House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we start oral questions, I want to inform the House that, at 12 noon, I will be inviting Members and colleagues to join in a one-minute silence to mark the national day of reflection on the anniversary of the first coronavirus lockdown.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I assure my hon. Friend that I meet regularly with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on a range of issues. My Department has engaged with businesses and colleagues across the country and within Government to ensure that our policy is proportionate and achieves the Government’s desired public health outcomes.
Craig Whittaker [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He may be aware that the scope of products captured in this proposal will be very wide indeed, including kitchen cupboard products such as All-Bran, HP sauce and cough sweets such as Fisherman’s Friend—products that are unlikely to appeal to children. Given the significant hit to business and UK broadcasters specifically, will he commit to working with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to narrow the scope of products covered by this proposal?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Of course I would be very happy to work closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As I noted in my initial answer, my Department has worked closely with the Department of Health and Social Care up to this point, but I would be happy to hear more from my hon. Friend about this particularly important issue.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I am grateful for the opportunity to say here in the House that the Government do intend to bring forward the employment Bill when parliamentary time allows.
Seema Malhotra [V]
The TUC estimates that 3.6 million people—one worker in nine—were in insecure work ahead of the coronavirus outbreak, leaving them exposed to massive drops in income or unsafe working conditions. It was bad then, and it is worse now. The Government have driven the author of their own Taylor review to say in quite extraordinary terms that the Government have lost their “enthusiasm” for enforcing workers’ rights. With no employment Bill yet on the horizon, is that not the plain truth for all to see? Whose side are the Government on?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will take no lessons from the hon. Lady about workers’ rights and what this Government have done over many years to protect workers’ rights. The national living wage is higher than it has ever been in this country’s history. We have taken thousands of people out of tax, and I am not going to take any lectures from her.
Tony Lloyd [V]
If the Secretary of State will not take lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), will he take lessons from the TUC, which estimates that fire and rehire is most likely to take place among young people and black and Asian workers, or will he take lessons from Go North West, which sacked its workforce in Greater Manchester, and offered them increased hours of work, loss of sick pay and a reduction in annual pay of £2,500? Is that what the Secretary of State wants, to make Britain the best place in the world for work?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question. He will know that I take my relations and my conversations with the TUC extremely seriously. I have met a number of TUC leaders since taking up the post two months ago, and I am very conscious that fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic is completely unacceptable.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that he does not take lessons from Labour—this is from the man who described the British as
“the worst idlers in the world.”
The Supreme Court ruling that Uber drivers are workers, rejecting the company’s claim that its drivers are self-employed, sets a precedent for all gig economy workers, who will also be entitled to the minimum wage, holiday pay and sick pay, but it took Uber drivers six long years of legal action to have their rights recognised. The Government must not abandon the 3 million adults in the UK working in the gig economy to spend years fighting in the courts. So will the Secretary of State commit to introducing legislation in this Session of Parliament to ensure that all gig economy workers receive basic employment rights?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I said in response to an earlier question, we are going to introduce an employment Bill not in this Session but when parliamentary time allows. We are also of course considering the effects of this extremely important Supreme Court ruling and we are considering options to improve clarity around employment status.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has extended our support measures in the most recent Budget to provide an additional £65 billion. With the new restart grant scheme, the Government will have allocated a total of £25 billion in business grants. Our restart grants will provide up to £6,000 for non-essential retail businesses and up to £18,000 for hospitality, personal care and gyms. This year and next year, we are spending £407 billion to support people and businesses throughout the pandemic.
Chris Stephens [V]
We know that when big business is set to fail former Prime Minister David Cameron uses his hotline to the Chancellor. With 3 million still excluded and the £20 universal credit uplift, furlough and self-employed support ending in September, can the Minister tell us whether any former Tory leaders have contacted the Department on their behalf, or is it sink or swim for the ordinary folk?
Amanda Solloway
As I have indicated before, this Government have done unprecedented work and one of the things we do all the time is speak to stakeholders and all the people we need to. Think about the money we have invested: £407 billion to support people and businesses throughout the pandemic.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]
Many bricks-and-mortar retailers are still desperately concerned about the build-up of commercial rents during the lockdown, including many pubs that are prevented from negotiating a rent review due to restrictions in regulation 7 of the pubs code. The recent extension of the ban on commercial evictions is welcome, but when will Ministers come forward with a long-term solution to commercial rents?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member for the question. One of the things we are doing is working with the stakeholders. We have done a review of the pub code and we will be reporting on that situation soon, but we have extended the moratorium and we will be looking into this as well.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
I am afraid the previous answer simply was not good enough, because we cannot have a situation where some businesses do not have the support that they need while another set of businesses have had absolute certainty since the start of the pandemic—those, of course, being the ones with links to the Tory party; as we now know, they have had Ministers on speed-dial since day one and even a former Prime Minister tried to get in on the act. So does the Minister believe her Government have a culture of covid cronyism at their very heart, and will she now back an independent investigation into apparent lobbying by David Cameron?
Amanda Solloway
Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, the Government have supported people and businesses across the United Kingdom. The Budget extends the UK coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme and extends the VAT cut to support tourism, leisure and all the sectors. People and businesses all over the United Kingdom will benefit and have benefited from the Government’s actions.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The Government have taken significant steps to support women in businesses. We have launched the Government-backed Women’s Business Council and published the women in finance charter. The recent Rose review and report also shows that good progress is being made to overcome barriers for women entrepreneurs.
Mrs Latham
The majority of people employed in the wedding industry are women. The road map out of lockdown offers very little hope for the wedding industry or the supply chain as couples would rather wait than have only six, 15 or 30 guests. What assurances can my hon. Friend provide that women in the wedding industry will receive the support their businesses need to survive until June 2021, or even beyond?
Amanda Solloway
I thank my hon. Friend for her great support; I know how much she supports women entrepreneurs, especially with Derbys Finest. Since March 2020, the Government have provided an unprecedented package of financial support to businesses, including those in the wedding sector. That package of support is kept under regular review. My colleague the Minister for Small Business regularly meets the industry-led weddings taskforce to understand the impact of covid-19 on businesses in this sector.
Craig Tracey [V]
Research clearly shows that gender-diverse boards perform better on every single measure, so it stands to reason that diversity across the workforce can only be a benefit. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to encourage more women into business, particularly in areas such as engineering and science, in which they are traditionally under-represented?
Amanda Solloway
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I thank him for his tireless work to champion women, especially in his role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women and enterprise. I sincerely thank him for that. FTSE companies have indeed made great progress, and we have seen a more than 60% increase in the number of women on boards in the past six years. The Government recognise that the science, technology, engineering and maths workforce is vital to increasing the UK’s productivity and economic growth, and I am really pleased that Government-funded programmes such as the STEM ambassador programme and the CREST awards are successfully encouraging young women into STEM roles.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The vaccine taskforce has successfully brought together the collective effort of Government, academia and industry behind a single purpose and mission. Its hard work and focus, in partnership with the NHS and other organisations, helped the UK to become the first country to procure, authorise and deploy the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines. As I speak, over 30 million individuals across the UK have now received their first dose.
John Spellar
As the Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged, under his Department’s authorisation the vaccine taskforce has performed brilliantly, but it has needed a scientific and industrial base that was already there to work with. As he knows, there are some concerns about dependency on an overseas supply chain that may be interrupted. As the new Secretary of State, will he make a name for himself by challenging the dead hand of Treasury dogma and ensuring that Government contracts and projects across the board put British industry first at last?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about our British ingenuity and hard work. I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are always working extremely hard and are very focused on trying to promote innovation in this country in our research and development base.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
My officials and I regularly meet the industry-led weddings taskforce, established to represent all parts of the UK wedding sector, to understand the impact of the pandemic on jobs and businesses.
Yasmin Qureshi [V]
The Minister knows that businesses in the wedding industry have faced an incredibly difficult year, and they have not had much financial help. He also knows that this is a very seasonal industry, and confidence is at an all-time low. Does he think it is acceptable that, even now, people are still confused about the guidance regarding the wedding industry—whether to have weddings; what sort of numbers there should be—and that the guidelines that have been issued are very vague and confused? Does he accept that it is unacceptable that people are still asking for clarity at this stage, bearing in mind that the wedding season is about to start?
Paul Scully
Having dealt with the UK weddings taskforce, I understand the need to plan. We have published the guidance for ceremonies, and receptions will follow. Receptions from 12 April will be outdoor receptions. I am pleased that the UK weddings taskforce pushed us so that we were able to include dedicated wedding venues in that guidance.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Chancellor announced in his Budget a raft of new measures to help to support businesses, including those in the wedding sector. These include an extension to the furlough and self-employment income support schemes and further grants for business.
Felicity Buchan
The wedding industry has suffered disproportionately during the last year and I am concerned that the anomalies will continue. For instance, if we look at phase 3—from 17 May—we see that a venue in my constituency, such as Kensington Palace Pavilion, will be able to open to a music event at 50% capacity, which is 200 people, with alcohol, but a wedding the next day in exactly the same venue will be able to host only 30 people. Can my hon. Friend explain that anomaly?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend has been a formidable champion for businesses in her area, including weddings, personal care and hospitality, especially. The pace and sequencing of reopening in the road map have been informed by the latest scientific evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in its working groups. Weddings, which bring family and friends together, with their interaction, are particularly vulnerable to the spread of covid-19.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Distribution network operators are incentivised to ensure adequate investment in electricity networks under the framework set by the independent regulator, Ofgem. My officials regularly meet distribution network operators to discuss impacts of the electric vehicle transition, including in rural areas.
Jonathan Edwards [V]
Diolch, Mr Speaker. Achieving Wales’s ambitious climate targets would require a rapid transition to electric vehicles, yet currently just 0.17% of vehicles used in Wales are electric. One of the biggest barriers to the transition is grid capacity, particularly in rural areas. Will the Minister outline how she will future-proof the grid in Wales, especially after the concerns expressed by the former deputy national security adviser, Paddy McGuinness, that the integrated review published last week failed to focus on the dangers that a future cyber-attack on the grid would pose as the EV transition accelerates?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The majority of the UK Government’s infrastructure grant schemes are available in Wales, and we are working with the Welsh Government to ensure that there are strong and co-ordinated plans in place to support the roll-out of charging infrastructure. We recognise the particular challenges that some rural areas may face across the UK, such as longer distances between substations, and Ofgem has set up a funding framework to ensure that our electricity network supports our net zero ambitions.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
We have been very clear that employers threatening to fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic is completely unacceptable. As we have been concerned by such reports, we engaged ACAS to conduct a fact-finding exercise as to how fire and rehire has been used. It spoke to a wide range of stakeholders, including businesses and employee representatives. We are now considering these findings.
Kate Osborne
The Government have been sitting on the ACAS fire and rehire report now for over a month, raising fears that they are trying to bury it because they do not agree with the recommendations. Will the Minister tell me when we will get a chance to see what ACAS has to say, and, in the meantime, will she tell us whether ACAS agrees that the shameful practice of fire and rehire is quite simply unacceptable?
Amanda Solloway
As I previously stated, we find that fire and rehire is just not acceptable. In fact, the Department engaged ACAS to hold discussions in order to generate the evidence that we need. We therefore need to make sure that we consider all this. There is, of course, a degree of confidentiality that we need to bear in mind as well. ACAS officials shared their findings with BEIS officials in February, as the hon. Lady rightly said. We are giving this full consideration and will communicate our next steps in due course.
Afzal Khan [V]
Fire and rehire is utterly immoral. Members across the House have received many emails from desperate constituents who are being subjected to the disgraceful tactic. From British Airways and British Gas to Go North West, workers across the country have been treated with contempt. One of my constituents who was served with a section 188 notice said to me, “We want changes to be made with us, not to us.” Seeing as this Government promised to protect and enhance workers’ rights when we left the EU, will the Minister confirm how many employers in receipt of coronavirus job retention scheme payments have adopted fire and rehire tactics, and will she now commit to outlawing this practice once and for all?
