House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
We have long condemned Iran’s regional destabilising activity, including its political, financial and military support to militant and proscribed groups including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is, in its entirety, subject to the UK’s autonomous sanctions. On 18 February, the Foreign Secretary, alongside his E3 and US counterparts, committed in a statement to working with regional parties to address their security concerns. We continue to support the security of our partners working to end the conflict in Yemen, and strengthen institutions in Iraq and Lebanon.
Michael Fabricant [V]
As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, it is not just activity in the middle east that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for; it is not just with Hezbollah. There have been incidents in France and other parts of Europe, and it has caused the United States to ban the Revolutionary Guard and make it a terror organisation. When will the United Kingdom do the same and designate it as a terrorist organisation?
James Cleverly
We keep the list of proscribed organisations under review. As my hon. Friend knows, we do not routinely comment on whether organisations or individuals are under consideration for proscription. As I say, the IRGC is, in its entirety, subject to our autonomous sanctions regime. The UK, along with our European partners, wholeheartedly condemned the bomb plots in 2018 and 2019, including the one in Paris to which my hon. Friend referred.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The situation in Cameroon’s anglophone region remains deeply concerning. We continue to call for an end to all violence and the restart of an inclusive dialogue that addresses the root cause of the crisis. When I spoke to Prime Minister Ngute in December, I reiterated the UK’s commitment to supporting a peaceful resolution to this issue.
Sir Edward Leigh
The situation in southern Cameroon is indeed deeply concerning. What is happening there to the anglophone minority of some 5 million people is terrible. There are numerous human rights abuses. The francophone president—a corrupt dictator—has been in power since 1982, and is refusing to devolve any power at all to the English-speaking minority. Will the Government now act? Will the Foreign Secretary, at the highest level, take it up with our French allies, as they have enormous influence in francophone Africa? Will the Minister for Africa do the equivalent of old gunboat diplomacy in our soft-power age, and himself visit southern Cameroon to take up this issue, and try to help our English-speaking friends who we betrayed back in 1962?
James Duddridge
I certainly will visit Cameroon at the earliest possible opportunity. I can reassure my right hon. Friend that we have worked very closely with our French and American partners, alongside other partners. We also do an awful lot of work through this House and through the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on bringing peace to that region and sharing experiences. I thank him for his interest and certainly will commit to further activity and a visit in due course.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The Minister for South Asia, Lord Ahmad, set out our serious concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka in a statement at the UN Human Rights Council on 25 February. On 22 February, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that the UK would lead a new resolution on post-conflict reconciliation, accountability and human rights. We continue to engage with Sri Lanka on these issues and on climate change, trade and the covid-19 response. UK-funded programmes in Sri Lanka support peacebuilding, resettlement, police reform and demining.
Sam Tarry
For decades, the UK has provided extensive military and police support to the Sri Lankan police and military, and this support has continued despite deeply troubling reports of the widespread use of torture by the Sri Lankan police, including the use of the death penalty for drugs charges. Will the Minister please explain why the UK has spent more than £7 million through its conflict, stability and security fund to assist the Sri Lankan police and military? More importantly, will he commit to publishing the full overseas security and justice assistance assessments for activities under this programme to reassure the House that the UK is not contributing to serious human rights violations?
Nigel Adams
I know the hon. Member takes a very keen interest in Sri Lanka. Our engagement with the military in Sri Lanka is designed to support the development of a modern, effective and human rights-compliant military. Engagement with the police is focused on community policing, increasing women’s representation, and improving responses to sexual and gender-based violence. Our engagement is subject to ongoing overseas security and justice assessments, as he says, to ensure that it supports UK values and is consistent with human rights obligations.
Mr Dhesi
Many of my Slough constituents, especially those worshipping at Masjid Al-Jannah, were extremely distressed by the alarming reports of forced cremations of Sri Lankan coronavirus victims, including Muslims and Christians, for whom burial rights and traditions are sacred. As the country hopefully progresses with truth, justice and reconciliation after its devastating civil war, what representations has the Minister made to his Sri Lankan counterpart on respect for and the protection of everyone’s religious beliefs and freedoms?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this matter, which I know is of great concern to his constituents and to many other hon. Members’ constituents. My colleague, Lord Ahmad, who is the Minister responsible for Sri Lanka, has raised the important issue of human rights, accountability and reconciliation with his counterpart, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, and the UN high commissioner, but he also has deep concerns about the decision to mandate cremations for those deceased due to covid. The United Kingdom has shared guidance on how burials can happen within World Health Organisation guidelines to the Sri Lankan authorities.
Fleur Anderson [V]
With reference to the expiry of UN Human Rights Council resolution 40/1 this month, what success have the Government had in their role as leader of the core group on Sri Lanka at the UNHCR in drafting a new UN Human Rights Council resolution that secures international support and reflects the eight areas of focus set out by the UNHCR’s recent report?
Nigel Adams
We are very concerned by the recent UN report on human rights and accountability in Sri Lanka. As I have said previously, we have made our concerns about the human rights situation clear. The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the United Kingdom would lead a new resolution on post-conflict reconciliation, accountability and human rights.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The UK will use its G7 presidency this year to advance equitable access to safe and effective vaccines through widespread international co-operation.
Theo Clarke [V]
Having visited the Kingston vaccination centre recently, I have seen first-hand the fantastic work that our healthcare workers are doing to vaccinate my Stafford constituents, but in order to fully defeat covid-19 we must vaccinate people around the world. During my virtual visit to Kenya last week, there was much excitement about the upcoming delivery of some covid-19 vaccines. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we not only allow countries to access our surplus capacity via COVAX but donate vaccines to the poorest countries in the world?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great work she is doing locally but also for raising the issue of international access to the vaccine. She will know that the UK has contributed £548 million to COVAX AMC, which is the international mechanism that will secure over 1 billion doses. In relation to her virtual Kenya visit, the roll-out of the first deliveries under COVAX has now begun in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire, and by the end of June, in 92 of these poorer countries, we want to see all the vulnerable receiving their vaccines. That is global Britain as a force for good.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the news that the Foreign Secretary has just outlined about the COVAX deliveries in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire; that is excellent. Tragically, we have seen 50,000 deaths in South Africa alone from covid-19, but we have also seen 409,000 deaths from malaria and 700,000 deaths from AIDS-related causes. An estimated 1.8 million could die from tuberculosis in 2020, and there are Ebola outbreaks in Africa at the moment. Vaccines, whether for covid or other diseases, only work when there are the strong public health systems to deliver them, with the nurses, doctors and cold chain and diagnostic capacity. We have a moral duty to do our fair share, and it is in our global common interest. Will the Foreign Secretary be maintaining our overall bilateral and multilateral health spending, or will it be cut?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the work that the UK has done internationally not just on COVAX and the vaccine for this pandemic but on TB, malaria, polio and a whole range of other areas. We have had to make the difficult decision on the 0.7%, and the allocations will be published in due course, but we have been very clear that public health is the No.1 priority to be safeguarded across the piece.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The Foreign Secretary announced targeted measures on 12 January to help ensure that no British organisations are complicit in the gross human rights violations occurring in Xinjiang. The United Kingdom continues to lead international action, including at the UN, to hold China to account. The Foreign Secretary made a robust intervention at the Human Rights Council on 22 February, calling out the systematic violation of the rights of people in Hong Kong and pressing China for unfettered access to Xinjiang for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Afzal Khan [V]
Ahead of International Women’s Day, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the recent report by the BBC, which highlighted the extensive use of sexual violence in Xinjiang. I am sure the Minister will agree that the report was incredibly troubling and details what can only be described as torture and abuse of human rights and dignity. Can he explain why it is taking the Government so long to sanction Chinese officials? In the light of recent Magnitsky sanctions in the case of Myanmar, can he explain why they have yet to be used in the case of Xinjiang?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this subject, and I appreciate all the work he does on it. We are carefully considering further designations under our human rights sanctions regime, but he will appreciate that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated in the future, as to do so could reduce the impact of such sanctions.
Mr Speaker
I have agreed with the Minister to separate Questions 8 and 9, so we now have a substantive question from Jamie Stone.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The hon. Member will no doubt have heard the Prime Minister highlight that we are not normally in favour of sporting boycotts. Along with that, participation of the national team at the winter Olympics is a matter for the British Olympic Association, which is required to operate independently of the Government under International Olympic Committee regulations.
Jamie Stone [V]
I am indeed aware of what the Prime Minister has said. Nevertheless, allies such as the United States and Canada have referred to what is going on in Xinjiang province as genocide. First, does the Minister agree that we should get international condemnation of these ghastly goings on in China? Secondly, in view of what the Prime Minister said, does the Minister agree that we should support those athletes who choose individually to boycott the winter Olympic and Paralympic games, as a demonstration of their opposition to this genocide?
Nigel Adams
We are leading international action, including at the UN, to hold China to account. We have led from the front. We have an increasing cohort of countries supporting our statements on the happenings in Xinjiang. This is a matter for the British Olympic Association and the individual sportsmen. The British Olympic Association is required to operate independently of Government, and rightly so, under the regulations set down by the International Olympic Committee. This is a matter for the Olympic organisations and individual sportsmen.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
The malfeasance of the Chinese Government in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong is well documented, and my party supports the offer that has been made to the 5 million Hong Kong citizens of a route to citizenship. However, I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that proper preparations and proper funding for the integration of Hongkongers coming to the UK are actually in place, because I am not convinced they are. We cannot let this scheme just be a first-class lifeboat for the rich of Hong Kong; it does need to be properly run through for everybody. Can he commit to a statement to the House in due course explaining how the scheme is being worked through with the Home Office and the proper funding being allocated to make sure this is open to all Hongkongers?
Nigel Adams
That is a very sensible question from the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely the case that we need to ensure that those British national overseas passport holders who arrive in the UK are treated and greeted well. We welcome the many applications that we have had thus far. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss exactly the issue the hon. Gentleman raises. It is important that people are given the right support when they arrive in the United Kingdom, and I am sure that further information on such schemes and what has been organised for these people coming from Hong Kong will be announced very shortly.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I visited Iraq and the Kurdistan region of Iraq in December last year, meeting Iraq’s Prime Minister al-Kadhimi and the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan region of Iraq, Prime Minister Barzani. Recent attacks on coalition forces and civilians in Irbil are unacceptable. The UK stands fully behind Iraq and the Kurdistan region of Iraq. We welcome the Iraqi investigation to hold the perpetrators to account, and the UK encourages co-operation between Baghdad and Irbil to agree a sustainable budget, something I discussed with both the Iraqi Finance Minister and Prime Minister Barzani on that visit in December.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to Robert Halfon. [Interruption.] Oh, right—let us move on.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The Government remain firmly committed to helping the world’s poorest people. Our aid budget will continue to serve the primary aim of reducing poverty in developing countries, including in the global south.
Gerald Jones [V]
The Government have made the appalling decision to slash life-saving support for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people in the middle of a pandemic, and an equally appalling announcement yesterday about Yemen highlighted a blatant disregard to fulfilling their moral duty. Will the Minister and the Foreign Secretary press the Chancellor to use this week’s Budget to rebuild Britain’s proud position as a country that supports those in need by reversing his decision to make the UK the only G7 nation to cut its aid budget?
James Duddridge
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks that £10 billion is a small sum of money. He mentions Yemen; we should be proud that, since the start of that conflict, we have contributed £1 billion, and at the pledging conference yesterday, a further £87 million. That is activity from this Government, and we are proud of that activity.
Martyn Day [V]
It is reported that cuts announced to international aid spending will not come in until after the G7 summit. This merely delays rather than avoids humiliation on the world stage, while the absence of a timetable for when the cuts will take place leaves charities trying to plan ahead in limbo. Does the Minister agree that this unsustainable position will be detrimental to project outcomes, and would it not be preferable to reverse this shameful decision now?
James Duddridge
I just do not recognise the timescale that the hon. Member speaks of. We work with partners on an ongoing basis on the delivery of programmes, and we will continue to do so. That is what I do on a daily basis, among other Ministers.
Jeff Smith [V]
Britain holds the pen on Yemen, but as the senior country is it not our duty to lead by example, and is not cutting aid by 60% at a time of acute humanitarian crisis a terrible example? The UN Secretary-General said that reducing aid was a “death sentence”. Is he wrong?
James Duddridge
Another person who does not think that £1 billion is a lot of money—[Interruption.] Well, £87 million is a lot of money. We are doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying and we are standing up. This is the fifth largest pledge to Yemen, and he should be proud of that, not attacking it.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
I am hearing a lot of bluff and bluster. This Government are pressing ahead with the deepest and most devastating cuts to the aid budget at the worst possible time, and in doing so they are reneging on the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid, which is enshrined in law. When I asked the Foreign Secretary about that, he said:
“We want to respect that legislation, and we will.”
With press reports speculating that cuts will take place from April, and that the legislation will not be amended until July, will the Foreign Secretary refuse to implement those cuts before the legislation is passed? Will he resign if he breaks the law—yes or no?
James Duddridge
As the Foreign Secretary said earlier, we will look carefully at what is required by law, but the law envisages that 0.7% target potentially not being met in any given year, in view of the specific fiscal and economic circumstances. We will abide by that law. Furthermore, the legislation allows us to report to Parliament on what we are doing, and we will stick to that.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I was ashamed yesterday when this Government more than halved their contribution to the humanitarian support in Yemen—the worst humanitarian disaster on the planet. I hope that is not the global Britain we want. What consultation has the Minister had with non-governmental organisations, recipients, and partners in the global south, to minimise the impact of changes to the UK aid budget? When will the Government publish their forthcoming country allocations for official development assistance spending?
James Duddridge
The process the hon. Lady mentions regarding the decisions on publication has not yet been met. Our focus has been on looking at country plans and the programmes centrally, and on doing that through countries. By extension, part of that will be looking through delivery partners, including the NGOs that play an excellent role. We are engaging with them as early as possible, including through embassies to where a lot of this relationship is devolved. That is essential, and we remain committed to doing that.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Over the past five years, UK aid has helped 8 million girls get a decent education, and, as the House knows, our global ambition is to ensure that 40 million girls have 12 years of quality education by 2026.
Jane Hunt [V]
The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Choose to Challenge”, which serves as a reminder to us all to challenge and call out gender bias and inequality where we see them. According to UNICEF, only 66% of countries have achieved gender parity in primary education, falling to only 25% by upper secondary education. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that he will not only continue working with his international counterparts to ensure that girls do not fall further behind as a result of the pandemic, but that he will continue his vital work to break down the very real barriers to girls’ education?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, and reassure her that not only do we have a target of 40 million girls getting 12 years of education, but we want 20 million girls to become literate by the age of 10. With Kenya, we will be co-hosting a major summit in July this year to progress those goals. In January I was in Addis Ababa and had the chance to visit the Yeka Misrak Chora School, which showed me at first hand the incredible difference our aid budget makes.
Karen Bradley [V]
I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said regarding the UK’s commitment to ensuring an education for girls. There is no doubt that the UK has world leadership on this issue, as we do on modern slavery and preventing gender-based violence, and of course it was the UK that worked to help stop Ebola becoming a global pandemic. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm his commitment not just to this area, but to maintaining overseas development spending on these very important issues?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of this issue. As we go through the difficult financial situation that we face, we have been very clear that girls’ education is a top priority to safeguard. On top of the money that we are putting in and the convening power that we are exercising with the joint summit we are hosting with Kenya, the Prime Minister has appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) as the special envoy on girls’ education.
Caroline Nokes [V]
I applaud the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for making educating girls a foreign policy priority. As host of the G7, we have a critical opportunity to encourage others to do the same. Can my right hon. Friend tell me how much ODA spending he will commit to girls’ education this year to make sure that our manifesto commitment to ensuring that every girl gets 12 years of quality education has the funding that it needs?
Dominic Raab
I reassure my right hon. Friend, first of all, that the money is being safeguarded; of course, it is published in the normal way, through the formal channels, in the autumn. Through the appointment of the Prime Minister’s special envoy, the convening power that I have described and, as she quite rightly says, our presidency of the G7, we are making sure that this is at the very top of the international agenda.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The British people have a proud history of stepping up and supporting those in need, but the actions of this Government yesterday betrayed hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children, as the Foreign Secretary chose to leave them to starve. In November, he told the House that humanitarian crises were one of his priorities, yet he has cut funding to the largest humanitarian crisis in the world by 60%. Clearly, the Foreign Secretary’s commitments are worthless. Does he agree that his Government’s actions have shown our allies and our detractors that his word cannot be trusted?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady, although the obvious point to make is that the last Labour Government never hit 0.7% and only hit 0.5% twice. In relation to Yemen, over the last five years, including for 2021, we have been between the third and the fifth highest donors. We will keep up that effort. We have provided more than £1 billion of funding to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen since the conflict began, and of course we fully support the efforts of Martin Griffiths, the UN special envoy, to find peace there.
Preet Kaur Gill
The Foreign Secretary is leading a hasty retreat from the world stage while others are stepping forward. We are the only G7 nation to cut aid. The United States has added billions to its development budget, and France has committed to increasing its support for the world’s poorest by reaching 0.7% by 2025. The Government cannot keep pretending that they can make cuts without risking millions of lives, so will the Foreign Secretary immediately publish all the details of the cuts made in 2020 and those projected for 2021? Will he also explain to the House what his priorities are? Clearly, preventing hundreds of thousands of Yemenis from going hungry and starving to death is not one of them.
Dominic Raab
Of course, the allocations are published formally in the normal way, as I have just described, in the autumn. In fact, the new UK aid pledge of £87 million, which the hon. Lady so blithely dismisses, will feed an additional 240,000 of the most vulnerable Yemenis every month, support 400 health clinics and provide clean water for 1.6 million people. We are doing our bit. Of course these are very difficult financial circumstances. We remain, as we have over the last five years, between the third and the fifth highest donor into Yemen.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to women’s and girls’ education. Does he agree, however, that female genital mutilation, which sadly affects so many girls across the world, is one of the great hindrances to the education of girls in many parts of the world, including, sadly, Nigeria? I am sure he joins me in welcoming the release of the girls from Zamfara state only the other day, but will he raise with the Nigerian Government, when he next has the opportunity to do so, the likelihood that some 14 million will go through female genital mutilation between now and 2030? This is a crime, it is a sin, and it is against all justice.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee. I join him in welcoming the release of the young girls who were kidnapped, which I am sure came as a huge relief to the whole House. He raises, in a passionate way, the issue of FGM. We have been leaders in calling that out, and also in trying to work with Governments around the world, in particular in Africa, to try to bring an end to this appalling practice. We will continue to do so, in Nigeria and elsewhere.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The United Kingdom provides legal aid to vulnerable Palestinian communities at threat of demolition. In 96% of cases, those receiving UK-funded legal support have remained in their homes. The UK ambassador joined ambassadors of European states to urge the Government of Israel to cease demolitions. He attended a meeting with Israeli authorities on 25 February. At the United Nations Security Council on 26 February, the UK permanent representative called on Israel to end demolitions of Palestinian homes and allow the delivery of emergency humanitarian aid.
Julie Elliott [V]
I, like many colleagues, have heard repeated stories from Palestinians who are facing forced eviction, dispossession and demolition of their homes in areas such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan and Issawiya in occupied East Jerusalem. I and many other people see that as a deliberate attempt to re-engineer the demographic make-up of occupied East Jerusalem. What more can the Government do, rather than just urge the Israeli Government to stop it? What more can the British Government do to bring an end to this unacceptable situation?
James Cleverly
The United Kingdom has a close and productive working relationship with Israel. When we speak, the Israelis absolutely do listen. The hon. Lady dismisses our urgings, but I remind her that the UK’s voice has had an influence on decisions made by the Government of Israel. We will continue to engage, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did very recently with his counterpart Foreign Minister Ashkenazi and the Israeli ambassador to the Court of St James’s only last month.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK is actively encouraging both parties back to dialogue. As I just mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his opposite number on 10 February. I spoke to the Palestinian head of mission here in the UK on 2 February. The UK has been working with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, alongside the United States and international key partners, to progress specific areas of co-operation, including water and gas provision, energy infrastructure and trade facilitation. We are also seeking to re-establish formal Israeli-Palestinian mechanisms, such as the joint economic committee and its relevant sub-committees.
Sarah Atherton
The International Criminal Court’s controversial determination on jurisdiction relating to Israel and the Palestinians not only undermines the middle east peace process but heightens the exposure of our armed forces to vexatious claims by setting a precedent that non-state actors can initiate proceedings. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of reforms of the ICC?
James Cleverly
The UK respects the ICC’s independence, but we are working with other countries to bring about positive change within the court. The UK was instrumental in the establishment of the independent expert review, which reported in September, together with other state parties. Additionally, the UK is driving forward reforms to governance, prosecutorial excellence, and a more rigorous approach to budget control and value for money.
Jonathan Gullis
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do hope Madam Deputy Speaker will be pleased that I have a jacket accompanying my jumper today.
It has been almost a year since my right hon. Friend expressed his hopes that the European Union would produce a balanced and independent report into the Palestinian Authority’s school curriculum, which contains shocking material inciting violence against Israel and Jews. What steps will the Government take if the long-awaited report, due for publication this month, falls short of the required standard?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point and for the consistent approach that he has taken to this issue. We remain concerned about the allegations in Palestinian Authority textbooks and have lobbied European partners to bring forward their report in a timely manner. I have also discussed the issue directly with the Palestinian Authority’s representative in the UK, and we have regular discussions with the EU to encourage it to get this report into the public domain. In the interim, the UK will continue to raise our concerns bilaterally with the Palestinian Authority at the very highest levels.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
In December, the UK co-hosted the Climate Ambition summit, where 75 world leaders set out more ambitious climate commitments. Last week, the Prime Minister chaired the UN Security Council debate on this issue. In addition, the Foreign Secretary has discussed climate in his meetings with the US, Brazil and India, among other counterparts.
Jack Brereton [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that our hosting of the UN conference on climate change, to be held in Scotland this year, reinforces the UK’s claim to be leading the world in tackling climate change?
James Duddridge
I welcome that question—it appears, Mr Speaker, that we are welcoming the whole family into the House. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the UK has a proud record of climate leadership. In 2019, we were the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050. We are also doubling our international climate finance facility to £11.6 billion in the 2021 to 2025 period and, this year, we are encouraging every country to make ambitious new pledges to fulfil the 2015 Paris agreement.
Paul Howell [V]
As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I am very interested in the international engagement in COP26. Will the Minister outline exactly what actions the Department is taking to help the President of COP26 to maximise the potential for a successful event in Glasgow?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In every call that we make as Ministers, we raise this issue. My right hon. Friend the COP26 President designate has the full support of the diplomatic network. In fact, just last month, he met Ethiopian, Gabonese, Egyptian, Nigerian, Indian and Nepalese partners, and those are the only ones I know about. Later this month, we will convene international partners to help to identify practical solutions to the challenge that every country must face, particularly to help the most vulnerable on this really important issue of climate change.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK remains concerned about the fragile humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, particularly in Gaza. The UK is providing £4.5 million in humanitarian assistance to the OPTs, including £1 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s emergency appeal and £2.5 million to the World Food Programme for cash assistance. The UK supports UNRWA as a vital humanitarian force in the region and the FCDO is running a prioritisation exercise across all its programmes to ensure that every pound goes as far as possible.
Alan Brown [V]
The Minister rightly highlights forced evictions and demolitions breaking international law, but none the less, Israel continues with its evictions in Sheikh Jarrah and Batan al-Hawa. The proposed construction of 1,200 houses at Givat HaMatos is out to tender at the moment. Action is needed, not just words, so when will the UK Government implement trade bans on goods from illegal settlements?
James Cleverly
The UK’s position on this issue is long standing and clear. We oppose the points that the hon. Gentleman has put forward. We raise the issue of demolitions regularly with our Israeli counterparts, and we will continue to do so at every opportunity.
Andy Slaughter [V]
[Inaudible.]—aid budget implies the loss of a third in UNRWA funding, and there are rumours that the Government could be planning to cut twice that. UNRWA is responsible for almost 6 million Palestinian refugees, including the education of 500,000 children, the healthcare of 3 million and emergency food aid for over 1 million. Because of the occupation, Palestinians in Gaza, the west bank and surrounding countries rely on UNRWA for basic public services, so will the Minister give a clear and courageous answer and guarantee at least the current level of funding?
James Cleverly
The UK Government regard UNWRA as an important partner in support of the people in the OPTs and surrounding areas. We are going through a prioritisation exercise at the moment, the outcome of which will be published in due course.
Joanna Cherry [V]
As schools around the world deal with the challenges of the covid pandemic, Palestinian schoolchildren face a further threat. According to the United Nations, 53 Palestinian schools in the occupied west bank are subject to Israeli Government demolition orders. Does the Minister agree that demolishing any school is wrong and that any such action should have consequences?
James Cleverly
The UK regularly raises the issue of demolitions and our position on this is clear. We will continue to do so, and we will continue to highlight the importance of education, which remains one of the Government’s priorities.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]
The Israeli covid-19 vaccination programme is the best in the world. However, the Minister has indicated that Israel has a legal responsibility to ensure the health and wellbeing of Palestinians on the west bank. Will he therefore join me in urging the Israeli Government to work with the Palestinian Authority to ensure that Palestinians are vaccinated, as well as Israelis?
James Cleverly
The UK is justifiably proud of the work it is doing on the international stage with regard to vaccinations, including through Gavi and the COVAX scheme. We are pleased to see the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority co-ordinating their work with regard to vaccinations, and we look forward to that vaccination programme rolling out not just across Israel but to the people who are living in the OPTs.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Since the last oral questions, I have visited east Africa. I have also visited Cyprus, where I met President Anastasiades and the Turkish Cypriot leader in support of the peace initiative and the UN talks. On 18 February, I met our E3 partners in Paris and also the new Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, to co-ordinate our approach to Iran. Finally, I am sure the whole House will be pleased to hear that the international community has elected not just the first British female judge in the International Criminal Court but the first British chief prosecutor.
Robert Largan [V]
The Prime Minister has rightly condemned the UN’s Human Rights Council for its disproportionate focus on Israel, which he said was
“damaging to the cause of peace”.
As the UN Human Rights Council meets over the coming weeks, will the Government commit to voting against one-sided resolutions singling out Israel, including those outside permanent agenda item 7, in order to send a clear message that such blatant anti-Israel bias will not be tolerated?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have stood up for Israel when it has faced bias and, frankly, politicised attacks in the UN and other forums. We will continue to press for the abolition of item 7, because it is the only country-specific standalone agenda item and it focuses on Israel, and that cannot be right.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The US intelligence report released last Friday makes a clear and compelling case that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Last year, the Foreign Secretary said of those with “blood on their hands”:
“You cannot set foot in this country and we will seize your blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 664.]
Can he confirm that he will be bringing forward sanctions against bin Salman following this report and that he now finally accepts that it is time to fundamentally reappraise our relationship with Saudi Arabia?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is a bit behind the curve here. Of course, we have an important relationship with Saudi Arabia on security, on trade and on other things, but the reality is that it was this Government, and me, who introduced Magnitsky sanctions on 20 Saudis involved in the murder under our global human rights regime—[Interruption.] We did it last July. She ought to catch up.
Lisa Nandy
I am, frankly, astonished; I genuinely expected a better response from the Foreign Secretary. He will not stand with the family of Jamal Khashoggi as they seek justice. He will not stand to lift a finger against the dirty money flowing into the City of London. He will not stand with our allies in ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia. He will not even defend the children of Yemen against brutal aid cuts by his own Department, even as his Government seek to sustain the conflict that they are party to. Last year, we heard him talk tough about standing up to despots and henchmen, but now he tells us that in response to this report he is not prepared to take a single action, will not stand up to corruption, will not stand against humanitarian catastrophe, will not stand up for press freedom and will not stand up for human rights. Is there a single thing that he will actually stand up for?
Dominic Raab
I again say to the hon. Lady that we were already right out in the lead in imposing asset freezes and visa bans on 20 of the most directly responsible. She refers to the US report. The US has not put sanctions on the Crown Prince, as she well knows. More generally, she will have seen the action that we have taken—[Interruption.] She ought to listen. On dirty money, we have already said, and I have committed to this House, that we will introduce an extension of the Magnitsky sanctions to cover corruption—[Interruption.] She is now going on to talk about Russia. The reality is that we will continue to support standing up for human rights, and I will be introducing to the House Magnitsky sanctions and extensions in the corruption space shortly.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend. We have supported the normalisation of relations, which is a good step around the region. Of course, this also led to the suspension of the threat of annexation on the west bank, which was very important. As a result of that, I was able to go to talk to President Abbas and Prime Minister Shtayyeh and encourage them to resume dialogue on west bank issues, which is very important for security, and to make sure that Palestinian public servants are paid. Plans are at least mooted for elections on both sides—both in Israel and on the Palestinian side. Ultimately, we need leadership from both sides to secure the peace that my hon. Friend and other Members want. We need a two-state solution, and the UK will support all those efforts.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
Dominic Raab
We are having discussions with the Biden Administration on the approach to the proposed US withdrawal or drawdown from Afghanistan. It has to be linked to violence on the ground and to the wider peace talks and the agreements that have been made in Afghanistan between all the local parties, and it has to be based on the delivery of those conditions.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
My hon. Friend asks a very sensible question. The UK co-sponsored the World Health Assembly resolution in May 2020 that agreed an investigation into the origins of covid. It is important that that investigation is given the time it needs. The field mission to Wuhan was a key early step in the investigation. Of course we cannot pre-empt findings, but we will look closely at the field mission’s report when it is published. We have been clear that the investigation must be robust, open and scientifically rigorous.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
We will of course continue to make sure that we provide vital humanitarian support. I agree with the hon. Lady that the ongoing crisis in Syria is appalling. I think she asked about the Home Office plans for a new global resettlement scheme; that is for the Home Secretary to talk about, but I will—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is right that it is a diplomatic issue, which is why I fully support it.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The truth is that I would not be here today if it was not for this country’s proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Since 2015, we have resettled 25,000 refugees, with the support of brilliant charities—I always think of Elmbridge CAN in my constituency, which helps new families to settle in. We remain committed to discharging that historic role. The new global resettlement scheme will be developed and launched by the Home Office in due course.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]
Dominic Raab
I appreciate that there are concerns on this issue; we have a large Indian diaspora and have had lots of constituents writing in. I did raise the matter with Foreign Minister Jaishankar when I was in India and we discussed it. Ultimately, the situation is the result of a reform agenda that the elected Government are pressing through. It is of course contentious and we have discussed it, but ultimately it is for the Government of India to decide.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Nigel Adams
The PSVI remains a top priority for the UK Government. Since its launch in 2012 we have committed £48 million and funded 85 projects across 29 countries to prevent and respond to conflict-related sexual violence. Of course, the UK’s G7 presidency is an excellent opportunity for us to galvanise support for the PSVI.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I was out in Cyprus recently, as I have already discussed, and spoke to President Anastasiades and to Ersin Tatar, the new Turkish Cypriot leader. That is, of course, the starting point. The most important thing that we need to see right now is for both sides to go to those UN 5+1 talks without preconditions, so that we can re-engage in the kind of flexibility and pragmatism that can see lasting and enduring peace for the whole of Cyprus.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
Nigel Adams
The UK Government have repeatedly asserted our long-held position that we respect the territorial integrity of Indonesia, including the provinces of Papua and West Papua. The UK Government categorically do not support the activities or views of Papuan separatist activists. The presence of some individuals in the UK, including Benny Wenda, in no way means that we support their position. We engage with a diverse range of cultural and political figures in the Papua region, and our ambassador made a visit to Papua in November, when he met environment, education and human rights experts, as well as the Governor of West Papua.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady takes a heartfelt interest in this matter. I have recently spoken to the families of all three British-Iranian dual nationals. Of course, we accept that there is a long-standing dispute in relation to the IMS debt that needs to be resolved, but that is separate from the arbitrary detention of British nationals. Frankly, we should not be giving succour to the idea that anything should happen other than their unconditional and immediate release.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Iran’s systemic non-compliance with its obligations under the joint comprehensive plan of action are rightly a concern of the whole international community, particularly the state parties to the JCPOA. Frankly, Iran has a clear choice: return to compliance or face increasing economic and diplomatic isolation. On 18 February in Paris, I joined my French and German counterparts and the new US Secretary of State Tony Blinken to reinforce the transatlantic alliance and concerted action to bring Iran back to full compliance, which is our overriding focus.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the treatment of Palestinians. The reality is that I do not think there is a bar on the use of military systems of justice under international law—let alone under the International Criminal Court system. Indeed, we use a military justice system with some of the highest standards in the world. What is crucial is that there is adequate due process to ensure that people’s rights can be fairly and duly heard.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
We are providing ongoing consular support to Mr Taylor. Consular staff have been in regular contact with him and his UK lawyer. The British ambassador in Zagreb met him in December to discuss his concerns and explain the FCDO’s consular functions. I spoke to the Monégasque Foreign Secretary and the Croatian Secretary of State for European Affairs in November and sought assurances that both authorities were giving full consideration to the fact that Mr Taylor is a whistleblower. The UK is a state party to a number of multilateral conventions that require adequate arrangements to be made for the protection of whistleblowers. The UK has made appropriate provisions to do so in our own law, demonstrating the seriousness with which we take our obligation, and we are encouraging our international partners to do likewise. We are, however, unable to protect whistleblowers in other jurisdictions that may not have the same law.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Yemen: Aid Funding
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make a statement on the level of aid funding to Yemen.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for raising this urgent question. The situation in Yemen remains among the worst humanitarian crises in the world. Two thirds of the entire population—more than 20 million people—require some form of humanitarian assistance. The UN estimates that in the first half of this year, 47,000 people will be in famine conditions and 16.2 million will be at risk of starvation. Improving the dire circumstances faced by so many Yemenis continues to be a priority for this Government.
Yesterday, I attended the high-level pledging conference for the United Nations humanitarian appeal for Yemen. I announced that the UK will provide at least—I repeat, at least—£87 million in aid to Yemen over the course of financial year 2021-22. Our total aid contribution since the conflict began was already over £1 billion. This new pledge will feed an additional 240,000 of the most vulnerable Yemenis every month, support 400 health clinics and provide clean water for 1.6 million people. We will also provide one-off cash support to 1.5 million of Yemen’s poorest households to help them buy food and basic supplies.
Alongside the money that the UK is spending to reduce humanitarian suffering in Yemen, we continue to play a leading diplomatic role in support of the UN’s efforts to end the conflict. Yesterday, I spoke to the United Nations special envoy, Martin Griffiths, and we discussed how the UK could assist him in ending this devastating war. Last week, the United Nations Security Council adopted a UK-drafted resolution that reiterated the Council’s support for the United Nations peace process, condemned the Houthi offensive in Marib and attacks on Saudi Arabia and sanctioned Houthi official Sultan Zabin for the use of sexual violence as a tool of war.
Just last night, a Houthi missile hit and injured five civilians in southern Saudi Arabia. I condemn that further attack by the Houthis on civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and reiterate our commitment to help Saudi Arabia defend itself.
We are also working closely with our regional and international partners for peace. On 25 February, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Saudi Foreign Minister, Faisal bin Farhan, about the Yemen peace process, and he also recently discussed this with the US Secretary of State. I discussed Yemen with the Omani ambassador to the UK on 4 February and spoke to the Yemeni Foreign Minister on 20 January regarding the attack on Aden and the formation of a new Yemeni Cabinet.
The UK is also leading efforts to tackle covid-19 in Yemen and around the world. This month, as part of the UN Security Council presidency, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary called for a ceasefire across the globe to allow vulnerable people living in conflict zones to be vaccinated against covid-19. The UK, as one the biggest donors to the World Health Organisation and GAVI’s COVAX initiative, is helping ensure that millions of vaccine doses get through to people living in crises such as Yemen.
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this question and thank hon. Members for their continued interest in Yemen. The conflict and humanitarian crisis deserves our attention, and the UK Government remain fully committed to doing what we can to help secure a better future for Yemenis.
Mr Mitchell
The Minister is a decent fellow and will not have enjoyed what he announced yesterday. Last night, he will have heard the United Nations Secretary-General tell him that, for Yemen,
“cutting aid is a death sentence.”
Cutting it by 50% is unconscionable. As Sir Mark Lowcock, a senior and respected British official at the UN, said, millions of Yemeni children
“will continue the slow, agonising and obscene process of starving to death”.
I understand that I remain the only European politician who has recently been into Sa’dah in north Yemen to see an acute malnutrition ward in the hospital there, part-funded by the British taxpayer—life-saving work, which will now be halved. My right hon. Friend told the House just last month that
“Yemen will remain a UK priority”—[Official Report, 8 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 31.]
and yet the fifth richest country in the world is cutting support by more than half to one of the poorest countries in the world—and during a global pandemic.
Every single Member of this House was elected just over a year ago on a promise to maintain the 0.7%. Aid has already been cut under that formula because our economy has contracted, but the Government told the House that they would protect seven strategic priorities, including “human preparedness and response”. No one in this House believes that the Foreign Secretary wants to do this. It is a harbinger of terrible cuts to come. Everyone in this House knows that the cut to the 0.7% is not a result of tough choices; it is a strategic mistake with deadly consequences.
Mr Speaker, this is not who we are. This is not how global Britain acts. We are a generous, decent country. The 0.7% is enshrined in law. This House must surely have a vote. We must all search our consciences.
James Cleverly
I genuinely thank my right hon. Friend. He speaks with authority and passion as an experienced Member of this House and as a former Secretary of State for International Development. I remind the House that the commitment we made at the pledging conference represents a floor, not a ceiling, and that the figures that we have ultimately distributed in previous years have, in every one of those years, exceeded the figure pledged. We are going through a process at the moment where we work out how we distribute our official development assistance. In whatever way that process concludes, we will remain, in both absolute and percentage terms, one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world, and to Yemen itself, we still remain one of the largest donors to that humanitarian crisis.
Mr Speaker
I now call the shadow Minister, Preet Kaur Gill, who also has two minutes.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Government’s announcement yesterday at the high pledging conference discarded the British people’s proud history of stepping up and supporting those in need. In the middle of a pandemic, when millions stand on the brink of famine, the Government slashed life-saving support to the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, halving direct aid to Yemen weeks after they announced £1.36 billion in new arms licences to Saudi Arabia. This is a devastating reminder of the real world impact that the Government’s choices to abandon their manifesto commitment on aid will have on the most vulnerable people and shows that this Government just cannot be trusted to keep their word.
After six years of brutal conflict, two thirds of the Yemeni population rely on food aid to survive and thousands of people in the country are at risk of famine. Cutting aid is a death sentence that this Government have chosen to make, so will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise? Alongside this cut in humanitarian support, the UK continues to sustain the war in Yemen. Will the Minister follow the lead set by President Biden by stopping all UK arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition, so that we can use our role as the penholder on Yemen to help bring this brutal conflict to an end?
If the Foreign Secretary is willing to brazenly slash support to people living in the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, despite claiming for months that humanitarian crises were a priority, then the question is, what is going to happen to the rest of the aid budget on other priorities? The Minister has refused
“to talk to the aid and development community about what will be cut”
because he is ashamed. He is ashamed that the Government’s cuts will put millions of people’s lives at risk. This Government cannot continue to pretend otherwise. So will they publish a full list of the cuts made in 2020 and of the cuts to be made in 2021 by the end of this week?
What we saw yesterday are not the actions of global Britain. That phrase rings hollow. Make no mistake: as the UK abandons its commitment to 0.7%, it is simultaneously undermining our global reputation. Does the Minister believe that he has the support of this House to make this appalling cut and, if so, will he bring forward a vote on the 0.7% commitment? Tomorrow, the Chancellor has a choice. He must reverse his decision to make the UK the only G7 nation to cut its aid budget. He must reverse his Government’s retreat from the world stage and celebrate Britain’s proud history as a country that stands up for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable in society. That is the true test of global Britain.
James Cleverly
Our aid budget, our ODA spend, is incredibly important. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that, this year, that figure will remain at £10 billion. That £10 billion represents one of the largest aid budgets in both absolute terms and relative terms in the globe. The hon. Member speaks about the change from 0.7% to 0.5%. I remind the House that Labour politicians have been talking about 0.7% of GNI as an ODA budget for decades, yet they never once got near it. Even in years of benign economic circumstances, they never went above 0.51%. Under Conservative Prime Ministers, this country has spent 0.7% consistently, and we have done so even in difficult economic circumstances. As I am sure the Chancellor will outline tomorrow in the Budget, we are now presented with a unique set of economic circumstances that are unprecedented in our lifetime, representing a constriction of the UK economy unseen in centuries. And yet, against that backdrop, we maintain a commitment to spend £10 billion on the international stage.
Money is not the only thing that the UK can deploy in support of the people of Yemen. I outlined in departmental questions the work that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done at the international level to bring about change in the UN Security Council. I spoke yesterday with Martin Griffiths, the UN special representative, about the diplomatic efforts the UK can bring to bear to bring about the end of the conflict, because that is the precursor to a truly sustainable improvement in the situation. That is why we condemn the continued attacks by the Houthis and those who support them. That is why we have sanctioned senior Houthi leaders for the use of sexual violence as a tool of war, and that is why we will continue working bilaterally and internationally to bring about a conclusion to this terrible conflict.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend saying that this is a “floor, not a ceiling”; I hope that the ceiling will be somewhat greater than he has announced. Does he agree that the UK’s position, while generous, leaves a large gap if there is any cut, and the world’s poorest will be the ones to suffer? Has he reached out to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman to ask them to help fill the gap, or perhaps even Iran, which has used the Houthi people as its tools and instruments of violence in the region? Has he asked it to stop the instrumentalisation of terror and to perhaps fund the rebuilding after the destruction that it has caused?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee makes a very good point about the convening power that the UK can exercise and the strong bilateral relations we have with countries in the region. I am pleased to see that a number of countries in the Gulf were very generous, even though they, like us, are suffering from economic difficulties. We will continue to lobby the international community for support. I have not had and, unfortunately, I do not think we currently enjoy, the bilateral relations with Iran to make credible requests, or to make requests that will be forthcoming, but we will continue to encourage and push Iran to be a better regional neighbour and a better regional partner. In the immediate term, we strongly encourage Iran to stop supporting the Houthis, and we encourage the Houthis to end their campaign of violence against Yemenis and Saudis alike.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Gosh, this Government should hang their head in shame. The UK cutting humanitarian aid to Yemen by 50% is confirmation that the UK Government are playing a pivotal role in the worst humanitarian disaster in the world. The UK has shamefully confirmed that it will continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, laying bare the reality of this Government’s vision for global Britain—profiteering from weapons without concern for the devastation they cause, and relinquishing its responsibility to those who are starving and to save lives. Let us be in no doubt: this is not global Britain—this is more like little Britain.
Indeed, the UK is actively adding to 16 million people being put into hunger, 5 million civilians facing starvation and more than 3 million people being displaced as a result of this conflict. As Mark Lowcock said at the UN,
“If you’re not feeding the people, you’re feeding the war.”
In response to continued SNP calls to halt UK arms sales to the Saudis, this Government have always stated that they are also the biggest aid contributor, in order to clear their conscience. So I ask the Minister: is his conscience still clear, and what is this Government’s response going to be following these death sentence cuts?
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom remains one of the largest donor countries—not just to the Yemen humanitarian crisis appeal, but on the international stage. I also remind him that, just yesterday, Houthis sent missile attacks against civilians that injured Saudis and Yemenis alike. The best thing that can happen to secure a sustainable humanitarian improvement is the end of the conflict, and the UK is working hard to do that. However, countries have the right to defend themselves, and the consistent attacks—both within Yemen and into Saudi—must stop. Our support for the humanitarian situation in Yemen will remain. We remain one of the largest donors and, as I say, we are proud of the fact that we are helping to feed children, and to provide clean water and medical assistance.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend will know that the UK is one of the biggest donors to the crisis in Yemen, committing well over £1 billion in UK aid since the conflict began back in 2015, but we all know that money alone is not enough. Does he agree that progress can be made only through international co-operation, with everyone playing their part to solve the crisis?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Money makes a difference. We recognise that, which is why we remain one of the most generous bilateral donors to the humanitarian appeal. But money itself will not bring about a positive conclusion to the situation in Yemen. That is the philosophy that underpinned the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Department for International Development. To ensure that our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts go hand-in-hand, the Foreign Secretary and I regularly raise the issues of this conflict with regional partners and others, and work with the United Nations and Special Representative Martin Griffiths to bring about a permanent conclusion to the conflict in Yemen. We will continue to do so until that comes about.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
Minister, what is the reason behind cutting the aid to Yemen by 60%? What impact assessment has been made of cutting aid to those who were previously supported? I am particularly thinking about the impact on women and girls, people with disabilities and internally displaced people.
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Lady, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, and the House that, as I said in my speech, this represents a floor, not a ceiling. In every year previously, we have exceeded our initial pledging total, and we hope to be able to do so again in this situation. However, I also remind the House that we face an unprecedented economic situation. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have all made it clear that this is a temporary reduction and that we will seek to get back to the 0.7% as soon as the economic circumstances allow us to do so. We will continue our work on the international sphere to address what we hope to be the short-term issues of this humanitarian crisis, while putting in the full weight of UK diplomatic efforts to try to bring about a sustainable and peaceful solution to the conflict.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Our £214 million-worth of aid funding for Yemen this year will support at least 500,000 vulnerable people each month to help them buy them food and household essentials, treat 55,000 children for malnutrition, and provide 1 million people with improved water supply and basic sanitation. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he is stressing to the conflict parties that it is essential that they allow this aid to reach the areas that it is intended to help? Does he agree that, given these figures, now is not the time to be reducing aid to those whom we supply in Yemen who are most in need?
James Cleverly
I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes about the totality of our aid spending and my colleagues will have heard that. We also very much support his point about ensuring that the aid gets to the people who need it and that we maintain humanitarian corridors. That is why we have spoken with the Houthis and others about ensuring that those humanitarian corridors are maintained.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
The crisis in Yemen is wholly human made. Thousands have died as a result of the war, thousands of children have lost homes and lost schools, and poverty and starvation are the order of the day. Britain’s record in this is appalling. Throughout this whole conflict, we have armed Saudi Arabia knowing full well that those missiles are killing people in Yemen, and at the same time claiming to be the harbingers of peace by organising a resolution at the United Nations. Will the Minister make it very clear that all arms sales to Saudi Arabia will stop and that Britain will be a determined partner in trying to bring about a peace process through a ceasefire as quickly as possible and to build good relations with all countries in the region? Too many people have died. The conflict has gone on too long and it simply has to stop. We should be a party to ending the war, not promoting the war.
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with an authoritative voice, particularly on Iran. Perhaps if he would also call upon the Iranian regime to no longer give lethal support to the Houthis, that might be a big step in the right direction to bring about sustainable peace in Yemen.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
There is a strong convention that before a Government undertake a policy that puts lives at risk, they get prior approval from this House. We cannot make a 50% cut in this budget without cutting into crisis and healthcare support, thereby putting at least 100,000 children’s lives at risk. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that before the Budget votes are held next week we can have a written statement giving a breakdown of the cuts made this year in the aid budget and undertaking that no more cuts will be undertaken unless and until this House approves it?
James Cleverly
I am not completely sure that the convention my right hon. Friend refers to is relevant in this situation. As the Foreign Secretary has said before, we are looking very carefully at what is required by law. The legislation envisaged that the 0.7% target may not be met in a particular year in the light of economic and fiscal circumstances. The legislation provides for reporting to Parliament in the event that the target is not met. The Government obviously intend to abide by the legislation. The economic situation is difficult to predict, but we do wish to get back up to 0.7% as soon as the economic circumstances allow.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
The Government’s appalling decision to cut aid to Yemen has been described as “a death sentence” by the UN Secretary-General, and he is right. This enormous cut, in a year when 400,000 children under five might starve to death, is not only heartless but, just like the cut to the 0.7%, damages the UK’s international reputation, and they are doing this just weeks after announcing £1.36 billion in new arms sales to Saudi Arabia—the exact opposite of what the United States is doing. Is this what we can now expect—the UK Government shrinking away from their commitments, leaving other, more compassionate countries to pick up the slack?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady implies that expenditure is the only appropriate measure for compassion. If that is the case, she should recognise that the UK is one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world, in both absolute terms and relative terms. I therefore remind her that she, and indeed the House, should remain proud of the position the UK takes. However, I also remind her, and the House, that we face unprecedented economic circumstances, and the quicker that those are resolved, the quicker we can get back to being the generous international aid donor that we all wish to be.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) [V]
The legislation allows the Government to miss the 0.7% target by accident or in an emergency, but not to plan to miss it for an indefinite number of years ahead. Can my right hon. Friend give a commitment today that further cuts will not be made until the necessary legislation promised to this House by Ministers who announced this policy has been put to a vote so that this House can express a view?
James Cleverly
I hear what my right hon. Friend says. The Foreign Secretary, as I said, is looking carefully at the requirements of the legislation. I can assure my right hon. Friend, from this position at the Dispatch Box, that the Government are well able to listen to the mood of the House without the need for legislation in this Session.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister referred to the humanitarian aid that the UK has already given to Yemen, which we recognise, but I am afraid he has failed today to explain why the Government have now decided to cut that contribution by more than half. Doing the right thing in the past is not a justification for doing the wrong thing now. Yesterday, a Yemeni aid worker co-ordinating food aid distribution, said this:
“Children are dying every day here. It is not a moral decision to abandon Yemen.”
Why have the Government done this when for example Germany, which is also facing the same unprecedented economic situation—to use his own words—has managed to pledge twice as much as the United Kingdom?
James Cleverly
Different countries at yesterday’s pledging events put forward their pledges. Some increased their pledges; some reduced their pledges. Each country is facing its own economic challenges. The UK remains, despite the unprecedented economic circumstances we face, one of the largest donors both in general terms and in terms of humanitarian support for Yemen. I would also make the point that while the money is of course incredibly important—that is why we have committed to at least £87 million this financial year—there are other resources we bring to bear to bring about an improvement in this situation, including our voice on the international stage, our lobbying power and our political power. We will continue to work to bring about an end to the conflict in Yemen.
Mr Speaker
We need to get on with the list. I am going to finish at ten past.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister started his remarks by saying that money matters. Yes it does, but what this cut represents is a cut to projects, a cut to aid and a cut to assistance that will put lives in jeopardy. If the Government are so reassured by their position, then I suggest that they bring a vote to the House on this issue and they can truly gauge the strength of feeling. We have a moral duty to lead on this issue and I hope he will consider bringing a vote before it is too late.
James Cleverly
As I said previously, the Foreign Secretary is looking at the legal requirements around the situation. I completely understand my hon. Friend’s passion, but I remind him and the House that we remain one of the largest donors in this humanitarian crisis.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
According to the report published yesterday by the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief, the last remaining Jewish communities in Yemen were ordered to leave in 2020 and the Yemeni Christian community, which once numbered some 41,000, has now shrunk to just a few thousand. Moreover, the Yemeni Baha’i community faced increased persecution at the hands of Houthi authorities last year. Will the Minister share his views on how aid spending in Yemen can be better used to support religious and belief minority groups in Yemen?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The UK provides secondees to the office of Martin Griffiths, the UN special representative. A number of those secondees focus specifically on broad engagement with minorities within the peace process. I have spoken on a number of occasions about the importance of ensuring protection for minority communities and religious minorities in conflicts, and about getting an inclusive set of people around the negotiating table once peace negotiations are under way.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]
As chair of the all-party group for Yemen, yesterday I spoke to some very brave women from within Marib, which is under long-term siege from the Houthis. They told me that most of the Houthi forces are young men and teenage boys recruited from the most impoverished parts of Yemen. They also told me that Marib is now hosting over 2 million displaced people across 144 camps. Many children are not just suffering from famine and disease; they have been deeply traumatised after having been driven out by the Houthis. They all rely on generous UK aid and the example it sets to other countries who need to step up in the humanitarian aid effort and the subsequent reconstruction. How can indicating a cut in UK aid at this crucial time do anything but prolong this terrible conflict?
James Cleverly
The situation my hon. Friend describes in Marib is deeply concerning. We have called on the Houthis to end their assault. Marib has become the temporary home for many internally displaced people, and the situation there is dire. A number of people have mentioned our support for, or our relationship with, neighbouring countries, and of course defending Marib against this Houthi assault is part of the conversations we have. But, ultimately, the best thing we can do is bring about a swift end to this conflict.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
No matter how much the Minister attempts to hide behind how much the UK gives, it will not disguise the impact that this brutal 60% cut will have on the life chances of Yemenis. Save the Children says that already 400,000 children under the age of five are at risk of starving to death this year, so I ask the Minister: how many deaths are he and this Tory Government prepared to have on their conscience, because they certainly do not act in my name?
James Cleverly
The UK has consistently been one of the largest donors to the humanitarian appeal, and our money is keeping people alive. We are very proud of that fact. The economic circumstances we are currently living through have meant that we have to temporarily reduce the amount of money we are spending in overseas development assistance, but as has been made clear by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and others, as soon as the economic circumstances allow us to get back to where we were, we will do so.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The humanitarian crisis is terrible, as has been said, and there are also more international terrorist attacks organised from Yemen than anywhere else in the world. The Biden Administration is rewriting their foreign policy towards Yemen. I cannot think of a better opportunity to end this tragic civil war, but I am not picking up a Yemen strategy that befits the strap line of global Britain. May I ask the Minister to match the political courage of our closest security ally in tackling the humanitarian crisis, cutting arms exports and being ready to lead any peacekeeping force, should the UN require it, once a ceasefire is agreed?
James Cleverly
Yemen remains one of the priority areas for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. As I say, I spoke only yesterday to Martin Griffiths, and we discussed what further support the UK Government can provide for his work to bring about a sustainable ceasefire. The House will have heard, and indeed my Government colleagues will have heard, the suggestions my right hon. Friend has put forward. We will consider all suggestions to bring about an improvement in Yemen, but at this stage I cannot commit to the points he has made.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The world’s largest humanitarian crisis is getting worse. Blockades of ports and airports are restricting vital humanitarian aid getting to the 80% of the population who need it. This year alone, 2.3 million children under the age of five face acute malnutrition. Cutting support as the country battles coronavirus and faces a cholera outbreak is callous and heartless. Can the Minister explain how this fits into the Government’s pledge to build a global Britain?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes a very good point about access for humanitarian aid, and I am very proud of the fact that the UK Government have lobbied international partners to maintain those humanitarian access routes. We have also provided support in a technical manner to help assess the best way of distributing aid so that it gets to the people most in need. We will continue to provide not just financial support, but technical support to help the people of Yemen, while also working to bring about a conclusion to this conflict.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]
It is essential that our aid is effective in Yemen, so can I ask the Minister what recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts and the UN regarding the recent panel of experts report on Yemen, and whether he will agree to meet me and representatives of humanitarian organisations, local NGOs and the Yemeni private sector? Their vital role in providing essential food and commodities to Yemenis and supplying the humanitarian operation has been undermined by the serious shortcomings and factual inaccuracies contained within the panel’s report.
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for the point he has made today and also for the correspondence we have exchanged on this very important issue. We are well aware of the allegations made in the panel of experts’ most recent report, and they are significant and concerning. We share the panel’s vision for the Government of Yemen and the Yemen central bank to become more accountable. I am more than happy to ensure that he, I and people more knowledgeable about these issues are able to speak in the near future.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
The Minister began his remarks by saying that improving the situation for Yemenis was
“a priority for this Government.”
How he can say that with a straight face I do not know. Not only has he announced a 50% cut in aid to Yemen, but since the Saudi-led war in Yemen began, his Government have licensed £6.7 billion-worth of arms sales to the Saudis. That is British-made bombs dropped from British-made jets flown by British-trained pilots. Instead of warm words and crocodile tears, will the Minister take the necessary action for peace and end arms sales to Saudi Arabia?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady raises this issue on the day after Houthi missiles were sent into civilian areas of Saudi. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia seeks to defend itself against such aggression, as every country in the world has the right to do. Our arms export regime is robust, and the best thing that we can do, as I say, to help the people of Yemen is to encourage all the parties, both those in Yemen and regional partners, to bring this conflict to an end.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Today marks 12 weeks since Margaret Keenan became the first person in the world to receive a clinically approved vaccine for covid-19. She has since been joined by over 20 million other citizens of this country in the biggest and fastest vaccination effort the world has ever seen.
This is a phenomenal achievement. Our vaccination programme is a national success story for the whole United Kingdom, and the reason it matters is that it allows us to replace the protection currently given by restrictions on our freedoms with the protection from science.
The data confirms that this strategy is working because the vaccines work. The number of hospital admissions is falling faster than the number of new cases, whereas in the first peak it fell more slowly, and the fall in hospitalisations is faster among the age groups vaccinated first than in younger age groups yet to get a jab.
I can tell the House about some further analysis that backs up this excellent news. The halving time of hospital admissions is now every 18 days. Over the past fortnight, it has fallen for those aged over 85 from 18 days to 15. This morning, the Office for National Statistics published data showing the number of deaths falling by over a quarter a week in mid-February. More than that, the number of deaths each day is not only falling faster than after the first peak, but it is falling faster in the over-80s, who got the jab first, compared with the under-80s. The number of daily deaths is halving every 12 days, but among the over-80s it is now halving every 10, so while the fall in cases is decelerating, the fall in the number of deaths is accelerating. What all this shows is that the vaccine is working, reducing the number of deaths among those who were vaccinated first and preventing hospital admissions. This is real-world evidence that the vaccine is protecting the NHS and saving lives, that the 12-week dosing regime is saving lives, and that this country’s strategy is working.
As well as this real-world data, I would like to update the House on two new pieces of analytical research published over the last 24 hours. First, this morning the Office for National Statistics published new data on the levels of protection people have. They show that up to 11 February, one in four people are estimated to have antibodies against coronavirus in England, up from one in five. The levels are highest in the over-80s, the first group to be vaccinated, showing again the protection from the vaccine across the country. The second piece of research, published last night, shows that a single dose of either the Oxford or the Pfizer vaccine delivers protection against severe infection in the over-70s, with a more than 80% reduction in hospitalisations. It is great news that both vaccines work so effectively. In fact, the protection from catching covid 35 days after the first jab is even slightly better for the Oxford jab than for the Pfizer, so people can have confidence that they will get protection, whichever jab they are offered.
I am grateful for the work of colleagues across the House in promoting vaccine take-up, which has helped to deliver some of the highest levels of enthusiasm for vaccination in the whole world, and I am pleased to inform the House that we are now inviting over-60s to be vaccinated too. Although the day-to-day figures for supply are lumpy, we have some bumper weeks ahead later this month. Given that our vaccination programme began 12 weeks ago today, from now we begin in earnest our programme of second vaccinations, which ramps up over the month of March. I can assure the House that we have factored these second jabs into our supply projections, and we are on track to meet our target of offering a vaccine to all priority groups 1 to 9 by 15 April and to all adults by the end of July.
Our vaccination programme means that we can set out our road map to freedom and put this pandemic behind us, but we must stay vigilant because covid-19, like all viruses, mutates over time. Part of controlling any virus is responding to new variants as they arise, just as we do with flu each year. Knowing this, we invested in genomic sequencing right at the start of the pandemic, giving the UK one of the biggest genomic sequencing capabilities in the world. Thanks to that, we have been able to spot variants here at home and support others to detect variants in other parts of the world.
I would like to update the House on the six cases of the variant of concern that was first identified in Manaus in Brazil and that we have now identified here in the UK. We know that five of those six people quarantined at home, as they were legally required to do. We have been in contact with them, and I would like to put on record my gratitude to them for doing their duty and following the rules. Whenever we identify cases of a new variant, we respond fast and come down hard by bringing in enhanced sequencing and testing, so we are stepping up our testing and sequencing in south Gloucestershire as a precaution. We have no information to suggest that the variant has spread further.
Unfortunately, one of the six cases completed a test but did not successfully complete the contact details. Incidents like this are rare and occur only in around 0.1% of tests. I can update the House with the latest information on identifying this case. We have identified the batch of home test kits in question, and our search has narrowed from the whole country down to 379 households in the south-east of England. We are contacting each one. We are grateful that a number of potential cases have come forward following the call that we put out over the weekend, and I would like to thank colleagues from across the House who have helped us to get the message out there.
Our current vaccines have not yet been studied against this variant. We are working to understand what impact it might have, but we do know that the variant has caused significant challenges in Brazil, so we are doing all we can to stop the spread of this new variant in the UK, to analyse its effects, to develop an updated vaccine that works on all these variants of concern, and to protect the progress that we have made as a nation. This country is on the road to recovery and we have freedom on the horizon. We must proceed with caution because although we are moving quickly, the virus moves quickly too. Let us not waver; let us do whatever it takes to keep this virus under control.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
As always, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. On the Brazilian variant, in January and February cases here were running at tens of thousands a day and we were in lockdown—we are still in lockdown—because of our own home-grown new infectious variant, yet people were allowed to fly in from abroad, bringing the P1 Brazilian mutation with them. Throughout history, epidemic after epidemic has exploited international travel. Surely it is obvious that tougher border controls should have been in place sooner.
I welcome the progress that the Secretary of State has made on identifying the batch, but how on earth can a test be processed that does not collect the contact details? What mechanisms will be put in place to fix that in the future? Twenty-two billion pounds has been allocated to this system, and it feels as though someone has vanished into thin air. Can he assure us that it will not happen again?
I note that the Secretary of State said that there is no information to suggest wider spread of this variant, but he will recall that John Edmunds from SAGE told the Home Affairs Committee in January that for every identified South African variant, there were probably another 30 unidentified. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has received any estimates of the number of unidentified cases in the wider community?
I welcome the tremendous progress that has been made on vaccination and driving infection rates down. It is a testament to the NHS and everybody involved in the vaccination programme, and to everybody who is playing their part in this lockdown. We also know that the virus can quickly rebound and that mutations could evade vaccination. We are in a race against evolution, so we have a long way to go. To be frank, nowhere is covid-safe until everywhere is covid-safe. None of us wants to yo-yo in and out of lockdowns, so will the Secretary of State guarantee that the lockdown easing will, as promised, absolutely be based on data, not dates, and that the assessment time between each step is not compromised? I welcome the extra surge testing, but what is the current timeframe for genetic sequencing? How can it be sped up?
Overall trends are coming down, and that is welcome, but infections in some areas remain stubbornly high. The national average is 100 cases per 100,000, but in Leicester, my city, the infection rate is one of the highest in the country at 222 per 100,000. In Ashfield, the infection rate is 246 per 100,000. In Hyndburn, the infection rate has increased to 162 per 100,000. In Oadby and Wigston, it has gone up. In Watford, it has gone up. In Worthing, it has gone up. What steps will be taken to ensure that areas such as Ashfield, Leicester, Watford, Worthing, Hyndburn and so on are not left behind when the national lockdown restrictions begin to lift, or will those places remain in localised lockdowns? Will the local authorities be given extra resources to do more door-to-door testing and retrospective tracing? Will workplaces in those areas be inspected by the Health and Safety Executive to ensure they are covid-secure? And of course, will people finally be given decent sick pay and isolation support?
Many areas such as Leicester are facing a double whammy of relatively high infection rates and relatively low vaccination rates. What further action will now be taken to drive up vaccination rates among hesitant communities? Will the Secretary of State fund faith groups, community groups and local public health teams to develop more targeted and tailored local vaccination campaigns?
Tomorrow’s Budget cannot be about the Chancellor’s Instagram account; it has to be about the NHS and social care accounts. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that tomorrow we will get an increase in public health allocations to help public health teams plan their local covid response over the next year? Will our NHS heroes get the pay rise they deserve? With 224,000 patients waiting more than 12 months for treatment, will our NHS get the resources it needs to deliver the patient care that patients and our constituents deserve?
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to thank all those who are responsible for the vaccine roll-out. It has been an absolutely remarkable effort. He is right to say that the NHS has played its part—it has played a central part—but it has been more than the NHS. It has been the brilliance of the logistics, in particular, of our armed services. It has been the volunteers who have come forward in their droves. It has been the regulator and the partnership with private industry, and I think that this model of a combination of academic excellence and partnership between Government, regulator and private industry is one on which we can build. I know it is a model that they do not like much on the Opposition side of the House—
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman says he likes it. We always knew that he was misplaced over there. His problem is that sometimes his rhetoric is aimed more at his Back Benchers than what he thinks is right. I urge him to listen to his conscience and to back us and the businesses that are making this vaccination roll-out happen, and to put that support into practice.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about sequencing—again, done by a brilliant combination of academics, Government and private businesses. We are now sequencing a third of the positive tests in this country. That is not yet a full survey of all the positives, although we are working towards that, but it does mean that we are able to spot the variants much more than anywhere else in the world. We currently provide around 40% of the total global sequences of this disease—this virus—and we are driving up that sequencing capacity.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about increasing the uptake of vaccination. He was quite right to, and we are working with faith groups and local directors of public health and others. Councils have a very important role to play alongside pharmacists and, of course, GPs in increasing the vaccination uptake. However, the vaccination uptake has been very, very high—higher than I expected—and I am really thrilled about that.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about making sure that the road map follows data, not dates. We have rigorously set out the gap between the steps to ensure that we can see the effect of one step before we take the other. That is with the goal of having this road map as a one-way route out of restrictions so that we can all get back to the freedom that we crave.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Health Secretary on the brilliant progress of the vaccine roll-out, which is a personal achievement for him as well as a collective achievement for the Government. I also thank him for transparency in that programme and the transparency on the risks of the new Brazilian variant.
I would like to ask about transparency in another area, which is the new integrated care systems that he is planning in his White Paper and the concerns expressed by the Nuffield Trust, the King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and NHS providers at this morning’s Health and Social Care Committee about the lack of detail on how the public will know how well their local ICS is doing. Sir Robert Francis told the Committee that he favoured asking the CQC to Ofsted-rate the new ICSs and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend thinks that that might be a solution to the accountability issue.
Matt Hancock
Transparency has played a vital role in our approach to responding to this virus, and I think that is an important lesson from it that should be heeded globally. In terms of the future of the NHS arranged around the ICSs, that transparency will be important, too. There will be a crucial role for the Care Quality Commission, which currently rates hospitals according to, as my right hon. Friend put it, an Ofsted-style rating. It is vital that the CQC has a similar role when it comes to ICSs, and I look forward to working with him and other members of his Committee to make sure that we get the details of that right.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Although the number of cases of the Brazilian variant is thankfully small, it is a warning that being tested in advance does not rule out travellers carrying covid. The South African variant is resistant to antibodies in previous covid patients, and there is concern that both variants may be resistant to vaccine-induced immunity and could therefore undermine the success of the vaccination programme.
The Brazilian variant has already been identified outside South America, and the South African strain is present in 35 countries not on the red list. The arrival of the Brazilian strain via both Switzerland and Paris demonstrates the various routes to the UK from high-risk countries and shows how a traveller can avoid the current hotel quarantine system by separating the legs of their journey. Those infected spent several hours in close quarters with other travellers, who would not be subject to hotel quarantine even now.
I assume that the Government are tracing the passengers from the flights, but with genomics taking some time, the window for worrying variants to get a foothold in the UK before they are discovered is significant. The situation would not have arisen with comprehensive hotel quarantine, as advised by SAGE, so why did the Secretary of State agree to such an inadequate system? Can he tell us the view of the Joint Biosecurity Centre? Does he recognise that quarantining just 1% of international arrivals does not protect the UK from these variants, or protect it from those that may evolve in other parts of the world? Will the Government now review their hotel quarantine policy and make it fit for purpose?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is completely wrong, and she knows it. Quarantine is in place for 100% of passenger arrivals in this country. In fact, this episode, in which all those we have successfully contacted—all five—have fully isolated and quarantined at home as required, demonstrates that the policy is working. We have further strengthened it and introduced hotel quarantine, and that will no doubt give further reassurance. The hon. Lady’s characterisation is wrong, and some of the descriptions of the organisations involved are wrong as well. I am happy to ensure that she gets a private briefing so that she can understand the situation in future.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the vaccine roll-out and on the use of the SureScreen tests, which were bought local to me. The pressure on the NHS due to coronavirus has caused the cancellation of thousands of elective operations. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that hospitals catch up on cancer diagnosis and care and cardiothoracic diagnosis and surgery? How fast does he expect to progress that?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes two critical points. The first is that the manufacture and purchasing of British-made tests is an incredibly important project. I thank SureScreen in her constituency for working closely with us over several months. We now have a product that we can all be proud of and that will test people in Britain to help break chains of transmission and control this virus. I am grateful for her work in that regard.
I also agree with her second point. The spending review put aside £1 billion for the recovery of elective operations, as well as half a billion pounds for the recovery of mental health services. That is crucial for cancer and all the other elective areas, including cardiothoracic, and we will publish further details of the recovery programme soon. The NHS is just exiting a stage of significant pressure—more than 10,000 people are still in hospitals with covid—and we need to ensure that staff get some rest and recuperation, but next year will be all about the recovery my hon. Friend talks about. The money has been allocated, and we will need to get on with it.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
The Brazil variant cases arrived a month after I raised this issue with the Prime Minister, and they show not only the problems of delays, but the limitations of the pre-travel tests that did not catch those cases. Even now, 99% of the 15,000 daily arrivals are not covered by hotel quarantine, and most people can still travel home from the airport by tube, train or even plane, mixing with others—as some of these travellers did—without being tested on arrival in the UK. Why are the Government still refusing to introduce additional tests on arrival, and still allowing international passengers to travel onwards on UK public transport? Does the Secretary of State recognise that those gaps in the system will let more new variant cases spread?
Matt Hancock
These cases would be caught by the new hotel quarantine policy. The right hon. Lady talks about the need for more testing, and we have introduced tests on day 2 and day 8, to ensure that we keep everybody who arrives as a passenger in the UK under the necessary level of surveillance.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency is extremely diverse in its racial and religious makeup, and our national health service staff have done a brilliant job in keeping up the fantastic vaccination rate during this period. However, we are still having to combat the anti-vaxx propaganda that is going out. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that people get the truth about the wisdom of taking the vaccine, regardless of what race, religion, and cultural background they come from?
Matt Hancock
That is an incredibly important question, and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in getting that message out. In Harrow we are vaccinating in mosques, temples, and GP surgeries. A critical part of the roll-out is to ensure that the message gets to everybody that this vaccine is safe and it works. It is no good just my saying that. We want to, and we are, engaging with leaders of all communities—faith leaders, and people who have strong voices in their community. Critically, we must ensure that people feel as much as possible that the vaccination effort is accessible to them. It is on us to ensure that the vaccines are easy to get hold of, and that people get answers to any reasonable questions they may have. I look forward to working further with my hon. Friend on delivering that across Harrow and the whole of the country.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that every hour is vital in tracking down new positive cases, particularly new cases of new variants. Will he explain why the eye-watering £22 billion that has been spent on the test and trace system does not track each and every test that is sent out, based on a unique code for every test? Surely that would help close the net on positive tests much quicker than the public calls for help that we have seen over the past few days, when that vital information is missing when each test is returned.
Matt Hancock
I am not sure you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I addressed that precise question in my statement. Not having the contact details happens in about 0.1% of tests. In this case, we think the test was done as part of a home test kit, when it is incumbent on the individual to set out those details. Home test kits can be sent to someone’s home, in which case of course we have the details of where it was sent. Alternatively, in response to surges, tests can be taken round by local authority teams and dropped off. We therefore need to find out exactly where this test was dropped off. What the hon. Lady omitted to say is that the team has done a good job of narrowing down where that may be to 379 households. The call-out at the weekend was answered with a number of leads, and we are working hard to make sure we find the individual concerned.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Both the scientific news and the progress of our vaccine roll-out suggest that we are well on the way to getting back to normal. In particular, I was delighted to learn about the fantastic new data showing that both the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines are effective in hugely reducing hospitalisations and deaths from covid and, indeed, that the Oxford jab, which is being manufactured here in Newcastle-under-Lyme, may even be the more effective of the two. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that our European neighbours, such as France, have recognised that fact and are moving to allow this terrific vaccine to protect the lives of older people there, just as it has done in the UK?
