing this with other offences. Does he not recognise that all the headlines about a 10-year prison sentence undermine credibility in the Government’s strategy at a time when we need to support and encourage it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the noble Lord’s legal insight and will leave it to the courts to decide whether he is right or wrong.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, but I would also say that the Minister’s private office must have had an interesting time supporting him in the last few months. I have two very brief points, and I am sorry that they are detailed. Can he tell us how the rich and famous returning home in private aircraft and landing at one of these five airports will be treated? Will they be treated like anybody else? Secondly, while children under 11 are not covered, can he explain how unaccompanied children over 11 will be dealt with in quarantine and what safeguarding facilities and procedures have been put in place?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have only one package in hotel quarantine; there is no VIP suite, so those arriving in their Learjets at Farnborough will have to check in with all the rest of us. As for the children, the noble Lord raises an important point. I know that the issue has been discussed and that provisions have been put in place, but I am afraid I do not have the details to hand. I would be glad to write to him with them in due course.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, the vaccine rollout has been an incredible success. We all look forward to the road map out of lockdown expected later this month that the Minister referred to in the previous debate, and that includes our world-leading aviation sector. I support the measures being taken to protect our population against Covid-19 and now is not the time to reopen our skies but, given that it will take airlines something like three months to prepare for a return to flying, can the Minister give me any reassurance that the aviation sector, which will play a crucial role in our economic recovery from Covid when it is safe to do so, will be included in the forthcoming road map?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely endorse my noble friend’s comments. I am personally extremely committed to travelling. I would fight for the right to travel and I believe in its value. I am extremely grateful to the airports, the airlines, the hospitality industry and all those involved in travel for the huge contribution they have made to the sum of human wealth and experience. It is heartbreaking that we are having to bring in these measures and it is done with huge regret. The cost and implications for the businesses and employees involved is extremely harsh, and we regret it enormously. It is simply a fact of the fight against this pandemic that it is necessary. I cannot confirm for sure that details of a timetable for airlines will be in the schedule in the week of 22 February, but I assure my noble friend that we are in constant touch with both airlines and airports. Their arguments to us are extremely well made and their plight is understood and sympathised with, and when the time is right we will do everything we can to support the travel industry in getting back to where it once was.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
The Minister told the House in his earlier response to the Front Benches that there was no point in securing our borders before the new variants emerged. Was that not exactly when we should have closed the borders in order to prevent the new variants arriving in our country, rather than shutting them once they had? Why did he suggest that the new variants were unexpected when, as I understand it, mutations were always highly likely, if not inevitable?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The virus mutates all the time and minute variations have happened from the very beginning. However, this virus has been unusual in not having profound mutations; it had not changed its seriousness, its transmissibility or its escapology in a meaningful way until the end of last year. Those were not—how shall I put it?—completely unexpected, but they had not been identified before. When they were identified, we changed our tactics, our strategy and our approach. Our determination to keep out variants of concern is manifested in these proposals, and we have moved extremely swiftly to enforce border control as the threat has mounted.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to follow up on that question. The SAGE minutes of 21 January make clear that
“reactive, geographically targeted travel bans cannot be relied upon to stop importation of new variants … due to the time lag between the emergence and identification of variants of concern, and the potential for indirect travel via a third country”.
By confining the quarantine measures to travel from red-list countries, are the Government not ignoring the SAGE warning about indirect travel?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, SAGE is entirely right that we have to be careful about indirect travel. That is why we have introduced a passenger form that requires people to detail all their recent travels. It is why we have attributed to the filling-in of the form very serious enforcement measures, including the potential for a large custodial sentence if it is filled in incorrectly. It is why we are using all the benefits of technology and of airline databases in order to track people’s travel and ensure that they are not in any way misleading us or skipping around borders to get here. The noble Lord is right that this is a very serious matter. This is a 21st-century pandemic and we are determined to use the techniques of the 21st century to keep out variants of concern. Countries such as Taiwan, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore have demonstrated that if you use thoughtful 21st-century methods then you can make a big impact on transmission, and that is what we are determined to do.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
In his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the Minister said that
“the crew are, wherever possible, vaccinated.”
It was not clear from context whether the Minister was referring only to plane and train crews or also to bus drivers and quarantine hotel staff. Is this a change in government policy to prioritise the vaccination of key workers, as the Green Party has been calling for?