Amanda Solloway
Just to reiterate, we have been holding clear consultations with a group of stakeholders and ACAS has been conducting this for us. We will be republishing the report in due course.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government are committed to getting as many homes as possible to EPC band C by 2035, where cost-effective, practical and affordable. We are doing this through setting long-term minimum standards, providing financial support where it is needed most, and getting the market conditions right to support action.
Neil Parish [V]
The green homes grant is a scheme that can improve home insulation, cut carbon, save on energy bills and create jobs across the country. It needs backing, not scrapping, so what plans does the Minister have to extend and improve the green homes grant, and how does she see the scheme helping to improve the efficiency of older, often rural, homes, especially those with solid walls, which use more energy and cost more to heat?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We absolutely recognise that older rural properties may be more challenging to improve. That is why we provide an incentive for off-gas homes under the current energy company obligation, and we will focus the future home upgrade grant on poorer-performing homes. We also have a range of exemptions under our minimum standard regulations for homes that are too expensive or difficult to improve. This is a really important aspect of our net zero challenges, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in the months ahead.
Stuart Anderson
The situation regarding covid-19 has had a big impact on the household incomes of residents in Wolverhampton. What long-term plans does my right hon. Friend have to help elderly and working-age residents to save money on utility bills and give them access to affordable energy efficiency schemes?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The Government have invested £500 million in the local authority delivery scheme to improve the energy efficiency of low-income households, helping to reduce fuel poverty for around 50,000 households by the end of this year. My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents in Wolverhampton, and I look forward to working with him as we work with those communities and households to meet our net zero challenge through home efficiency improvements.
Mr Speaker
I am now going to interrupt the proceedings. We are going to pause questions, and I would like to invite the House to join me in a moment of reflection. Today marks one year since the Prime Minister addressed the nation and asked us all to stay at home to combat the spread of coronavirus. Since then, many thousands of lives have been lost and the lives of those left behind have been changed forever. Every single one of us has been affected. It is right that we pause now, together with the whole country, and remember those who have died and those who are bereaved. Our thoughts and prayers will always be with those colleagues who worked with us in serving this House who also died. They will not be forgotten.
It is so important that we do this and that the nation comes together as we now see the green shoots that will hopefully take us out of this pandemic. Hopefully we will have a world that comes back to all of us. We will remember the role that Members have played in this House and the way that we have worked together, not only to enable the Government to legislate but to ensure that the Opposition can scrutinise as well. It has been so important for us all to get to this stage, and hopefully when we get beyond this, we will see a House return. As I say, we will not forget those who have died in this country, but we will also remember those who have died serving this House. It is important to us to ensure that they will be remembered, and we will be doing something to remember them at an appropriate stage in the future. The country is united and at this moment, we will take one minute’s silence. I say thanks to those who have turned up in the Chamber now, and I know that across the estate people will be recognising this important one minute’s silence. Nobody could ever have envisaged the numbers across the world that would be lost and the sacrifice that this country has made. A big thank you also goes to the NHS workers and all those who have been involved in making this country tick over, whether in transport or in shops. It is important to us all. I invite Members to stand for one minute’s silence.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
May I say that Opposition Members wish to be strongly associated with your words this morning, Mr Speaker, and that I am sure that goes for everybody else in the Chamber today?
The Government’s flagship programme to improve energy efficiency in homes, the green homes grant scheme, has produced figures for the latest month: vouchers applied for—18,526: vouchers issued—1,186; measures installed—99; and, I am not making this up, measures paid for—20. Does the Minister take responsibility for this catastrophic failure of a scheme? Will she say now whether she intends to extend the programme and roll the funding over so that it has a chance to succeed in the end? If she does, will she be sacking the US-based private consultancy firm she hired to run this awful mess?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
May I, too, associate myself with your words earlier, Mr Speaker? I think we have all, sadly, been touched by the loss of someone, or more than one person, whom we have known to this dreadful disease in the past year. Thank you for your words, because it is so important that we are able to hold this moment together.
The green homes grant voucher scheme has made significant strides since its launch in September 2020. We have received more than 90,000 applications and issued 33,000 vouchers, worth £142 million, and an additional £500 million has been given to local authorities to improve the energy efficiency of low-income households, helping to reduce fuel poverty for about 50,000 households by the end of this year. This is such an important part of the just transition that we want to ensure that we achieve with net zero. We recognise that the scheme has faced a number of delivery challenges, as many new mechanisms do, which has meant it has not delivered at the rate or the scale that we had originally hoped it would. However, we are working with the scheme administrator to process the backlog of voucher applications, streamlining the voucher issuance and redemption process as a top priority. Some delays in voucher processing are due to our robust fraud and gaming checks, which we have implemented by learning from previous schemes.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
May I associate myself, and all those participating in proceedings remotely, with the moment of national reflection that you have just led, Mr Speaker? Thank you. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend will have seen the report published by the Environmental Audit Committee on the energy efficiency of existing homes, in which we highlighted the scale of the challenge in decarbonising the 19 million homes in this country that account for most of the 20% of UK emissions from domestic buildings. Will the Government commit in the heat and building strategy to a clear timetable to encourage owners of all tenures of homes to install affordable energy upgrades, in order to meet our net zero Britain targets?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. Friend is right that the challenge of making all our homes energy-efficient and moving to net zero is enormous. I thank him for his leadership, as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, in looking in depth at some of the vital issues, to help us not only to solve the technical and financial challenges but to encourage our constituents to make changes to reduce their power and heat usage through efficiency.
We have a strong track record in improving the energy performance of our homes over the past decade, with 40% above energy performance certificate band C —up from only 9% in 2008. We are also funding the first hydrogen-powered homes in Gateshead and allocating more than £500 million this year alone to improve the energy efficiency of 50,000 households in social and local authority housing throughout the UK.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an extra £425 million in additional restrictions grant funding to local authorities, which means that more than £2 billion has been made available to local authorities since November 2020. This discretionary funding enables local authorities to support businesses, including businesses in supply chains that are impacted by restrictions but ineligible for other measures.
Mr Dhesi
Given that the UK has suffered the worst recession of any major economy, businesses in Slough and throughout our country find themselves in a precarious position. To help them, the Government should have brought forward a plan that includes debt restructuring and a job guarantee for the young. Despite repeated requests, an estimated 3 million people—including taxi drivers, plumbers, other self-employed people and sole traders—find themselves with absolutely no support at all from the Government. What does the Minister say to people who have worked hard their entire lives, paid their taxes and now find themselves and their businesses up against the wall and collapsing, through no fault of their own?
Amanda Solloway
Indeed, we do find ourselves in unprecedented times, but the Government have been so committed in all the things we have done. We have committed to providing additional support for small and medium-sized enterprises as restrictions are lifted, and businesses will continue to benefit from Government-guaranteed finance throughout 2021. On young people, the apprenticeship scheme we are offering is second to none.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I understand how difficult it is for parents whose newborn baby needs to spend time in neonatal care, which is why last year we set out our intention to introduce a new, generous entitlement to paid leave for those parents. We remain fully committed to doing so and will legislate as part of an employment Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Alex Davies-Jones [V]
It has now been more than a year since the Government committed to implementing paid neonatal leave to support the parents of babies born sick or prematurely, but we are still yet to see any progress. Will the Minister confirm exactly when the Government plan to bring forward the necessary legislation to ensure that the new entitlement is available in 2023, as promised in the March 2020 Budget?
Paul Scully
The Government remain committed to bringing forward the employment Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. The delivery of the new entitlement to neonatal leave and pay will require changes to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ IT payment systems to allow employers to administer statutory neonatal pay on behalf of the Government, but we are working towards that goal.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I thank the hon. Lady for meeting me on 10 March to discuss this vital issue. It is of course a commercially sensitive matter that the Government are monitoring extremely closely.
Sarah Champion [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but more than 5,000 workers at Liberty Steel, including 900 in Rotherham, are facing an uncertain future following the collapse of Greensill Capital. Will the Secretary of State now commit, as other Governments in Europe have done, to step in, if necessary, to safeguard this vital strategic industry?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will know that in my meetings with management and relevant union leaders, I have always stressed that the management plans need to be worked through. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely. The hon. Lady will know that I have a direct interest in the future of Liberty Steel.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State accept that, as well as supporting tens of thousands of decent jobs, UK steelmaking capacity is of key strategic importance to our future competitiveness and resilience? If he does, is he as concerned as we are about the future of Liberty Steel, and will he ensure that the Government are working now on a plan B with all options on the table, including public ownership, should the firm fail to secure finance? Or is he ideologically opposed to this, preferring the UK Government either to step aside or to spend huge sums to prop up businesses at risk only to sell them off cheap overseas?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will know that we have a repeated and often stated commitment to decarbonisation in our industry. It was only last week that we published, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, the industrial decarbonisation strategy. She will also appreciate that the steel industry is a vital part of that decarbonisation strategy.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regularly speaks to Her Majesty’s Treasury on a range of issues. I am pleased that we are taking part in the Horizon Europe programme; it will bring a huge benefit to the United Kingdom. We will set out our plans for 2021-22, including Horizon Europe funding, in due course.
Carol Monaghan [V]
Last week, the Government’s integrated review confirmed that there would be a multi-year settlement for UK Research and Innovation. Can the Minister confirm that funding for associating to Horizon Europe will be covered separately from this settlement? If not, can she explain how funding for Horizon Europe and this multi-year uplifted settlement will be supported?
Amanda Solloway
As I have previously mentioned, the discussions around this are ongoing and the funding will be announced in due course. I would like to point out to the hon. Lady that we have an ambition to be a science superpower and, in fact, we have committed £22 billion by 2024-25.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Everyone who has had a coronavirus vaccine knows of the deep sense of gratitude to scientists. In facing the challenge of climate change, future pandemics and technological change, we look to science. At the general election, the Prime Minister promised to double science spend. Instead, we appear to have a £1 billion cut to the science budget plus a £120 million cut to our overseas development science as part of a “new settlement” that protects
“the most effective research programmes.”
Can the Minister say which programmes will be cut, which scientists will lose their grants, and which institutions will close? The Government who clap the NHS but impose a real-terms pay cut now plan to praise science and cut scientists.
Amanda Solloway
BEIS regularly has talks with Her Majesty’s Treasury on these issues. Let me reiterate that we plan to be a science superpower by 2024-25, with a £22 billion investment. We also have a Second Reading debate today on a high-risk, high-reward agency. Furthermore, in terms of the spending review, more than £40 billion across Government was spent on science.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Chancellor’s Budget recently announced significant investment for energy transition projects in Scotland. We hope to shortly announce the North sea transition deal, which will play a vital role in transitioning the oil and gas industry to low carbon alternatives.
Alan Brown [V]
COP26 will allow Scotland to showcase existing and emerging net-zero technologies, but, policy-wise, we need to see a minimum floor mechanism for pumped storage hydro. We need innovation power purchase agreements available for wave and tidal, a contract for difference for hydrogen and the go-ahead for the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. Will the Minister meet me to discuss these matters and take the necessary actions ahead of COP26?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It is always a pleasure to meet the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) to discuss these matters. COP26 is such an important moment, not only with our carrying the responsibility of the presidency to help encourage other countries to do more to reach their net-zero targets, but in order to showcase the genuinely world-leading decisions that we have taken to drive our own net zero.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) just mentioned a number of areas where the UK Government can and should invest in Scotland. But we do not just need cash; we need a level playing field. That is particularly true in relation to the electricity grid. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a new renewables project in Scotland will have to pay in excess of £4 per unit to access the grid, whereas the renewables project in the south-east of England gets paid £1 per unit to access the very same grid. That is no Union of equals. Scotland has the ability to lead Europe in the renewables field. Why are the Tories trying to hold us back?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Scotland has indeed played an important part, particularly in the wind development sector. The Chancellor’s Budget included £5 million for the global underwater hub in Aberdeen, £2 million for the North sea transition deal and £27 million for the Aberdeen energy transition zone. This is just one part of the whole net zero challenge that we are looking to take on. We look forward to continuing to work with our Scottish colleagues.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
We have spent over £352 billion, and have committed £407 billion to an unprecedented package of support for businesses, including the job retention scheme, support grants and Government-backed loans. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently presented to Parliament his Budget, which sets out the additional £65 billion to support people and businesses.