Matt Hancock
I am delighted to see any country recognise the life-saving value of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, as we recognise the life-saving value of all that have passed assessment by our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. We know that this vaccine is not only safe but is saving lives and stopping hospitalisations right across this country right now. I pay tribute to the scientists behind it, who have done so much work to get it to this place, and it is simply fantastic to see in the data with the naked eye that these vaccines are saving lives.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
I congratulate the Secretary of State on having the temerity and leadership to identify early on that vaccination and getting a good vaccine was the way ahead. Here we are, leading the way for not only Europe but the world. Indeed, a few weeks ago, the Irish Government and Europe tried to steal vaccines out of the arms of people in Northern Ireland because they were so jealous of how well the United Kingdom was doing. With that in mind, what will the Secretary of State do in late summer, given the fact that we have eight times the amount of vaccine that the United Kingdom will need? Is a list being compiled of needy countries where the United Kingdom can help people with vaccination?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. While I am so proud of the work that we have done in this United Kingdom to develop the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to buy vaccines from around the world that are safe and effective, so that we are able to vaccinate everybody here at home, I am also cognisant of the fact that vaccination around the world will be necessary. I was very pleased to see that COVAX started vaccinating in Ghana last week. It currently looks as if we may have excess vaccines in the future, and we have clearly committed that we will make them available around the world.
We know for sure that we seek to vaccinate with two doses every adult in the UK. There may well be a need for a third vaccination over the autumn against variants, and there is currently a clinical trial considering the vaccination of under-18s. So the exact number of vaccines that we will need for the UK population is not yet known, but we are keen to ensure that we then go on to support, with vaccines and with the money that we have already pledged, the vaccination of the most underdeveloped parts of the world.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State knows how well the vaccination programme is going here in Warwickshire, and his remarks at Friday’s national briefing were greatly appreciated here. Many of the residents being vaccinated at Locke House in Rugby have asked me about the road back to normality, and some have asked about getting some sun on a foreign holiday. Could he say something about any plans the Government are considering for people wishing to travel both at home and abroad to be able to demonstrate that they have received their vaccination through some form of certification?
Matt Hancock
Coventry and Warwickshire have done an amazing job, and I was very pleased to see them top the ranks published on Thursday of the areas of England that have vaccinated the most. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his team.
On foreign holidays, we said in the road map that international holidays will not be allowed before 17 May. We are working with the global travel taskforce, which met this lunchtime, just before I came to the House. It is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary. I am on it, along with Home Office and Foreign Office colleagues and representatives from the travel industry—from the airlines, cruise ships and others. That will report by 12 April. Last year, international travel restrictions were about restricting the number of cases due to high prevalence elsewhere when the prevalence here was low. The challenge now is that we have to take into consideration the risks from variants of concern, which means that more understanding about the impact of vaccines on variants of concern, such as the one first discovered in Manaus in Brazil that we were talking about earlier, is critical to answering the question of when we will be able safely to reopen international travel.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I received some welcome news this morning that Lambeth’s local covid vaccination team is one of the highest performing teams in the country. Our local clinical commissioning group reports that 85% of people over 75 and 89% of residents in care homes have now been vaccinated. Here in Vauxhall, we have had to implement the surge testing operation in the past few days because a case of the South African variant was discovered locally. This is all down to the tireless efforts of our primary care workers, nurses, GPs, pharmacies and an army of volunteers. I am concerned, though, that despite this heroic effort, there is still some misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Does the Secretary of State agree that more needs to be done to counter this misinformation and to support the vaccine roll-out and take-up among our black, Asian and ethnic minority communities?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I do. I want to add one more person to the long list of people whom the hon. Lady rightly thanked for their incredible work of getting take-up in Lambeth to as high as 85% among the over-75s, and that is her. She has played a personal leadership role, and I thank her and pay tribute to her for that. There is still much more work to do, and I hope that we can keep working together on it.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
The pace and scale of the vaccination programme has been incredible, and we owe a debt of thanks to everyone involved. In Wolverhampton, we have kept pace by using a variety of locations, including our leisure and community centres. As we all look forward to restrictions ending, I hope that these public buildings will be returned for leisure and community use. For how long does the Secretary of State predict that we will need a mass vaccination programme? With the potential need for a rolling programme of booster injections or vaccination against new variants, what infrastructure is being planned so that we can protect our entire population for as long as is necessary without overburdening our NHS?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend raises a very important point: free the leisure centres! Many are being used as vaccination centres now, but, like her, I look forward to the day when they can be used for the purpose for which they were built—as leisure centres. It is important that, should we need a continued vaccination programme, for instance, over the summer and into the autumn, as seems likely, we will have to move to more permanent places or places that are free to be used as vaccination centres over that period. In fact, that has already started to happen. We have already started to move some of our testing and vaccination centres to more semi-permanent sites to free up the original sites that we started with, because we needed things to move incredibly quickly. That is an important consideration. Frankly, it is best done as close to the local area as possible, so it is right that I do not get involved in each individual one. I am absolutely certain that the NHS in Wolverhampton is far better placed to make those sorts of decisions than I am from this Dispatch Box, but I hope that it will keep my hon. Friend informed.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]
I am afraid that “data not dates” clearly has not worked, because people have quite understandably just focused on the dates. The spring sunshine at the weekend meant that in lovely places such as Cambridge it was very busy. Are the Government now going to make a precautionary adjustment or, with hospital numbers still so high, take a chance and risk running the NHS into the ground?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that we believe in people taking responsibility for their own actions, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the refusal of a minority to accept vaccination is no reason to delay the lifting of restrictions on society as a whole?
Matt Hancock
That is an important point. We do not have mandatory vaccinations in this country. We do encourage as much uptake is possible, but with the percentages for uptake well into the 90s among the groups who have been offered the vaccine, it is clear that we will be able to get very high levels of coverage and therefore lift restrictions. I hope will be able to lift restrictions on the basis of the dates in the timetable set out but, as per my answer earlier, we will also monitor the data on the impact between each one.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
Anita Barker, the headteacher of Scott Primary School in Bedford, is doing all she can to keep her school safe and open, but she knows that more can be done and wants her staff to be vaccinated. I understand the JCVI’s reasoning on priority, but we have already made a special case for schools. The success of the road map hinges on schools going back safely, so does the Secretary of State have the political will to do all that he can to prevent further school closures and recognise that that means vaccinating school staff as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to ensure that, as much as possible, school staff are vaccinated whenever they possibly can be within the JCVI categorisations, but we have to follow the clinical advice on this, because there is no evidence of teachers being worse affected by covid than other professions. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that the message gets across that the prioritisation—the order of the queue, so to speak—is based on the best clinical advice as to how to save the most lives most quickly. I am sure that is something in which everybody wants to share.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I again congratulate my right hon. Friend on the 20 million milestone, which is fantastic achievement for everybody involved. May I probe him on the question of outdoor transmission? It has been quite clear in the past few days that the level of adherence to the rules has dropped in outdoor settings; has my right hon. Friend’s research shown that there is genuinely an issue around the transmission of the virus outdoors? Have we actually seen any significant incidents of widespread transmission in outdoor settings?
Matt Hancock
The clinical advice is that outdoors is safer than indoors—the likelihood of transmission outdoors is much lower—but that in crowded outdoor areas in particular it is not nil. Hence, the road map is based on opening up outdoors sooner, but people should still follow social distancing and, of course, follow the rules, which should mean that come the 29th of this month we are able to open up outdoors first.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Scottish health protection teams are having to trace all the people who travelled on the plane to Aberdeen, and there must be similar risks and concerns in England, given the travel through London. Of course, there are no passenger lists for anyone who travelled on by train. Does the Secretary of State not therefore agree that it is a matter of urgency that his Government change policy to reduce the risk of importing further and more dangerous variants?
Matt Hancock
Since the six people under discussion with the variant of concern first found in Brazil travelled here, we have introduced further strengthening at the border—the hotel quarantine. I think the best approach would be a UK-wide one. I discussed that with my colleagues in the devolved Administrations and I look forward to a time when we are able to have an aligned policy.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The constituency data released by Public Health England last Friday showed that more than 30,000 people in Harrogate and Knaresborough had had their first dose of the vaccine. This fantastic local performance, alongside the stunning national performance, reflects the expertise, determination and teamwork of many people, and I put on record my gratitude to them. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are on track to give everyone their second dose of the vaccine within 12 weeks of the first?
Matt Hancock
Yes; we have the vaccines available, and local areas need to know that the vaccines will be delivered to them in order for them to meet their schedule commitments for those second jabs. The logistics of the second jab are slightly more complicated than the first, because we need to make sure that the right person gets the right vaccine on the right date. There is a huge amount of work under way as that programme starts—today being 12 weeks to the day since the vaccination programme as a whole started. May I put on the record my thanks to the team in Harrogate, who have done an amazing job vaccinating over 30,000 people—more than the national average, if my memory serves me correctly? I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership in Harrogate and for supporting the team there to make this happen.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
The roll-out of the vaccines by the NHS and the efficacy of the vaccines are to be celebrated, and I congratulate everybody involved. However, the UK has the highest mortality rate per capita of any major country. Given that the Government maintain that they have consistently followed expert scientific advice, how soon does the Secretary of State think we should review that scientific advice and the decisions of the Government that were based on it so that we can learn the lessons of the past year as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
We are constantly learning—about the asymptomatic transmission of the virus, the way in which it mutates and what works effectively against it; and we update policy according to what we learn. That is the nature of science; it is about constantly learning as new facts come to bear. We do not wait until after a pandemic to learn; we learn all the way through it.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the pace of the vaccine roll-out, and welcome the good news about the sharp decline in hospital admissions and deaths among vaccinated groups. Does he agree that this provides real hope that we will be able to end social distancing, along with other restrictions, from 21 June?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I know that the Secretary of State shares my concern that not every community is as confident as others about taking up the vaccine. That is why I know he will want to congratulate my local doctors, primary care networks and local church leaders in Walthamstow, who led a vaccine clinic last week in our community to help support the black and ethnic minority residents to take up the vaccine. He will also want to congratulate my doctors on being some of the highest performers in the country in terms of getting people to have their vaccine. Will he meet me to discuss what we can learn about this community-led approach to vaccination and how we can do more to help that outreach work bridge the gap between different communities in our country, so that nobody is left behind in this health challenge?
Matt Hancock
Yes; this is one of the hon. Lady’s campaigns that we can all get behind. She is quite right to raise the work that is being done in Walthamstow, which is very impressive. I will arrange a meeting between her and the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), to see what we can learn and what we can replicate.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This morning I received an email from a lady who is extremely clinically vulnerable. For perfectly good medical reasons, she cannot receive a flu jab or a covid jab, so she is very concerned that she will not be able to leave her front door if we bring in covid passports. For reasons of civil liberties, will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear that we are not interested in bringing in covid passports internally, but that they are useful for foreign travel? I say to the shadow Secretary of State that, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps we should have introduced a hotel quarantine system much sooner. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that he will resist the travel lobby? Will he be absolutely up-front and honest with people, and say that it is unwise to book summer holidays now because there may be these mutants and it is better to hold off? I think that people accept the Government being tough, as long as they are consistent, particularly on foreign travel.
Matt Hancock
I will address each of my right hon. Friend’s questions in turn. The point about certification is important. While decisions on certification are being reviewed in a review led by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it is clear that we will need to provide people with the ability to certify whether they have had the jab, and we will absolutely need to consider those who have a certified clinical reason why they cannot have the jab. That applies to a relatively small number of people, but it is an important consideration that will be taken forward as part of that work.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for expressing his views on the approach to international travel. Quarantine is required for everybody who arrives as a passenger to this country, as well as testing on day 2 and day 8. That means we have a robust procedure to ensure that cases cannot be brought into this country and then spread in the community.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]
With covid rates in Devon now down to just 31 per 100,000 and with all the vulnerable groups due to have been vaccinated by the end of this month, what will be the justification for keeping my constituents locked down and local businesses closed through Easter and beyond because rates happen to be higher somewhere else?
Matt Hancock
We obviously had a tiered system over the autumn and one of the challenges we found was of people travelling from a part of the country where rates are higher to those where rates are lower. Therefore, while we do not rule out a localised approach to outbreaks, we will move down the road map as a nation across England.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
People understand figures more than percentages, so I ask my right hon. Friend: how many people in England have been admitted to hospital having already had a vaccine for at least three weeks? That figure will illustrate the risk assessments that people would like to be able to make in respect of this set of vaccines. In the same way that I have been told that flu vaccines are only 40% efficient, these seem to be at least 80% efficient, which is really good news.
Matt Hancock
I do not have those specific figures to hand, but the MHRA—the regulator—regularly publishes what are called adverse events when somebody still has a problem with coronavirus having had the vaccine or has a response to the vaccine, and I will ensure that the appropriate body, whether it is MHRA or Public Health England, publishes both the number and the percentage.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
The covid testing package reservation form for international travellers from red list countries into England requires proof of purchase of two covid-19 tests before they can travel on to England and Scotland. However, there is no reference to Wales on the form. Will the Secretary of State assure me that that is an oversight that will be remedied immediately and that international travellers from England continuing on to Wales are indeed required to comply with the testing and quarantine rules?
Matt Hancock
Yes, all international passengers are required to comply with the rules. It is the first time I have heard of that particular issue. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out either why the system is done in that way or that it has been rectified, if that is what is needed.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The road map contains a chapter on building resilience to future pandemics, which I think we must be honest and say will not leave us alone for another 100 years. Therefore, with respect to the global network of zoonotic research hubs, as the Prime Minister wisely set out in his five-point plan at the UN last September, can we ensure that they build on the work of experienced virus hunters already out there such as the Global Health Network who have years of experience searching for unseen viruses that leap from animals to humans?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The proposed work, as set out by the Prime Minister at the UN General Assembly, which we are working on with our presidency of the G7, aims precisely to build on and strengthen the existing work that is under way. However, clearly we need to ensure that all the future risks, whether they are from zoonotic diseases or are due to environmental changes that lead to risks to human health, are taken into account and we need to have an early warning system that is as effective as possible.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
This very afternoon, I am going to get a jag—a “jag” is a Scottish term for a vaccination, not a posh car. Getting the maximum number of people in the highlands vaccinated as fast as possible is crucial to the reopening of businesses in my constituency, including those in hospitality and tourism. Will the Secretary of State give the maximum encouragement to the Scottish Government to make sure that that happens?
Matt Hancock
The vaccination programme is a successful UK-wide programme. We work very closely with the Scottish NHS and indeed the Scottish Government to make sure that right across all these islands we have the vaccination available fairly, according to clinical need, as fast as we possibly can. We can deliver this because we are one United Kingdom, with the buying power and scientific capability that comes from being one United Kingdom, all working together; this simply would not be possible if there were the separation that some propose. I will do everything I can to ensure that businesses and residents in Scotland get the protection from the jab that they deserve at an equal pace to everywhere else in this country. It is a crucial part of getting all of us on the road to recovery.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
In order that we get and keep herd immunity, is my right hon. Friend planning any hard-hitting public information campaigns to ensure that younger adults take up the vaccine with the level of enthusiasm that my relatively elderly constituents have done?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are absolutely planning to instil as much enthusiasm as we can muster among younger people, as we have seen among older people. The message to anybody who is younger is that getting a jab helps to set us all free and back on the road to recovery. It helps protect them, including from long covid, which can be a debilitating condition, and all of us. It is the right thing to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for an incredible, record-breaking vaccine roll-out, with which we are all incredibly impressed. Given the wonderful results showing that even one vaccination dose reduces the chance of hospital admission by 80%, will he outline the rationale for not vaccinating all workers in frontline services? At present, a 61-year-old writer who is able to work from home will receive a vaccination before a 59-year-old shop worker who is face to face with hundreds of different people each day. Should the Secretary of State and the Government not consider those thousands of frontline workers, who have made the continuation of life possible during these difficult times?
Matt Hancock
We did consider this question and asked our clinical advisers, the JCVI, to look into it. It found that notwithstanding the different risks that different occupations face, the overriding determinant of risk is age. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of that advice across the UK.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
More than 40% of the adult population of my constituency have now received a vaccination, which is a truly magnificent effort, but across Kirklees there was an uptick in covid cases last week. What message can the Health Secretary send to my constituents so that we can stay on track with the road map out of lockdown?
Matt Hancock
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question because we have seen, in a minority of areas, a small increase in the number of cases and that does include Kirklees. We have seen this in just under one in five local authority areas. My message to everybody in Kirklees is that this is not over yet. We have a road map out but it is not a road map for Government alone; it is a road map for all of us to walk down together. That means following the rules, and that means, for now, staying at home, but by doing that, we can all then move on the dates that are set out, and instead of “not before” dates they will become the dates that we can make the next step. But it is on all of us, and so I would urge everybody to continue. I know it has been a difficult winter and the sun is starting to shine a bit brighter, but we must all stick at this. We can see the way out and I hope that we can get there together.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]
Over 3,000 clinically vulnerable people in cohort 6 are going to have their vaccinations cancelled in St Helens at the end of this week, unless the required supplies are delivered by Thursday lunchtime. The vaccine site is serving four primary care networks, yet the national supply team is only recognising and supplying one network. The mutual aid gathered to cover this shortfall in the past is no longer available. Will the Secretary of State please urgently intervene to address this misunderstanding so that no vaccinations are cancelled?
Matt Hancock
I will absolutely ensure that the Minister for Vaccine Roll-out gets in contact directly with the hon. Lady. This is a massive effort, so there may be logistical challenges. We will look at and understand what the situation is in St Helens. As I have some family in St Helens, I am pretty keen to make sure this gets sorted ASAP. But it just shows that it is not easy to do this. The team are working incredibly hard all the time to resolve issues like the one that she rightly raised to make sure that this can go as smoothly as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and suspend the House for three minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Banking Services (Post Offices)
Tuesday 2nd March 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Banking Services (Post Offices) Bill 2019-21 View all Banking Services (Post Offices) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on major high street banks to provide banking services in post offices; to make associated provision about access to post office services, including for elderly and vulnerable people; and for connected purposes.
I should declare at the outset that, prior to my election, in a former life, I was once a sub-postmaster.
Since 1988, some 14,000 bank branches have closed on our high streets, and next year there will be fewer than 6,000 left. Shareholder return is all that drives them. Shutting branches and getting rid of cost has happened for over 20 years. Where has the care gone for our communities that matter the most? Not everyone can go online when the bank branch shuts. What if they are elderly, vulnerable, do not drive or live on a poor bus route to visit the nearest alternative? I want to be a champion for our high streets and for our elderly and vulnerable, because they matter and it is about time we did something about this.
My Banking Services (Post Offices) Bill is about common sense. It will strengthen the current banking framework to ensure that local communities always have access to the banking services they need to function on the high street. That will be facilitated by the introduction of a mandated agreement to provide a minimum level of banking service through a suitable alternative, ensuring that customers are able to access vital banking services in their local area.
That is necessary because this trend is increasing. Between 2010 and 2018, about 5,000 bank and building society branches in England closed, at a rate of almost two every day, with four times more closed in deprived communities than in wealthy areas. Sadly, it is likely that those figures will continue to rise. The pandemic has already accelerated bank closures, with more closure programmes announced.
Inevitably, banks will promote digital banking as the way forward in a post-covid-19 world. However, those who cannot use online banking, whether that is due to personal choice or other issues that make it hard to use digital services, must not be forgotten. It is understandable that banks need to make decisions that keep their businesses operational, but where is the corporate social responsibility? Who was it that rescued the banks during the banking crisis? It was UK taxpayers—the very ones who now suffer when the banks close.
We should further worry because, as banks continue to pull out of economically distressed areas, they are often replaced with more predatory forms of financial institutions, leaving vulnerable people at further risk. If people cannot access banking services, how many will turn to payday lenders? We know that vulnerable people are twice as likely to have used high-cost credit because of the lack of alternatives.
What are those alternatives? The totally inconvenient solution where the next nearest branch is miles away, or online services. That is not good enough. It may be a cheaper option to the banks, but it comes at a greater cost to the most vulnerable in society, who cannot always travel or use digital or phone services, and do not have the support they need to adapt when this type of change occurs. What about our local residents, the small businesses that rely on the banks, or the employees who face losing their jobs—many do, year after year—when banks close and leave town? We have a duty to find an alternative. The Bill will provide the safety net, that insurance policy, and a real alternative to the harsh reality that many face when banks make the decision to close a branch. It will safeguard that other authorised financial institutions will always provide the facilities needed and ensure that no one is left behind.
The reality is that the Government do not need to think too long or hard about where to start. They are the only shareholder in the organisation that can solve the crisis: our post offices. They are loved up and down the country, and in many of our towns and villages they are the beating heart of our local communities. Sub-postmasters provide an invaluable service. The network is 11,500 strong and its dedication was brought to the fore during the pandemic. As much as 90% of the post office network remained open during the lockdown, providing essential services to their communities. The facts speak for themselves: 99%—yes, 99%—of UK residents are situated within three miles of their local post office.
Post offices already provide an important social good. They support members of society by providing banking services in otherwise unserved locations. Indeed, a survey of 500 sub-postmasters found that they act as an informal and unpaid support mechanism for about 300,000 vulnerable people across the UK, and 88% already guide vulnerable customers through banking, bill payments and transactions almost every day of the week. The Government have the answer: invest further in our post office network, expand its footprint and reach, and let it be the vital provider of banking services.
Why do we need the Bill? Because we want this to be legally binding. We do not want what happened in 2019 to happen again. We want safety and security for communities up and down the land. In 2019, Barclays announced that it was to pull out of offering cash withdrawals from the post office network. There was public uproar, which made it reverse that decision, and rightly so, considering the impact that it would have had on the people who rely on that service. The problem is: what is to stop it happening again— Barclays and others walking away, leaving their communities high and dry? Imagine the impact of your bank branch being closed and, just when you think that the post office can cover your basic banking provision, a couple of years down the line that service is withdrawn too.
There needs to be a formal guarantee and certainty that that cannot ever happen again. Banks need to be formally regulated to offer a range of services through the post office network. The Financial Conduct Authority must regulate the arrangements between banks and post offices so that minimum guaranteed services are compulsory. It must not be up to the banks to be able to walk away and leave communities without any provision. We do not want a fragile agreement—not some sort of lovers’ embrace, as we have now. We want it bound in law to protect these vital services for our communities. We know that the post office network already generates more than 400 million customer visits to neighbouring businesses, which equates to more than £1 billion to local economies. That further shows the importance of post offices to people up and down the length and breadth of the UK.
Strengthening the banking framework could also help the Government deal with issues relating to access to cash, as it would provide a secure way for local communities to access the cash they need. The UK is not ready to go cashless. Annual volumes of cash withdrawals have grown by 46%, to nearly £8 billion, since the start of the banking framework. More than 5 million adults would struggle to go cashless. Indeed, we already withdraw up to £1,500 a year.
Put simply, cash is vitally important in society, and it must be for many years to come. This Bill is the answer. Banking services must always be guaranteed on the high street. They must not be put at risk. This Bill is supported by the Post Office, the National Federation of SubPostmasters and many other Back-Bench MPs. It provides the safety and the reassurance that our communities need, with proper mandated legislation that ensures our day-to-day banking is always provided by the post office branch network.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Duncan Baker, Sir David Evennett, Sir Graham Brady, Sir John Hayes, Jeremy Hunt, Alan Brown, Marion Fellows, Esther McVey, Robert Halfon, Mr Steve Baker, Kevin Hollinrake and George Freeman present the Bill.
Duncan Baker accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 265).
Business without Debate
Social Security
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will debate motions 5 and 6 on social security together.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall consider the following motion:
That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
Justin Tomlinson
These statutory instruments will increase the value of lump sum awards payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the diffuse mesothelioma scheme established by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. As many hon. Members will know, these two schemes stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure. While there is no statutory requirement to increase rates, I am happy to maintain the position and increase the amounts payable by the September 2020 consumer price index of 0.5%. This is the same rate that is being applied to industrial injuries, disablement benefits and other disability benefits under the main social security uprating provisions. These new amounts will be paid to those who satisfy all the conditions of entitlement for the first time on or after 1 April 2021.
The Government recognise the great suffering of individuals and their families caused by the serious and often fatal diseases resulting from exposure to asbestos or other listed agents. The individuals affected and their families may be unable to bring a successful claim for civil damages in relation to their disease. This is mainly due to the long latency period of their condition, but they can still claim compensation through these schemes. These schemes also aim, where possible, to ensure that sufferers receive compensation in their lifetime, without first having to await the outcome of civil litigation. While improvements in health and safety procedures have restricted the use of asbestos and provided a safe environment for its handling, the legacy of its use is still with us. That is why we are ensuring that financial compensation from these schemes is available to those affected.
I will briefly summarise the specific purpose of the two compensation schemes. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which for simplicity I will refer to as the 1979 Act scheme, provides a lump sum compensation payment to individuals who have one of five dust-related respiratory diseases covered by the scheme who are unable to claim damages from employers and who have not brought any action against another party for damages. The five diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme are: diffuse mesothelioma; bilateral diffuse pleural thickening; pneumoconiosis; byssinosis; and primary carcinoma of the lung if accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.
The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payment scheme, which I will refer to as the 2008 scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act because, for example, they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 scheme allows payments to be made quickly to people with diffuse mesothelioma at their time of greatest need. Under each scheme, a claim can be made by a dependant if the person with the disease has died before being able to make a claim.
The rates payable under the 1979 Act scheme are based on the level of disablement assessment and the age of the sufferer at the time the disease is diagnosed. The highest amounts are made to those diagnosed at an early age and with the highest level of disablement. All payments for diffuse mesothelioma under the 1979 Act scheme are automatically made at the 100% disablement rate, the highest rate of payment, reflecting the serious nature of the disease. Similarly, all payments for this condition under the 2008 scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate and based on age, with the highest payments going to the youngest people with the disease. In the last full year for which data is available, April 2019 to March 2020, 3,220 awards were paid under the 1979 Act, totalling £42.7 million, and 450 people received payments under the 2008 scheme, totalling £9.7 million. Overall, 3,670 awards were made across both schemes in 2019-20 and expenditure was £52.4 million.
I am keen to address the impacts of the covid-19 pandemic on sufferers of pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. While this uprating debate is an annual event, this has been far from a normal year. We took the difficult decision at the outset of the pandemic to temporarily suspend all face-to-face health and disability assessments, including for the industrial injuries disablement benefit to protect the health of claimants and staff. We have continued, where possible, to process and qualify under SRTI rules—special rules for terminal illness—where a claim can be processed through paper-based review, and have recently explored telephone and video options in line with wider disability benefits to start to clear the backlog.
We are committed to working with our agencies and arms-length bodies to improve the lives of those people with respiratory diseases. People suffering from occupational lung diseases are likely to face a higher risk of complications resulting from covid-19 and it continues to be a distressing time for sufferers of the diseases we discuss today. As of Sunday 14 February, all those identified as clinically extremely vulnerable have been offered a vaccine.
Returning to these important regulations, I am sure we all agree that while no amount of money can ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by diffuse mesothelioma and other dust-related diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme, those who have them rightly deserve the financial compensation that these schemes can offer. I am required to confirm that the provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights and I am happy to do so. I commend the increase of the payment scales for those schemes and ask approval to implement them.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to respond virtually. As the Minister noted, these schemes stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure and there is no statutory requirement to increase rates. It is right that the Government will increase the amounts payable from 1 April 2021 in line with the September consumer price index figure of 0.5%, and, as in previous years, my Labour colleagues and I will support the increase.
I know that many Members of this House will be aware of the impact that these awful diseases can have on victims and their families. I am sure that they will want to join me in paying tribute to organisations such as Mesothelioma UK, the British Lung Foundation and Macmillan Cancer Support, which provide ongoing support and information.
The Health and Safety Executive estimates that 12,000 deaths each year are linked to occupational lung disease. Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that is almost always linked to asbestos exposure and most commonly affects the lining of the lungs. According to NHS website statistics, more than 2,600 people are diagnosed with this condition each year in the UK. Most of those diagnosed are aged between 60 and 80, and men are more commonly affected than women. Sadly, it is rarely possible to cure this disease, but treatment can help to control the symptoms.
Before the dangers were known, asbestos was frequently used for insulation, roofing and flooring in commercial buildings and homes. Its use was banned under the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999. Buildings constructed before 2000 may still have asbestos in them. Many colleagues will be aware that, unfortunately, those who worked in industries such as building and construction, particularly from the ’70s to the ’90s, may therefore have been exposed to asbestos. It can take many years for mesothelioma to develop, between exposure to the hazardous material and the onset of symptoms.
The term pneumoconiosis refers to a group of lung diseases caused by the inhalation and retention in the lungs of dust. People working in construction, quarrying, mining, pottery, sandblasting, ceramics and glass manufacturing are most at risk. As with mesothelioma, there is a long delay between exposure and the onset of disease, so most new cases or deaths reflect past working conditions and occur in individuals who have retired. Although both diseases are usually caused by employment conditions, sufferers are often not able to pursue claims for civil damages because of their long latency.
At last year’s Committee on the uprating of these payments, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) raised, as others had before her, the question of why this does not happen automatically. In response, the Minister stated that there would be “no monetary gain” in automatic uprating because benefit payments are already
“uprated… in line with CPI every year.”
He also noted:
“These debates provide a valuable avenue for Members to discuss their thoughts on the lump sum schemes and, more broadly, on support for people with respiratory disease”.—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 February 2020; c. 8.]
While I agree with the latter point, I suspect that many sufferers and campaigners would prefer to have the security of knowing that the uprating will happen every year without fail. I further note that the Minister promised to keep this under review. I would be grateful if he clarified his current position on this.
We also continue to have concerns about the huge discrepancy between lump sum payments made to victims and those made to their dependants. For example, a qualifying individual suffering from mesothelioma who was aged 60 at the time of diagnosis would currently receive £44,092. Payments to dependants, however, are significantly lower, and a dependant of someone who died aged 60 could currently receive £19,087. In response to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) in January last year, the Minister stated:
“It is right that available funding is prioritised where it is needed most, that is to people living with these diseases.”
I ask him again today whether he thinks that this is a fair level of compensation, given that these conditions were caused by individuals’ working environments and a substance that has since been banned.
We also cannot ignore the fact that this disparity is more likely to impact on women. Only 12% of the 2,025 new cases of mesothelioma assessed for industrial injuries disablement benefit in 2019 were female. That gives us a good indication of the gender imbalance. I am keen to know what assessment the Government have made of the impact of this lack of parity in payments on women in particular.
I also ask the Minister to share the most recent estimated cost of providing equal payments for sufferers and their dependants. I am aware that, as with automatic uprating, this issue has been raised annually by my predecessors and other Members. Does the Minister agree that this is rather telling? In 2010, the then Labour Minister, Lord McKenzie of Luton, pledged to equalise payments, yet here we are, 11 years on, still asking the Government do the right thing. Once again, I urge the Minister to reflect on this.
I will finish with two points that may not fall within the scope of this legislation but are nevertheless important to put on record. The first is on funding for treatment and research. As we know, cures for this condition are sadly lacking. Will the Minister and his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care consider additional funding for research into the increasing number of treatment options available? I know that many will also be keen to know what action the Government are taking to raise awareness of these conditions, their causes and the support available. That feels particularly important during the pandemic, given that victims of these diseases have been at increased risk for the past year.
My second point is on funding for the Health and Safety Executive, with which responsibility for asbestos primarily lies. Under successive Conservative Governments, funding for the HSE has been cut by £144 million in real terms. Although the Government announced £14 million in extra funding in May 2020, that is a drop in the ocean. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues about the impact that these cuts have had on the HSE’s ability to regulate, monitor and take proactive action to prevent work-related injury and ill health?
While we are very happy to support today’s uprating of these lump sum payments in line with inflation, I hope I have made it clear that we continue to have a number of unresolved concerns. I would welcome further commitments from the Minister to look again at the equalisation and automatic uprating of these payments in future years.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
As someone who has spoken on these statutory instruments before, I want to start, as I always have, by remembering my Unison comrade and friend Tom Begley, who sadly died as a result of asbestos-related cancer. Today I want to remember him and the others who have succumbed to these pernicious industrial diseases. I also want to pay tribute to and recognise the work of campaigners, trade unions and charities such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos in highlighting the devastating impact that these industrial diseases have on victims and their families.
There is a big problem in ensuring that people who are at risk are identified and diagnosed as soon as possible—not just those who have worked in factories and buildings but those who, for example, contracted these diseases as a result of washing clothes with asbestos on. It was SNP MPs in the 1970s who warned of the dangers of asbestos and industrial diseases. At that time, they were accused of scaremongering, but thankfully we have come a long way since then in recognising the dangers of asbestos and its impact on people’s health. We should recognise that one of the difficulties people have in pursuing civil claims is that many businesses are no longer trading.
I have a number of points and questions for the Minister. First, we welcome today’s uprating. We could quibble about whether the consumer prices index or the retail price index is appropriate, but I suggest that that is for another time. The Minister has said that the Government are under no obligation to increase the payments, but will he please give us a commitment and an indication that it is Government policy to uprate these particular benefits annually? I think the whole House would welcome that, and I hope that he is in a position to do so.
Secondly, as we heard from the Labour Front Bencher—I totally agree—the Government committed in 2010 to addressing the disparity between payments to sufferers and to dependants. That indicates that an equality impact assessment should have been carried out on the benefits, so I hope that the Minister can update the House in response not only to the shadow spokesperson but to me on what progress has been made in addressing the disparity.
Thirdly, given that the Health and Safety Executive comes under the control and purview of the Department for Work and Pensions, will the Minister indicate what help and support HSE is being given to ensure asbestos-free workplaces? What work is being done between his Department and HSE on awareness of asbestos and industrial diseases? It is vital to continue to raise awareness of the risks.
These payments are vital to sufferers of industrial diseases, so the SNP will support the statutory instruments today, with the caveats that I have outlined. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
I too welcome the fact that the Government are increasing the value of compensation in line with inflation, even though they are not required to do so. I want to press the Minister on the problems that sufferers of asbestos-related diseases have had while waiting for an assessment for industrial injuries disablement benefit, and I am grateful to him for touching on that point in his opening remarks.
Lots of people suffering from asbestos-related diseases receive IIDB, but eligibility under the provisions we are debating is dependent on whether the applicant has had an IIDB assessment. The Department for Work and Pensions has made the point—the Minister reiterated it today—that the nature of the assessments means that they cannot be carried out remotely. Following the Department’s decision to suspend face-to-face assessments during the pandemic, many claims have been delayed.
The Minister told the Select Committee that the backlog of IIDB claims had increased from a little over 2,000 in March last year up to 5,300 in November, and that the average age of each claim was 116 days. I wonder whether the Minister can update us on those figures. What is the current size of that backlog and the average age of claims? The Minister also told the Committee that the Department has started conducting paper-based assessments for some IIDB claims, and he mentioned that again this afternoon. I wonder whether he can tell us a bit more about how many have been completed, and what the impact has been on the size of the backlog.
The value of a claim for IIDB is reduced with the age of a claimant. There is a sliding scale up to the age of 77, and along that scale payments are reduced as a person gets older. The Minister has given an assurance that awards will be backdated to the date of the claim rather than the date of the determination to ensure that people whose claims were delayed do not have their award reduced. We asked the Secretary of State about that when she gave evidence last month, and the Committee heard from people whose compensation is still reflecting their age at the date of award, rather than at the date of the claim. The permanent secretary acknowledged at a meeting alongside the Secretary of State that at the moment
“the link to age applies to the point where the condition is assessed as opposed to the date of the claim.”
That is a problem.
Let me give one concrete example that was brought to our attention by the asbestos victims support group forum. The Greater Manchester support group helped a 71-year-old man with diffuse pleural thickening to apply for industrial injuries disablement benefit plus a 1979 Act payment. It helped him to make his claim on 21 January last year, but he was not awarded IIDB until 11 November, following a paper-based assessment. In the meantime he had turned 72, so his 1979 Act payment was £5,010, rather than £5,190. He lost £180 because no consideration was made for delays due to the pandemic. The support group makes a perfectly reasonable point:
“We believe it is unjust that victims of asbestosis and pleural thickening are further disadvantaged, having had to wait a considerable length of time for a procedure to be even put in place.”
In another example, a claimant whose date of birth is 2 July 1950 was visited by officials on 31 January 2020, so his application was made when he was 69. However, his workers compensation award letter was not issued until last December. It states his age at determination as 70—correctly, as that is how old he was by then—which entitled him to £5,378. If he had been paid before his birthday on 2 July, six months after he was visited and made his claim, he would have received £5,557. He has missed out on £179.
The Minister has made it clear that he does not intend claimants to suffer that penalty. In those cases, and others like them, what steps will be taken to put things right? How will the Department ensure that all claimants receive the correct amount of compensation, based on their age when they made their claim, rather than when their claim was determined?
When giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, the permanent secretary promised to write to us on those points, but we have not yet had such a letter. The asbestos victims support groups forum confirmed this morning that it has had
“no information about what can be done for those victims who have lost out on compensation under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation Scheme) Act due to the delays.”
With publication of the Prime Minister’s road map out of lockdown, will the Minister confirm when he expects face-to-face IIDB assessments to resume? Has the Department found any solutions that would enable telephone-based assessments to take place instead? He mentioned those in his opening remarks. How long does he estimate that it will take to deal with the backlog that has arisen?
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
These days we often talk about social media in denigrating terms, but we would sometimes do well to remind ourselves why it is a useful tool. I was reminded of this the other day when a picture popped up on my Twitter feed from West Dunbartonshire Council’s arts and heritage account. It showed a gang of riveters from John Brown’s shipyard, dated 1927. On the bottom left was my grandfather, Frances Logan, bunnet on, and wearing a pair of boots that in those days marked him out as a worker, but that these days would mark him out as a hipster. For someone in West Dunbartonshire a century ago, working usually meant Denny’s shipyard at Dumbarton, or John Brown’s shipyard in Clydebank. That is what it meant for my granddad, and what it meant for my 86-year-old father, who is a coppersmith.
Owing to our recent industrial history, Clydebank, with its former shipyards and its own former Turner and Newell asbestos cement factory, became the asbestos disease capital of Europe. It is a legacy that hangs over my constituency. The incredible achievements and ingenuity of those who came before is now marked by an anger that not enough has been done to support those who live with the legacy of long-term exposure to asbestos and other noxious chemicals that were part of the process of industry.
The fight for justice in my community has been led by Clydebank Asbestos Group. For almost 30 years, it has been fighting for the legacy of those who took such pride in their work, so that they may have dignity after it. Like other members of my party, I will be supporting these statutory instruments, because it is the least that we can do for those who continue to live with the physical effects of the conditions, and for their dependants and families who care for them. It is on behalf of those families and dependants that I have asked the Minister and the UK Government to make good on the commitments that they made as long ago as 2010 to bridge the gap between in-life and posthumous payments. It cannot be the case that the disadvantage suffered by those who were unable to gain suitable compensation during their lifetime should be visited on another generation. This is a commitment that the UK Government could honour and it would dovetail with the legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament to aid those with mesothelioma or pleural plaques. While the memories of those of us born in West Dunbartonshire may recede, we know that groups such as Clydebank Asbestos will be around for another 50 years if that is what it takes to make sure that these promises are kept. As long as I am in this place, too, I will not turn from the duty that I have as the son and grandson of shipyard workers to ensure that this Government do right by them.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the very powerful contribution of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). As a Greenockian myself, I certainly pay tribute to the heritage of the Clyde shipbuilders.
I am pleased to support today’s motion, which would uprate the payments made to sufferers of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Members have already spoken about the absolutely devastating impact of these terrible diseases on both the sufferers and their families. It is particularly sobering that The Guardian reported that, alongside Australia, the UK had the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world in 2019. According to the National Asbestos Helpline, 13 people in the UK die every day from conditions that were caused by exposure to asbestos. That is more than twice the number of people killed daily in road accidents.
It is important for us to reflect on the failure of this place, and across the country, to appreciate the dangers of asbestos. The link between asbestos and other related diseases was first established in the 1950s, but it took another 40 years for a UK-wide ban to be enforced. Despite the ban, asbestos is still all around us, and that is quite literally the case for the building that we are in right now, and also for other public buildings such as hospitals and schools.
The Health and Safety Executive plays a key role in such assessments, but, as other Members have highlighted, its funding has been slashed and the number of inspectors has dropped significantly, too. The HSE also plays an important role in research around these and other occupational-related diseases, and I urge the Minister to address that issue in his wind-up.
It is, of course, entirely right that these schemes are under discussion today to ensure that sufferers of asbestos-related illnesses are compensated. None the less, there is an outstanding issue regarding the equalisation of payments to dependants who make a claim after somebody who has had one of the illnesses has died. This is a question of fairness, which is, after all, why the schemes were established to begin with. Will the Minister set out whether further consideration has been given to the issue of equalisation?
We must also reflect on the level of uprating, which is in line with inflation and other disability benefits that have already been passed in this place. When the uprating statutory instrument came through the House, I spoke of the importance of ensuring that legacy benefits and also carer’s allowance received additional uplifts, in line with the universal credit uplift, to reflect the impact that the pandemic has had disproportionately on these groups. The same argument very much applies to the sufferers of asbestos-related illnesses and their families. Diagnoses such as these are incredibly difficult at any time for the person in question and their family. I can only imagine the incredible pain and trauma during a period such as this where restrictions mean being able to see only a very limited number of people. We must acknowledge just how difficult such diagnoses are for the person and for their family at all times, and especially over the past year, and it is right that support is there to reflect that. That will be particularly true for diseases such as mesothelioma, for which the life expectancy for sufferers is sadly very poor.
Early detection is incredibly important for occupational lung-related diseases, as it is for all such diseases and cancers. The national lockdowns will undoubtedly have had a huge impact on people coming forward with symptoms to get checked. I pay tribute to the fantastic work of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to make the case in this place for catching up with cancer, and to all the many charities and groups that have been making that argument, too. I urge the Government to bring forward further measures to ensure that we catch up with the national cancer backlog. One way that can be done is through proper investment in our healthcare service and cancer services. I hope the Chancellor will address the issue in the Budget tomorrow.
Finally, I note the work to support sufferers that the Minister outlined in his opening remarks, but ask him to address this point. On the uplift in the regulations, will he set out how he has taken into account the impact of covid-19 on people with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, in terms of not only the direct impact on health outcomes for sufferers in relation to covid-19—which is, after all, a respiratory virus—but the indirect impact caused by shielding, increased costs and fewer opportunities to get symptoms checked?
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
Pneumoconiosis is a horrible disease. I come from a mining family—my father, grandfather and great uncles all worked underground—so I have witnessed the devastating effects of the illness at first hand. I have watched someone struggle and fight for every breath that they take, day after day, and I have seen the suffering in their eyes and in the eyes of their closest family as they watch helplessly. It is typical of a husband to say to his wife, “You make sure that they examine my lungs after I’m gone”—with the feeling of at least some relief that his wife would be looked after by the state after his death.
The death rate from pneumoconiosis in the UK is particularly high in Scotland, the north-west, the north-east and here in Wales—in the devolved nations and deprived communities that the Government talk of levelling-up. I support the 0.5% increase to the lump sum payments proposed in the statutory instrument, but it fails to address long-standing limitations of the scheme—notably, the lack of parity between lump sum payments made to sufferers and those made to dependants, most of whom are women. This disparity is often worth tens of thousands of pounds.
During the covid pandemic, a serious issue has arisen that the Government have failed to address: the rules relating to death certificates have been relaxed and post-mortems are not being carried out, despite the wishes of family. Many who die with covid have no mention of pneumoconiosis or other industrial diseases on their death certificates, so their families do not qualify for the lump sum payments. They are also prevented from accessing a number of schemes designed for the families of miners who suffer from industrial illnesses. Families cannot get the closure of knowing what caused or contributed towards the death of their loved ones.
Covid is particularly lethal for those with pre-existing lung conditions. A recent study that analysed the relationship between respiratory health conditions and covid mortality found that of all the conditions studied, pneumoconiosis had the biggest impact on covid mortality rates. In my former mining community in Rhondda Cynon Taf, the death rate from covid is the third highest in the UK—indeed, covid mortality rates are markedly higher across former mining communities. According to recent research conducted by Sheffield Hallam University during 2020, the cumulative death rate in older industrial towns and the former coalfields was on average 30% above the UK average. Behind the statistics there are grieving families who should have been compensated for the death of their loved one. For many wives and families, the payments make the difference between just about existing and living without financial worries.
The statutory instrument does not address the difficulties in acquiring a post-mortem report and therefore fails to provide reassurance for many families. It is essential that the matter is revisited to ensure that all ex-miners have their lungs examined—often in accordance with their stated wishes while alive—and that any industrial diseases are recorded on the death certificates of all ex-miners so that their widows are able to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. I also urge the Government to do more to raise awareness of the risks of working in environments with asbestos and other airborne particles, and to fund properly the Health and Safety Executive, which has had its funding cut by £144 million in real terms since 2010.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate and recognise the thousands of Liverpool constituents affected by asbestos-related diseases. I would like to start by paying tribute to the fantastic work of the Merseyside Asbestos Victim Support Group, which has assisted thousands of victims in obtaining welfare benefits and civil compensation, as well as providing invaluable community support for victims and dependants of meso and other asbestos-related conditions.
I welcome this move to increase payments in line with inflation, and the uprating being applied to all disability benefits. However, while I welcome the fact that it has been regular practice to agree the uplift, we must make moves to ensure that the annual uprating of the schemes is placed on a statutory footing and that more is done to ensure parity of payments to dependants. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s latest estimate is of the cost of providing equal payments to dependants, at a time when covid has left cancer patients waiting longer for diagnoses, treatments and surgery as well as facing the heightened health risk of contracting the virus itself? The automatic uplift is especially welcome in this difficult context.
Coronavirus has revitalised our focus on occupational health hazards, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the incredible key workers who are continuing to lay their lives on the line every single day to keep our country running and to care for those in need, and especially to the thousands who have sadly paid the ultimate price. The pandemic has also highlighted the vital role of the Health and Safety Executive in keeping us safe at work. However, cuts over the last 10 years by the Tory Government have seen the number of health and safety inspectors drop by a third. Those cuts have left workers at risk in unsafe conditions.
Despite figures released by Public Health England last month showing that there had been 3,500 covid outbreaks in workplaces including offices, factories and construction sites since last July, the Government have defended their decision not to place covid in the highest risk category, and the HSE enforcement database has revealed that no covid-related prohibition notices have been issued since the pandemic broke out. A decade of devastating cuts has turned the Government’s health and safety watchdog into a lapdog, and without better funding and increased enforcement, which can only come from placing coronavirus in the highest risk category, workers’ lives will continue to be at risk.
The TUC has called covid
“the most serious workplace safety hazard in a generation”.
More than 10,000 workers have died from the virus and many others are now living with long-term health problems as a result of it, yet the Government have so far made an extra £14 million available to the HSE during the pandemic, which does not even begin to scratch the surface of the cuts of more than £100 million in the past decade. I want to take this opportunity to call on the Government to recognise the need to keep workers safe in their workplaces and to take significant steps to provide the HSE with the funding and powers it needs to keep our key workers safe as they work to keep us safe.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
This is quite a difficult and personal debate for me today. I was brought up in that world capital of asbestos-related diseases that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) so eloquently described. Indeed, my mum’s name is one of the many—too many—on a memorial in Clydebank to those who have died of asbestos-related lung disease. She did not qualify for compensation under the scheme because, as well as the length of time the disease takes to emerge making it difficult to pursue a legal claim successfully, the many and diverse conditions triggered by asbestos can also create problems with linking it directly to the workplace. There is still much work to be done in that regard. It was years after the asbestos factory closed, and more than 30 years from the time when my mum had worked in the shipyard office, that she was diagnosed when her symptoms emerged. The conditions brought on by breathing in that dangerous substance are no respecters of time, and the toll and the impact that they have, both emotionally and physically, on the victims and their families is huge.
Like previous speakers, I would like to mention the work done over many years by Clydeside Action on Asbestos and others. I remember my mum remarking on the irony—she thought it was actually quite a nice irony—that so many people who had worked together in the 1960s whom she had known in the John Brown shipyard and not seen for years were brought together in mutual support in a campaign to help one another. But for many of us—many of their dependants—that was tinged with a huge sadness, because these were people we had known as our parents, aunts, uncles and friends of the family, who had been young and vibrant, with lives ahead of them, but who now had been brought so devastatingly low by asbestos-related conditions.
We have heard about the legislation in 1979 and the first decade of this century, which has gone a long way to helping those victims of asbestos-related diseases, but we still have so much more to do in ensuring better workspaces and ensuring better compensation for those affected by these and so many other workplace-related injuries and illness. So I have no hesitation in supporting this motion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Since coming to the House in 2010, I have spoken on this issue on each and every occasion, and I wish to do so again today. I have spoken on it over the years because I have had constituents—other Members have said the same—both during the past 10 and a half or 11 years as a Member of Parliament and when I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, who have been affected by or died as a result of pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. These were people I knew personally, so I was very concerned about them. I was pleased that Government responded during that period of time to make sure that the moneys that were necessary were put in place. Some of those people have died, but those who are left still live with the severe health problems, including some who worked at Harland and Wolff, the shipbuilders in Belfast. Many of my constituents worked there over the years, and that is where they ended up having their health problems from. Harland and Wolff used to employ some 30,000 people at one time, which gives us an idea of the magnitude of the number of people who could be touched by this.
I wish to echo the points about the equalisation for relatives that were made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), because I fully support that, as others have done. Perhaps the Minister might respond on that. I welcome the increase, but may I gently ask the Minister what rationale was behind the decision to uplift this by a mere 0.5% during a pandemic, when most homes, especially those with old people who are shielding, have been put under a large amount of pressure? Instead of being able to shop around for cheaper goods, those people have to do their orders online and to accept whatever products are available. Most of their purchases have increased by 0.5%.
As the Minister is aware, I know him as a compassionate, considerate and assiduous Minister. Does he not agree that these payments, made to the most vulnerable of people, in these most difficult of days, should see an uplift that is appropriate? I ask, even at this late stage, that this amount of reconsidered, taking into account the additional pressures on not simply those who are ill, but their entire households. Not only those who are suffering from mesothelioma, but their families collectively are under health and financial pressure as never before seen in our lifetimes. Minister, I am not being churlish, far from it, but I would appreciate a response to the question: why an increase of only 0.5%?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank hon. Members for their helpful contributions to this debate, which is a rare case of cross-party support. The debate was hugely enriched by the very personal stories and experiences that were shared, which highlight the importance of these annual uprating regulations. The Government recognise that these two schemes form an important part of the support available to people with dust-related diseases, and these draft regulations will ensure that the value of that support is maintained. I wish to echo the comments about the charities and organisations that both support claimants and families to secure a diagnose and provide ongoing support. This House recognises what an invaluable role they play for people in such challenging times.
Hon. Members raised a number of points, and I will try to cover the key ones. First, on the delays, due to covid we understandably had to suspend traditional face-to-face assessments. We have now been able to start with paper-based reviews and, as we have seen with wider disability benefits, we have looked to use telephone and video technology where possible. As quickly as we are allowed safely to return to face-to-face assessments, those for whom we have not been able to do a paper-based review or a telephone or video assessment will be a priority in this area.
The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), asked for an update on stats. They are published quarterly, and those he quoted are the last published ones. We will share the stats as soon as they come forward. However, we absolutely understand the importance of getting the backdates cleared. He also mentioned the issue whereby, for some claims made under the 1979 Act, due to the suspension of face-to-face assessments the amount of compensation a claimant can receive is based on their age on the date the IIDB was awarded, not the date of the claim. The Department is actively considering what we can do for those claimants who, through no fault of their own, have received a reduced amount as a result of the delays. We acknowledge that, we are looking to address it, and I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman highlighting the issue in a proactive, constructive spirit. We do get that.
I turn to the quirk of why this debate is held annually. It was set in place in 2004, and Ministers—including me—have done it each year. A change to make this measure part of the wider statutory uprating would require primary legislation. However, aside from requiring legislation to make the change, this is an opportunity for us to focus on the scheme and the wider support, and the quality and merit of the speeches today shows why we have the debate annually. As ever, these things are kept under review, but it is one of those situations where there are gains, and it is about whether a change is needed.
A number of hon. Members raised the principle of equalising the levels of payments made to dependents. I listened carefully to the concerns raised, but the Government remain of the view that available funding should be prioritised to those people who are currently living with the disease.
A number of hon. Members spoke about the importance of research, which is crucial, particularly in our fight against cancer. I very much welcome the fact that the Department of Health and Social Care invests £1 billion a year in health research through the National Institute for Health Research. We have been working actively for several years to stimulate an increase in the level of mesothelioma research, and I thank organisations such as Cancer Research UK, the British Lung Foundation and the Medical Research Council that are proactively trying to stimulate additional crucial research in that area. We will welcome any more work that is done.
A number of hon. Members addressed the HSE, which is a wonderful organisation. I welcome the fact that it secured an additional £14 million for the financial year 2021-22 to continue to support the Government in the national response to the global covid-19 pandemic. That will fund spot checks and inspections, including those enforced by local authorities, to ensure that workplaces are covid-secure for workers and the public. That is in addition to the HSE’s regular Government funding to deliver its wide-ranging regulatory functions.
To be clear, the HSE does not only rely on direct Government funding; it also generates income. Rightly, a key part of its work is raising awareness, and its health and work strategy delivers a strategy for occupational lung disease that includes raising the profile of occupational lung diseases through activities such as facilitating the Healthy Lung Partnership to provide direction of co-ordinating stakeholder activity on occupational lung disease, in addition to targeted intervention activity. When I was responsible for the HSE as a DWP Minister—it is no longer part of my responsibilities—I was incredibly impressed with how well it engaged with businesses of all sizes to give them the best knowledge, support and guidance in all areas of health and safety, and that part of its work is crucial.
Moving on to the very important issue of cancer patients, it is imperative that people can get tested for cancer and that cancer patients continue to receive the treatment they need. While the covid-19 pandemic has presented major challenges for all healthcare systems, overall cancer treatment services have been maintained throughout the pandemic. The NHS has published a cancer service recovery plan that aims to prioritise long-term plan commitments, including respiratory disease, as a clinical priority, and that will support recovery. This includes the delivery of targeted lung health checks and the roll-out of rapid diagnostic centres. As of the end of 2020, there were 53 live rapid diagnostic centre pathways across hospitals in England, compared with just 12 in March 2020, with a further 63 pathways in development. In October 2020, NHS England, NHS Improvement and Public Health England launched the latest “Help Us, Help You” campaign to urge people with potential symptoms of cancer to see their GP. The lung cancer campaign will focus on the key symptom of a cough for three weeks or more and encourage anyone who has had this symptom to speak to their GP. I am sure we would all echo the importance of that message.
On dependents and gender imbalance, we have not conducted an impact assessment, but a valid point has been raised and I will take it away to look at it.
I commend the uprating of the payment scales for these schemes and ask for approval to implement them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
May I say what a great pleasure it is to see the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) in her place?
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19 and the cultural and entertainment sectors.
May I, too, extend a very warm welcome back to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens)? It is so lovely to see her back in her place looking so well.
I am so grateful for this opportunity to highlight the Government’s support for our world-class culture and entertainment sectors during what has been an extremely challenging year. The UK has one of the strongest cultural sectors in the world and a really proud tradition of supporting the artists, entertainers and creatives who do so much to enrich our lives.
Experiencing culture, whether it is through visiting a museum, wandering through the gardens of a heritage site or attending the theatre, can do so much for our mental and physical health, and I know that so many of us have leaned on films, TV, virtual exhibitions and all other types of art and entertainment to get us through the last year. Covid-19 has placed unprecedented pressures on organisations and individuals across the economy, but entertainment and culture have been particularly hard hit, relying as they so often do on social interaction and close contact.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the Minister beforehand. As she said, this pandemic has been greatly disheartening for the culture sectors. For example, Scottish dancing and Scottish piping are very important in my constituency, but the problem is that they do not have their own properties and they are not eligible for grants. It is essential that they have a restart grant to allow them to start again, and to allow our children to be active in such a wonderful way. What can the Minister do to make that happen?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to champion those small, local cultural establishments in our communities up and down the country that do so much to entertain us, but also to boost our wellbeing and our general sense of health. That is why, as part of the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, the Barnett formula extended that funding to all the corners of our great nation. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly saw £33 million, which of course it can choose to use how it wants to support all those wonderful cultural establishments that do so much for us.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced a very cautious but irreversible route out of lockdown, while also acknowledging that the threat from covid remains substantial. I recognise that, although this represents a turning point in the nation’s battle against coronavirus, many of our sectors will be impacted by continued restrictions and, of course, will be understandably frustrated at being unable to fully reopen just yet.
However, there is hope on the horizon through the events research programme announced in the road map, which will explore how larger events across the cultural and entertainment sectors can begin to reopen safely. I recognise, of course, that businesses are so keen to reopen as soon as possible, but, as the Prime Minister said, it is vital to take a measured and careful approach so that it is truly a one-way road out of this pandemic.
The success of the vaccination programme has offered us the protection to very tentatively start removing the restrictions. There will be five-week intervals between each of the four steps, to enable the scientific data to be evaluated and to ensure that the next step is truly safe before we take it.
Under the road map, outdoor sport and leisure facilities will be able to reopen at the second part of step 1, no earlier than 29 March. At step 2, no earlier than 12 April, indoor leisure facilities such as gyms can reopen for use by people on their own or in household groups, as can most outdoor attractions and settings, including hospitality venues that are outdoors, zoos, theme parks and drive-in cinemas.
Step 3, no earlier than 17 May, will see indoor entertainment venues such as museums and cinemas reopening. The Government will also allow some larger performing and sporting events, in indoor venues with a capacity of 1,000 people or half-full, whichever is the lower number, and in outdoor venues with a capacity of 4,000 people or half-full, again whichever is the lower. In the largest outdoor seated venues, where crowds can spread out, up to 10,000 people will be able to attend, or a quarter full, whichever is the lower.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister will be aware that many entertainers and venues across my constituency and every constituency have been absolutely decimated; their livelihoods have been taken off them. Does she agree that one way to deal with that is to have a creative approach to taxing creatives, as they do in the Republic of Ireland, where there is the artists’ tax relief? The reduction in the VAT rate for ticket sales could be extended to help venues get through this very difficult period.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the VAT reduction on hospitality and entertainment over the past year has been a great benefit for a lot of our venues. Of course, any announcements about that will be set out tomorrow by the Chancellor in his Budget, but it is an excellent point.
In step 4, no earlier than 21 June, our ambition is to reopen remaining premises. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will be delighted to know that that includes nightclubs. That will ease the restrictions on large events and performances that apply in step 3, subject to appropriate mitigations. However, it is important to stress, as the Prime Minister said, that the decision on each stage will be based on data and not dates. The Government will move cautiously to keep infection rates under control.
However, I know that for so many in the arts and entertainment sector, this proposal represents further months of financial uncertainty, so the Prime Minister provided assurance in his announcement last week that for the duration of the pandemic, the Government will continue to do whatever it takes to protect jobs and livelihoods across the UK. We have been working very closely with the Treasury on this issue to determine the appropriate and most effective response for the sector within the public health context.
In the Budget tomorrow, the Chancellor will set out the next phase in our economic support package. It will reflect the steps set out in the Prime Minister’s approach to easing the restrictions through the road maps. We now know that there will be good news for our sectors tomorrow. There will be a generous package of funding that is about not just survival but planning, preparing and paving the way to the reopening of our sectors. I look forward to hearing more detail from the Chancellor tomorrow, and I am sure hon. Ladies and Gentlemen across the House do too.
Our commitment to supporting individuals and businesses has been steadfast through this challenging period. The Government have supported individuals across the economy through financial packages such as the job retention scheme and the self-employed income support scheme. In particular, the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund—the single largest-ever support package for the arts—has helped to safeguard not only the future of some of the best-loved cultural and creative venues, but many of the jobs and livelihoods of the incredibly skilled people who depend on them. It has also assisted the supply chain organisations, which are recognised as a crucial part of the sector.
We have recognised the significant pressures faced by businesses in our sectors. The Chancellor announced one-off top-up grants for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, worth up to £9,000 per property, to help businesses through the spring, and £594 million of discretionary funds was made available to support other impacted businesses, in addition to £1.1 billion of further discretionary grant funding for local authorities, local restriction support grants worth up to £3,000 a month and the extension of the furloughing scheme. Business rates relief and numerous loan schemes have provided certainty for businesses and have enabled planning, recruitment and job retention.
We are absolutely determined to make sure our cherished culture and heritage makes it through this crisis. That is why we have also provided sector-specific funding and support. We have worked closely with all our sectors to draft guidance to ensure that businesses are as covid-secure as possible and to protect workers and visitors. To date, £1 billion of the culture recovery fund has been allocated across all four nations of the UK, providing direct support to organisations, both large and small. As I have mentioned, the devolved Administrations have received £188 million through the Barnett formula. Of that £1 billion, £800 million has been awarded to more than 3,500 arts, culture and heritage organisations across England, which has helped to support at least 75,000 jobs.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to dig a bit deeper into those figures so that hon. Members get a real sense of where the funding has been directed and the kind of organisations that it has supported through an incredibly difficult year. Some 462 awards have been made to applicants whose main art form is theatre, with a value of £183 million. The sector will be further supported through the second round of funding. Some £79 million is being distributed between 514 heritage organisations, 96 grants of which—totalling £17.5 million—are to listed places of worship, and over 15% of funding is to listed historic housing and gardens. We have supported museums, with £49 million being distributed to 156 organisations through Arts Council England alo-ne.
As a result of Government support and guidance—in particular, the film and TV restart scheme—the screen industry has bounced back and recorded the second highest production spend for any quarter on record. The combined total UK spend on film and high-end production was more than £2.8 billion—a drop of only 21% from the 2019 record. The £500 million film and TV production restart scheme has filled the insurance gap, giving productions the confidence to keep shooting and ensuring that family favourites such as “Ant & Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway” and “Midsomer Murders” continue to entertain us and lift our spirits—although perhaps the murders not so much. Such programmes have also created much needed employment opportunities.
Falling infection rates, the vaccination of more than 18 million people and scientific data about the efficacy of our hugely successful roll-out continue to give this country real grounds for optimism. The road map sets out a clear and cautious route to return to normality. Throughout the pandemic, though, protecting the public has been our top priority, and we will continue to work closely with our sectors to support them to reopen as soon as it is safe and sustainable to do so.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I thank the other Madam Deputy Speaker and the Minister for their kind words? I also thank the very many Members and staff across the House who wished me well during my hospitalisation and recovery, and the wonderful NHS staff in Wales.
Let me turn to the business of the debate. It is the eve of the Budget, and it is right that we debate the severe problems facing one of the UK’s most important economic sectors. Our cultural and entertainment sector is globally renowned and economically critical. It showcases innovation and creativity; develops specialist knowledge, skills and jobs; drives opportunity, significant inbound tourism and economic regeneration; and, as we know, improves our health and wellbeing. The Opposition believe that our cultural sector is integral to our national recovery from this crisis, and that it also has a key role to play in shaping the kind of society that we want to see in the future. But to do that, the jobs, skills and talent need to survive and be supported.
In the most recent Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport annual report, the Secretary of State talks about preserving our cultural heritage, but our culture is not something to be preserved in aspic. Instead, it is a sector that is built on people and their dynamic connections with one another. It is this misunderstanding that lies behind the lack of appropriate provision to support the brilliant professionals in the sector, hundreds of thousands of whom have fallen through the gaps because of the Chancellor’s rigid criteria for support and his complete refusal, despite numerous requests, to provide financial help to those he has excluded and who have become known as “the excluded”. There are more than 3 million such people, and many of them are in the cultural sector.
During this fast-moving pandemic, there has been a great deal of sympathy for the Government having to react quickly to events, but we are almost a year on from the first lockdown and the refusal to help people in the cultural sector can only be seen as a choice—a choice to ignore them for an entire year. We know from the decisions taken in Wales that it did not have to be that way. The Welsh Labour Government’s freelancer fund has already supported thousands of freelancers in three phases of support.
The Opposition believe in fairness and equitable access to support during the pandemic and that no one should be excluded because they are engaged to work outside of permanent employment contracts. The rich patchwork of creative talent in this country is built on freelancers—people who work across different projects or genres, and it is that cross-pollination of ideas that makes it so rich. But because they do not fit the Chancellor’s model, this Government have excluded them from support, even speaking about those in the cultural and creative sectors as if they were people exercising their hobbies rather than world-class skills.
Tomorrow, nearly a year after the start of the first lockdown, the Chancellor has another opportunity to right that wrong and level the playing field. We have heard today about the topping up of the pot for theatres, but people who work in theatres still do not know how long they can be furloughed for. Self-employed people have no idea what level their next grant will be. Freelancers have still been left out of support altogether, as I have described. The industry faces a VAT cliff edge at the end of the month, and none of that needed to wait until tomorrow’s Budget: it should have been clarified by the Government weeks ago.
At least 55,000 culture jobs have already gone—nearly a third of the arts element of the workforce—and two thirds of people who have lost their jobs in this sector have already decided that they cannot risk returning to it, meaning that those skills and talents are lost to our economy. The Government should be going out of their way to save those jobs, but we have heard virtually nothing about those jobs from either DCMS or the Government as a whole. Is that indifference or incompetence? I know what the cultural sector’s verdict is.
Last July, we welcomed the announcement of the culture recovery fund but, as I said at the time, it came too late for some people and organisations. The distribution of the fund was delayed, characterised by slowness when the need was immediate, and it has still not reached some of the places where it is required. The criteria are rigid, and its hallmark is to protect institutions rather than jobs. It could have been designed in a much better way, to provide protection for people’s livelihoods, had there been a proper understanding by Government of the ecology of how employment works in this sector. The top-up announced in the press release last night still does not address those problems and it does not say when the money will be distributed.
I also hope that the Chancellor will tomorrow heed Labour’s call to continue the VAT rate of 5% on tickets. That scheme could not be used by many in the cultural sector because the restrictions meant closure and, in the short periods outside lockdown, there simply was not enough time while open to be able to sell any tickets. We need to see an extension of the reduced rate, so that venues and festivals can start to benefit from the scheme and the public can be incentivised to buy tickets.
The VAT issue is another example of the Government’s lack of understanding of the day-to-day realities of the pandemic for our cultural venues. That was never more apparent than in the run-up to last Christmas, when the Secretary of State was busy encouraging theatres to put on pantomimes, while at the same time knowing that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advice and data suggested that cases were rising to such an extent that theatres would inevitably have to close. Even the retired Conservative peer Lord Lloyd Webber spoke of his frustration with the incompetent handling of reopening dates.
The sector has been hugely sympathetic to the difficulties facing the Government, but that sympathy is now wearing thin. We see Ministers spending their time feigning concern for statues, rather than figuring out how this resilient and dynamic sector can be best supported through this crisis. The thinly veiled threats to museums and galleries and the attempts to bully independent cultural organisations packed with national expertise that rely on Government funding show where the Government’s priorities for our cultural sector really lie. No matter that the sector was the fastest growing ahead of the pandemic, no matter that the role of arts and culture in social prescribing and education delivers huge returns on investment and no matter the potential for brand GB from our biggest exports—this Government’s priority is stoking a culture war, rather than championing our world-class cultural sector. There are other problems of the Government’s own making that the pandemic has masked. The broken promise on post-Brexit touring by performers has already been laid bare for its failures.
Labour strongly believes in the artistic and creative life of this country not only as a powerful driver of economic growth but as a part of who we are as a nation. There is a reason why so many people still talk about the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony as a great national moment. Not only did it display some of our finest talent; it allowed us to celebrate our history in all its complexities and contradictions, and to do so with a good dose of self-deprecation and some laughs at our own expense. But this Government do not get that. They do not get what it is to be British in the 21st century. They see the world in black and white and we know that this is not how many of us live. The fact is that our arts and culture allow us to examine that—to ask questions, to respectfully disagree, to challenge each other and to find common ground.
There is no doubt that the last year has been one of the hardest in living memory. The work of nurses, doctors, carers, scientists and many more people is rightly at the forefront of our minds when we think about recovery, but to me national recovery—our national recovery—is something greater and wider. This national trauma has caused a huge rupture in the fabric of everybody’s lives. We have lost family, friends, colleagues. We have lost opportunities and missed out on key milestones of our lives. We have had to Zoom watch funerals, unable to properly say goodbye. We have had to send cards for weddings we would rather have travelled across the world to be at. We have all put things on hold. When we are safe and when we still need to grieve collectively, we will do that and move on together.
The cultural sector is not one that typically asks for Government support. Instead, a series of Conservative Governments have reduced public funding and made many theatres and arts organisations radically change so that they rely solely on ticket sales and outside sponsorship. Therefore, when the pandemic hit, this left them utterly vulnerable. Tomorrow, the Chancellor needs to give our world-leading creatives the support they need to get on and create. Can I say this to him? That does not simply mean employing them to make his own promotional videos. It means addressing all those problems with the culture recovery fund and, specifically, a whole year on from when it should have been done, providing support for those whom the Government have deliberately excluded. Our cultural sector is not just a huge and vital part of our economy. For many people, it is what makes life worth living.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is very good to see the hon. Lady back at the Dispatch Box and fully back to health, and we all wish her well.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
It is sad but true that one of the hardest-hit parts of the economy has been the cultural and entertainment sectors. The creative industries contributed over £115 billion to the UK in 2019, equivalent to £315 million every day. The UK would have been in recession for each of the last three years without the creative industries’ sectors. Until covid-19 hit, this was the fastest expanding part of the UK economy and it should be protected.
In my position as Chair of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I have seen the damage that has been done to this industry by covid-19. As part of our current inquiry into the future of UK music festivals and live events, we have been examining not just how the industry can survive the current crisis, but how festivals and other live events can continue to grow and thrive sustainably as a key part of the UK’s cultural offering in the years to come. I know that these concerns apply across the board to the cultural and entertainment sectors. For example, pre-covid the night-time economy contributed £66 billion per year to the UK and provided 1.3 million jobs.
At last, the end does now seem in sight. The Prime Minister’s road map has set out dates that can now be a target for entertainers, producers and technical staff. However, even with this exciting news and the road map set out, the industry still needs more than ever a Government-backed insurance scheme. Despite how unpredictable the virus is, given the amazing vaccine roll-out, we have confidence that people will be able to gather in numbers, as we did once before. But we know that covid-19 will not go away easily. While there does remain a risk, however small, that dates could change and events, especially those of a larger scale, could again face cancellation, it is necessary that the industry has a support mechanism in place.
The cultural and entertainment sectors and all those who rely on them for work cannot risk losing a summer season for a second year in a row. They need the chance to be able to safely plan for the return of audiences. Germany has set in train a €2.5 billion guarantee fund, and Germany is nowhere near along the same road as we are with vaccinations. Last summer, my Committee recommended that the Government extend the 5% VAT rate on ticket sales until 2022. To benefit from the reduced rate, people must be able to sell tickets. Up to this point, events have not been happening to do that; it has been impossible. The industry, which has had to shut down for most of the past 12 months, needs the time and support to be able to bounce back to the world-leading position it occupied before the pandemic. With light at the end of the tunnel and with the likely increase in staycations, the summer of 2021 looks as though it might be brighter than we hoped only a few months before, but we know we cannot let ourselves slip at this final hurdle. We have to support the industries in the Budget and beyond.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I also welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back to her place. It is very good to see her.
One year ago, the pandemic changed our world. Lockdown came and, as we found ourselves forced inside and away from our friends and families, many found comfort in the arts and culture. In the past year, every hon. and right hon. Member of this House will have, I am sure, searched for escape in a book, lifted their spirits with music, or distracted themselves with film. A world without literature, music or cinema would be intolerable and a lockdown without the arts would have been even grimmer than it has been.
As we continue to weather the crisis, culture still plays a significant role in getting us through the day. The artist has in many ways been an essential worker and one too often overlooked by the UK Government. One of the groups struggling with the impact of covid-19 is the freelance sector. A survey of Equity members found that 40% have not received help from the self-employed income support scheme. Various loopholes have left many out in the cold, unable, due to technicalities, to qualify for UK Government schemes.