Lord Bethell (Con)
While I acknowledge the Green Party’s views on this matter, the JCVI has been clear about what prioritisation levels 1 to 4 are. As I said earlier, we will be looking at the other prioritisation lists in time. I am in no way signalling a change in government policy, because that, I am afraid to say, is not in my gift.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, we seem always to be talking about holidaymakers. There is a small amount of legitimate business still being carried out in Europe. A few days ago, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe met in Strasbourg under suitable conditions, with no Covid cases reported at the end of that meeting. NATO and the European institutions are also holding a limited number of meetings. Could the Government at least accept that some legitimate business has to go on across frontiers, even at this time? Or are we going to be like the late Markus Wolf of the Stasi and try to do the impossible by closing down the country—and, in the end, discovering it will not work?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend of all people should know that it is an unfortunate comparison to make between the quite legitimate efforts of the Government to keep out killer viruses with those of a nasty East German regime for which I have no sympathy whatever. We have seen that a large amount of business that we previously thought required travel does not require travel. I must admit I am extremely surprised by the news that the Council of Europe thought it was a great idea to get together for a meeting. It is a decision I am querying, and when I get back to the department I will chat to my Foreign Office colleagues to see if that really was a sensible thing to happen.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, while the Act may have long existed, its attachment to mis-filling out forms certainly has not. It is hard to imagine that at any stage Parliament intended that filling out a form misleadingly, however serious the circumstances, should attract a 10-year sentence. Surely this is something, right or wrong, whatever the principles and whatever the Government might believe is the right thing to do, that should go through Parliament for approval. A 10-year sentence, equivalent to many firearms charges and other serious offences, is surely something that should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny before it is imposed.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be forgetting that it is not Parliament that is going to be sending people to prison but the courts, and courts are perfectly capable of interpreting the law. They are perfectly capable of assessing the nature and gravity of the offence. I am simply repeating the section of the Act on which people will be prosecuted if they commit a fraud. I am reminding noble Lords and all those thinking about committing fraud on their passenger locator form that the maximum sentence for committing fraud is 10 years, and it will be up to the courts to decide what kind of sentence they apply.
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first thank the Minister and the Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty for a very useful session yesterday on Covid-19 therapeutics. I found it extremely informative. I can see the logic and the good sense behind the quarantine policy—but, bearing in mind Lord Acton’s famous dictum, and knowing that no court will send anybody to prison for 10 years for incorrect information being put on a form under the Fraud Act, does my noble friend not realise that the Secretary of State’s crazed, hollow and exaggerated threats about 10 years in jail undermine the whole policy? If he does not agree with that, could he please defend them? Because so far, I am afraid, I find myself agreeing, unusually, with the two Liberal Democrats, the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Beith.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I think I have made the point reasonably clearly, but I am happy to make it again: it is up to the courts to decide how long people go to prison for and it is up to Parliament to decide on Acts. The Act is very clear; it was made in 2006, and it is up to the Crown Court to decide for how long someone goes to prison. It is unfortunate that my noble friend described the Secretary of State in those terms. It is the kind of language that does him no credit. These are extremely important measures. They are devised to protect the country and the vaccine from the very serious threat of mutations of the disease, and they are enormously supported by the public.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the tightening of controls to prevent the introduction and spread of new variants of the virus. Will the Minister say whether the policy deals with international travellers who have a stopover for a connecting flight in, say, eight hours or even overnight? Will the road map that the Prime Minister will roll out on 22 February include a flight plan showing how and when the quarantine controls might be lifted, as they are extremely damaging to the travel and holiday sector and to the mental health of the nation, to which the Minister has already referred? Finally, has the Minister yet booked his summer holiday?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the arrangements for those changing planes in British airports are spelled out in considerable detail. We are not encouraging people to overnight when changing planes. If they overnight, they will be invited to spend 10 days in hotel quarantine, which I think will be a suitable incentive for those who might be thinking of such a travel plan. Those who remain airside will be able to change planes. Those who land in, say, England and are going to end up in Scotland will quarantine in England, and those who fly into Scotland to enter England will quarantine in Scotland. These are the kinds of provisions that we are putting in place to ensure that the quarantine is as effective as possible.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I completely endorse the praise for my noble friend and, indeed, his private office. I fully support the measures the Government are introducing, and I look forward to discussing them in detail in due course. Would it be possible to consider the confiscation of a passport, at least for UK nationals, for a flagrant and dangerous contravention of the quarantine regulations, perhaps particularly by those who think they can afford the fines, as he mentioned earlier? I seem to recall that we were able to do this for football hooligans.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion and I will take it back to the department. I have not heard it suggested. It is not currently in our plans at the moment, but let me try to understand it a little better.
Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text