Jason McCartney [V]
I very much welcome the restart grants and the sector-specific guidance for weddings as we cautiously reopen the economy. Will the ministerial team please keep updating the guidance on reopening for the hospitality and retail sectors, so that businesses can successfully reopen in a covid-safe way?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for his ongoing support and for championing businesses, including in the hospitality and wedding sector. We will continue to ensure as best we can that the guidance is available in time for businesses to plan and to give them the certainty they need.
James Daly [V]
Many councils, including my own in Bury, retain millions of pounds of additional restrictions grant moneys in their bank accounts, rather than distributing this crucial financial support to businesses in need. What steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that these moneys are used to support businesses now?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he does for his local businesses. At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £425 million of additional restrictions grant funding to local authorities, which means that more than £2 billion has been made available to local authorities since November 2020. The Government will continue to work closely with local authorities to ensure that these grants are distributed to businesses when they need them and that the additional money can be used. I urge authorities to relook at their local policies to include businesses that have not had that support in the past.
Mark Eastwood [V]
The UK furniture industry is a success story, with nearly £17 billion of annual consumer expenditure, over 330,000 jobs and exports that had grown to more than £1 billion a year before the pandemic. My constituency of Dewsbury is the UK’s third largest furniture manufacturing base and it faces a number of challenges, including a potential global shortage of steel and foam, and issues relating to rules of origin. Will the Minister agree to meet the British Furniture Confederation to address these concerns and help to ensure that the industry continues to thrive?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend, having worked in the sector, is an excellent champion for it. I understand that these remain extremely challenging times for the furniture industry, which particularly relies on retail premises to sell its products. I speak to the British Furniture Confederation on a regular basis as part of my roundtables, but I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and the confederation itself.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
In my two months as the BEIS Secretary of State, I have now held meetings with more than 200 businesses across the United Kingdom listening to their concerns and their hopes for the future. Last week, it was my real pleasure to see BEIS helping to make that future brighter when we launched our industrial decarbonisation strategy, which allocates more than £1 billion to driving down emissions from industry and public buildings. We have also published proposals for reforming audit and corporate governance, which will cement Britain’s status as the premier investment destination by raising standards, deterring fraud and empowering, potentially, a new regulator.
Dr Cameron [V]
The Secretary of State will be aware that the National Engineering Laboratory based in my constituency in East Kilbride has put together a vital proposal to build a clean fuels metrology centre. Given that this project enjoys cross-party support and is vital to the UK’s transition to a decarbonised economy, will he meet me, cross-party members of the all-party hydrogen group and industry representatives to discuss how to progress these important matters?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member and her associates in this enterprise. She will know that as Minister of State for Energy I was particularly keen on this new technology and I commissioned a hydrogen strategy that will be published in the next couple of months. I am very interested in this and of course I would be delighted to meet her and her colleagues.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the bodies that he has mentioned. We are absolutely committed to nuclear power and to the people of north Wales, in particular. Wylfa is still a prime candidate for new nuclear power and I look forward to pursuing our discussions to see what may be done in this regard.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me associate myself, Mr Speaker, with the important remarks you made on this national day of remembrance.
I want to follow up the question about Liberty Steel because the Business Secretary’s answer simply was not good enough. No ideology or dogma must stand in the way of protecting the jobs of 5,000 people and many more in the supply chain. This is a critical part of our national infrastructure and it is critical to those communities. Will he now do what he has failed to do so far and say that he will do whatever it takes, including public ownership if it is the best value for money choice, to save those jobs if it is necessary?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman will be absolutely aware that this is an ongoing commercial matter. He will know that I have seen local management, representatives of the unions and a number of people who are very, very keenly involved in the steel sector, and it would not be appropriate for me to enter into what is a commercially sensitive situation. My heart goes out to the workers. They are an excellent workforce, and Liberty Steel has a fine tradition in this space, but it would be inappropriate for me to enter into what are live, commercially sensitive issues.
Edward Miliband
It is not about the Business Secretary’s meetings or about his heart; it is about his action and his willingness to say that he will do plan B if it is necessary to save those jobs, as we expect him to do. The problem is that the reason people are suspicious of the Secretary of State is that there used to be a cross-party consensus in this country about industrial strategy, but in his two months in office he has torn up the industrial strategy, abolished the Industrial Strategy Council, and thrown in the bin all the work local areas have done over a number of years. Maybe he can tell the business community: why does he hate industrial strategy so much?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I think it is very easy for the right hon. Gentleman to get obsessed with the words “industrial strategy”. What this Government are committed to is action. That is why we launched the decarbonisation industrial strategy. That is why we are pursuing the fourth auction round in offshore wind. That is why John Kerry, who I was very happy to meet two weeks ago, said that this country is a world leader in decarbonisation.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will know—if he does not, I will let him know—that when I took office two months ago, the things that the travel and hospitality sectors assured me that they needed more than ever were a road map and support. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came up with his road map on 22 February and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor extended unprecedented support to the economy on 3 March. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss whether he wants to see further actions, but we have committed £407 billion—an unprecedented amount—to supporting the economy at this terrible time.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will know that I have met ITM Power a number of times; I was honoured to meet them in Grimsby. It does a great job. He will also know that, in my time as Minister of State for Energy, I commissioned the hydrogen strategy, which will be published shortly. At the core of the strategy is a twin-track approach. We are promoting blue hydrogen—which is made through methane natural gas reformation—and, more particularly in answer to his question, we are also committed to green hydrogen, or electrolyser-produced hydrogen, in which ITM Power is the leader.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
My hon. Friend has been a champion for all the businesses in her area. We have spent £407 billion on support for businesses, including those that are not eligible for the business rates holiday. The interim report from the fundamental business rates review will be published next month and the full report will be published in the autumn. I urge local authorities to expand their local policies to include some of these businesses in the additional restrictions grant.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Paul Scully
The right hon. Gentleman has obviously been speaking to my officials because the issue has popped up on my desk this morning. We will not kick this into the long grass. We will tackle it. We will not allow bully boy tactics. We want a flexible workforce, but not at any cost.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]
Across Sevenoaks and Swanley, high streets are preparing to reopen, supported by our brilliant Sevenoaks District Council. However, we are finding that some of our local businesses are being rejected for support from the high street recovery fund. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meet me and my local council to discuss how we can address some of the issues?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and others to discuss these important issues. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the high street is clearly a hugely important part of our economy, and that is why the business rates review will be particularly interesting.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Paul Scully
Zero-hours contracts provide flexibility for the vast majority of people who use them and appreciate the benefits. We have got rid of exclusivity contracts. Clearly, given the impact of covid on employment, when we introduce the employment Bill in due course we will reflect on the lessons learned over this period.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
Paul Scully
I can assure my hon. Friend that the guidance will come out shortly, and that the funding will be with local councils in April—on 1 April. I urge him again to make sure that that money gets out of the door to businesses when they need it: now.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Paul Scully
Members of the group litigation scheme entered into a full, final settlement through mediation with Post Office Ltd last year, but we are working with sub-postmasters who have come forward on the historical shortfall scheme. I urge them still to come forward to the Post Office Horizon inquiry led by former judge Sir Wyn Williams, who is calling for evidence at the moment.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to Greater Manchester and his constituency. We are committed to building back better and creating those green jobs, which will help to accelerate our world-leading path to net zero. The package of measures set out in the industrial decarbonisation strategy is part of this complex and critical path to success.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Kwasi Kwarteng
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have considerable plans for hydrogen production. We have a hydrogen strategy coming forward, and we have consulted on business models. I am sure that people in Ellesmere Port, and the HyNet cluster generally, will have a big part to play in the development of hydrogen production in this country.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The proportion of residual waste sent to landfill, incineration and transfer stations that could otherwise have been recycled in England in 2020 is not available, I am afraid, but data on waste arisings are not structured around the material composition of waste streams. For both fossil and biogenic CO2 for energy-from-waste plants, national emissions estimates are based on an emission factor derived using the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change default factor for biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
Paul Scully
I speak to DWP Ministers all the time about how to create jobs for women and for all people in the UK. We had record jobs creation after the last recession. Equally, we are planning to grow and bounce back.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Paul Scully
I can guarantee I think of little else at the moment, because of the way my right hon. Friend and her colleagues in the weddings taskforce have pressed that very just cause. In stage 2, wedding ceremonies in churches, register offices, dedicated wedding venues and other premises that can open will be able to take place with up to 15 people indoors and receptions outdoors. We are looking forward to expanding that in stage 3, and the events programme will conduct research to ensure that we can have non-socially distanced events and larger weddings post June.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Banning of pesticides
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I would like to present a petition to the House on behalf of the excellent Knockhall Primary School in my constituency, and specifically year 2, who have been doing some excellent work on insecticides. The petitioners declare
“that consideration could be given to banning harmful pesticides”
because of the dangers they create for bees and other pollinators, which are an essential part of our environment and play a crucial role in food production.
Following is the full text of the petition
[The petition of a teacher and pupils of Knockhall Primary School,
Declares that consideration could be given to banning harmful pesticides.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider banning harmful pesticides.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002652]
Gambling premises licences
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who were shocked to discover that an application for a 24-hour gambling licence had been granted for a vacant shop premises in Green Lanes in my constituency. Due to the fact that publication occurred during the most recent coronavirus period and they were legally permitted to leave their homes only for specific purposes, and that they did not have a local newspaper, residents did not become aware of the application until it was granted.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Enfield, Southgate,
Declares that the requirement to publish a notice of application for a gambling premises licence in local newspapers and to display a notice on the premises as required by Section 12 of the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licence and Provisional Statements) Regulations 2007 is wholly inadequate for bringing such applications to the attention of members of the public and as such is in urgent need of reform; further that no additional provisions were made for these requirements to take into account the fact that the public were legally required not to venture outside except for certain specified purposes during coronavirus lockdown restrictions which disadvantaged their ability to view such notices; and further that gambling premises licences granted during the coronavirus lockdown restrictions should be subject to a review.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that Section 12 of the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licence and Provisional Statements) Regulations 2007 and other associated legislation is urgently revised and gambling premises licences granted during the coronavirus lockdown restrictions be subject to a review.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002653]
Defence and Security Industrial Strategy
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
With permission, I should like to make a statement on the future defence and security industrial strategy. Last November, the Prime Minister announced he was increasing spending on defence by £24 billion over the next four years. Last week, the Government published their conclusions from the integrated review, the most comprehensive survey since the end of the cold war.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out what amounts to the biggest shift in defence policy for a generation—a policy that will see us reinvesting, re-equipping and reorganising to face the threats of tomorrow. In doing so, he reconfirmed this Government’s commitment to spend more than £85 billion over the next four years on equipment and support for our armed forces. That reflects the fact that our armed forces will need to be present and persistent, and agile and adaptable in an ever-evolving threat landscape. That is why it almost goes without saying that the most important thing in defence procurement is ensuring our people have the right capability, at the right time, to preserve our national security.
Our success hinges on a productive relationship with industry. The UK’s defence and security industry is world-renowned. Ministry of Defence spending in the sector secures more than 200,000 direct and indirect jobs across the UK, while the industry’s success as the world’s second largest global exporter of defence goods and services supports many thousands more. The sector provides our deterrent and underpins our critical national infrastructure. Through the MOD’s £300 per capita spend across the UK, it generates valuable skills and technology. The security industry alongside it, of more than 6,000 companies, is a font of enterprise and entrepreneurship. Last year, cyber-security firms raised more than twice as much investment as they had in 2019.
Overall, defence and security is one of the binding elements of our successful Union. Our world-class workforce builds everything from submarines to Typhoons right across the country. We have frigates made in Scotland, satellites in Belfast, next generation Ajax armoured vehicle technology in Wales and aircraft production in the north of England. We must never take for granted these industries, the skills they develop or the contribution they make to UK resilience, operational capability and prosperity. We must do more to recognise explicitly the social value that Government procurement can generate throughout the Union.