That injustice has meant that many creative professionals have had to apply for universal credit, with many more considering leaving the culture sector altogether. In pre-covid times, the cultural and entertainment sector not only brought huge benefits to the economy, but gave the countries of the UK international acclaim. It is vital that we ensure that every one of those workers comes back into the industry, so that whenever the pandemic is over the sector thrives again. In the Budget tomorrow, the Chancellor must protect these essential workers and ensure that they no longer fall through the cracks. He must go further by guaranteeing them the backdated support they deserve.
Let us look at musicians as one key group. They are facing long-term worries about the viability of their industry. They are fighting on three fronts. In the last five years, the market for recorded music has shifted towards streaming. Opaque deals cut by the big record labels and the streaming model mean that most no longer have a viable stream of income from recording. The result is that they are almost completely reliant on live performance. Live performances in the Brexit age, a world of limitless opportunity—well, hardly, because the UK Government rejected the EU’s proposed artists’ deal. Musicians have now been landed with the very hardest of Brexits.
The Minister, appearing before the Select Committee, recently looked surprised to discover that a single one-night visa for a UK performer in Spain now costs €600. It is €500 in Italy. When covid lockdown ends, none but the wealthiest musicians will be able to perform across much of Europe. That means the end of orchestral tours. The Minister confirmed to us that no talks are ongoing to resolve this looming Brexit reality. Once again, jobs are being wilfully sacrificed for anti-free movement zealotry. The chaos visited on musicians impacts not just them but their support crews, technicians and haulage companies, all of whom will lose out on work to cheaper European alternatives. Put yourself in the shoes of one of these musicians, with no money coming in from record sales or European tours, the only saving grace being the upcoming domestic festival season—a season once again cancelled. The UK Government had the opportunity to underwrite insurance for festivals but decided not to. Glastonbury was one of the first to cancel. Musicians and their support staff did not get into this business for money but for a love of their craft. They have never asked for much from their Government, but they surely have the right to expect that their Government do not actively work against them.
Musicians, rightly, have received much publicity, but another sector that has been forgotten by the Government is advertising-funded media and entertainment. Local commercial radio stations have provided trustworthy news and a friendly voice for those living alone, but they have seen their revenues plummet. The drop in advertising revenue has also been a major problem for local papers. Some have had to shut their doors after decades of dedicated service to their community. That is why we on the SNP Benches backed a tax credit for the advertising-funded media sector, and I call again on the UK Government and the Chancellor, in particular, to listen and act.
In the time available, I cannot name-check every cultural and entertainment sector damaged by this pandemic and threatened by Brexit, crying out for help, but all are asking that this House hears one overriding message that is vital for their long-term recovery. Just because an industry limps on, it does not mean that the wounds dealt by the pandemic have healed. The Government must offer and maintain their support in the years to come.
The arts and culture communities the length and breadth of these islands eagerly await the Chancellor’s Budget tomorrow. Artists deserve more from the UK Government and I hope that he has been listening and will deliver, but I am not holding my breath. Westminster seems very distant, remote and unresponsive to the sector’s concerns.
The Canongate wall of the Scottish Parliament is covered with quotations from writers from across Scotland and from the length of its history. I will close with one of those quotes by Sir Walter Scott:
“When we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament-men o’ our ain, we could aye peeble them wi’ stanes when they werena gude bairns—But naebody’s nails can reach the length o’ Lunnon.”
Let us hope I am wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Although this is clearly on the Annunciator and the screens that people have in front of them, I reiterate that there will be a limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back in her place. There is no denying that the entertainment and culture sector has been one of the industries hit hardest by the pandemic and it has been felt by businesses and individuals alike. Some people take the view that those who work in the media, film and TV earn huge salaries and are not in need of Government support, but that is very far from the truth. There is a huge number of people both on and off the screen who, before the pandemic, were earning very modest salaries with very little job security. I know that many have sought jobs in other sectors, which is the right thing to do, but with the hospitality industry almost completely closed, along with non-essential shops, there are few opportunities available to them.
While the Government’s financial response to the pandemic has been very ambitious and far-reaching, on a global scale, there regretfully remains a very significant number of people who have been unable to make use of the support schemes. A large number of those are in the culture and entertainment sector and, in some cases, this is because they work via a limited company and cannot access self-employment grants, or, indeed, because they are employed on fixed-term pay-as-you-earn contracts. Many of my constituents who find themselves in this position have pointed out the disparity in Government support, given what someone who has been made redundant and someone who is on furlough will receive, especially when the worker who has been made redundant is not eligible for universal credit because of savings or home ownership, yet that will have no impact on his or her ability to be furloughed.
The aim of the Government has been to save as many jobs as possible with a finite supply of taxpayer funds. However, inevitably, everyone will have to play a part in paying off the debt, including those who did not receive any support. I know that the culture sector is anxious to know when it can reopen and I welcome the Prime Minister’s road map, which sets out a gradual return to normality.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
I am proud to declare an interest—not a financial one, but a passionate one. I chair Theatre Royal Stratford East, the erstwhile home of Joan Littlewood renowned for “Oh, What a Lovely War!”, “Things Ain’t What They Used To Be” and “A Taste of Honey”. I am immensely proud of our success in regaining our historic reputation for excellence and radicalism under the leadership of Nadia Fall, a hugely talented artistic director of Asian heritage, and her team of mainly women theatre makers.
We were on a roll, culminating in receiving an Olivier award for staging Britain’s “Noye’s Fludde”, which involved east end children performing alongside ENO singers. Our mission to create excellent shows and reflect the diversity of our community in everything that we do makes our contribution unique. Then covid erupted and the curtain fell.
Theatres have proved resilient and innovative. We produced an outdoor show called “846”, our response to George Floyd’s death. National Theatre Live has been enjoyed by vast audiences at home. The Kiln’s food programme provides fresh hot meals for hundreds. Battersea Arts Centre delivered digital activity and encouraged young people to keep writing.
Government support has focused too much on buildings, not on people. Life for freelancers, the lifeblood of our theatre, has been grim. We used to employ nearly 200 freelancers annually. This year, it is 75, and mostly on very small projects. With no Government support, freelance actors, directors and designers are walking away, retraining to ensure a secure living. We are haemorrhaging creative talent, most of whom started in the subsidised theatre. Public investment in people led to creative wealth for the nation. Think of Sunday’s Golden Globe Awards: Daniel Kaluuya, who first performed at the Royal Court; John Boyega, who began at Theatre Peckham. Think of Phoebe Waller-Bridge who started at the Soho; James Graham, playwright at Finborough Theatre; Michaela Coel who went from The Yard to critical acclaim on Channel Four. All are big commercial successes today. All are contributing to our vital creative economy, the vibrancy of our city centres and lifting our spirits. They are part of a massively successful ecosystem. Public investment in them drives both commercial success and the quest for diversity and equality. Yet young black and Asian creatives, women and those with disabilities are leaving theatre in droves. Nobody wants theatre to return to being a club for the elite and the well-connected. Investment in people, in the talent of tomorrow, must be our key ask today and only then will the arts bounce back strongly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I well remember the right hon. Lady’s theatre and its excellent director who happened to be my namesake.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating the Government on the truly remarkable success of the vaccination roll-out and the extraordinary progress made so far? More than 20 million vaccines have now been delivered, with 27,000 of my constituents receiving their first jab. It is, of course, imperative that we maintain this progress and continue to drive down infection rates so that we can meet the key tests set out in the Prime Minister’s road map.
The road map is rightly cautious and led by data rather than dates. We are leading the world by providing a pathway out of restrictions. For businesses in my constituency, this provides an opportunity to look towards operating close to normal this summer. Until businesses in Blackpool can reopen, the financial support provided so far simply must continue. As a Government, we have stood by businesses throughout this pandemic, and it is vital that businesses are provided with the right conditions to prosper when they can reopen. I have been told by so many businesses how crucial the VAT reduction has been. By extending it for a further 12 months, we will give them the breathing space to drive forward the economy and protect livelihoods long after the furlough scheme has ended. The same can also be said for extending the current business rates freeze.
The overall package of support for businesses from the Treasury has been truly remarkable. In particular, the £1.6 billion investment in UK culture through the culture recovery fund has gone a long way towards securing the future of significant venues in Blackpool, such as the Tower Circus and the Grand Theatre, which will of course be delighted to hear that significant additional support for the arts and culture sectors will be included in tomorrow’s Budget.
Not only do Blackpool’s historic visitor attractions employ hundreds of local people directly, but they entice holidaymakers to Blackpool, to the benefit of all businesses. For example, the winter gardens, a beneficiary of the culture recovery fund, attracts 1.1 million unique visitors per year, who spend money throughout Blackpool, thereby supporting other outlets.
It is fantastic that a second round of culture recovery grants are currently being administered; hopefully, this will include other local venues, such as the world-famous cabaret bar Funny Girls. Blackpool is of course renowned for its LGBT entertainment venues, and in that regard it would be remiss of me not to mention Basil Newby, who opened some of Blackpool’s first gay venues 40 years ago and whose bars and clubs have been a mainstay of the LGBT community ever since. At the end of LGBT History Month, his contribution to the community deserves particular recognition, and I look forward to joining him in May when Funny Girls reopens.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
I, too, welcome back to the House my dear friend and constituency neighbour, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens).
I wish to make four quick points. First, others have mentioned the plight of freelance musicians and artists, who have been excluded from support because they do not fit the Chancellor’s criteria for support. The criteria were drawn up hastily, and there was an excuse for that, but they were not amended when it was clear that they had arbitrary and negative consequences—for which there is no excuse—for many artists, musicians and others. Tomorrow, the Chancellor has another chance to put that right. In Wales, funds were set aside to help freelancers, but what is really needed is action from the Chancellor to support those who have been excluded, as called for by the Musicians’ Union and others.
Secondly, we have missed the live music sector and could all do with a summer of live music events and festivals. The issue of insurance has already been mentioned in the debate. Last week, I received a written answer from the Minister for Digital and Culture that said:
“As such, HM Treasury does not believe that now is the right time for an insurance intervention.”
Well, if this is not the right time for an insurance intervention, there never will be an insurance intervention from the Treasury. This is typical Treasury orthodox thinking. Now is the time for an insurance intervention to make sure that we can have live music back this summer. It would be the best boost not only for the industry but for morale and the economy.
Thirdly, covid has been hard enough for the music industry in itself but, combined with the negligent no-deal Brexit for musicians and touring artists, it is a double dose of disaster. Covid was unavoidable; the consequences of a failure to do a deal on touring were not only avoidable and predictable but predicted. A small window now remains to fix that before many successful British businesses are ruined by this negligence. That should be a priority for the Government.
Finally, let me look to the future. Covid has killed live music, but it can be revived. As we have heard, covid has also shone a light on the inequities of the new economics of music streaming and how it is failing to deliver for music songwriters and composers. The House may know that the DCMS Committee is conducting an inquiry into the matter. Some change is happening already—at 2 pm today, SoundCloud announced that it is going over to fan-powered royalties and a user-centric system, which is a step forward by the industry—but as well as the industry the Government should be prepared, if necessary, to reform the law in favour of creators and away from wealthy corporate market powers. They have been enjoying a gold rush from streaming; after the gold rush, let’s have a “new home in the sun” for our brilliant musicians and songwriters.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
I suppose I should declare a general interest in this debate. It is good to see my friend the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back in her place—welcome back, Jo.
Three minutes is not enough time to say everything, and this should not need saying again, but I will say it anyway in case anyone has missed it: our cultural and creative sector has hitherto been world beating. It is the gold standard that the rest of the world looks to. From the tiniest repertory company in places such as Frinton-on-Sea to the greatest film and sound stages of places like Pinewood, producing films such as James Bond, Superman, Star Wars and many others, this is UK soft power at its very best. For generations, we have exported British values and British goods on the back of our national creative endeavour.
In terms of hard cash, the creative sector, as we have heard, contributed nearly £116 billion to the economy in 2019—a 43% increase since 2010. That was the fastest expansion in the UK economy, and the cultural and entertainment sectors are very much part of it. Even more importantly, more than 2 million people were working in the creative industries and that was growing—up by more than a third since 2011. Thanks to the pandemic, however, all that has changed, especially in this sector.
According to the Office for National Statistics, the industry saw a reduction of 44.5% in gross value in the three months up to June 2020—disastrous. For those employed in this sector, the future is precarious. As we have heard, many have already pre-emptively left the business, moving into more secure jobs in other sectors, and who can blame them? They are unlikely to return and deliver on their talents. The country is bleeding world-class talent.
Freelancers continue to struggle, with thousands unable to access Government support packages. We need to address that, which we can do by extending in terms of timescale and eligibility the self-employment income support scheme and the coronavirus job retention scheme. The schemes have been expensive, yes, but they also continue to be necessary, and should continue in the sectors where they are still needed.
The Government have a positive track record of supporting the culture and entertainment sectors through this pandemic with the £1.57 billion rescue package, which has done a lot of good, but it will not replace the losses. In England, for example, £123 million of grants has been awarded, but the loss in ticket revenue was over £1 billion. For such sectors, nothing can replace opening without restrictions, and I hope that we are able to hold to the dates on the road map.
The Government must stand ready to support all organisations within the culture and entertainment sectors until they are ready to return at full capacity. We cannot allow this sector to be cut off once more, and we must get that insurance scheme. Give the producers confidence.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It has been estimated that as much as 60% of some towns’ economic output comes directly from the night-time industry. The findings from a recent inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy highlight just how devastating an impact the pandemic has had in this sector. In some cases, businesses are trading at a mere 10% of their pre-covid turnovers and have been forced to make almost a third of their workforce redundant. Without urgent and tailored financial support, it is no exaggeration to say that this interwoven economic system faces the very real risk of irreparable damage and collapse.
Businesses in the sector not only help to drive the local economy, but act as meeting places and hubs of local social activity. They are a huge part of the fabric and culture of daily life on my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. Many respondents to the APPG’s inquiry from the constituency viewed venues in the night-time industry locally as “safe locations” and
“places which promote good mental health and well-being”
Despite that, many have now been closed for an entire year, resulting in many employees and businesses facing real financial hardship, yet Government support for this sector continues to be drip fed disproportionately by comparison with that afforded to other industries.
The UK music sector has been hit especially hard by the effects of the pandemic. Ongoing restrictions and concerns over crowd numbers have removed live performance income completely. The Musicians Union reported that at the time of the first lockdown, cancellations of live performances had resulted in a £14 million loss for its members—a figure that has only grown the longer the pandemic has worn on. Further cancellations of live performances, coupled with increasing uncertainty about any potential return to performing, led to 34% of MU members telling a recent survey that they were considering quitting the UK music sector entirely. This includes many of my own very talented constituents who have contacted me with their concerns. A similar percentage told the same survey that they had not been eligible for any form of governmental relief or support package since lockdown began.
Pre-pandemic figures show that the music industry contributed over £5 billion to the economy and export revenue was almost £3 billion. Clearly this was not a failing industry, yet it has been left decimated because it has not been operating for the duration of the pandemic. I therefore call on the Government to provide clear guidance and timescales for a return to operations, given that this sector depends on long-term planning and scheduling. The imminent Budget is the perfect chance to do this.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
I begin by paying tribute to the arts and culture sector, which has been so deeply affected by the fall-out from the pandemic but has never given up. I also pay tribute to those in my own constituency, the home of the west end and theatreland—renowned museums, art galleries, music venues, individuals such as Andrew Lloyd Webber and Nica Burns, the Society of London Theatre, and so many more who have never accepted defeat and have carried on seeking solutions so that they can open safely.
The arts provide huge benefits to the UK’s economy, providing billions of pounds to the Exchequer. I pay tribute to Ministers at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who have appreciated how strongly the arts contribute to the economy. They have had unwavering support for the arts, lobbying the Treasury for financial support, as we saw in the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund and now, today, the £408 million in grants announced to help with reopening.
It is now about how we reopen. We now have dates in the road map, which is great, but we do need to address the issues regarding social distancing outlined in paragraph 145 of the road map. LW Theatres is moving ahead with its own research and development on making its venues covid-secure but is finding roadblocks. Currently, Health and Safety Executive policy does not allow for any spraying or misting with disinfectant or cleaning products, which is an excellent solution for indoor venues that can be used across the country. I would like the Government to put pressure on the HSE and persuade it to update its policies so that we can allow that to happen.
Many in the arts are waiting to hear from the Chancellor when he unveils his Budget tomorrow. They are hoping for good news on ongoing support for business rates and VAT on tickets, theatre tax relief being extended to digital performances without a physical audience, and an ongoing review of the self-employed support that is so needed for freelancers within the creative industries. I know how badly affected the excluded have been, and we need to address their ongoing concerns.
There is a light at the end of what has been a very dark tunnel. Now is the time to work together on how we can reopen safely. I urge the Government to undertake a major marketing campaign to promote confidence in people to return and enjoy everything our wonderful arts have to offer.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
In December 2017, it was declared that Coventry would be the UK city of culture in 2021. Fast-forward four years and, owing to the coronavirus pandemic, the landscape for our city’s host year could not be any more difficult or challenging. Our city, our region and our arts industry have been hit hard by the coronavirus crisis. At a time when the culture and entertainment sectors should have been centre stage in Coventry, activities from theatre productions and live performances to exhibitions and galleries have closed their doors. Staff have been furloughed and revenues have plummeted, and the pandemic has seen the start of Coventry’s year as city of culture put back to May 2021.
For many other cities, this would be an unmitigated disaster, but Coventry is a remarkable city. It is a city that has been shaped by its extraordinary history, culture and heritage. It is a city that has adapted, reinvented and reimagined itself time and again. It is a city that has a background of overcoming adversity, of coming together with strength and pride, and of succeeding against considerable odds. That is why I know that, in spite of covid-19, Coventry will make the most of the opportunities that its city of culture status offers and produce something utterly spectacular.
We will show the country and the world who we are and what we can do, even in this most difficult of climates, but to do this and to ensure that Coventry reaps the full benefit of city of culture status by ensuring that the arts, creativity and culture kick-start the much needed regeneration of our city and play a central role in the economic and social success of our communities, we need Government support. I hope the Minister, wherever she is—I hope she is listening—will commit today to ensuring that Coventry’s culture, arts and entertainment sectors receive the investment and support they need in order to make Coventry UK city of culture 2021 a complete success and to ensure that the event is a catalyst to developing a lasting social and economic legacy for current and future generations. With the right support, along with the new programme of events just launched today, Coventry city of culture 2021 will demonstrate the transformative powers of the arts on the lives of individuals, communities and the wider society, and lead our city’s and country’s cultural and entertainment sectors out of the pandemic in the most spectacular way.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
A little over a year ago, the streets of Sheffield were lined with open doors leading to theatres, cinemas and museums, which form the cultural heart of our city. Because of covid, those doors are now firmly closed. While the road map out of lockdown has given those in the sector some hope as to when they can return, I am deeply concerned that a year of uncertainty and limited support may mean that some could collapse before then.
A highlight of our cultural calendar is the Tramlines Festival, which is held each year in my constituency. However, after having to cancel last year, it has now had to contend with large uncertainties when determining whether it can go ahead this year. Simple common-sense steps, such as extending the 5% rate of VAT for the culture sector, would go a long way towards protecting events such as these, as would ensuring that the workers were receiving the vital financial support that should be due to them.
Doc/Fest is another shining example of Sheffield’s proud entertainment sector. Each year, it attracts thousands of visitors, including big names such as David Attenborough, Joanna Lumley, Louis Theroux and Michael Moore. It delivers millions of pounds to the area, and this has a strong knock-on effect for small businesses. It is vital that we protect our culture industry so that events such as Doc/Fest are sustainable in the long term.
Sheffield City Council estimates that the snooker tournament normally benefits the local economy to the tune of £3 million each year. We will not reach step 3 of the road map in time for this, but event pilots are planned for step 2 of the road map. I hope that the Government will carefully consider the world snooker championships as a suitable pilot, to offer a much needed boost to the area.
Away from these big headline events, the day-to-day culture industry in Sheffield is the bedrock of our local economy. Our theatres, cinemas and museums are a great source of local pride for us all, as are the many dedicated music venues. Live music is also intertwined with many of our pubs and bars. There must therefore be greater guidance on when live music can return in those settings, to provide peace of mind for the industry.
Tomorrow, the Chancellor will unveil his Budget. This will be the last chance to prevent our culture sector from falling off a cliff edge when the existing support packages expire in the coming months. I urge him to deliver on his promise to do “whatever it takes” throughout the covid crisis. That would not only save thousands of jobs and businesses but protect the cultural sector that we all want to see thrive once more.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
This is an important and timely debate, particularly given the Chancellor’s announcement of an extra £400 million to support the arts, which will help the sector to prepare for reopening and to bounce back from the crisis. That welcome news builds on the £1.5 billion package of support that has already been delivered for arts and culture in High Peak and across the country. In places such as the Peak district, arts, culture and entertainment are at the very heart of our local economy. Their economic value is immense. They draw in visitors to our town centres, not just to see a show but to go out for a meal, spend money on the high street and have a drink in one of our brilliant local pubs—all things we have badly missed doing during the pandemic.
It is not just the economic value that is important. Arts and culture have social value that is impossible to measure properly. It is where we go for family outings, for date nights, for an excuse to catch up with friends we have not seen in a while. It is somewhere to go for a bit of escapism and inspiration after a long week. In short, arts and culture are good for business and good for the soul.
In the High Peak, we are very lucky to have some amazing, much-loved institutions. In Buxton, which we all know is Britain’s best spa town, we have the wonderful Buxton Opera House—one of the finest Matcham theatres anywhere in the country. It is architecturally gorgeous and creatively led by the talented Paul Kerryson. I strongly encourage hon. Members to come and visit as soon as it is safe to do so. There are lots of fantastic places for them to stay when they visit, such as Buxton Crescent, which reopened last year after a £17 million restoration. For those unfamiliar with it, it is similar to the Royal Crescent in Bath, only far more impressive.
Buxton also plays host to the renowned Buxton International Festival. Of course, the festival was forced to cancel the event last summer, and the opera house has been forced to close for 12 months now. Grants and the furlough scheme have certainly helped to soften the blow. I was delighted that the opera house and the international festival secured more than £600,000 from the Government’s culture recovery fund, which has helped them to keep going through the crisis. The first payment of that grant has helped the opera house introduce covid safety measures so that it can deliver a safe environment for audiences, staff and artists when it reopens with a co-production of “A Little Night Music”, in partnership with the festival of Stephen Sondheim. Just yesterday, it was announced that the Buxton International Festival will be going ahead this July. Both are sure to lift our spirits after these long and difficult months. I pay tribute to the opera house and the festival organisers for their dedication and hard work. Planning a major international festival during a pandemic is no easy task. Michael Williams, chief executive of the Buxton International Festival, says that it is “like writing on water”.
The culture recovery grants are producing positive results and making a big difference, but it is vital that they are given not just to big venues and events but to smaller local institutions, such as Partington Players Theatre in Glossop. Ultimately, the key to recovery is ensuring that we roll out the vaccine and get the virus under control so that people can safely enjoy our institutions. Government support, although great at the moment, needs to be sustained; otherwise, we risk undoing the work of the past year to protect our culture and entertainment sectors. We all look forward to reopening this summer and starting to live life to the full once again.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
In the short time available to me, I would like to focus exclusively on the plight of our musicians and those involved in our music industry. This has been an absolutely miserable time for our artists and musicians. Never before have conditions been so tough. Music is a sociable endeavour, and performance is all about people coming together. It is about communion, joy, comfort, solace and release. Quite simply, music is the discourse of the soul. Of all the industries and endeavours impacted by the prohibiting of human beings coming together, live music was always going to be the most heavily affected. A whole sector has effectively been closed down.
This is not just about musicians, miserable though it is for them; it is about the venues, the technical crews, the ancillary staff, the haulage, the band crews—thousands and thousands of people. Music was already just about the most precarious of professions. It used to be a field of dreams, but it is now mainly about ploughing some lonely furrow, hoping to make a few beans. Yes, it could yield great riches for the very few who reach the pinnacle of success, but most musicians will be more acquainted with poverty than plenty. Most musicians earn less than the minimum wage for their art, and traditional career routes have been turned on their heads. Next to no money is now earned from recorded works. That is unbelievable. Streaming and digital services have decimated band incomes, and musicians are subject to one of the most extensive and widest value gaps of any sector. Music is being listened to more than ever and is widely available, and people are indeed getting rich, but it is not the musicians; it is the platforms, the gatekeepers of music and the big tech companies that are earning a grotesque fortune from the wonderful works of others.
I was lucky, Madam Deputy Speaker. I plied my trade in music in the ’80s and ’90s—the good times. That was the peak of record sales, when profitability and touring were just about at their maximum. Sustainable careers were possible, and bands such as Runrig could make a good living. No more. So what do we do? Well, this Government will see what they can do to make a dire situation worse. Just when music is at its wits’ end, the Government want to close down a continent to live musicians, with the ridiculous arrangements they have managed to negotiate for bands in Europe.
What do we do to get out of this? It has to start with the Budget. Extending the self-employed support scheme and furlough beyond April has to happen, and we must ensure that insurance is in place for live performances. We need to ensure that a subsidy is available for venues to accommodate social distancing. My heart goes out to this generation of musicians who are having to confront so much, just to bring pleasure to us all. The Government have the tools. I ask them, “Please now use them. Help this sector out.”
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who speaks so powerfully on behalf of the music sector. In debates, I often focus on topics such as the high-tech manufacturing UK steel industry, and the nascent nuclear fusion research effort, but this debate gives us the opportunity to focus on a sector that gives so much joy, delight, and so often inspiration. Industry, manufacturing or, more broadly, wealth creation are important and have their place, but they ought not to be the end in themselves. Culture, from poetry and music to the theatre, is immensely uplifting, and ought to be part of everyone’s lives.
Following the covid pandemic and a series of lockdowns, we need the arts to spring back to life after their hibernation. The culture recovery fund has made a significant difference, but many organisations will need to return to normal performances to ensure their survival. That fund has contributed to a wide range of organisations, from The Snug in Atherton, to Bolton’s Octagon theatre.
In the brief time available, I wish to highlight the breadth of talent to be found in and around my constituency. The Blackrod and Westhoughton arts groups regularly put on exhibitions. Horwich has its music festival, a fabulous series of chamber concerts are performed at the church of St James the Great at Daisy Hill, and Wingates has the world’s best brass band. We have the Ladybridge Singers and the superb Bolton symphony orchestra. I am looking forward to a return to normality so that I, and many others, can enjoy our rich culture.
I pay special tribute to the Bolton Music Service, which is working with, training, and nurturing the next generation of musicians. That is of immense value to many individuals, families and other organisations. As Matthew Arnold wrote, culture is
“the best that has been thought and said”
and we ought to add that culture must also be performed. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to do all he can to support the arts and culture at every level, and in every part of the country.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back to her place.
The importance of this sector cannot be underestimated. In 2019, the entertainment and cultural sectors contributed £10.5 billion and more than 200,000 jobs to the economy. These are often highly-skilled jobs, from musicians and actors to those in production and sound tech, including engineers, electricians and many skilled professionals. That is only the economic benefit; never mind the happiness and joy that this sector gives to so many of us. The sector has been very hard hit by the pandemic, with the trade body for live music reporting revenue of almost zero since its start. Although there have been livestream shows, they do not replace the feeling of everyone getting together for live events. I am a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and we have heard evidence about the precariousness of the economics of festivals and the inability of streaming to replace the income that artists would have received from events that have had to be cancelled.
There are some great examples of businesses in the sector adapting, not least Generator, an industry support agency in the north-east run by CEO Hannah Matterson. Generator has worked with more than 190 artists, providing over 1,000 hours of support online since the start of the pandemic, from meet-ups to online masterclasses on production and marketing, helping musicians to develop their careers. It has done a remarkable job, and I am sure that the shocking figures published by the Musicians’ Union, showing that 34% of musicians are considering abandoning their career and that another 37% are unsure of their future, would be much higher if it were not for organisations such as Generator.
This is an industry that Britain is famous for and that we export around the world, and the Government must be more proactive in supporting it. The support package was welcome, but many thousands are missing out and are still not supported properly by Government. On top of that, there is the immense issue that future tours will face, thanks to the Government’s failure to negotiate an adequate visa situation for artists to tour around Europe. A music or cultural export office is a great idea that will help big productions but not small artists who are starting out. The Government need to act. They have published a road map, but we have waited a week for the funding package. We hope to hear—and we must hear—in the Budget tomorrow what support the Government are going to give to this hugely important industry.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Identity is everything. It enables the introspection necessary to understand oneself, the rooted foundation required to invest in community and the illuminating lens through which we relate to one another. Identity, however, can be divided into two parts: our objective identity—ethnicity, religion, family or nationality—and our subjective identity, freely chosen by each individual. It is in our communal culture and shared heritage that we find subjective identity.
Culture, in essence, defines a people. The depth of literary canon, poetic prowess, orchestral brilliance and artistic wonder elevates and embodies the sentiments of our nation, our people and, indeed, our civilisation itself. For culture and, in turn, identity to retain meaning, it must liberate itself from the monopolising clutches of a small-minded liberal bourgeoisie. As the late Roger Scruton, drawing on Hegel, said, it is a magnifying force
“manifest in all the customs, beliefs and practices of a people.”
It is reasonable to distinguish between high culture and common culture, but the first of those should not be accessible only to a few. Indeed, the working-class Britons in South Holland and The Deepings and across our nation have just as much right to access high culture as those in South Kensington.
Perhaps the framing truth in our political discourse should be a recognition that cultural identity can only survive when it is concentrated, particular and local, immune to dilution and decay. In 1984, the then Arts Council of Great Britain published a 10-year strategy titled “The Glory of the Garden”, its premise being the critical imbalance of arts provision between London and the regions. Twenty-six years later, I am not sure that that has changed much. We really do need cultural reach that stretches into every town, village and community across our nation.
However, recent research suggests that the problem has worsened. While London is home to 13% of the UK’s population, it receives 33% of Arts Council funding. Now, I like a trip to the National Gallery, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I like an evening at the Royal Opera House, but we need culture to reach out beyond there, particularly in the post-covid world—to enliven and enthral; to captivate people who have been dispirited, understandably, by all the restrictions of the past year. It is on that mission—that request to the Government—that I make this brief contribution. Let culture be seeded across our nation and let a thousand flowers bloom.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
If we were to ask people what they were looking forward to when lockdown restrictions are eased, beyond seeing their family and luxuriating in the freedom to go wherever they like, many would talk about how much they have missed cultural experiences. Going to the theatre, listening to live music or comedy, watching a film at the cinema, browsing in a library or bookshop—those are the things that we have missed the most.
Many of us define ourselves in part by our responses to culture—even the Chancellor is keen to emphasise that he is a “Star Wars” fan—so being denied access to culture has denied us the opportunity to be our full selves: to think, to discover, to see the world differently. But the Chancellor is not a “Star Wars” fan just because of the special effects; he is also a fan of the vast amount of money that the franchise still generates, and that is also true of the economy as a whole.
It has been estimated that the arts and culture sector generated £10.47 billion for the UK economy in 2019. If we add on other creative sectors, such as fashion design, events and exhibitions, and video gaming, they not only add billions more to our economy but massively enhance our ability to reach out to the world to tell our story in many different formats and mediums. All that has been put at risk because of the lockdown.
There is little doubt that the lockdown was necessary and that the closure of theatres and other venues was essential for reducing contact. After all, contact is what the performing arts are all about—creating a dialogue between the performer and the audience. I commend the Government for their culture recovery fund. In my constituency of Richmond Park, the grants awarded to the Orange Tree theatre and the OSO Arts Centre have enabled those organisations to keep going throughout the closure.
However, the various funding schemes announced by the Government have not been enough to keep our cultural sector afloat as we progress towards a time when we can reopen. While the funding has been effective at keeping institutions going, it has ignored individuals. There is no point reopening our theatres and concert halls to find that there are no actors, playwrights or musicians to use them.
Many of the difficulties experienced by the cultural sector stem from the Chancellor’s baffling decision not to provide support to contractors. The cultural sector is built on short-term contracts. Many workers in these industries found themselves unable to be furloughed and did not qualify for the self-employment income support scheme. I heard from Amy Grudniewicz, who trained for five years to become a stage manager only to find that her first show closed after a few months because of lockdown. She qualified for only £18 a week in universal credit, which has not been enough.
There has been immense frustration, too, at the lack of recognition of the supply chain to our cultural sector. Many technicians and technical supplies companies have been left out of plans for help. Without grants, recovery fund, furlough or SEISS, many workers in the cultural sector have had absolutely no support.
I welcome the Government’s recent road map out of lockdown, and I support their cautious approach. What we need is clear guidance for all organisations and the general public. Above all, the Government need to underwrite the insurance so that live events can take place this summer; I am sure that the public will embrace them in their thousands after the months stuck inside looking at laptops.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
We are all aware that the cultural and entertainment sector has been hit hard during the pandemic due to the prolonged time that the sector has been restricted. Indeed, over the last few months, I have received many representations from theatres, nightclubs, bingo halls, casinos, heritage rail and many more businesses and individuals in my constituency that are very concerned about their ability to survive the pandemic.
While of course I understand the inherent risks that large gatherings bring, given that we are now seeing a fall in the number of people in hospital with covid-19, thanks in huge part to the fantastic work of the Government and the NHS in delivering over 20 million vaccinations across the UK, as well as one of the biggest testing systems in the world, we now need to begin opening up again.
I therefore welcome the announcement of the road map out of lockdown last week, which will give businesses the reassurances needed to begin planning their reopening. However, if we are to support them in that, we need to help build public confidence in the road map so that people will actually start booking tickets for events and visits. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government plan to do that over the next few months. In my view, one such way would be by setting out as soon as possible what enhanced testing regimes and other safety measures will be introduced for events with large crowds. To this end, I would also be interested to hear from the Minister the Government’s expected timeframe for the events research programme, and specifically when it expects to report on its findings.
Finally, I would like to mention the tourism and heritage sectors. In the Loughborough constituency, we have a wealth of tourist and heritage sites, including Great Central Railway, the Carillon tower museum, Charnwood Museum, the Old Rectory Museum, the only operational bell foundry in the UK, the Peter Le Marchant Trust and the ancient Outwoods woodland, to name a few. They are all fantastic places to visit.
As restrictions are lifted, we must seize the opportunity to promote domestic tourism to boost our local economies, support businesses and create much-needed jobs. This is an area in which I am very keen to do more work on over the coming months, particularly in the run-up to English Tourism Week. I would be interested to hear what plans the Government have to support domestic tourism. The Government have, of course, already provided a large package of support to heritage sites in Loughborough, and I thank them very much for that help. We now need to work to ensure that those organisations are able to start up again and thrive—employing people, contributing to our local communities and, ultimately, paying their taxes. They need a hand up, not a handout, and we need confidence in the sector.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
It is great to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back in her place.
In the brief time that I have, I want to focus on the night-time economy and on what we need to do so to support night-time venues; most have not been able to operate at all for almost a year, and I would argue that they have gone under the Government’s radar. As welcome as the culture recovery fund was, it has had a limited impact, particularly on nightclubs. Nightlife and music venues are the beating heart of our town and city centres, and support so many other businesses in their ecosystems and supply chains. I worked in the music business, and nightclubs in particular, for more than 20 years. I also worked at festivals, and add my voice to the festival industry’s plea for an insurance safety net scheme for large events. If there is one single measure that can help to allow a summer of culture and creativity, it is that one.
I have seen close up the joy and sense of community that nightclubs and music venues bring. I have also seen the massive £66 billion contribution of the night-time industry to our economy. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy, and just before Christmas we launched an inquiry to look at the effects of the pandemic on night-time industries. Remarkably, we received over 20,000 responses from businesses, employees, freelance workers, customers, industry organisations and local authorities. We found that, without urgent Government support, night-life businesses could well be lost.
We are at a critical point. Lots of venues have just about survived, but they are racking up debts on costs like rent and utilities, and just need some help to get them through until they can fully reopen. I fervently hope that tomorrow we will see an extension of business support, including business rates relief and VAT reduction. We need some sector-specific grants until businesses can fully reopen. We also need a solution for the amassed commercial debt, whether that is a shared burden approach to debt, as we have seen in other countries, or a long-term restructuring so that debt does not need to be paid off until businesses are able to do so in the long term. Of course, we also need furlough extension and help for those excluded individuals.
The Government have set out the road map to reopening, which the night-time venues have cautiously welcomed. But it is one thing to be able to open and another to be able to do so at a capacity that makes it viable, so it is really important that the Government consult and engage quickly with the sector on testing, capacity restrictions and whatever other mitigations can allow venues to reopen. The events research programme also has to be carried out in close partnership with the brilliant, creative people in the industry.
It feels like the end is in sight, but this is a really important moment. We have a crucial job just to get our businesses through the next few months until they are able to reopen. We cannot let these vital businesses and venues fold; we cannot jeopardise our wider economic recovery that they are so important to; and we cannot have our towns and city centres becoming ghost towns.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Dover and Deal is an area steeped in culture and brimming with entertainment; whether for a day, week or month, or throughout the course of a year, there is so much to see and enjoy in our white cliffs country. Our role as guardian of the nation means that we have been involved in some of the world’s defining events, from the rise of the Roman empire to Nelson’s Deal, key battles in world war two and, more recently, being on the frontline of the exit from the European Union.
As such, our two most iconic pieces of history are Dover castle and the world-famous white cliffs. Dover castle is rightly one of the top attractions in the country, and a few miles on we have Deal castle, Walmer castle, with its eight acres of award-winning gardens, as well as Crabble corn mill, the most complete working example of a Georgian water mill in Europe. The mill is one of the many local ventures to have received financial support from the Government’s cultural recovery fund, a fund that has paid out more than £300,000 in my constituency and has been a lifeline for some of our most loved cultural organisations and heritage sites.
However, Dover and Deal is so much more than its cultural heritage, enviable though that unquestionably is. We are ambitious to make our cultural heritage the foundation stone from which we build our culture and entertainment future, for Dover and Deal are also home to leading galleries, artists, potters and live music venues. It is an area rich in the performing arts, with the Astor theatre, the Dover film festival, the Deal music and arts festival, the showcase annual Deal Marines remembrance concert, the Lighthouse music and arts pub and so much more besides. We are planning for the future, through Dover’s bid for the future high streets fund. This further investment would allow us to bring together varied cultural and creative offerings in Dover with a brand new arts and creative centre.
That brings me to my call for a permanent recognition for Dame Vera Lynn. There may be no bluebirds in Dover, but there will always be Vera Lynn in Dover’s heart and its musical soul. She truly encapsulates the enduring importance of entertainment and the cultural arts. It is only right that her contribution to the arts and the nation is given the recognition it deserves, and I am supporting the important campaign for this lasting legacy to her in the white cliffs country.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Tomorrow’s Budget is eagerly anticipated by many of my constituents who work in the culture and entertainment sectors in Vauxhall. Those sectors rely hugely on high-density indoor venues to turn a profit, and as they will not be able to return to business as normal in time for summer, they have suffered and will continue to suffer one of the longest sector lockdowns of this pandemic. We must all fight to ensure their survival.
When we talk about saving the cultural and entertainment sectors, we may think of some of the amazing buildings where we have seen an exhibition or a play, the shows we watch on TV or the music that we have live-streamed, but behind these venues and productions are millions of freelancers—self-employed support workers, so many of whom have fallen through the gaps in Government support. Polling data from the Musicians’ Union, based in my constituency, which I recently met, shows that 38% of musicians have missed out on Government support and 34% are leaving the industry altogether. Tomorrow’s Budget must recognise that and provide a sector-specific support package to ensure that there are no more closures and no more redundancies as we reach the final hurdle in the fight against covid-19.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The cultural and entertainment sectors are crucial for not only our economy but our wellbeing and happiness. As so many have said in this debate, live music, events, festivals and county shows are occasions that mean a huge amount to millions of people. They are landmark occasions in the lives of so many of our constituents. The big headline events have huge soft power reach around the world and the smaller local ones can make a hugely positively local impact, bringing communities together and supporting our town centres. I mention in particular the East Barnet festival, the Barnet medieval festival and the Cherry Lodge Summer Soulstice festival in my constituency, which were all cancelled last year and were all greatly missed. Despite the Government’s huge £1.57 billion culture recovery fund—the biggest ever investment in culture in our nation’s history—we lost so many festivals and big events in 2020 and we are now in danger of losing them for another whole year. I therefore repeat the call made recently by UK Music to “Save Our Summer” and set out three steps to achieve that.
First, targeted support through furlough and business rate relief should continue for events and cultural venues until the sector is allowed to open up properly again. More needs to be done to help freelancers, who have so far missed out on any covid financial support. Secondly, we need greater certainty on the timetable for reopening, and especially for the plan to resume big events on 21 June. It is welcome that we now have a road map and indicative dates, but getting an event on this summer requires planning and spending now. The pilots to establish whether it will be safe to start big events on time need to go ahead by the beginning of April at the latest—jobs and business survival depend on that. If the Government believe that proof of vaccination or testing should play a part in the return of large festivals and events, they need to set out how that will operate. That should focus on risk-based solutions dependent on the type of venue, the audience numbers and the type of event. Any requirement for testing or vaccination must be proportionate, operationally feasible, affordable and consistent with privacy.
Thirdly, and lastly, we need a Government-backed scheme for pandemic insurance. Those are three steps to prevent another summer of cancellations; three steps to save our summer. I urge Ministers to put them into action.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
May I also welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens)? I also put on record my immense gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for their tireless campaigning on this issue over many years.
For 10 long years, the Conservative party have taken a wrecking ball to the very foundations of our cultural industries. Ten years of cuts to arts funding and school budgets have decimated the sector. The prestige venues that only the rich can afford may have been preserved, but, thanks to the remorseless advance of property developers, countless grassroots music venues have had to shut up shop. Future generations of talent have nowhere to flourish. Now, the Government’s failure to give the cultural industries the support they need risks condemning huge swathes of the sector to oblivion.
Although the £1.5 billion culture recovery fund was welcome, it has rescued buildings, not livelihoods. Fifty-five thousand jobs have already been lost, and too many creative freelancers—including over a third of all musicians—have been allowed to fall through the gaps of the Government’s financial support schemes, with many leaving the industry for good. The Government’s failure to guarantee creative workers visa-free access to Europe risks depriving thousands of people of a vital part of their income when the pandemic is over.
The failure by the Government to step up and meet this challenge has had a devastating impact on my constituency. The hard work and determination of council leader Janette Williamson and Labour councillors saved the historic Williamson Art Gallery and Museum, but countless other venues have been forced to close their doors forever, and many others remain at risk.
I thank the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy for giving me access to the response of my constituents to its important inquiry on the impact of covid-19, which testified to a deep-rooted anger at the Government’s chaotic handling of the pandemic and a widespread sense of fear that many venues in my constituency will not survive the next few months. The proprietors of Gallaghers Traditional Pub, which regularly hosts live music, are right to feel “angry and let down”.
There needs to be change when the Chancellor unveils the Budget tomorrow. It is a final chance to save a vital part of our country’s cultural fabric and, with that, a major sector of our economy. Instead of half measures, we need a bold and ambitious strategy that gives the sector confidence in its future and its ability to thrive when we win the war on covid. An extension to the furlough scheme, the cut in VAT and business rates relief will be essential to safeguarding jobs in the sector, but I also call on the Chancellor to recognise the specific challenges facing our country’s cultural industries and at long last introduce bespoke support for a sector that provides not just jobs but enjoyment for millions of people.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I think I speak for all of us when I say that the past year, despite some individual stories of good news, has been absolutely rotten; 2020 is not a year that any of us would wish to repeat. This is especially true for businesses in our economy, but the financial burden is not being shared across all sectors of the economy evenly, and those sectors that rely on people seeing each other face to face or being close to others—such as hospitality and, pertinently for this debate, culture and entertainment—have been particularly badly hit by measures introduced to break the chain of transmission.
As a result of the measures to protect the NHS, museums have closed their doors, live music venues have fallen quiet and sports arenas have stayed unnaturally empty. The cultural and entertainment sector is a massive asset to the UK both economically—it is an industry worth more than £10 billion—and as a major soft power attribute. More than that, these businesses and venues bring people joy and make life worth living. Recognising that, the Government have been great in introducing support packages, such as the culture recovery fund, which have benefited and been a lifeline to businesses and venues across the country and in my Stockton South constituency.
The Government have now set out their road map for easing restrictions for the entire economy. This will provide clarity to these businesses, allow them to plan for the months ahead and, hopefully, put them on a more sustainable footing. While I would be delighted if these opening dates were moved forwards, I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have been guided by the science and will open up as soon as it is safe to do so.
As we move forward and look towards reopening these businesses, there are two fundamental things we must remember. First, we need to remember more than just those businesses that are in London. A lot of the conversations focus on big venues in London and in the south, which is somewhat understandable given how much of the industry is concentrated in the capital, but not all of them are in London, and we need to remember the businesses in Stockton and the north-east as well.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree with me that we have to get this right, because if we allow these venues to open and then we have to close them again, they cannot survive that another time?
Matt Vickers
I agree that we cannot be closing these venues again, but do you know what, with the fantastic vaccination programme, I have every ambition that these doors will be open, these venues and these jobs will survive—and we will restore a bit of joy to people’s lives.
These venues are incredibly important. They enrich our lives and they nurture local talent. I have many fond, and perhaps hazy, memories of Ku Stockton, where I have listened to live music, and of the ARC, and I recommend its comedy club to anybody. Both have been battered by the pandemic, both have benefited from Government support and both cannot wait to reopen. The Friends of the Stockton & Darlington Railway have done tremendous work on preserving our heritage, and nothing will prevent them from celebrating 2025, the bicentenary of that very first passenger railway journey. They, too, have benefited from Government support and they cannot wait to get rolling. We need to make sure that when we are talking about supporting culture and the arts, we are talking about the little guys and we are talking about all four corners of our nation.
Secondly, we need to have a frank discussion about coronavirus, because it may be unlikely that we will ever be in a situation where the risk is zero. We need to have a discussion about how much risk we are collectively willing to take to get our lives back to normal. We need to have this conversation for our culture and entertainment sector, which cannot go on like this in perpetuity, but also for ourselves and our constituents. We need to have this debate not only to support this industry, but to bring some joy back into our lives as well.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
Many of my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby are part of the cultural and entertainment sector, and they have been hit so hard by the events of the last year. Liverpool has one of the biggest and most vibrant arts and culture sectors in the UK, and it is estimated to contribute 10% to our city region’s economy. The recent renaissance of my great city has been built on the talent within our area and our cultural offering, along with the warmest of welcomes from a city renowned for its hospitality. During the pandemic, many in the arts have been keeping our communities going, helping those who are struggling and socially isolated, and dropping off food parcels.
When the pandemic hit, the Government should have been there to help workers in the cultural sector. Instead, their support has been inadequate and, in many cases, non-existent. The majority of these workers are self-employed and they have been hit hard because of gaps in Government support. Data from the Musicians’ Union suggests that 38% of musicians, as well as the road crews that underpin the industry, have fallen through the gaps. I have spoken to some of our incredible musicians in the city about the issues they have been facing over the last couple of months. One said, “Throughout the pandemic I have seen many people lose their jobs, homes and lives. I have always tried my hardest to keep my head up and stay positive at such a tough time. I have seen myself become dormant, with jobs as a musician disappearing, and not being able to see my friends and family has been upsetting and difficult.” Another said, “There are musicians suffering who make their living playing covers in the clubs and bars around the city. It has been extremely tough for them, as you can’t really transfer to playing online as part of somebody’s night out. That cannot be replicated.” Another said to me, “Many road crews like ours are limited companies and we have only been able to access loans. We have no financial support and most groups rely on live income which has completely disappeared since March 2020.”
Tomorrow, the Chancellor’s Budget must deliver real support for workers themselves, fill gaps in support and meet the asks of the trade unions. The cultural recovery fund announced in July was welcome, but workers were not placed at the heart of it and have continued to be left without any help ever since. The talent in this country in both the cultural and entertainment sectors can be a driving force behind the recovery of both my city and the entire nation. Let us give them all the support to flourish, not choke them into extinction.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I want to start by thanking the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport team for their engagement and accessibility during the pandemic.
Heywood and Middleton is not a part of the world necessarily known for its arts scene, but the cultural sector plays as important a role in my constituency as it does in, for example, the west end or central Manchester. Rochdale borough, where my seat is located, has one of the lowest levels of cultural engagement in the north-west. In fact, it is in the bottom 1% of areas for culture accessibility. That is why the ability for what we do have to rebound is so essential.
When I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the money received to support Rochdale Boroughwide Cultural Trust’s Link4Life was a genuine lifeline, I mean it. The generous injection of funds to our borough was the difference between it being able to carry on or not. I want to pay particular tribute to Jan Hind and Darren Grice at Link4Life for their passion and enthusiasm for our communities and for the work they have done to make Rochdale’s cultural sector not just viable but an integral part of our plans to level up an area of extremely high deprivation. By integrating their offering into the borough’s plans for education, employment and regeneration, they have not only created a vibrant cultural scene but a sustainable commercial one, ensuring that a wider range of options can be offered and maintained, while bringing existing assets up to date and integrating them into each township in the borough in a way that recognises the character and history of each community yet opens those communities to new experiences at the same time.
The hard work of Jan, Darren and the Link4Life team has seen Dippy the Dinosaur visit Rochdale from the Natural History Museum, a west end production supported by Selladoor put on at the Middleton Arena, and overall engagement with cultural activities in the borough increased by a factor of seven. To have lost that during the pandemic when it was just ramping up would have been an absolute tragedy. It would have robbed some of the most deprived communities in the country of a programme of events, assets and engagement that we simply would not be able to access elsewhere. I also thank them for the work they have done to engage both me and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) at every step, so that we are not just aware of where they are at the moment, but what their longer-term aspirations are for Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale. That is why I also back their application for the leisure recovery fund, which will see much-needed assets returned to use, improving health and wellbeing, both physical and mental, as we return life to normal.
Sociologist Charles Cooley once opined:
“An artist cannot fail; it is a success to be one.”
I am not sure that someone could say that about politicians, but I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend and the Department for his success here. By taking the action that he has taken, he has done so much more than safeguard a few assets, buildings or a business plan; he has ensured the recovery of our dreams, our hopes and our ambitions. That is not a bad thing at all.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to Equity, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union and all those trade unions that have worked so hard throughout the pandemic to ensure that their members are properly represented and that the plight of the workers in the cultural sector has been exposed.
The majority of Equity’s members have had all or most of their work cancelled as a result of covid. Large numbers are now in debt and struggling. Although the vast majority of Equity members are self-employed and freelancers, over 40% have been unable to claim under the self-employed income support scheme. Many have had to fall back on universal credit. Because 40% have also not worked at all since March last year and many do not work for qualifying organisations, they have not benefited from the culture recovery fund. The overall consequence is that many are leaving the profession. Recent research has highlighted the large number of black, Asian and minority ethnic female workers and women who are parents or carers forced out of the sector. This is an immense loss of talent.
Equity has four simple asks: first, widen the support available via the self-employed support scheme grant to include new entrants with a 2019-20 tax return, those operating through personal service companies and the other excluded groups; secondly, when the fourth self-employed grant details are published tomorrow, continue to allow a grant based on at least 80% of average profits; thirdly, continue the suspension of the minimum income floor for universal credit beyond the end of April 2021; and fourthly, continue the £20 uplift in universal credit standard allowances beyond April 2021 as well.
In the longer term, Equity is looking at how to create jobs and, specifically, opportunities for marginalised groups in our society to enter into the cultural professions. It is calling for the introduction of a minimum income guarantee for creative workers as a long-term way to remedy low and often no pay and all those barriers to access for creative professionals. All the unions are now saying that the Government must pursue a strategy that ensures employment and job creation across the UK for a broad range of creative workers who do so much to enhance the quality of our lives.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my fellow London MP, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and to welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back to her place.
At the outset of these remarks, I want to say how much I welcome and commend the Government’s support for entertainment. Throughout this pandemic, I have used these debates and questions to raise issues on behalf of the hospitality, events and entertainment industry in Wimbledon. As many know, we have the best theatre outside the west end, the New Wimbledon Theatre. We have the internationally renowned children’s theatre, the Polka, a huge entertainment industry featuring the book fest and the music fest, and a large number of events and exhibition companies. I want to concentrate my short contribution on the three issues that will help them to survive and thrive.
While there has been extensive support, many of the people who work in entertainment, events, hospitality and supply chains in Wimbledon are self-employed freelancers. These are the people who will ensure that the creative industries can reopen and thrive, but most of them have not qualified for either furlough or business grant support. Many who became self-employed in 2019 do not qualify for the self-employed income support scheme. So with covid restrictions remaining in place for longer than we all would have liked and a recognition that it will take some time after 21 June for the events industry to fully recover, can I say that, a year into the pandemic, the only just and fair policy would be to forward the qualifying date for the self-employed income scheme by a year? I hope that we will hear that from the Minister or the Chancellor in the next couple of days.
The Minister for Digital and Culture was right to say in her opening remarks at the Dispatch Box that there is a cautious approach to relaxation based on data, not dates, but a number of issues still remain for the exhibition and events industry. Last year, pilots were conducted on how these events and exhibitions could be conducted in a covid-safe way. We have not yet heard whether those pilots will feed into the road map. Can my hon. Friend assure us about that? Post 12 April, theatres can have audiences above the 30 limit through steps 4 and 5, but there is nothing yet for meetings and exhibitions. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on the insurance guarantee scheme. Finally, large events will recover only if there is some certainty over the unlocking of global travel. That remains uncertain and the Government need to give some clarity as to when or if quarantine measures will be reviewed.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
This pandemic has been hugely difficult for the arts throughout the UK. In Wales, musicians, performers and others, such as freelance writers and technicians, often working in small companies and in very precarious circumstances, have been hit really hard. There is a particular issue in Wales in that so many aspects of the arts operate in two languages, exemplifying, I think, the force of the argument that the arts are not additional, just to be preserved as nice to have, but a vibrant part of our lives with a huge contribution to make to our wellbeing and to framing our ways of seeing the world. For example, the arts and entertainment sectors are central strands in the efforts to reach a total of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050 and that is set out explicitly in the policy document on this matter.
Equally, the arts are integral to our sense of ourselves and our wellbeing in Wales, from huge participative productions such as Michael Sheen’s extraordinary “Port Talbot Passion” with National Theatre Wales and WildWorks, to bringing solo harp music into a residential establishment for dementia sufferers here in Caernarfon. We have other large-scale events such as the Hay Festival and our National Eisteddfod, the largest peripatetic arts festival in Europe. That has been postponed again this year, but has risen magnificently to the challenge of going online, with spectacular results.
I should note also my interest as a member of Gorsedd Beirdd Cymru, the Welsh Gorsedd of Bards, but this is not just about our domestic events. The International Eisteddfod at Llangollen, established at the end of the second world war as a means of international reconciliation, is also adapting its format beyond the live event. I hope that the international Harp festival to be held here in Caernarfon next year will not be impacted. Without trying to cover absolutely everything, our television and film industry, our popular music and the visual arts must also be supported through this hardest of hard times.
In conclusion, many contributors to this debate have highlighted the economic value of the arts, particularly in terms of exports and of promoting world renown. I want to say that the arts are a good in and of themselves, for life is a matter not just of the stomach, but of the heart, the mind and the human spirit. That is why the arts are so important at this desperate time, inspiring us not to yield, never to despair.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I wanted to take part in this debate because I know how difficult things have been for the events and entertainment sector in my constituency. It is not possible in the time that I have to cover every single business and venue that has been affected. Needless to say I know that there are many, so I will focus my remarks on a few examples.
First, I have two nightclubs in my constituency, Nakatcha and The Studio. Nightclubs are not always the most popular venues with everybody in small towns but, as many of us have come to recognise, building the best possible future for our towns means that they have to be places in which young people want to live. Having a night-time offer that appeals to them is important and nightclubs are a big part of that. They also tend to employ a younger workforce, which we know is most at risk as we come out of the pandemic.
I thank the owners of those two venues for the responsible way in which they behaved during the first lockdown. They took the decision not to open before being told to close: there surely cannot be a better example of business leaders acting responsibly and thinking about their communities. I will never forget that, and I want everyone else in Crewe and Nantwich to know about it. They have not been able to operate as nightclubs since. The whole way through lockdown they have done a great job of lifting people’s spirits on social media, operating as first-rate meme factories on Facebook. They are looking forward to reopening in June if everything goes to plan. Will the Minister confirm that nightclubs will have access to the £5 billion reopening fund so that they can successfully roar back into action?
The other key venue that has been impacted is the Crewe Lyceum Theatre. It was supported by the £1.75 billion culture fund, which has been a lifeline for those at the theatre and I know how grateful they are. I thank the Government for their help, but we must ensure that the theatre can straddle the transition to reopening when it comes to the unwinding of furlough and the reintroduction of business rates.
My constituency is also lucky to have big cultural events such as the Nantwich Food Festival and the jazz festival, but both have already had to take the incredibly difficult decision to cancel their 2021 editions. These hugely successful events bring visitors and money to the town and they are part of our community. It was fantastic to see the team of food festival volunteers running community lockdown awards, kindly sponsored by Applewood Independent. The festivals are good examples of events that may need help in terms of insurance as we tackle ongoing uncertainty when events need to plan far in advance to be delivered successfully.
All that highlights how important the events research programme will be to so many people, jobs and businesses. It is vital that the Government are relentless in ensuring that the programme is robust, is delivered to time and looks at the sector fairly in terms of the risk. Vaccines have provided a light at the end of the tunnel, which has been particularly long and dark for this sector. I hope that we can do everything we can to get it out the other side.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
As Members will be aware, Salford is a proud cultural and creative destination. Staring out across the Salford docks in 1983 at an industrial wasteland that had been ravaged by deindustrialisation, a group of councillors were proud of their city and they had a dream. They took a gamble and that dream became MediaCity. However, the precarity of the sectors that rebuilt our city could now break our city, as the livelihoods of thousands hang in the balance.
Many workers in Salford are insecure or freelance. For example, a third of people working in media alone are freelancers. However, even before the pandemic hit, too often so-called off-payroll working effectively made people in this sector zero-rights employees, with none of the rights of being an employee or the tax advantages of being self-employed. I draw Members’ attention to the National Union of Journalists’ freelance rights charter, which sets out a series of ways in which we could give greater protections and security to such workers.
The pandemic makes interventions to resolve insecurity more vital than ever. Millions have been excluded from any of the Government’s financial support packages. The Chancellor has repeatedly ignored their cries for help and they are desperate. If that was not enough, freelance media workers in England are also set to lose out on further training and reskilling opportunities as the Government plan to axe the union learning fund, directly threatening the Federation of Entertainment Unions’ training project—one of the few places media and creative freelancers can access free skills training.
Will the Minister assure me today that she will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include in his Budget statement tomorrow, first, an immediate emergency grant for those affected, secondly, new monthly arrangements while restrictions remain in place—in complete parity with the extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employment income support scheme—thirdly, retrospective payments for full and final settlements to deliver parity and fairness for those excluded from meaningful support and, finally, furlough extension for as long as it is needed? The failure to do any of those things not only means the deliberate engineering of social injustice into the fabric of our workforce, but will undermine Salford’s future as a media and cultural powerhouse.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
It is a real treat to join this debate. I like what the American journalist Walter Lippmann said about culture:
“Culture is the name for what people are interested in”.
What are we most interested in? Of course, it will vary by generation, background, geography and many other things, but there is much that we all share, from our cinemas, trees, parks, hills and all of nature to our sports clubs, pubs, nightlife, churches, mosques, heritage and traditions. All are part of what we are interested in, and there is much more, of course, besides.
Not all those things fall under DCMS, but a lot of them do. When many such things have been out of reach for much if not all of the past year, and businesses responsible for the entertainment part of this debate—I think particularly of those involved in leisure, weddings and events—have not been able to open, we have to be grateful that the taxpayer has stepped in, via DCMS, to support so much of what should come back as quickly as possible.
I thank the Department for its work through the culture recovery fund, which has in my constituency of Gloucester provided resources to the Sherborne cinema, which is a great independent cinema; the Guildhall arts centre; the Music Works, which is part of the revival of musical culture in our city; the Three Choirs festival, which represents a great and long tradition of cathedral music; the city council itself; our cathedral, which is at the heart of so much of what happens in any cathedral city; the history festival, in respect of which I declare an interest as the founder and chairman; and St Mary de Crypt, where I am a patron. For all those things, I thank the Department.
I also thank the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has played such a huge part in our city’s regeneration over the past decade, as has English Heritage through the heritage action zone project, which came into being before the pandemic but is being implemented now and is incredibly important. All these things matter collectively. I include things such as the green recovery fund, which comes from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rather than DCMS and has supported the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, which is headquartered on Robinswood Hill, right in the middle of our city, and is an incredible feature.
I not only thank all those organisations but pay tribute to people such as my friend Justin who runs Butlers, the best nightclub in Gloucester, for all the work that he did on volunteering with food during the pandemic, and Mecca, which helped on that—lots of organisations have been pulling together. If culture is what we are interested in—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am terribly sorry, Richard, but we have to move on.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to advocate on behalf of the arts and entertainment sector in Northern Ireland which, in common with those elsewhere, has been profoundly disrupted by covid and has a long path back to normality and recovery. Typically, a venue needs to fit in 50% to 70% of capacity for a show to be viable, and that is unlikely to be safe for some time to come, so the sector is not going to be able to throw open the doors and bounce back to normal any time soon.
I welcome the additional funding throughout the year, but that and future funding will have to be underpinned by timely decisions and flexibility by the Northern Ireland Executive. The current emergency funding is being undermined by the structures of accounting periods, with groups getting very welcome cash injections but windows of just a couple of months in which to spend them. This means we require flexibility around existing and future funding and, going forward, a multi-annual framework that will address the chronic underfunding of arts in Northern Ireland which, at just £5.31 per head, compares unfavourably with Wales, at £10.03, or the equivalent of £12.79 in the Republic of Ireland.
We need a recovery strategy that acknowledges the value of the arts to the economy and its full ecosystem, as well as the intrinsic value of the arts, and that understands that future sector-wide reconstruction and redeployment would be far costlier than a rescue package and managed recovery right now. People who are being forced out of work in the arts because of these challenging years have skills that it will not be easy to replace.
I have spoken before about the gaps in the support for the self-employed and about how the sector is based on collaboration and short-term projects so is almost casualised by definition. I welcome hints that furlough will be extended in the Budget tomorrow, but I urge the Chancellor to ensure that the self-employed in the sector—including part-timers, PAYE freelancers and others—for whom solutions have been identified are addressed.
I welcome the calls from other Members about theatre tax relief, which is a tool to help people who are producing this year. I hope it is extended to digital—the safe platform that many are able to access this year. I support calls for mobility for artists around Europe. The devastating consequences of that issue are being masked by covid.
Seo Seachtáin na Gaeilge in Éireann, ó thuaidh agus ó theas. Seo seans againn ár dteanga agus ár gcultúir agus ár n-ealaoín a cheilúradh agus thig le gach duine sult a bhaint as—finally, it is Irish Language Week in Ireland, north and south, which is an opportunity to celebrate the value of language to culture and the arts in a way that can be enjoyed by everybody. Go raibh maith agat.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
In Greater Manchester, the importance to our area of the cultural sector cannot be overstated. The visitor economy in GM is worth £2.6 billion per annum and supports 105,000 jobs. The digital and creative industries are worth £4.4 billion gross value added each year and support 78,500 jobs. Music alone contributes £169 million to the regional economy every year. However, we must not see culture and the arts as the preserve of cities and established cultural centres. In Bury, The Met theatre is a creative hub, hosting everything from Shakespeare to live comedy and its fantastic annual beer festival. Just as importantly, the pandemic has shone a light on the incredible work it does in the wider community, working with children from all backgrounds. I am delighted that it received Government support during lockdown.
In my constituency, the East Lancashire Railway is an iconic heritage asset. It is crucial to the visitor economy and supports jobs and skills, and is a direct working link to our past. Steam engines, as I am sure everyone will agree, are things of beauty. Culture takes many different forms throughout the country. ELR has received Government funding during lockdown, which has ensured its survival.
The Fusilier Museum is central to my town’s sense of identity as the proud home of the Lancashire Fusiliers. Again, I am thankful for the Government funding it received to continue its important cultural and heritage role within Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington.
Culture, however, means different things to different people. I would argue strongly that Gigg Lane, the historical home of Bury FC, is both a cultural and heritage asset. It is central to the identity of thousands of my constituents. Away from sport, Bury currently has no relatively large-scale outdoor stadium venue where concerts and other live events can be held. Sport, community, history and culture are intimately entwined.
The opportunities to use culture as a means of increasing opportunity and life chances, and supporting the local economy, must be supported nationally and locally. The Co-op theatre in Ramsbottom is a rare surviving example of a music hall from the 1870s. It is of national significance because of the original interior features still in situ. Most of the building has not been used for years, but its rebirth will be transformational for everyone who lives and works in the town. The building inspires and is loved by locals. If the community, together with the public and private sector, can work in partnership to deliver a unique cultural asset for everyone to enjoy, the residents of Bury North will see the power of culture to transform lives on their very doorstep.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
May I take this moment to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back to her rightful place on the Front Bench?
It is good news, if it is true, that there will be £400 million more for the creative industries in the Budget. Most of the funding, of course, will be going to the culture recovery fund, which is overdue, as the period that the fund was supposed to help organisations has stretched considerably. However, I particularly welcome new funding for community cultural projects, as local creative groups are often incubators of talent that go on to be world-beating creators of content, but of course the devil is in the detail.
After speaking to friends in the sector, there are a couple of points I would like to raise for the Minister to answer. Will this extra money mean that there will be a hike in VAT before the sector can get back on its feet? Will this money be recouped from local authorities, which have already had their budgets cruelly cut? They are some of the biggest providers of culture in our communities. Also, insurance is particularly important for our festivals and touring shows. Glastonbury has already said that it is unable to take the risk, and Download will not be back until 2022 because of the pandemic. Now that there is a “not before” date in place for festivals, insurance is the last stumbling block for organisers.
Dance, drama and music students have had their training cruelly interrupted. They have no chance to work together in ensembles or to put on a play. These students, the new talent, have been poorly served, with some drama schools shrugging their shoulders and saying there is nothing more they can do, but with the students still being forced to pay the eye-watering cost of their training. Can the Minister tell us whether any work is under way with colleagues in the Department for Education to support bringing this future generation through? This is being particularly keenly felt by working-class students, who could fall by the wayside without the high-quality and thorough training offered by our country’s exceptional conservatoires. The playwright James Graham commented after the Golden Globes:
“Daniel Kaluuya wrote a play aged 9, breakout role @royalcourt. John Boyega at @TheatrePeckham. @JoshOConnor15 at @BristolOldVic, Emma Corrin in student theatre.”
Talent does not just arrive; it has to be grown. The ecosystem of the arts must nurture diverse voices, and if the Government want to level up the country, I would like to know where the plan is to ensure that those traditionally further from opportunity get support and training. We have also heard about the workforce, and I will not go into that again, but if the speculation is true that a rise in national insurance for the self-employed is imminent when so many have not had a penny of support, that is a step that will feel particularly cruel. Finally, can the Minister give us an update on the creative passport arrangements that will support our tourism sector so that it goes on to flourish?
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin).
Darlington is the birthplace of the railways, and, as I have highlighted to the House on many occasions, we are the historic home of Locomotion No. 1 and the location of the world heritage site at Skerne Bridge, the oldest surviving railway bridge in the world, both of which have featured on our nation’s £5 notes. The Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway have received £35,000 of culture recovery funds and the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust, which builds new steam trains, has received over £150,000.
Darlington is not just about trains, however. Our heritage goes beyond the steel in our railways and the bricks in our stunning Victorian town centre. Today, Darlington is home to a vibrant community of artistic excellence at sites such as the Forum Music Centre and the Hippodrome, which received £106,000 and £1 million respectively from the culture recovery fund, and the town has recently been awarded its second purple flag for 2021. Sadly, these sites have been among the worst affected over the past year, with extended periods of closure since last March.
I am proud of the decision taken by the Government to protect Darlington’s cultural sector and the jobs that it provides to my constituents. Through the coronavirus job retention stream, the kickstart scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, thousands of jobs and livelihoods have been protected, and Government-guaranteed business loans, lockdown grants and discretionary grants have supported many businesses in the entertainment sector. Right across the country, the Government’s exceptional £1.57 billion culture recovery fund has supported our much loved cultural sector. More than 3,000 organisations across the country have benefited from access to the fund, supporting more than 70,000 jobs nationwide, with many more freelancers and jobs in the supply chain industries also benefiting.
Last week, our culture sector listened intently as the Prime Minister announced our road map out of lockdown. I welcome the provisions in the road map that will unlock our culture and entertainment sector, and I look forward to seeing our cinemas, museums and theatres opening right across Darlington from 17 May. I look forward to visiting the Head of Steam Museum, attending events at the Hippodrome or taking in some live music. It is thanks to the hard work of those in the culture sector and the work of the DCMS team to support them that we can look forward in this way.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
In the past year, we have seen many hundreds of thousands of people out of work, with many of them no longer having jobs to return to. We have seen 123,000 people tragically die due to covid-19. While today we are debating the economic impacts of the virus, we cannot forget that lockdowns and social distancing were the correct thing to do to prevent this tragic death toll from being even higher. Over the coming months, we need to continue to protect lives, but it is not a zero-sum game where we need to abandon public health precautions in order to reopen the economy. We need an approach that protects livelihoods while also saving lives.
The need for support to protect livelihoods is particularly acute in the cultural and entertainment industries, which have had to close their doors for much of the past year. Even the most optimistic plans for reopening mean that they will not be back at full capacity until towards the end of this year or later. In the absence of support, many organisations have turned to the internet to keep working. Livestream performances, ranging from classical music to opera and plays, have been an invaluable lifeline not only to performers but to people staying at home during lockdown.
Bizarrely, orchestras putting on livestream performances are not eligible for the tax relief they would receive if they had attendees in person. The Government’s guidance on orchestra tax relief says that it can only be claimed if there are some attendees in person, but that is clearly impossible at a time when audiences cannot attend. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will address that in the Budget, to ensure that orchestras get the financial support they need when they livestream without an audience present in person? While I am talking about live music, we cannot let the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) get away with claiming the best brass band in the world, when we have the award-winning Eccles Borough Band and the Cadishead Public Band.
In the Budget tomorrow, we need support for the people who work in the cultural industries. I have heard from many of my constituents who work in MediaCity in Salford and have found themselves excluded from the Government’s financial support so far. The nature of their work means that many of them are on a mix of self-employed work and short-term pay-as-you-earn contracts, and they do not get support through the self-employment income support scheme. Unless they were under contract at the end of March last year, they did not get furlough support. A year into this crisis, they still have not had any support, and it is worse for people at the start of their careers, when they have not had time to build up any reserves.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Budget tomorrow will finally contain support for those people who have been excluded so far, so that they can get through the remaining months of this pandemic without facing further financial hardship? The Minister may say that he cannot reveal measures ahead of the Budget, but that rule seems to have been comprehensively abandoned.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
If we are talking about live music in Lancashire, I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) would never forgive me if I did not take this opportunity to mention the Lancashire Hotpots, but it is Milton Keynes that concerns me most and, of course, Britain in general.
Britain is home to world-class cultural, arts and heritage organisations—in fact, world-leading ones; we do not say that enough—and Milton Keynes is no exception. With live music venues The Stables and Unit Nine, visitor experience attractions MK City Discovery Centre and Gulliver’s Land, and arts venues such as MK Theatre and MK Gallery, there is no shortage of fantastic venues that support incredible talent. I could spend the rest of the debate talking about their huge impact locally and further afield.
Venues in Milton Keynes cannot wait to throw open their doors again, and I am pleased that the road map has given much-needed clarity to all of us about when we will get there, but I know from the businesses that contact me that, despite that clear end in sight, many in the sector are worried that they just will not make it until the end of spring. I stood in this place only last week to call for councils to do more to release the Government funds that they have to support local businesses, and still, this afternoon, emails were coming into my office from businesses that have asked and asked about how they access these funds from the council and have been told to wait or to look elsewhere.
There is an end in sight. We all know that when those doors open again and the cultural and entertainment venues are back in business and part of the vibe that we have in Milton Keynes and in Britain, that will be the downhill journey on this great mountain of covid. The Government have released billions in funding through the culture recovery fund and billions more in the additional restrictions grant. The sector should now be given the confidence it needs, with councils releasing the funds that are desperately required for venues to reopen safely later in the spring. With the right financial support in place, with a concise and clear road map guided by the data, and with everyone doing their bit in keeping cases down, we can be confident that the cultural and entertainment sectors can bounce back stronger than ever.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
It is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate, and it is fantastic to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back in her rightful place. I will keep my comments brief, but in doing so I hope to catch up on a number of key issues that are close to my heart and the hearts of many in Pontypridd and beyond.
Colleagues may be aware—given my determined and committed approach to raising issues around wrestling, they certainly should be—that I am co-chair, along with my good friend the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), of the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling. It has rapidly become clear to me that the coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on sectors such as wrestling that fall between governance gaps. Wrestling is unique in that it is classified by some as a sport and by others as a performative entertainment. The situation is complicated further given that the industry currently has no formal regulatory or governing body. I appreciate that the Government are taking small steps towards engagement—indeed, I was pleased to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), today to discuss these issues—but I sincerely hope that specific consideration will be given to industries such as wrestling that have fallen through the gaps in both financial support and coronavirus regulations guidance.
I am afraid that those in the wrestling industry are not the only ones who have been losing out. The situation across the UK’s culture and entertainment sector as a whole is currently pretty dire. We have all heard time and again about the millions of people who have been excluded from the Government’s financial support packages, and freelance workers in our creative sectors have been particularly badly hit. People who have dedicated their lives to their craft have had to cope with the devastating blow of being forgotten, belittled and ignored. I sincerely hope that the Chancellor takes the opportunity in his Budget to make amends and put things right.
The Minister knows and, I believe, shares my concerns about the viability of creatives being able to tour and travel across Europe for work purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned her brass band, and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) claimed that he had the world’s best brass band, but I am going to blow my own trumpet and declare that in fact I have the best brass band in my patch: the Cory Band from Rhondda Cynon Taff currently holds the official title. Without any ability to avoid costly administrative fees, bands such as the Cory Band will be limited in their ability to thrive and spread the word of the UK’s proud musical heritage to our friends on the continent. That said, I thank the Minister for his engagement on this topic and sincerely hope that the work of the Department will see a viable solution put in place to support those who have been impacted.
The situation could be different. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government’s £63 million culture recovery fund has been a lifeline for those facing a tough time, and I sincerely hope that the UK Government will follow their lead in prioritising support for the cultural and entertainment sectors. Need I remind the Minister that this sector, which is so central both to the recovery of our country’s economy and to individual people’s wellbeing, deserves our utmost attention and support? We all know that actions speak louder than words, and the cultural and entertainment sectors and those working in them desperately need to see positive change before it is too late.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I want to cover three areas in this important debate on the eve of the Budget: the BBC; protecting the jobs of journalists, on behalf of the National Union of Journalists; and the charitable sector in my own constituency.
Those employed in the cultural and entertainment sector account for a large proportion of the 3 million still excluded from Government support. These sectors provide essential services. They include the charities distributing hot meals to those self-isolating. They also include investigative journalists uncovering the truth, which we really need to know, behind many of the stories about covid. Freelance journalists have been particularly badly impacted during the pandemic. In a time of national crisis, the value of the BBC has never been more important. It has been an outstanding and authoritative news source, providing information as well as educational programming to give parents home-schooling support. Indeed, the BBC is the heart of the UK’s creative economy, but what is not widely appreciated is that it generates £2 for the wider economy for every £1 spent, which sustains thousands of independent production companies and suppliers up and down the country.
Sadly, the Government failed to honour their manifesto promise to keep the free TV licence for the over-75s. Their decision instead to transfer responsibility to the BBC was, in my view, outrageous. Not only has that resulted in a direct attack on the entitlements of elderly people, but the £500 million annual hit to the BBC budget is resulting in programming cuts and more than 500 jobs being lost from BBC news production.
The National Union of Journalists has highlighted the damaging impact of axing investigative reporting such as the award-winning “Inside Out” programme. Will the Minister ensure that, in the next round of charter renewal negotiations, we have a transparent negotiation that ensures that the BBC has the resources it needs to invest in improving news and political coverage?
I also want to mention the charitable sector, and the excellent East Durham Trust in my constituency. Ministers still have not confirmed whether they will extend the deadline to give charities more time to use this much-needed funding. I am grateful for the support of the Chair of the Select Committee, but I would like the Minister to respond in a timely way to allow the charitable sector to plan accordingly. These things—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, but we have to leave it there.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
My constituents and I are very lucky to have many rich cultural institutions on our doorstep: the Black Country Living Museum; Dudley zoo and castle; Wren’s Nest site of special scientific interest; the Canal and River Trust; nature reserves; our microbreweries and pubs; our bowling greens and parks—the list really does go on. The past year has undoubtedly had a huge impact in many ways on this sector, but with its resilience and Government support, such as the culture recovery fund and the zoo animals fund, our museums, zoos and entertainment venues will once again see us all flocking back to them.
I am proud of the Black Country Living Museum in Dudley for playing such a pivotal role in our recovery from the pandemic by playing host to a major vaccination hub in our area. I have been volunteering there weekly, and I have seen at first hand the work and support of museum and NHS staff and volunteers. The museum is due to begin major works on its capital development, with a £30 million investment in the local community made possible by support from funders including the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s culture capital kickstart fund via the culture recovery fund, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and the Black Country local enterprise partnership.
Dudley zoo is another fantastic organisation in the constituency that has benefited from financial support to help sustain it throughout the period of closure. I have been in contact with its director, Derek Grove, who has led a fantastic team to ensure that, despite the closure, the zoo’s animals have been looked after, with vital conservation work continued. But despite the Government’s generous support, finances, particularly for zoos such as Dudley’s, have been left far too tight for comfort.
The Budget tomorrow is a crucial chance for the Government to continue their historic and world-leading investment in our cultural and entertainment sectors. Our cultural and heritage venues are much more than just places for us to visit with families and friends on a day out; they are places of work and vital contributors to our local economies, conservation and biodiversity, and they will all play a big part in our recovery from the pandemic.
I hope and look forward to hearing how the Chancellor and our Government will further support our cultural and entertainment organisations throughout the rest of the pandemic and beyond, to ensure not just a sharp bounce back but their longevity into a successful future.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
This is a super opportunity to represent the people of Bracknell as we recover from covid. Some headlines, if I may: the £500 million film and TV production restart scheme; one year of business rates holiday worth over £10 billion plus temporary reduction of VAT; 200 independent cinemas across England being supported with £16 million of grants; Sport England announces £220 million of emergency funding for grassroots clubs. The list goes on. But we can, of course, do better. I really welcome the news from the Prime Minister that the road map will allow outdoor sports to resume from 29 March; the light at the end of the tunnel is almost with us, and that is very welcome, but I urge the Government to consider pushing this date to the left wherever possible.
Bracknell is blessed with some stunning golf courses of the highest quality, and it has been a real source of frustration to my constituents to see their sport lumped in with others. It is an outdoor sport and we can separate very easily, so let us get the courses open quickly, please. The same applies to grassroots sports, to tennis and to gymnasiums. Let us get our leisure activities up and running.
Elite football has kept many of us sane for the last few months, myself included. However, those not in the upper echelons of the elite have struggled immensely and are on their last legs. Without big-money television deals, non-league football relies on ticket sales to be viable. A year down the line, clubs have are still being asked to wait until 17 May before getting the fans back into their stadiums. That is just too late. These clubs also need grants, not loans. It is essential that these lifeblood clubs are properly supported right across the community.
As for entertainment in the round, it is imperative that our pubs and restaurants are opened quickly, as well as cinemas, theatres and the wedding industry. The live music sector contributed £4.5 billion to the economy in 2019, supporting 210,000 jobs and providing £1.6 billion in VAT receipts. The sector is too valuable to stay closed. Let us please get it open. Why not an extension of the 5% VAT rate for ticket sales? Why not a Government-backed insurance scheme, giving the industry the confidence to book shows? Why not an extension of business rates relief beyond April 2021?
The UK has a really proud motorsports industry that is essential for jobs and livelihoods, and is one of our best exports. Aside from the flagship Formula 1 series, it is imperative that the UK gets its round of the world rally championship back to our shores. May I please commend having a round of the rally in Northern Ireland in 2022? The infrastructure in place. The political benefits are absolute: the Union; protocols; Stormont; reconciliation; legacy. Let us please get it done. DCMS, please find some money.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I want to refocus the debate slightly—on to the public, and the fundamental fact that the public want to get out and have fun. They have been cooped up for the best part of a year, even though many have still been going to work. Now, as spring approaches, they want to get out and enjoy themselves, and good luck to them, I say. They want to get out, let their hair down a bit and enjoy themselves. I would say that they want to get back to merrie England, if I could get that past the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady); I hope he understands that I encompass the good folk of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in that. This applies across all age groups.
We have to reset the balance of the debate. Of course, health concerns are crucial, but so are jobs, businesses and the economy. Like many of their customers, a large part of the workforce are young, and the closure of the industry is one of the drivers of the huge spike in youth unemployment. Unemployment leads not only to deprivation, but to sickness and premature death. Jobs, jobs, jobs really matter. The balance has to shift from whether we open up the sector and the related sectors of hospitality, sport and exercise to how we open them up. I shall coin a phrase, if I may: be driven by the data and not by dates.
Sir John Hayes
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about jobs, but of course this is also important for socialisation and community—for people getting together. People are social animals, and he is right that socialisation is critical to individual wellbeing and communal health.
John Spellar
The right hon. Gentleman is right about that. If the vaccine certificate will assist, the Government should get a move on, rather than using the languid approach they are taking at the moment.
The danger has been that the debate can be posed in binary terms, pitching hospitals against hospitality, one a matter of life and death, with the other able to be painted as more discretionary and even frivolous. But that is a balance that has to be struck; that is what government is about—that is its function. Currently, millions of people are unemployed, furloughed or laid off. Many of them are freelance workers who are slipping through the gaps and desperate for support. Hundreds of thousands of family businesses, their hopes, dreams, and life’s work and savings sunk into them, are at risk every month of going under and are just hanging on, and that is quite apart from the vast ecosystem that supports them and depends on them.
The loss of this sector would also leave a huge gap in our national life. The cultural and entertainment sector is one in which our nation excels. It is part of what makes living worth while and Britain special. We do not live by bread alone, but give us roses too. Our quality of life would be seriously weakened if we had the withering away of the sector—not just the cultural sector with the international and national centres, but many local theatres, music centres, clubs and pubs. Apart from being good in themselves, they are the crucial supply chain for the sector; no one started in the music industry by playing the O2. This is about keeping our communities thriving. We talk about town centres and the high streets, which have taken a bit hit with the decline of physical retail, but take out culture, entertainment and hospitality and they will wither and die. This sector is a huge draw not just for tourists but for inward investors and the skilled mobile international workforce. Let’s get this industry back to work.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
My city is fortunate to have not one or even two theatres, but three. Live performance was an integral part of life in Peterborough before the virus struck and, thanks to the support available from the Government, it will be again. Our theatres were really struggling last summer—I do not pretend that times are rosy now, but thinks did look bleak—and I wrote to the Secretary of State setting out the problems the arts faced in Peterborough.
For the New theatre, in particular, which relied entirely on its own box office receipts, those problems were closing in. Given the troubled history of that venue, it would have been a tragedy to have lost the New theatre just after it was revitalised and was enjoying success. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on her support for the wrestling industry. As the vice-chair of her all-party group, she might be aware that the New theatre was the venue for my pro wrestling debut last year, before lockdown. On the other side of our city is the Key theatre, which is, as its name suggests, absolutely key to Peterborough’s identity. It was an important part of my childhood and I want it to be an important part of the childhoods of both my daughters and of countless other young people in Peterborough. A short trip outside the centre takes us to Bretton, where we have The Cresset, which is the perfect example of a successful multi-purpose venue.
To have three theatres in a small working city such as Peterborough is a cultural achievement. We are proud to have them and they are crucial to our plans for future growth and regeneration. All three theatres were under severe financial pressure last year. The Key theatre is owned by the council, which provided support, but that left the other two, so I was thrilled that the New theatre and The Cresset received nearly £900,000 from this Government’s cultural recovery fund. Overall, Peterborough got £1.1 million, helping not just our theatres, but wonderful organisations such as Peterborough Sings!, a musical education charity that runs four choirs and lots of outreach work.
I am incredibly grateful for this action to save our cultural life, but, as with any financial support, while covid restrictions continue the money will last only for a finite period. That is why I am so pleased to hear that there may be £400 million available for the sector. I know that the Minister will hear pleas from across the country, but I assure him that there is no more deserving place than Peterborough. I also hope that Ministers will do what they can to facilitate a speedy return to normality. Our theatres do not want bail-outs; they want to perform.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I will just say to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) that art knows no boundaries or borders.
The creative sector is the life and soul of Glasgow North, and it has been a huge privilege to represent its talent of all kinds—established an up-and-coming artists of every genre and generation imaginable—and venues to suit them all, from the small Hug and Pint on Great Western Road to the famous Stand comedy club, Òran Mór and Cottiers, and across the city there are even more world-class venues. But they were some of the first to close, and they will be the last to reopen.
Artists have been some of the hardest hit by the restrictions of the pandemic. To be a performing artist or work in the creative industry is not a hobby; it is a way of life and a way of making a living. We have heard that throughout the debate, and I have heard it from so many of my constituents. Its contribution is not just economic; the cultural and social value cannot be measured. Art helps us to understand the world around us, and that will be only even more important post pandemic.
I reflected recently that live performances are definitely one part of the old normal that I have missed the most. I am looking forward to them coming back in the months to come. But that return will not be by magic. Performers do not just get up on stage and perform for the first time. As the right hon. Member for Warley said, no one began their career playing the O2; they need to rehearse and prepare, and they need physical space and support to do that. They need a supply chain behind them of sound and lighting, supplies and materials, but again many of my constituents in those sectors have been hit hard. Some of that is to do with the models of employment and contracts that have been part of the industry to allow flexibility and creativity, but that means they are some of the people who have been most likely to find themselves excluded from the Government’s support packages. If they end up on universal credit, the uncertainty about what even that paltry income might look like only exacerbates the situation. Compare that to what a universal basic income might have looked like, or even the certainty that the German furlough has provided.
Throughout the pandemic, there have been—even in difficult circumstances—real achievements. I pay tribute to the incredible virtual Celtic Connections festival that took place, and I know from friends and constituents that online tutoring and performance will undoubtedly be part of the new normal. There have been collaborations of different kinds of creativity, too: I think of House of McCallum whiskies, based in Glasgow North, whose McPink blended Scotch features a design by artist Ashley Cook on the packaging. Our craft and boutique spirit distillers and producers lend their own creativity to the arts sector and need support, too.
We welcome what support the Government in the UK and in Scotland have been able to provide, but they need to live up to the rhetoric we are hearing from Ministers today with support going forward. Certainty is what is needed to help get our artists back on their feet and back on the road—and that is crucial for artists and audiences alike.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I want to use the short time I have, first, to recognise the resilience, innovation and ingenuity that exists in the culture and entertainment sector. The sector has a key part to play in shaping society post pandemic. It is this sector that makes us feel good. It is a fast-growing sector and a key export driver. This is the sector where we find memorable experiences in our town centres and on our high streets.
I have heard from many who work in the arts in Warrington South—musicians, producers and camera operators—who have welcomed the Prime Minister’s road map to returning our world to some form of normality, but there is no denying that people who worked in the sector have been particularly badly hit. Some have been unable to access support schemes because they were freelance. So I acknowledge the efforts that the Government have gone to in order to get people back into work in the film and TV sector with the unique restart scheme. It has allowed TV production to begin again, including on British dramas such as “Peaky Blinders”, which is being filmed just down the road from me here.
The Government have also stepped in to support commercial radio and local newspapers with enhanced advertising campaigns. That sector saw massive drops in ad spending, so we must be cautious about the impact of the legislation on products high in fat, salt, and/or sugar and the pace at which that is implemented. I also ask the Minister to look at how the Government can support smaller independent media companies such as Warrington Worldwide and The Cheshire Times. Because they are not part of large media organisations, they have not seen the level of ad spend that others have benefited from.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary media group, I have supported calls from across the sector for an advertising tax credit. Local communities benefit from a vibrant local media, and a vibrant local media can do wonders for a local economy. The culture recovery fund has made a huge difference to many organisations, including the Parr Hall and Pyramid Arts Centre in Warrington. This is a tough, challenging time, though, for the supply chain in that sector.
To conclude, for many young people—and I include you in this, Mr Deputy Speaker—the August bank holiday heralds Creamfields, one of the most important dance music festivals. We have welcomed thousands from across the UK to Warrington South in previous years. Creamfields benefits the hotels, the bars and the taxi businesses in my community, and I am glad to see that it is already a provisional sell-out.
I want, finally, to highlight to the Minister some of the smaller organisations and voluntary groups, such as the Lymm festival and St Margaret’s community foundation in Latchford, which have received £15,000 in funding to keep their doors open, and we have a range of assets being supported by the communities fund. The Budget is a crucial chance for the Government to continue their historic and world-leading investment in our culture and entertainment sector, and I am sure the Minister will join me in urging the Chancellor to do everything he can to continue to support this vital sector.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
In 2017, Hull was the city of culture, and that legacy and love of culture lives on. I have sorely missed the magic of a live music event, with the buzz from being in a crowded room and listening to a band I love. Surely, we all just love a good night out, and culture brings that colour to our lives. As the revolutionary change to the way we work takes hold and more businesses realise that remote working means they are not tied to any geographical area, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle will have a bright and bold future. Many people will learn what I already know, which is that not only is the cost of living low, with really friendly people and full-fibre broadband, but the city is culturally rich and vibrant. Living here really does mean you can have your cake and eat it.
Hull is home to the Adelphi, which is an iconic music venue that supports new and upcoming talent, often having offered huge names their first chance to perform. In Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, there is the Polar Bear, which has been saved, thanks to a crowdfunding campaign, and the Welly and O’Rileys, which have hosted bands such as Oasis, Pulp and U2. The constituency also contains the recently opened 3,500-seat Bonus arena and conference centre. We really are one of the country’s best kept secrets.
While the £1.57 billion support package for the arts was welcome, it seemed to focus too much on saving buildings and not enough on saving jobs. We need a plan to support live music. Locally, fundraisers are already happening, and I would urge Members to go and look at the iconic limited edition print that the charity Adelphi is offering right now.
We do not just have live music here. A few weeks ago, I introduced Parliament to the two loggerhead rescue turtles, Sensa and Mabouche, which have found their forever home at The Deep. I did this to highlight the problems that The Deep is having in accessing the zoo recovery fund. We want this fund to require organisations to demonstrate the financial impact of covid on their incomes, rather than, as at the moment, having to be on the verge of running out of reserves before they can get access to it. Sadly, The Deep will be one of the last things to reopen, but, as we found out, the daily animal care costs £5,500. I hope the Chancellor will offer something to important zoos and aquariums such as The Deep.
I cannot talk about culture without very quickly talking about pubs because, let us be honest, on a night out they are often where we start and often where we end up as well, and they are a quintessential part of British culture. Landlords have spent a fortune making their pubs covid-secure and they have done everything they have been asked to do, and now they need something back. They need the VAT cut, business rate holiday and furlough to continue. In my last few seconds, let me make my most important point: when this lockdown ends, please get it right and do not put us back into another lockdown again.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
At the start of the pandemic, I of course knew what a wonderful cultural background we had in Blaydon constituency, but I had no idea just how many people there were and how rich a cultural landscape there was. There are so many people engaged across music, events production, the arts and cultural activities in my constituency, and it has been wonderful to meet them and to learn about their respective industries and the issues they face. Of course, the creative industries in our region, like elsewhere, are interwoven. From freelancers to small businesses, they all form a complex web, relying on the health of the collective to flourish and function as an industry. So the pandemic, once it hit, hit people in this sector hard. The events industry shut down overnight, galleries closed and music venues shut. Sadly, none of them has opened up since.
Things have moved on since my initial conversations with them, but some of the people and businesses in my constituency have been badly affected. Mandylights, a lighting and creative design business for large-scale events, tells me that the industry still requires continued support. The RNB Group, which runs corporate events, told me that it has lost more than £1.5 million in revenue. Claire Malcolm, chief executive of New Writing North, a well-respected development agency for writing and reading in the north, highlighted the cultural recovery funding. She applauds that funding from DCMS, but notes that it is focused on supporting buildings, performance, and gallery-based activities. There are hidden issues about smaller and non-building based organisations not getting access to that recovery support. The work that those smaller organisations do often directly supports freelance artists, other creative practitioners, and technical support companies. Last year, New Writing North provided work for 190 freelancers.
The north-east has a proud history of cultural investment: the Angel of the North, Baltic, the Sage—there are so many to mention. I am pleased that work is going on in the north-east culture partnership, bringing together all 12 local authorities in the north-east, and I urge the Minister to look at that. The pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women, and the future looks bleak for many dance teachers and freelancers who are women. On top of that, the visa issue for those who work or hope to work in the EU is a problem. The Government need to support freelancers. Getting the creative industries back to pre-pandemic growth is essential.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
With the road map to releasing us from lockdown now published, there cannot be many sectors that are breathing a bigger sigh of relief than the cultural sector. For cultural and entertainment businesses, lockdowns and restrictions have put limits on exactly the thing they thrive off. For example, the Exchange arts centre in Keighley is one of many fantastic entertainment venues in my constituency that give local musicians a chance to showcase their talents in front of enthusiastic crowds. Inevitably, limits on social contact have had a detrimental impact, with the pandemic forcing venues to cancel events and close their doors. Financial support has, of course, been welcome, but for businesses such as the Exchange, nothing can truly compare to a busy bar and a live performance on stage.
Lockdown has opened up many new opportunities and ways of doing things. For example, a band called Deco is trending on social media at the moment. They have released some awesome mash-ups of contemporary music and 80s pop, with their recordings taking place on Zoom. I urge the Minister to take a listen to their “Wonderwall” and “Smalltown Boy” mash-up.
Everyone in the music industry is desperate for us to get back to normal, and the same can be said for many businesses in the tourism industry, of which there are many in my constituency. People come from near and far to enjoy the Brontë country, or to take a ride on the Keighley and Worth valley railway. The pandemic has hit the tourism sector hard. When tourist attractions such as the Keighley and Worth valley railway or the Ilkley toy museum are thriving, that has a positive impact on many businesses across Keighley and Ilkley. If people visit those attractions, they also go to the pubs, restaurants and cafes. If pubs and restaurants get more demand, so will local breweries such as Timothy Taylor’s, Wishbone brewery, or Ilkley brewery in my constituency. Accommodation venues such as Upwood holiday park in the Worth valley can then accommodate those visitors. I cannot exaggerate the importance of cultural and tourism attractions to our local economy. When those venues lose revenue, so do many other businesses. That is why Government support for these industries has been so welcome over the past year, but I must continue to urge the Government to ensure that, as we reopen our cultural and entertainment economy, support continues until restrictions are removed in their entirety, as these industries rely on ticket sales, seats being filled and bars being full. Until these venues are given the full green light to open, running profitably or even at a break-even level will continue to be a challenge for many.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
The arts and culture sector has been devastated by covid and, throughout the pandemic, it has been an afterthought, yet it is crucial to the UK’s recovery not just for its economic contribution, but for its importance to all our mental health. In my Bath constituency, arts and culture are an integral part of our local economy, contributing to the huge attraction that the city offers to visitors from around the world.
Of course, I recognise that the Government have done something. The culture recovery fund was a source of relief and I am very pleased for the Roman baths, Bath Abbey and Cleveland pools, which got welcome funding, some of which will go towards meeting the loss of revenue. However, the reality for many other venues and organisations is that this fund came too late and was spread too thinly. The Government certainly do not understand the need of the creative workforce, many of whom are freelancers. They have not been eligible for the self-employed income support scheme and feel abandoned. In tomorrow’s Budget, the Chancellor must look at adopting general support packages to give targeted support to those working in the creative sectors.
Live music has been particularly hard hit. Venues have not been able to open for any meaningful length of time throughout last year and the beginning of this year and could now be months behind the rest of the country. Venues such as The Bell in Bath are looking for innovative ways to maintain social distancing and will be live-streaming gigs online and to other parts of the building, and I congratulate it on its efforts. The music industry will need support from Government to see it through until 21 June and I urge Ministers to support a Government-backed insurance scheme that will provide much needed confidence for the sector.
Museums and galleries will have to wait until May before they can open again. Public Health England states that there is no evidence that they are sites of transmission. Art galleries such as the Holburne Museum in Bath have shown that it would be possible to open safely, and it makes no sense that they are not treated the same as the retail sector, which will be able to open five weeks earlier. At a time when museums are suffering from months without visitors, reduced staff and budgets, the Government’s road map is leaving them very vulnerable and reinforces the sense that other industries are being treated differently. I ask the Government to look again at their plans to allow museums and galleries to reopen as part of step 2.
The arts and culture is vital not only for our economy, but for our wellbeing. Its damage is damage to all of us.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
As many Members across the House have said, fewer sectors have been harder hit by the coronavirus pandemic than our cultural and entertainment sector, which is an absolutely vital driver for our incredibly important hospitality sector in North West Durham.
First, I thank the Minister for the culture recovery fund and heritage emergency fund money that has come the way of North West Durham. We have seen over £500,000 for Durham and Darlington music education hub. Ushaw College has had over £500,000 in total. Durham Wildlife Trust has had £45,000. The Weardale Museum, a really important new local venture, has had £45,000 as well, but the largest support for the sector has come through the furlough scheme and the grants for local pubs and clubs that have really made a difference to so many businesses and cultural venues in North West Durham.
At the moment, we are seeing a huge investment in Durham from Durham County Council, but very little of that is coming to my constituency. In fact, in a recent survey I did, 91% of my constituents said that they are very unhappy with the fact that Durham County Council is spending £63 million on leisure services across the county, but there is hardly anything for my constituents.
That is in sharp contrast with local people themselves, who are putting their shoulders to the wheel. I think particularly of David, who runs The Roxy in Leadgate, a really important former cinema and then bingo hall that he is trying to rejuvenate. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues whether it would be possible to visit David, because it is a fantastic project. We have some superb local bands, including the Bearpark and Esh Colliery Band, and some superb local institutions, such as the Weardale Adventure Centre, which has missed out on the culture recovery fund. I urge the Minister to have a word with the Chancellor ahead of the Budget tomorrow, because those rural outdoor education settings are so important.
Me and my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) have a bid to get the Weardale railway going again. It is a really important heritage site, connecting so many of our cultural and entertainment sectors. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to help us lobby the Department for Transport to get that over the line. Finally, I would like to commend the many people in my local area who work in this sector. It is vital now and for our recovery, and I hope that the Minister will have some positive words with the Chancellor to help the sector recover and grow.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Beginner’s luck refers to the supposed phenomenon of novices experiencing disproportionate success. You can therefore imagine my delight, Mr Deputy Speaker, when my first lobbying letter signed by Norfolk and Suffolk MPs asking for money for the arts and culture sector resulted in £1.57 billion coming forward. I have consoled myself that that was rather a good bit of timing, but there is a serious message here. In Norfolk, arts and culture are embedded in our communities, with a thriving network of venues, from small community art spaces to large world-renowned venues. The closures due to covid-19 have had a devastating impact on those cultural venues, and while social distancing remains in place, their inability to reopen properly will continue to stunt their recovery. We know this, and that is why the Government’s vaccination programme, recovery road map and sector support have been so welcome.
I only have to look at my constituency, North Norfolk, to see how the culture recovery fund has been a lifeline and supported many of my flagship attractions. Hundreds of thousands of people visit one of the finest heritage railways in the country and I am proud to have the much-loved North Norfolk railway running its steam trains between Sheringham and Holt. It benefited from £360,000, as did the equally culturally rich attractions of Wells Maltings, the Sheringham Little Theatre and our wonderful independent Regal Movieplex cinema in Cromer. I need do no more, Mr Deputy Speaker, than merely suggest that, when you come to North Norfolk for your summer hols—and you are most welcome—you take a trip on the North Norfolk steam railway, and as you return to Sheringham, do enjoy our Little Theatre. But don’t forget that you are spoilt for choice, with the productions in Wells and the movies in Cromer. I may even join you.
My picture postcard of North Norfolk has to end here, because where there are winners, there are always those who have painfully missed out. We read that the Chancellor has reserved another £400 million for the arts, and I urge him to earmark some of that to the undeniably important and culturally rich sector that provides so much invaluable learning for our children: the outdoor education sector, which is on its knees. There are many outdoor learning centres in my constituency, and no one can deny that they contribute to culturally enriching children in outdoor learning. Whether it be teaching about local geography or history, they should be eligible as mainstream attractions. For a year now, they have been unable to take bookings: not legally closed, but their customer base forced to not come. The simple inclusion of all outdoor learning centres in the culture recovery fund would start to give them what they desperately need.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
There are many reasons why Southend should become a city, and I very much look forward to the announcement of the city status competition—bring it on. I have mentioned the great Dame Vera Lynn on a number of occasions in this House. On 26 March, I will be launching a campaign on behalf of her family for a permanent memorial, which will be a fitting tribute to her.
Southend is home to lots of people working in west end theatres, both as actors and behind the scenes. They have been struggling as the majority of theatres have been closed for almost a year. I would welcome support to ensure that theatres can reopen safely and viably.
I am pleased that four businesses in my constituency have benefited from the culture recovery fund: Veritas Entertainment, In the Park Concert, Metal Culture and Old Empire. Two of my constituents in the events industry, one a freelancer and another a director of an events and consultancy business, have received no financial support since the pandemic began in this country a year ago, so I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister: what is being done to help the many individuals such as those? I have also signed a cross-party letter to the Chancellor asking him to include Government-backed insurance for live events in his Budget tomorrow. I hope that he takes note of that letter and acts appropriately.
The Music Man Project is an inspirational local charity for people with learning difficulties. They have performed at the Royal Albert Hall and the London Palladium and fronted the National Lottery advertising campaign. They will be going to Broadway. The charity would welcome clarity on when it will be allowed to operate in full again.
Southend has a number of excellent festivals and events, including the Leigh Folk Festival, Chalkwell Fair, the Carnival and, at Christmas, the Leigh Lights. Sadly, these all had to be cancelled or moved online last year, which had a knock-on impact on many local businesses. I welcome the announcement that large events will be allowed to take place again this year. The Leigh Regatta, an annual community and charity event organised by the Sea Scouts and the Leigh Lions, raises money for local charities. It was very sad that it was cancelled last year, with a huge loss of income to the charities. More help is needed.
In my constituency there are many wonderful choirs that have struggled to keep going during lockdown. They have used many ingenious methods to keep rehearsing, but they have lost more than a year’s revenue from concerts. Again, help is needed.
Finally, many showmen have suffered a catastrophic loss of earnings during the last year, and now stand to lose out over Easter and the spring Bank Holiday. Many showpeople have not been able to apply for grants or funding as they do not have a business address. They have found local councils apparently difficult to deal with because of what they claim is the vague nature of the Government guidelines on funding. So I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, a fellow Essex Member, to do all he possibly can to support this wonderful sector.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
The pandemic has had a devastating effect on the cultural sectors. Thousands of people’s livelihoods and work have been put on hold and, in some cases, ended. Those most affected are from the black and ethnic minority communities and from working-class backgrounds, thus reversing the incredible work of the last 20 years in increasing diversity across these sectors.
The arts and creative sector is not just “The Last Night of the Proms”, Glastonbury, the west end theatres, or the pioneering and world-leading TV and film industry, employing world-famous actors and armies of skilled production staff; it is also constituents I know making music with toddlers, puppeteers working in museum education, staff of the now silent community arts centres, dancers and photographers working with disaffected young people, pub bands, club comedians and many, many more. Our world-famous culture stands on the shoulders of people such as these.
Also, our international reputation for skills takes decades of hard work, and if they are not supported, we risk losing them almost overnight. For instance, a constituent who works in the costume department at the Royal Opera House described to me the lifelong training, learning and skills development needed for that role.
It is unfair and unjust that so many have been excluded from any Government covid support. They include people such as my constituent who is a TV director, who became self-employed only in April 2019, but thus missed the arbitrary deadline for the SEISS payments and could not get furloughed. They had to move out of their home and rely on universal credit, and they asked me, “Why am I discriminated against as a taxpaying citizen? It is not my fault that, in my line of work, it makes sense to be self-employed.” Why indeed?
In the middle of the pandemic, there was yet another blow—the loss of visa-free travel. It was a body blow for so many performers. A constituent said, “It confirms that Brexit has essentially transformed a tough enough profession into something even more difficult.” The Minister for Digital and Culture replied to me on this by saying that the situation was “regrettable”. I hope that she can do more than merely express regret.
This debate has shown the enormous role that the arts and creative sectors play in our national life and national economy, so those who work in the arts need to be at the centre of our coronavirus recovery. The Government must do far more to support them as we build back from the impact of the pandemic.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
The performing arts and live music enrich lives, challenge, entertain, inform and stretch horizons, and all genres are important to us. I declare a particular interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera, which brings many of those genres together. Britain’s opera scene is thriving, with a massive international reputation at every level, from our great international houses such as Covent Garden right the way down to grassroots opera. I could take up the whole of my speech and beyond by just listing the names of the many small-scale opera companies that bring the genre to people right across the country—giving the lie to the idea that opera is elitist—performing in pubs, clubs and sometimes in prisons, and taking opera into schools, hospitals and care homes.
However, all those companies are struggling. Like in the theatre world, opera artists are overwhelmingly freelancers—71% or so—and they have not all benefited from the subsidies that I am delighted the Government have put in place. The Government have done great work with the culture recovery fund, but it has tended to be skewed towards institutions. We need to support the performers as well, and that goes from the most distinguished soloist right down to the technicians behind the scenes.
I am particularly worried for the young singers, musicians and actors who are trying to make their way at the beginning of their careers, and for the venues that struggle to find insurance, so some Government-backed scheme would be important as theatres reopen. As for medium-sized venues, the Churchill Theatre in Bromley has been supported well by the culture recovery fund, and we are grateful for that. However, support is also required through the tax arrangements for theatre tickets.
Above all, we need to get live music and song performing once again. I hope the Government and Public Health England will look imaginatively at Lord Lloyd Webber’s suggestions to get performing arts going again in the west end. The same will apply to our opera companies. A great deal of imagination has been shown—English National Opera performing in the car park at Alexandra Palace and the great community work of Opera Holland Park are just two examples—but if this sector is to survive, flourish and punch at a world-class level, it needs support, and the particular challenges that a complicated art form brings to the table need to be recognised. I hope that the Government will recognise them and that my right hon. Friend the Minister will feed that back not only to the Secretary of State, but to the Chancellor both before the Budget and beyond.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
On St Patrick’s Day 2020, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and made it clear that events companies with rateable properties would not have to pay business rates. However, the decision was discretionary, and by the time it reached local authorities many said that such companies were not eligible. How can a company be required to pay business rates if it is prevented from doing business, and can I ask the Minister: why is this support a lottery by borough?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am terribly sorry to the hon. Lady for the short contribution and to all other Members who failed to get in. We now have the wind-ups.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who said a great deal in such a short time. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
If there is one person who truly appreciates the creative industries in this country, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that he has not created employment support schemes that are remotely suitable for the creative industries, and I know that the Tory post-Brexit agreement really screws creative professionals and their ability to get work, but he does love his videographer, and his Instagram account is testament to his adoration of professional photographers. His Twitter feed tells the world how much he appreciates his stylist, and I heard that his Pinterest is extensive. Good luck to him, I say. Some people want substance from their policies, but it is absolutely clear that the Tory party would prefer a shiny veneer.
This debate comes the day before the Budget, which will be a fiscal event that should announce a much-needed, overdue continuation of business support and help for families through this unprecedented time. That should be a given; it should have been done by now. Today’s Budget trail, which coincidentally came out the same day as this cross-party general debate, tells us that the Government have found some more cash for the culture recovery fund. Support is welcome, but as Member after Member has said, that funding saves buildings, not jobs. It is a year since many freelancers have had any income at all. As Members have said, freelancers have been able to apply for some of the funding in Wales and Scotland. Can the Minister say what consideration he has given to a similar approach in England?
What is really lacking is a plan for how our country will earn a living after all we have been through. We need businesses that are fast-growing and offer good-quality jobs, and for that we need the creative and cultural sectors, because they are big and growing. As a whole, DCMS businesses, excluding tourism, contributed £224 billion to the UK in 2018—12% of the economy. Creative businesses exported £36 billion-worth worldwide, and in gross were up 7.5% on the previous year, meaning that growth in the sector is five times that of the British economy as a whole. Important as they are, manufacturing flatlined, and financial services actually fell. Creative businesses are a growing part of our economy.
Tomorrow should be about the future and how we will create the framework to make sure the UK can start growing again. That is why the economic story of creative industries is so important. We have heard from colleagues from right across the country—from Cardiff, Belfast, Barking, Clacton, Coventry, Sheffield, Hull, Batley, Blaydon, Sunderland, Warley, Manchester, Salford, Pontypridd and many more. It is clear from all those contributions that the role of the creative industries and their ability to make life good is not a phenomenon unique to London and the south-east, as the cultural and economic dominance of those areas suggests. We want a plan for the growth of creativity that serves the whole of the UK.
Recent bids to the Government ahead of the spending review showed that West Yorkshire, the west midlands, Liverpool city region and Manchester city region all have cultural plans for their economies, but they are being ignored by the Government, and it is hard to see why. It is not that we want to move cultural and creative economies from London to elsewhere; rather, we want to enable growth where local leaders are clearly crying out for it. The potential is there; we just need to make the most of it.
The glaringly obvious plan that would serve our country so well has been ignored. Too often, the pandemic response has been made up of piecemeal, last-minute decisions. This week is a case in point. People still do not know how long they will be furloughed for and for how long they can be. The industry faces a VAT cliff edge, and freelancers are still uncertain about whether the Budget will finally offer them some much-needed support after a year of hardship.
The truth is that, from listening to the Secretary of State, it was clear from the very beginning that there was no plan to rebalance our economy in the way that city region leaders would like. The Secretary of State gave the game away. All their hotch-potch announcements were aimed at one thing: saving the Crown jewels, as the Secretary of State himself said. It does not matter if someone runs a creative business in Newcastle or Bristol. Unless they run a well-endowed cultural institution that happens to be a short walk from this building, they are nobody’s priority, and it shows. The Government have had a year to finesse their policy responses. Membership organisations and trade unions such as the Musicians’ Union, Equity and the Writers’ Guild all stand ready to help, but too often are ignored.
We heard from Members across the House that every opportunity for creative workers is essential, but the Government actively took away opportunities and made matters worse when they failed on their promises to ensure that creative workers would not face unnecessary bureaucracy and barriers to touring in Europe. We heard throughout the debate that that is an essential step. The Government say they want to fix the post-Brexit situation. They simply must make it happen and we have seen too little progress.
That leads me to my final question for Ministers on the gap between reality and what they say. The question I really want to ask the Secretary of State and the Minister here today is this: what do they think their Department is for anymore? When it comes to financial support for creatives, their only job is passing on messages from the Treasury. When it comes to touring after Brexit, the Minister’s job is to pass messages on from the Home Office. When it comes to covid, they just pass messages on from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or maybe it is now the recently ennobled Brexit negotiator—who really knows? The fact is that the DCMS has been reduced to the Government’s equivalent of a voicemail service—they just pass on the message. Let us be honest: too often DCMS Ministers are just not in charge of anything.
There is one final point I really want to make. The Government’s road map for unlocking our freedoms gives a series of “not before” dates that help us to plan for the best-case scenario. We all want to be back in theatres, to be part of a crowd again. Many of us long for the day when we can walk down the road to a football stadium and feel the electricity of that first tackle flying in. We long for the chance to hear a singer lift up their microphone and pierce the atmosphere with a ringing sound. Before the pandemic, I thought I was getting old. Now, if somebody, for example my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), offered me the chance to go for an evening out, you would never get me off the dancefloor. The pandemic has robbed us of not just a fast-growing industry but, as I have said, everything that makes life good. All the things that make life enjoyable are gone, so when we get them back—when we get galleries, festivals, music and art back—I truly hope that the country we choose to build from this point can include everyone in the happiness of creativity, and can give everyone that sense of something beyond the daily grind. I hope the lives we have lived during this covid pandemic make us all the more joyful at having culture back in our life.
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Government. As the Minister for Digital and Culture, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said at the beginning, this has been a hugely challenging year for the entertainment and cultural sectors. Although the vast number of businesses in this country have suffered from the restrictions of lockdown, it is perhaps, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden) said, the entertainment and cultural sectors that have been hit among the hardest in the economy.
I would like to thank all those who have participated in the debate. We have had 55 Back-Bench speeches during the course of the debate, and I know, as you indicated, Mr Deputy Speaker, that more wanted to speak but were unable to do so. The passion shown today is a demonstration of how important culture and entertainment are not just to our economy and our heritage, but to our wellbeing as a nation. A number of speakers emphasised that by pointing out the economic contribution that the creative industries make, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Clacton (Giles Watling), for High Peak (Robert Largan), for Bury North (James Daly) and for Bolton West (Chris Green), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). They all pointed to the vast contribution—£116 billion—that the creative industries make, supporting 2.1 million jobs. However, they also went on to point out that the contribution is not just economic.
The cultural industries and entertainment sector are critical to the wellbeing of the nation. They bring joy to us. Although many have been unable to operate over the past year, I pay tribute to those who have sought to fill the gap, in particular the broadcasters who have done a fantastic job in keeping us entertained and keeping up the morale of the nation. However, it is not the same as being able to enjoy at first hand the cultural interactions that bring so much value to our lives. I think we all yearn to be able to walk through a museum again, to sit and watch a play or, in my case particularly, to go to the cinema and to enjoy live music. As the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, live music brings an enjoyment that all of us feel is absent from our lives. I have taken particular note of the recommendation from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) to look up Deco and their mash-ups as soon as I am able to do so again.
A number of Members have spoken with great power about the cultural institutions in their own constituencies. We are, of course, familiar with west end theatre, which is famous throughout the world, but there are other theatres in London, including the Theatre Royal at Stratford, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and the New Wimbledon Theatre, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, it is not just about London. We should recognise that the cultural institutions of our country are strong right across all our nations. One of my regrets is that I was appointed to this job just three weeks before lockdown started, and I wish for the day when I can go out and visit some of the places that have been mentioned, including the opera house in Buxton, the railways of Darlington, the zoo in Dudley, the castle in Dover and even Funny Girls in Blackpool.
The best support that we can give to all these cultural institutions is an assurance that the time when they can reopen is coming. That is why the road map is so critical, as my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) pointed out. We now have a clear plan, which is irreversible. We have a certainty that we can give as to when these institutions can start to operate again. Of course I understand that people would rather this happened sooner, but I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell that grass-roots sport, including golf, will be able to resume from 29 March. The reason that we have been able to offer that assurance has been the success of the vaccination programme, as my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) and for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) pointed out, and I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard to roll it out and continue to do so—including, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North, who told us that he was a volunteer in his local vaccination centre.
The worst thing that could happen to our cultural institutions would be to give them a date on which they could reopen and then have to reverse it again. We all know the huge disappointment and, indeed, cost to many who had planned to reopen. An example was Bill Kenwright’s “Love Letters”, which was due to reopen at the beginning of December but, just a few days later, London was put back into tier 3 status and it was unable to go ahead. So we need to be relatively confident about those dates.
Several hon. Members mentioned the work that the Department is doing, particularly to explore how large events can return, preferably without social distancing and restrictive capacity caps. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon that we have established the events research programme to look at how those large events can resume. In doing so, we are looking at the pilots that were conducted last year to consider the effectiveness of various measures to reduce the transmission risk in larger venues, including testing. Officials from my Department and from the Department of Health and Social Care are working closely to combine the existing workstreams into one overall research programme, and that programme will start with events such as Project Encore, which will hopefully set out the road map for when those larger events, which are perhaps the most challenging, can start again.
A number of my hon. Friends have recognised the huge commitment that the Government have made to the cultural sector through the £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund. I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) for recognising the strength of that commitment, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who pointed out that, on top of the £1.57 billion, we have the £500 million film and TV production restart scheme. And of course the Government recognise the need to continue that support until these institutions can reopen once again. I cannot give details of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer will announce tomorrow, although there have already been some indications that he will be giving further support to the cultural sector. As I have said, the sector has benefited and should continue to do so, and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) that that includes nightclubs and music venues, which have been eligible for support.
As many Members have recognised, our cultural and entertainment sectors are world-leading. They are a major contributor not just to the economic growth of this country but to our standing around the world. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt): I am confident that when we resume, those sectors will come back even stronger.
Covid-19: Statutory Sick Pay
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
May I ask Members to exit via the door into Members’ Lobby? That will allow the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work to take his place for the Adjournment debate. May I ask the Serjeant at Arms to sanitise the Government Dispatch Box during the video link contribution by Richard Burgon?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
The idea behind statutory sick pay is as simple as it is important: workers who are ill are financially supported so that they can stay off work to recover. But during a rapidly spreading virus pandemic, it also helps to prevent the spread of infectious illnesses. The test of whether a system of sick pay is working is whether it achieves those simple aims.
Unfortunately, as has been shown time and again during this crisis, the UK’s statutory sick pay system is quite simply broken. In the middle of a global pandemic, it is failing to protect either workers who are ill or their wider community. This failure, like so many others of this Government—from Serco test and trace to the personal protective equipment debacle—has contributed to the virus having spiralled out of control and so many losing their lives unnecessarily.
From the very start of this crisis, I have been contacted by constituents who simply cannot get by on statutory sick pay. Before this debate, I invited my constituents to share their experiences of having to rely on statutory sick pay. The stories that people from my constituency sent to me were quite simply heartbreaking: workers forced to use up their annual leave to self-isolate because the sick pay they would get is not enough to keep them going; families who found that sick pay did not cover even a quarter of their bills; and people forced to use a food bank to feed their family and go into debt to pay their bills after just three weeks of relying on statutory sick pay.
I have described just a glimpse of the horrific social harm inflicted on people in this country by this Government’s refusal to provide proper financial support during this crisis. People are being forced to choose between putting food on the table and self-isolating to protect their community and their colleagues. This is happening in every constituency of every Member across the country. MPs in this House know it is, and those who refuse to call for better sick pay have to take responsibility for the consequences.
The two biggest problems with sick pay have been clear from the very start: the level that it is paid at is far too low and, even then, huge numbers of workers are excluded from actually getting it. At £95.85 a week, statutory sick pay is an 80% cut in income for an average worker. Many workers simply cannot afford the immediate loss of income. And who can live off £14 per day? The TUC found that two fifths of workers would have to go into debt or miss paying bills if they had to take statutory sick pay.
Of course, the terrible consequences of this unacceptably low level of support are not felt equally. Many of the workers hardest hit by it are the same workers on the frontline fighting this pandemic. Let us look at social care. The GMB trade union has revealed that the majority of the UK’s social care workers are entitled only to statutory minimum sick pay, with no additional sick pay from their employer. When the GMB consulted its members who work in social care about what they would do if they had to rely on statutory sick pay, a full 81% said that they would be forced in to work. The Office for National Statistics found that care homes where staff got contractual sick pay above the level of statutory sick pay were less likely to have covid cases than those where staff were forced to rely on the statutory minimum. It is hard to imagine a more fatally self-defeating system during a pandemic than one that leaves care workers forced to go in to work when they should be self-isolating. How many people died in care homes because of this Government’s refusal to properly support workers financially when they are unwell?
As if the paltry level of sick pay was not enough of a problem, nearly 2 million of the lowest paid workers do not even qualify for sick pay because they do not earn enough. The lower earnings limit means that those earning less than £120 a week are prohibited from accessing sick pay—a discriminatory measure, given that 70% of the workers excluded by that limit are women. Millions of self-employed workers are also excluded. That is the stark reality of working conditions in this country in the 21st century: millions of workers—disproportionately women, black and minority ethnic workers, and those on zero-hours contracts—excluded from even the most basic and limited support by the Government.
From the start of the pandemic, Labour has called for urgent action to remove the barriers to sick pay that have left the lowest paid workers without support. Throughout the pandemic, trade unions such as Unite the union have made consistent demands on the Government to increase statutory sick pay to the level of the real living wage, and to remove the minimum income requirement so that every worker who needs to self-isolate is supported to do so. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union has also called for the Government to legislate for full rights to contractual sick pay for all workers from day one, paid at 100% of wages. Outside the Conservative party, there is even widespread support in Parliament, with MPs from seven parties signing up to support my motion calling for sick pay at a real living wage level.
I am sure that the Minister’s response will include reference to the Government’s £500 self-isolation support scheme. It is true that, six months into the pandemic, the Government introduced a scheme to give a one-off payment to some people on low incomes who have to self-isolate. Unfortunately, the scheme is woefully inadequate. Only one in eight workers qualify automatically for the main payment; the rest have had to apply for a discretionary payment, and figures suggest that 70% of applications for support from that scheme were rejected.
Back in November, I asked the Government how many people had applied for that payment. It took more than 100 days to get an answer, and when it finally came, it was that the Government still did not have the figures. No one could honestly look at the scheme and claim that it is an adequate alternative to providing proper sick pay at real living wage levels.
We know that covid is increasingly a disease of the poor. Those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods have been more than twice as likely to die from covid as those in the least deprived. People in some of the lowest-paid manual jobs are three times more likely to die of covid-19 than those in higher-paid, white-collar jobs. Covid is still circulating at higher levels in the poorest neighbourhoods than in the wealthiest. Proper levels of statutory sick pay would disproportionately help those in poorer areas and in manual occupations, and that is what needs to happen. When we look at why the Government have never acted on increasing sick pay as a priority, perhaps that is the real answer.
Sick pay was already broken before the pandemic struck, yet even in a global health crisis, the Government have chosen not to fix it, helping the virus spread out of control. The Government cannot claim not to have been warned in advance of the scale of this problem, because just months before the covid crisis struck, their own consultation on sick pay said that the system of statutory sick pay
“does not reflect modern working practices, such as flexible working,”
and looked at
“widening eligibility for SSP to extend protection to those on the lowest incomes”.
I, along with many in the labour and trade union movements, have been demanding better sick pay for workers for almost a year. In fact, it was a year ago tomorrow—when the UK had a total of just three deaths from covid—that the TUC published a report warning the Government to urgently make our sick pay system fit for purpose. The report called on the Government immediately to raise sick pay to the level of the real living wage and make it accessible to all workers, including the lowest paid. Those recommendations were ignored. It was also last March that the Health Secretary himself said that he could not afford to live off statutory sick pay, but, 12 months on, his Government have done nothing to raise it. If only the Health Secretary were as generous with the payments to working people as he appears to be with his friends when handing out Government contracts.
The Government’s refusal to act decisively has meant that the virus has spread more than it would have done, and people have lost their lives who otherwise would be with us still. The Government knew about this problem from day one but chose not to address it. The decision not to raise sick pay to a level that workers can actually live on is a deliberate political calculation from this Government. They feared that if sick pay was improved during this crisis, they would never be able to lower it again in the future; it would be a permanent gain for working people. This Conservative Government cannot allow that because it would go against the grain of the constant undermining of our welfare state. Fundamentally, the Conservative party sees the social security system as a means to punish—be that by setting universal credit deliberately low or the cruel bedroom tax— rather than it being there to support people when they need help.
The Chancellor has a chance finally to sort this issue out tomorrow at the Budget. If he does not, once again he will have shown which side this Government are on, and it is not on the side of working people and their families.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this debate.
We have been facing the most serious public health emergency in a generation since the beginning of the pandemic, and the whole of the UK has joined together in a great national effort to face this challenge. Throughout the pandemic, the Government have done, and will continue to do, whatever it takes to fight the virus and get our nation through these difficult times. This Government have a strong safety net in place, and we took action to strengthen it for those who need it most. As part of that action, we introduced the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, increased the universal credit standard allowance by up to £1,040 this financial year, and extended statutory sick pay to those who are self-isolating or shielding in line with the latest Government health guidance. We also went further and made SSP payable from day one instead day four for anybody who is sick, self-isolating or shielding due to coronavirus.
Taken together, these measures help to ensure that employees do not attend work when they should be staying at home, helping to keep themselves and others safe. Where clinically extremely vulnerable individuals are not able to work from home and shielding advice is in place, they should not attend work. Statutory sick pay is available to those who are unable to work, and is intended to be a safety net in cases where their employer chooses not to furlough them under the coronavirus job retention scheme and does not have other suitable policies in place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In my constituency, quite a number of employers did not buy into the furlough scheme, and sick pay simply does not cover costs. I understand that the Minister is always very responsive to the issues; he always has been in any debates that I have been in, and I hope that he will be to this one. Will he and the Government consider grants or a help scheme for those who have got into debt just to feed and heat themselves at this particularly difficult time?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member, who I know from several debates to which he has contributed cares passionately about those in most need in his constituency. I am meeting the First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly next week to discuss a number of issues, including this, and I will set out in my speech the wider support that I know he will be looking to champion, and rightly so.
Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals are currently being advised to shield until 31 March. We expect employers to do the right thing and help their employees in following public health guidance. That is underpinned by the clear guidance issued by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, ACAS and the Health and Safety Executive to help employers make workplaces covid-secure. Where individuals have concerns about their health and safety at work, they should raise them directly with their employers or with staff representatives, HSE or their local authority.
The Government have also provided a comprehensive economic response that is one of the most generous globally, taking unprecedented steps to protect people’s income and support businesses, most notably through the coronavirus job retention scheme. We know that this has been a difficult time for businesses too, with many experiencing increased levels of absence due to employees needing to self-isolate. Any increase in the rate of SSP during the pandemic would have placed an immediate, direct financial burden on employers at a time when we know that many of them are struggling. That could have put more jobs at risk.
Many of those earning below the lower earnings limit who are not eligible for SSP are already in receipt of benefits, meaning that the welfare safety net is the most efficient way of providing targeted further financial support. Statutory sick pay should not be looked at in isolation. It is the minimum level of income replacement that employers must provide to eligible employees, and the majority of employees receive above the statutory minimum. Those who require further financial support while unable to work have been and will continue to be supported by the Government. For example, where someone’s income is reduced while on SSP, they may be able to claim universal credit. Where they are not eligible for SSP, they may be able to claim UC and new-style employment and support allowance. For ESA, we have removed the seven waiting days for claimants affected by coronavirus, so it is payable from day one of the claim.
For the millions of hard-working people who are self-employed, we continue to provide generous support through the self-employment income support scheme. The minimum income floor in universal credit has been relaxed for the duration of the crisis, which means that where self-employed claimants’ earnings have fallen significantly, their UC award will have increased to reflect their lower earnings.
Beyond the welfare safety net, we have also introduced a number of unprecedented packages of support to put money directly into the pockets of those who are in most need. We are providing financial support to self-isolate to those on low incomes through the £500 test and trace support scheme, alongside £35 million being made available to local authorities for discretionary payments to support those on low incomes who cannot work from home if they are required to self-isolate because they have tested positive for coronavirus or have been identified as a contact of someone who has.
We have worked closely with local authorities to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme since it launched in September 2020 and have listened to feedback from charities and support groups on the frontline. I welcome the changes to the eligibility criteria to include a parent or guardian who is staying off work to look after a child who is self-isolating. We will also be making an additional £20 million available for discretionary payments every month from March until the end of the scheme, which has been extended until the summer. Employers can also furlough employees who are on long-term sickness absence or have been advised to shield.
At tomorrow’s Budget, the Chancellor will set out the next phase of our economic support package, reflecting the Prime Minister’s road map to ease restrictions published last month and tailoring support for individuals and businesses to reflect the changing public health restrictions. The actions that this Government have taken were the right ones to respond to the immediate short-term pressures that the pandemic presented, but it is right that we also think about the longer term.
As the Minister for Disabled People, I welcome the opportunity to highlight the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation, in which we sought views on the rate of statutory sick pay and the role that employers can and should play in supporting employees who are disabled or have long-term health conditions to stay in and thrive in work. We have explored how long-term reform of SSP could support the Government’s ambition to reduce ill health-related job loss and drive transformational change, so that those managing long-term health conditions can live and work well. I cannot stress enough the importance of that work. One in five people in this country have a disability or health condition, and the vast majority of them will get that while they are of working age. It is therefore absolutely right that we review and look at the ways we support both employees with changing health conditions and employers to do the right thing.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for giving way again. One thing that is very much an issue in my constituency—it probably is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) as well—is mental health. When it comes to accessing all those benefits, there is absolutely no doubt that mental health and anxiety issues are one of the greatest crises we have had for a long time. Can the Minister and his Department offer help to those people with anxiety or depression or wellbeing issues?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Member, with laser-like precision, has identified one of the key issues. For those employees who have a fluctuating health condition—for example, mental health—one of the inbuilt challenges of the system is that someone is presumed to be either 100% fit for work or 100% sick, which stops them dipping in and out or having phased returns to work. Also, while society’s awareness of issues around mental health and mental wellbeing is significantly improving, there is not an easy guidebook that any employer—particularly small and medium-sized employers—can simply take off the shelf and then know exactly what to do. Therefore, we must look to address the issue of 100% fit or 100% sick to allow for that phased return as well as significantly improve the guidance and support for employers to ensure that people do not drop out of work. We recognise that work is good for people’s health, and it is significantly harder to help somebody back into work, dealing not only with their health condition but with the loss of confidence from losing their job, than it is to provide that support earlier on.
SSP maintains an important link between the employee and their employer during sickness absence while providing a level of income replacement for such a period. That is why the consultation set out that we are minded to extend SSP to those earning below the lower earnings limit, who are not currently eligible for financial support from their employer during a period of sickness absence. I think this is an area where the Government and the hon. Member for Leeds East would agree: it is important that there is a link, regardless of the number of hours that an employee works with their employer, because it is a partnership to deal with short-term, medium-term or long-term health conditions for the benefit ultimately of the employee but also the employer. We know that good work is good for one’s health and that work can play an important role in a recovery.
The consultation also proposed changes to SSP rules to allow for fully flexible phased returns to work, as I have set out, with SSP being paid alongside an employee’s wage. That can be beneficial for both the employer and the employee. We know that many employers are already taking positive action to support their employees to remain in work, but many businesses—particularly small and medium-sized organisations—need access to improved information and advice on how to better manage health in the workplace. We want to ensure that employers are supported and equipped so that they can do the right thing by their employees, and many of them wish to do so. We will publish the findings shortly.
Crucially, as we begin to build back better, employers will have a vital role to play in creating workplaces in which all employees can thrive. It is by working together that we can truly transform the lives of disabled people and those with health conditions. The benefit of that will be felt by all, so we must each play our part. I welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds East. This is something that we will all continue to focus on.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021.
The draft regulations create a new designated area in south Tees for the purpose of the business rates retention scheme. The business rates retention scheme typically allows local authorities to keep 50% of the business rates they collect locally. In two-tier areas, that 50% is shared between billing and major precepting authorities, according to shares laid down by Government.
As part of the redistribution arrangements under the scheme, an authority might pay some of its share as a tariff or might receive additional funding in the form of top-up payments. Tariffs and top-ups were fixed at the outset of the scheme in 2013, so, as business rates grow, authorities get to keep 50% of that growth. In the last year, before the pandemic, retained growth was worth more than £1.8 billion of additional funding to local authorities, over and above what they received as settlement funding.
As part of the business rates retention scheme, the Government can also designate part of a local authority’s area. When an area is designated, it is effectively removed from the main retention scheme and authorities keep not 50% growth, as under the main scheme, but 100% of all the growth in business rates in that area.
Since 2013, we have created more than 200 designated areas, in 94 different authorities across the country. Many of those areas have been created as parts of enterprise zones. In those areas, local authorities keep all the growth in business rates for 25 years, and they and the local enterprise partnerships are using the money to regenerate their areas. Other designated areas have been set up specifically to allow councils a long-term income stream against which they have been able to borrow for specific infrastructure improvements.
Overall, the 100% of growth being retained by authorities in designated areas has meant that, since 2013, authorities have had funding worth nearly £240 million in addition to the growth under the main scheme and the funding they receive through the local government finance settlement. That money has been used to provide improved infra-structure and to support regeneration more generally.
The draft regulations create a new designated area in Teesside, and the area designated by the regulations is that of South Tees Development Corporation. The development corporation is the site of the first mayoral development corporation outside London. It was inspired by the independent report made by Lord Heseltine in June 2016. He looked at an industrial area blighted by the liquidation of the SSI steelworks and saw the development potential of a 4,000 acre site on the south bank of the River Tees, with good road and rail access, sitting alongside one of the deepest ports on the east coast of the United Kingdom. He recommended the establishment of the South Tees Development Corporation and advised the Government and local partners to put the necessary resources in place to regenerate the area.
The draft regulations designating an area covered by the South Tees Development Corporation are part of that financing plan. They sit within a wider framework that will see new investment on the site and the creation of 20,000 new, good-quality jobs on one of the largest development sites in Europe. Initial central Government and local government investment dealt with the legacy of steelmaking and kept the site safe and secure, before working with local, national and international investors on the market opportunities that are most relevant to the site.
The development corporation has secured ownership of the developable land through an agreement and a compulsory purchase order, bringing order to a piecemeal and incoherent situation and allowing developments at scale. There is a healthy pipeline of investment interest in place and the draft regulations will ensure that, as the land is developed and new industries emerge, part of the business rates income will be reinvested in the site’s development. That is a cycle where success in investment will create additional resource, which in turn will help further to accelerate the development of the site.
The regulations will come into force only after the Government are satisfied that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority have put in place arrangements that ensure that the money they keep as a result of the regulations will be used solely for the benefit of the South Tees Development Corporation. We have negotiated a memorandum of understanding with Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority that will ensure that there are clear revenue sharing arrangements in place, protecting the finances of the council and enabling funding to be released for the development of the site. That will be signed as soon as Parliament agrees to the regulations and will enable the designated area to come into existence on 1 April this year.
Once the regulations are in force, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority will share all the growth in business rates for the next 25 years. Growth will be measured in exactly the same way as for other designated areas. Where, in any year, the business rates income in the designated area is greater than a baseline amount set out in regulation, the council and combined authority will keep 100% of the difference.
The baseline amount—a little over £7 million—has been set by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. That represents the annual amount of business rate that it would expect to collect in the designated area at this point in time. As the regeneration with respect to the development corporation gathers pace and as the collectible business rates grow, the council and combined authority will keep every pound above that baseline. That will be reinvested in the area, generating even more growth.
These are important regulations. They will provide additional funds over an extended period, allowing the council and the combined authority to invest in the regeneration of the south Tees area, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela, and I thank the Minister for his opening speech.
Next week marks one year since the World Health Organisation declared the covid-19 outbreak a pandemic. Two weeks after that marks a key moment, when the Prime Minister told us to stay at home, save lives and protect the NHS. Nearly 123,000 people are no longer with us, we have the worst economic downturn for 300 years and we are bottom of the league in the G7. Our hope—our shining light—has been the effort of the global scientific community and our NHS, public health and local volunteers in the vaccine roll-out, which we all want to succeed.
Another symbol of hope and light has been the valiant effort of our councils, which have stepped up throughout and continue to do so. I am sure the Minister agrees with that. Whether it has been taking in homeless people and families, ensuring that the vulnerable in the community receive food parcels or helping businesses to operate safely, we have seen good practice across the country, on top of the bread-and-butter services of social care, bin and waste collection, dealing with potholes and many more community-focused services. But councils have done that while having £15 billion of central funding grants cut from their budgets over the last decade.
The pandemic has had a catastrophic impact on local authority finances, with costs rising as income has fallen. The Secretary of State said, at the outset of the pandemic, that whatever funding was needed for councils to get through to the other side would be provided by Government. That has simply not been the case. Now residents and councils face the imposition of the Chancellor’s council tax bombshell of 5%—a figure built into the Government’s spending power for local councils in order to fund vital services, such as adult social care.
The Chair
Order. I am sure some background information is required, and I have given the hon. Member a bit of leeway, but will he now address the statutory instrument under consideration?
Mike Amesbury
I will move on.
Can the Minister explain why his own council, South Gloucestershire, which is led by the Conservatives, has felt compelled to set the maximum 4.99% council tax rise? The statutory instrument, which we will support, should not be used as a poor substitute for the Secretary of State’s broken promise on funding councils properly.
Councils have endured cuts over the past decade. Giving councils and combined authorities the means to capture 100% of business rates is in principle a good thing, and the ability to drive growth, which the Minister referred to, make gains from inward investment and maximise services are devolution in action. However, it will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that business rates as they stand are putting a straitjacket on growth in our local high streets and our broader economy. Businesses are already disappearing, and many will not reopen beyond the pandemic. Business rates must be rapidly reformed.
On that note, I shall conclude with some questions to the Minister. What vital progress has been made in the business rates review? When can we expect a response to the consultation? When can our councils and businesses expect action?
Luke Hall
This is an important debate and an important statutory instrument. The regulations are a significant part of the wider plan for the regeneration of south Tees and I thank the shadow Minister for his support for them. He has made a number of points on which I know he feels strongly. I will address them briefly if I can.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Government support to councils during the pandemic. We have had this discussion in a number of forums. We are providing £11 billion of support to councils throughout the pandemic. That is far in excess of the self-reported figure that councils are spending in response to the pandemic, which stands at £6.9 billion to the end of the financial year. We have already provided over £8 billion in our sales, fees and charges scheme, and the fact that we have already published £1.55 billion of covid support for next year is a clear demonstration of our support. We have had long debates on that in other forums, so I will not talk through all the detail today.
The hon. Gentleman talked about raising council tax and gave his view, but he had the opportunity to vote against that in respect of the local government finance settlement and the caps on which we specifically laid a motion in Parliament, neither of which the Opposition nor anybody in the House opposed. That was the time for them to make those arguments and to have their say on that specific matter.
The hon. Gentleman talked about South Gloucestershire council. I am delighted to talk about the incredible record of my own council—although in another forum there would perhaps be more time—in delivering what has been fought for by Conservatives. It is doing an incredible job supporting people in south Gloucestershire and delivering the services that local people want. I support the council in those decisions.
The regulations that we are discussing will ensure that from 1 April any growth in business rates will be retained in its entirety by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority, instead of having to be shared with central Government. That will provide those authorities with an income stream over 25 years that will be used to invest in the South Tees Development Corporation. That investment will help to secure the creation of new industries and jobs in an area blighted by the closure of the former steelworks. The regulations also make an important contribution to the redevelopment of one of the largest development sites in Europe and underline our long-term commitment to the regeneration of south Tees. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey
The Government set the maximum amount that universities can charge for tuition fees during normal times. Is it not therefore the responsibility of Government to set the maximum amount that universities can charge during this covid-19 period, when students are not getting the education or the experience they have paid for because of Government restrictions?
Michelle Donelan
We will continue to monitor the situation. However, it is important to note that reducing tuition fees would not put money into students’ pockets here and now, and 50% of students do not pay back their loaned amount. What is important is ensuring that students get the quantity, the quality and the accessibility of tuition in these really difficult and challenging times.
[Official Report, 3 February 2021, Vol. 688, c. 962.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Universities:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey).
The correct response should have been:
Michelle Donelan
We will continue to monitor the situation. However, it is important to note that reducing tuition fees would not put money into students’ pockets here and now, and 75% of current students are not expected to fully pay back their loaned amount. What is important is ensuring that students get the quantity, the quality and the accessibility of tuition in these really difficult and challenging times.
Written Statements
National Security and Investment: Mandatory Notification Regime Consultation Response
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Today, the Government published their response to the consultation on secondary legislation to define the sectors subject to mandatory notification under the National Security and Investment Bill.
This Government are a champion for free trade, recognising that inward investment is economically highly beneficial. Investment in UK plc boosts productivity by backing businesses to create good jobs and develop skills and will help support our economic recovery from covid-19. The UK is open for investment, but not for exploitation.
An open approach to international investment must also include appropriate safeguards to protect our national security and the safety of our citizens. The UK and our allies face continued and broad-ranging hostile activity from foreign intelligence agencies and others, who seek to compromise our national security. When it comes to investment, we are seeing novel means to undermine the UK’s national security that go beyond traditional mergers and acquisitions and also go beyond the reach of our current powers, such as structuring deals to obscure who is behind them. Such behaviour, left unchecked, can leave sensitive UK businesses vulnerable to disruption and espionage. It is crucial that the Government are able to fully combat these threats.
The National Security and Investment Bill creates a new screening mechanism enabling the Government to intervene in acquisitions resulting in control over entities and assets that may pose a risk to national security.
Proposed acquirers of certain shares or voting rights in specified qualifying entities in the most sensitive sectors of the economy will be required to notify the Secretary of State and receive clearance before completing their acquisition. This is to ensure that the Government are informed of potentially sensitive acquisitions before they take place and are thus able to take action ahead of time to address any risk to national security that would arise on completion. This “mandatory regime” is supported by a voluntary notification option for relevant acquisitions across the rest of the economy and a power for the Secretary of State to scrutinise qualifying acquisitions that have not been notified.
The overwhelming majority of transactions will, though, be unaffected by these new powers. We estimate that less than 1% of all mergers and acquisitions and asset transactions will result in a notification to Government.
The consultation invited views on the sectors in scope of mandatory notification, sought responses on whether the definitions provided sufficiently clear parameters to inform businesses and investors of the need to notify, and whether the definitions were proportionate. The consultation set out the draft definitions of 17 sectors in which national security risks are more likely to rise than in the wider economy.
These sectors are:
Advanced materials
Advanced robotics
Artificial intelligence
Civil nuclear
Communications
Computing hardware
Critical suppliers to Government
Critical suppliers to the Emergency Services
Cryptographic authentication
Data infrastructure
Defence
Energy
Military and dual-use
Quantum technologies
Satellite and space technologies
Synthetic biology
Transport
Responses to this consultation suggested that many of the sector definitions were broad in scope and would require further specificity to enable acquirers to identify whether they would be in scope of mandatory notification. After careful consideration of all the responses, the Government intend to refine the definitions and have produced the next iteration of the definitions in today’s publication.
The Government intend to carry out further, targeted engagement with certain sectors to finalise these definitions. The final definitions will be set out in regulations following Royal Assent to the Bill.
This approach will ensure that the regime is targeted and proportionate and keeps Britain firmly open for business. It will bring us into line with other countries, such as the USA, whose Committee on Foreign Investment also operates a mandatory notification model that investors will be familiar with, and build on the best practice established around the world by like-minded countries.
In summary, it will deliver a balanced regime that provides the Government with the flexible powers they need while keeping our country firmly open to investment.
I will place a copy of the consultation response in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS815]
Trade and Agriculture Commission Report
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Last year, the Government established the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) to place UK farming at the heart of our trade policy.
Today the Commission publishes its advisory report on trade and agriculture. The report makes recommendations covering:
The strong action needed to maximise export promotion opportunities for the agrifood sector.
The UK leadership required at the WTO to change international framework rules on trade and standards, to tackle global issues like climate change and environmental degradation.
The UK promoting free and fair trade while maintaining high standards in areas such as animal welfare, ethical standards, and the environment.
The UK being particularly supportive of developing countries to access the full benefits of the global trading system.
Welcoming the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission to help uphold effective scrutiny of trade deals.
In compiling this advisory report, the commission sought evidence from trade and agriculture experts from across our four nations, including from local farmers, businesses, the National Farmers’ Unions and parliamentarians.