To ensure that we continue to have onshore capabilities that meet our needs and continue to generate prosperity long into the future, I am today publishing our defence and security industrial strategy. I am pleased to say the strategy is a detailed policy document, and rightly so, but its significance can be summed up in a few sentences. It signals a shift away from global competition by default towards a more flexible, nuanced approach. It provides, and we will continue to provide, greater clarity about the technology we seek and the market implications long before we launch into the market, allowing companies to research, invest and upskill. It identifies where global competition may not be compatible with our national security requirements and, at last, it regards industry as a strategic capability in its own right—an industry we must devote our attention to if we are to maintain our operational independence.
Today, I want to highlight three themes in particular that are at the heart of DSIS. The first is our ability to work together to generate growth and prosperity across the Union. DSIS sets the framework for greater integration between Government, industry and academia. It will see us working more closely, too, with top-flight research and those companies, great and small, that make this country so celebrated in the field of innovation. Through a better understanding of requirements, companies will be able to seize opportunities, pool resources and upskill to deliver cutting-edge capability onshore in the UK.
That is a framework that works. Our future combat air system shows that the principles of DSIS are already delivering. A fundamental strategic decision for this country, it will ensure UK air power continues at the cutting edge as it evolves through this decade and beyond. We are investing more than £2 billion over the next four years in this British-led international collaboration, safe in the knowledge that it will leverage hundreds of millions of pounds of investment from the corporate sector. These future systems will not just build technology but develop skills and create opportunity for 2,500 apprentices over the next five years. “Generation Tempest”, as we have dubbed this cohort of future talent, will, in turn, create extraordinary export opportunities with our friends and allies overseas.
Of course, competition remains critical in many areas. Even where we have already developed close partnerships at the prime level, we will expect to see productivity incentivised and innovation encouraged. Across all our national security procurement, DSIS will mean more transparency, more clarity of our requirements and a more co-operative approach to business. We are replicating this joint approach in other sectors: ensuring that we deliver our strategic imperatives, from nuclear to crypt-key; complex and novel weapons; and new opportunities that are opening up in areas such as armoured vehicles as we develop a new land industrial strategy.
Critically, our spending on FCAS reflects an increased willingness to invest in research and development. Overall, we are investing more than £6.6 billion in R&D over the next four years. That will support next-generation capabilities, from space satellites and automation to artificial intelligence and novel weapons. The message that our R&D spend sends, coupled with the clear direction of travel we are providing about our future priorities, will give businesses the confidence to invest.
That brings me to another key element: we must forge stronger international partnerships. By doing more R&D, we will keep ourselves current and encourage the very best from outside these shores to collaborate with UK companies. I have already mentioned FCAS as one example of how a UK-led collaboration with allies and partners can work, but we see it elsewhere in other air programmes, such as the UK’s significant contribution to the US F-35 stealth fighter or our ongoing investment in Typhoon with our European partners. Time and again, we see how international collaboration can deliver the very best kit for our people.
As part of this international emphasis, DSIS also puts a renewed focus on exports. As we demand more of industry to meet our requirements, so we need to offer it more support to win abroad and deliver economies of scale. It is because of our recent investments in maritime that I am the first Minister for Defence Procurement in a generation to talk about selling our state-of- the-art ship designs to our close friends in Australia and Canada, in respect of the Type 26, and, we hope, to others around the world. Notably, our Type 31 is a frigate that will be multi-purpose and has been specifically designed with the needs of international partners in mind.
Our integrated review seeks to capitalise on this new export-led approach, not only setting out our plans to deliver the eight Type 26s and five Type 31s but highlighting our investments in next-generation naval vessels, including Type 32 frigates and fleet solid support ships. We believe it is time to spark a renaissance in British shipbuilding. That is why we are today changing our naval procurement policy to make clear our ability to choose to procure warships of any description here in the UK.
The third and final theme of DSIS that I want to highlight is achieving real reform in how we procure. Some of this is about driving pace and better working inside the MOD to deliver capabilities at the speed of relevance, but it is also about changing how we interact with our suppliers, reforming the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 to focus more on innovation and increasing the agility of acquisition. We are adopting the social value procurement policy to ensure that wider qualities such as skills creation or supply chain resilience are explicitly taken into account in tender evaluation. That will be mandatory under DSPCR from 1 June.
We will be doing more to incentivise continuous improvement in single-source procurement. We want to ensure that the supply chains of our primes are constantly open to innovators, and we want to ensure that our fantastic small and medium-sized enterprises—the lifeblood of defence—get a fair chance when it comes to winning work, not least from inward investors whose interest and investment in the UK we will continue to welcome.
DSIS signals a step change in our approach to the defence and security industrial sectors. Ultimately, DSIS will make a huge difference to our nation’s defence. It will help retain onshore critical industries for our national security and our future. It will help us develop advanced skills and capabilities. It will help us realise the Prime Minister’s vision of the UK as a science superpower. With defence procurement benefiting every part of our Union, it will help galvanise our levelling-up agenda, creating a virtuous circle whereby the support we provide to those who defend and protect us becomes a catalyst that propels jobs, skills and prosperity in every corner of our United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On this day, when we mark a full year since the country first went into lockdown, may I use this statement to pay tribute to the men and women of the armed forces, who have done so much to help the country through this pandemic? I also pay tribute to the men and women who work in our UK defence sector. They, too, responded rapidly, making personal protective equipment and ventilators, and they play a vital part in designing, producing and maintaining the equipment our forces need.
Labour welcomes the publication of this strategy; indeed, the very use of the term “strategy” is something of a victory in itself. We welcome the confirmation that global competition by default, begun by the White Paper in 2012, has gone; it is high time we put an end to a British Government being just as happy buying abroad as building in Britain. We also welcome the change to naval procurement policy, and we welcome the commitment to invest £6.6 billion in defence research and development over the next four years.
However, there is a question at the heart of this strategy: is this the start of a new era, with the aim not just to make in Britain and maintain in Britain, but to develop now the technologies and companies that we will need in 10 years’ time to procure in Britain? Labour’s determination to see British investment directed first to British industry is fundamental. When done well, that strengthens our UK economy and, as covid has exposed the risks of relying on foreign supply chains, it also has the potential to strengthen our UK sovereignty and our security. We therefore want a higher bar set for any decision to procure Britain’s defence equipment from other countries. Will the Minister state today, in the clearest possible terms, the Government’s commitment to build in Britain? How will this strategy strengthen the UK’s defence resilience by growing our sovereign capacity to replace equipment if it is lost in conflict? What is the strategy to boost Britain’s foundation industries linked to defence, such as steel?
This strategy demands a massive change in mindset in the MOD and the military, which only Ministers can lead, so will the Minister commit to publishing an update on progress, with another oral statement to the House one year from now, not least so that we can judge the Prime Minister’s boast in launching the integrated view that we will open up
“new vistas of economic progress, creating 10,000 jobs every year”—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 488.]
Let me turn to the money. We welcomed the Prime Minister’s extra £16.5 billion in capital funding after the last decade of decline, and we welcome the detail set out by the Minister today, but 30,000 jobs in the defence industry have gone since 2010, and nearly £420 million in real terms has been cut in defence R&D, so in many UK regions the money promised today will still be well short of what has been taken away over the last decade. With the National Audit Office reporting a black hole in the defence budget of up to £17 billion, and with the permanent secretary telling the Public Accounts Committee that not all is
“going to go on new and revolutionary kit”,
exactly how much of this extra money will be swallowed by the black hole in current programmes?
The MOD’s bad habits run deep. Only three of the MOD’s 30 major projects have a clear Government green light on time and on budget. The Prime Minister told the House:
“We are setting up a unit to ensure that we get value out of this massive package.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 499.]
I have tabled the same set of questions to the Minister twice now about the progress, powers and personnel of this unit, and he has given the same evasive non-answers both times, so now is a good time for him to level with the whole House. Will he admit that there is no unit and no plan for a unit? The Prime Minister was making it up, was he not? The important point is this: without a revolution in the way that the MOD controls procurement costs, we are doomed to see it repeat the mistakes of the past.
Yesterday, the Defence Secretary asked our forces to do more with less. Today, the Minister is asking industry to do more with more. This is a big, one-off opportunity. Ministers have got to get this right. It is no good in two years’ time if the NAO still says that the military equipment plan is unaffordable and still says there is a black hole in the defence budget. Does the Minister accept that the single challenge for the MOD now is delivery, delivery, delivery? On behalf of the British people and British forces, we will hold them hard to account for exactly that.
Jeremy Quin
I am delighted to confirm that the next years will be all about delivery, delivery, delivery, based on the sound financial footing that this defence settlement has given us. I am very proud of what we have achieved with the plans that we have set out, and I am convinced that we will be able to meet the challenge that has been set for us in order to ensure that we are investing properly for the future.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the armed forces’ contribution during covid. They are sincerely meant, and I know they will be welcomed across the armed forces. I also thank him for his comments about the defence sector. It rose to the challenge as team UK, with unions and management continuing to deliver for the public good.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment to support us on moving away from global competition by default, as well as his comments on naval procurement and his welcoming of the £6.6 billion for R&D. I have good news for him: this policy absolutely gives us the ability to set out right from the outset what we are trying to achieve from a tender. It is not only about making certain we have the best equipment for our armed forces, but about what else we can get for that in the national interest, ensuring that we maximise our social value. That will come through in the awarding of the marks in the tender, which, as I have said, will be compulsory as of 1 June. I believe that we will get a lot out of the strategy. We will see more equipment built in Britain, both by UK companies and by those collaborating with us.
The right hon. Gentleman then strayed into some of the economics of the task. I was in the Treasury under the last Labour Administration, and we could have a discussion about the state of the national finances in 2010 if he chose to have one, and the £36 billion black hole left in the Ministry of Defence. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering. I have an excellent article from The Guardian that will confirm it, but I will share it at a later date. There was a significant black hole left, and I regret that there were jobs lost over that period. I hope we will not be so lackadaisical about exports that can maintain jobs, but there is a long lag time on that. I am proud to see the investment we are now putting into our defence. We make no mistake in what we say about our equipment plan over the past four years—it has clearly been unaffordable, and the permanent secretary has made clear that that is the case. We now have a strong basis on which to deliver.
To reassure the right hon. Gentleman, he mentioned that there are only three green lights, and I think he is referring to the Government major projects portfolio, where the senior responsible owners themselves highlight at-risk projects. There is only one thing more scary than projects that are delayed or do not hit their costings, and that is when SROs are unaware of it. I am pleased we have people who are all over the detail and are focusing on making certain that these projects work. I would rather problems were highlighted so they can be addressed.
To help address that issue, we are doubling the number of projects that are going to be looked at through the defence major projects portfolio. That will go up to 65. That will ensure that at the centre in the Ministry of Defence, we are keeping a close eye on what the top-level budgets are delivering and making certain that we are continuing to deliver those programmes to time and cost. We continue to upgrade Defence Equipment and Support. The number of those trained at senior commercial standard will have risen from 125 to 200 by the end of this year, and we are determined to continue to deliver on the DE&S transformation plan.
I am very optimistic for the future. I am optimistic that, working together with industry, we can continue to deliver a fine UK defence industry of which we can all be proud and that will continue to deliver the protection, equipment and lethality that our troops continue to need to be effective in meeting the challenges in the year ahead.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It has been a busy week for defence, with the publication of the integrated review confirming Britain’s ambitions on the international stage and advancing our defence posture, and now we have today’s publication of the defence and security industrial strategy, which advances our procurement capabilities and supports UK industry. I cannot offer too much comment, however, because the Minister, unlike his boss, has chosen to introduce this to Parliament first rather than giving us teasers in the media over the last couple of weeks, but on the face of it he is to be congratulated because we are seeing an advancement of the UK industrial base and support for British exports. Indeed, he has done such a good job and is doing such fantastic work as Minister for Defence Procurement that I am now worried that he might be rotated and moved on. I hope he will have time to appear before the Defence Committee, however, to talk in detail about this important work.