I am grateful to all those who contributed evidence and expertise during this challenging time. I thank the chair, Tim Smith, and all commission members for delivering this incisive advisory report and I look forward to carefully considering the recommendations and will respond in due course.
To continue the excellent work that the Commission has started, we are now putting the Commission on a statutory footing and evolving its role to boost scrutiny of new free trade deals. We will seek to appoint new members in due course.
In addition, last week I launched our Open Doors campaign to help farmers and producers take advantage of the 64 trade deals we have done to date, to sell more around the world including in fast-growing markets in the Americas and Asia Pacific.
A copy of the advisory report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and has been published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS814]
Pension Schemes Act
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Pension Schemes Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 11 February. We are now setting out next steps, delivering on the commitment made during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill and following extensive engagement since report stage in the House of Commons. The Act will introduce:
Three new criminal offences, including a sentence of up to seven years in jail for bosses who plunder or run pension schemes into the ground.
The legislative framework needed to usher in pensions dashboards that will give savers greater control over, and awareness of, their pensions.
The legislative framework to allow collective money purchase pension schemes to operate.
Powers to require pension schemes to take the Paris agreement temperature goal into account, and other climate change goals set by the Government.
Strengthened rules around pension transfers to prevent members being misled in relation to transferring their pensions pots.
Measures to support trustees and employers to improve the way they plan and manage scheme funding over the longer term and enable the Pensions Regulator to take action more effectively to protect members’ pensions.
We are now progressing the secondary legislation to ensure the UK’s pension system is safer, better and greener. The sequencing of the subsequent legislation will allow for proper consultation, engagement with key stakeholders and further parliamentary debate, through affirmative procedure where required.
Following our consultation in January 2021 on climate change, we will lay these world-leading regulations this summer to come into force ahead of COP26. This will make the UK the first major economy in the world to legislate for, and bring into practice, the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, ensuring climate change is at the heart of the pensions system.
On the Pensions Regulator’s powers, we will consult on the majority of draft regulations this spring, and will commence these powers and the criminal offences measures in the autumn. For the duty to give notices and statements to the regulator in respect of certain events, we will consult on the draft regulations later this year, for commencement as soon as practical thereafter.
In early summer we plan to consult on draft regulations for scams and collective defined contribution schemes, with commencement on the scams measures from early autumn 2021.
We aim to consult on proposed regulations for the pensions dashboard later this year and lay draft regulations before Parliament for debate in 2022. Delivery remains on track for 2023 in line with the plans published by the pensions dashboards programme.
On defined benefit scheme funding, later this year we will consult on draft regulations, following promised engagement with key interested parties, working closely with colleagues at the Pensions Regulator as they develop the revised funding code, which will also be subject to a full public consultation.
Both Ministers and regulators will continue to engage with both Houses of Parliament as these measures progress.
[HCWS816]
Grand Committee
National Security and Investment Bill
Tuesday 2nd March 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 165-I(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (for Second Marshalled List) - (1 Mar 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk, if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request.
The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content” an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Amendment 1
“Objective of this Act
(1) The overarching objective of this Act is to allow the Secretary of State to safeguard national security in respect of economic and social harm.(2) When making decisions under this Act, including for the purposes of assessing a risk to national security, the Secretary of State must have regard to the objective in subsection (1).(3) The Secretary of State must also have regard to the effect of the application of this Act on—(a) technology investment;(b) the research and innovation environment; and(c) business opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets an objective for the bill in relation to national security and includes a number of other elements to which the Secretary of State must have regard.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. At Second Reading the Minister described the Bill as
“a major upgrade to the Government’s powers to screen certain acquisitions on national security grounds”,
which builds substantially on the Enterprise Act 2002. It certainly is, but perhaps in the Bill we are dealing with architect’s drawing of the upgrade, rather than a 3D model.
First, let me say without equivocation that those of us on our Benches see the need the Government to scrutinise potentially sensitive transactions, and we think that an upgrade is timely and sensible. However, as the Minister has acknowledged, there is the rub. Defining what is sensitive and what is a transaction of concern are key to the effective operation of the Bill. As we progress through the amendments ahead of us, I would say that virtually all seek to better define the operational process of the new investment security unit within BEIS and to ensure that the disquiet it has caused is alleviated.
At Second Reading, the Minister spoke about reflecting
“the modern economic and investment landscape in the UK.”—[Official Report, 4/2/21; col. 2332.]
In fact, what is proposed here is culturally different from what successive Governments have practised. Blair, Cameron—including and excluding us—through May to Johnson have all, so far, rightly or wrongly, pursued a distinctly hands-off approach. It is not hard to understand the alarm that the Bill might cause in the outside world.
Its publishing sends a message about the future nature of interventionism. This concern comes not just from the traditional free traders of the City but from universities, industry trade associations and sectors as wide as space and bioscience. The abiding link to these academic and industrial concerns is that these are, by necessity, international and collaborative activities.
The overwhelming concern coming from all sides of the House in that Second Reading debate was how this unit was to operate effectively without stifling innovation, scaring off capital and becoming a proxy for wider strategic considerations. It is with this in mind that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I penned this first amendment, which sets out the objective of the Act. By exclusion, it also sets out what is not the objective of the Act and thus what is within and not within the purview of the investment security unit. It is designed to send clear messages about how this Bill will operate in practice.
Looking at the amendment in detail, first, in making regulations under proposed subsection (1), the Secretary of State’s overarching objective must be safeguarding national security. This is reinforced by proposed subsection (2). There is no controversy here, given that this is the purpose of the Bill, and on their own the subsections would offer nothing new. That is down to proposed subsection (3), which would add that
“The Secretary of State must also have regard to the effect of the application of this Act,”
on other things. In our case we have listed:
“technology investment … the research and innovation environment … and … business opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises.”
We put those three there, because in our view these areas are key elements of our national security. I am happy to debate what should be on that list, but I will explain why we put these in the amendment.
Technology investment is key to keeping ahead of the security arms race, and it is reasonable that the Secretary of State and, by extension, the unit in BEIS would have regard to this technology base. Similarly, the research and innovation environment is needed to deliver that technology leadership. Without vibrancy in investment here our future security is compromised. Finally, in many cases it is the SMEs that bring true innovation to all the 17 sectors on the Minister’s list. They take technology to market and must not be disproportionately disadvantaged by the application of this Bill.
This amendment is designed to send two messages. One is internal, seeking to influence the nascent culture of the investment security unit to ensure that it recognises publicly what elements contribute to the delivery of national security. The second is an external message to the market, our universities and our innovative businesses, big and small. They need to know that these issues are in the Government’s mind when they are making security decisions. They need to be reassured that this is a vehicle to help to reassure them. The Minister may well say “trust me”, and of course I do, but what of future Ministers and future Governments? This amendment would ensure that the Government have regard to the conditions and the culture that will deliver national security and investment in that security. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in principle, I do not support proposed new clauses such as this, whether they are called objective clauses or purpose clauses. I have tabled them myself in the past, but they are usually not much more than an excuse for another Second Reading debate, and we had a little of that in the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Amendment 1 could be positively harmful. It confines national security to “economic and social harm”. The obvious item omitted is physical harm, but other harms could be missing. Purpose or objective clauses would be used as an aid to interpretation of the main body of the Act so, if they are there, they have to be comprehensive in their drafting if they are not to act as a constraint on the operation of the Bill.
Similarly, the “have regard” matters in proposed new subsection (3) could act as a constraint on the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, explained the rationale for his list, but I could not see why “technology investment” was singled out compared to other kinds of investment—for example, in manufacturing capability or intellectual property. What exactly is meant by “research and innovation environment” is unclear from the drafting, and is the omission of “development”, which is the normal companion to “research”, significant or not? Singling out SMEs, which we are all aware are important to our economy, implies that larger enterprises are not important in the considerations.
There is a good reason why Bills do not often contain purpose or objective clauses. They are traps for the unwary and can do more harm than good.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are very wide-reaching powers in this Bill and, to start where I ended my Second Reading speech:
“I am not against the notion of interventions, but the Bill should be more than notion and compulsion, and I hope that it is possible to include more direction and balance.”—[Official Report, 4/2/21; col. 2364.]
That is exactly the aim of Amendment 1. It aims to be positive rather than negative, by defining an overarching objective. One might debate whether it could be slightly different, but the idea is to have an overarching objective to safeguard national security in respect of economic and social harm. “Social harm” is a very broad term. Recognising that broad scope, it specifically lists that the Secretary of State must
“have regard to the effect … on technology investment… the research and innovation environment … and business opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises.”
I can almost hear the Minister assuring us that the Secretary of State will have regard to a lot of things, and that would be right, but it is also necessary to make sure that there are correct messages given by the Bill—messages that endure and give confidence to the business sectors most likely to suffer, perhaps entirely unnecessarily, from rumours, concern or finger-pointing from competing jurisdictions.
If we take the starting point that the Bill has good intentions, that there are similar moves internationally, that we have perhaps been too slack in the past, and that there are inevitably burdens arising from both notification requirements and notification concern, that will lead to unnecessary voluntary notification. One wonders if there are not more mechanisms that can give an all-clear signal.
Maybe some will become clearer or develop over time but, wherever that is possible, as we work through the Bill, I am mainly looking to see what incremental steps can be made towards certainty. That can be helped right at the start of the Bill by using the combination of broad objective plus a list of the most sensitive “have regard” matters. This appears in various other pieces of UK legislation, not least in the financial services legislation that is occupying both my time and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on the days either side of this sitting. Therefore, I hope that the Minister sees the advantage of taking that approach here.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I will disappoint my noble friend Lady Noakes by making a comment that is more a Second Reading comment than anything else. But it is important we see this Bill in context. The genesis of this Bill is, I assume, largely about Chinese influence and the debates we have had about Huawei and so on. I want to raise only one issue on the context; it is the way in which British commerce and the economy are so intricately and deeply linked with China. Is that globalisation? I am not sure.
We all know how much we buy now comes from China on the one belt, one road programme or elsewhere. The interdependence between western consumers and economies and the Chinese economy is extraordinarily deep-rooted. I am going to use a little example—a silly one, you may say. Old-fashioned fellow that I am, I try to buy British if I can. Looking for a butter dish online, I bought quite an attractive one from the English Tableware Company. I thought that was pretty safe, until the moment it arrived. I turned it over and found it was made in China, which seems quite strange to me. I took it up with the company, and it came back to me saying its products were all ethically sourced and it had checked the suppliers. Of course, we have no idea about the working conditions or possibility of slave labour in Chinese factories.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. My noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Bowles have cogently outlined the purposes of Amendment 1 and the importance of having a framework of this kind for the Secretary of State when he is exercising his powers under the Bill.
I am taken by the fishing analogy which has been used in relation to the Bill. On these Benches, we support the trawling process and its purpose, but a large number of questions in consequence need answering about the extent of the net, the size of the mesh, and which species will be taken on board and which discarded, and how long that will take. We will come to those questions later in Committee. This amendment asks the broader question: what impact on the broader ecology is the trawling having? The Secretary of State cannot be oblivious to the impact on the investment ecology, as set out in the proposed new paragraphs, but must take account of the impact of what he or she is doing. I am sure that the Minister will want to give us assurances on many questions to do with the Bill as drafted. But we need certainty about this aspect and how the Secretary of State will exercise these considerable powers yet not thereby damage what we have in the UK—a thriving investment climate. As my noble friend Lord Fox has pointed out, it is not just the City but universities, trade associations and sectors such as space and biosciences that have raised concerns about the width of the Secretary of State’s powers.
Today, we have seen the outcome of the sector consultation, all 111 pages of it, which allays concerns somewhat, but I anticipate that many will still believe—as I do—that the net is being too widely drawn. This amendment is designed to constructively allay that concern. I hope that the Minister will recognise its merits. It is far from harmful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested it was. She asked why we singled out these three elements: it is because, looking at the sectors, it is precisely those areas that we believe are most likely to be damaged if a net is drawn too wide. I am going to resist the temptation to pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, because I am conscious we are not on Second Reading, but he has raised some interesting questions.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it was clear at Second Reading, and again today from when the noble Lord, Lord Fox, began, that everyone across the House agrees that national security is the number one priority.
The discussion therefore is twofold. First, will what is, and is not, covered in this legislation be clear enough? Secondly, is the balance between security needs and the desire for economic growth, research, innovation and freedom to invest, correctly delineated? On the first issue, it is obvious that the new regime must be based on the best advice coming from across government, as well as on emerging and current threats, and the behaviour and developments of our adversaries. We will come in the next group to the definition of national security.
This first amendment is focused more on the second question that I posed. Will the unit take sufficient account of technology investment, research and innovation, and business opportunities, particularly for SMEs? From everything said at Second Reading and even today, that is an important discussion. We should not expect the Bill, nor its new unit, to be the generator of investment, research and development—that is for an industrial strategy—but the Government must have a careful eye on whether the workings of the Bill have a detrimental impact on technology investment and innovation, while ensuring that the economy does not override security interests. That is a difficult judgment. If it were not, there would never be any problems for the Government to solve.
I read today—others may already have been aware—of possible changes to the listings regime to help the City compete with New York, Amsterdam and Frankfurt in attracting fast-growth companies by creating an “agile” new economy focused on innovation and technology. We welcome such moves and attention being given to making Britain a more attractive place in which entrepreneurs can take companies public.
We hope that the proposals emanating from one of our colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, on relaxations on the use of dual-class shares, to allow founders to keep control over their companies by giving them deciding votes on decisions such as corporate takeovers, could work in harmony rather than at variance with the objectives of the Bill. I hope there will be an opportunity to discuss those interplays as we go forward.
In the meantime, we will consider future amendments that will look at whether the right procedures, definitions, timelines and so on strike the right balance as to workability in making those fine judgments between security and economic interests. However, this amendment is calling for the Secretary of State to be required to have regard to those other interests. The Minister will say that, of course, he or she is bound to do so. However, it is a question on which some assurance is needed and we look forward to the Minister’s view on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for their introductions to this debate. I thank them for proposing this new clause and for enabling a further discussion on the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment 1 seeks to establish an objective for the Bill and include a number of elements to which the Secretary of State must have regard when using his powers. Let me say at the start that the intent behind this amendment is to provide a clear statement of the scope of the Bill, to prevent so-called mission creep and give certainty to businesses and investors, while avoiding the pitfalls of attempting to define “national security”. However, the legal effect of the amendment presents us with a number of challenges.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under the Bill to safeguard national security in respect of economic and social harm, which is reasonable. It is indeed possible that economic or social harms could give rise to risks to national security, but so could other harms such as physical or military harm. For example, a hostile actor could use control over a piece of critical infrastructure to put UK citizens in physical danger or they could acquire companies in the UK defence supply chain and thereby degrade our military capabilities.
The absence of other harms in the factors listed by the amendment suggests that the Secretary of State may not use his powers under the Bill to safeguard national security from those harms that I have outlined. It is also unclear how he should have regard to the factors in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. As the amendment does not say that they are to be regarded as part of national security, that would suggest the scope of the Bill is being expanded beyond national security. It is important to note that the government position on the issue of defining, wholly or in part, “national security” remains consistent with when amendments in a similar vein to this were discussed at Second Reading and in the other place; I have discussed that with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, previously. The Bill does not set out the circumstances in which national security is, or may be, considered at risk. That reflects long-standing government policy to ensure that national security powers are sufficiently flexible to protect the nation. It also does not include factors which the Secretary of State must or may take into account in assessing national security risks on the face of the Bill.
While it is crucial for investor confidence that there is as much transparency in the regime as possible, there is clearly a limit to how much the Government can and should disclose in this regard, given that the regime deals explicitly with national security matters. National security risks are multifaceted and constantly evolving. What may not constitute a risk today may well do so in future. We may find over time that such specificity becomes outdated. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, it is enough of a challenge to ensure sufficient specificity in the objectives of the Bill, especially with regard to concepts such as those referenced in the amendment.
While I have nothing but gratitude for the noble Lord’s intention—to provide a specific objective for the Bill—it is primarily for the reasons I have set out that I am unable to accept the amendment, and hope that in the light of that he feels able to withdraw it.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s gratitude. I am also grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken, but I am a little shocked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who seems to have an internal inconsistency. I always think of her as such a logically consistent Peer, but in one breath the amendment was dismissed as legislative fluff and in the next it was the most harmful thing that could happen to the Bill; I suggest that it is either one thing or the other. I appreciate the Minister’s solid response.
My noble friends Lady Bowles and Lord Clement-Jones added to the point that is central to this. The culture of how the Bill is delivered by the investment security unit will be central to how it is viewed in the outside world. If the unit has a combative and aggressive culture, that will affect the way in which the investment community regards investment in this country. The amendment seeks to explicitly influence the culture of that organisation, but I am very happy if the Minister’s lawyers can find better ways to do so. However, a Minister simply saying something will not make the unit run that way. In the end, that will be the measure of how successfully the Bill sets the balance between seeking to assure national security while not throwing out all the good things that our current investment world has.
I look forward to debates on other amendments that seek different ways to do the same thing but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 13 and 83. Perhaps I will take a little more time than usual over this because it is one of the central issues on which we wish to hear the views of the Committee and, indeed, the response of the Government.
Given that national security is clearly the Government’s priority, it is important that to make the Bill work everyone involved in its provisions and their interpretation are clear about how the Government see national security—its range and depth, if I may put it that way. Therefore, Amendment 13 seeks to establish the issues which should be taken into account because clear rules will be vital for businesses seeking funds, researchers, investors and the unit having to take decisions. They need to work on basically the same template.
Let me take a moment to say that the Government have published 112 pages today—the Minister expected someone to say it, so I may as well say it now—but his letter covering the first amendment arrived as he was speaking to it and the Written Ministerial Statement did not even refer to a policy statement that I gather has also been put out, according to my up-to-date information. I think the Committee will understand that we have not had time to digest this and we may therefore have to try to look at some important issues in that.
One of the points relevant to Amendment 13 is that this response states that several respondents indicated that “national security” should be clearly defined. We are therefore interested to know whether the Minister will listen to those concerns which, in a sense, is what Amendment 13 is seeking to do. It is not trying to define exactly what is national security nor, by implication, what is not. It is setting out how people tasked with scrutinising potential investments may approach the first question—“Might this risk our security?”—by listing the sort of factors to be considered. The “have regards”, while not an exclusive list, indicate to officials, the Secretary of State and those handling investments the matters which should be considered in any decision.
We absolutely agree that neither the Government nor Parliament should prescribe or limit what national security covers, as is long-standing practice, and therefore do not seek by this amendment to curtail the Secretary of State’s flexibility to act, but we nevertheless think that the other parties involved who will be impacted by this legislation need to know the range of issues which will be among those considered by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 13 provides a framework which is neither rigid nor exclusive. It simply does what other countries have done, what experts have recommended and what we have heard that people submitting comments to the Government have also said. The Law Society argues that without something like this, there is a risk that a Secretary of State could become exposed to political influence, and the Investment Association says that a better understanding of national security could help calm investors. Therefore, the amendment indicates factors that the Government might consider, such as the impact of a triggering event on defence capabilities or how a hostile actor might be enabled to gain access to critical infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will accept that Amendment 13 provides such a framework and flexibility to help alleviate the concerns that have been raised, particularly in the defence sector.
We are also keen to ascertain whether critical infrastructure is included in the Bill. As we know from the ISC report published last year, Russia has
“undertaken cyber pre-positioning on other countries’ Critical National Infrastructure.”
It would therefore be useful if the Minister could clarify whether that is covered in the Bill.
Later this month—the rumour is a week tomorrow but certainly while the Bill is in this House—we will see published the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy. Perhaps the Minister could confirm its publication date and that it will indeed be a week tomorrow. He nods—I think I am not going to get a yes that question. Can he also outline how the results of the analysis of that review will feed into the work of the new unit and its decisions on what constitutes a security threat? Will the review focus on the private sector and on the role that the Government see for business, as well as on how the interests of innovation both in academia and in business should be promoted?
Amendment 83, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have added their names, highlights the relationship between the review just mentioned and the objectives of the Bill and seeks a government statement on it. Given that the Government have said that the review will include the
“long-term strategic aims for … national security”,
there are questions about how these would align with the Bill’s new regime and how we are able to keep an eye on technological developments in the private sector while keeping pace with security challenges. What we do not want to see is an important new national security regime buried in BEIS which does not link with the UK’s wider and longer-term security concerns and priorities.
The ISC noted
“the extent to which economic policy dictated the opening up of the UK to Russian investment”,
whereas the Bill seeks to put security first and our investment needs second. As I said on the earlier group, it is an important but not always easy judgment to make. It is therefore essential that the Government’s view on security is considered by the BEIS unit and that Parliament is able to see how that is happening by way of the statement suggested in the amendment. That statement should focus both on how the Government will align the provisions in this Bill with the outcome of the integrated review and on how the UK will respond to identified threats, including new technology, biological weapons, cyber and misinformation. The reference to new technology is key since new weapon capabilities could as easily be developed in the private sector as in an MoD lab. The Government will need to procure these assets while preventing certain foreign states also purchasing them.
I return to Amendment 2, which probes whether public order and public safety are included within the Government’s view of national security. The similar German regime captures “public order” as part of its national security, while the Japanese regime applies equally to “public order and public safety” and to national security. Is the UK regime narrower than the approach taken by these other jurisdictions? Perhaps the major issue we want clarified within that is whether an investment which could have an impact on the working of our democracy would be covered.
Last year’s Intelligence and Security Committee report on Russia stated:
“The UK is clearly a target for Russia’s disinformation … Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’ … It is clear that Russia … poses a significant threat to the UK”,
including “interference in democratic processes”.
With regard to elections, the discussion at the time of the publication of the report, which of course was written a whole year before it was published, was more on bots, messages, and so forth, the report noting that
“Russia has carried out malicious cyber activity … including attempting to influence the democratic elections of other countries”.
The Government’s own response concluded that
“it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/20; col. 71WS.]
However, an external force intent on interfering with our elections could instead invest in the electronic gear that stands behind our pencil and paper voting, and perhaps pose a threat that way. Given, as the ISC report notes, the
“fusion of government and business”
in Russia, a business providing advanced IT for elections could have very close ties to that regime, or indeed to any other regime. Indeed, the Government’s response to the ISC noted that the Defending Democracy programme in the Cabinet Office includes consideration of
“direct attacks on electoral infrastructure.”
So the thinking is clearly there. Perhaps the Minister could therefore clarify whether foreign investment in democratic electronic infrastructure would come under the remit of the Bill. It is partly about what we think of as national security.
When the ISC covered this, it noted that
“the issue of defending the UK’s democratic processes … has appeared to be something of a ‘hot potato’, with no one organisation”—
I assume it meant within government—
“recognising itself as having an overall lead.”
Could the Minister outline how such responsibility and oversight will sit within the BEIS unit, such that investment in any democracy-related hardware or software could be included in its remit, and explain how the Government will overcome what the ISC describes as
“nervousness around any suggestion that the intelligence and security Agencies might be involved in democratic processes”,
given the committee’s view that
“Protecting our democratic discourse and processes from hostile foreign interference is a central responsibility of Government, and should be a ministerial priority.”?
The answer to the questions may indeed be no, but to have a discussion on national security and the future of our democracy and our safety without considering this seems to us to miss out a vital ingredient. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for bringing forward this group of amendments. I will speak in particular to Amendment 13.
In preparing for this stage of the Bill we have received a number of briefings from outside bodies. Every single one has said, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the trawl is being done far too widely. The Government would not be drawn on that at Second Reading, and it is absolutely appropriate that we try to pin them down through this form of probing amendment.
In leaving the parameters drawn as wide as they are, it is fair to say that all those who have briefed ahead of today would prefer to see a strict definition of what national security is. Am I right in assuming that national security for the purpose of the Bill covers everything that is not defined or covered elsewhere? Water treatment, the water supply and air traffic are covered by other legislation, so does that mean they are not covered by the purpose of the Bill? Are we wrong to assume that the Bill covers critical infrastructure in the way the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, set out? It would be helpful to know whether we have to work on a process of elimination rather than on a specific reference point such as a definition, as is set out in Amendment 13, which is quite wide in its own right, given its number of “have regards”.
The Law Society of Scotland states that
“national security itself is not defined within the Bill. We note that the Enterprise Act 2002 definition refers to EU legislation”.
Are we right to assume that that definition still applies, or can we safely assume that, because we have now left the European Union, it is no longer valid? A steer from the Minister would be very helpful in summing up this debate.
The Law Society of Scotland goes on to say that
“: it might be helpful to introduce a stand-alone concept appropriate to the current context. An exhaustive definition is likely to be neither possible nor desirable but a general delineation of the concept together with detailed additional guidance as to how this is likely to be applied would be helpful.”
Does the Minister intend to do that as the result of this amendment to date?
I, too, received the letter from the Minister within the last half hour, when I was on another call. In the normal course of events, I would have studied such a letter quite closely to enable me to prepare for today, so it is a matter of some regret that we have not had a chance to read it. Perhaps the Minister will cover its main points in replying to this little debate on this group of amendments.
I believe that either we should adopt something like Amendment 13 in the course of proceedings or the Minister should bring forward some definition of the Government’s own drafting during the proceedings, before the Bill leaves the House.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, laid out in her opening remarks the necessity for clarity about what risks this Bill seeks to address, arguing for a definition of national security in Amendment 13. There are indeed arguments for such a definition, as the Law Society of Scotland, and that for England and Wales, have laid out, lest the Government might, for example, respond to political, economic or electoral pressures to define risks which should not be brought within the scope of this Bill. Others see risks associated with such definitions and further legal minefields. However, the Law Society of England and Wales sees a risk in Amendment 2—that extending the scope of the clause to cover “public order and public safety” could give rise to similar concerns, unless these terms could be strictly defined so as not to include political motives. However, I hear what the noble Baroness says about her aim here, and about the risks to our democratic processes.
I speak here particularly to Amendment 83 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which I have also signed. The amendment is extremely restrained. The Government have made much play of the importance of their proposed integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. From time to time, these reviews are made. There was one after the general election of 2010, and another after the 2015 general election. Of course, that latter one included pandemic as a risk, and emphasised how important it was to the United Kingdom, economically and strategically, to be at the heart of the EU, through which, as it put it, we amplified our power and prosperity.
One might say that a new assessment is indeed desperately needed. It was due last year but was knocked off course by the pandemic, which did not stop the Government pre-empting its conclusions by merging DfID with the FCO and cutting aid, even though in 2015 this was seen as a mark of our global reach—global Britain, you might say. In addition, the Government announced spending levels for the MoD before Christmas, none of this waiting for a proper strategic review.
So now we have this Bill on threats to national security, without that review having been published. We hear that it is imminent. Could the noble Lord update us? Is it indeed being buried by the Budget coverage? We have certainly heard that it has got thinner and thinner, perhaps one-fifth the length of the 2015 one, and that it is large on rhetoric and small on how it is to be achieved. Nevertheless, this should be an important statement of what the UK identifies as threats and ambitions. Therefore, this should have preceded this Bill and underpinned what it was trying to do, if the Government are to be joined up.
Amendment 83 asks that, when the review is finally published, the Government publish a statement that outlines how provisions in the Act will align with the UK’s long-term security priorities and concerns as identified in the review. The amendment states that this should be
“As soon as reasonably practicable”,
a generous phrase that Baroness Hayter used in tabling this amendment, more generous than the one I would have used.
Perhaps, because there is little confidence in the review, as one would have thought these areas would definitely be covered, this statement should also include how the Bill will respond to emerging threats, new technology, biological weapons, cyber, misinformation and military developments by the UK’s adversaries. One of the successes of the 2015 review was certainly the emphasis on cyber and the subsequent and important expansion of UK capacity in this area. I am sure that this will not be neglected in the new review. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament. It is surely the least that the Government should do to try to ensure that the Bill is aligned with whatever comes forward in the strategic security review. The Government should be able to simply accept the amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, at Second Reading, I said that I felt that a lack of definition for national security was a problem, and I still feel uneasy about that. I understand the need for flexibility to take account of how threats evolve over time. My noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading that national security was not defined in other legislation, but I am not sure that is quite good enough, given that this legislation will have a particularly big impact on commercial transactions, and what the business sector needs is certainty. Other uses of the term have not had that sort of impact on business transactions. I completely understand the difficulties of definition—problems of being too restrictive or insufficiently comprehensive. I think Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is a better approach than Amendment 1 with its objective clause, but I am concerned that it may still carry some of the defects that I outlined when I spoke to Amendment 1.
The statement that the Secretary of State will make under Clause 3 will certainly help businesses and their advisers but, at the end of the day, national security is the big overarching concept in the Bill which is left without further detail. Several noble Lords have already referred to the letter from my noble friend the Minister to all Peers, which came out while he was speaking earlier. I have had an opportunity to have a quick look at it on my iPad, and I do not think that any Member of the Committee will find that it advances our consideration of the Bill this afternoon at all: it just says that there is a lot more work to do.
If there is no definition or further elaboration of what national security means in the context of the powers created in the Bill, the Government will be giving the courts a blank sheet of paper if, as is probably likely, at some stage a challenge to the use of the powers under the Bill is mounted in the courts. We must remember that we have an activist judiciary, especially over the road in the Supreme Court, and the Government really ought to be alert to that fact and try and proof legislation against what can be done there. I shall be listening very carefully to what my noble friend says are the reasons for leaving national security as such a completely open issue in the Bill, and I look forward to hearing his remarks.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I should perhaps begin by noting my position as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, in opening this Committee, said that most of the amendments were seeking better to describe national security. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that, without a definition, the Bill is missing a vital ingredient. It would indeed be interesting if, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, we were to continue to use the EU definition. My personal position is that we should keep as close to the EU as possible, but that has not seemed to be the Government’s position.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, noted how successive Governments of different hues had taken a hands-off approach to mergers and acquisitions, those involving both national and international assets. We have had, to an extent matched by few other countries in the world, a “Robber barons welcome” sign out in the process of selling off the family silver in a veritable orgy of privatisation and financial isolation. That has clearly had an impact on public order and national security.
I will not let rip with a Second Reading speech—something that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, expressed concern about—but will point out that “have regard to” clauses are at the very core of democracy. If the Government are taking new or extending existing powers, for there to be democratic oversight there surely needs to be an outline of how those powers will be used, a legal framework against which a Government can be held to account, should they go off the rails. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, just said, that does not reflect an activist judiciary; rather, it is one doing its job and fulfilling its constitutional role.
We know that the Government do not like to have such oversight, both democratic and legal, but it is surely the responsibility of this Committee to attempt to insist on it—for nothing more than national security, because of the degree to which it was not secured by previous Governments, having been exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic and imminently threatened by the climate emergency. I will address some of those national security concerns in my Amendment 93, which we will get to later, but I speak now on Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I thank her for her clearly careful and detailed work on it. I will not address all its elements, but focus on a couple of paragraphs, particularly proposed new paragraph (b)(iv),
“enabling a hostile actor to … corrupt processes or systems”.
There is grave concern about the impact of big money on our quasi-democratic processes, particularly in the age of social media. These are so well known that I do not need to expound on them at length, but I will point to how the 2010 national security strategy already referred to such concerns, and they have obviously greatly grown since. Even in our conventional media, we have a quite astonishing concentration of media ownership, often foreign or offshore. That surely needs to be acknowledged as a national security concern. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about how Amendment 2 seeks to address such issues.
I also point to proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 13, which is about
“the likely impact of the trigger event on the United Kingdom’s international interests and obligations, including compliance with legislation on modern slavery and compliance with the UN Genocide Convention”.
This has obviously been of great concern to your Lordships’ House; we reflect on the debate around the Trade Bill. These are surely national security concerns. They are not just moral issues, but of great effect to our national security. A stable world, in which no one is subject to genocide or held in slavery, is a world that is far more secure for every citizen of the UK and the nation as a whole.
I come to proposed new paragraph (g) on
“organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion”.
The security of funding for schools, hospitals, roads, police and all the other services on which we rely depends on companies in our society paying their taxes. When it comes to money laundering, we have seen, in many aspects of our society and internationally, the disastrous impact of dirty money—something that, in some societies around the world, has led to almost a total state breakdown.
Overall, having such a set of definitions, as many noble Lords have said, has been of help to the Government, giving the relevant Minister a list against which their decisions can be checked. Without such a list providing an explanation against its clauses, how can a Minister avoid accusations of corruption, malfeasance or simple neglect of duty?
I am pleased to attach my name to Amendment 83 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which refers to the integrated defence review. It is a great pity that we are forced to debate the Bill without that. It is a situation in which we find ourselves in many areas of government work. The reasons for ensuring that we have a tight interlinking between the review and the Bill have been clearly outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, so I will not go into them further.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and referred to this question. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I took the view that there were inherent problems in attempting a definition of national security and that the best definition is rendered through the Bill as it stands. Once one defines the nature of an entity, the nature of the assets covered, the nature of the acquirer concerned and the extent of control—or the definition of control for these purposes—I think one arrives at what a trigger event is. By definition, a trigger event gives rise to the question: does this trigger event cause a problem for national security?
I do not dispute that large numbers of consultees to the White Paper and speakers in our debates have said that it would be very helpful to define national security and—I would expect nothing less from her—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done as well as one is likely to do. However, I fear that Amendment 13 in particular demonstrates all the flaws with providing such a definition. I will not seek to delay our debate too long, but I will go through a number of them.
The noble Baroness asked whether critical national infrastructure was included. In Amendment 13, critical national infrastructure is included but not defined. We do not know which bits of national infrastructure are in the regime and which are outside it. We know, broadly, the sectors in the scope of the mandatory regime even if we have further detail and amendments to them today. However, if I look at what the Government have published, I find the nuclear industry, the communications industry, data infrastructure, energy infrastructure and transport infrastructure, including ports, harbours and airports. I do not find water infrastructure and food security infrastructure. That is the question and, with the greatest respect, Amendment 13 does not answer whether they are in or out.
We will come on to debate these things but it slightly introduces the concept of whether we are using the EU regulation. My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred to it. The EU regulation includes food security and water. Even if we do not follow the EU lead, which of course now we will not be doing, it at least gives us an interesting list to work from and to question why there are differences.
This brings me to Amendment 2. One of the other differences between our proposed legislation here and the EU regulation is that the EU regulation says that it proposes to safeguard against threats to security and public order. Amendment 2 proposes including public order. However, the European investment screening regime includes freedom and pluralism in the media as one of its investment screening criteria. We are not including that in the Bill. Why are we not including it? It is already in the media public interest regime inserted into the Enterprise Act by the Communications Act 2003, on which I served. I also served on the Enterprise Act Standing Committee in 2002. In that sense, we are not pursuing a public order regime here; we are pursuing a security regime.
I now come to some of the other issues with Amendment 13. Proposed new paragraph (c) talks about the characteristics of the acquirer. If you were to say to me that in my little definition of what constitutes a security risk, we have definitions of the natures of the entities and assets concerned and quite exhaustive definitions of what constitutes control, I would say that what we do not have are definitions of the nature of the acquirer, other than that, presumably, it is hostile in intent.
Amendment 13 effectively tries to give us a list of the trigger events that might give rise to an intervention. In some senses, the amendment is far too narrow. There may be all sorts of unanticipated trigger events that would not be included in primary legislation through this amendment. In other respects, it might be far too wide. Proposed new paragraph (c) talks about
“the characteristics of the acquirer, including whether it is effectively under the control, or subject to the direction, of another state”.
There are virtually no Chinese entities for which that is not true. There are many American corporations for which one could say that that was true. One could certainly say the same of a number of state-owned European companies, including EDF and those engaged in our national infrastructure. What does proposed new paragraph (c) tell us? Does it tell us whether those characteristics are a threat to national security or not? It does not tell us either of those things; all it tells us is that we must have regard to them. We know that Ministers will have regard to them because they are having regard to that kind of issue. It does not get us very far.
The same is true on three occasions, in proposed new paragraphs (a), (e) and (f), which refers to
“the likely impact of the trigger event on”.
It does not say whether the impact is adverse, beneficial or on security. Therefore, almost by definition, all that Amendment 13 tells us is that Ministers should have regard to trigger events in relation to these activities, whether they relate to data or defence capabilities. That is what Ministers are setting out to do.
In a couple of respects, Amendment 13 takes us further than we were intending to go in the Bill. The idea that non-compliance with our international obligations is, by definition, a security risk to the United Kingdom seems to be misplaced. It may be a matter on which we have obligations or be of great policy importance but one cannot construe that compliance with our international obligations in every respect is a security risk to this country.
I am afraid that one also has to look at proposed new paragraph (h), which asks
“whether the trigger event may adversely affect the safety and security of British citizens or the United Kingdom”.
It does not say “British citizens in the United Kingdom”. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of British citizens in South Africa. I was in Natal a few years ago, where there are 500,000 British passport holders, many of whom are British citizens. Are they, by definition, therefore included in this security investment regime?
All that I seek to demonstrate is that although Amendment 13 is a helpful effort, trying to define all the trigger events is bound to fail. Therefore, we should focus on making sure that the listing of entities and assets—as, for example, those published today by the Government—is as good as we can make it, and we will have some debates on that. We should define control properly—not too broadly or narrowly—and we should understand what kind of acquirers we are talking about. We will talk about whether something is foreign or domestic, state or non-state, or hostile and in what circumstances. That is where the lack of definition in the Bill is as yet more important. I refer to the question of what kind of acquirers. I hope that we will talk about that matter in later debates but, for the present, I cannot see the merit of adding Amendment 13 to the Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Let me first say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that I anticipated that she might be a little critical—in her normal, super-polite way—about the letter coming out late. There were some delays in the internal approval process and, faced with a choice of whether to send it out now or wait until after Committee, I thought that, on balance, it was best to get it out to noble Lords. I was fully aware that when I arrived today, some noble Lords might have criticisms for me, but I thought they would like to see the letter rather than not see it before we started Committee. I hope that during a lull in proceedings, Members might have a chance to read the letter—all 100-odd pages of it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as well for her amendments to Clause 1 and after Clause 5, which are Amendments 2 and 13 respectively on the Marshalled List, and I give my combined thanks to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for the proposed new clause relating to the integrated review.
I will begin with Amendment 2, which would expand the scope of the Bill to include public order and public safety, in addition to national security. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is of course right that public order and public safety are exceptionally important and some of the highest priorities for any Government. However, the Bill is about national security—nothing more, nothing less. Including public order and public safety as grounds for calling in an acquisition would be a substantial expansion in the scope of the Bill, as has been pointed out. We do not wish to see any additions to national security, to ensure that we maintain the careful balance struck in this regime between the appropriateness of government powers for intervention and ensuring that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for investment.
In addition, I note that the regime has been carefully designed with the protection of national security in mind and not public safety or public order, as important as they of course are. For example, the trigger event thresholds in Clause 8 are calibrated to protect against activity that could harm national security due to an acquisition of control over a qualifying entity. It is far from guaranteed that these would also protect against risks to public order or public safety, or that they would be the most effective or proportionate way in which to do so.
For example, a certain type of investment may give rise to a risk to public safety or public order only if an entity were bought in its entirety or if, conversely, any investment could harm public order or public safety. Of course, there may be situations in which a risk to public safety or public order is considered to give rise to a risk to national security as well. I assure Members of the Committee that, in such cases, the Secretary of State will be able to call in the acquisition in question if it meets the tests in the Bill, and will be able to take action if appropriate.
I will pick up on a specific issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. The Bill would apply where a qualified acquisition could undermine democracy in a way that amounts to a national security risk.
Amendment 13 seeks to create a non-exhaustive list of factors which the Secretary of State must take into account when assessing a risk to national security for the purposes of the Bill. It will not come as a great surprise to the Committee to hear that the Government’s position on this issue remains consistent with their position when amendments related to this one were discussed on Second Reading and in the other place.
As drafted, the Bill does not set out the circumstances in which national security is, or may be, considered at risk. That reflects long-standing government policy to ensure that national security powers are sufficiently flexible to protect the nation. It also does not include factors which the Secretary of State must or may take into account under the Bill in assessing national security risks. Instead, factors which the Secretary of State expects to take into account in exercising the call-in power are proposed to be set out in the statement provided for by Clause 3. A draft of that statement was published on introduction of the Bill, to aid noble Lords in their parliamentary scrutiny. The draft statement includes details of what the Secretary of State is likely to be interested in when it comes to national security risks. That includes certain sectors of the economy, and the types of acquisitions that may raise concern.
While it is crucial for investor confidence that there is as much transparency in the regime as possible, there is obviously a limit to how much the Government can and should disclose in that regard, given that the regime deals explicitly with national security matters. Nevertheless, the draft statement goes into some detail about the factors which the Secretary of State expects to take into account when deciding whether to call in a trigger event. The proposed new clause would instead create, alongside this statement, a non-exhaustive list of factors which the Secretary of State must have regard to when assessing a risk to national security.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have a received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
During that comprehensive answer, I think I heard the Minister say something and I would like to test whether I understood correctly. In explaining why people should not be concerned that certain parts of infrastructure are not included in the list, I think I heard the Minister say that the Bill’s call-in power is economy-wide. That suggests to me that the list of 17 issues is irrelevant because everything is on the list. In other words, anything can be called in, whether it is on the list or not. So, the list is merely indicative, but the exhaustive list is the entire economy. Could the Minister explain whether that is the correct interpretation of what I just heard?
Lord Callanan (Con)
If the acquisition in question poses a risk to national security, yes, there is the general power, but the point I was making is that, with regard to areas of political and national infrastructure, there are also separate powers in different pieces of legislation that would help to protect in those areas.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
First, I thank everyone for their contributions, which I found extremely helpful and thoughtful. In particular—this will not surprise the Minister—the Minister confirmed that it would be possible to call in any threat to democracy or anything like that. I am sorry he did not feel able to answer on when exactly the integrated review will be published, but we live in hope.
I was a bit disappointed that the Minister said that he did not want to define national security because it was long-standing government practice not to. My heart sank at that point, thinking that the Minister must have a better reason. Luckily, he did and he gave us answers other than, “It’s always been done that way”, which always seems to me a really bad answer. I am not saying I was completely persuaded by his answer, but it is a thoughtful and useful way of thinking about how we approach this. I hope it is not just because the Government would fear a JR if there are words that could be challenged over whether something should or should not have been brought in.
My fear is about the difference between the list and the call-in power. As the list will be mandatory, people will know what they have to do. Where investors, researchers or companies will probably have the biggest fear in respect of the call-in power is that they will not know in advance. I hope that we will come to the possibility of either safe harbours or a quick turnaround—though that does not get over the call-in power—because that seems the area of greatest uncertainty. We will probably have to return to that. In a sense, it is the same issue when it comes to critical national infrastructure. I guess I should leave it to those far more experienced in infrastructure to know whether those comments are helpful.
We heard a thoughtful and challenging response to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If I understood him correctly, he suggested that we start at the back end: we discuss the assets; we discuss the acquirer; we look at the definition of control—which is the end part of the Bill—and use that to define national security in the front part of the Bill. I am bemused by whether that is the right way round; it may be, but by the time we have defined it, we may have got to it. It seems an odd way round to do things to have a Bill that has “national security” in its title and then to have to work through “Well, if it is that sort of asset owned by that sort of people to that sort of percentage” to decide that it comes into the category of national security. However, I want to read more carefully what the noble Lord said because the elements appear to be there, but it seems slightly upside down. The noble Lord also said:
“We know that Ministers are going to have regard … to that kind of issue.”
If we do, what is the harm in writing them down? He may know that Ministers would have regard to those issues, but will everyone else know what they are?
I have a lot more to think about having heard the wisdom expressed today. It is possible that we will want to come back to this issue on Report—maybe in a more refined way; I am sure that those who have read the Commons debates carefully will have noticed that my words were not all of my own drafting. I thank everyone who has contributed—more sincerely, perhaps, than in other debates. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and his officials for his briefing and help. I suppose I should thank him also for his letter of 18 minutes before the start of this debate, but that has been explained adequately, so we look forward to reading that in depth. I also thank others who have been helpful on this amendment and the Bill, particularly friends from the BVCA, the ICAEW and Herbert Smith.
I think we all have a common purpose here; we all know what we want to achieve, and this is not a party-political matter. We all recognise that, last year, there was £170 billion of FDI into the UK. We have been so consistently successful in the UK at FDI that we frequently, if not for a decade or so, come second in the world league tables. We all need to do what we can not to damage our reputation as a country that is easy to invest in, with clarity and the rule of law not subject to the power of lobbying and political whims. I believe that there is unanimity in that respect.
The Bill must strike a balance between national security on the one hand and economic growth on the other. At present, it needs amending by amendments such as mine and those of fellow Peers if it is to strike that balance. Funnily enough, I read Isabel Hardman’s book over the weekend, Why We Get the Wrong Politicians. In it she quotes, anonymously, an MP who says, “You can ram Bills through in the Commons, but it’s much harder in the Lords.” I do not want to let her down.
I declare my interests. I am the senior partner of Cavendish Corporate Finance, which specialises in selling businesses, typically private businesses. Nearly all our clients are SMEs, so I have a lot of experience there. Sixty per cent or so of our buyers of our clients’ businesses are based overseas, the principal country being the United States of America, but they have included pretty much most industrial developed countries of the world, including in Asia. Cavendish is, of course, part of finnCap, the AIM nomad broker. So I have worked hard to encourage overseas investment. I was lucky enough to find myself on the business trip to China with David Cameron a few years ago.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley for his amendment, which is a helpful exploration of this issue. I rather enjoyed the way he introduced it as well, although I must say that the MP who was quoted by Isabel anonymously was clearly not in government in coalition.
I have an amendment of my own in this group; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for signing Amendment 8 in my name. I shall talk to that amendment and to Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by my noble friend, and leave Amendments 9 and 10 to others, although I think that both add a little to probe the way in which Ministers propose to structure their statement.
Amendment 8 is designed to clarify what constitutes the Secretary of State becoming aware of a trigger event. In the absence of a further definition, a Secretary of State might claim not to be aware in circumstances where any reasonable person would say, “You should have been”. It is a belt-and-braces operation.
What does it mean? I looked to the relevant comparator in the Enterprise Act. The equivalent, in Section 24 of that Act, is whether something has been made public, which is defined as:
“means so publicised as to be generally known or readily ascertainable”.
I simply borrowed that language. Amendment 8 would not say that those are the only circumstances in which the Secretary of State becomes aware, but the Secretary of State should not be able to claim that he was not aware in circumstances that have generally been made public. The purpose of this amendment is to explore what “becoming aware” really means.
Reverting back to Amendments 3 and 4 and the question of “or contemplation”, I think the drafting derives, if it derives from anywhere, from Section 33 of the Enterprise Act 2002 and the question of a merger reference. It is when the Competition and Markets Authority
“believes that it is or may be the case that … arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation”,
so contemplation exists in statute.
The guidance issued by the Competition and Markets Authority on this, published most recently in December 2020, said that “at phase 1”, which colleagues will recall is the earliest investigatory phase,
“the CMA will generally consider that ‘arrangements are in progress or in contemplation’ for the purposes of section 33 of the Act if a public announcement has been made by the merger parties concerned.”
When my noble friend defines “contemplation”, he does so accurately, but that is not how the Competition and Markets Authority has interpreted “contemplation”. It means somebody firmly considering such a thing, which Ministers may well be thinking of in this context, but it is important to make that clear in the guidance.
The Competition and Markets Authority and the Enterprise Act do this for mergers, which are defined acquisitions. Here, we are talking of a much wider scope of acquiring activity in relation to intellectual property, technology, assets, land and minority stakes. A merger control has bitten on 15% or thereabouts, in certain circumstances, but it is a much wider breadth of activity. If contemplation of such acquisitions is to be included, Ministers at the very least have to define it in the guidance in a way that corresponds to the way in which “contemplation” has been interpreted by the CMA for mergers.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, this group contains a range of amendments aimed at improving certainty which I broadly support. In particular I favour the removal of the expression “contemplation” because it is a broad expression that in my understanding, if it is not reinterpreted through guidelines, could range from not even a twinkle in the eye to serious preparations.
When I looked at this, it seemed that the first expression of “arrangements are in progress”, followed later on in the clause by
“which, if carried into effect”,
is already quite broad because it poses the notion that the “arrangements” do not have to be substantial enough to have an effect yet, only if carried through. That seems to cover quite a preliminary range of stages. Even if the Minister does not accept that proposition of deletion, is there case law that can point to what “contemplation” means? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has provided some useful indicators. I thought about “in contemplation of matrimony to a given individual”, which is accepted in wills as a means to overcome a negation of a will through marriage, but that will itself is a legal document defining intent. That would not necessarily be the case for just a random contemplation.
From my various adventures as a patent attorney I know better the interpretations of “serious preparations” or “effective and serious preparations”. They are used in patent and trademark law, which has received attention and clarification—or rather verification—in courts. If we have to use something, I prefer to use something akin to those terms, although this shows that it is quite difficult to define when a line is crossed.
As has already been raised, the intention of “contemplation” or anything else could be clarified by guidelines, but if that route is needed, is it not just simpler to delete “contemplation” and explain in guidelines what “arrangements are in progress” is intended to cover? To me, that sounded exactly like what the CMA had done: it had taken “arrangements are in progress” or “contemplation” as one and the same thing and then defined that, which implies something much further down the track than simple contemplation. I am therefore on the side of those who think that the wording just looks too vague, and if it has precedent elsewhere, it needs to be clarified that it does not mean anything more substantial. The CMA has pointed the way to showing that the word is not very much use.
I also support Amendment 8 relating to publication, which aims to give some certainty about when the Secretary of State can be regarded beyond doubt as having been aware of a trigger event. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explained, that reflects the wording of the Enterprise Act and it would help to reduce unnecessary notifications.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
Lord Vaizey of Didcot. No? We will come back to him. I call the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow some of the early speeches in this group today. Noble Lords have already started to unpick some key elements in the Bill and have shown how much further explanation and guidance is needed. I will come on to Amendments 3, 4 and 8 in a minute, but, given the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I will speak first to Amendment 9.
As it stands, given the Bill’s very broad definitions of “trigger events”, “qualifying entities and assets” and “control” of entities and assets, businesses are not clear as to those transactions which require notification and those that do not. Although the Bill is retrospective, the Secretary of State will publish a Statement only after it comes into effect, so there will be little clarity for some time. Probably the word that will be most overworked during the passage of the Bill will be “certainty”, but that is exactly what we are all looking for as we proceed. The first person who used that phrase was my noble friend Lady Bowles, but I entirely agree that we must strive for that. If we are not careful, we will have significant overnotification of irrelevant transactions by businesses in order to avoid the risk of penalties for non-notification or subsequent call-in. As a former practising lawyer, I think I can testify to that.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, there are very wide powers in the Bill, and the amendments in this group are sensible and proportionate and go some way to reining in the extent of those powers. Other noble Lords have spoken extensively about Amendments 3 and 4, which I fully support. When I first focused on that language, I simply could not believe that the Government would have drafted the basis of calling in being the Secretary of State thinking that somebody else is thinking about something. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has set out the very dangerous consequences that could have for prospective transactions.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for explaining the link under the Enterprise Act to how the CMA operates. My view is that we should not simply rely on guidance to make an unsatisfactory formulation in legislation work better. I do not believe that “in … contemplation” is the right place to start, and guidance which will go some way to reversing what the ordinary understanding of “in … contemplation” means is not a satisfactory way forward.
I also agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 8, given that the Bill, as has been pointed out, gives the Secretary of State time limits that start to run from when he becomes aware of transactions. It is just not reasonable for him ever to claim that he has no knowledge of something that is clearly in the public domain. I fully support that.
I also support Amendment 9, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke to a moment ago, because the Government need to consider the negative impact that the Bill is likely to give rise to. It is going to be very difficult to avoid the Bill having negative impacts on legitimate economic activity. It is absolutely right that the Secretary of State should actively consider that fact when he draws up his Clause 3 statement.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I believe that the volume of precautionary but unnecessary voluntary notifications is likely to be very significant, and it makes sense for the Secretary of State to ensure that his Clause 3 statement gives as many steers as possible to allow transactions to go ahead without having the Bill hanging over them. If the Secretary of State does not get this right it will result in the security and investment unit being overwhelmed by transactions, and that will do nobody any good at all.
The amendments in this group are soundly based and I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
I will try the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey again. Lord Vaizey of Didcot?
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
Yes, I am definitely here. I am sorry that I did not realise that I had to unmute myself, but I will not detain the Committee with my farcical debut in tabling amendments to a Bill. I will simply say how pleased I am to be in this group of amendments with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and how much I enjoyed his introduction to his amendment seeking to delete the word “contemplation”, which I have been delighted to support.
As my noble friend made clear, we are all here to serve a common purpose, which is to tease out of the Minister his thinking on the wording of the Bill. The Minister may well come back with a slam-dunk justification for “contemplation”. One of the advantages of the delayed entry of my contribution is the arguments put forward by other Members of the Committee about that amendment. It seems that it boils down to whether the Minister thinks that “contemplation” has a religious, business or technical meaning. If it has a technical meaning, it seems perhaps important that that is teased out in these proceedings to help people in the future.
As far as my own technical amendment is concerned—and I was delighted as well that my technical ineptitude meant that it was much more ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—it seeks to echo some of the points that I made at Second Reading. Most of us who have taken an interest in the Bill and have discussed it with numerous trade bodies and City lawyers are aware that the Government’s estimate of the number of notifications under the Bill as drafted is somewhat low. We can expect thousands of precautionary voluntary notifications to come about, at least in the first instance.
More importantly—and what the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to deal with—is that the Bill will start to have a potentially deleterious effect on foreign direct investment. As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, pointed out, we are second in the world in terms of foreign direct investment. We often proudly say that we have more of it than Germany and France combined, at least as far as Europe is concerned. Over time, more and more companies looking at potential investments and acquisitions may well start to shy away from the UK if they feel that they have to undergo certain additional hurdles.
No one of course is saying that we should not have a national security framework to protect our vital industries. But just as the Secretary of State under this clause is required in a very good way to give guidance on how he or she is exercising the call-in powers, it is important that a very real contemplation of the potential deterrent effect that the new regime may bring about is front of mind alongside the sectors and technical thinking lying behind acquisitions that might be called in. If this amendment were accepted down the line, it would ensure that future Secretaries of State kept this front of mind.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am second to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, but I am quite glad that we have the other Minister in the hot seat for this one, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. I suspect that in his previous lives he has seen more of the rough and tumble than possibly the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the rest of us put together, so will appreciate the nature of the debate introduced by the noble Lord.
For my part, I have usually been on the home team, the one paying advisers such as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, huge sums of money to do deals or sell businesses. He hinted at the mischief that could be made around this, and I am sure that the Minister will understand the nature of that mischief: it is pretty ruthless and pretty hard. This gives another tool to those who would wish to cause that mischief, and it is not in the interests of the Government or the wheels of commerce for that mischief to occur.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a really important point. It is also in the interests of the Government to sift what comes across the Government’s desk; it does not behove the department to have tens of thousands of deals flowing across its desk. The Bill is designed to pick out the big problems and issues; it is not designed to deal with sacks of chaff that will come over as well as the wheat. It is important that the objectives of these amendments are taken on board by the Government. I am sure that there are many ways of doing that, and we look forward to the Minister contemplating how “contemplation” will be defined. What is the threshold? Is it the one suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Bilimoria—is it publishing? And even then, is it in the sense that the takeover panel would require a board to respond, or is it responding to a rumour? Then we are back into mischief territory again. Some sense of that, and of how the CMA has been able to negotiate this, would be helpful.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, in his amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, is right that we need some sense of guidance and help as to how this is going to work. I go back to the point that I made at the beginning. How will this thing operate? How will the unit work? The nature of some sort of pre-emptive process seems to take on board more than a unit could normally handle. The advice that the Government have been given by your Lordships is good advice, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I welcome the Minister responding to this group to his second Bill, this one under the auspices of the business department. I am sure that he will find it an enjoyable experience. In addition to Amendment 9 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Clement-Jones, I propose probing Amendment 10 to Clause 3(3), on further considerations. Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that the Government provide guidance to minimise the potential volume of voluntary notifications and any chilling effect that the Bill may have on legitimate business activity. Businesses need to be clear when transactions require notification and when it is not needed. There may soon be a time when the department could find this very useful as well.
In assessing the potential to generate unnecessary notifications, the CBI has estimated that the Government could receive up to 10,000 notifications a year. Does the Minister recognise this amount as an outcome? How have the Government calculated possible outcomes in relation to the numbers that have arisen in other countries’ experience in similar regime circumstances? I would go along with the precautionary interpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. This will have resonance with later amendments probing the resourcing of the new investment security unit and turnaround timings for notifications.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I extend my thanks to noble Lords for their invaluable contributions to this debate, which will allow me to clarify some important aspects of the Bill. It is a particular pleasure to be debating these matters with the experienced practitioners around the table, who have direct knowledge of these topics.
I speak first to Amendments 3 and 4, relating to when the Secretary of State can call in a trigger event, as tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. These amendments would limit the use of the call-in power in respect of trigger events that have not yet occurred to those that are in progress. As drafted, as noble Lords have focused on, the Bill provides that call-in notices may be issued in relation to trigger events that are in progress or contemplation, as well as those that have already taken place. This ensures that potential national security risks can be examined at any stage of the process.
The National Security and Investment Bill draws on precedent in this approach. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, the Competition and Markets Authority and the Secretary of State may investigate mergers that are in progress or contemplation. To reassure my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Vaizey and Lady Noakes, this is a tried and tested phrase, and I will come back to that in a moment to elucidate further. Using this precedent ensures the NSI Bill is in good company. It would seem strange to limit the scope of intervention on national security if, through the Enterprise Act, an intervention is allowed on other public interest grounds where a merger is in progress or contemplation.
I said I would give some further details of this. The term “in contemplation” is not new. As I have already said, it features in the Enterprise Act 2002 and, importantly, the detailed guidance that has been issued by the Competition and Markets Authority. Let me give some examples of what this phrase means. First, a party may choose to notify the Secretary of State that they are contemplating a trigger event to get the certainty of the Secretary of State’s judgment. Secondly, a party may notify the Secretary of State that another party is contemplating a trigger event, such as if they have received, or become aware of, an offer to buy their business. We expect that in most cases, call-in notices will be issued following a notification, so these are likely not to be uncommon scenarios. Thirdly, a public announcement of a deal may have been made by one or more parties but not yet implemented. As noble Lords will be aware, there are certain publicity requirements for public takeovers, but this could also happen in relation to a private acquisition. Fourthly, a public announcement of a possible offer or a firm intention to make an offer may have been made, which would itself show that an offer was in contemplation.
Any decision by the Secretary of State to call in a trigger, even in contemplation, would, as with other uses of powers in this Bill, be subject to judicial oversight through judicial review. If the Secretary of State had merely found he had been able to read someone’s mind to know they were in contemplation of a transaction, that would be unlikely to satisfy the requirements of a judicial review. I hope I have provided sufficient explanation of the Government’s approach. It is a tried and tested phrase, which I would say is well known in the market. I hope my noble friend, therefore, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
I welcome Amendment 8 from my noble friend Lord Lansley, which seeks to partially define what is meant by the Secretary of State “becoming aware” of the publicised trigger event by replicating provisions in Section 24 of the Enterprise Act 2002. In relation to trigger events that have already taken place, the Secretary of State would only be able to give a call-in notice within six months of becoming aware of the trigger event. The Bill does not currently define what “becoming aware” means.
The Secretary of State will have a strong incentive to call in trigger events that might give rise to national security risks quickly after becoming aware of them, as he will want to address any risks that they present. Similarly, many parties will have a clear incentive to ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of their anticipated or completed trigger events so that they can achieve deal certainty. That is why we encourage parties to notify trigger events to the Secretary of State, rather than to wait for the trigger events to be detected and called in.
In general, we expect the Secretary of State’s market monitoring team to detect trigger events of interest. However, in a limited number of cases, providing for imputed awareness on the part of the Secretary of State where a trigger event has been publicised so it is generally known or readily ascertainable, may open up protracted arguments about whether the trigger event in question was adequately publicised.
I do not disagree that providing for imputed awareness on the part of the Competition and Markets Authority, as the Enterprise Act 2002 does in the context of merger control, is appropriate. But the NSI regime—this is an important point—will deal with a wider range and larger number of acquisitions, with no de minimis thresholds and a strong likelihood that many will not be comprehensively or accurately reported. This presents much greater scope for ambiguity, and for deals, particularly private transactions, to be publicised in ways that may still cause the Secretary of State to be unaware of the precise trigger event in question. This amendment therefore risks opening up the Secretary of State to greater challenge, while still allowing for substantial uncertainty for businesses and investors.
I will now speak to Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, as both relate to the content of the statement under Clause 3. These amendments seek either to add to the non-exhaustive list of the aspects that the statement may include or otherwise to regulate what can be included in the statement.
I turn first to Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I will put to one side his valid points about sector definitions, as we will return to that topic in a future group. This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the domestic and future capacity of sectors to promote research and development, and innovation, and to protect national security when preparing the statement.
Supporting the UK’s innovative industries, and research and development, are priorities for the Government. However, the purpose of the Bill is to set up an investment screening regime that is concerned solely with the protection of national security. Therefore, the Secretary of State is able to consider innovation, research and development, and future capacity—very important topics though they are—only in so far as they are relevant to national security risk, when he carries out his functions under the Bill.
Amendment 9 seeks to add to the list of the aspects that the statement may include. Of course, the Government want to promote legitimate economic activity and to minimise unnecessary voluntary notifications. The purpose of this statement is to set out how the Secretary of State expects to use the call-in power. I am afraid that these amendments are not suitable for the statement. The statement looks forwards to future use of the call-in power, not to highlight actions already taken. It sets out how the Secretary of State expects to use the call-in power, and it is not intended to serve as an indicator of wider government action in relation to the regime. It is crucial that the acquirers can look at the statement and that it assists them in coming to a judgment about whether to voluntarily notify. With these points, I hope that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful analysis, but I must admit that I am not wholly reassured as a result. I feel as though we have gone in a spiral of logic and I think we ended up where we began, in a cloud of uncertainty. In particular, I thought the Minister’s arguments on Amendment 9, that the statement was forward-looking not backward-looking, were very circular. It all depends on how the statement is constructed. It can be made both forward-looking and backward-looking simply in the way the Bill is amended. So the argument there was extremely circular.
I will read Hansard extremely carefully, but to me the question about the Secretary of State being unaware means that the Government have decided that the net is going to be extremely wide. We have assurances on the sifting process, but in the end everything falls in until it is thrown out. That, I think, is what worries quite a lot of us. The contemplation point may have some precedent, but the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made the point that these transactions are not just mergers but intellectual property licences, know-how transfer, asset sales and a whole range of things. Is the merger regime fit for purpose for this broad range of transactions?
That is all I want to say at this stage. I thought the Minister valiantly tried to justify the current wording of the Bill, but I do not think he succeeded.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I have had the pleasure of debating these matters at a meeting prior to this Committee, and I must confess that I was probably the author of the fishing analogy, which I may live to regret. The point is that when you are dealing with matters of national security, and these matters are so important, it is perfectly appropriate to use a large net to put the fish in, but then it becomes very important that the way your screening unit works removes fish from that net as expeditiously and efficiently as possible.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, he almost certainly has much greater experience than all of us in this Room combined in advising on transactions. For the avoidance of doubt, sadly the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has not paid me any fees in any matter, as far as I am aware, but I travel in hope. I have to disappoint my noble friend Lord Vaizey, because it does not look like the Minister will accept his very first amendment in whole. On the other hand, I do not think he has provided a slam-dunk answer, as he hoped, to reject Amendments 3 and 4 in particular.
We are very lucky to have the benefit of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s experience and wisdom from the Enterprise Act 2002, and I accept that that is where it came from. However, I do not quite see why there should be a cut-and-paste approach. The CMA will be dealing with a relatively small number of mergers of largely public companies. This will be dealing with all sorts, from minority investments of a few thousand pounds in 15% stakes to IP and—forgive me—a completely different kettle of fish. Therefore, the last thing one wants to do is to have to rely on a traditional review to see this sorted out. That would be hugely expensive and singularly inappropriate for most of the transactions envisaged, which will be of a much larger volume than the CMA and the legislation were structured to deal with. I very much hope that the Minister will have a chance to reflect on this and that he will be persuaded in particular by the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—arrangements in progress must be strong enough. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Vaizey that substitute “voidable” for “void”, is intended to ensure that transactions are not automatically void. Instead, the Government would have power to declare a transaction (or parts of it) void if it gave rise to national security concerns.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
Second time lucky. I am not aware that an amendment like this was tabled in the other place when the Bill was being considered. However, Amendment 5 and the subsequent amendments are fairly clear, in that they substitute the word “voidable” for “void”. The amendments are designed to ensure that transactions are not automatically voided if a company fails to comply with mandatory notification procedures. I hope to set out in my opening remarks why that should be the case.
As far as I am aware, the Government have tried to make it clear that they could retrospectively accept a notification, and therefore in effect ensure that a transaction was not voided, so this amendment seeks to realise what I think is the Government’s ambition. Amending the sanctions in this way would therefore be consistent with their position and would show that the power to unwind a transaction to make it void would be a last resort used only in the most exceptional of cases. I accept, of course, that it is important to have significant sanctions in place where a transaction subject to the mandatory notification obligation is completed without first obtaining approval from the Secretary of State, but such sanctions need to be workable in practice—they need to be credible. Treating such an error as to make a transaction automatically void—as currently envisaged in Clause 13—would in reality give rise to a host of practical difficulties that would make it unworkable in practice.
I also venture to suggest that the approach is inconsistent with other established regimes in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, the US and Canada, where a problematic transaction is not automatically void but the authorities are able to step in and issue unwinding orders for parts or all of a specific transaction. It would be far preferable to provide for a similar “voidable” power, giving the Government the power to declare such a transaction—or parts of it—void if it gave rise to national security concerns but not automatically making that the case. This would mean that the Government could consider the circumstances of each transaction and provide workable steps to take to unwind the transaction where that is considered necessary because of national security concerns.
Declaring a transaction void is effectively to treat it as if it never happened. However, the acquisition which has given rise to the exercise of the voiding may be part of a much wider transaction. For example, as part of the acquisition, the acquirer will have paid consideration to the sellers as well. Following the acquisition, the acquirer may have invested in the business, and third parties may have contracted in good faith with the acquirer in relation to the business. Declaring a transaction automatically void due to breach of the standstill obligation could result in a situation where several parties—many of whom may have had no culpability at all for the failure to notify—are left in limbo and may also suffer financial losses as a result. I submit again that the proposed approach seems unworkable in practice, which is implied in the Government’s own approach but not in the Bill.
Will the Minister also consider a situation where the parties to a transaction have selected a law other than English law as the governing law of the agreement? Is it possible that a foreign court would continue to treat a non-notified transaction as valid? Would that not lead to extraordinary uncertainty? While these provisions will have full force and effect in relation to acquisitions governed by English law, I do not see how they can apply if the transaction is governed by US or other law. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in this Committee, so I draw attention to my entry in the register of your Lordships’ House. I wish to speak to Amendments 41 and 44 in this group, which I have tabled with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for which I am extremely grateful. I am also grateful to the Law Society for its assistance.
The two amendments build on remarks made by my noble friend Lord Vaizey in moving Amendment 5. Amendments 41 and 44 are to Clause 13, which is entitled “Approval of notifiable acquisition”. I am afraid I have to argue that that title is, at best, ingenuous because, under the wording of the clause as presently drafted, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to register his disapproval; instead, his silence is all that is needed. I argue that, from the point of view of providing certainty for investors, bankers and—last, but by no means least—companies, their management and employees, this is not good enough. Furthermore, this silence inhibits a proper degree of parliamentary scrutiny, making it more likely that cases can be slipped through under the radar. It will also prevent Parliament having the opportunity of examining how practice may be shifting as regards preserving the delicate balance that this Bill seeks to create and maintain between protecting national security and providing maximum safety for investors’ property rights.
We need the spotlight to be shone on those tricky areas so that decisions taken by the Secretary of State have to be justified openly and publicly. That is what Amendments 41 and 44 seek to achieve. Famously, TS Eliot wrote:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
In this difficult policy area, a whimper is insufficient. I see no reason why in an open society the Secretary of State should not be under the maximum pressure to provide a clear, concise and public declaration of his decision and the reasons for it. Our society, together with our business and investment community, are entitled to no less, so I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept these two amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is very difficult to follow the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Hodgson, especially after the quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, of which I think we must be very mindful. I support both in their very similar endeavours, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in his Amendments 41 and 44, which I have signed.
The case has been very clearly made that automatic voidness creates excessive legal uncertainty for investors and lenders. The proposed wording would mean no automatic voidness but a power of the Secretary of State to impose it. A voidable power would give the Government power to declare a transaction or part of it void if it gave rise to national security concerns and ensure that workable steps can be taken to unwind the transaction to the extent considered necessary. While it is clearly important to apply significant sanctions when a transaction subject to the mandatory notification obligation is completed without first obtaining approval from the Secretary of State, such sanctions must also be workable in practice. Treating such a transaction as automatically void, as envisaged in Clause 13, will give rise to a host of practical difficulties and is simply not workable in practice.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the voiding of a commercial transaction that has already taken place is a massive penalty for those who have entered into the transaction. Parliament should be very wary of legislating in this way if it is not absolutely necessary. I believe that, as drafted, the Bill goes beyond what is necessary.
A transaction may not have been notified where the parties to it did not believe that they were covered by the legislation, perhaps relying on a misinterpretation of the statement that will come out under Clause 3 or perhaps a misunderstanding of advice received from the investment security unit about the transaction. These could occur in situations of good faith, yet the Act is capable of inflicting the penalty of voiding the transaction even in such an instance.
I do not doubt that voiding a transaction may well be the right result if the transaction really does engage national security, but even then it is not necessarily the case that every transaction should be voided. We have to understand that Clause 13 is one of the parts of the Bill that will drive unnecessary voluntary notification, which I know that the Government will wish to avoid. The amendments in this group are helpful and proportionate and I hope that the Government can accept one of the formulations.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, we have heard from a chartered accountant, a banker and a lawyer all in unanimity; it is very worrying. As I understand it, this approach is consistent with some regimes in certain countries. The idea of having a transaction fully voided would lead to many innocent third parties being in limbo. Would it not be better that a transaction or certain parts of it were voidable, as some parts of the transaction may not be in any way relevant to national security. That gives HM Government more flexibility. By being voidable, it allows for negotiation, discussion and parts perhaps to be voided and not the whole thing.
Once again, insisting that the transaction could be voided in legislation will simply deter overseas investors and buyers because it is a huge amount of uncertainty to have such a black and white separation. The amendments still allow for the dictum of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in respect of Clause 15 of non-notified acquisitions being able to be retrospectively validated rather than retrospectively invalidated. Giving the Government maximum flexibility seems a wise and good thing to seek.
Lord Fox (LD)
I want to pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, finished: it seems almost punitively value-destroying to have a mandatory process. There will clearly be times when voiding will be the inevitable consequence, but there are others when a retrospective approval would be best for the country, the value, the shareholders, the employees and all the other third parties connected to that business. To lock the Government into auto-voiding seems unnecessary. It may be designed to put people off from not reporting in future but, by their nature, those who do not report probably are not aware of these sanctions, so it is unlikely to have that deterrent effect.
On Amendments 41 and 44, the “Waste Land” amendments, certainty comes up again, as predicted. All they do is ask for a clear signal rather than something simply not happening being the signal. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised external messaging, but such clarity would also help build a body of case law which would help future practitioners understand what they should and should not do. Having that case law and those examples clearly delineated by a full stop rather than the whimper that is currently enshrined in law would be a much better way of exposing such cases for the textbook.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for these probing amendments relating to the penalty of deeming mergers and acquisitions void in the event of proper notifications and subsequent assessments by the Secretary of State not having taken place. The Minister will need to explain how this will work. Most of the amendments in this group focus on Clause 13, “Approval of notifiable acquisition”, in Chapter 3. Subsection (3) states that:
“A notifiable acquisition, in relation to which a final order has been made, that is completed otherwise than in accordance with the final order, is void.”