I have one question on international collaboration. The Minister talked about Tempest. That is a joint effort, but in NATO there is another project of equal complexity run by the French, FCAS. Is it not time that we recognised that these two efforts should be merged, because experience with the F-35 indicates that once we pay for these things there is not the total amount of funds available to buy the full complement? We have gone down from 138 to 48 today.
Jeremy Quin
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has not yet had a chance to go through this in detail, and I apologise if he did not got a copy in advance, but I would be delighted to appear before the Select Committee; I look forward to being grilled in due course and to explaining the policy in more detail.
My right hon. Friend raised the specific matter of FCAS. We are very proud of this programme. It will be very good news for the north-west of England—for Lancashire, of course—and throughout the country. There is form in Europe for having multiple aircraft productions going on at the same time. In fact, we have moved from three, with Rafale and I am trying to remember the name of the Swedish plane, which I should not forget. [Interruption.] Yes, but at least three have been going on in the past, with Typhoon, and I believe that there is room in Europe to have more than one project. We have different timescales and requirements from our French friends, but we are making a very positive commitment to FCAS: £2 billion of investment, and that will be leveraged with hundreds of millions of pounds from our industrial partners. So we will carry on advancing this; I believe we have a great prospect ahead of us, and if other international partners wish to join us, the phone is on my desk.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
May I join others in paying tribute to the armed forces and their contribution to addressing the covid pandemic?
We on the Scottish National party Benches welcome the Government’s £188 billion increase in defence spending over the coming four years. However, it is clear that the Government are breaking their commitments on personal welfare, numbers and capacity.
The SNP has consistently called on the UK Government to guarantee that any future contracts for warships benefit Scotland’s shipyards, so I welcome the investment in shipbuilding and the new procurement strategy. The Minister must, however, commit to ensuring that the UK, and specifically the Clyde, will benefit from this investment, and any clarity the Minister can offer on these contracts will be welcome.
It remains unclear how a post-Brexit UK will co-operate with EU countries on security. Continued co-operation with the EU on defence procurement is in the best interests of the UK industry and would continue to allow the UK to be at the forefront. However, the lack in the review of a formal security treaty with the EU is a massive oversight. Can the Minister give us any assurance that the UK will be pursuing the administrative agreement with the European Defence Agency and the European defence fund? Investment in research and development and in apprenticeships to maintain our crucial skills base and strategic capabilities is essential, and new capacity in cyber-intelligence and space is welcome, but these increases must not come at the cost of conventional forces.
I must also address the elephant in the room: Trident. At a time when the equipment plan remains unaffordable, we are increasing the UK stockpile of nuclear warheads and the UK Government might well find themselves on the wrong side of international law given their commitment to non-proliferation. The UK Government have repeatedly set out their commitments to conventional forces, the armed forces covenant and long-term nuclear non-proliferation, all of which the SNP support. This integrated review stands in clear contradiction to those commitments. The UK must start matching its capabilities to its threats, and stop neglecting the real priorities.
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Lady, but first I want to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that I have remembered the name I forgot earlier; it is Gripen, of course—that is what I should have been referring to. I thank the various people who have tried to help me out on that—[Interruption]—which is mainly my staff; the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is correct.
Turning to the question, first I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for her support for our naval warships policy. This is very good news for the Clyde and for Rosyth. We have existing frigate orders going through now and we will be setting out the new national shipbuilding strategy, which will outline in more detail further orders that will be coming in in the years ahead, many of which will—I have absolutely no doubt—benefit UK yards in many different ways, including the yards in Scotland. It is a real step change in shipbuilding. People should take a huge amount of comfort from the investment that we are placing in shipbuilding and it should be a real signal for shipbuilders around the UK to invest in their yards, skills and capabilities for the future.
I also point out that Scotland is not only about shipbuilding. It was a great pleasure to award contracts to Thales in relation to sonar this time last year and Boxer, based in Glasgow, and to Leonardo, with its fantastic work on radar in Edinburgh. There is a huge amount of capability in Scotland, which is one of the reasons why it has £380 per capita of defence equipment and support investment going on there, as opposed to £300 per head of population in the UK as a whole. Scotland can be really proud of the contribution that it makes to UK defence.
We have, and continue to have, great relationships with our European partners. We work closely with the Germans, the French and all those across the EU and we will continue to do so. We have close relationships regarding FCAS, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said. We will continue to work to ensure that we have good relationships with them going forward, as well as others.
Lastly, on nuclear weapons, I know the position of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and that of the SNP. Parliament voted to upgrade our nuclear weaponry to ensure that we maintained a credible, minimal, independent nuclear deterrent. That is what we are doing and I can reassure her that this equipment plan is indeed affordable.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
I was not on the call list for yesterday’s statement by the Defence Secretary, but I am appalled and shocked that the Army’s critical mass is being further cut to 72,500. Regarding procurement and the historical failure of the MOD to achieve value for money for the taxpayer, on behalf of the many defence companies across the UK that desperately need certainty, not least to achieve economy of scale, I seek my hon. Friend’s guarantee that the number of ships, planes and armoured fighting vehicles and equipment promised yesterday will actually be built and manufactured, and not delayed or stopped, as has happened all too frequently in the past.
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend has my assurance. This is the incredible value—it has been difficult to get there, and I recognise, as he does, that tough choices have had to be made, but we have got the books to balance. That is what is so critical. I will be speaking to companies this afternoon and during the course of tomorrow. They need to know that we have our ambitions and our funding into the same place, so that when I look them in the eye and talk about the orders that we will be placing in future, they can look with confidence and know that they can put investment into that, into their workforce and into their capital to ensure that they can meet our needs.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
May I also pay tribute to our armed forces personnel for their role during the pandemic? Their work has been fantastic and it has been all over the UK, including in the very far north of Scotland in my constituency. It seems to me that this is one of the benefits of being a United Kingdom, so that the United Kingdom armed forces can do these things, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) is not with us today.
A great deal of our precious gold has been spent on our splendid two new aircraft carriers. In future, will there be enough surface ships to mount protective screens for these two precious aircraft carriers? And if both these aircraft carriers are at sea with sufficient protective screens, where will that leave the rest of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet if it has to mount a non-aircraft carrier-led operation?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm gratitude to the armed forces. He is absolutely right; they have been spread right across the United Kingdom. I think I am right in saying that the last time I looked at the numbers, we had 1,800 troops still deployed, of which 500 were deployed in Scotland, helping on covid-related tasks. What he says will be much appreciated by all those who are involved at present.
On our protective screens to the aircraft carriers, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is essential that we are able to provide them with carrier strike groups. We are very proud of that carrier strike group going out later this year. We will have sufficient frigates and destroyers to meet those requirements. There will be a dip, which has been publicised, with the retirement of two Type 23s, but we will be looking to 20 or more destroyers and frigates in short order; orders are being placed and we will ensure that we have them. I should also mention that we believe we have increased availability from the destroyers and frigates currently in our fleet, and the OPVs—offshore patrol vehicles—also help lessen the load on some of those frigates and destroyers, so I am confident we will be able to meet the requirements he sets out.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) [V]
I, too, congratulate our armed forces on, and thank them for, all of their work over the past year in combating covid, particularly through the vaccine roll-out. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement. He will have seen some of the best of innovation in new technology in defence when he visited the Sierra Nevada Corporation in St Athan in my constituency a few months ago. Does he recognise that established brands, often with long-standing relationships with the MOD, are often seen to be less of a risk in comparison with new, young, innovative companies that could offer new opportunities for the MOD? So will he agree to offering guidance throughout the procurement process when there is a better opportunity for partnerships with young innovative companies, which might be seen to be an opportunity with less risk at that time?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and I well remember visiting the Sierra Nevada Corporation with him last year—it was an eye opener. I hope that it is seeing opportunities from various changes to the Army, including the ranges. I am sure those there will be putting their minds to it. We will be publishing later this year a refresh of our small and medium-sized enterprises action plan. I am proud that we have driven up the amount of funds going to SMEs to more than 19%, from about 13% in 2013-14. There is more work to be done, and in order to help that process not only are we ensuring that we are maintaining DASA—the Defence and Security Accelerator—a fantastic process of providing seedcorn funding to develop smaller companies and give opportunities to help the MOD—but we will be expanding from Northern Ireland to across the whole UK the defence technology accelerator, which has been working very well in Northern Ireland. It helps to exploit and pull through technology that is being developed by smaller companies. So there will be a package of support and an SME action plan will be produced later this year.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome today’s publication of the defence strategy. Sadly, it is 11 years late; for the past few years it has been called for. The UK has rightly got an open defence market, which has led to innovation, investment and world-beating kit for our armed forces, but it has also been used as an opportunity by the Treasury, in particular, and the MOD to buy off the shelf from overseas nations, without any commitment at all to investment in jobs and technology in this country. What steps is the Minister going to take to implement the very good recommendations in the report from the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on prosperity? How will that have an effect and ensure that jobs and investment go into the UK, rather than have the simple, knee-jerk reaction from the Treasury always to buy from abroad?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He has beaten me to it, because I was going to say suitably warm words about my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow when he addresses the House later in this session. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that that report in 2018 was incredibly influential and very helpful in setting out not only the prosperity agenda that was announced in March 2019, but this paper. Two changes should warm the heart of the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I will do my best. The first is that as we look at new procurements right from the outset we will be looking to think, “What are we going to get out of this, not just for the kit we need for our forces—what is the broader impact? What else can we do to secure prosperity, which, after all is a defence task, through the orders we place and how we go about it?” We will be taking that nuanced approach, looking at each one in turn, on a case-by-case basis, to see what can be achieved. Of course there will be occasions when off the shelf is the best option, but for every one that needs to be tested, considered and thought through. Secondly, I am very proud that we are going to be ensuring that social value is always applied to our tender process. So this will be a minimum of 10%. It will be compulsory from 1 June, in respect of DSPCR—Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011. This is about making certain that through that mechanism we catch the whole benefit that a procurement can make.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I strongly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the strategy, including what he outlined on the deepened working with industry and academia. Can he say how the strategy can help build the UK’s skills base in key STEM subjects, which is obviously very important for defence industries, but also for important parts of the wider civil economy?
Jeremy Quin
This is a great opportunity to build our skills base and our number of apprentices. My right hon. Friend will have heard what I said about FCAS and Team Tempest and that new generation coming through—people are very excited about the prospect of working on this new system—but it is broader than that. I particularly pay tribute to the work of the RAF across Wales in bringing on STEM skills. The whole of the armed forces are acutely aware that our future is going to be digital, cyber and highly technological, and we as a country need to have that STEM support. I know that this strategy, with its £6.6 billion minimum spend on R&D over the next four years, will help to deliver just that.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome that we are getting more clarity on some of the issues around defence spending, and particularly the Minister’s bold statement that he wants to see us
“achieving real reform in how we procure.”
It would be great if we saw some of that go down to our SMEs. However, as he knows, the National Audit Office concluded in its recent report on the defence equipment plan that the Department
“continues to make over-optimistic and inconsistent judgements when forecasting costs.”
That information comes from the Department’s own cost assurance and analysis service. Can the Minister tell the House and the country what precisely he is going to do differently to ensure that procurement and cost management in the equipment plan is managed better? What precise actions is he going to take?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Lady’s Committee for its report in the summer, which was no holds barred; we have lessons to learn. We are endeavouring to ensure that we answer each of the points made in that report in turn and that we learn from the report and its findings. It is also important that we lay before the Committee an enhanced equipment plan. We are working on that right now. I think it is best that we do that properly, alongside the NAO, so that we work with it and make certain that we have a detailed plan that can be put out for scrutiny. We have that plan, but we need to make certain that the NAO is equally comfortable with it.
The hon. Lady will recognise that, in any organisation with 6,500 contracts, there are going to be ones where we run into problems—that is the experience of the commercial world as well as Government—but we need to do better. So we have enhanced the number of people who are trained to a very senior level in terms of commercial expertise in DE&S; as I say, that is going up to 200 by the end of this year. We are putting more emphasis on where we look at the centre at projects, rather than leaving it entirely with the TLBs. We will bring out up to 65 major projects—not necessarily on a financial basis; there can be some that are low in value but high risk in terms of delivery—starting from the centre, through the defence major projects initiative.
With the help of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, for which I am grateful, I am reviewing our senior responsible officer structure, to make certain that our SROs, who do a good job but quite a lot of whom are quite stretched, have more individual responsibility and that people are all over the detail of their projects. I hope that in combination, alongside a reform of DSPCR in the single source contract regulations, we may be in a better place to not necessarily please the hon. Lady’s Committee but at least do our best to meet the requirements that it has set.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Can my hon. Friend confirm exactly how many new ships will be ordered, that they will be built in Britain, and that they will be given the opportunity to be at sea advancing Britain’s interests rather than just remaining in port gathering dust?
Jeremy Quin
On my hon. Friend’s last point, we are very focused on increasing availability to make certain that our ships are where they should be—at sea, often present. The example we have set with HMS Montrose of having the crew going out to the ship rather than the ship endlessly coming to and from is a great example of how our ships can be more present and more persistent and have more influence around the world.
Yes, there will be more ships; we will set out more detail in the shipbuilding strategy, which will look not only at the Royal Navy but across the totality of Government expenditure on shipbuilding. There will be good news—more good news—on shipbuilding in the UK; of that I have absolutely no doubt. We have set out our numbers—eight Type 26s and five Type 31s—but in addition there will be more news on Type 32s and other vessels that we will be procuring, including the fleet solid support ships.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On the fleet solid support ships, the announcement is of course enormously welcome, but why has it taken us—particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I—so long to persuade Ministers to designate them as naval vessels, as they have done today? Similarly, it is good that we are moving away from global by default, but why not behave like every other industrial country by looking after our own industry and making it clear to officials right the way down the line that the policy is now British by default?
Jeremy Quin
I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) have been assiduous. I once accused him of being a cracked record, but at least it was a very patriotic tune. I appreciate his campaign and that of the right hon. Member for North Durham. They were pushing on an open door. We wanted to make certain that FSS has a lot of value to the UK in broad terms, as well as to the Royal Navy. More information will be given on that in due course.
I can guarantee that we will have a good close working relationship with our naval shipbuilders. I look forward to more orders coming their way in the future as we see the full benefit of our national shipbuilding programme play out in the years and decades ahead. I have no doubt that this strategy will signal a renaissance in our relationship with onshore building in the UK, but it is a nuanced approach; we are making certain that we get the kit we need in the best way we possibly can.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Over the last decade, armed forces pay has only risen by about half the rate of inflation and yet again this Government, who so value their forces, have shamefully deigned to freeze their pay. While the Government are cutting conventional forces again, it has been estimated that Trident may cost as much as £205 billion. Will the Minister confirm the additional costs of these new pointless and immoral warheads, and can he tell forces personnel why his Government have prioritised these unusable and obscene weapons over their jobs and standard of living?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman could persuade his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to ease the burden of tax that has fallen on our regular services, who are there in Scotland doing their bit for every part of the UK and who are being taxed more than they are elsewhere in the UK. A first step would be to give that money back to the armed forces personnel concerned.
I turn to our nuclear policy. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s position; he is not a supporter of a nuclear deterrent. But this House is. This House decided that we needed to have and to maintain a credible minimum nuclear deterrent, and that is what we will do.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister, in his statement, talked of a productive relationship with the industry. One way in which the MOD can have a far more productive relationship with the industry is through the use of MOD sites that become surplus to requirements. The Ministry has announced that RAF Scampton is to close in 2022, although there is now a rumour that it might stay open. In the past when the RAF has walked away from a base, it has pulled out the plug and left behind low-grade housing and farmland; we have enough farmland in Lincolnshire, including 600 square miles in my constituency. I want the Minister to promise me today that he will really get going on RAF Scampton when it becomes surplus to requirements and try to make it a hub for industry—an exciting place, not just inadequate housing and farmland. Will he take action this day?
Jeremy Quin
Action this day, Mr Speaker. First, I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the date is the same; it will be 2022. I was under the impression that my officials were speaking with the local council. I sincerely hope that is the case. I will follow it up today. If there is any dilatory behaviour, I will get back to my right hon. Friend, but I hope that is not the case and that decisions are being progressed.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
Perhaps we will have to wait for the shipbuilding strategy document, but will the Minister tell us what action his Department is taking to ensure that a very high percentage of domestically produced steel will be used in the build of the next generation of Royal Navy ships and that the work will be done in British shipyards, not least Cammell Laird in Birkenhead?
Jeremy Quin
We are grateful for the work of Cammell Laird on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and the company continues to perform on our power improvement project for the Type 45s. It does a good job by us.
Decisions on steel are made by our primes, but the hon. Lady is right. The vast majority of the steel used in the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers was British, and more than half, by value, of the steel used in our Type 26s comes from the UK. Given the extra shipbuilding signalled via yesterday’s Command Paper, I am confident that there will be further opportunities for British steel in the years ahead.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
As we have heard, defence procurement must be about supporting our own strategically important defence manufacturing industry and protecting skilled jobs, as many countries do around the world. There can be no greater ambassadors for global Britain than our Red Arrows. Ministers have previously said that the current Red Arrows fleet of Hawk trainers, built at Brough just outside Hull in the 1970s, have an out-of-service date of 2030. Will we get a decision on the renewal of that fleet over the next few years?
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that the Red Arrows are safe, and the current out-of-service date remains 2030. I have no plans that I can currently share with her on what we will do in respect of an upgrade. That means not that one is not going to happen, but just that at the moment I do not have any plans and 2030 is a little distant. It is, though, something to which I will turn my mind.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I have been delighted to hear about planes and ships in the exchanges on the statement so far, but as the UK’s only end-to-end helicopter manufacturer is located on the border of West Dorset and South Somerset, I am keen to hear some good news about the rotary wing sector as well. The changing of some of the difficult and protracted MOD procurement processes offers a huge opportunity to make closer the relationship between the end users and our British inventors. I would be delighted to understand from the Minister whether that will be a factor in a lot of the initiatives and programmes that the Command Paper will bring forward.
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) are both fantastic advocates for Leonardo and the capabilities that it represents across a wide range of defence areas, including the rotary wing sector. I have no doubt that Leonardo will be pleased about the announcement of our desire to procure more medium-lift helicopters, to come in the mid-2020s. I am sure people from Leonardo will be looking at that assiduously—if they are not, I think I am due to speak to them later today and will make certain that they are, but I suspect they are on it. We have a strategic partnership with Leonardo and I hope that it will study DSIS closely to work out how to work with us even more closely in the years ahead.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The future surface combatant programme to replace Type 23 began in 1994. By 2005, it had evolved into the sustained surface combatant capability programme, which envisaged three classes of frigates. Since then, Governments have published the defence industry strategy for shipbuilding; agreed a 15-year terms-of-business agreement with BAE Systems in 2013; announced the Type 31 in the 2015 SDSR; and published the 2017 national shipbuilding strategy—remember that, Mr Speaker? Now, in 2021, the Government have unveiled their brand-new Type 32 and a return to the three-frigate escort fleet. What is the Department going to do to address the three lost decades of confusion in naval shipbuilding? Does the Minister think there are sites on these islands apart from the Clyde that could build the Type 32?
Jeremy Quin
There are shipyards throughout the United Kingdom that will look into this process to see how they can prosper, but I am acutely aware of the great skills that are exhibited on the Clyde and at Rosyth and of the fantastic job they are doing and have continued to do throughout covid. I am grateful for their continuous support throughout the process.
I am grateful also to the hon. Gentleman for talking us through the history of some of the decisions; he is right that a lot of them are protracted. I am proud to say, however, that with the plans we have unveiled, we will have seven classes of vessel produced in the UK for the first time since 1973, so that is another historic milestone. What we are setting out is a clear vision of how we will progress frigates, destroyers and other vessels such as the multi-role surveillance ship, and FSS. There is clearly a large pipeline of work for UK shipbuilders to focus on, to upskill for and to be sharpening their pencils for to ensure that they can engage with us properly.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) wearing a Royal Engineers tie.
It is fantastic to hear this commitment to shipbuilding. In my experience in the MOD, the Navy would ask for five ships, centre would say, “Four should be enough. Here’s three, we’re going buy two and we’ll only service one.” Very quickly, we would be reduced to less than had been promised in the initial strategy. With the pivot to Asia we have been promised and the commitment to base out of Singapore, can my hon. Friend assure me that not only will we have the purchasing capability, but we will have the servicing capability that makes such a difference to the actual deployment of ships? As we know, we have had too many tied up for too long, when we need them to be out doing exactly what we pay them for.
Jeremy Quin
Yes, I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend on that point. I admire his maths, as well his attention to detail in respect of the hon. Gentleman’s sapper tie.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely on it. We need to maintain the availability of our fleet. We are not about saying, “We’ve got X number of ships. Isn’t that great?” when they are all tied up in Portsmouth. There is no point in that. We need our fleet to be present, to be persistent and to be forward looking, and that is exactly what we are going to be focusing on. This might be stretching his question too far, but let me say that the same also applies to our land industrial strategy, which I am proud to have announced today as part of this process.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]
The MOD has a mixed record on procurement investment in south Wales. On the one hand, there is a long-standing commitment to General Dynamics, but the MOD cancelled the defence academy in St Athan and, only a couple of years ago, preposterously sold the Maindy barracks in the Rhondda, thereby denying the Sea Cadets the possibility of having a new home locally. There are small investments in companies such as MFC International in Tonypandy, but may I ask the Minister to do two things? First, will he make sure that small companies have a real chance of big contracts with the MOD? Secondly, will he please buy the Sea Cadets in the Rhondda a new home?
Jeremy Quin
I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a new home for the Sea Cadets, but I take what he says very seriously. As a result of his question, I will look into the matter and find out where we are. The cadets have an important role to play around the country and they should be properly housed, but I cannot answer with any more precision than that.
More broadly, the hon. Gentleman recognises the value to south Wales of the Ajax contract. It is an incredibly impressive, fully digitalised vehicle. He is right, though, that often in defence, the real value is found with SMEs. As I said, over 19% of our equipment and support spending goes to SMEs now. We will have a refreshed SME action plan published later this year, and it will include issues already raised as part of this thesis—for example, the defence technology exploitation plan, which has worked well in Northern Ireland, will be put out right across the Union. There are measures in the strategy to support smaller companies, and I want smaller companies, which are often the most innovative and inspiring in our country, to have the opportunity to win larger contracts. I thank him for his question.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Could the hon. Gentleman start again, please? We had some sort of technical problem.
James Gray
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first call attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my involvement in the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces and the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, both of which I chair and both of which are supported by the major UK defence companies? They are among the greatest defence manufacturers in the world, and I salute them for it.
Will the Minister acknowledge two other groups whose contribution we nurture? First, he mentioned small and medium-sized enterprises several times. I welcome the fact that there will be a refresher on the action plan produced during this year. When he does produce that refresher, will he please do two things? First, will he increase the number of direct contracts between the Ministry of Defence and the SMEs? Otherwise those SMEs risk being squeezed out by the original equipment manufacturers.
Secondly, will the Minister strengthen the contractual obligations on OEMs to use British SMEs? I understand his concerns about sovereign capability and I very much welcome his commitment to use British manufacturers as much as he possibly can in the future, but will he also recognise and support the very many companies that are overseas in ownership, but that make a huge contribution to our defence? Boeing, Raytheon and Elbit all spring to mind, and Leonardo has already been mentioned. They employ large numbers of people and make a huge contribution to our defence overseas, even if they are actually owned by overseas companies.
Jeremy Quin
On OEMs, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fine international companies that choose to base themselves here. They make a real contribution to our economy and to our defence sector in the UK. We will continue to be uniquely open to the companies of friends and allies overseas choosing to locate, build and manufacture here in the UK, as well as to apply research and technology and development, and I absolutely thank them for it. He mentioned Boeing. That is one example of a company that has been assiduous in making opportunities available to UK SMEs. It sees it as a great way of tapping into more skills and increasing its resilience. I welcome what it and many others do in terms of making certain that there are opportunities for UK smaller companies as part of their supply chain.