I appreciate the view of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that there could be alternative outcomes to certain elements or aspects of any deal. Has the Minister considered whether the Secretary of State could publish guidance on how the mechanisms of deeming non-compliant transactions void would work in practice? Clarity for SMEs would be most helpful.
The ability for transactions to be deemed void where they have not been approved by the Secretary of State, have not been notified or are non-compliant with any final order could have large repercussions. Clause 15, “Requirement to consider retrospective validation without application”, and Clause 16, “Application for retrospective validation of notifiable acquisition”, raise the issue of retrospection in relation to the legally void provision. Could transactions that took place in the past, even up to five years previously, be immediately deemed void? If the first transaction in a chain were deemed void, that would leave the legal rights and entitlements of all subsequent transactions’ parties in total confusion. There could be conditions in a transaction that came to fruition or were exercisable over a length of time, with these events deemed the trigger events rather than the merger itself. Those elements would have had impact at the inception of any M&A activity. An impossible series of rights, entitlements and developments would have to be unwound, which would cause great legal uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, also raised the issue of other jurisdictions or cross-jurisdictions. Have these circumstances, among the many others, been considered in the provision of this power? What are the legal implications for the process where the possible imposition of a transaction to be void is under consideration? Have the Government made plans to publish guidance in this area, even though they may consider that circumstantial evidence may make such guidance highly speculative? Many speakers have found the provision impractical and unworkable.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise for my noble friend Lord Grimstone, who has had to attend a debate on Kenya in the Chamber. I am afraid you are stuck with me for this one, which is obviously disappointing for the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed.
We understand the aim of this group of amendments, which is to convert the automatic voiding provisions in Clause 13 into powers to void. Further amendments in this group then seek consistency with associated provisions in the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Hodgson, for bringing together this grouping. I will first address the purpose of the automatic voiding provisions, before turning to the amendments in detail.
Notifiable acquisitions are those that occur within the most sensitive areas of the economy—sensitive enough that the Secretary of State judges that he must be notified and must clear an acquisition to proceed before it can complete. As such, it is essential that there are clear incentives for compliance with the regime and that any national security risks arising from these sensitive acquisitions being completed without approval are mitigated, as far as possible. Noble Lords present will understand that any Government’s first preference in legislating to create requirements on persons, particularly where the matters relate to serious issues such as national security, is that compliance with such requirements is incentivised and that we do not merely rest on the threat of weighty enforcement.
The automatic voiding provisions in Clause 13(1) mean that there is no way around these requirements and that parties who wish to evade the requirements are unable to complete acquisitions which must be approved by the Secretary of State and have not been. This ensures that the regime mitigates a wealth of national security risks, without the Secretary of State ever being engaged. It is efficient and effective government, and a key tool in protecting our national security.
However, voiding is not a sanction; it is instead the logical implication of not complying with a mandatory regime that concerns only the most sensitive acquisitions. Clause 13(3) ensures that any notifiable acquisition in respect of which a final order has been made, which has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the final order, is also void.
I understand that the voiding provisions have raised some concerns, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, that the unaware may be unduly or adversely affected, which would otherwise lead to significant costs for parties who are affected by voiding. I hope that I can offer them the following reassurance. First, those who have been materially affected by the voiding of an acquisition, including sellers and third parties, not just acquirers, may apply for retrospective validation of the acquisition using Clause 16. If a valid and complete application is received, the Secretary of State will have up to 30 working days to decide whether to issue a call-in notice. If he does not issue a call-in notice, for example if there are no national security risks involved, he must validate the acquisition retrospectively. The impact of retrospective validation is that the notifiable acquisition is to be treated as having been approved by the Secretary of State and is, accordingly, not void. Anyone materially affected by the voiding, including those unaware of the requirements, is therefore able to secure retrospective validation, such that the acquisition was always valid in law.
Secondly, there are concerns around what happens if a significant purchase of shares in a publicly listed company is caught by the provision. Usually, for significant purchases, parties are advised by a law firm of high repute. I can also assure the Committee that, where the acquisition involves a takeover, BEIS works closely with the Takeover Panel to ensure the there are no issues in the interaction with the takeover code.
Thirdly, there are murmurings that the voiding provisions might create uncertainty. I do not think that Clause 13 could be clearer and more succinct about the effects of not obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State before completing a notifiable acquisition.
Let me now respond to the heart of the proposition of the amendments in this grouping—that voiding should be exercisable as a power by the Secretary of State, rather than being automatic. I am afraid this raises a number of issues. It is, first, unclear why and when the power to void would be exercised. The Secretary of State is already able to order the unwinding or divesting of acquisitions, following assessment as part of the final order. Why would he need to void the acquisition if it can simply be unwound or divested? Would it be intended that the Secretary of State would decide whether to void the acquisition prior to the assessment? If so, on what basis would he make that decision?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that some countries allow voiding? He pointed out some that do not, but some do. Does he agree that if a transaction is voidable, it could still be declared void?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
If the legislation says a transaction is voidable, it could still be declared void.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, but we are arguing it should be declared void by automatic obligation of statute, rather than it being a power the Secretary of State could exercise. I have just explained that.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
Although I mentioned it at Second Reading, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. Also, as noble Lords have done throughout Committee, I thank all the trade bodies that have been so helpful in advising noble Lords on some of our amendments and, particularly, for me, Veronica Roberts at Herbert Smith Freehills. Just for the record, may I also say how delighted I am that it is the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, responding on my amendment rather than the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone? I had a touch of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, on my previous amendment, and now, to have the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, frankly, my cup runneth over.
I thank all noble Lords who have supported my amendment. Without wishing to pick any winners, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, put it most succinctly when she spoke of the automatic voiding penalty. She channelled her inner football commentator by saying the automatic voiding was a “massive penalty”. I think that is right. I also point to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, who has been very good at introducing me to the mysteries of Lords amendments and has marshalled me extremely well. These amendments pose an unanswerable question to the Minister, because if they are accepted and a transaction can be made voidable, it can, by definition, be voided. It is just not automatic. It ensures voiding can apply where the Government think that is the only solution with a transaction that has not been notified.
In the real world, it is unlikely that a mandatory notification would not be made. The tenor of most of the speeches that have been made during the passage of this Bill is that the Government should expect far more notifications than they have estimated so far. The Minister is quite right to say that anyone transacting in the midst of a mandatory area is likely to have some high-powered lawyers advising them.
What I would say in response to the Minister’s excellent response to this debate is that there are certain points that I feel have not been addressed. One is obviously going back to the massive penalty phrase. If you void a transaction where it is part of a wider transaction, how do you go about unwinding it? Would there not be other, more suitable punishments than simply voiding the entire transaction? Indeed, as the Minister indicated, there will be plenty of people—shareholders, for example—who will be unduly punished by the automatic voiding provisions. Surely there must be alternative punishments.
However, by definition, given that you can effectively retrospectively apply to the Government if you have failed to comply with the mandatory notification requirements, you are, as my noble friend Lord Leigh pointed out, effectively making your transaction voidable. You are giving the Government the chance not to void the transaction, yet by introducing an automatic voiding penalty, the Government have precluded themselves from punishing the parties who failed to comply with their requirement for mandatory notification. Giving themselves flexibility by allowing themselves potentially to void a transaction also gives them the flexibility to impose other punishments.
There are other dogs that have not barked in this debate. In other amendments that we have been debating, previous legislation has been cited as an example that has guided the Bill—but there is no similar sanction, as far as I am aware, in any other business-facing legislation in this country. I hope the Minister will not mind me teasing him a bit at the end because I suspect I know—I think I am right in saying—where his sympathies lie in terms of the great debate of the past decade between Brexit and remain. Is there not an irony in him citing the great example of the French and the Germans but ignoring the far more practical Anglo-Saxon common-law tradition evidenced in the US, Canada and Australia? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
Before moving on, notwithstanding the successful last-second intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I remind noble Lords that if they wish to speak after the Minister they should email the clerk. We now come to Amendment 6.
Amendment 6
“(2A) For the purposes of this Act, the following shall not be taken into account when considering whether a trigger event may give rise to a risk to national security— (a) adverse effects on levels of employment in the United Kingdom, or a part thereof, except that adverse effects on the employment of one or more specific categories of employee may be taken into account,(b) the existence or extent of opportunities for persons resident or established in the United Kingdom to invest in, or make sales in or into, another jurisdiction, or(c) the protection from competition of business activities carried on in the United Kingdom or business activities carried on by persons resident or established in the United Kingdom, except to the extent that such business activities contribute materially to national security, or are likely to do so in the future.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that certain factors—namely employment effects, reciprocal investment or trading opportunities, and the desire to protect UK business from international competition—cannot be taken into account in assessing whether a trigger event would give rise to a national security risk.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to move Amendment 6 and I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for lending their support to this amendment. I also thank the Law Society of England for its help in drafting the amendment, and I very much look forward to my noble friend Lord Callanan keeping up his good efforts this afternoon in responding to this debate.
We have not so far succeeded in coming up with a definition of how to limit our understanding of a definition of national security, so I shall approach it by a different route, which is to try to understand, define and limit what constitutes a trigger event. In the view of practitioners, as expressed by the Law Society of England, this amendment is needed as it would ensure that “national security” in the Bill will not be conflated with other issues of political or industrial concern which cannot be seen to relate to security but would still be flexible enough to allow for genuine national security threats to be deemed to be trigger events. I suppose this relates to my noble friend’s earlier comment in summing up a previous debate when he said that trigger events or national security relate to the whole economy, not just parts of it.
The purpose of Amendment 6 is to understand what constitutes a trigger event that would be deemed to lead to or constitute a security risk. It is in terms of being critical to investor confidence in the United Kingdom that the new regime is seen to be focused clearly on national security concerns and free of industrial or electoral influences not relating to national security. Therefore, the Bill would benefit from a clause such as this, explicitly stating the factors that should not be taken into account in assessing whether a trigger event would give rise to a national security risk. I set out here that the factors that would be excluded would cover any,
“adverse effects on levels of employment in the United Kingdom”,
or,
“the existence or extent of opportunities for persons resident or established in the United Kingdom to invest in, or make sales in or into, another jurisdiction”,
and the desire to protect UK businesses from international competition.
I accept that the amendment might not be necessary if we had established a definition for national security but, given that we have not achieved that, I am keen to press this as a probing amendment and include a clause such as this in the Bill, thereby making clear that certain factors such as employment effects, reciprocal investment and trade, and protectionist connections would not be deemed to be trigger events. With that brief explanation, I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, with whom I am often in agreement—although, I am afraid, not in this case.
In my little over a year in your Lordships’ House I have noticed a strong tendency for Members to sign up to speak on amendments that they support and not those that they oppose. However, this has a clear and damaging effect, and slants the debate. Proponents get to put their case and the Government attempt to bat it away, often on merely technical grounds, and only one side of the argument is put. That sets the tone of the debate beyond just that day; it unbalances it. There is also the issue that, on Bills such as this, as a noble Lord said earlier, we often have an accountant followed by a banker followed by a lawyer. That is not a representative sample of society or opinion. It is for that reason that I signed up to speak on the amendment and express my strong opposition. I will be brief but clear.
The earlier groups of amendments on which I spoke, including Amendment 2, sought to define the national security on which the Bill seeks to allow the Government to act. The amendment does the very opposite by seeking to restrict the Government’s hand. The former amendments were “have regard to” amendments. This is a “shall not be taken into account” amendment. It is extremely ideological and seeks to assert the primacy of the market and the interests of business—which, by definition, given the nature of the Bill, is almost certainly big business, giant multinational companies—over what might be regarded as a key concern of the Government regarding employment. That is also, I would strongly argue, a national security issue—certainly a public order issue—with regard to Amendment 2.
The market is a human creation, not some natural process or action such as photosynthesis or the tides. To say that the market should have primacy over the well-being of society is a profoundly ideological argument that would have been very strange for most of the 20th century and reflects a particular neoliberal political position. Again, we are back to talking about investor confidence and the idea that we have to be a competitive nation—the very ideology that led us to the 2007-08 financial crash.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I respect the opinions of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but she will not be surprised to find that I do not agree with a single word of what she said. I agree with the sentiments behind Amendment 6, but I expect that the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary because the items listed in it could never be considered to be national security considerations. If I am correct in that assumption, I hope that he will make a very clear Dispatch Box statement to that effect, with no hedging about or qualification.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I put my name to this amendment, but somehow along the way I was left off the speakers’ list, so I am glad to have scraped back on again. My noble friend Lady McIntosh made the case for the amendment clearly and decisively, so I will merely sweep up and say that, at Second Reading, there was general agreement that we were seeking a balance between the fact that the country had to be protected from overseas powers gobbling up key companies in key sectors, yet at the same time keeping our economy open for inward investment, particularly in the tech sector, where we have such a worldwide reputation. We all agreed then, and agree this afternoon, that that is the difficult balance that we seek to strike.
Of course, once the Bill passes into law, Parliament’s opportunity to examine and, where necessary, recalibrate that balance will be limited, to say the least. When the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talks about the dangers of the markets, I think she is headed in completely the wrong direction, with due respect. My concern about the Bill is about not markets but mission creep: that we will end up with the Bill doing nothing that was anticipated when it was first drafted.
Like my noble friend Lady Noakes, I have no doubt that the Minister and his officials will say they have a very clear idea of how the provision will be used, and there is no question of mission creep under the Bill. As we all know, Ministers, parties and policies change, and there are serious dangers if we do not accept some form of amendment such as this.
First, there is the issue of employment under paragraph (a). How easy is it to see a future Secretary of State, faced with some politically unhelpful headlines about unemployment following a potential takeover, being tempted to press the national security button to avoid some disobliging comments? Under paragraph (c), we should never underestimate the lobbying powers of big companies. Hell hath no fury like a big company that finds its market invaded by a smaller, nimbler competitor offering a better, cheaper product or service. The smaller competitor, perhaps growing faster than its internally generated funds can support, may need to find outside capital, and some of that outside capital may come from overseas—it is likely to. How convenient for the big company if it can lobby the Secretary of State to block funding for the growth of its successful smaller rival on the grounds of national security.
Those are just two examples where mission creep might occur; there are plenty of others. I hope the Government will understand that the purpose behind this amendment is to make sure that the Bill continues to do what it says on the tin.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because I think that I understand its intentions entirely. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in their elucidation of what the amendment is about. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has entirely misunderstood the essence of this amendment.
Earlier in Committee today we were trying to get some sort of definition of national security, and I think that the noble Lord, Lansley, in his inimitable way, managed to unpick that rather successfully. As far as national security is concerned, it is a mission impossible to try to carry everything in one bundle in a definition. This tries the other way on and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, it is designed to avoid mission creep. It is trying to make sure that the definition of national security is not used as a blanket term to cover damage to the economy and society. It has the huge benefit of simplicity; it tells us what is not in national security rather than what is in it. It clarifies that certain factors such as employment, reciprocal investment or trading opportunities, and protectionism will not be taken into account when assessing national security. If there was mission creep in the way that was described, it would undermine legal certainty and damage investor confidence in the way that we have heard from a number of noble Lords.
The Government have kept assuring us that this is not, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, a national interest Bill but a national security Bill. That is exactly what this amendment is trying to ensure—that we do not have that all-encompassing national security definition used by lobbyists or others to try to bring things into the net. I have seen it happen in the United States. The CFIUS is absolutely that kind of spider-like operation that brings in all sorts of spurious transactions. I very much hope that we will keep this provision absolutely focused, and this amendment is a very good way of doing it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we support the approach of this amendment. As we have all made clear, the new regime must focus on protecting national security. The clue is in the title of the Bill. The definition of national security has to take best advice from across the Government about the threats and behaviour of our adversaries.
While I hope the Government will monitor the impact of the Act on technological investment, innovation and SMEs—which I hope a different part of the Government is actively supporting—those interests, along with employment, investment and competition, cannot and should not trump national security, albeit that I hope that the Government would consider mitigating any detrimental domestic impact of placing security first if that were needed.
Clearly, concerns about any political pressure, rather than any disregard for the issues listed, give rise to this amendment. The tone and the purpose of it are ones that we share.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate and thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling the amendment. It seeks to clarify that certain factors, namely employment effects, reciprocal investment or trading opportunities and the desire to protect UK businesses from international competition, cannot be taken into account in assessing whether a trigger event would give rise to national security risks. I was surprised to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh are now differing on some things. That is most unusual; it is something to be encouraged for the future.
My noble friend articulates a reasonable concern here: that a regime used to screen investment for national security purposes could be used to screen investments more widely. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State, in his opening speech at Second Reading in the other place, argued that the Bill should include an industrial strategy test—I was therefore surprised to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, supporting this amendment.
As such, I have some sympathy with the aims of this amendment. I can, however, reassure my noble friend that the Bill is about protecting national security, nothing more and nothing less. The Bill does not set out the circumstances in which national security is, or may be, considered at risk. As I said on previous groups, this reflects long-standing government policy to ensure that national security powers are sufficiently flexible to protect the nation. The Bill also does not include factors which the Secretary of State must or may take into account when assessing national security risks. Instead, factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account in exercising the call-in power are proposed to be set out in the statement that we have provided a draft of and is provided for by Clause 3.
The draft statement, published upon introduction of the Bill, includes details of what the Secretary of State is likely to be interested in when it comes to national security risks. This includes certain sectors of the economy, and the types of acquisitions that may raise concern. It does not currently state anything which the Secretary of State intends not to take into account with regard to national security. This is a conscious choice. If the Secretary of State were to start listing areas of the economy or types of acquisition that he considered unlikely to present national security concerns, I suspect that this would result in a long and dense document of little use. We judge that it is therefore more helpful for businesses and investors to set out where the Secretary of State is more, rather than less, likely to use the call-in power.
I understand, however, the concern that without a definition extraneous factors may be taken into account. My reassurance for my noble friend comes from the courts. Were the Secretary of State to seek to use the powers in the Bill for a purpose beyond national security, his decisions could be challenged in the courts through judicial review and could not be successfully upheld. It is with this judicial oversight in mind that the Secretary of State is constrained in delivering the purpose of the Bill. I am therefore confident that the Bill as currently drafted contains sufficient safeguards against inappropriate use of the regime, and that the Government are already providing a good amount of information for parties affected by the regime on its likely areas of focus.
I hope that my explanation, taken together with these points, provides sufficient reassurance to my noble friend, and that she therefore feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord, Clement-Jones, for their eloquent support.
Like the Minister, I am slightly baffled by the sudden lack of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, with whom I have enjoyed a deeply cordial relationship. I obviously take issue with a number of issues to which she referred, not least setting out the importance to the economy of foreign investment, which is well established and repeated in the national security and investment government response published, I understand, this week. I also take issue with the fact that I am not a great expert on the financial crash, although I seemed to lose an awful lot of the small amount of money I had invested in the stock market. What is the saying about how to make a small fortune in the stock market? I have forgotten, but, anyway, that burnt my fingers.
I believe that the start of the financial crash was actually in the US, with the selling of mortgages, both in the US and here, for a greater value than the value of the property, and a lot of grief was caused as a result. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Callanan feels that the Bill is still perfectly formed and fit for purpose, but I beg to differ. My noble friend referred to the statement in Clause 3, but we are told that the Secretary of State only “may” publish such a statement. Clearly, it would be immensely helpful to have such a statement at this stage, if possible, to give an indication of the direction of travel.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the timeframe after a trigger event in which the Secretary of State can make a call-in notice from five years to two.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 7 shortens the period in which the Secretary of State may give a call-in notice following a trigger event, under the provisions of Clause 2, from five years to two years. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support.
It was interesting that, when giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, on 24 November, Michael Leiter—perhaps related to Felix Leiter—head of national security and the committee on foreign investment at Skadden, Arps, the major US law firm, described the Bill as
“a rather seismic shift in the UK’s approach to review of investment.”—[Official Report, Commons, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24/11/20; col. 46.]
He stressed the importance of clarity in what was proposed, given the criminal penalties that are now being introduced and that there is no interim period for familiarisation.
This amendment and all the others that I have tabled, two of which I have already spoken to, aim to test both the clarity and, importantly, the practicality of the proposals that the Bill contains. I stress that practicality because, there can be a danger, when Bills like this are in Committee, of focusing on legal terminology and overlooking the flesh and blood consequences of the decisions that Parliament is about to take. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I spend a moment on two real-life examples, because they give useful background to this and my other amendments.
Members of the Committee may be aware that I am chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the House. In December 2019, our committee was notified of the laying and simultaneous making of two statutory instruments: SI 2019/1490 and SI 2019/1515. The full title of SI 2019/1490 is the Public Interest Merger Reference (Gardner Aerospace Holdings Ltd. and Impcross Ltd.) (Pre-emptive Action) Order 2019. The full title of SI 2019/1515 is the Public Interest Merger Reference (Mettis Aerospace Ltd.) (Pre-emptive Action) Order 2019. These were the first referrals under the new regime with reduced thresholds, and this was the very first time that the Government used pre-emptive powers; that is to say that they were seeking to stop a takeover before any offer was made, rather than reacting to an offer once made. These two statutory instruments therefore give us a glance into the world that the Bill takes us into.
I shall say a couple of words about the protagonists. Gardner Aerospace, the predator and potential acquirer, is based in Derby. It was acquired by Chinese investors in 2017 for some £300 million and has since made a number of acquisitions in the aerospace sector. Mettis Aerospace, one of the targets, is based in Redditch and has sales of £86 million, which is above the old threshold. It is substantially profitable—it made about £9 million of profit before tax—and has some 500 employees. Its customer list reads like a who’s who of world aviation and its two leading customers are Airbus and Boeing.
Mettis’s roots can be traced back to the early days of British aviation. For those who like a historical note to our debates, it produced the framework that held in place the bouncing bombs under the Lancasters flown by Guy Gibson and the men of 617 Squadron in their successful raid on the Ruhr dams in the Second World War. A few years later the company produced the fan blades for Frank—later Sir Frank—Whittle’s first jet engine.
Mettis is owned 25% by the management and 70% by a private equity firm called Stirling Square Capital Partners. The fund through which the investment is being made is based in Luxembourg. Stirling is based in London but, judging by its list of partners, has a strong orientation towards continental Europe. The investment will almost certainly have been made on behalf of third-party investors who have pooled their funds for Stirling to manage. Such investors may very well come from all over the world and this is unlikely to be their only investment in the UK, so if they perceive the treatment of any one of their UK investments as being inequitable, there will inevitably be a ripple effect on their readiness to invest in the UK generally. Mettis made it clear to the Competition and Markets Authority and the Government that it had not put itself up for sale. Gardner’s approach had not been sought and was regarded as being what in the trade is known as a fishing expedition. The outcome was that Gardner pulled away on 27 February, following a heavily redacted CMA report published on 13 February.
The story of Impcross is quite different. It is a much smaller company based in Stroud, Gloucestershire, with a turnover of only £11.9 million, so it would not have been eligible under the old thresholds. It lost money in the year to 30 June 2019, but only a small amount—£350,000—and, significantly, it is controlled by one person. Its accounts reveal a person of significant control, or PSC, holding between 50% and 75% of its shares. That has been built up over a lifetime and it would not be unreasonable if that director now wished to realise the fruits of his efforts. If the state stepped in to prevent that—we cannot be certain exactly what happened—without offering any alternative solution, it seems a hard moral choice. Either way, it all took a lot longer to resolve and it was only on 10 September that Gardner withdrew.
In speaking to Amendments 41 and 45 a few minutes ago, I argued that it was not good enough that, under the provisions in Clause 13, all the Secretary of State had to do to void an acquisition was to say nothing. For Mettis, this was not a problem: the company was clear that the approach was not welcome. For Impcross, there were 10 months of uncertainty with the Secretary of State appearing to set up a sword of Damocles but apparently never having to cut the string. That cannot be the right way to provide certainty for investors in the UK tech sector.
I have one final point. In our debate a moment ago on Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the Committee expressed concerns about the degree of parliamentary scrutiny of developing practice in this sensitive area. The two cases I have referred to were authorised by a statutory instrument. Statutory instruments are not amendable, and it would seem vanishingly unlikely that either House of Parliament would seek to reject one—the nuclear option—so any scrutiny of future practice will be at a very high level, and even that scrutiny will be ex-post. Both the above SIs were made and laid on the same day, 6 December 2019, at a time when Parliament was in any case not sitting because of the general election. It would be worthwhile if the Minister could confirm whether in this brave new world of these pre-emptive actions, each would still be the subject of a separate SI, so affording at least some degree of parliamentary oversight.
I turn now to the details of Amendment 7. I have tabled it because giving the Secretary of State the ability to unpick a merger or takeover after five years is to ignore the real world. Acquisitions are made with a view that two plus two will make five and that overall, they will be profit-accretive. In the event, that promise is often not achieved, but that is the idea that people set out with and to do that, changes have to take place at various levels.
First, the acquiring company will want to ensure that the financial performance of the two companies are managed on the same basis so that one company’s financial reporting systems will disappear. Secondly, it is inevitable that in any acquisition, there is extreme nervousness among the staff of the two companies about winners and losers in the new configuration. That nervousness can be reduced by an exchange of staff between the two companies, so that they get to know each other. Thirdly, it is unlikely that it will be cost-effective to maintain two separate research and development facilities, so they will be merged as one. Fourthly, marketing and sales teams are likely to be combined to broaden and deepen product range and market reach. Finally, it may be concluded that the new entity would be more effective and profitable if it operated from a single site, so one facility will be closed and the site sold.
Within five years, all of these steps could have taken place and if they had, the companies would be indistinguishable. I appreciate absolutely that the Government need some power to reach back where a case may have been slipped past them, but I argue that two years should be sufficient. At the same time, there is at least a likelihood of there still being a unit that is sufficiently independent to resume an independent life.
Members of the Committee may remember their days in primary school and the magic of mixing paints. If one mixed blue and yellow paints together then, suddenly and miraculously, one had green paint. That is in effect what one does with the merger of two companies: you mix a blue and a yellow company, and the result is a green one. After some time, and certainly after five years, the two constituent parts will be indistinguishable. That of course is vital, considering the position of investors who may find that they still own an investment which they thought had sold five years previously. I would argue that a maximum of a two-year clawback will provide a better balance between the interests of all the parties in this delicate area. If my noble friend is not inclined to accept the amendment, will he tell the Committee how his officials will undertake the practical challenges of separating the green paint into its original blue and yellow parts? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I speak in strong support of Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I am a former company secretary and legal adviser to a publicly listed company. I know from personal experience what it is like to wait for competition decisions, takeover panel decisions and for all the uncertainties of regulation external to the company as a result of its commercial activities.
Given that, I am entirely in sympathy as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has set out what he calls the flesh-and-blood consequences of the two case studies that he put forward extremely graphically and well. Not least, he has hinted at some of the issues around statutory instruments and the level of scrutiny. There is little that I can add to what he has said about the undesirability of having a massive period of time within which a Secretary of State can act—up to five years. However, I would like to add to the practicality issues that the noble Lord has raised.
The longer a deal has been in place, the more difficult it will be to void or avoid—that is, unwind—a transaction. Unwinding a transaction after five years is a very long time in commercial terms. Thinking back to my own career, subsidiaries are sold, businesses are purchased and the commercial realities change over five years. It would be exceptionally difficult, even if it were possible, for a listed company involving public transactions to unwind those transactions.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lords, who presented a compelling case that mergers of companies should not be sought to be unwound after five years. However, that is not how I interpret the effect of the legislation.
For Amendment 7, we have to direct ourselves to Clause 2 and the structure of Clause 2(2). It requires that a call-in notice given by the Secretary of State cannot be
“given after the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the Secretary of State became aware of the trigger event”.
Noble Lords will recall that I was interested in the question of when the Secretary of State “becomes aware”. My noble friends have so far rebuffed the idea that we can define “becoming aware” rather better.
In the case of a merger, particularly between listed companies, but between companies of the kind so ably described by my noble friend, the Secretary of State should become aware of it, because it would appear to be publicly known. The Secretary of State could become aware because the parties to the transactions could themselves provide notification to the Secretary of State. Either way, the question of five years does not arise. That arises only in relation to circumstances where the Secretary of State does not become aware.
It is not a matter of people being exposed to an uncertainty; they can remedy the uncertainty by notifying the Secretary of State. That is why we are going to get a lot of notifications and, to some extent, Ministers accepted that when they revised the number of notifications they are anticipating from the original White Paper, which I think was a few hundred, to about 1,800. I think that is partly anticipating that there will be such notifications.
The circumstances we are talking about are probably not mergers but the trigger events relating to assets. As we previously discussed, this involves quite a wide range of acquisitions of assets including technology, transfers of technology, intellectual property or even potentially land that people did not necessarily understand was sensitive. The five years is not an irrelevance because, as Clause 2(2) says, there is a five-year period which would apply in circumstances where the Secretary of State had not become aware of the trigger event.
At this point, I want to ask my noble friend a question. In so far as the trigger event relates not only to the acquisition and the entity or asset but to the understanding of the nature of the acquirer—I keep coming back to this question of who the acquirer is; we talked about it in the second debate—can the Secretary of State apply the five years in relation to the nature of the acquirer being somebody other than the person whom the Secretary of State thought it was at the point at which the Secretary of State became aware of an acquisition? That is when the five years really begins to bite and the uncertainty begins to become more manifest.
That is true not only because the acquirer might be somebody who the Secretary of State did not understand to be hostile but who turned out to be, but because when we get to Clause 10 and we understand the implications of Schedule 1, which Clause 10 brings in, a person may be held to have acquired an interest or right in relation to an asset or entity by virtue of things such as the fact that they are connected persons, they are in a common purpose or they have an arrangement, all of which might not have been evident in public or to the Secretary of State when the Secretary of State saw the acquisition in public material. Indeed, maybe he did not see it at all but became aware of this interest only at a later stage.
There is a reason for the five years being there, because two years is not very long in relation to these kinds of acquisitions. The Minister might entirely reasonably say that five years is not without precedent: there is five years in the French, Italian and German regimes. With this Government, if it is good enough for the Europeans it is good enough for us, as we often say. However, leaving that to one side, we have to be aware that understanding who is in a common purpose, what is the nature of arrangements that might not have been disclosed and what is their nature in relation to assets, not just mergers, gives one a reason to think hard about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might have to intervene, even though a significant period of time has elapsed. For those reasons I am inclined to live with five years, on the strict understanding that, to get rid of uncertainty, people make a voluntary notification and then six months is the limit.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always very interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He is approaching this partly in a similar way to me and partly in a different way. I was, and still am, attracted to the notion of trying to get this time of uncertainty down from five years to two. Part of what I would say to the noble Lord is that, if it is going to take five years to work out who might actually have bought something, that is something we should look at in its own right. If you cannot work out whether somebody is hostile and they have had it for five years, you have missed the boat if it is a question of whether they have learned the technology and found out things you do not want them to find out.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister the reasoning behind the length of the period. It could not really be due to a workload of investigating, because one must presume some sort of steady state pipeline with adequate staffing, but how much of it is fear that something new is not recognisable as having a security application until some time later. That thought was going through my mind: was there fear about missing things? This goes back to one of the issues I flagged at Second Reading about sifting being done by the right kind of skilled people—those who have the right kind of applied science or engineering knowledge, plus knowledge of potential usage in national security fields.
I have to say, these things are not necessarily all that obvious. I have experience of working as a patent attorney in the field of defence. I have worked with people whose job it was to invent—put two and two together and have something inventive at the end of it. If you work in a field where those kinds of things are deemed inventive, you will be very short of the people who have that kind of knowledge because, for the main part, they will probably want to be involved in more interesting and economically useful things than participating in what seems to be an overwide fish-sorting process, as it has been termed. I am turning this back to the Minister. On volume, if you cast the net wide, will you have sufficiently skilled people to be able to do the sorting, or will you find that important fish get missed? Will you then be trying to do things to backtrack on what has not been done or give yourself more time to do things?
That is a slightly different take. I know that there are some safeguards in there, but five years is quite a long time to live with uncertainty. If that uncertainty comes about because of ownership, one should sort the ownership or shareholding issues; I am actually among those people who think that we should have a lot more transparency on those kinds of things.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in his excellent intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, started out by calling for clarity. We need some clarity on the wording of this part of the Bill because a number of different interpretations have emerged. I must confess, my interpretation is similar to that of the noble Lord; by the way, we would seem to be backed up by the Law Society, which took the same view. If the Government’s intention is something different, some different words need to be used to put that forward.
Assuming that, to start with, the intention was as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, set out, his counter to that was very clear. I have been involved in lots of what is known as integration, which involves bringing two companies together when one has bought another. Five years is well past the point at which you would find it very difficult to unmake that company. Indeed, the entire product life cycle in the sort of industries we are talking about here is probably about two years, so they will have marched through two and a half product life cycles by the time the five-year period expires.
In a way, I hope that the Government’s intention is more closely aligned to that of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If that is the case, I have similar thoughts to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. How long do you need to leave the stable door open before the horse has definitely bolted? To me, five years seems much too long for that bolting to occur; two years is probably long enough in that respect. However, if, on the other hand, the Government’s intention is to offer an opportunity for 20:20 hindsight—in other words, the world changes and, looking back over our shoulder, that deal five years ago now does not look like such a clever deal for the nation and we want to unmake it—that is clearly unfair on investors and others but might perhaps be fair to the country.
We need a real understanding of what the Government’s intention was, and the Government need to understand that their intention needs to be articulated in a way that the outside world can understand.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I welcome the probing of Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Clement-Jones, on the extent of five years in which the Secretary of State may issue a call-in notice once a trigger event has taken place.
The debate on how long this period may need to be and the reasons behind these decisions has been interesting. When the Government originally consulted on this, the period was much shorter. The Minister will need to answer why it has changed and been extended for such a long period, as well as the other questions raised. Indeed, five years is a far horizon in today’s fast-moving world—even if it is not long enough for some, often unpopular, Government to be able to continue in office.
Could this length of time threaten the policy stability of the economy across many sectors as well as give rise to unnecessary anxiety for businesses, especially in relation to retrospective elements previously discussed? However, the interpretation of Clause 2 may be that the Secretary of State is unaware of the trigger event but that the intentions of the parties have not materialised. The clause is rather unclear, and I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in his interpretation. I would certainly welcome the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his amendment, which intends to shorten the time limit for the Secretary of State to call in trigger events which have already taken place. The Bill as drafted allows the Secretary of State to call in trigger events up to five years after they have taken place. This ensures that the regime powers can be applied to completed trigger events which have given rise to, or which may give rise to, risks to national security but which have not been notified to the Secretary of State.
The length of five years is important to give the Secretary of State sufficient time to become aware of the trigger event and to make it difficult for the parties to keep the trigger event hidden. However, the proposed change from five years to two would make it easier for hostile actors to hide their acquisitions and effectively time-out the Secretary of State. It would increase the incentives to keep an acquisition quiet or inactive, as hostile actors would need to do so for only two years.
While not necessarily straightforward, this is clearly easier—both practically and financially—than keeping an acquisition hidden for a longer period. For example, if a hostile actor acquires an entity and intends to merge it with their existing operations, there are practical costs of not doing so within five years. They would not be able to merge IT, payroll, HR, et cetera, or take advantage of that entity and its assets. Likewise, if a hostile actor acquired an entity for its technology, that technology might well be obsolete in five years, so they would need to use their acquisition now to get the benefit.
In the Government’s view, five years strikes the right balance between creating a substantial disincentive for efforts to obfuscate and conceal relevant acquisitions while giving legitimate business certainty that they will not be called in after that period. Importantly, this approach puts us into line with our international partners. For example, in Germany a review may be initiated up to five years after the purchase agreement. It is in line with other countries, including France and Germany, and we believe that it is appropriate. Indeed, it is shorter than some partners, including the USA and Japan, which have no time limits. Further, a five-year reach-back period applies only to trigger events which have completed or which will complete after the introduction of the Bill, contrary to what some observers have suggested. That is to say that no acquisition which has been completed prior to 12 November 2020 may be called in under the Bill.
As helpfully noted by my noble friend Lord Lansley, in the Bill the five-year period is tempered by the requirement for the Secretary of State to call in a completed trigger event within six months of becoming aware of it. This further reduces the time limit for intervention and creates greater certainty for parties to a relevant acquisition. If there is doubt, parties should submit a voluntary notification to the Secretary of State. This will give them certainty on whether their trigger event will be called in.
Before I conclude, in response to my noble friend’s query relating to whether final orders can require the unwinding of acquisitions, that is very much within the scope of the power. The order, however, makes commands and may not deal with practical arrangements. How remedies are given effect will be for parties to finalise, subject to the requirements of the order.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked about the nature of the acquirer. To clarify, the five-year backstop applies to the date on which the acquisition itself took place. Circumstances where the identity of the acquirer is not known until some time after the trigger event took place are precisely why the reach-back period might be important in certain cases. In circumstances where a notification was given and false or misleading information was given about the true identity of the acquirer, the Bill already provides that the Secretary of State can re-examine such cases.
With reassurance provided for business, knowing that we are acting in line with allies, and for the reasons I have set out, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. I do not think I heard whether future pre-emptive actions under the new regime will be the subject of a statutory instrument or will just happen from the Secretary of State’s desk. Perhaps, she could answer how this or the other House will know what is happening.
I am grateful to everybody who spoke on this. It is obviously a tricky area. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Undesirable, uncertain and impractical—I could not have put it better myself. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for drawing attention to the question of the difference between two years and five years, and what will happen in that three-year period other than causing uncertainty among investors. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised very practical points.
Let me meet my noble friend Lord Lansley some of the way. I do not think that this will happen very frequently, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I am not convinced that the three additional years are really needed. The point my noble friend makes, which has certainly eluded the Law Society, is the interplay between the six-month trigger and the five years. In the tech sector, these companies grow like Topsy: they are nothing now, and they will be quite big very quickly indeed. You could have a situation where some event, ex post, could have been described as a trigger event but was not picked up as such at the time. It is unfair for people to have that uncertainty lasting for five years. The Secretary of State could say, “I never became aware of that, so I have more time to start the unwinding process, as long as it isn’t within the five-year period.” I see my noble friend’s point, and I accept that it is a rare occasion, but I still think there is something to be teased out about how the different pieces fit together, particularly in sectors of the market where very fast growth occurs.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me about the statutory instruments and how publicity of pre-emptive actions is to be provided.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Does the Minister wish to respond?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
The Minister is saying she will respond in writing. Is the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, withdrawing his amendment?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The Minister is going to write, is she?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
That was the indication.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Was it the fact or just the implication?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
No, I will respond to the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Okay, that is fine. We need to go away and put my noble friend Lord Lansley in the blue corner and the Law Society in the red corner and see how we get on. In the mean- time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(3A) If either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the statement under subsection (2), the Secretary of State may publish a new statement making any changes which appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary in view of the debates in either House of Parliament. (3B) A statement made in pursuance of subsection (3A) above is not subject to the requirements of subsection (1)(a) and (b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would permit an expedited process for making a new statement where this is required following a resolution not to approve a statement.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am particularly grateful that the Government agreed to group my amendment with their technical amendments, Amendments 12, 37 and 75. I do not propose to refer to Amendments 37 and 75, which are purely technical in nature. Amendment 12 is not strictly technical but relates to exactly the same part of the Bill as my amendment. We are considering Clause 4, and the Government in Amendment 12 are changing subsection (7), which states that the requirement for consultation could be satisfied by consultation carried out before the clause comes into force. The effect would be that not only that consultation but changes to the draft policy statement—such a statement was published at the same time as the Bill—in the light of the consultation can take place before the clause comes into force. That is perfectly reasonable.
My amendment looks at the case that arises under Clause 4(2), whereby:
“Either House of Parliament may at any time before the expiry of the 40-day period”,
that is, after the statement is laid,
“resolve not to approve the statement.”
Under those circumstances, the Government, as subsection (3) makes clear, “must withdraw the statement.” My working assumption is that the Government, having withdrawn a statement, would have to make a statement in the same way in which they have made previous statements—that is, engage in consultation, respond to the consultation and make such changes as are required—and then lay the statement again. That is unnecessary.
My amendment would provide that if a statement was not approved by either House, the Secretary of State should lay a new statement on the basis of making such changes as the parliamentary debates on the previous draft statement required. The Secretary of State would not have to go through a public consultation process or make changes in response to one. That is because the parliamentary objection to a statement may be particular. One can speculate on what that might be but I shall not do so in any way. However, if something led one House of Parliament not to approve a statement, a particular and significant change would be likely to be required. If Ministers make that change, as the amendment would require them to do, they should be able to lay that statement directly. The 40 days would continue to apply because all that would happen would be the resumption of the same process in relation to a new statement.
I hope the amendment means, from the point of view that it does not in any way impinge on the parliamentary scrutiny, that a statement could be in place sooner. That is important because a whole range of things flow from the fact that a statement has been not only published but approved. I hope that Ministers may see merit in the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I broadly support this amendment, although I am also interested in what happens after a statement is declined by Parliament. Statements take effect immediately and things already done under them are not revoked, even if Parliament votes one down, and I did not think that it was entirely clear whether there was anything to stop a new statement being made immediately, because the Secretary of State is under an obligation only to conduct
“such consultation as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate”.
Could they consider that it is appropriate to do none if there has been something tantamount to an exactly equivalent previous consultation?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in the spirit first put forward by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, I would like to tease the Minister at this point, if I may. Clause 3 states:
“The Secretary of State may publish a statement for the purposes of this section if the requirements set out in section 4(1) are satisfied”,
and now we have government Amendment 12, which amends Clause 4 to state that responses to the consultation may be required to be pursued through. What is the situation, if one might occur, if the Secretary of State chose not to publish a statement? Does the Bill permit that in this regard, and what would be the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may decide not to publish a statement?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, government Amendments 37 and 75 are technical and Amendment 12 covers the ground of Amendment 11, so I will speak to the latter. I am broadly supportive. Clearly, this is an issue about “may”—my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked the same question. If “may publish” means “may not publish”, where are we in this process, given that the statement is such an important part of setting out the modus operandi of the whole Bill? This is quite an important area.
I support Amendment 11 but it will be important to listen to the Minister’s response to decide how this might go forward in the next stage. I believe that some degree of accountability should not be left as an option to the Secretary of State; there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make that statement and, as the Government have said, to have the ability to remake it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s Amendment 12 to make changes to the sectors statement in respect of feedback from stakeholders. Can the Minister confirm whether all the suggested changes that come back in that consultation will actually be published?
I will make a comment about the document that has arrived in front of us today because, in a sense, it gives a very good description of how good consultation works—never mind the timing; we have made that point—in relation to the degree of change that looks as if it is going to happen as a result of conversation on that particular issue. However, it then feeds into what happens if, had this been the statement, changes were wanting to be made. For example, what we have heard today, as a result of some very good consultation, is that the definition of AI has been narrowed significantly to focus on three high-risk applications: identification of objects, people and events; advanced robotics; and cybersecurity.
The interesting thing is what happens after you have had a consultation that has got the Government to rethink and that may then have other implications. In this case, with those changes, does this change the Government’s estimate of the number of notifications that that might give rise to, in relation to the change in definition? It is that sort of issue that might come up, and it would want the dialogue that I think is being referred to in the amendment, in relation to whether there is a second stage—if it is turned down, so to speak—about having to go on further. As such, how we handle the feedback is about both the transparency of what has come back in and the full implications of any changes that that has made.
We keep coming up with the figures where, even though the Government have increased the assumption of how many notifications there would be—less than 1% or so—the CBI and other commentators feel it would be much greater. As such, that degree of dialogue is needed in relation to consultation over these very big issues. Some assurance about the results of such a consultation, as well as a second stage, seems very helpful, along the lines in the amendment.
On the Government’s Amendment 75, it would be interesting to know what advice led to the change—we are not questioning it but wondering why it has been made—to extend the regulatory power from a notice or serving an order to include all documents as well. It would be helpful, certainly to me and possibly to other Members of the Committee, to know what other types of additional documents will thus be added to this regulatory power—could the Minister spell that out?
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendment 11. With the permission of the Committee, I will speak first to the three minor technical amendments that the Government wish to make to the Bill: Amendments 12, 37 and 75. Briefly, before I begin, I reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State must lay and publish a statement before using the call-in power.
Amendment 12 is to Clause 4, which concerns consultation and parliamentary procedure for the statement pursuant to Clause 3, in which the Secretary of State sets out how he expects to use the call-in power. At present, Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to meet the requirement to carry out such consultation as he considers appropriate, in relation to a draft of the statement under subsection (1)(a), before Clause 4 is commenced.
However, it does not make it clear that the Secretary of State is able to make any changes that he considers necessary in view of the responses to that consultation under subsection (1)(b) before the clause is commenced. Amendment 12 clarifies this point, ensuring that stakeholders will be able to see a revised draft statement before it is laid before Parliament.
Amendment 37 is to Clause 11, which provides an exemption for certain asset acquisitions which would otherwise be trigger events. Subsection (2), however, provides that assets that are either land or are subject to certain export controls should not fall within the exemption, and subsection (2)(b) sets out the relevant export control provisions. One of these provisions, Article 9 of the Export Control Order 2008, was revoked on implementation period completion day as a result of EU exit by Regulation 4 of the Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, with which I am sure all Members are very familiar. The amendment would remove the reference to this revoked provision from Clause 11.
Amendment 75 is to Clause 53, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations, subject to the negative resolution procedure, prescribing the procedure for giving notices and serving orders under the Bill. At present this clause enables the Secretary of State to specify how a notice or order must be given or served, but does not make it clear that these powers are intended to extend to all documents given under the Bill. The amendment would clarify that point, ensuring that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations in Clause 53(1) in relation to the procedure for service of documents for all the different types of notices, orders and other documents under the Bill. These are relatively small tweaks to the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will see fit to agree to them.
Amendment 11 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I will begin by briefly setting out its context. Clause 4 sets out a consultation requirement and parliamentary procedure for a statement about the exercise of the call-in power which must be published before the Secretary of State may issue a call-in notice. It requires the Secretary of State, before publishing the statement, to carry out such consultation as he thinks appropriate in relation to a draft of the statement, to make any changes to the draft that appear to him to be necessary in view of the responses, and to lay the final statement before Parliament.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to clarify the process by which the Secretary of State may publish a new statement if either House resolves not to approve the previous version that he lays before Parliament. The apparent stumbling block that the amendment seeks to remove is that the Secretary of State is under a duty to carry out such consultation as he thinks appropriate in relation to a draft of the new statement, and make any changes to the draft that appear to him to be necessary in view of the responses to such consultation. However, I point out that the Secretary of State must carry out such consultations as he “thinks appropriate”, according to Clause 4(1)(a).
The Bill therefore provides the Secretary of State with some measure of flexibility in deciding whether, for how long and how widely the draft statement should be consulted on. Therefore, the Bill as drafted does not in appropriate circumstances prevent the Secretary of State from publishing a new updated statement, reflecting the debate in Parliament, almost immediately without first undertaking a consultation if he does not think that a consultation is appropriate.
In short, while my noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure that a new statement may be laid speedily if either House resolves not to approve the previous version, the Bill as drafted already allows for this. I am grateful that he has afforded me the opportunity to make the functioning of this clause clear. Therefore, in the light of the explanation that I have been able to provide, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. It is quite helpful just to focus on the question of making a statement because, if one looks back at Clause 1(6), it clearly states:
“The Secretary of State may not give a call-in notice unless a statement has been published (and not withdrawn) for the purposes of section 3.”
Although the word “may” is used in Clause 3, all it means in practice is that, if the Secretary of State chooses not to bring any of this into force, he would not publish a statement—but if he wants to issue call-in notices, he has to publish a statement. My noble friend the Minister is right in the sense that he must do this for the system to operate. The words I want to focus on, however, are “and not withdrawn”. If either House of Parliament resolves not to approve a statement, he must withdraw it. At that moment, the Secretary of State can issue no further call-in notices. My noble friend says the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State has the power to consult only as he thinks appropriate.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that as well as carrying out the consultation on the statement about the exercise of the call-in power, the requirement to make changes to the statement in view of the responses to the consultation may also be met before this section comes into force.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14.
Clause 6: Notifiable acquisitions
Amendment 14
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders when making regulations as specified.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 14 in my name came about as a result of my working closely with the Law Society of Scotland. I am very grateful to the society for drawing to my attention the fact that, on the present reading of Clause 6, the Secretary of State may make regulations without any further consultation in that regard. The reason for the amendment is that this consultation provides an additional layer of scrutiny by all interested parties. The requirement on the Secretary of State to consult will help to ensure openness and transparency of the Secretary of State’s actions. Imposing a duty to consult will ensure that any draft statutory instrument is exposed to critical comment from stakeholders, which may improve an instrument and help to avoid difficulties when it comes to progressing through Parliament.
All this assumes that the Government will actually pay attention to consultation and the results. It is felt that the provision as drafted gives the Secretary of State very wide discretion to amend the scope of notifiable acquisitions as per the present drafting of Clause 6(5). This can have far-reaching consequences, not least because, as set out in Clause 6(6), it may be used to extend the scope of notifiable acquisitions to acquisitions of qualifying assets. In particular, I want to put on record that Clause 13 states that where a notifiable acquisition takes place without the approval of the Secretary of State, this transaction will be void, although under Clause 15(2) and (3) the defect can be cured retrospectively.
This amendment addresses a concern that there will be a lacuna in relation to the impact on third parties. In particular, if the qualifying asset in question is land, and if it were to be established that a transaction had been void and that the ownership or other interest in the land had not been properly transferred, questions of liability may arise. This could be the case, for example, in relation to environmental or insurance liabilities. Although it appears that the third party would have an action under Clause 16, we are concerned that this could be both burdensome—that is the Law Society expressing its concern—upon that third party and unnecessarily complicated. There is also concern that it might not resolve all the relevant problems.
I welcome my noble friend to her speaking position, for once, this evening; I hope that this is not just paying lip service to diversity. If the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, can she say what the purpose is of introducing regulations at what would be quite a late stage and without having consulted at all with interested parties or stakeholders?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I fear I might have missed a trick here. I think we have two quite different amendments and I should have been smarter and disaggregated Amendment 94 from Amendment 14. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that I am not going to speak to Amendment 14, although I firmly believe that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie will speak to it later. I will speak to Amendment 94 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones.
Under Clause 6 the Secretary of State has great power to make the regulations concerning how this Bill will work. The Secretary of State can specify the description of the qualifying entity for the purpose of identifying a notable acquisition. He or she can amend the circumstances in which a notifiable acquisition takes place or does not take place, exempt acquirers with specified characteristics from the mandatory notification regime and make consequential amendments to other provisions of the Bill. These will be set before Parliament using the affirmative procedure. This was confirmed by one of the other documents that was circulated just before our proceedings began today.
For the commencement of the regime, the Secretary of State intends to make regulations only to specify the sectors subject to mandatory notification—that is, the 17 sectors we have already referred to elsewhere in this debate. This covers the activities of the entities of both sectors which give rise to an elevated national security risk. In the Government’s own words:
“Mandatory notification of certain types of transactions in 17 key sectors will ensure that the Government is informed of potential acquisitions of control or ownership in these particularly sensitive areas”.
As we have heard, using this list they will take action to investigate and mitigate any national security risk. The list is central to the workings of this regime. Therefore, so is the making and updating of it.
For the avoidance of doubt, and possibly to bore the Committee, I want to put on record the length and breadth of this list. It includes advanced materials, advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, civil nuclear, communications, computing hardware, critical suppliers to government, critical suppliers to the emergency services, cryptographic authentication, data infrastructure, defence, energy, engineering biology—which has now been commuted to synthetic biology—military and dual use, quantum technologies, satellite and space technologies, and transport. We heard from the Minister that in fact the Secretary of State can extend beyond this list if he or she feels it appropriate.
The so-called slimline version was published today, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who has just popped out. She referred to the artificial intelligence sector which has been “slimmed down” to the identification of objects, people and events, advanced robotics and cybersecurity. The underlying software for that is going to be machine learning, and therefore that includes all artificial intelligence. While on the face of it this has been narrowed down, the reality is that if a Secretary of State so chose, anything involving machine learning could be dragged into this process. We need to be very wary of this list, which can be expanded and changed over time.
I expect that the Minister will choose to represent the proposed use of the affirmative procedure in the Bill as meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, but in truth the list can be amended by this and any subsequent Government as they please. For one thing, Parliament cannot amend statutory instruments, and for another, this House has voted down affirmative statutory instruments just four times in the past 70 years. That is nearly as long as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has been alive. As the Constitution Committee noted in its 2018 report The Legislative Process: The Delegation of Powers:
“Without a genuine risk of defeat, and no amendment possible, Parliament is doing little more than rubber-stamping the Government’s secondary legislation. This is constitutionally unacceptable”.
Affirmative statutory instruments do not constitute meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. This Government, or any subsequent Government, are effectively free to amend that already long list of technologies at will, so we need some sort of genuine democratic process. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Sharkey; he proposed a very similar amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, and I have ruthlessly plundered his thinking as it is just as apposite to this Bill.
As noble Lords know, there is a delegated legislation procedure that allows for significant parliamentary scrutiny. To the Government, it is known as “exceptional procedures”, and to Erskine May, in part 4, chapter 31.14 as the “super-affirmative procedure”. Erskine May characterises it as follows:
“The super-affirmative procedure provides both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form … the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister: the two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them.”
Amendment 94, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, follows this pattern; it is more generally based on the variant of the procedure used by the Government of the day in the Public Bodies Act 2011, so it is not a stranger to government. It refers to the Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers and includes the long list of technologies that I have just read out.
First, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the proposed regulations and a document explaining them; secondly, he or she must request a committee of either House whose remit includes science and technology and business to report on the draft regulations within 30 days; thirdly, in proposing a draft statutory instrument containing the regulations, the Secretary of State must take into account any representations, any resolution of either House and any recommendations of the committee to which the draft was referred. After the expiry of the 30-day period the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament regulations in terms of the original or the revised draft. The Secretary of State must also state what representations, recommendations or resolutions were given in the 30-day period and give details. He or she must also explain any changes made in a revised draft. After that, the normal affirmative process continues.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which I added my name just too late. I also support the more detailed Amendment 94, tabled by my noble friends Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, but as my noble friend Lord Fox has spoken at length and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones follows me, I will leave them to expand on it, as has already been done. There is a connection, although I accept that there are distinct differences.
Amendment 14 and others that I have tabled reflect concerns that I raised at Second Reading, which have also been drawn to my attention by the Law Society of Scotland. Given the importance of financial services to Scotland and the contribution that Scottish financial services make to the UK economy, surely it is wise to ensure that relevant stakeholders are consulted in advance of any regulations. That is especially important given the importance of the professional services that underpin financial services and draw on different qualifications and traditions within Scotland.
The concerns that are being widely raised across many of the amendments to the Bill are directed not at its purpose, which is broadly supported, but at the possibility of it being applied too widely, with Ministers having too much discretion and with players in the market having inadequate information with which to make decisions and judgments. We are talking about people who have no particular intention to threaten national security but might inadvertently find themselves compromised in doing so.
I see Amendment 14 as trying to avoid unintended consequences or confusion that could prejudice investments made in good faith. As my noble friend Lord Fox has said, the Government can by regulation add new sectors to those designated as covered by the Bill. They can also expand on the definitions within the sectors. So surely it is appropriate that any such changes should be subjected to the same consultation as has been carried out to date with the 17 sectors so far designated. Why would you introduce new sectors or substantially modified ones and not apply the same level of consultation?
There remains a concern that investment transactions may be carried out in good faith, as I have said, without the intention or realisation of a national security dimension. It may therefore not be notified, as people may not feel there is a need to do so. However, if it is subsequently referred or called in and found by the Minister to be in breach, the transaction could be void, and we have had that debate already.
In the circumstance of, say, a land transaction, an area where the Law Society of Scotland has a particular concern, land being transferred could leave significant uncertainty in the air. Land issues have caused problems in Scotland in recent years. For example, landowners—lairds—often made land available for community use in the past, such as for a schoolhouse or cottage hospital. You may argue that that was generous— [Inaudible]— the community appreciated the benefit. Unfortunately, in those cases, formal conveyance did not always take place and, in more recent years, people who have acquired the title to the land have secured financial gain by putting charges on those who acquired the school, building, hospital or what have you and have made a nice little packet. You may say that that has nothing to do with national security, but it shows the problems when there is any confusion in the transfer of land.
Indeed, if I may briefly digress, the mountain from which my title is derived—Bennachie—for 60 years had people, smallholders, living on it on what was common land until, in a land grab, surrounding landowners simply seized that land and gave themselves the title, even though it had been held in common before, and evicted the squatters. We have had some controversial land decisions, but we are more concerned about legitimate transfers of land for environmental, recreational or financial purposes where because, for example, the landowner acquiring or disposing is not a UK citizen or is an institution that the Government may have suspicions about, it could lead to a problem.
Most people engaged in those transactions will look to professional services for appropriate advice. If those professional services have been part of the stakeholder consultation on any changes to the regulations or the detail of them, they will be able to provide transparency and legitimate advice to avoid those kinds of problems arising. That relieves the Minister of a problem and embarrassment and removes the possibility of otherwise legitimate investments being compromised or withheld because of a lack of clarity.
The conclusion I suggest to the Minister is that consulting with relevant stakeholder, when any legislation is being amended or introduced is to the mutual benefit of all players, including the Government and national security. We are talking about a relatively small number of clearly identifiable stakeholders, not a mass of agencies. The Government know who they are and they know who they are. It can be done quickly and efficiently, and the net result is that concerns that were raised would be headed off at the pass. They would not occur, so that we would not finish with legislation that leads to the threat of voiding contracts that in no way compromised national security, but somebody felt that they might have done. Sellers and buyers need clarity on the law; consulting relevant stakeholders will help to achieve this.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, there are distinct common factors in both these amendments. The proposers do not believe that the current way of approving regulations under Clause 6, purely the affirmative procedure, is satisfactory. That is because of the importance of the regulations under Clause 6. As we heard, they underpin the necessity for mandatory notification for certain types of transactions in 17 sectors and they can be changed. We heard, particularly from my noble friend Lord Fox, that the definitions of these sectors are highly complex.
My noble friend took the example of artificial intelligence, a technology I have taken considerable interest in. As he explained, machine learning technology permeates almost every single sector and every use for both consumers and businesses one can think of—fintech, edtech, regtech, you name it. Artificial intelligence permeates those, and the new description of the AI sector published in the government response today states:
“In narrowing the definition, the definition now provides further clarity for businesses and investors”.
However, the definition still covers:
“the identification of objects, people, and events; advanced robotics and cyber security.”
That is pretty broad.
The policy statement published today is also extremely helpful in emphasising the importance of Clause 6 regulations. The policy statement says:
“Under Clause 6, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to:… a) specify the description of a qualifying entity for the purpose of identifying a notifiable acquisition; …b) amend the circumstances in which a notifiable acquisition takes place … c) exempt acquirers with specified characteristics … d) make consequential amendments of other provisions of the Bill resulting from provisions set out in paragraphs (b) and (c).”—[Interruption.]
I hope that I am having some impact on the Minister, my Lords. The policy statement goes on to say:
“For the commencement of the regime, the Secretary of State intends to make regulations only to specify the sectors subject to mandatory notification.”
I underline “only” because you would have thought that was significant enough in itself. This is obviously a self-denying ordinance, but it is not a very large self-denying ordinance when you are dealing with the intricacies of those 17 sectors.
My noble friend Lord Fox has rightly quoted the Constitution Committee’s 2018 report The Legislative Process: Delegated Powers, which talked about the rubber-stamping of the Government’s secondary legislation. He also referred to my long life, and in my already long life I have been responsible for overturning a statutory instrument. The Blackpool casino was very much wanted by the citizens of Blackpool, so the SI for east Manchester was defeated by three votes in the House of Lords, and one of those votes was from the Archbishop of Canterbury—the former Archbishop of Canterbury, I am glad to say. It was I who put the Motion, and we passed it by three votes to deny the Government the right to build the casino in east Manchester. Unfortunately, the Government never came back with a proposal for Blackpool, and that is a sad piece of history. I do not know why they did not; it would have been a great place to build a casino.
However, that does show that, on a simple proposition, it is possible to have an effective debate. When you are dealing with 17 sectors and 111 pages of text, which are going to be the subject of this regulation, that illustrates that the form of affirmative resolution proposed in this Bill is not fit for purpose. This kind of super-affirmative procedure means that there would be a genuine debate on the regulations and the 17 sectors and their extent.
I have huge sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because of course one wishes to see consultation among stakeholders. In an ideal world, one would like to see both that and the super-affirmative resolution. But, to be frank, consultation is not the same as, or a substitute for, proper parliamentary scrutiny. These are crucial regulations, and it is right that they are opened up for full debate in this way. I am probably going to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, by saying that he said earlier we will have some debates about the sectors—well, not really, unless this amendment is accepted.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as we have just been hearing, these notifiable acquisition regulations are significant and require proper oversight, not just from both Houses of Parliament but also from experts involved, and with the opinions of those experts being made available to legislators. It will obviously be important to ensure that the stakeholders to be consulted are knowledgeable and, if I may say it, at the cutting edge of technology.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 14 from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 94 from the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, which overall seek further consultation and scrutiny on Clause 6 regulations. Perhaps I may say at the outset that we would be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to discuss the concerns of the Wellcome Trust, which, as she said, is a world-class research organisation and worth hearing.
Perhaps I may begin by clarifying for the benefit of the Committee that while acquisitions of land are in scope of the call-in power, they are not in scope of the mandatory regime. Acquisitions of land, as with assets more widely, are expected to be called in only very rarely.
I turn first to Amendment 14, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before making any regulations under Clause 6. Those regulations are of significance as they define the scope of the mandatory notification regime. As such, the Secretary of State has already consulted on sectoral definitions for the qualifying entities proposed to be in scope of the mandatory regime, and further engagement is planned with particular sectors in advance of turning these definitions into draft regulations. Again, I echo my noble friend’s apologies that the information on sectoral scope arrived only as we came into the Committee. The consultation was extensive and lasted from November for eight weeks. We received 94 responses and have not yet finalised all the sectoral definitions. Further targeted engagement to refine these definitions will be made in advance of laying regulations. The Secretary of State will therefore undertake consultation where appropriate.
I can reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, that, given the importance and potential complexity of any future regulations under Clause 6—defining and bringing new advanced technology sectors into the regime, for example—it is difficult to foresee many instances in which consultation of relevant stakeholders will not be required. As such, there is no need to create a requirement in statute to cater for this. Public law duties already create the right incentives.
The second amendment to Clause 6, Amendment 94, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement- Jones, would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a proposed draft of any regulations made under the clause for 30 days before the draft regulations themselves are laid and are subject to the approval of both Houses. Amendment 94 would also require the Secretary of State to identify a committee to report on the proposed draft regulations and then himself report on his consideration of the committee’s recommendations. The Bill as drafted provides for regulations made under Clause 6 clause to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
While I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that these statutory instruments cannot be amended, they can be declined, as we have seen a small number of times in the past. This ensures an appropriate balance whereby the mandatory regime can be quickly updated should new risks to national security emerge, while still giving Parliament appropriate oversight by requiring it to approve the regulations.
In its report on the Bill published on 22 February, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that,
“there is nothing in the Bill to which we would wish to draw the attention of the House.”
So, although I was in some way surprised to see the noble Lords’ amendment tabled in relation to Clause 6, in disagreement with the judgment of the committee, we can agree that the powers of the Bill are necessarily drawn widely in order to make the process more efficient. I believe that the committee recognised the careful balance that the Bill strikes in Clause 6 and other clauses between allowing the Secretary of State the flexibility to ensure that the regime is effective in protecting our national security while providing sufficient opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and input.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further with noble Lords. However, for the reasons I have set out, I cannot accept these amendments and ask that they be withdrawn or not moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I have received two requests to speak after the Minister: from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I forgot to declare at the beginning that I used to work for the Wellcome Trust. It was 20 years ago, but I think it should still be noted.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response but I do not think that she has quite got to grips with the full concern about this. It is not so much that there has not been consultation about the current sectors; there has been an extensive consultation and the Government have come back with their views and have explicitly said that they may change them even further. Yet they are still going to return to Parliament with a pure affirmative process. It is not as if parliamentarians will be able to change it. The stakeholder discussion and consultation is going forward as she said, but there is no guarantee that when that set of regulations is passed there will be proper debate in the House, nor will there be thereafter if the sectors are changed and made more specific, less specific, added to—whatever. There is no guarantee that consultation will take place.
The Minister said that there are the right incentives. That is a bit thin. If that is the guarantee of government consultation, it is not very solid, and even then, Parliament is entitled to have a view about the width of those sectors in the light of changing circumstances. It might have different views about new risks emerging, to use the Minister’s phrase. Therefore, it would be entirely legitimate to have that debate if those regulations were revised. The Minister has not got the nub of the concern in all of this.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I reiterate that we will continue to consult widely on important changes that merit further scrutiny. The Government care deeply that we get these definitions accurately put into the Bill before it receives Royal Assent.
Lord Fox (LD)
I anticipated the Minister’s answer on the subject of time, and 30 days is 30 days, but the Government have shown that they are relatively adept. If there really was a national security emergency requiring quick action using other means, a statutory instrument with a debate in Parliament would act as a plug. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones made the point that there is such significance, particularly around this list but also around the other elements of Clause 6, so I hope that the Minister will read Hansard and at least find some way of moving towards the very valid arguments that she has heard today on both amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank all those who have spoken on both amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, will recall that we had a lengthy debate about the super-affirmative procedure during the passage of the UK Internal Market Act. I deeply regret that we did not go down the path of that procedure, for reasons that I gave. My noble friend the Minister cares passionately about Wales, and I hope that she will care equally passionately about Scotland and will be prepared to meet with me to bring these matters forward, because I do not accept that it is enough just to have regard to the public law requirements.
The Law Society of Scotland has identified three ways in which these regulations could move the parameters forward which I would like to discuss on a wider basis with her. While an official in the department said that it is not expected at this stage that those three areas will be covered, it is not excluded that that will happen in the future. I want to come back to that, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Khan of Burnley
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will adjourn the House immediately.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Ynys Môn: Economy
Baroness Humphreys
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the decision by Horizon Nuclear Power to drop their planning bid at Wylfa Newydd, what steps they intend to take to support the economy of Ynys Môn.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the need to pursue other opportunities for the region in parallel to large nuclear. In December, the UK Government, working with the Welsh Government and local authorities in the region, committed £120 million to the north Wales growth deal, which has the potential to create over 4,000 jobs by 2036 and to deliver an economic uplift of £2.4 billion.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
With the promise of future UK Government investment in Wales, will the Government commit to working with the Welsh Government to encourage a major new energy scheme on Ynys Môn, including options for tidal power, with both barrages and free-standing turbines? Further investments in offshore wind and the grid infrastructure to support it would make north Wales an attractive option for low-carbon electricity generation and bring much-needed economic opportunities for young people in north Wales.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to focus on the energy sector for Ynys Môn. The announcement overnight of the £5 million investment in the Holyhead hydrogen hub, adding to the Welsh Government’s investment, £253,000 from the £120 million north Wales growth deal for the Morlais tidal flow schemes and the commitment to invest in the production of one gigawatt of offshore floating wind, in which Wales has a technological head start, all show that we are delivering on our promises for Wales and working with the Welsh Government.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister believes passionately in the need for nuclear power and, judging by her excitement over the result of the match on Sunday, also about Wales. When I asked on 11 January about how many large nuclear power stations were planned as part of our future energy mix, she replied that the country would need “significant, large nuclear capacity”. First, is she able to specify a number? Unless we act now, we will run out of options and, indeed, power stations. Secondly, if we cannot get a major nuclear power station at Wylfa, possibly the best site for one in the whole of the United Kingdom, is there scope for development of advanced small modular reactors, with the benefit of the production of hydrogen as well as power?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We have been ambitious in our plans for new nuclear. We committed to at least one more gigawatt power plant in the energy White Paper published before Christmas and we are in discussions with a number of operators. There will be two operational power stations in 2030 and, by 2032, the first SMR should be operational too. We will look at all reasonable proposals for the development of the Wylfa site, which is, in fact, the best nuclear site in the world, not just the UK.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government has refused to support the construction of a tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay, whose suitability will be well known to the Minister. She has referred to the possibility of tidal power in the Anglesey area. Will the Government consider the feasibility of tidal power in the Menai Strait between Liverpool Bay and Caernarfon Bay, a large infrastructure project that would provide jobs for Anglesey and beyond?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Indeed, the Government are committed to exploring all the possibilities for tidal and wave power—in south Wales there is not only the Swansea tidal lagoon but the Dragon Energy Island project, and we will certainly look at other proposals in the north of Wales as well.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
Given the unfortunate news that Horizon Nuclear Power has decided to drop its planning bid for Wylfa Newydd, does my noble friend agree that a freeport would transform the fortunes of Holyhead and Anglesey, encouraging greater development, investment and tourism on the island, as was outlined clearly to the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Select Committee last year? Is the Minister able to inform the House as to whether any progress has been made on a freeport?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raises an important point. The freeport bids for England are already in and an announcement is expected shortly. I know that the MP for Ynys Môn, Virginia Crosbie, has worked tirelessly with a group of qualified and interested local stakeholders to put together a bid for a freeport for Ynys Môn. This will be ready to go when we launch the competition for Wales, on which we will work together with the Welsh Government.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. The national thermal hydraulics facility is a key part of the nuclear sector deal and will bring jobs and investment to Anglesey, making the most of the strong nuclear skills that exist in the area. Can the Minister say what progress has been made with this facility and, importantly, how it will align with the testing requirements of the UK SMR programme?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The national thermal hydraulics facility is a key part of the nuclear sector deal and would indeed bring jobs and investment to Anglesey. The issue is very live at present. Collective and separate discussions are taking place between BEIS, the Welsh Government, the UKAEA, Rolls-Royce, whose SMR design is pivotal in this decision-making process, and the Menai Science Park, which would host the hydraulics centre. The technical needs of the Rolls-Royce SMR are being worked into a redesign of the proposed facility, but issues still remain over the height-planning restrictions, extra funding and future financing requirements of the facility. Perhaps all the parties can dig deep.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I heard the referee got man of the match. Is Shearwater Energy, which could be generating power by late 2027, under consideration? The energy White Paper announced £385 million for the advanced nuclear fund to support the development of both SMRs and AMRs, with up to £215 million of investment to develop a domestic SMR design. Does the Minister champion a large sum of this funding to support a small hybrid reactor at Wylfa on Anglesey?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Shearwater design is indeed an imaginative use of Ynys Môn’s unrivalled potential for generating power, both nuclear and in offshore wind; the Shearwater proposal as I understand it combines both, with an interconnector. The Government remain open to discussing well-developed proposals from all developers for the Wylfa site, and I believe the team has had some discussions with officials in BEIS.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
Will the Minister agree with me that what is happening to Holyhead as a port is a very threatening thing indeed? There was no preparation when we were leaving the European Union and the result is that for documentation, lorries from Holyhead, having come over the Irish Sea, now have to go to either Birmingham or Warrington. Has the Minister any proposal at all that will avoid Holyhead becoming a port of the past, with ferries from Ireland going directly to the European mainland? What hope can the Minister bring to Holyhead?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point in an area of concern. Freight through all Welsh ports is down more than 50%, unlike freight through most UK ports, which have now recovered to pre-Brexit levels. We have no obvious answer as to the question why, as the landbridge between Ireland and Wales remains a vital transport artery, with significant cost and time advantages over maritime routes. The Minister for Wales in the other place has a meeting scheduled with the relevant freight transport association to discuss these issues and what we can do about them.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I welcome today’s announcement of government backing for the hydrogen hub at Holyhead put forward by Menter Môn and Anglesey Council, and indeed proposed in the Senedd a year ago by Ynys Mon MS Rhun ap Iorwerth. Given the aspiration of Anglesey, seen as the “energy island”, what steps will the Government take in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Wylfa labour force, with its huge skill base in energy-generation technology, is retained in the local energy sector and is not lost to the region?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point about trying to preserve the corporate knowledge within Wylfa and I will certainly take back this concern and proposal to the department. Wylfa still has the potential to be part of the north-west nuclear arc, along with the national thermal hydraulic research centre, the Trawsfynydd site for SMR, AMR and, potentially, medical radio isotopes, alongside Bangor University, which is a centre of excellence for nuclear studies.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, does the difficulty of finding a company to build a large nuclear power station at Ynys Môn not highlight the lack of nuclear expertise in this country—the first country to actually use nuclear for civil purposes. The one area where we do still have it is building nuclear units for submarines. Perhaps I might add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and ask my noble friend to consider a small modular reactor at this site; after all, additional modules can be added later.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There are indeed design proposals that involve a number of small modular reactors on that site, and the Government believe that these will play an important role alongside large nuclear for low-carbon energy. As I have said before, the energy White Paper has put £385 million towards an advanced nuclear fund to support research and development into both SMRs and AMRs.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We come to the second Oral Question, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Transport for London: Financial Settlement
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in discussions with Transport for London on a financial settlement (1) for 2021/22, and (2) beyond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to providing Transport for London with a financial deal that is sustainable, supports London’s recovery and keeps the capital moving. Any deal must be fair to the UK tax- payer. On 11 January, TfL provided us with a financial sustainability plan, which sets out its plans to achieve financial sustainability by April 2023. The Government hope to announce further Covid-related financial support for TfL shortly.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, TfL has suffered a double blow to its income from the pandemic and from years of irresponsible fare setting by the Mayor of London. While my noble friend grapples with that temporary challenge, will she also bear in mind that a railway needs steady capital investment too, and that there are parts of London Underground operating with signalling and rolling stock that is over 50 years old and is creaking at the seams. Will she, in support of the Government’s infrastructure objectives, seek to ensure that TfL is allowed a medium-term investment programme—however modest—to address these problems?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is quite right: there have been some quite interesting fare increases—or not—from the mayor over recent years. We estimate that over the past four years his fares freeze has cost £640 million, which could otherwise have been spent on capital expenditure. But, as my noble friend knows, transport in London is devolved and it is up to the mayor and TfL to assess the merits of capital projects that they might want to invest in. However, it is absolutely clear that the Mayor of London must set a robust budget, demonstrate that TfL is on a clear path to achieving financial sustainability, and prioritise his capital expenditure. He will have to make difficult choices.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, many of us are old enough to remember renewing our road funds not with the DVLA but with the county council. It was £12 and 10 shillings when I started driving. I see that the Mayor of London has revived this policy as part of the problems of Transport for London, which would also broaden the base for local government taxation. Does my noble friend have a view on the merits of this policy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend raises a very interesting period of time that unfortunately I do not remember, but it is the case that the Mayor of London has some very interesting ideas as to how he wants vehicle excise duty to be spent. It is one of the proposals in the financial sustainability plan he has prepared, which I have to say does seem to have been drafted with a money-no-object mindset. Noble Lords will know that vehicle excise duty is used for the strategic roads network, which is the motorways and the major A roads, so unless we are going to stop Londoners from using our motorways and buying products that have been brought into London by HGVs travelling on them, I see absolutely no rationale for devolving VED.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I read in the Financial Times today that the ONS says that as an average Londoner I receive about £4,000 less in public spending than I pay in tax. As a proponent of progressive taxation, I am happy to pay, but the fable of the goose that lays the golden egg comes to mind. Will the Minister agree that the economic prosperity of the whole country depends on a prosperous London, and that that requires, among other things, a well-connected London with excellent public transport? Is it not remarkable that London is the only major city in the world where there is no contribution from general taxation, from which the whole country would benefit?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is right that London will play a very important part in the economic future of our nation; in 2018 it made 23% of UK GDP. But while much of the funding for Transport for London comes from passenger revenues, there are other routes by which it gets money; for example, business rates retention, which is a retention which would otherwise have gone to Her Majesty’s Government. So one might assume that there is a broad breadth of sources of funding for TfL, but I agree—the Government want to support London’s recovery and we want to keep the capital moving.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, train operating companies have received billions of pounds from the start of the pandemic to keep trains running, with minimal requirements in return. Why has Transport for London not been treated with the same generosity, and why are the Government determined to dictate the minute details of the way services are run, which they have not done on railways elsewhere? Surely this could not be political.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, TfL has also received billions of pounds over the Covid pandemic. I am not sure where the noble Baroness is getting her information from about the differential between the conditions that are put on the train operating companies and on TfL. The Government make demands on the train operating companies. We work incredibly closely with them on, for example, what the level of services should be and whether engineering works should take place. We put significant conditions on our support for them. We put some conditions on TfL support, such as looking at the future of driverless trains and increasing efficiency targets. All these things are perfectly reasonable.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Instead of levelling up the north, where the Government have cut £4 million from Transport for the North, clearly the Government intend to level down London’s transport network. Virtually every answer that we have heard from the Minister today has confirmed that this is the Government’s approach. Can the Minister confirm or otherwise that the Government are not seeking to force TfL into making cuts to its service level, which would be completely counterproductive and place at risk the economic recovery of central London, which, like it or not, is still the engine of the UK economy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government will provide funding to TfL. We have already said that we will and that we want to keep the capital moving. That is essential. We can also agree that the forecast scenarios that are available for passenger demand will, quite frankly, resolve only over a period of time. The Mayor of London is going to have to think about his capital expenditure and service levels in the future. He may have to make difficult decisions, but there are a number of reforms that the Mayor of London should have done but has not done, and probably should do in the future, in addition to potentially looking at service levels.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, pursuant to the Question posed by my noble friend Lord Moylan, and in recognition of the long service that he has given to this subject, significant focus has been placed on new underground lines. However, does my noble friend the Minister recognise and accept that the settlement should focus as much on revenue as on the vital need for a fully funded capital programme to upgrade existing underground lines, in addition to the “new tube for London” programme?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There are many strands to the capital programme. Some of them are short- to medium-term. The Government will expect the mayor to make decisions that encourage the economic growth of London. One of the other important considerations when thinking about how we develop the London Underground will be housing. My noble friend may have seen that the Government agreed to safeguard the land for the Bakerloo line extension. It cannot be built now but it may be built in the future.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the potential for further growth in goods and passenger transport on the River Thames, which, at 215 miles long, is the longest river in England?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As transport in London is devolved, the Government have not assessed the usefulness or otherwise of the River Thames. I suggest that the noble Lord takes that up with the Mayor of London.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Crossrail’s budget has been under pressure recently, and one of the stations that has not yet been started is Old Oak Common. Can the Minister tell the House what the budget is for Old Oak Common station, and how it is broken down between Crossrail, HS2 and Great Western Railway? If she cannot tell me, can she please write me?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Had the noble Lord given me fair warning of that question, I would have been delighted to answer it for the Chamber. However, I will discuss very briefly the amount of funding that the Government have been able to support for Crossrail. Back in August 2020 the board of Crossrail said that it would need another £1.1 billion, which was probably about the P70 budget. The Government have announced £825 million so that the GLA can borrow further funds to get Crossrail over the line and open to passengers.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government commissioned a report into TfL’s finances from KPMG in June 2020. They said at the time that this was to understand TfL’s needs. The Government are now refusing to publish this report despite businesses and politicians urging them to. The suspicion is that they are playing political games. When will they end this secrecy so that Londoners get the transparency that they deserve?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that the Government did commission that report. It extends to many hundreds of pages, and contains a huge amount of commercial information which we would not want to see in the public domain, as it would not be beneficial to the future of TfL. But the report did give us a firm understanding of where TfL is at the current time. It should be remembered that, even before the pandemic, TfL had a deficit in 2018-19 of £494 million. Combined with that KPMG report and the financial sustainability plan that we have received from TfL, we are in a much better place to help the Mayor of London get TfL back on its feet, and the Government are ready to support that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review: Sodium Valproate
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord O'Shaughnessy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review First Do No Harm, published on 8 July 2020, what plans they have to bring forward a redress scheme for women and families who have been harmed by sodium valproate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the Government plan to respond further to the Cumberlege review later this year, as I committed in my recent Written Ministerial Statement. In the meantime, we are carefully considering the recommendation regarding a redress scheme for those harmed by sodium valproate, and measures are in place to limit the prescribing of this drug.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. Since my noble friend Lady Cumberlege published her landmark review, another 150 babies have been born suffering harm from in utero exposure to sodium valproate, to add to the 18,000 children—18,000, my Lords—who have been harmed in this way since the 1970s. These children belong to families whose lives have been turned upside down, and who often cannot afford the costs of caring for their damaged children. They need and deserve a redress scheme now. Why can the Government not move faster?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to those who have put together the valproate registry scheme that became live on 11 February. My noble friend is entirely right. There are 22,095 people on the registry; 462 of them had 490 conceptions, and 180 women were prescribed in a month when they were pregnant. A redress scheme is not necessarily the correct solution to this problem. We are considering it extremely carefully, and when we publish our overall response to the Cumberlege review we will include our considered response to the redress suggestion
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, concluded in her report that the system still did not know how to minimise the risk of future babies being damaged, despite 27,000 women of childbearing age currently taking valproate in the United Kingdom. In view of that, does it not make the case for a redress scheme absolutely persuasive?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will leave it to the response to the Cumberlege review to make the decision on the redress scheme. In the meantime, our focus is on a regime ensuring that those who take this important drug have the right advice to prevent them becoming pregnant. I emphasise that specialists review the treatment and ensure that an annual risk acknowledgment form is signed by the prescriber and the patient. This is an important measure ensuring that all those who take this potentially life-changing drug acknowledge and understand the implications of becoming pregnant.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, in our report we suggested that every pregnant woman who is on sodium valproate should be warned by her GP of the potential harm to her unborn child. Can my noble friend please tell me how many of the women exposed to this danger have been notified, and what the plans are to ensure that in future they are told? What incentive is given to GPs through the quality outcomes framework to ensure that they carry out this very important duty?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, as I explained a moment ago, there is an annual risk acknowledgment form signed by the prescriber and the patient, and that is shared with the patient’s GP. GPs should check that the patient has signed an up-to-date annual risk acknowledgment form each time a repeat prescription is issued. We have instituted a valproate safety implementation group that analyses, along with the MHRA, compliance with this plan. We acknowledge the review’s recommendation to introduce an indicator on safe prescribing in pregnancy for future iterations of the quality outcomes framework, and we will respond on that with the rest of the response to the review.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, redress is important, but so too is patient support. Could the Government confirm that they are considering the recommendation that a network of support centres should be set up to support those women who have been affected by Primodos, sodium valproate or vaginal mesh?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point. Support is incredibly important and our hearts go out to all those who have been hit by any of the three conditions covered by the review. We are absolutely looking at those recommendations to see how they may be implemented to provide the support that the noble Baroness rightly points out.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend please update the House on the timetable for the appointment of the patient safety commissioner, one of the key recommendations that I am delighted the Government accepted? I understand that that requires new regulations, and the Government have rightly said that we ought to take time to find the best and widest possible field, but surely that just underlines the urgency of the need to get going with this.
Lord Bethell (Con)
As my noble friend rightly acknowledges, the everyday workings of the commissioner require some work. That work is being finalised and regulations will be made setting out further details about the appointment and operation of the commissioner—for example, the terms of office, the finances and other support for the commissioner. Officials are now working with legal and appointment colleagues to firm up time- lines and begin both the regulations and the appointment process for the commissioner.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when his noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy was the Minister, the noble Lord realised the harm that some women had suffered from taking sodium valproate when pregnant? The noble Lord’s support has been inspirational and has given hope to these victims. Will the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his position as Minister now, bring forward a much-needed redress scheme for these women and children who have been let down?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her tribute to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, who has done an enormous service to us all by championing this cause, both as a Minister, when he moved this review and made a huge impact, and since then with his patient and thoughtful advocacy of this important cause. He speaks very movingly and thoughtfully, and we are greatly influenced by his persuasion on this subject. The noble Baroness should be reassured that we are absolutely looking at the recommendations for a redress agency, and we will come back with considered thoughts on it when we answer the review in the round. Until then, I welcome all thoughts and advocacy on the subject.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I have two points. First, last summer only 41% of the respondents taking valproate said that they had signed an annual risk acknowledgment form, so I would like the Minister to reflect on the fact that some GPs are not doing the job that they should be in terms of protecting women. Secondly, those affected by thalidomide and contaminated blood have a redress scheme, but it took years for that to happen. We simply cannot wait years for this to happen for those suffering from the effects of sodium valproate.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s point on the proportion of those who say they have filled in the form. Phase 1 of the registry is a helpful collection of statistics, but we are putting in place phase 2, which will help us to understand exactly how many patients who are taking sodium valproate have actually filled in the form. That will give us the concrete reassurance that we seek on this matter. I recognise that there are redress payments for thalidomide and contaminated blood, but redress payments are not necessarily suitable for every single misfortune that happens in the medical world. However, we will look very carefully at the case for sodium valproate and I take the noble Baroness’s comments on board.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Research from Konkuk University in South Korea has suggested that disabilities caused by the compound could cause autism spectrum disorder transgenerationally—in other words, afflict successive generations within families. What is the Government’s view?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that study. It is not one that I am aware of, and I am keen to go back to the department to find out whether it has done any analysis of it. I will write to the noble Lord with a response.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the report First Do No Harm underlines the hurt and devastation that can result from not making patients aware of the possible side-effects of drugs. The harm done by giving sodium valproate during pregnancy cannot be undone, and generous support should be provided. Does the Minister agree that, while the appointment of a patient safety commissioner is a move in the right direction, that in itself underlines the importance of keeping patients fully informed of possible side-effects and listening to their concerns?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord puts it extremely well and I totally agree with the thrust of his point. For patients to have the right information about the risks of the medicines that they are prescribed is essential. However, if I may stray into a different subject, there is also patient choice. For many patients, sodium valproate provides an incredibly valuable relief from epilepsy and mental illness. It is a drug that continues to be prescribed because some have no choice and there is no valid alternative to the drug. The number of people being newly prescribed the drug—new starters—is down dramatically from previous years, but for some it really is an important part of their therapy. The decisions that they make are personal ones, and we should respect those.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
With apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Covid-19: Universal Credit
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support claimants of Universal Credit during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in January 6 million people were on universal credit, up from 3 million last March. Does the Minister accept—
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, could the noble Baroness put the Question first?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
I am so sorry; I am out of practice. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, where do I start? I am so proud of the work that my department has done in supporting people during the pandemic. Time does not allow me to reel off everything that we have done, but I shall list these: our plan for jobs; a £2 billion kick-start scheme; increased support for 40,000 jobseekers of all ages; sector work-based academies; the job-finding support service; the help that we have given to 160,000 people; and our £238 million job entry targeted support. There is much more that I could say to the whole House. The department has done an outstanding job.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for having got that list out of the way, because now she can answer one very simple question from me. Does she accept that cutting £20 a week from the incomes of people on universal credit, whether now or in six months, will push children into poverty and leave out-of-work support at its lowest level in decades, just when unemployment is set to peak? Will she take back to the Chancellor a clear message that he should cancel this cut, extend the £20 to legacy benefits and ensure that our social security system offers a proper safety net to everyone who needs it?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The £20 uplift in universal credit has done an outstanding job. The Chancellor put it in place in a temporary way, and I guess tomorrow we will find out the intentions for the future. But please be assured that I am very happy to go back to the Chancellor and share the views of the noble Baroness and many others who have made that point.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what they have done in this respect in supporting so many vulnerable people during the pandemic. However, does the Minister agree that the danger of the cut that taking away the £20 a week would be is that the Government would get a short-term saving, but would pay far more in the longer term because of some of the social costs? Given the number of people we see using food banks in my diocese and around the country—including working people—and the number of children in poverty and likely to go deeper into it, the remedial costs of supporting them into the longer-term future will far outweigh anything paid now.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. The £20 uplift has made a significant difference and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, he has outlined some of the impacts that would happen should that be stopped. I am terribly sorry, and I wish it were not the case, but I do not have the Chancellor’s ability to make a commitment today.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, an analysis by the Social Metrics Commission found that, without the universal credit uplift, nearly 1.4 million people would have been pushed into poverty due to the pandemic. With the £20 uplift and other government interventions, however, 700,000 people have been protected, 150,000 of whom are lone parents. Does my noble friend agree that this is a remarkable achievement? What plans do the Government have for ensuring this continued support?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her acknowledgement of the difference that the £20 has made. I had better say now: “Message received, over and out”. I will relay it and replay it to my colleagues in the department and the Chancellor.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, on a previous occasion the Minister was extremely sympathetic to the plight of freelancers, especially musicians, who have been caught in the government net and unable to get through it—that is, they were not eligible for universal credit or the SEISS. As I say, she was very sympathetic and said that she would look at this with her department. Has she made any further assessment?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
A number of groups of individuals have been impacted by Covid and their incomes have been put under stress. The department continually reviews the impact on people but this is a timely reminder for me to go back and make some more representation, which I will do.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the £20 uplift for universal credit should be extended to include claimants receiving legacy and related benefits, the majority of whom are disabled or carers, or have a long-term illness? These people are suffering great hardship and the Government need to take action now. Will she support that?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Legacy benefits and the £20 uplift have been the subject of lengthy and great discussions in the department. To be absolutely straight and truthful, the only thing I can say is that the Government have no plans to extend the temporary £20 uplift. I know that that will be a disappointment.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, I draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that many people still on legacy benefits have had their finances hit hard by the pandemic. The need to reduce health risks, such as by taking taxis to appointments to avoid public transport, purchasing more PPE for those with respiratory conditions and using more heating to reduce the risk of complications from Covid-19 all incur high costs. In previous questions, we have heard that the costs of disability and sickness are considerable, particularly to people who have little at the moment and are on legacy benefits. I know that the Minister has answered by saying that the Government have no commitment to add the £20 uplift to legacy benefits, but will she commit to looking into the circumstances of people on legacy benefits and their carers—disabled people, particularly—to see what action can be taken to improve their circumstances?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I give an assurance to the noble Baroness that I will speak to her in more depth about the points she raises. Once I have done that, I will of course go back to the department and talk to those there.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the number of vacancies in the period November 2020 to January 2021 is up by 64,000 from the previous quarter to almost 600,000. What are work coaches doing to ensure that claimants take these vacancies up, and what plans do the Government have to incentivise moving into work by reducing the taper rate and increasing work allowances?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I say to my noble friend and the whole House that we should thank God that we have work coaches. Their training has been enhanced, they are focused on the individual and they make sure that those individuals get the support and access to the benefits that they need. More importantly than anything else, they are getting access to the help they need to get back to work. Universal credit was designed to make work pay, so not all of a person’s earnings are deducted from UC. The department has made changes to improve the financial incentives to work by reducing the taper rate to 63% from 65%. All these things are continually looked at.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, a little while ago there were widespread reports that fraudsters were illegally claiming public money from the universal credit uplift. The Government moved quickly and took steps to tackle this. Can the Minister update the House on the latest position?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Lord is right to raise the point about people who try to abuse the system with no right to do so. The situation with fraud and recovering sums is being dealt with in the department. To give the best response in the time I have available, I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Bird (CB)
When universal credit was first put together, one big thing was to cut through bureaucracy and waste. I would like to think that we have moved towards reducing the ways in which people can get on universal credit. Obviously, there are many problems for people who want to go on to it, and they are still having to wait a long time. My question is more about the long-term effect of universal credit. How much does it cost to actually deliver £1 of social support, because in the old days it used to be about a fiver to deliver that £1?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I not sure where the noble Lord gets his figures from; I do not dispute them, but I will have to go back and have a good look. The universal credit business case was agreed in 2018 and demonstrated that it remains deliverable and affordable, and provides value for money. In a steady state, universal credit will generate economic value of £8 billion per year, and it is doing a great job.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Covid-19: Brazilian Variant
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of the P.1 Brazilian variant of COVID-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the challenge we have is uncertainty. Genomic sequencing data links the Brazilian variant to the South African variant, the so-called E484K mutation. We also acknowledge that there are anecdotes from Manaus on transmissibility, but none of this is clear cut. We are working towards getting the concrete data necessary to make a confident assessment of this mutation. Therefore, we are taking a precautionary approach and we are committed to limiting its spread by all means at our disposal.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister. According to a report by the World Health Organization, the P1 variant that originated in Brazil has been found in at least 15 countries which are not on the Government’s red list, meaning that arrivals from those countries are currently exempt from the hotel quarantine policy. Virologists have warned that the Government’s red list is at risk of becoming out of date at any time because of the time it takes to sequence coronavirus cases. Indeed, these six cases date back to 11 and 12 February. In the light of these facts, and given concerns that the Brazilian variant may be more transmissible and might be resistant to existing vaccines, will the Government review the red list and take urgent action to introduce a comprehensive hotel quarantine system that applies to all UK arrivals?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right: this is not the first case of P1 in Europe. As of 11 February, P1 has been identified in 17 countries, with 200 cases reported globally. In the EU, 30 cases have been identified in five countries and areas. We keep the red list under permanent review and have an ongoing process of keeping it up to date. The fact that we have a red list and a managed quarantine programme makes further expansion of the red list possible. It puts our borders and our vaccine under a programme where we can control things, which is to be applauded.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
How confident are the Government that our vaccines will cope with the Brazilian variant of the Covid virus and that the passenger from Brazil, who is somewhere in south Gloucestershire, will be traced? What measures are now in place to ensure that an incoming passenger is not lost again?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We are uncertain on the vaccine. There is a huge amount of speculation, but I would recommend that noble Lords take it with a pinch of salt because we cannot know for sure how the virus will behave with those who have been vaccinated until we have much better and clearer data. Regarding the current managed quarantine arrangements, I pay tribute to the teams which have stood up the system extremely quickly and well. The south Gloucestershire and Aberdeen arrangements have been incredibly impressive. It is extremely frustrating to all concerned that one person did not fill in the form and slipped through the net. But overall, the programme has shown itself to be extremely robust and we have an enormous amount of confidence in it.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, we seem to be devoting a huge amount of state resources to chasing one person with a mutating virus at a time when the National Health Service is on the point of collapse. Waiting lists are going up and we are in a terrible mess. Will the Government accept that viruses mutate and that we need a strategy to deal with that? Constantly locking people up and extending the list of countries so that you can put more and more people into hotels is a self-defeating policy.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The vaccine is absolutely central to our strategy. It is an approach that has proved enormously popular, and I think I speak for a large number of people when I say that defending the vaccine has to be our number one priority. If there were a highly transmissible vaccine-escaping mutation, it would take us back to the beginning of this whole pandemic. That is why we have put in place red list countries and managed quarantine. That is why we are committed to Operation Eagle and the efforts to track down those bringing variants of concern into this country.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, the scientists are concerned about the P1 Brazilian variant because of three mutations, one of which is common to other variants, making it more transmissible. One of the others is referred to as the “escape mutation”, which may bypass some vaccine-induced immunity. Does the Minister agree that, apart from the measures the Government are taking of trace, track and isolate and surge testing—which I thoroughly approve of—it is important to continue genomic sequencing, at scale, of Covid cases to detect variants that may arise and to monitor and study post-vaccine immune response? That would enable us to modify the vaccines to boost the immune response and deal with the variants.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right. Our commitment to genomic sequencing, which has lasted for years, has put Britain in great shape to be able to do the sequencing necessary to track these variants. We are doing more sequencing than any other country. But as the noble Lord knows, this is detective work, and it is extremely complex. While the 484K mutation might be the significant change in both the Brazil and South African variants, it might be one of a great many other mutations in its genomic characteristics. This is the detective work we are doing. I am afraid that it will take some time to get to the bottom of it, and it needs to be complemented by field studies into how the mutation reacts in real life, as well as with antibodies. The combination of immunology, virology, biology and real-world clinical study will give us the insight that we need.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with due respect to the Minister, I wonder if a pinch of salt is quite the right treatment for some of these variants of the Covid virus. It is not just the Brazilian and other different variants. For example, in addition to Siqueira’s paper, which has just been published from Brazil in the last couple of weeks, the paper from Bogota shows numerous variants which are not quite the same. Some of these may be rather more virulent, and it is possible that they may even cause reinfection—it is certainly not very clear. The point is this: surely we need to be very cautious indeed about our airports and whether the list we have is sufficient. At what stage do we decide that we need to take much firmer action with all incoming passengers to the United Kingdom, making certain that they are properly tracked and traced?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right. Things are happening around the world which are causing a great deal of anxiety. Stories of possible reinfection in South Africa are extremely concerning and the huge spike in infections in South America has not been properly explained. It is possible that there are a number of mutations, and mutations of mutations, there. The truth is that we do not have the genomic or immunological data that we need to fully understand what is going on. That is why we have taken a precautionary approach, as the noble Lord recommends. We have instituted both managed quarantine and a red list which we keep under review. If we feel it necessary to extend that list, we will do so.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, tracing new variants will be key in the next phase of this public health challenge. So why does the £22 billion test and trace system not have an individual identifier on each test posted to homes, along with an integrated database? This way, every test could be traced back to an individual, regardless of where the test was sent from, or even if a person incorrectly filled in a form.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I endorse the noble Lord’s observation that tracing is important. I pay tribute to the Operation Eagle team. The noble Lord will note that the South African variant, which made landfall in the UK, is currently being contained through the immense work of this team. They are throwing a blanket over communities and doing a huge amount of forensic, detective work in tracing variants. As to his specific point, it is possible for someone to walk up to a testing station, take the test, be handed a form and not fill it in. We are trying to understand if those were the circumstances in this case.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, are there risks that the Brazilian variant may not provide adequate protection against reinfection and that vaccinations are less effective against this strain? It carries the same mutation as the Kent variation, which is rated 70% more transmissible than previous strains.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is stretching my immunological skills to the limit. The Brazilian variant has a number of mutations. It is not clear to us whether those are mutations of transmissibility, vaccine-escape mutations or reinfection mutations, and therefore which we should focus on. All are possible and we are keeping a careful eye on this. An enormous amount of investment and research is going into understanding this more carefully.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Brazilian companies have a significant footprint in both parts of the island of Ireland? Given that there is a common travel area between the two, what discussions has he had with the Government of Ireland about this? How is it proposed to deal with inflows of people from Brazil who might be able to travel freely throughout these islands?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for flagging the Brazilian connection with Ireland, which I did not know about. I reassure him that there is an enormous amount of collaboration between Whitehall and Dublin on this matter. There are strong links on the managed quarantine programme within Ireland in order to close the “Dublin backdoor”, as it is sometimes called. I pay tribute to colleagues in Dublin for their collaborative approach. We do not currently have a five nations unified approach, but it is of interest. We are definitely keen to ensure that there is no backdoor entrance for VOCs through Dublin, or in the other direction.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, given the inevitability of variants and that some will evade antibody responses, what plans do the Government have for unified messaging, across the whole of the UK, that long-term distancing, mask-wearing and other measures are essential, and to tell the public that this is not like flu and we need to live differently?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right, which is why the Prime Minister struck such a cautious tone when he unveiled the road map. We are not through this yet. A substantial proportion of the country is vaccinated, but we have to protect the vaccine. For those who have not been vaccinated, there are risks, and that is why we still have in force a “do not travel” alert and why we are maintaining marketing and communications at every level on the restrictions that are still in place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, to come back to my noble friend Lady Thornton’s Question, the Minister will know that, at the SAGE meeting on 21 January, there were warnings that geographically targeted bans cannot be relied upon to stop the importation of new variants, partly because of indirect travel. He has just said that he does not want a backdoor entrance through Ireland. But what are the Government going to do about indirect travel, which is a clear route into this country to avoid the current quarantine rules?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Those who travel to the UK must fill in a passenger locator form. On the PLF they have to state whether they have been in a red list country. We also share an enormous amount of information with the aviation industry to cover people’s previous travel, and therefore it is not as easy as the noble Lord might think to take a hop and a skip into Britain through a third country, as has been proved by those who have travelled from Brazil and been caught by the red list. However, his point is well made, which is I why I reinforce what I said earlier: we keep the red list under review and, if it proves necessary to extend the countries on that list, we shall do so to protect the vaccine.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, at the outset, my noble friend said that the Government wanted to use all means at their disposal to combat the spread of all the variants and mutations. I refer to a point I made last week. One means at the Government’s disposal is to ensure that all those who work in care homes are vaccinated. It is quite wrong that they can refuse it and then attend to the most intimate needs of their patients
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I remind my noble friend that we have some mandatory vaccination already in place in the health service; those who perform operations and other intimate health interventions are required to have hepatitis and other vaccinations, for instance, so there is a precedent for what he talks about. However, it is a huge step, which impacts people’s personal liberty and choices, to make vaccination mandatory for more than a million social care workers. My noble friend makes a persuasive argument, which is why the Cabinet Office is looking at exactly this sort of matter; there is a strong public health argument for mandatory vaccination. Given that we have not rolled out vaccination across the whole population yet, it is premature to make that decision today, but we are considering it carefully.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to those Members whom I was not able to call.
Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and Battery Manufacturing Strategy
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Ellesmere Port plant is a major employer, and letting it wind down would have devastating consequences, with 1,000 highly skilled jobs lost in the local community. The Government must do all they can to secure the future of the plant, and it is worth reminding ourselves that the automotive sector has had no sectoral support during the pandemic.
To achieve net zero and sustain our automotive industry, we need a plan and action and investment. As such, will the Government bring forward ambitious investment in electric vehicle technology, including the electric battery supply chain, in tomorrow’s Budget—so that manufacturers have the long-term confidence that they need to build new electric models in the UK and so that we can move forward and secure the future of Ellesmere Port as a major automotive producer?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that we are doing all that we can to ensure that Ellesmere Port has a bright future. The automotive industry in general is an essential part of the Government’s plans for green growth, levelling up across our country and driving emissions to net zero. As the noble Lord will be aware, as part of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the Government brought forward the phase-out date for new petrol and diesel cars and vans to 2030, and, by 2035, all new cars and vans must be fully zero-emission at the tailpipe.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am on the executive of the All-Party Parliamentary Motor Group. In his Statement, the Secretary of State boasted that some £1.5 billion of joint funding had gone to the APC and the Faraday battery challenge. To put that into context, that is about a tenth of what the French Government are putting into this sector. The fate of Ellesmere Port will be decided in days, but the Government have had years to get ready for moments like this. Everyone knew and knows that we need significant battery manufacturing capacity in this country. The Faraday challenge has been running for eight years, so what has stopped a battery gigafactory being built already?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Ultimately, of course, these are commercial decisions for the companies involved, but we are working closely with a number of people interested in establishing gigafactories. We have announced £500 million as part of our wider commitment of up to £1 billion to support the electrification of vehicles and their supply chains, including developing gigafactories in the UK.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their aim to ban sales of new internal combustion engine cars from 2030. What specific plans do they have to invest in the production of electric vehicles and batteries to ensure that the UK remains competitive globally in manufacturing? Does my noble friend see a role in this for regions such as the north-west, where Vauxhall is sited?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that it is very important that we see a future for these industries. As I have said, we are doing all that we can to help—I outlined our financial commitment in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I come from the north-east, so I want to see it do well along with the north-west, and I repeat my earlier answer that we are doing all that we can to secure the future of the Ellesmere Port facility.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, like everyone, I welcome the introduction of full electric vehicles, but the Secretary of State said:
“We want to see a circular economy for electric vehicles.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/21; col 33.]
However, he also said, “If we attain that”. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government are looking into how this can be achieved? A recent report by the Transport and Environment Committee found that it is eminently feasible to have batteries that are one-fifth lithium and nickel and 65% cobalt, coming from recycled sources, by 2035. Will the Government put some sort of target into legislation as a statement of intent to drive the industry to do just that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I outlined in previous answers the support that we are giving; we are looking closely at all these matters. I am sure that it is eminently possible to ensure that a circular economy applies to electric vehicles as much as it applies to many other parts of the economy.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Are the Government aware that electric vehicles can only ever be a tiny part of reducing our carbon emissions—and that it would be more effective to stop building new roads and not open new coal mines? If they are worried about jobs, the Government should be starting up thousands of schemes to train people to retrofit insulation in houses and install clean heating systems. Are the Government thinking about this?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that we are already investing millions of pounds in training for green jobs under the Green Homes Grant scheme. We invested about £7 million in a training competition, and there are numerous other government schemes doing precisely what she suggested: the eco scheme, the home upgrade grant, et cetera.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the helpful comments that have already been made, but I must ask the Government to leave no stone unturned in keeping this Vauxhall car plant at Ellesmere Port open—it is crucial, as people have said. Finalising an agreement with Stellantis to manufacture not one but potentially two next-generation battery-driven vehicles is crucial, securing, of course, thousands of high-skilled jobs for Ellesmere Port and, indeed, our country. Battery-driven vehicles are the future for this industry, if we are to have any future at all, and I suggest that it would be unforgiveable if the Government missed the opportunity of this investment and of securing these jobs for our country.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know the noble Lord’s personal commitment to the north-west, and I agree with him about leaving no stone unturned. I assure him that the Government are committed to securing the future of Ellesmere Port. The Business Secretary and his senior officials are engaging frequently with the company to explore ways to ensure that the plant stays open. The noble Lord will understand that, while these discussions are ongoing, I cannot comment further, but we will do all that we can.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
We have the land and the skilled workforce, and we no longer have the bureaucracy of the European Union restricting state aid to new industries. The Minister talks about the private sector—of course it needs to be there. But should we not be in the lead in the world on electric vehicles, with state money—government money—helping to make sure, as we have done with vaccines, that we are first, not second, third or fourth in this technology? Therefore, should those decisions not be made now?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Those decisions have already been made, and I agree with the noble Lord: it is essential for the future of the industry, and in relation to issues such as rules of origin, that we establish domestic supply chains. I outlined in a previous answer the very substantial investments that the Government are making in this area.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was very pleased to hear my noble friend explaining what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to ensure the future manufacture of electrified vehicles, helping us to meet those net-zero targets. Does he agree that there is a huge opportunity for the manufacture of batteries not just for cars but for larger vehicles, such as buses?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with my noble friend and indeed I would include vans as well. He makes a very good point. Developing a competitive UK electrified supply chain is key to maintaining the success of our automotive industry, which I remind noble Lords is one of the most productive and efficient in the world. Doing this will protect and create thousands of high-quality jobs across the UK.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. The electric vehicle revolution can also bring thousands of well-paid jobs to areas such as the West Midlands, but that requires investment in battery technology and mass production. What assessment have the Government made of proposals for a battery plant at Coventry? I commend to the Minister the brilliant work being done in this area by the Warwick Manufacturing Group, where I and many other parliamentarians sit on the voluntary advisory group.
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are a number of good proposals around the country, including from Coventry, for the location of gigafactory investment. Ultimately, of course, the decision will be a commercial matter. Ministers and officials are in close discussion with those developing the Coventry proposals, the Blyth proposals and other factories around the country.
Lord Field of Birkenhead (CB) [V]
I thank the Government for their statement. What do the Government need to bring to the table? What does Vauxhall need to bring to the table to ensure that we have in Wirral one of the centres for battery production?
Lord Callanan (Con)
A bid from Coventry, bids from the north-west, a bid from the Wirral as well—we totally understand that. The noble Lord will understand that these are commercial decisions. We are willing to stand behind companies and help them develop their proposals, but there are a number of exciting proposals in different parts of the country. I have outlined the financial support that is available. With regard to the future of Vauxhall, or Stellantis as it now is, we are in discussions with it; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has had a number of meetings with it, and senior officials are meeting it. Those discussions remain confidential at the moment but we are doing all that we can to assist.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
All supplementary questions have been asked.
Covid-19: Ethnic Minority Disparities
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
ONS statistics last week showed that the unemployment rate for ethnic minorities is 9.5%, compared with 4.5% for white people. A key example of a risk factor is socioeconomic deprivation. Research shows that black, Asian and ethnic minority people are more likely to be on zero-hours contracts. One in five people on such contracts is not eligible for statutory sick pay. What plans do the Government have to address precarious work for ethnic minorities specifically? Do the Government acknowledge that this is evidence that structural racism in the labour market and socioeconomic risk factors interact?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that certain occupations have had an increased exposure to the virus. That is one of the risk factors for ethnic minority populations. That is why with transportation, for instance, we have issued two different sets of guidance, for private hire and for public service vehicles, and included those within the mass testing. In relation to the economic disadvantage, we are investing £30 billion in a plan for jobs to enable people who have been put out of work by the pandemic to get work.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
My Lords, the increasing levels of Covid-19 are now impacting far more on the south Asian community, particularly the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. What targeted actions involving public health and policies are being deployed to combat this? Will the Government now publish equality impact assessments on the pandemic responses, including vaccine uptake, given the clear structural social inequalities and institutional racism that have exacerbated the pandemic’s impact on the majority of ethnic minority communities?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct that the report published last Friday revealed that in the second wave of the pandemic sections of the south Asian population were disproportionately affected by the virus. We have funded community champions to get the message out across certain communities through local authorities. In relation to community centres and places of worship, we have now set up asymptomatic testing centres and vaccination centres to try to increase the take-up within those communities, as getting vaccinated is the best way to protect them from the virus.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I commend the work and the actions undertaken by the Government to respond to the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on ethnic minorities. However, as we have heard, the data shows that socioeconomic factors are a major driver for disparities in infection rates. Ethnic minority communities are statistically more likely to be disadvantaged. Does the Minister agree that, as we emerge from the lockdown, we must not only ensure that we build on this evidence and develop appropriate responses but take steps to ensure that we reduce the level of socioeconomic disadvantage faced by sections of the minority communities as part of the levelling-up agenda?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the pandemic has indeed revealed many inequalities, including health inequalities across certain communities. That is not linked only to race: we also believe that certain coastal communities will have been disproportionately affected by the virus. However, we are aiming many of our schemes at those populations within the ethnic minority community; for instance, with the apprenticeship schemes we have had specific promotion to ensure that black and minority ethnic people take up those opportunities where they disproportionately do not do so.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, are my noble friend the Minister and her department looking at post-Covid job creation, particularly among the low-skilled BAME communities? I reflect on my own home city of Leicester, where many jobs have been lost. If we are going to try to level up, as she has just said, we need to ensure that the right services and right interventions are in place. Will she consider looking at a pilot scheme to go into Leicester to do the levelling-up agenda on the skills matrix?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, being relatively local to Leicester in origin, I pay tribute to the people of Leicester, who I think have endured the longest period of restrictions of any part of the country. One of the few pieces of good news for the House over recent weeks has been the FE and skills White Paper and the focus on higher technical qualifications. We are focused on giving skills to people, particularly in low-income jobs, through the lifelong learning entitlement so that while earning they can train themselves up to get better-paid and better-quality work. I will take away the specific idea of a pilot to the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to engage with the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, who are often left out of these discussions, to raise awareness of the positive vaccination process that is available?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the right reverent Prelate is correct that this marginalised community is often left out. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who is in the House, is leading a specific initiative out of MHCLG on this community. We now have data on the level of take-up of the vaccine in particular communities. The local directors of public health, who are the best people to know how many vaccines have been offered and how many have been taken up on the ground, should have the detailed information in the coming weeks in order to focus on that particular community in their locality.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, ethnic minority groups have suffered disproportionately when it comes to health inequalities, economic inequalities and wealth inequality. However, any recovery post Covid will have to be UK-wide, so will the Government undertake to look at best practice and gather data so that we can compare the figures, whether from Birmingham, Belfast, Edinburgh or Cardiff, and therefore learn and overcome the divisions that have been so much more highlighted in the last year?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, indeed, the department, among other departments, is regularly in touch with the devolved Administrations, because we want to share best practice on this. Obviously, DWP is a nationwide provision and there are more job coaches there, which we hope will enable those communities, particularly BME communities, to access work as quickly as possible if they have lost work now or lose work after furlough ends.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, several noble Lords have quite rightly highlighted deprivation, unemployment and poverty as causes of Covid spread and I will not say anything different, though ethnicity per se does not predispose to Covid. People of ethnic origin, particularly in south Asian communities, are six times more likely to have diabetes, a condition that does predispose people to more serious impacts of Covid. Ethnic communities are also more likely to live in overcrowded accommodation and multigenerational households and to be poor. It is really poverty that kills. Can the Minister say what wider economic and social policies, including education, income and housing, the Government will introduce to tackle the poverty gap that has got wider in the last 10 years of Conservative government?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the NHS has an obesity strategy and the pandemic has shone a light, helpfully, on how important that strategy is. I can comment only in relation to the role of education in this—we were on track and had seen an overall closing of the attainment gap over the last 10 years. We recognise that there has been a narrowing in the last couple of years, but we are focusing our catch-up recovery to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds catch up as quickly as possible.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, the report suggests that overrepresentation in certain generally low-paid occupations is a significant factor in the horrific death rate for people from Pakistani backgrounds. There is a lot that might be said about that with regard to structural racism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred to, but in the pandemic context, does it not demonstrate that employers are not doing enough to protect workers, particularly essential workers? What more will the Government do to force employers to behave better to save lives?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, since 1974, I believe, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act has been in force in this country and, overwhelmingly, employers take their responsibilities in this regard very seriously. The NHS, as a key employer, had by the end of last year done a risk assessment of the overwhelming majority of its ethnic minority workforce. As I said, we are also including certain groups in the mass testing asymptomatic pilots to ensure that we reduce rates of transmission.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The time allowed for this Question has now elapsed, and I apologise to those who were hoping to be called.
Rough Sleeping
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for bringing this Statement to the House this afternoon. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Government promised to “bring everybody in” during the pandemic and, despite good work done in the first wave, today we sadly have many people sleeping rough again on our streets, many very close to this building. The people sleeping on the link bridge between Waterloo station and the street, who I have mentioned before, are still there: I saw them yesterday on my way to this House. According to the Government’s own figures, there were 2,688 people sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2020. People who are homeless are three times more likely to experience a chronic health need, including respiratory conditions, putting them at higher risk of poor health outcomes, including from Covid-19.
It is tragic that in one of the richest countries in the world, in one of the richest cities in the world, we have people sleeping rough on the streets tonight. So, can the noble Lord tell the House why the response to the homelessness situation of people living on our streets was so much better and more effective in the first wave in comparison with the second wave? What happened in government that led to the response being so much worse this time around? What happened to the Everyone In policy? It created a safe space for people to access the support needed to move on from homelessness.
On the wider picture of homelessness, the situation is even worse, with people living with friends and sleeping on sofas, including up to 130,000 children in England. The Government have a manifesto commitment to end the blight of rough sleeping in England by 2024. The response by the Government to this pandemic must surely be part of the plan to deliver on that commitment, and not an obstacle that puts the policy pledge in jeopardy. What we need from the Government is a strategy in place to ensure that people experiencing homelessness can move on from homelessness or expensive temporary accommodation into secure, safe, warm, dry, long-term accommodation that enables them to start rebuilding their lives.
Local authorities should be congratulated on the work they have done, with limited funding and unclear guidance from the Government. Will the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, identify for the House the various sums of money that are mentioned? Which of those are new money and not just restatements of previous funding commitments?
Housing First is a recognised and accepted method of ending homelessness for people with multiple needs, including mental health issues and addictions. The scheme is in place in Scotland and is being piloted here in England, but the fact is that many people experiencing homelessness in England will need a Housing First offer to finally end their homelessness. There are three pilots in place, which provide around 2,000 places, but this is a long way short of the investment and commitment needed to deal with the issue finally. So when does the Minister expect a decision to be made on rolling out the scheme in England, as has already been done in Scotland, and when does he expect funding for the rough sleeping accommodation programme to ensure that a long-term housing solution is not just an aim but a reality, which is not the case today?
Baroness Grender (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for bringing us the Statement. There is no doubt that Everyone In last spring was a significant achievement. Louise Casey, now the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, wrote in her email at the start of the pandemic, after her first week in MHCLG:
“I don’t care what’s happening; I don’t care what’s going on, you’ve got to get everybody in.”
Rough sleeping was treated as an urgent public health issue, resource was prioritised and brought forward, and central and local government worked in tandem with all the charities and the hotel sector and lined up safe accommodation. This was without question a success. But, as so many witnesses to the APPG for ending homelessness made clear, these numbers are never static. Homelessness, like a river, expands and grows. Substantial boulders are the only thing that stop it at source, and those boulders start with social and truly affordable housing.
Will the Minister explain why social housing build last year was only 5,716 homes, far below both Shelter’s annual target and the National Housing Federation’s goal of 145,000 social homes per year? Tomorrow in the Budget we are expecting to see a significant subsidy, not to social housing but to first-time buyers, who will be encouraged to borrow 20% of the purchase price. Will the Minister say where that money is likely to go? What is the possibility that it will end up in the profit margins of the large developers, many of which donate regularly to the Conservative Party? To prevent an increase in the number of people sleeping rough, rapid access to secure, long-term accommodation is vital. This period, following the achievement of Everyone In, is a unique opportunity to do just that and never return to the levels that were way too high just before this pandemic.
The target date of the manifesto commitment—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—is fast approaching, and policies need to be in place now. So surely—as the noble Lord also said—it is time to commit to a rollout of Housing First across England, instead of continuing with the pilots. The scale of current provision is 2,000 places, which falls far too short of the 16,450 places needed that were identified by the charities Crisis and Homeless Link. Can the Minister explain what is preventing the Government rolling out these successful pilots now?
It is welcome news that local authority guidance is encouraging registration of people sleeping rough with GPs, but why are the Government not following the success of some London boroughs, together with Liverpool and Oldham, which are using current JCVI guidance to vaccinate homeless people, in order to mitigate health inequalities? Some local authorities are unclear about this; will the Minister commit to clarifiying the issue? Even at the height of Everyone In some local authorities turned homeless people away. Can the Minister explain why? Does his department know why there were 2,600 people, or more, sleeping rough in October, and how many of them had no recourse to public funds?
The Statement rightly refers to research in the Lancet but not to the wider arguments used. It was clear that what was critical was the absolute refusal to resort to emergency shelters at all. So why are the Government considering using them? Large cities in the US continue to use emergency shelters, to huge detrimental effect. If social distancing is still advised next autumn, should emergency shelters not be ruled out? Can the Minister explain, in detail, in what circumstances they will be used?
The Statement refers to many of the underlying reasons for rough sleeping but fails to mention the precarious position of so many in the private rented sector. Why is that? While it is welcome that the pause on evictions has been extended, that has not stopped every stage of the process. Will the Minister acknowledge that, during the winter lockdown, 500 people were evicted from their homes and that last month 445 were either in arrears or served with eviction notices? Does the Minister agree that if the landlords’ associations and charities have united to ask for assistance, in the form of grants to tenants to keep roofs over their heads, this should be a priority to prevent homelessness?
As we continue to see the economic impact on people’s incomes, it is worrying that there is no longer-term strategy from the Government to ensure that people will be able to keep a roof over their heads. We are expecting unemployment to rise by this summer. The Government have frozen housing benefits once again. Can the Minister give reassurances that the Government are looking at ways to support people to prevent homelessness, including by helping them to avoid eviction due to arrears? Finally, is there any news on the long-awaited end to the use of Section 21, which has such an impact on vulnerable tenants?
There are many paths to homelessness. I sincerely hope that this period has been a pause and we can move forward from here. However, unless some of the problems in areas which give rise to homelessness—such as the private rented sector—are anticipated and stopped in their tracks, we will continue to see rises in homelessness.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, the Oral Statement relates to rough sleeping. The figures are very clear: we have seen a 37% reduction in rough sleeping—a huge reduction. There has been a reduction of 43% since the Prime Minister took office in 2019. The 2,688 statistic that was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his opening remarks, is down from 4,751 in 2017. This Government retain the ambition to end rough sleeping. I point out, too, that subsequent analysis, in December and January, shows continued reductions in the levels of rough sleeping.
One of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is not correct: the Everyone In programme continues and by January had helped 37,000 people, with over 11,000 in emergency accommodation and 26,000 moved into longer-term accommodation. The programme continues to operate, along with subsequent programmes and the Protect Plus programme.
It is important to address the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on funding. The commitment on homelessness and rough sleeping in the 2021 budget was £700 million, and that will increase next year—since we had a single-year budget commitment—by a further £50 million, to £750 million. Significantly, within that £750 million is a commitment to a block grant of £310 million for homelessness prevention. That grant is to ensure that there are no further pressures, and to support people at risk of homelessness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned the Government’s record on social housing. Social housing is underpinned by the multi-billion pound affordable homes grant, which has had record funding. We continue to be committed to build all forms of affordable housing, of all tenures, including social housing.
The Housing First pilot, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is a world-class project. It was pioneered in Finland and we are piloting it to get the policy right. It continues to be piloted in three areas—the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region. It is important to use the findings of the evaluation, and other experiences with pilots, to inform our next steps, and we are commissioning a consortium led by the ICF to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the programme. When you do something new like this, it is important to test what you want to expand and expand what you test, rather than hurriedly implement something and get it wrong.
We remain committed to removing no-fault evictions; that will happen as soon as parliamentary time allows, as I have said in previous answers. We recognise the underlying problems of people on our streets, and that we need to continue to address them. This Government, however, have made huge, unprecedented strides in reducing rough sleeping, and we continue to see that in the latest information that we have published.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
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. I am tempted to repeat that last sentence, but I will not.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what has been achieved. I am particularly glad that they are trying to ensure that every rough sleeper has a GP. Can my noble friend tell the House what percentage are now registered with GPs? Furthermore, has any any study been conducted into how many are driven into homelessness by drugs and how many are driven to drugs by homelessness?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for showing the complexity that underpins rough sleeping. We know that 82% of rough sleepers have a mental health vulnerability; 83% have a physical health need; and 60% have substance misuse needs. We do not necessarily know the interrelationship between those problems. Getting rough sleepers vaccinated is very much part of the Protect Plus programme, which is backed by £10 million to support and urge local authorities to play their part in getting rough sleepers—whether on the streets or in emergency accommodation —vaccinated when it is their time in the queue. We also continue to work closely with NHS England and Public Health England to ensure that this vulnerable cohort of people gets vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
The Government are to be congratulated on the initiatives they have taken over rough sleeping during the Covid epidemic, and particularly for their success during the first lockdown. But the key question, of course, is whether there is the right policy, with adequate backing, to ensure that this is a permanent change. There were worrying signs before the pandemic that there were many more first-time rough sleepers; there was a report from Southwark recently, for example, that there are still new people coming on to the streets, with the number of applications from the homeless rising. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, emphasised, the problem is still there before our eyes. Of course, this has a great deal to do with the loss of jobs and the shortage of long-term accommodation, so how do the Government intend to ensure that during the difficult months ahead, we do not slip back into the old, pre-Covid situation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point to the commitment through an entire Parliament of building 6,000 new homes for rough sleepers, which is backed by over £400 million of funding. We hope to see the reductions that we have seen on the streets of London, which were in line with the national reduction of 37%, continue.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
On the issue of Covid vaccination policy for rough sleepers, is it not true that they are not treated nationally as a priority group for vaccination and that we have a postcode lottery in operation? Some areas treat them as a priority, others do not, yet they are a particularly vulnerable and difficult group. What action are the Government taking to organise a national framework for rough sleeper priority vaccination? I was concerned when I heard the Minister say, “When it is their turn in the queue”—they should be at the very front of the queue.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the JCVI has set the overall framework for vaccination, and there is, by definition, a queue in terms of relative vulnerability and when people are called to be vaccinated. Of course, as part of that it is important that rough sleepers are registered with their GP. Therefore, we have been working closely with local authorities—backed up by £10 million of funding—to ensure that rough sleepers are registered with GPs so that they get the vaccination when it is offered.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, we should not be too self-congratulatory about what has happened, bearing in mind that the number of people sleeping rough on our streets is still more than 50% higher than it was a decade ago. The action around Covid has shown that taking direct action can get people off the streets. It is notable that most of those coming on to the streets are not returning but are coming on for the first time. Charities such as Crisis are warning of an imminent peak, however, as special measures, such as housing benefit increases and the temporary ban on evictions, end. Does the Minister agree that there is a real risk of a new peak in rough sleeping? What specific action will the Government take to replace these schemes, which clearly cannot continue for ever, to address this issue?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the risk of a cliff edge given the level of support from the Government during the Covid-19 pandemic. An important plank of the support for people at risk of homelessness is the uplift in the local housing allowance, and there has been a commitment to maintain that at the same level in cash terms. In addition, we have seen increases in universal credit and working tax credit of up to £1,040 for the year. Of course, it is a matter for the Chancellor to decide how that continues as he makes his comments in the Budget.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, it is very good news that rough sleeping is in decline, and I congratulate the Government and all those concerned on that success. There is one difficult cohort that is not covered in the Statement: those coming temporarily from abroad, often to beg or for other purposes, who, for instance, set up filthy encampments in Park Lane which we can all see. I understand that up to 50% of the rough sleepers in central London are in that category, and they are described as having “no recourse to public funds”. Do Her Majesty’s Government have any plans to address that issue?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right that we see more people who are either EU or non-EU foreign nationals on the streets of London. We encourage local authorities, including those in London, to connect those people with family and friends. We can also provide legal support, as well as helping them into work or training where appropriate, so there is flexibility for local authorities to do that for this group of people.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I acknowledge the progress of Everyone In, but the debate in the other place exposed some very disturbing factors, such as the Minister admitting wide variances across the country of the delivery of rough sleeping and homelessness services and, shockingly, that many homeless people eventually end up in poor-quality, publicly funded supported housing. What regulatory or other plans do the Government have to level up provision for rough sleepers and homeless people?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is a fairly consistent national picture. I went through the data with a team as preparation for this; in every region in England we are seeing a very significant drop in rough sleeping, and they are very large in the south-east and London. It is only in the north-east, which has relatively low numbers of rough sleepers and where the figure is up by five rough sleepers according to the data, that we have some concern around not seeing a reduction. But we will continue to push the policies that are working in those areas and ensure that we encourage local authorities and others to adopt those in areas where it is proving harder to do so.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, the excellent work done in response to Covid in housing those living on the streets followed the implementation from 2018 of the Homelessness Reduction Act, a Private Member’s Bill from Bob Blackman MP which I had the honour of piloting through your Lordships’ House. This was beginning to work well in preventing homelessness and rough sleeping. In congratulating the Minister on the several new initiatives to assist those sleeping rough, can I ask whether he is satisfied that sufficient resources are now available to all local authorities to fully implement the Homelessness Reduction Act to prevent people becoming homeless in the first place?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on supporting my honourable friend Bob Blackman in the other place. It is an important piece of legislation, and prevention is an incredibly important priority to ensure that we do not see more people sleeping rough on our streets. I remind noble Lords that we are seeing an increase in the budget for next year to £750 million, and £310 million is for the Homelessness Prevention Grant to do precisely what the noble Lord encourages local authorities to focus on: preventing homelessness.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as someone who once worked for a charity supporting homeless people, I welcome the reduction in the numbers of those sleeping rough. Rough sleeping is a blight on any civilised society and must be wholly eradicated, and I am sure that the Minister would agree. But apart from no-fault evictions and existing benefits, how do Her Majesty’s Government propose to prevent an upsurge in homelessness resulting from the end of the furlough scheme and rising unemployment—particularly among private renters, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I cannot really comment on any additional measures. It is a matter for the Chancellor to set out the protection that we will be able to afford renters, while recognising the considerable amount that we have already done during this pandemic.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s commitment to end all rough sleeping is admirable. However, if this is to be achieved, they need to do much more in terms of both the immediate response to the numbers continuing to sleep on the streets and of solving the long-term causes. In relation to immediate actions, will the Government commit now to a national rollout of Housing First as soon as the pilots have been reviewed? I understand what the Minister said about the need for the pilots to be evaluated, but the fact that they are in existence must mean that the Government intend to take them further where they are working. I would hope that Housing First will have its funding increased so that around 2,000 places that are being helped by the scheme can be greatly increased to cover the numbers needing support. In the longer term, will they make a commitment that no one will be released from prison without adequate housing to go to?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, all I can say in addition to my response to earlier questions is that the Government are committed to expanding Housing First. That commitment was made in our latest manifesto, but it is important to take on board the lessons from the three pilots.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, like others, I welcome the Government’s commitment to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament and the progress being made towards that. But the Statement says, of those sleeping rough:
“Many of the individuals will have been offered accommodation but will not have chosen to accept it, for a wide range of reasons.”
How, then, will the commitment be delivered?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend on his tireless work that started in the early 1990s with the launch of the Rough Sleepers Initiative. Recognising that the moral mission of ending rough sleeping will be difficult shows the need to work in harness not only with our health partners and others in local authorities, but also with the community voluntary sector to deal with the underlying problems. The Housing First principle is first to find secure accommodation, then to deal with issues so that the person involved does not return to the streets.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, homelessness and sleeping on the street is never done by choice. It is about our societal and institutional failures. Some 250,000 people, including 130,000 children, are regarded as being homeless and significant numbers of them are sleeping on the streets. They may have no recourse to public funds or be fleeing domestic violence. Among those sleeping rough, there are serious concerns about mental health and substance misuse, for which they do not have any access to services. Last year, almost 1,000 people perished on the streets.
Through the outstanding leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, the Government have made incredible advances and provided necessary services, which is to be commended. Does the noble Lord accept that banning evictions and regulating the private rented sector, along with supporting local councils to meet and manage housing needs and additional support services, are the correct solutions? They would have the most impact and be the most genuine way of eradicating sleeping on the streets and homelessness.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government have already made a commitment to ending Section 21 no-fault evictions. I shall return to my previous answer and point out that we have seen a further decrease in the number of people aged 25 or under who have been sleeping rough this year. It is important, if we want to end rough sleeping, that we see a decrease in numbers among our young people.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, to follow on from what the Minister said, the voluntary sector and local authorities are expressing concern about the number of young people who are rough sleepers. Can he say what is the ratio of homeless young people and what will be done to prevent them becoming homeless by, for example, providing support for conflict in families and for mental health problems, both of which have become increasingly important during Covid?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have put in place bespoke support for local authorities through our homelessness advice and support team, which includes dedicated youth homelessness advisers who will inform the response to support young people. In addition, we recognise the role played by the community and voluntary sectors play if we are to end rough sleeping. That is why, included in the £6 million-worth of emergency funding, is around £100,000 that has been given to St Basils to ensure that we upskill and fund Youth Voice, which is a training scheme for young homeless people across the country.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very encouraged to hear about the improvements in the rough sleeping figures and I sincerely hope that they can be maintained. Perhaps my noble friend could say what is being done and can be done to relieve the plight of those living rough in rural areas, who so often seem to be forgotten.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point out that in my noble friend’s constituency, the level of rough sleeping has dropped by 90%, which is one of the largest decreases in the country. On the rural figures, of course we work very carefully to ensure that the snapshot includes both rural and urban numbers. The regional figures would seem to indicate an across-the-board reduction in rough sleeping and, in particular, very steep reductions in some of our major cities.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s ambition to end rough sleeping is of course to be welcomed, provided that there is progress towards achieving it. I want to ask the Minister about two specific groups. One has been referred to by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. She asked what is being done about ex-offenders who find themselves sleeping rough. Can the Minister say a little more about that group? Can he also say something more about members of the Armed Forces? If they have served our country as well as they have, we have a responsibility to ensure that in the end they do not sleep rough when they are discharged. We owe them a better future than that.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, part of the ministerial working group is looking at the issue of rough sleepers in London who are former members of the Armed Forces. I pay tribute to the work of my honourable friend in the other place, Johnny Mercer. The key is to work with local authorities to identify those people so that we can get support services to them. The support services for our Armed Forces as well as for ex-offenders are in place; it is a question of ensuring that we identify those people so that we can wrap the service support around them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. In the past hour, London has become the largest city in the world to call for a trial of universal basic income. An unconditional income sufficient to meet basic needs would be one way to ensure that no one ends up sleeping on the streets —that conditionality of benefits or insecurity of employment would not lead to eviction. As the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, said earlier, today’s figures report a fall in rough sleeping, but the future of rising unpayable debt, in particular among private tenants, looks grim. The Government keep saying that they will not introduce a national universal basic income, but will they support London and the 14 other local authorities that have voted for trials in their communities?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is indeed blue-sky thinking to guarantee someone an income that is paid by the state. I point out that in the pandemic we have seen the national debt increase substantially to the level of our economic output for a year, which is some £2.2 trillion. In that environment, it is very difficult to make these kinds of spending commitments, and I will certainly leave something like that to the Chancellor.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, all the questions have been taken. Before we move on to the next business, I suggest that we take a short breather to allow people to move in and out of the Chamber.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 January be approved.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament in January and is required to align the juxtaposed controls regime at the seaports of northern France with the regime currently in operation at Coquelles for the Channel Tunnel shuttle service and at the Eurostar rail terminals in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The order will replicate the legislative approach taken at the other juxtaposed control locations and enable all UK immigration legislation to be applied in the UK control zones at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk.
The security and integrity of our borders depend on the effective enforcement of our immigration controls, particularly at the UK border controls in northern France, where each year thousands of people make perilous attempts to enter the UK illegally. It is essential that Border Force officers working at our border in northern France are empowered to carry out immigration controls to the fullest extent.
As noble Lords will know, the UK has several international agreements with France that allow UK Border Force to operate border controls at specified ports in France. This allows Border Force officers to conduct checks on passengers and freight destined for the UK. It is a reciprocal arrangement, with French officers completing entry checks at certain points in the UK on passengers and freight destined for continental Europe. This form of pre-departure immigration control plays a crucial role in tackling irregular migration and disrupting organised immigration crime.
Currently, Border Force conducts juxtaposed immigration controls at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk, with the French Police aux Frontières undertaking Schengen entry checks at the UK port of Dover prior to travel. The juxtaposed controls in Calais and Dunkirk are provided for at an international level by the 2003 Le Touquet treaty. This was put into effect in the UK by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, which I shall refer to as the 2003 order. It was made under Section 141 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
The 2003 order granted officers of the Immigration Service, as it was then known, specified immigration powers enabling them to carry out immigration controls in specified geographical locations, known as control zones, at the northern French seaports. At that time, only the powers specified in the order were necessary for the efficient and effective conduct of immigration controls. However, the way in which Border Force operates has changed in the intervening years. Officers at Calais and Dunkirk therefore now operate with fewer powers than are available to their colleagues elsewhere.
The order under debate amends the 2003 order to grant UK Border Force officers working at the juxtaposed ports of Calais and Dunkirk the full range of immigration powers currently available to them under the Immigration Acts. This includes the power to use reasonable force, as set out in Section 146 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is available to their counterparts at other locations.
The order therefore empowers appropriately trained Border Force officers at the juxtaposed seaports to use reasonable force under English law when carrying out any power conferred on them by the Immigration Acts. This will enable trained Border Force staff to intervene to prevent harm where an individual’s behaviour endangers themselves, the travelling public or other Border Force staff. It will also allow trained Border Force officers to enforce compliance with immigration processes, including fingerprinting.
Border Force officers will continue to take all reasonable steps to avoid using force, as they do elsewhere, by engaging with the individual and encouraging them to comply. Reasonable force would only ever be used as a last resort where an individual repeatedly refused to co-operate with Border Force officers and such force became necessary either for health and safety reasons or to ensure that full immigration controls were completed.
This measure builds on the steps the Government have already taken to reform the immigration system, strengthen border controls and reduce illegal migration. It will strengthen Border Force’s ability to manage those who seek to frustrate our immigration processes or circumvent UK immigration controls, and it will ensure that Border Force officers are properly empowered to intervene to prevent harm. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out the intention and effect of the order. It seems entirely reasonable. It brings the practice and powers at the French channel ports of Calais and Dunkirk into line with the practice and process at Coquelles and at the Eurostar terminals in Belgium, France and the Netherlands. I support it.
I have some questions to ask my noble friend. Since these powers are exercised outside the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction, although they are provided for by domestic legislation, I assume that express or implied powers for Border Force officers to exercise reasonable force extraterritorially in France are contained in the provisions of the Le Touquet treaty, which my noble friend referred to. This seems highly probable, but it will be good to hear my noble friend confirm it.
Secondly, not only do we have border controls in France, but France exercises controls at the port of Dover. Do the French authorities exercise similar powers to those that we exercise in France?
Thirdly, what discussions do we have with the French authorities about these matters, both specifically on these recent issues and more generally on an ongoing basis about border controls in Calais, Dover, Dunkirk and indeed at the Eurostar terminals and at Coquelles?
The Explanatory Memorandum to the order is explicit that when the border controls were first deployed at these sea ports in 2003 the immigration powers were considered,
“sufficient to effectively administer immigration controls at these locations.”
What has changed is clearly the escalation of attempts to enter the United Kingdom illegally. I understand that—I am sure that we all do—but I would be grateful if my noble friend could update the House on the current position at Calais, Dunkirk and the surrounding area. Obviously, there is real concern in your Lordships’ House on a humanitarian level, not least because of the pandemic. Could my noble friend therefore give the House an assessment of the current position and of the longer-term outlook? I appreciate that it is bound to be a changing position and perhaps fairly volatile, but it would be good to hear how the position is at the moment.
Subject to these concerns, I strongly support what seems a very sensible provision.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the order. The controls proposed in it ensure consistency of controls across all the juxtaposed locations and bring these controls into line with current UK operations. Harmonising the legislative regime will allow greater efficiency and effectiveness in border control officers assessing passengers and improve the border process.
Although the international sea traffic to which the order applies currently ends in England, the territorial application remains the whole of the United Kingdom. Another consequence is that the order allows immigration officers to use the full immigration powers available to them under the Immigration Acts, leading to early intervention against individuals or groups aiming to harm the UK or undertake organised immigration crime. It also extends the use of force powers, thereby allowing Border Force officers to use reasonable force if required to enforce compliance with immigration processes.
It is right that we provide the earliest possible intervention to prevent those wishing to do us harm reaching our shores. Unfortunately, there are those who make great profit from organised immigration crime; their plans must be thwarted. At the moment, Border Force officers are not granted powers in English law to exercise force, although they have the appropriate training to do so professionally. There is evidence of numerous attempts by organised criminals to bring people into the United Kingdom illegally through northern French seaports. Thankfully, many of them are intercepted but the officers concerned need enforcement powers for when they are presented with persons who would endanger themselves and others. Serious breaches of security must not be overlooked, and officers must be granted appropriate support to carry out their duties effectively, minimise disruption and contain sensitive situations. It is therefore imperative that we use every possible tool to keep our country safe. I support the order.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. I place on record my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for dealing with this difficult area among the many difficult challenges she faces.
My noble friend knows as well as the rest of the House does that the problem of illegal immigration across the channel seems to be growing. I have some questions. First, one wonders why it has taken quite a long time to co-ordinate seaports with the Channel Tunnel and Eurostar. In the interim, we have seen a considerable increase in illegal cross-channel traffic. Can my noble friend elucidate on what more we can do, are doing or should be doing to crack down on this form of illegal immigration?
I am not clear whether Border Force is restricted geographically in where it can go in terms of Dunkirk and Calais; in other words, can it even operate on the beaches there? Also, does the order—I have read the whole of it—apply to the staff at ports in Belgium and the Netherlands as well? The Explanatory Memorandum states that Home Office consultation was undertaken “with operational partners”. That is good, but did any adverse reactions or difficulties come up in that consultation?
Border Force officers do a difficult job well. At the moment, is there a shortage of men and women who are fully trained for the Border Force role? Within that role, is there any resistance to being posted to Calais or Dunkirk?
If I may, I want to widen the issue a little. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify—certainly for me but also, I suspect, for a number of your Lordships—the law on turning back rubber dinghies? At what point can they be sent back to France, and are French officials co-operating fully?
I am nearly at the end of my questions. On illegal immigration, which is increasing, is there a problem coming from Belgium and the Netherlands? Is there a problem for our other east coast ports, such as Hull? While I am on the subject, my noble friend may know that I take a great interest in aviation. Is there any evidence of an increased problem with our small airports, where no Border Force officers operate?
Finally, on monitoring and review, since this illegal immigration from France is very much in the public eye, is there not a case for an annual—or biannual—review of the order’s effectiveness?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is a sad piece of legislation because it perpetuates the Government’s cruel and dehumanising approach to people who want to come to live, work and be safe in the UK. Instead of legislation to ensure safe passage and humanitarian assistance, we see new rules allowing Border Force agents to use physical force in northern French ports. Can this Government really not see that it is partly our fault that people are desperate to get to safety, away from war zones, drought, famine, floods and death? These horrible events happen either because we have sold weapons to despotic regimes or because we insist on climate-destroying activities.
Last week, the Prime Minister seemed to understand the problem. He talked about having to deal with the security aspect of climate change, although Greenpeace called his speech “weapons-grade hypocrisy” when he is
“planning new coal mines at home and stripping funds for carbon-cutting energy efficiency measures.”
I agree. He is all talk and no action—or, as my grand- mother would have said, all fur coat and no knickers.
This “Fortress Britain” approach does not help anyone; it only pushes people into more dangerous routes of entry. The Government should fund the coastguard and RNLI lifesavers. We should be saving and helping people in dire circumstances, not increasing force and risk.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, when looking into this order, I found myself perplexed that the legislation governing borders and border control is spread across such a great many statutory instruments. It is no wonder that there is a discrepancy between the powers permitted for use on some borders and not on others.
I welcome that this order seeks to rectify that discrepancy by allowing the use of reasonable force where appropriate and necessary, so as to provide a unified approach for UK border officials across our international borders. However, I wonder whether it might be useful for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—I speak from personal experience as a past member of it—to revisit this order at some stage in the future. It is just the sort of legislation that frustrates parliamentarians—and others, presumably—because it relies on so many statutory instruments, orders and regulations, rather than the primary piece of legislation, to introduce the rules.
I support the order but I believe that review, and perhaps consolidation, would be useful for everyone going forward.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
I understand that this instrument would align the legislative regimes in place across juxtaposed control sites by extending the powers that immigration officers have to use reasonable force, where necessary, at sites such as Eurostar terminals and operations at Calais and Dunkirk.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I have certain concerns about this piece of legislation. As a consequence of it, we are all too aware of the tragic scenes of migrants in Calais living in horrendous conditions, fleeing war-torn countries, facing a life of uncertainty and wanting to come to the UK. In dealing with these people, a humanitarian and compassionate attitude is required while working within the legislative requirements. Many of these people have had to make the choice to leave their war-torn country, having been separated from their family and neighbours. Their villages in Syria, Iran and Yemen have been destroyed.
In that context, I have several questions for the Minister. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that this was an instrument of interest and, in its report, indicated issues around reasonable force. Due to the fact that thousands of attempts have been made by individuals seeking to enter the UK illegally via the northern French seaports every year, and with many of those individuals not necessarily complying with immigration processes once intercepted due to the terrible conditions that they are fleeing from, it is considered necessary to grant Border Force officers at seaports the power to use reasonable force.
Can the Minister explain what is meant by “reasonable force” to take fingerprints? Will these people be restrained in some way? Will some form of physical force be used? Will they be placed in detention? Are these fingerprints taken for the purposes of deportation from the UK? What steps will the Government and Border Force officers take to ensure that no forms of xenophobia are displayed towards migrants? Will such elements of reasonable force be human rights-compliant? Have the various human rights organisations commented on this instrument and assessed its compliance with human rights legislation and international requirements in terms of respect for human beings?
I note that no impact assessment was required, a fact that was raised in the other place. Why was that the case? The order will have an impact on Border Force officials and on the individuals who could be subjected to reasonable force—of which I would like a definition. If that is the case, surely an impact assessment is required if there is going to be a significant impact, as this will be a much-enhanced operation when considered alongside the original work.
The Explanatory Note states:
“The Home Office has consulted with operational partners, as the persons most likely to be affected by the matters in this instrument, and are continuing to work with them to implement this instrument.”
Who are these operational partners and what is the nature and extent of their work?
When is the Home Secretary bringing forward the sovereign borders Bill to reform asylum, including curbing litigious human rights claimants who seek to delay their deportation from Britain after their cases are reviewed? I understand that such legislation, which is very worrying, will make provision for judges to place more weight on asylum seekers’ criminal records when considering their appeals against deportation. Is this instrument stage one in the process as the Government move towards the sovereign borders Bill and its implementation?