There are two things that we can do. The first is that we will see an increase in direct company awards to smaller companies, but that is because of the nature of how defence is changing. As we become more digital, more cyber, there are many smaller companies that can produce the goods in these areas and it becomes a less capital-intensive business. The second thing is that, through the social value part of the tender process, we will be able to be more descriptive as to what we are expecting to see from companies. In that respect, I very much welcome the fact that, on Boxer, we expect to see 60% of all that supply chain flowing through from UK companies.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I am fully supportive of having smarter procurement to support British industry and home-grown jobs, but given that Serco has ripped off the Ministry of Justice, failed on test and trace, and, in the defence sector, also failed on the Atomic Weapons Establishment, what assurances can the Minister give the House that our sensitive defence infrastructure will be protected from it in the coming years?
Jeremy Quin
I should just be clear that we look at every tender on a case-by-case basis, and we look at each company and each competitive situation on a straightforward tender-by-tender basis. I will not go into the details of what the hon. Gentleman stated.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister knows that friends of defence on both sides of the House wish to campaign for the 3% of GDP, as recommended by successive Defence Committees, to be spent on defence, but to do that, we need accurate figures. Does the Minister accept that the black hole in the defence budget was correctly described as £17 billion? How much of that £17 billion would be met by cuts and cancellations? How much would be topped up by money from the extra £24 billion, and, at the end of the process, how much of the extra £24 billion will be left for new projects?
Jeremy Quin
It is interesting to hear that there are colleagues in the House wishing to campaign for 3% of GDP to be spent on defence.
Jeremy Quin
My right hon. Friend says that to a Minister for Defence Procurement who is interested to hear it. I think we have a good settlement this time round. I am sure that he welcomes the extra £24 billion and regards it as a very good step forward for the defence of our country.
I do not recognise the £17 billion number, but there was a black hole—of that there is no doubt; we said that the equipment plan was not affordable. We recognise that there will be programmes as part of the equipment plan that we want to take forward, so within the £24 billion there will be programmes that we were hoping to finance but did not have the money for, including the Type 26s and the Type 31s. The equipment plan will be published in due course, and my right hon. Friend will be able to get all the details he wishes, and more, from that.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
On exercise last year, our Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier was heavily reliant on Marine Corps F-35 planes. It is great that our allies helped out then. However, given the small number of UK F-35s that have been programmed, does the Minister accept that if both our carriers are deployed at the same time, we will be heavily reliant on US planes in the future?
Jeremy Quin
To say “helped out” is a little ungenerous. I think the Marine Corps genuinely enjoy working with the Royal Navy, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, and we have a very close working relationship with them. We have committed to 48 F-35s, which will arrive by 2025. We have not announced how many, but we will be buying more F-35s. We will take that decision by 2025, when the full complement of 48 have arrived.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
I welcome this strategy, along with the Defence Command Paper. The Minister will know that world-class steel made in Scunthorpe was used to build the hull of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Will he do all he can to ensure that UK-made steel continues to be used wherever possible in defence contracts?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is right that the vast majority of steel on the Queen Elizabeth was from UK sources. I am delighted at the role that Scunthorpe played in that, and I hope that there will be many more opportunities in the future. The shipbuilding programme we are setting out obviously produces opportunities for UK steel manufacturers. We will make certain that our pipeline is made freely available, and I sincerely hope that there are plenty of opportunities that will be exploited.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I strongly welcome the emphasis of the statement on making more in Britain, because we cannot be properly defended if we rely on imports for crucial things. Is the UK undertaking a full audit of the designs, intellectual property and rare materials we would need to manufacture all our crucial defence equipment here, were we to face a blockade or other hostile action against our imports? President Biden is currently carrying out such a supply chain analysis for his country.
Jeremy Quin
As my right hon. Friend will know, the supply chains in defence are vast, but it is an analysis that we are undertaking. We are doing it project by project, making certain that the most crucial are investigated first, but we are doing an analysis of our supply chains, and that is being elevated to the Defence Board, to make certain that we have greater oversight of what goes into our crucial defence kit and equipment.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
The Government are procuring 80 additional warheads for Trident to stockpile in Scotland, each more than eight times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The Minister must know that by increasing these weapons of mass destruction, his Government are pushing at a new nuclear arms race and ending 30 years of gradual nuclear disarmament. Is that what global Britain is all about?
Jeremy Quin
Global Britain is about many things, and one of those is helping to defend ourselves, our values, our freedoms and our allies. Part of that, as this Parliament has agreed, should be maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent that is credible and minimal. Of all the declared nuclear states, we have only one delivery mechanism for nuclear weapons, and we maintain a minimum credible deterrent. In order to do that, we have had to raise the ceiling of the total number of warheads we are prepared to have.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome the focus of this DSIS on recognising the role that defence can play in contributing to UK prosperity. The Minister has highlighted several issues that I felt needed to change in defence procurement in my review, which was published nearly three years ago. I am grateful for his comments about it. In this statement, he has demonstrated a deep grasp of his brief, on which I congratulate him.
Key to gaining public and cross-governmental support for increasing defence expenditure is measuring the impact of that spend on the economy, especially the regional impact in helping to level up Britain. That requires a good handle on data, which is why I recommended establishing defence economics as a valuable tool for the MOD, Defence Equipment and Support, and the defence industry, to help to assess the merits of competing investment proposals when allocating spend. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the role of the joint economic data hub in delivering that information, its security for the long term, and the role that it can play in the UK Defence Solutions Centre and the Defence Growth Partnership, of which I should remind the House I am deputy chairman?
Jeremy Quin
I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has been called as the final Member to ask a question, if that is still the case, on the statement. It is appropriate that he should be. In my first week in this role, I spoke at the defence economics conference, and he presented me with a copy of his paper, which has been incredibly helpful for me, as it has been for the MOD, not only in introducing the defence prosperity programme in March 2019 but in laying some of the groundwork for the DSIS today. I am sure that as he reads it he will recognise a lot of the themes that emerge.
Part of that is, indeed, the role of the joint economic data hub, which has already reached its initial operating capacity, and it is conducting a full survey of defence employment. It will reach full operating capability by the end of the year. In doing so, it feeds into our analysis critical information about jobs, regional growth, prosperity and future development. It is really important, and it lies at the heart of what we are doing with DSIS—growing the prosperity of our United Kingdom while at the same time ensuring that we have the kit and equipment that our people need. I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he has conducted, which he continues to conduct, in defence. It was a valuable contribution, and it will help us to make certain that DSIS is the great success that it deserves to be in supporting our brilliant defence manufacturers and armed forces.
Point of Order
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. According to the House papers today, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has issued a written statement on the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021. I wish to make a point of order about the Government’s intention to pursue the issue of the procurement of abortion services in Northern Ireland. I am led to believe and understand that there has been a 200,000% increase in abortions. Do you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is the role of the House to intervene in a devolved matter such as health, as the topic of abortion was debated only last week by the Northern Ireland Assembly in the correct forum? Do you further share my concern, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the connotations of the actions by the Secretary of State reverberate throughout every devolved nation represented in the House? I believe that the House must send a clear message that devolution means devolution, even if it does not suit the agenda of some in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have not seen any statement, which I do not think has been published yet, and nor have I seen the instrument in question, so I can make no comment on the detail of those matters. However, I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about the desirability of open and thorough debate on important matters such as the one that he has raised. I am sure that Ministers will have heard—I am looking for nods—what he has said, and the Government will take seriously the points that he has made, particularly about the process of devolution and the way in which it relates to matters that are debated in the House. I thank him.
First-Aid (Mental Health)
Tuesday 23rd March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate First-Aid (Mental Health) Bill 2019-21 View all First-Aid (Mental Health) 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
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make mental health first-aid part of first-aid training requirements; and for connected purposes.
I can still vividly recall, when I was a teenager, the sound of my sister as she sobbed and cried each night following the news that one of her best friends, someone I had always looked up to, had committed suicide. That was nearly 30 years ago, but I can still recall it like it was yesterday: the pain, the loss and the biggest question of all: could I have done something to change their mind? As I stand here today, I know I cannot change the past, but perhaps with this Bill I can—we can—change the future.
The Bill makes a simple request: to make mental health first aid part of normal physical workplace first aid in workplaces across the country. In doing so, we may not only save lives but change lives too. My proposal is a simple one. It is to ask not for a recommendation or a guideline but for a law to ensure that all workplaces have the right capacity to deal with people who may be going through difficulties. We now live in a society where mental health issues are on the rise, and as a society today we have a greater appreciation than ever before of the importance of mental wellbeing, so there must be a time now for a small change to make a big impact.
I want to assure colleagues that the Bill is not asking too much of business. Just as physical first aiders are not expected to be trained doctors or paramedics, mental health first aiders are not expected to be counsellors or full-time psychotherapists. The training simply provides the skills for the first aider to identify, understand and help someone who may be experiencing a mental health issue. This could be done through mandating accredited mental health first aider training, or perhaps just through requiring the inclusion of the existing Public Health England psychological first aid training.
The proposal in the Bill is not new to Parliament. Over two years ago, thanks to the excellent work of Natasha Devon and the Where’s Your Head At campaign, for which I am now proud to be an official ambassador, this topic was debated in a Backbench Business Committee debate. We all know, though, that times have changed dramatically since then. Given the impact of the covid crisis on the mental health of the nation, the world is drastically different today. Back then, this was important; today, it is both urgent and essential.
The proposal to have a mental health first aider in every workplace is not unrealistic. In my own constituency of Watford, I set an ambition to train 1,000 mental health first aiders, and with the incredible support of Camelot, Watford chamber of commerce, the Wellspring Church and many other community champions, we are making this a reality. I want Watford to be a wellbeing town, but perhaps we could make the UK a wellbeing country, where loneliness has no place to hide and mental wellbeing is the norm. It may take years, but we are beginning to take the steps to do so and we are inspiring others too. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) has already signed up 100 people to train as mental health first aiders, and I am sure that many others will follow.
But the Bill aims even higher. It will mean that every workplace will have a mental health first aider. Just imagine what impact that could have and the people it could help before they required more urgent support. It would mean that the first aiders in every workplace would not just save lives through CPR but change lives by asking people how they are. Just as workplaces are diverse, from offices to barber shops and train stations to supermarkets, each member of staff is also different. They are our mothers, our brothers, our sisters and our fathers. They are the veterans and they are the volunteers. They are all of us: all the experiences and all the emotions that we each carry with us, in times of grief, loneliness, anxiety, stress, love and loss.
But this is not just an emotional argument for the Bill: there are very sound business and economic reasons to support it. According to FirstCare, 2018 marked the first year where mental health related absences became the leading cause of lost work days—imagine that. It is estimated that one in seven workers who have taken time off due to covid related issues will also take time off due to poor mental health. It is also estimated that workers who take sick leave more than twice are 63% more likely to leave their job. This is a big issue for business.
At the truly heartbreaking moment when we look at these figures, there is an even starker example. When a person takes their own life, it is estimated that the full cost to the country, from court cases to funerals to coroners’ fees, is £1.7 million for every individual suicide—never mind the devastating loss that is caused.
I know the Government are taking mental health seriously, especially with the impact of covid. Unprecedented sums of money are being spent on mental health—£14 billion in the past year. I am also pleased that the Health and Safety Executive has included mental health first aid in its official guidelines. However, the Bill would build on all that. Given the toll that the pandemic has had on our nation’s mental health, this proposal cannot be controversial. Just as having physical first aiders is the norm and has been for decades, this Bill gives parity to mental health.
As we move forward, surely it is only right that we do not put all the pressure of tackling the stigma of mental health on our incredible healthcare sector—it is upon us all. By spotting early warning signs and signposting people to the right guidance at the right time in the right place, we can ensure early support. This Bill will help to make it okay to ask somebody in the workplace if they are okay. We cannot say enough times that it is not a weakness to ask for help: it is a strength.