I am sad to say that I do not see much of an element of social justice in this piece of legislation. With the Covid-19 pandemic still raging, what are the requirements for quarantine arrangements for the migrants, who have already been subjected to so much terror and trauma in their lives? I look forward to the Minister providing answers to these questions.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Home Office. The purpose of the order is to harmonise the legislative regimes across the juxtaposed controls, thereby also extending the powers to use reasonable force, as set out in Section 146 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to the juxtaposed controls at the northern French seaports. The UK currently operates border controls at ports in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. This allows Border Force officers to conduct immigration checks in the same locations, policing and goods checks relating to passengers and freight destined for the UK before they begin their journey.
This is a reciprocal arrangement with the French officers who conduct entry checks at ports in the UK on passengers and freight destined for continental Europe. This optimises the efficiency of border control processes and provides earlier intervention to prevent those who seek to do harm from reaching the UK and are crucial to tackling irregular migration and disrupting organised immigration crime.
With thousands of attempts made by persons seeking to enter the UK illegally via the northern French seaports every year, and with many of those individuals not complying with immigration processes once intercepted, it is necessary to grant Border Force officers at the juxtaposed-control seaports, the power to use reasonable force where strictly necessary when non-compliant persons present a danger to themselves or others.
Will children wishing to join their families or relatives be protected and allowed to enter the UK?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these amendments. This has been an extremely wide-ranging debate.
If I have understood the Minister correctly, powers are given to United Kingdom officials in control zones in northern France, Belgium and Holland, and to French, Belgian and Dutch officials at Channel Tunnel control zones in the UK, to enable the enforcement of immigration law at the border before passengers enter the destination country. These powers include arrest, detention and the seizure of documents, and for offences committed in control zones to be treated as if they had been committed in the destination country. Arrangements at Channel Tunnel control zones are provided by different legislation: the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993 in relation to French control zones and the Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994 in relation to Belgian control zones.
According to the Explanatory Notes, one part of these regulations is to reconcile the regime at the juxtaposed-control seaports in northern France with that for international rail services via the Channel Tunnel. The other part, Article 2, extends all immigration enactments to control zones in France and makes the necessary modifications to other enactments to ensure that UK immigration controls are able to function properly in those control zones. Why not Belgium? Are there no international agreements between us and Holland? What steps are being taken to extend arrangements to Belgium and Holland?
In effect, this measure ensures a consistent approach to the Channel Tunnel and seaport control zones in France, and that UK immigration law can be effectively enforced within those control zones as if the control zones were in the UK. However, the Explanatory Note fails to explain that French officers operating in control zones within the UK are to be treated as if they were UK immigration officials in relation to offences committed or omitted in relation to an immigration officer, including assaulting an immigration officer.
What I am concerned about, and I hope the Minster can clarify this, is that if the arrangements are entirely reciprocal, there appears to be some kind of double jeopardy where a person could be committing an offence under both British and French law. For example, someone who assaults a French official in a control zone in the UK could be prosecuted both in the UK and in France, were the French to have equivalent legislation to these regulations. If that were the case, who would have precedence in terms of prosecution? Would it depend on whether it was a French national or a British national? My concern is enhanced by the addition of Article 12(7) to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2002, which states:
“Any jurisdiction conferred by virtue of this article on any court is without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable apart from this article by any French court.”
The regulations appear to significantly expand the enactments having effect in a control zone in France from a specific and limited number of enactments in the 2002 order to all immigration control enactments; the Minister explained that the remit of Border Force officers has expanded since 2002. Even if that is necessary and proportionate, for the sake of clarity should the regulations list those immigration control enhancements so that people know exactly what they are subject to?
The regulations appear to remove the protections provided by the Data Protection Act in relation to data processed in a control zone in France in connection with immigration control. Why is that necessary and proportionate?
On the issue of reasonable force, can the noble Baroness confirm that such powers are already available to Border Force officers where they operate elsewhere and are not an additional power exercisable only under this order?
When I got to this stage of examining the regulations, I had to admit defeat. Can the Minister explain what exactly the effect of the following is? I quote from close to the bottom of page 2 of the order:
“(b) in paragraph 2 (modification of the Terrorism Act 2000 … (i) in sub-paragraph (1)—(aa) after paragraph (d), insert—‘(da) in paragraph 5A omit the words “or 3”;’; (bb) after paragraph (e), insert—‘(ea) in paragraph 6A omit the words “or 3” in each place where they occur”.
I could go on in a similar vein. If the Minister cannot explain the precise effect of these changes now, from the Dispatch Box, how are we supposed to make sense of this impenetrable legislation? I could go on, with pages and pages of similar changes in these regulations where it is not clear at all from the regulation or the Explanatory Memorandum what changes this order brings about.
The Explanatory Memorandum basically says that the order makes other amendments to the 2003 order and makes the necessary modifications to other enactments to ensure that UK immigration controls function properly in the control zones. In effect, it says “just trust us”. My Lords, I do not.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 permits the making of an order to provide for a law of England and Wales to have effect at a juxtaposed control at an EEA port. At present, the juxtaposed control locations governed by such an order in 2003 are at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk in France and, for the French authorities, at Dover.
Unlike their counterparts at UK ports and other juxtaposed locations, Border Force officers working at the northern French seaports have not been explicitly empowered under domestic law to use reasonable force if necessary to carry out their duties when dealing with serious breaches of security at the port, including in relation to those seeking to enter the UK. This order aligns
“the regime at the sea ports of Northern France with the regime currently in operation at the juxtaposed locations in Coquelles and at Eurostar terminals in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, where the full range of immigration powers are available to fully trained officers.”
National security is a key issue for us, and we are not opposed to the order. However, I have a few questions about the impact of the order in the absence of any impact assessment.
In paragraph 12.3, the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no, or no significant, impact on the private or public sector.”
However, in paragraph 14.1, the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“Impacts will be monitored through regular collection and analysis of use of force data as well as the existing internal review system.”
On the one hand, the Explanatory Memorandum says that there will be
“no, or no significant, impact on the private or public sector”,
but, on the other hand, it says that “impacts will be monitored.” Could the Government explain this apparent contradiction in their response? What impacts are going to be monitored that will have no impact, or no significant impact, on the private or public sector?
Will this order have any impact on the number of people entering the UK without authority through the northern French ports? If so, what impact will it have? If it will not have any impact, what purpose does the order serve? At other juxtaposed control locations, where Border Force officers already have powers to use reasonable force, on how many occasions per week or month on average do they have to use these powers? How far can they go in exercising “reasonable force”? What actions does it cover and what actions does it not cover? Are Border Force officers who can use reasonable force also armed officers or are they ever armed officers?
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to Border Force officers able to use “reasonable force” as being fully trained. How long does it take to train a Border Force officer in the appropriate exercise of “reasonable force”? Will enabling Border Force officers to use reasonable force at the northern French ports mean that fewer officers will need to be deployed or will the change provided for in this order have no impact on staffing levels? How will we assess the impact of this change, in respect of the use of reasonable force, on national security?
In paragraph 7.4, the Explanatory Memorandum refers to
“thousands of attempts made by persons seeking to enter the UK illegally via the Northern French seaports every year”.
Are the Government saying that, because the power to use reasonable force is not currently available to Border Force officers at these ports, more people have entered the UK without authority through them as a result? In which case, why has it taken this length of time to bring forward this order? Have concerns been raised by the French authorities that Border Force officers do not have sufficient powers in relation to reasonable force and that that increases the responsibilities and workload of the French authorities? Once this order is in force, what impact will it have on the numbers of people entering the UK without authority via the northern French seaports?
I hope the Government can provide answers to all the questions raised in the debate, including those relating to people genuinely fleeing persecution. One would like to think that this order is designed and intended to improve national security in a meaningful and measurable way, and that it is not just about ensuring uniformity across juxtaposed control locations for the sake of it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, there were indeed a lot of questions, some relating to this SI and others slightly outside it. I will happily try to answer as many questions as I can, and I will write to noble Lords where I cannot.
I hope I have made it clear that the integrity of the UK’s immigration system depends on the effective enforcement of the Immigration Rules. This measure empowers Border Force staff based at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk to exercise their powers to the fullest extent at the UK border controls in northern France.
Border Force officers will always seek first to engage with the individual, explaining the requirement to comply with immigration controls and encouraging the individual to do so. This order will allow suitably trained Border Force officers to exercise reasonable force, where necessary, to enforce compliance with immigration processes, where, for example, an individual attempts to abscond from Border Force custody or refuses to provide their fingerprints. It will also allow trained Border Force officers to intervene if a person’s conduct endangers themselves, Border Force staff or, indeed, the public. I assure noble Lords that such reasonable force would be exercised only as a last resort and only where its use is considered necessary, justified and proportionate. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about training. Training will be provided and only Border Force officers who have been suitably trained will be permitted to use force when carrying out their duties—and only where it is absolutely necessary, justified and proportionate. The Home Office provides Border Force staff with comprehensive training on the use of force and officers are required to refresh this training annually.
On fingerprinting, it is correct that there have been some low levels of non-compliance with fingerprinting at Coquelles, where we are already able to exercise these powers. When encountered, officers have been able to use their training to contain and resolve the situation. It is inevitable that Border Force officers will occasionally encounter non-compliance, but they are trained to deal effectively with these situations; as I have said, they undergo comprehensive training. All incidents involving the use of force are recorded and may, where appropriate, be subject to review and/or investigation so that we can continue to ensure the safety of our staff and ensure that training is sufficient.
I now come to some specific questions. I welcome my noble friend Lord Bourne’s support for this SI. He asked about the juxtaposed controls and EU exit. The juxtaposed border controls are not an EU construct. They have been established through bilateral and multilateral arrangements with partners in France, Belgium and the Netherlands and allow the officers of each state to exercise controls as they would in their own territory. For the UK, this includes officers being permitted to use reasonable force where necessary, as I have said, when carrying out their duties, such as when fingerprinting irregular migrants and in cases where they have to intervene if a non-compliant individual’s conduct endangers themselves or other people.
My noble friend asked about the situation in Calais. The package of support that we have agreed with the French covers four broad areas. It has increased the number of gendarme reservists, with double the number of officers patrolling French beaches from 1 December last year. We have increased surveillance and technology. We have improved port infrastructure to reduce opportunities for smuggling, and we have reception centres, which support migrants into appropriate and safe accommodation in France, informing and enabling them to access the asylum system in France, and taking them out of the hands of criminal gangs.
My noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Naseby asked about consultation. We have, of course, co-operated closely with the French for many years to tackle irregular migration and maintain the integrity of our shared borders. The measure will strengthen UK border controls at the juxtaposed seaports of Calais and Dunkirk and we are continuing to work closely with our French partners on implementation. My noble friend Lord Naseby asked about any adverse reaction to this; the answer is no—so far there has not been any.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked whether oversight was in place to ensure that the power is properly exercised. Reasonable force would be exercised only as a last resort and only where its use is considered necessary, justified and proportionate. Border Force has robust internal procedures in place to ensure that its officers are exercising this power correctly. As I said earlier, every incident involving the use of force is recorded and, where appropriate and proportionate, reviewed locally by senior Border Force staff and/or the Home Office’s operational safety unit. Incidents involving serious professional misconduct may be subject to full internal investigation, including, where appropriate, by the professional standards unit. Border Force functions at the juxtaposed controls are overseen by a number of external oversight bodies, including the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and HM Inspector of Prisons.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about French officers based at Dover. This order relates to the powers of UK Border Force officers based at the juxtaposed seaports in France. The international agreements that underpin these juxtaposed controls allow the officers of each state to operate immigration controls as they would in their own territory, as he articulated; therefore, British and French law may not necessarily align in this regard. French officers carrying out immigration controls at Dover already have the power under their domestic law to use reasonable force where necessary. The Le Touquet agreement already allows UK and French authorities to use their full range of powers in their respective control zones.
To expand on the point I made to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about fingerprinting, it is migrants who attempt to circumvent UK immigration controls who may be fingerprinted.
My noble friend Lord Naseby asked what more we can do. We have the sovereign borders Bill coming up—I cannot give an exact date, but it will be soon—which completely overhauls the system to allow for safe and legal routes to this country. My noble friend asked whether there were any objections among our staff to moving to France. I do not know, but I will find out if I can. He asked about constraints on the turning back of rubber dinghies—although this is outside this statutory instrument. The constraints will be dependent on whose waters the boat is in. Clearly, in the Channel, some of the opportunities to turn back do not spread across a great distance at all. He asked about problems with small airports and extensions to other ports. I would imagine—but shall confirm—that extensions to other ports will be considered in due course should the demand arise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, basically asked why we were being so cruel in our use of reasonable force. This use was set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It is not a new thing; it is 22 years old and well established. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked why there is so much legislation. Of course, we are overhauling the system through the sovereign borders Bill, which will be with us soon. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the impact assessment. The lack of an impact assessment is because this SI is purely about how UK officers operate in France. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, asked about children joining their parents. This is outlined in the existing Immigration Rules, in Appendix FM.
I hope that I have answered noble Lords questions as far as I can today. I will write to noble Lords if I have missed anything out. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we must wait until the time shown on the Order Paper for the next business, so I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 3.45 pm.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
For the debate on the Motion to approve the Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2021, the time limit is one hour.
Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 January be approved.
Relevant document: 45th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations, laid under Sections 23(2) and 24(7) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, is to give effect to the authority to carry scheme 2021; to make consequential amendments to the Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015 and to revoke the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Authority to Carry Scheme) Regulations 2015. Once given effect, the 2021 scheme will, in turn, replace and revoke the authority to carry scheme 2015.
Authority to carry is, in effect, the UK’s no-fly scheme. It is necessary to prevent certain individuals from travelling to—or from—the UK, when it is necessary in the public interest. The scheme is operated by the National Border Targeting Centre, which processes information about individuals, both passengers and crew, intending to travel to or from the United Kingdom. Where an individual is identified who is in a class of person described in the scheme, the carrier may be refused authority to carry the individual to or from the UK.
Authority to carry is a key part of the UK’s border security arrangements, preventing individuals—including known terrorists, serious criminals and those subject to sanctions—from being able to travel to the UK. The 2021 scheme applies to all carriers who have been required by law to provide passenger and crew information before departure. It applies on all international routes to and from the UK, as well as to routes to and from the UK from within the common travel area where advance passenger and crew information is received from a carrier.
The operation of the authority to carry scheme has been extremely successful. Since its introduction in March 2015, the National Border Targeting Centre has refused carriers authority to carry individuals seeking to travel to the UK on more than 8,200 occasions. This has included around 200 individuals excluded from the UK, around 3,300 individuals previously deported from the UK, and more than 4,700 individuals using invalid, lost, stolen or cancelled travel documents. It has also included subjects of international travel bans. Those individuals would otherwise have arrived in the UK and been refused leave to enter by Border Force officers. The carrier would have been required to remove them and, in some cases, meet their detention costs. Some of those individuals, once in the UK, might have taken the opportunity to challenge their removal.
The 2021 scheme builds on the 2015 scheme by including additional classes of individuals whom carriers may be refused authority to carry when travelling to the UK. These are: individuals whose visa has been cancelled or revoked; individuals who have been refused leave to enter the UK before their departure for, or in the course of their journey to, the UK; and individuals who are using a travel document that is known to include a false or counterfeit visa or endorsement. One additional class of individual is included in the 2021 scheme in respect of whom carriers may be refused authority to carry when travelling from the UK: individuals using an invalid, lost or stolen travel document.
Although the 2015 scheme provides for the refusal of authority to carry from the UK, as does the proposed 2021 scheme, there has not yet been a case where this has proven necessary. Ports police provide the first response and will intervene prior to departure, rather than the carrier being refused authority to carry. However, by including this outbound class, we will engage carriers to inhibit the use of passports where the Passport Office has notified the applicant that their document should not be used for travel. Equally, there is a need for a replacement scheme following the end of the EU transition period and ahead of the end of the citizens’ rights grace period at the end of June.
The draft 2021 scheme brings into scope the subjects of travel bans made under the new UK sanctions regime established by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Subjects of United Nations and United Kingdom travel bans will be in scope of the 2021 scheme.
The proposed 2021 scheme removes the distinction that was apparent in the 2015 scheme between EEA and third-country nationals excluded or deported—or in the process of being excluded or deported—from the UK. This is important ahead of the end of the citizens’ rights grace period. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring the continued safety and security of the UK border. This new authority to carry scheme is central to that effort. I beg to move.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend has said, these regulations bring into force the authority to carry scheme 2021, which replaces the authority to carry scheme 2015. I apologise in advance to my noble friend about where I want to take this debate today because it is both timely and necessary in relation to these regulations.
These regulations, which protect the United Kingdom and its citizens, ensure that those whom we do not believe are conducive to the public good are not allowed to enter. They create a mechanism underpinned by financial penalties to ensure the practical application of this protection. However, they also include our responsibility to ensure that we do not allow individuals from abroad who intend to cause harm to others and to us to leave these shores. These regulations stop people from being both carried here and carried from here—as well as, of course, providing the Secretary of State a mechanism to require carriers to remove people upon deportation.
The Explanatory Memorandum published by the Home Office alongside the regulations provides further policy background detail, some of which my noble friend has referred to, so my quotation does slightly duplicate. I quote the Government’s guidance:
“Preventing individuals from travelling to or from the UK”—
the latter is my emphasis—
“is an important part of the UK’s border security arrangements. The ability to intervene, pre-departure and prevent travel has meant that, under the 2015 Scheme, the Home Office has refused carriers authority to carry around 8,000 individuals”,
as my noble friend has referred to, and she has detailed the various categories of those. The quotation continues:
“It also included one member of a flight crew who had been previously deported. These are all individuals who would otherwise have travelled to the UK and would have been dealt with at the border, with the resulting financial and time implications associated with processing, detaining and removing that individual.”
The regulations detail that authority to carry from the UK may be refused in respect of various categories of persons, of which one is children whom the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe are intending to leave the United Kingdom for the purposes of involvement in terrorist-related activity.
I want to ask the Minister some questions on this “from” element, in relation to what I term our responsibility to prevent our citizens from causing harm by travelling overseas, including harm to themselves—these are children we are talking about. Noble Lords will be familiar with the case of Shamima Begum, the 15 year-old girl from east London who, along with her teenage school friends, travelled to Syria to become a bride to ISIS recruits. Her tragic story is of a young women groomed, abused and now left stateless in a refugee camp, having given birth to and lost two children, both British nationals, and, five years later, at the age of 20, attempting to return home.
We stripped her of her citizenship, despite her being born a British citizen and having only ever lived here. She was deemed by the then Secretary of State to be a Bangladeshi citizen—a country she does not know and has never taken citizenship of and which has said will not grant her citizenship. It has also said that, if she tried to enter that country, she would be subjected to being sentenced to death because of her association with ISIS.
As such, I will ask the following questions, and, if my noble friend cannot answer them today, I look forward to receiving a written reply. First, how many British citizens have been prevented from travelling overseas under the scheme to date? Secondly, how many children did we protect from becoming involved in terrorism by preventing them from travelling? Thirdly, carriers face a penalty for failing in their duty to protect if they carry someone to the UK under these regulations; what is the Government’s thinking when we fail in our duty to protect by allowing a person—someone who should have been protected and prevented from travelling under these regulations—to travel? Fourthly, what practical measures do the Government take to fulfil their responsibility to prevent individuals in the categories that they refer to in the regulations from travelling?
Finally, does my noble friend agree with me that we have a right to protect our country by revoking the citizenship of those who intend to cause us harm? That is absolutely a right that we have. However, does she also agree with me that that decision should be based on the harm intended, the crime committed or a crime that may be committed, not on the British national’s heritage?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the clear way in which she has outlined the purpose and details of these regulations; I welcome what they are designed to achieve.
The new legislation will reflect the changes that have been brought about as a result of Brexit and some of the sanctions now available under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. I certainly endorse the addition of the new classes of individuals who can now be made subject to a refusal of authority to carry. This is all very welcome and will help to safeguard the people of the United Kingdom, preventing unnecessary travel to and from the United Kingdom by people who should not be here—in the case of people who wish to travel to it and are not eligible for entry. Without it, there would be gaps and loopholes in the statute book, which would be impossible to justify.
Given that this is a UK-wide piece of legislation, covering Northern Ireland and, of course, Scotland, the same regulations and obligations will apply to carriers to and from Northern Ireland from abroad as apply in other parts of the United Kingdom. Today, I am interested in exploring with the Minister the application, implementation and enforcement of the duties and requirements under these regulations, given that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land border with another country and given that we have the common travel area, to which the Minister referred, covering the whole of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
Since we have an open border with the Irish Republic for people under the common travel area arrangements, people travelling into the Irish Republic from abroad by seaport or airport can travel into Northern Ireland and cross over into the rest of the United Kingdom without necessarily having any further checks made upon them after their arrival in the Irish Republic.
The Minister referred to the application of the regulations to carriers to the UK by way of the common travel area. If the endpoint is the United Kingdom, someone may well decide to travel into the Irish Republic, stay for a period, and then come into the United Kingdom at a later point. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how the provisions of the regulations apply in relation to carriers of individuals who are not eligible to be in the United Kingdom, and who may decide to use Dublin, or another Irish port of entry, as a means of accessing the United Kingdom in this fashion.
Do we have the same reporting and other obligations on carriers travelling into the Irish Republic in respect of people who are ineligible to travel to the UK? What is the level of co-operation and exchange of information and details between the Irish and UK border authorities? What obligations are the Irish border authorities under and how can we be sure that they are being properly and rigorously monitored? How is the system of enforcing fines implemented if people who are ineligible to enter the UK are carried into the Irish Republic and then come into the United Kingdom?
Clearly, this is a matter of considerable interest to people in Northern Ireland and is something that is worthy of reassurance to citizens, not just in Northern Ireland but in other parts of the United Kingdom. Given the common travel area arrangements, the systems to control the Irish border—its ports and airports—must be as robust in relation to incoming international travel as those for airports and seaports in the United Kingdom itself.
In welcoming the legislation before us, I seek the Minister’s reassurance that these necessary and important regulations are not in any way undermined or weakened as a result of the current arrangements within the common travel area. I fully support the common travel area arrangements in principle; they have worked to the advantage of both the United Kingdom and citizens of the Irish Republic, and, of course, they pre-date European Union membership. I just want to be assured that in these regulations we have covered all bases and that people cannot use the common travel area arrangements as some kind of back door, and that carriers cannot evade their responsibilities by using them or by means of not having the regulations properly enforced against them if these circumstances were to arise.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations. As other noble Lords have said, the 2015 scheme that they replace had a sunset clause, meaning that it would cease to have effect in April 2022, but these regulations have been introduced early because of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. That means that certain high-harm individuals who would have fallen outside the scope of the 2015 scheme can now be included in the 2021 scheme, including those who are subject to travel-related sanctions under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the questions that she asked about Shamima Begum. However, the Minister said, if I heard her correctly, that no one had been prevented from leaving the UK under the 2015 regulations, even though that is possible, and that police at the UK border would be used to prevent people departing in the circumstances that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, outlined. Although the noble Baroness asked very important questions, I am not sure that they are related to these regulations.
As far as the operation of the scheme is concerned, I have a few questions that I hope the Minister may be able to answer. If she cannot today, perhaps she could write to me. I understand that a visa may be cancelled or revoked, and that the carrier may not be aware this has happened, but an increasing number of travellers are able to visit the UK without a visa. The Government did not take the opportunity of leaving the European Union to require visas for entry into the UK from EU, EEA and Swiss nationals but instead extended visa-free entry using the e-passport gates to citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America. Rather than taking back control of our borders, this Government threw them open to citizens of seven new countries and kept them open for EU, EEA and Swiss nationals.
The Minister talked about the importance of the scheme and how people could be denied authority to travel, rather than being turned away at the UK border. But the question has to be: how can they be turned away at the UK border if they do not require a visa and can use the e-passport gates? As a result of all these additional people being able to enter the UK without a visa, the authority to carry scheme becomes even more important as checks carried out when someone applies for a visa, which could prevent those who should be prevented from entering the UK, have been ditched in relation to millions of potential visitors to the UK. Indeed, visa checks could reveal that someone previously unknown to the authorities should not be allowed to enter the UK—something the authority to carry scheme is unlikely to pick up.
The Minister talked about the carriers having to provide information on passengers and crew prior to departure. How long before departure do these details have to be provided, and therefore what timescale do UK officials have to respond to that information to prevent people boarding aircraft, for example? On the general question, why did the Government not take the opportunity of leaving the European Union to require more people visiting the UK to have visas, so increasing the security at the border, but instead threw the borders open to nationals from even more countries?
The authority to carry scheme applies only to carriers which have been required to submit details comprising passenger and crew information and, in some cases, according to the draft scheme, in respect of some routes only. Why not all carriers and routes? What are the chances of someone who wishes to enter the UK but should be prevented from doing so from entering it using carriers or routes where no requirement is made to submit such information or, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has just said, evading the authority to carry scheme altogether by entering the UK through Ireland and the common travel area?
Carriers can provide passenger and crew information voluntarily and it is then treated as a request for authority to carry. What happens if the information is not volunteered and there is no opportunity to refuse such authority?
Persons in respect of whom authority to carry may be refused include individuals who are the subject of an exclusion order under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. I refer again to the draft scheme. These regulations give effect to certain judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union—CJEU—and address issues concerning the practical application of directive 2004/38/EC within the United Kingdom. Is the UK still bound by these EU directives and judgments of the CJEU?
Finally, to what extent has the existing authority to carry scheme relied on the Schengen Information System —SIS II—to identify those who should be barred from entering the UK? Specifically, of the 8,000 individuals the Home Office has refused carriers authority to carry, how many were refused entry on the basis of information provided by SIS II—a database that we no longer have access to?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of these regulations. I put on record that the Labour Party gives the Government, the security agencies, the police and other law enforcement agencies our full support in their fight against terrorism and criminality in all its forms.
I welcome the measures that strengthen protections at UK borders as they help keep people safe. I noted in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Home Office has refused carriers the authority to carry 8,000 individuals seeking entry to the UK, including 3,000 individuals previously deported from the UK, 4,600 individuals using lost or stolen travel documents, and 180 individuals previously excluded from the UK.
Further, I welcome that these measures support and relieve the pressure on hard-working UK border officials and other operational partners. They save time and money, enhance our security, and stop those who would otherwise be prevented from entering at the border even attempting to make the trip.
I am fully aware of the context for why these measures were in place in the first place: as an additional measure to stop fighters travelling to and from Syria and Iraq. I fully support that aim.
I have a few questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. First, the Explanatory Memorandum does not make it clear when the updated guidance will be provided on the operation of the scheme and the penalties for non-compliance. Can the Minister tell the House when this guidance will be forthcoming?
Can the Minister confirm that the maximum penalty will be £50,000? How many carriers have been fined and what was the level of the fine imposed on them? Further, is there a mechanism for uprating the fine so that it keeps pace with inflation? Has the Home Office undertaken any assessment of the deterrent effect of a fine of up to £50,000? If not, is there a plan to do so? If no assessment has been undertaken and there are no plans for one, how do we know that this is the correct figure to provide that deterrent effect?
Can the Minister say a little bit about the carriers’ compliance with the scheme generally? What can the Government do to a carrier that is in persistent breach of its obligations under these regulations beyond imposing a monetary penalty?
The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, made valid points about the regulations being here to prevent people leaving the UK, as well as people arriving into the UK. She raised the tragic case of Shamima Begum, and legitimate questions about how this matter can be resolved that need to be answered. The case raises important public policy matters that the Government have to resolve about our obligations to the wider international community.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, spoke about the risk of individuals who would otherwise not be eligible to travel to the UK seeking access through the Republic of Ireland. It would be good to hear about the measures in place that support the freedoms we enjoy in the common travel area. As the noble Lord said, we cannot have carriers evading their responsibilities under these regulations. To be clear: I fully support the common travel area. Other than my immediate family, all my family live in the Republic of Ireland, so I have made use of the common travel area from my youngest days. I have travelled backwards and forward there many times. I fully support it, but the noble Lord raised a valid point.
With those questions, I am happy to support the regulations before the House. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in the debate. As with the previous debate, some of the contributions had nothing to do with the SI, but that has never stopped noble Lords before.
My noble friend Lady Warsi asked, with reference to the Shamima Begum case, how many children we prevented from travelling overseas. We never refused authority to carry in respect of any children. The provision was put in place in response to Shamima Begum and her friends, but it has never been used. On what practical measures we take to stop children travelling, as I said, it has not been necessary to refuse any carrier authority to carry from the UK. Of course, ports police will intervene where adults or children of concern or at risk may seek to travel from the UK. In terms of wider practical support, there is the Prevent programme, which has, as its name suggests, prevented children from getting engaged in what might be terrorism down the line.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked about Ireland to GB. Where advance passenger information—API—is available ahead of travel, authority to carry can be refused from Ireland to GB. There is no reporter requirement under UK law for airlines operating flights to Ireland to provide that information to UK Border Force. Information about persons of concern to the UK and Ireland is shared between the respective border control authorities. The same is true with other countries, in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
I will have to get back to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on when guidance will be provided. He is right about the fine: it is £50,000. There have been 51 breaches of the 2015 scheme, with 18 penalties imposed on airlines for non-compliance, totalling just over £186,000. He asked about uprating. I do not know the answer to that question so will have to get back to him—I am not going to blag my way through that—but I add that airlines are very pleased about this, because it gives them clarity, which always helps. They have been looking for this for a very long time.
Regarding the treatment of EEA nationals, obviously we have amended the 2021 scheme to reflect the end of the transition period, and the distinct category will remain for individuals who have been excluded under the former immigration EEA regulations, but the new scheme also reflects that from January 2021, individuals, whether EEA or third-country nationals, may be deported from the UK under the Immigration Act 1971 and excluded by the Home Secretary exercising prerogative powers. Further to that, non-visa nationals who are excluded or who have been deported will be subject to refusals of authority to carry and should not arrive in the UK, but where they do, their details are available to Border Force officers and the e-gates.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked how long before departure. It would be 24 hours before departure. He asked whether these details will be provided as passengers check in. Yes, information is provided for all routes ordinarily, but it can be on a route-specific basis if a new route opens and the carrier has different abilities.
The authority to carry scheme has not relied on SIS II information and the updated scheme will be implemented 21 days from the sign-off of the SIs.
As for the figures on the number and scale of fines, I believe I have already addressed both the scale of the fine and the number of fines. The maximum penalty has been £25,000 and the average is around £10,000, and they are determined using the calculation published in the guidance for carriers. I have already said that carriers are very positive about this. They welcome the scheme and do not in any way seek to undermine it.
I think I have probably gone through all the points made by noble Lords. Where I have not, it is because I do not have an answer and I will get back to noble Lords in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. The time allowed for the following debate is one and a half hours.
Economic Partnership Agreement: Kenya
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith
That this House takes note of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the Republic of Kenya, a Member of the East African Community, of the other part, laid before the House on 17 December 2020.
Special attention drawn by the International Agreements Committee, 2nd Report.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the International Agreements Committee’s second report, which covers the economic partnership agreement between the United Kingdom and Kenya. As the committee’s chair I extend my thanks to the members of the committee for their important contribution to this report, as well as to the staff. I also thank the noble Lord the Minister for his constructive engagement with the committee, both publicly and in private, and for facilitating this debate.
Before I turn to the contents of the report I will take a few moments to make some general comments on the scrutiny by Parliament of international agreements. The House will have heard me say before that international agreements—treaties—affect us all. They can affect important aspects of our lives: the economy, goods and services, our security and our rights. Scrutiny by Parliament must therefore be not an afterthought but an integral part of the overall treaty-making process. As we all know, at the moment Parliament’s role is limited and focused on the end of the process, when a treaty has already been signed.
I have said before that I believe Parliament should have a role at an earlier stage: when the objectives for negotiations are set. This is particularly relevant for trade agreements, and it happens in other countries such as the United States, and in the European Union. So I welcome the two commitments that the Minister made in this House during last week’s debate on the Trade Bill. They were made in response to a Motion put forward by a member of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, whom I thank for his efforts in this regard.
I am pleased that the Government have agreed to facilitate a debate on draft negotiating objectives for trade agreements, subject to parliamentary time, if it is requested by the International Agreements Committee, and that the Government will not ratify a trade agreement until a debate has been held, provided it has been requested by a relevant committee in good time.
The subject matter of the report is the UK-Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement—EPA for short. It is, on the one hand, a standard rollover trade agreement that seeks to ensure continuity of trade relations after the Brexit transition period. It replicates the treaty arrangements between the EU and Kenya.
On the other hand, however, it is not a straightforward rollover agreement. First, the underlying agreement—the EU agreement with the East African Community partner states, of which Kenya is a member—is not actually in effect. Instead, Kenya enjoys duty-free access to the EU through something called the EU’s market access regulation.
Secondly, and most crucially, the underlying multilateral EU agreement has been turned into a bilateral one, even if states belonging to the East African Community can apply to join it later. In signing a bilateral agreement with the UK, Kenya has effectively followed a go-it-alone approach. There were clear incentives for the Kenyan Government to do so. As the only country within the EAC not classed as a least developed country, it does not qualify for zero import duties under the general scheme of preferences for least developed countries. As Kenya is a lower-middle income country, it can expect reduced rates of import duty on only some goods. Considering that the UK is among Kenya’s top five export markets, one can see why it could be considered to be in Kenya’s immediate interest to sign a bilateral trade agreement with the UK to avoid import tariffs.
There are, however, issues and questions about what this agreement does to regional coherence. There are concerns that it could have disruptive political and economic consequences for the wider East African Community. For example, the EAC partner states have agreed to a common market protocol which commits them to co-ordinate trade relations among themselves and between the bloc and third parties. The UK EPA appears to undermine this obligation. Also, the EAC has been a customs union since 2005, applying zero customs duties on goods and services within the bloc and applying a common external tariff to imports from countries outside the EAC. The UK-Kenya agreement could undermine this arrangement, as Kenya would be applying a separate and more generous tariff regime for UK imports. While the committee acknowledges in its report that the UK-Kenya EPA could indeed have been the most efficient option for maintaining Kenya’s preferential access to the UK market, we would welcome an assessment from the Minister of the potential disruptive consequences for the EAC.
We would also like to ask the Minister that, were similar concerns to emerge in future agreements, they would be more clearly spelled out in the explanatory materials. The Written Ministerial Statement made by the Minister in response to our report helpfully explains that the UK’s overall objective remains to secure a regional deal with the whole of the East African Community. It also acknowledges that some EAC members
“were not ready to enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom”
at the time. The Statement concludes by saying that it is the Government’s intention that the EPA be a “stepping stone” to stronger regional integration. So I would welcome it if the Minister could specify what steps the Government are taking to make sure that regional integration remains a priority for the UK Government and is not undermined through the bilateral agreement with Kenya.
Conscious of time, I will leave it here for now, having set out the two broad themes of parliamentary scrutiny on the one hand and the impact of the UK-Kenya agreement on regional cohesion on the other. I know that colleagues on the International Agreements Committee speaking this afternoon will reflect on other points of detail raised in the debate. I look forward to what I hope will be a constructive debate. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. I thank him for choosing this debate in which to make his maiden speech. I welcome him to the House. I worked with him in government and I remember being hosted by him when he was the ambassador to Israel a few years ago, and I am therefore very keen to hear what he has to say now. However, I am also keen to see the huge contribution that I am sure he will make to the House, given his considerable experience and expertise. I beg to move.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I have the privilege of being a member of the International Agreements Committee, which he chairs so adeptly. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford. Although I have not met him before today, I have a strong connection to him because my nephew James worked for him and my father married him—I should stress that my father is a clergyman.
I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in welcoming some of the movement by the Government on the issues of scrutiny, in particular on what I believe has already been dubbed the “Grimstone rule”, by which the Government have agreed that where the IAC has requested a debate on a treaty, the Government will not ratify it before time has been provided for that debate. Some would say that that is the absolute basic minimum requirement that any self-respecting Parliament could accept, but it is welcome none the less.
In the short time I have available, I will focus briefly on two things. The first is the impact on regional integration in east Africa of the decision by our Government to embark on a bilateral agreement with the Government of Kenya rather than pursuing an agreement with the East African Community as a whole. I understand, of course, as set out in our report, that Kenya had a particular issue, being the only country that was not classified as a least developed country. However, as paragraph 13 of the IAC report highlights, the Government have failed to explain adequately what other options they considered for ensuring continuity of trade with Kenya other than by concluding a bilateral EPA, which inevitably has caused huge concern to other EAC members. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain this in his response.
The agreement causes serious difficulties in the region and appears to place Kenya in breach of its treaty obligations to the EAC. We know, of course, that the UK Government briefly toyed with the idea of breaching our own treaty obligations with the EU, but at least they had the sense to draw back from such action. It is regrettable that, by pursuing the approach they have, the Government have placed Kenya and the EAC in such a difficult position.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more about the Government’s overall approach to trade agreements with developing countries. Many of us have been concerned about the approach that the EU took in the past to developing countries. The Minister may be aware of the APPG for Africa’s excellent report on the lessons learned from the EU EPAs with Africa; that report raises a number of issues, including the constraints that they place on development policy space for African countries. I hope that the Minister can address those points.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the EPA’s focus on development and the commitment to continue to provide duty-free and quota-free access to the UK market for Kenyan goods. This will assist Kenya in seeing the growth benefits from international trade, aided by the appointment of Theo Clarke MP as trade envoy to Kenya and programmes such as TradeMark East Africa, which help promote trade between our two countries.
I appreciate the difficulties that there were in negotiating an EAC-wide agreement before Brexit. However, I share the concerns of the International Agreements Committee and civil society groups that the signing of individual EPAs could risk disruptive economic and political impacts and undermine some of the development objectives, particularly regional integration in east Africa. I would be grateful for my noble friend the Minister’s comments on that.
I am speaking before the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, whom I had the pleasure of working with at the FCDO towards the end of his lengthy and loyal service. I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks yesterday that the cutting of our international development budget—moving in the opposite direction to the rest of the G7—is a strategic and regrettable mistake. I look forward to his experienced contributions to this place on that and other international issues.
This economic partnership and our broader relationship with Kenya—indeed, with the continent of Africa—is at risk due to the planned cut in international development. There are reports of our bilateral programmes in Kenya being cut by between 50% and 70%. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me what conversations his department has had with the FCDO about the impact of these cuts? Will the important trade programmes to which the Prime Minister recommitted last year at the UK-Africa Investment Summit—such as the successful TradeMark East Africa programme, which has a budget of $155 million up to 2023 in Kenya alone and has already allocated this funding to 36 projects—be fully protected? These projects are delivered in close partnership with the Government of Kenya, the EU, Ireland, Denmark, Finland and the United States. Will we uphold our commitment to them? Has an impact assessment been made of how the cuts in Kenya will affect our trade relationship?
Finally, does the Minister agree that one department trying to increase trade with Kenya while another undermines our bilateral relations and trade programmes through massive budget cuts is not exactly joined-up government?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I welcome and call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB) (Maiden Speech)
I rise to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. I feel I should introduce myself. Noble Lords know my name and can guess that Salford is important to me. I was born and brought up there. Family is the centre of my life. Every day, I remember family members who are no longer here—today, my dad and my brother, Dominic, in particular.
After completing school in Salford, I studied history at Cambridge. After graduation, I joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where I worked for 38 years. For five years, I was the Permanent Under-Secretary, which explains why international relations will be one of my main interests in your Lordships’ House.
No matter what any of us thought about leaving the European Union, our shared objective now is to protect and promote the interests of the United Kingdom outside the EU. Part of that task is to replace trade agreements from which the UK benefited as an EU member. Time has been short. In future, it will be better when Parliament is consulted by the Government when framing objectives for trade negotiations.
The economic partnership agreement with Kenya is one of the first wave of trade agreements. As a lower middle-income country in a customs union with least-developed countries, Kenya finds itself in a bind. All its neighbours enjoy duty- and quota-free access to the UK. For now, its neighbours are not interested in signing a trade agreement. Kenya’s horticultural exports are vital to its economy and the UK is one of its largest markets. To help our key partner, I believe we should not impose tariffs on Kenya’s flowers, fruits and vegetables. To achieve that in a way that is compatible with World Trade Organization rules, the agreement we are debating today is the best option available.
To support the work of the UK overseas will be my main objective in your Lordships’ House, but I shall not confine myself to foreign affairs. My other interests are the environment and the governance of the UK—the union, the regions and the Civil Service. It is my honour to be the latest Foreign Office PUS to join your Lordships’ House; three of my distinguished predecessors are already noble Lords. My only regret in joining now is that I shall not be able to work with a fourth predecessor, the late Lord Wright of Richmond, but I think of him today and honour his memory, as his successor and son-in-law.
Having spoken for the first time, I plan now to listen carefully before disturbing your Lordships again. Meanwhile, I thank your Lordships for making me feel young and naive for the last time in my life, and for listening to me today.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
What a pleasure it was to hear the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, and what a good foretaste of what he will bring to our debates. It is obviously a great pleasure to follow him. We have heard how well he manages suaviter in modo; I can assure the House that he is also pretty good at fortiter in re. He is quite tough: after all, he endured a couple of years working for me in Washington. He went on to hold very senior jobs across Whitehall, not just in the Foreign Office, and to be a distinguished ambassador in Israel and Germany. He may well have got the suaviter bit from Patrick, Lord Wright of Richmond, his father-in-law, who was so liked and is so much missed here in this House. Like Patrick, and like me, he served five years as Permanent Under-Secretary. His were more challenging times than mine. He brings us considerable wisdom and experience, and I welcome him very warmly to this House.
I am very glad that we are having this little debate on the agreement with Kenya before it is ratified. Like the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for his assurance on 23 February on the Floor of the House that it would be inconceivable in future that we should not have a pre-ratification debate if such a debate were recommended by the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I have long envied American negotiators their ability to argue, during a negotiation, that however admirable a suggestion from our side was, “It will never fly on the Hill.” Our negotiators now have a comparable weapon in their armoury.
In the time allowed to me, I can make only two very brief points about the agreement itself. First, of course the cohesion of the East African Community matters and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, the compatibility of this new agreement with Article 7 of its common market protocol is not at all clear, but I do not believe that in practice the agreement threatens the cohesion of the EAC. Under the agreement, tariff reductions by the Kenyan Government, which might create a perceived need for customs checks inside the EAC, will start only seven years ahead. By then, I would hope that all five other members of the EAC would have acceded to this agreement or a comparable, improved version of it. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is indeed the Government’s aim.
Secondly, the IAC report drew particular attention to the scrutiny of amendments to agreements. It is important, if we are to avoid future disputes, to devise clear criteria for determining when an amendment—or, indeed, a memorandum of understanding, an exchange of letters or an agreed minute—is of sufficient weight to trigger CRaG scrutiny. I am encouraged by the sympathetic hearing that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has so far given to the concept of a criteria-based approach, and I urge him not to weary in well doing.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in the maiden debate of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. I had the honour of serving with him as a Minister and then as a colleague. He may be young compared to many of us, but he was never naive—at least not in my experience.
I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and commend the work of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and his committee in giving this agreement much-needed scrutiny. I particularly support the call, and concerns expressed within it, for the implications of this agreement for economic regional integration. Successive Governments of all political hues have long supported regional economic integration in Africa as one of the best means of lifting people out of poverty. It would be a tragedy if these agreements—this is the first of a number—were to undermine the real progress that has been made in the development and economic integration of the regions of Africa, not least as this is the first year of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement. This free trade agreement creates the largest global free trade area in the world by country number, aims to be a model of cross-border co-operation—something that DfID, as it was, and the current department have long championed—and, importantly, offers a real prospect for a continent currently facing a pandemic that has caused it up to $79 billion in output losses in 2020 alone. Africa has never needed economic integration more than now. The World Bank estimates that the African Continental Free Trade Agreement will boost regional income by 7%, or $450 billion, speed up wage growth for women and lift 30 million people out of extreme poverty by 2035.
If regional integration does not come to pass on the continent, we face the real prospect of holding it back and increasing still further the number of people who will fall into poverty as a result of Covid. I therefore urge the Minister to respond positively to the request in the report that the Government should provide an assessment of the risks posed by the agreement to the East African Community Customs Union, as well as an assessment of the implications of any bilateral agreement for regional integration in East Africa. This is important today, since Ghana has signed—in the Locarno room—a post-Brexit trade agreement with the UK. I commend the hard work of Ministers on both sides for all they have done in that regard. If that hard work is to be turned into benefits for farmers, young entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized businesses, it requires that this report and its implications are taken seriously by the Government so that, when we come to consider Ghana’s free trade agreement with the UK, it will enhance rather than damage regional integration.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are times when debates in this House make one feel very old. Between 1974 and 1979 I was a special adviser to Jim Callaghan, working closely with the much-missed Lord Wright of Richmond, the father-in-law of our new Peer. It is also worth remembering that at the time the bright, young Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary, Sir Tommy Brimelow, was the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. There is one last thought on which the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, might ponder: when Tommy Brimelow came into the House, he joined the Labour Benches. The noble Lord does have a choice.
Kenya is important, not only as a trading partner, as has already been pointed out, but as a country in its own right. It is a member of the UN Security Council and a senior member of the African Union. We have already heard about its membership of the East African Community and, of course, it is a key member of the Commonwealth. It is important that the relationship is endorsed and supported by this House.
Some real worries have already been expressed in this debate. In seeking the new bilateral treaties, the UK must not become a disruptor of existing partnerships, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, warned us, which are so important to development in Africa. Although, like my noble friend Lord Oates, I accept that the concessions about parliamentary scrutiny are the basic, minimum requirement, if the Government are sincere in their pledge about bringing sovereignty back not to the Executive but to Parliament, they should look at radical reform of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. That would show their real intention to give Parliament the kind of scrutiny that trade and other international relations treaties deserve. We must make sure that they are seen in the wider context of regional stability, our ambitions for climate change targets, development goals and support for human rights, as well as squeezing bribery and corruption out of trade altogether. That is what we want to hear from the Government.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply. Again, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, to the House and look forward to his future contributions.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for introducing this debate. Along with other noble Lords, I most heartily congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, on his entertaining maiden speech. Your Lordships’ House will gain a great deal from his experience and perspectives as the global Britain programme accelerates.
During the last few weeks of the implementation—or transition—period, all eyes were on the discussions with the EU, led by my noble friend Lord Frost. I trust that we are likely to see rather more of him in your Lordships’ House in future. He successfully concluded the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU on Christmas Eve, a wonderful Christmas present for the British people.
Little attention has been given to the impressive performance of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade and her team in sorting out a large number of continuity free trade agreements during December. As of now, the UK has secured continuity or enhanced continuity trade agreements with almost all the 70 countries with which we had previously signed up to free trade agreements as members of the EU. Last month it was announced that we have applied to join the CPTPP, a free trading area with a combined GDP of £9 trillion. This is very exciting and enormously significant for global Britain.
It is also to be celebrated that we have now signed up to seven free trade agreements covering 14 African countries. Important among those agreements to which we signed up in December was that with Kenya. In terms of volume of traded goods, it was perhaps not the most important, but in terms of geostrategic significance I submit that it was rather more important. Some observers have said that the agreement may have a negative effect on economic integration among the members of the East African Community. However, under Article 143 of the agreement, the other members of the EAC are entitled to make an accession request to the UK-Kenya EPA Council.
The International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House asked why the Government did not transition the market access regulation into UK law. It seems clear that the reason no other partner state of the EAC chose to ratify the EU-EAC EPA is that they could enjoy duty-free and quota-free access through the EU’s market access regulation. Beyond this, all the other partner states had an additional incentive not to ratify the agreement, as they are least developed countries and, as such, already benefit from duty-free, quota-free access under the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences LDC framework.
Kenya has seen sustained growth for over a decade, rooted in fundamental reforms which have made the Kenyan economy competitive and increased its attractiveness to international investment. I welcome this agreement.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, and in doing so express my sadness that his late father-in-law, Lord Wright of Richmond, was not here to see him make it. I worked once for someone who said he was a founder member of the son-in-law club. He was a former Leader of this House, Lord Soames, and his father-in-law was Winston Churchill, of course. He always used to say, “the son- in-law also rises.”
In so far as the UK-Kenya agreement we are debating is one of the category that the Government call continuity agreements—perhaps more clearly described as rollover agreements of the terms which already existed between the UK and Kenya when we were a member of the EU or in transition out of it—there is probably no need to go into too much detail, which is fortunate since, as usual, we have no time to do so.
Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he can identify any elements in the agreement which provide better access to our market than Kenyan exporters already had, or provide our exporters of goods or services with better access to the Kenyan market than they already had. What we are talking about, therefore, is running to stand still. I am not denigrating that; it is certainly better than nothing and better than regressing to straightforward third-country treatment of each other. But it is still light years removed from what was promised by the promoters of Brexit once we had shaken off what they described as the “shackles” of EU membership.
That brings me to a wider point, which was raised forcefully in the report of your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee on the UK’s relations with sub-Saharan Africa—a report published last July and still languishing undebated. It is now nearing five years since the Department for International Trade was set up in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum to establish the outlines of the UK’s new independent trade policy, yet to this day not a word has been revealed about what that policy should be towards Africa —a substantial proportion of the world’s population, containing many rapidly growing markets. Not one word has been said about those African countries’ improved access to our market, which must surely be an integral part of any serious partnership between the UK and Africa.
This failure to identify and to promote the countries of Africa as a priority part of our new trade policy is surely a lamentable one which must be remedied. However, the Government’s written replies to our report’s recommendations—two attempts were needed—were vapid and imprecise, and contained no sense of urgency. Clearly, pursuit of the mirage of a UK-US agreement and that of an agreement with the Pacific grouping, with seven of whose 11 members we already have free trade agreements, were crowding out any consideration of Africa. I hope that the Minister can say that this will not continue to be the case and give us chapter and verse on how that lacuna will be filled, at the latest when the report on sub-Saharan Africa is finally debated.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I beg your pardon, the next speaker is the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
It has happened many times before; not to worry.
My Lords, the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, was one of the finest.
The Kenyan agreement should become a beacon of best practice, promoting inclusion, sustainability and green growth, and, importantly, should be based around delivering African priorities. However, the UK’s recent push to sign continuity agreements with African states has drawn criticism for being overly focused on the UK’s needs and not those of the continent. There is an excellent opportunity to reset the trade relationship with Africa and seek an agreement that centres on the priorities of that continent: the African Continental Free Trade Agreement, which aims to boost intra-African trade. This would tie in well with Commonwealth objectives to boost intra-Commonwealth trade, a significant proportion of which should be in Africa, a point borne out in Nairobi at the Commonwealth summit hosted by the Secretary-General, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland.
However, as a broader strategy of approach, emphasis should not be just on anglophone Africa. The UK’s ambition to be the lead investor in Africa should be seen within the context of opportunities in francophone and lusophone countries, and the Hispanic Equatorial Guinea. Being an international centre for mobile technology, digital trade ought to be prominent and include financial services. The UK should be seeking to agree a modern digital trade corridor, on par with those agreed with Japan and Singapore, with free movement of money, data supporting inward investments services and trade in goods.
Notwithstanding a round of development cuts, we should be seeking to better utilise our diminishing funds to build resilience and capabilities in key areas such as digital connectivity, climate, health and skills. I conclude by saying that we should be mindful too of UK-EU-Africa supply chains—the east African flower trade being a case in point, as has already been referred to. This Kenya agreement should strengthen these things and not have the negative effect of disrupting and undermining them; although, as an aside, I have long been a proponent of the establishment of greater east-west transport corridors.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I will not forget again. I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, I commend the impressive maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, and welcome that he is clearly intent on being an active Member of this House. I thank the Minister for giving us the Grimstone rule, to which reference has already been made. It is a small concession to parliamentary democracy, but a welcome one.
This agreement demonstrates why Parliament needs to be involved in formulating these agreements. I love Kenya and have spent many happy times there. It is a country rich in natural resources, but it has a massive problem, which I wish to concentrate on today: corruption. It ranks 124th in Transparency International’s index of 180 countries.
When Kenya’s Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission was launched in 2016, its director said that Kenya was losing a third of its state budget—around $7 billion a year—to corruption. Sadly, things have not improved since then. A succession of scandals in public procurement have been exposed, year after year. Some have involved massive contracts and some just a consistent pattern of graft. Such corruption deprives the people of the wealth that they could be enjoying and that Kenya, without corruption, would be well placed to deliver. Currently, there are investigations into alleged corruption over Covid-related contracts—although that is of course not unique to Kenya.
So could we not have been more ambitious in pushing Kenya towards transparency in public procurement contracts? The agreement states that the parties will aim to conclude negotiations on transparency in public procurement within five years. I ask the Minister: why did we not push for something more demanding on this vital issue?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a rollover agreement, the UK-Kenya EPA has had rather a bumpy ride through Parliament, both here and in Kenya. This stems mainly from the cavalier treatment of the other EAC members, which are assumed to go along with it since they already benefit from LDC and EBA preferences.
Like other members of the IAC, I have been especially concerned about whether any countries were consulted as individual nations, as well as via the EAC itself. Nairobi has always had the monopoly of communications, as well as of trade, in east Africa; that is a fact of life. But Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and even South Sudan, and the new applicants DRC and Somalia, all have strong interests in trading with the UK. They do not want any disruption. Even in Nairobi, several MPs complained that their Government had failed to consult fully with their own stakeholders on the agreement, with the result that parliamentary debate was held up and the deadline for ratification missed.
There were some deep-seated civil society and farming concerns that the EPA, like its EU-ACP predecessor, tended to treat Kenya as a supplier of raw materials and primary products, rather than encouraging its SMEs and businesses to develop its manufacturing base. For some, this recalls the UK’s neo-colonial links with Africa and is still a long way short of the vision of fair and sustainable trade that helps the poor. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, made powerful points on that as well.
There is a real risk that the EPA could destabilise the EAC itself by negotiating with only Kenya and the bloc rather than with individual members. The community was founded in 1999 and is still the strongest regional association in Africa. It held its 21st summit last weekend. It has achieved a degree of integration, but its members still control their own foreign policy. The Minister has claimed that the DIT kept in touch with individual states, but perhaps he could give details today. The fact that they have been formally invited to join the agreement after the event hardly makes a difference if they each have different policy objectives.
I do not blame Brexit for all this directly, but I can point a finger at the last-minute arrangements devised by the Government to patch up a lot of these important trade agreements. The Minister might argue that this was a cunning plan to ensure that the agreement went through just in time, but most people would think, and perhaps Ministers would admit, that it was a messy consequence of doing things in too much of a hurry.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, to our Cross Benches, and thank him for his unambiguous support for our aid programme.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the committee for its Motion allowing us to debate this agreement and for its work under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I am also grateful for the opportunity to have heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, who gave evidence to the committee that I sat on in this House. He should feel fully liberated after 38 years. We have the evidence of his two amigos as former Permanent Secretaries who are hardly inhibited in providing their views to the House—so we look forward to the noble Lord doing exactly the same, because he will have much to offer. He will find, as I have over the seven years I have been here, that this House is great for making you feel perpetually young.
I welcome this first application of the Grimstone rule—that we will not ratify agreements before they have been debated if a committee has asked for that debate to take place. I welcome the fact that the Government has ensured that this debate has indeed taken place, as my noble friend Lord Oates highlighted in his remarks. He also referred to the tension there now is within the EAC over the moves to have a bilateral agreement, and I will refer to that.
We know that the European EPA has not yet been ratified by all members of the EAC, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said. But, importantly, he highlighted that there are other elements of preferential relationships, and the partnership mechanisms of Aid for Trade and economic development in that EPA, for which we have not provided any continuity with Kenya. Now that this is the mechanism which the Government have said that other countries will be invited to accede to, they will not be acceding to any continuity that had been in existence in the European agreement.
So what is the Government’s intention? Is this an agreement which other countries will be invited to accede to? Or, if a country chooses to enter into an agreement with the UK, within the aegis of the EAC, will we reopen negotiations with those other countries to afford them all of the different partnership and trade for development policies? The MoU that accompanies the agreement will give Kenya and the UK a much greater say than other countries in the EAC acceding to this agreement. It is almost insulting to other members of that community to say that if they wish to have the same arrangements with the UK that they had previously within the EU, they will have to join this agreement. Why was the previously discussed bridging mechanism for Kenya rejected? This was not clear in the Government’s evidence to the committee.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, I am pleased that the final agreement for Ghana has now been agreed, after two months of applying tariffs to Ghanaian products. As we have heard, the concern of farmers and the rural community in Kenya, who are now seeking legal remedy from their own Government over this agreement, shows that there are deep consequences of our arrangements with these two countries.
With regard to the Kenya agreement, the wider partnership elements are the essence of these agreements. EPAs are not simply tariff agreements or FTAs; they are genuinely partnership agreements—that is the essence of them. Therefore, we need to look at the wider, non-tariff areas of relationships, deliberately framed not to be purely about tariff measures for middle-income countries, or codifying the Everything But Arms approach for other countries in the different categories.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said in her very informed and powerful contribution on development support, this is not a continuity agreement. In Annexe 3A of the EU’s Aid for Trade agreement there is a matrix of 23 pages of costed, specified projects for increasing trade, competition and finance from the European Union through its European Development Fund and the members of the EAC and Kenya.
This annexe has been removed from the UK agreement, with no replacement. Indeed, the section on development co-operation in the Government’s report has two paragraphs and leads with what I find are chilling words. Paragraph 57 starts—the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, will have to forgive me, but this is perfect Civil Service speak—with the words:
“In line with the different approaches of Britain and the EU to programming for development cooperation”.
What does that mean? What are “different approaches” to programming for development co-operation? It means, by the last sentence, that while parts of this agreement reflect the ambitions of the parties, they
“do not create any obligations on us to provide financial or non-financial support in specific areas.”
So aid for trade and development support have been stripped out entirely from this agreement.
None of the commitments is binding in Parts III to V. In Part V, the 27 articles have the rider, of course, that there will be no financial commitment or obligations. Technically, under this agreement, which we are being asked to ratify, there is no commitment for a single pound in facilitating aid for trade or trade for development support. Can the Minister clarify what is the aid for trade development support with this agreement? Let me be clear what it is. It relates to food standards and upgrading laboratories. It is connected to all of the areas where we would seek to facilitate UK trade to develop even further. This is sending a very strong negative message.
This leads me to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned with regards to TradeMark East Africa, which has been highlighted by respective Governments over the past decade as a very significant success for the UK. Our support for TradeMark East Africa facilitates $100 million to the benefit of UK businesses, making trade easier and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted, tackling corruption and bureaucracy, reducing trade costs by 30%, increasing competition, improving transport corridors for trade, and increasing jobs and prosperity. But TradeMark East Africa now has a sword hanging over it. It has already been asked to make 20% cuts last year by the FCDO, reducing its staff to a four-day week, and now it could see a cut of 50% of its work, which in effect would make it inoperable. You can only cut programmes so far before they are unable to be delivered. This is a flagship project. Such a cut could create significant long-term reputational damage for the UK, putting at risk longer-term projects that we have secured with our partners.
The final point I would like to make to the Minister is that it is not too late to reverse the trajectory. If we are to have better digitisation, anti-corruption measures, better procedures, better standards, policy development and support for women traders, which should be the essence of these EPAs, we cannot see cuts to TradeMark for East Africa. It would be inconsistent with the wider approach and inconsistent with what we are told should be an Africa strategy in the fastest growing, and what is likely to be the biggest, trading area in the world. It is not too late. I hope the Government will persuade the Secretary of State to change course.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, let me start by echoing the remarks of other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. He showed remarkable ability in being able to say so much in such a short period of time. I hope he will continue with that record.
I also echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, which complemented those of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, on support for the Government’s commitment to ODA. I saw first hand last year the in-country programmes in Kenya, in particular on nutrition and agriculture, which is what this agreement could particularly impact, and the diversity of agriculture which is necessary to ensure proper nutrition. One of the problems with the focus on trade is that often those agricultural products that we import are not delivering for the people of Kenya in the way that they should in terms of nutrition. I hope that we will return to that subject later on.
This continuity agreement is one of 10 that came into effect on 1 January, and it is the only one that has been subject to any form of debate in either House. This illustrates how the CRaG process is totally inadequate in guaranteeing proper parliamentary scrutiny of new trade deals before they come into effect. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the changes that were made in the Trade Bill; I understand that they will now be called the “Grimstone protocols”, which is great news, as I can keep repeating that name.
The Minister may well say that this is just a rollover agreement but, as we have heard in this debate and as the analysis by the International Agreements Committee shows, this is not the case. There should have been a proper discussion before this deal came into effect, given its implications for the rest of the East African Community. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, highlighted, I hope the Minister will respond in full to the committee’s request to explain what other options were considered for ensuring continuity of trading arrangements with Kenya, and why they were not pursued. In particular, what representations were made by the other EAC members and stakeholders, and how have the Government sought to evaluate those and address their concerns?
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, noted, we know that Kenya’s Parliament failed in December to ratify the trade agreement with the UK, calling for a supplementary report on the economic partnership agreement. Last week, the Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum sued the Kenyan Government, arguing that the process of the deal’s ratification was extremely flawed as no public participation was conducted by the Kenyan Government before the document was proposed in the Kenyan Parliament. In a statement, the farmers said that
“an open market with heavily subsidized tariffs for the UK farm products like chicken, pigs and maize”
would have
“the dangerous potential to destroy local production of the very same products”.
We had a debate on the EU EPA in this House, in November 2016, when all these issues were raised in relation to the development project and, in particular, the question of how we would deliver on the 2030 agenda to build sustainable development.
One other issue I want to raise, in addition to those identified by the committee, and which I focused on during debate on the Trade Bill, is human rights provisions in the Kenya deal. We have all heard the mantra of Ministers that these agreements simply maintain the status quo from the EU agreements that came before them. In some cases that is certainly true; for example, the agreement with the Ivory Coast signed by the Government in November 2020 and published in sufficient time for it to receive the full 21 sitting days of parliamentary scrutiny before taking effect on 1 January. Annexe 3 to that agreement replicates the effect and language of the EU’s Cotonou Agreement with the African, Caribbean and Pacific states, committing both parties to uphold human rights and the rule of law as an essential element of the agreement, spelling out the process and consequences that would follow any violation of that commitment. The Kenya agreement contains the same Annexe 3 as that of the Ivory Coast but removes the entire section dealing with the consequences of any violations of the human rights commitments. There is no explanation as to why; I hope the Minister will be able to explain that tonight.
I have argued in this House that we should use continuity agreements to strengthen the provisions in trade agreements relating to human rights—but here, in the Kenya agreement, there is a clear example of where the Government have actually done the opposite. One reason that this matters is that, as other noble Lords have pointed out, other East African Community countries will be able to join the EPA—countries that, according to Amnesty International, have a clear poor human rights record. We should focus on the implications of that.
Regional press reports this week say that Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda have demanded the extension of the negotiation period by one year so that they can sign the agreement as a bloc. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what the implications of that are.
Finally, as the Minister doubtless knows, Africa is home to 30 of the world’s 40 most climate-vulnerable countries, and Kenya ranks 152 out of 181, with an increasing prevalence of droughts and floods. Where once the rains marked the predictable changing of the seasons and could be relied on by smallholder farmers for their livelihoods, climate change and plagues of locusts are wreaking deadly havoc.
However, in the hustle and bustle of Nairobi, Kenya has hope for a bright and green future, planning a new sovereign green bond. The UK’s development budget has been very actively involved in encouraging Kenya’s green transition—so what assurance can the Minister give that the UK’s support for Kenya’s climate ambitions will be protected from the spending cuts that the Chancellor has imposed on this vital work?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for tabling this debate, and I welcome the opportunity for an informed discussion of the UK-Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement and the Government’s wider approach to securing continuity in our trading relationships with the whole of the East African Community. Of course, this work is so important to UK and east African citizens and businesses alike. In view of the time constraints, I will restrict my comments to the substance of the debate.
It is a great pleasure to see parliamentary scrutiny in action in this debate, living up to the commitments that we made during the progress of the Trade Bill—in particular, following what I like to think of as the “Purvis convention” in the way that we approach these matters. I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, and I will try to respond to the many insightful and well-informed points that have been raised. In particular, the expertise and commitment of the IAC members never fail to inspire me. If I do not fully respond to all the points, I will of course write to noble Lords after the debate.
What a pleasure it is to have a noble Lord choose this debate as the occasion for his maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, made an observant, judicious and eloquent speech, befitting his nearly 40 years of illustrious service to this country’s diplomacy at the highest levels. I know I speak on behalf of all noble Lords in saying that we not only welcome his presence but eagerly anticipate his future contributions, to the advantage of the quality and expertise of this House’s proceedings.
I also thank the House of Lords International Agreements Committee and its officials for the detailed examination of our continuity agreements, as set out in its Scrutiny of International Agreements report. In responding, I will cover three main points: the UK’s approach to trade continuity with Kenya, our ambitions for a regional deal with the whole of the EAC, and our approach to the ratification of this agreement.
First, as I know this was a matter of concern to a number of noble Lords, I reiterate the UK’s objective of achieving a regional trade agreement with the whole of the EAC. We remain absolutely committed to building a strong trading relationship with the whole EAC that will create jobs and prosperity in east Africa. It is very much our intention that the agreement we have signed with Kenya is a stepping-stone towards even stronger regional integration in future.
Let me give a little of the background to how we ended up where we are today. Back in January 2020, the former Minister for Trade Policy wrote to the EAC’s secretary-general to reinforce the UK’s ambition to work in partnership with the EAC secretariat to build a strong trading relationship that will create jobs and prosperity in east Africa. In so doing, he proposed a meeting in February 2020 between the UK and representatives from the secretariat and all partner states to find a way to replicate the effects of the EU’s current trading arrangements between the UK and the EAC, and to avoid any disruption in our existing trade with the EAC partner states.
We have continued since that date to engage with the secretariat and partner states, but during these discussions the EAC informed us that some partner states were unable to begin negotiations with the UK because of some domestic preoccupations. However, they understood the need to maintain trade continuity and provide certainty for businesses and citizens in all partner states as we approached the end of the transition period. It was therefore on this basis that the UK and Kenya decided to negotiate this agreement, ensuring that our discussions were open to all EAC partner states to join. The fact is that no partner state chose to join these discussions, but I reassure noble Lords that we have left the door firmly open.
In accordance with article 143 of the agreement, any state that is a contracting party to the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community is able to accede to this agreement in future. Indeed—some news hot off the press—noble Lords may have seen that on Saturday the EAC Heads of State held their annual summit. One of the things they considered was participation in trade agreements. The Heads of State provided approval to an approach enabling some partner states to proceed to implement the EU’s agreement with the EAC ahead of others.
I am happy that this pragmatic approach by the Heads of State is exactly in keeping with the approach that we have taken in our EPA, and reassured that such a style of approach has now been approved at the EAC Heads of State level. If that is what the Heads of State have decided, I gently say: is it right for us to question this approach? I hope this will put at rest the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and those of other noble Lords if they feel that we have somehow been a disruptive force in the EAC in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, were also concerned about this point.
The agreement we have secured will ensure that companies operating in Kenya, including British businesses, can continue to benefit from duty-free quota access to the UK market for a range of important products, including vegetables and cut flowers. It will support jobs and economic development in Kenya and avoid possible disruption to UK businesses such as florists, which will be able to maintain tariff-free supply routes for Kenya’s high-quality flowers. It will also benefit many of the approximately 2,500 UK businesses exporting goods to Kenya each year, including many UK suppliers of machinery, electronics and technical equipment, where continued tariff-free access will be guaranteed.
I turn to the UK’s approach to ensuring trade continuity with Kenya in response to the committee’s request for further detail on the options considered. As one of the largest economies in east Africa, Kenya is of course an important trading partner for the UK. However, as the only EAC partner state that is not a least-developed country, it faced the imposition of new tariffs if we had been unable to secure a deal at the end of the transition period. Kenya faced reverting to less preferential trading arrangements under the UK’s generalised scheme of preferences. Without a deal in place, assuming that the current patterns of trade remain unchanged in future, the annual increase in duties on our imports from Kenya was estimated to be around £10.5 million in 2021. In contrast, as least-developed countries—and this is the important point—all other EAC partner states’ duty-free, quota-free access to the UK was guaranteed under the GSP.
In its report, the committee asked the Government to explain why the UK had decided not to replicate the EU’s market access regulation. The agreement that we have signed allows for the effects of that regulation to be replicated in all material respects with regard to Kenya. Providing permanent duty-free, quota-free access for Kenyan exports benefits UK-Kenyan trade, which was worth £1.4 billion in 2019. The agreement, taken together with the GSP, ensures that trade continuity is guaranteed for all EAC partner states.
While the UK had proposed a no-deal transitional protection measure to Kenya in 2019, that had been developed only to provide an additional 18 months to conclude trade negotiations with certain partners who faced the imposition of new tariffs in the event of a no-deal EU exit. However, as the withdrawal agreement reached between the UK and the EU in October 2019 included an 11-month transition period until December 2020, that gave us the additional time that we needed to conclude outstanding negotiations. The no-deal transitional protection measure then became no longer appropriate.
I turn to the Government’s approach to the ratification of the agreement. In my letter of 9 February 2021, I outlined the steps taken by the Government in accordance with the statutory process for laying agreements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Government believe that the explanatory materials published alongside the agreement on 17 December were sufficient and we therefore made the decision not to extend CRaG, which concluded on 10 February. However, I can confirm—and this was absolutely the right thing to do, in accordance with the commitments that I made from this very Dispatch Box during the passage of the Trade Bill—that the Government have not yet ratified the agreement, which we have delayed deliberately until after today’s debate in order to ensure that Parliament has had the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the text.
The UK-Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement provides stability and certainty for UK and Kenyan businesses alike. It guarantees permanent duty-free, quota-free access to UK markets for one of the largest economies in the region. Without it, Kenya would have been left behind through no fault of its own while the other partner states continued to benefit from duty-free, quota-free access to UK markets. That unfairness was an unacceptable outcome for the UK. However, I reiterate that the agreement does not prejudice our approach towards the other EAC partner states. I confirm to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we remain ambitious in our desire to expand the agreement in future, and we have ensured that the agreement contains a clear process for accession.
Before I conclude, I will deal with a point made by my noble friend Lady Sugg and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I reassure noble Lords, with regard to the effect of the funding of previous ODA programmes, that trade and economic development—and building future trade and investment partners, including through helping countries to trade—is one of seven ODA priorities. No final decisions have been made on budgets or allocations to individual programmes, but I am happy to reassure noble Lords that we intend to ensure that TradeMark East Africa can continue its important work in promoting trade to east Africa. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and send copies to the committee and the Library, on his point about the differences between this report and the EU report, and his points about the MoU.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised an important point about human rights. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord: Annex III of the UK’s economic partnership agreement with Kenya replicates language from the Cotonou agreement, and the effect of the Cotonou references to the EU’s economic partnership agreement with the East African Community will make sure that respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance, which are so important to all in this House, are made essential and fundamental elements of the agreement.
In conclusion, therefore, I reiterate my thanks to the committee for its examination of this agreement—which, I repeat, has not yet been ratified—and I respect the committee’s desire for further time, which we have granted today, to enable full scrutiny of its provisions. Our ambition for this agreement was to ensure continuity for Kenya, and I like to feel that we have achieved that ambition.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been very valuable, and although noble Lords had only a short time for their contributions, those have all been significant. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, on his maiden speech, which was, as anticipated, eloquent and impressive.
I welcome the Minister’s assurances that this was not intended in any way to disrupt the arrangements for the rest of Africa. I thank him for his explanation. We will watch what is said: we will watch closely to see if other countries accede, as he has explained is now possible, and we will look at that closely.
The other issue raised by noble Lords is parliamentary scrutiny. That is important to the International Agreements Committee, as I have said. Whether it is the Purvis protocol, the Grimstone rule or even Lansley’s law, we are pleased with the changes that are taking place: we are edging towards greater parliamentary scrutiny, which is important because we should not be just paying lip-service to it. We will continue to watch that.
I thank the Minister for what he said about not ratifying. The department could perhaps have said that it would extend the time, but I suppose the effect has been the same. With that, I beg to move.