I have a phrase you have may heard before, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is that hope is an acronym—HOPE: help one person everyday. With this Bill, we could help millions. To be clear, the Bill is not asking for billions from the Treasury. It is not contentious. It helps individuals, business, society and the economy, and it could help the nation heal as we all emerge from this unprecedented crisis. Surely, if suicide were a virus, would we not be searching for a vaccine, and if loneliness were a disease, would we not be attempting to find a cure?
In the coming months and years, we as a nation will need to come to terms with the impact of covid. We will hug each other once more. We will sing and we will dance and we will drink with each other, together. But as we return together to the workplace, we will also need to grieve together. We will have to face our fears together. We will have to mourn our loved ones and our missing colleagues together, and share our stories together. I truly believe that this Bill will play a small, practical part in ensuring that our nation can heal together too.
I humbly request that this Bill be given due consideration and passed into law. I ask the Government, with great respect: if not now, when; and if not, why not?
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dean Russell, Jeremy Hunt, Virginia Crosbie, James Sunderland, Dr Luke Evans, Robin Millar, Antony Higginbotham, Jerome Mayhew, Mark Logan, Duncan Baker, Tom Hunt and Jeff Smith present the Bill.
Dean Russell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 278).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
On that happy note, I will now briefly suspend the House for three minutes so that preparations can be made for the next item of business.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Tuesday 23rd March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 View all Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I should like to start my remarks by drawing attention to the much-celebrated work of Edward Jenner. I am sure that many of us appreciate his work. He is often referred to as the father of immunology; he was a British physician who created the world’s first vaccine. As I am sure all hon. Members know, he was an apprentice to a surgeon in Chipping Sodbury in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall). Mr Jenner essentially discovered immunisation. When we consider the coronavirus that has devasted our country and the world this year and last year, Jenner’s work takes on a particular resonance.
Thanks to the UK’s historic funding for research and the groundbreaking action of scientists at Oxford University, a British vaccine is once again helping us to return to a more normal life. It has shown us all the incredible benefits that breakthrough science and technology can provide. Building on our country’s proud history of wonderful inventions, I was particularly pleased to announce the creation of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency last month. I am sure that it will play a unique and exciting role in the UK’s research and development system.
The new agency will be characterised by a sole focus on funding high-risk, high-reward research. It will have strategic and cultural autonomy. It will invest in the judgment of able people, and it will also enjoy flexibility and a wide degree of operational freedom. I have spoken with many of our leading scientists, researchers and innovators and their message has been absolutely clear. I am convinced that these features will make ARIA succeed.
The creation of ARIA is part of a concerted action by this Government to cement the UK’s position as a science superpower. With £800 million committed to ARIA by 2024-25, the new agency will contribute extremely effectively to our R&D ecosystem. As set out in our policy statement published only last week, we have to give ARIA significant powers and freedoms and a mandate to be bold. To deliver that, we have introduced the ARIA Bill.
The Bill recognises that funding transformational long-term science requires patience and a high risk appetite. The Bill explicitly states that ARIA may give weight to the potential of significant benefits when funding research that carries a high risk of failure. This freedom to fail is fundamental to ARIA’s model, and the provision will empower its leaders to make ambitious research and funding decisions. When we look back in history, to the 1950s and 1960s, we see that with this approach a US agency called the Advanced Research Projects Agency developed GPS as well as the precursor to the internet.
The Bill will also signal a 10-year grace period before the power to dissolve the agency can be exercised. The agency will be focused exclusively, as I have said, on high-risk research. It requires patience and a laser-like focus as necessary conditions for success.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a strong case and refers to the work of the Vaccine Taskforce. In the past year, we have seen astonishing science conducted at breakneck speed because we have been in a crisis. Does he agree that for ARIA to work we need somehow to harness that sense of crisis and continue to use it in a normal period to get this sort of high-risk and high-reward research out and developed in Britain?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The circumstances in which we have developed the Vaccine Taskforce have been really unfortunate, with this terrible pandemic, but the very thin silver lining around the cloud has been this remarkable vaccine rollout. My hon. Friend is right that ARIA needs to learn from what we have learned collectively from the vaccine rollout.
Our objective is for ARIA to fund research in new and innovative ways. The Bill provides the agency with significant powers that are necessary for it to perform its function.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman says that the agency is modelled on the American example, but the American example very clearly has a client. Which is the client Department for this Bill?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Forgive me, I did not say that it was modelled on that example. I said that it was inspired, and I referred allusively, in my usual way, to historical precedent. I never said that it was modelled exactly on the American example. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a fuller contribution to the debate.
Let me make some progress. Different funding methods obviously suit different projects. ARIA may seek to use seed grants. It will have inducement prizes. It may make its own investments in companies. All of these different approaches will drive innovation, and that will allow ARIA to target, for example, a Scottish university or a semiconductor start-up in Wales and to ensure that researchers across the UK can contribute to developing the key technologies for tomorrow.
ARIA will also have strategic independence. It will, as I have said, have the freedom to fail; it will have the freedom to take a long-term view and to experiment with new ways of funding the most ambitious research, which experience tells us is a necessary ingredient for some of the best results. A key part of this freedom will be trusting the leadership of ARIA to identify and decide on areas of research with perhaps the greatest potential. The Bill limits the ability for Ministers, as it should do, to intervene in ARIA’s day-to-day operations or to direct funding decisions. Instead, ARIA will have a highly skilled team of leadership programme managers who, supported by the board, will ensure strong strategic oversight over the portfolio of programmes. As the Bill makes clear, ARIA must have regard to the benefits of that research to the UK—to the people of this country—in terms of not only economic growth but trying to ensure that innovation can improve the quality of life of all our fellow subjects.
Our response to coronavirus as a nation has shown that agility is crucial in funding research in this fast-moving world. All of this work builds on action already taken by the Government and by UK Research and Innovation to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in the wider ecosystem. We have learned from agencies such as DARPA in the US—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) will be pleased to learn that—which has shown that we need to go several steps further in creating a culture that is primarily focused on pursuing high-risk research. There is a cultural need in such an organisation for autonomy and a measure of dynamism, which can be achieved through exceptional leadership and, perhaps most importantly, through a flat, streamlined structure.
ARIA will benefit from being a small and nimble agency. It will create a unique environment for its programme managers to be completely focused on their particular research proposal. The Bill therefore provides ARIA with some additional but proportionate freedoms, which are not generally found in the rest of our system. For example, it exempts ARIA from public contracting rules. That will allow ARIA to procure R&D services and equipment relating to its research goals in a similar way to a private sector organisation. To ensure that that process is transparent, it sits alongside a commitment in the Bill to audit ARIA’s procurement activities.
In order to further this research-intensive culture, ARIA has been given extensive freedoms. However, we will ensure, as the Bill does, that the organisation submits a statement of accounts and an annual report on its activities, which will be laid directly before Parliament. Those commitments to transparency will sit alongside the customary and necessary scrutiny by the National Audit Office.
It is clear that ARIA will be a unique and extremely valuable addition in our research landscape. It will create a more diverse, more dynamic and creative funding system, which will ensure that transformative ideas, wherever they may come from, can change people’s lives for the better.
I am very conscious that there is a huge amount of interest in this debate on the Back Benches on both sides of the House. I have committed myself not to go on for two hours or whatever the customary length of time might be. Having been a Back Bencher myself, I know that it is often frustrating to hear Front Benchers trench on parliamentary time. As a consequence, I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that, as we build back better, we can have a full debate today about the merits of ARIA and its necessary existence. I hope that the Bill will show the Government’s strong commitment to building on a wonderful research base. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
This is an opportune moment for me to give notice to people who are hoping to speak in the debate—those here in the Chamber, but particularly those at home who perhaps might not pick up the atmosphere and be tempted to do the opposite of what the Secretary of State has just said by taking rather longer than they ought to take. I am going to try to run this Second Reading debate without a formal time limit, in the hope that Members will act reasonably and unselfishly towards their colleagues, and keep their speeches to about five to six minutes, or less. I say this particularly to people who are at home, because I cannot nod to them or grimace at them to let them know when they have spoken for too long. Five minutes would be just about right for everyone who wishes to speak to have the opportunity to do so.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that across the House we share the admiration for British science. It is one of our most brilliant national assets, employing nearly 1 million people directly and generating extraordinary value for our country. As the Secretary of State eloquently said, the work on vaccines has been truly remarkable. We commend our scientists and everyone involved for their work. Indeed, I hope the Secretary of State will not mind my saying that it is a successful example of an industrial strategy; the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) probably shares my view.
I turn to the details of the Bill. I should say from the beginning that we support the Bill; we have some issues with it, but we certainly support its aims. I just want to say something about the wider context, because I found it slightly remarkable that the Secretary of State did not mention the fact that we are two weeks from the start of the next financial year but the scientific community does not know its budget, and the Government appear to be contemplating significant cuts to its programmes.
The Secretary of State said last week to the Science and Technology Committee, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, that the Government
“are talking the talk of a science superpower…but…we also have to walk the walk.”
Quite. We support the intent of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, but hon. and right hon. Members across the House should be aware that while the ARIA budget is £800 million over this Parliament, UK Research and Innovation’s annual budget is £9 billion. Last week, UKRI published a letter confirming that the BEIS official development assistance allocation will lead to a £120 million gap between its allocation and the commitments that it has already made. It warned of cuts coming on that scale, and the House should be aware of where those cuts are going to be. Potential areas include climate change, antimicrobial resistance, pandemics, renewable energy and water sanitation. Those are the kinds of things that that funding addresses. Mr Cummings was also at the Select Committee meeting—I will return to him shortly—saying that ARIA would solve the problems of civilisation. That is all very well, but I fear that these cuts seem to be coming right here, right now; and we cannot launch a successful moonshot if we cut off the power supply to the space station.
The other fear that we have is that the threat of cuts does not end there, because there is no clarity on how to cover the huge cost of the UK’s ongoing participation in Horizon Europe programme. To be clear, this programme used to be funded not from the science budget, but from our EU contributions. I say to the Secretary of State that it surely cannot be right to take money from the science budget to fund our participation. He will know that there is real fear in the scientific community about that.
I will give the Secretary of State the chance to intervene: does he not agree that cutting the science budget to fund Horizon would be exactly talking the talk but not walking the walk? I will happily give way to him if he wants to tell us. Maybe he can tell us when we will get clarity—when will the scientific community get clarity on how the Horizon money will be funded? He does not want to intervene, but the science community deserves clarity. We support ARIA but it deserves clarity. These are people’s jobs. This is incredibly important work and I hope he is fighting with his friends in the Treasury as hard as he can to give people that clarity and avoid the cuts.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman will know from his years in government—appreciably, many years ago now—that these conversations with the Treasury are ongoing, and we hope to get a satisfactory result.
Edward Miliband
We shall look forward to the Secretary of State getting a satisfactory result. I am not sure that I always got a satisfactory result with the Treasury, although I was in the Treasury at one point, at least as an adviser. This is very important and, as I say, people’s jobs and livelihoods and the scientific base of this country, of which we are all so proud, depend on it.
Let me come to the Bill, which we support. The Bill is important—the Secretary of State said this—because there is incredible work going on in the scientific community, but there is consensus that there is a lack of a mechanism to identify, build and fund truly ambitious, high-risk, high-reward programmes. We recognise the case for an independent agency that operates outside the established research funding mechanisms, but we feel that the Bill requires improvement.
I guess our concerns cohere into a different view about the role of Government and the lessons of DARPA, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) talked about, on which in some broad sense—maybe not in the Secretary of State’s mind, but in others’ minds—ARIA is modelled. It is impossible to ignore what we might call the spectre of Dom in this debate. He was at the Science and Technology Committee—chaired by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells—and he does rather hang over this Bill. He is its sort of governmental godfather. In his telling, DARPA’s success—I think this is important—is simply because the Government got out of the way and let a bunch of buccaneering individuals do what they liked. It is definitely true, as I understand it, that DARPA has important lessons about the need for the culture that I talked about, including higher reward and, of necessity, a higher chance of failure, but it is simply not true that DARPA was somehow totally detached from Government. DARPA had an obvious client—the Department of Defense—a clear mandate around defence-related research, a clear synergy in its work with the procurement power of the US DOD and, incidentally, abided by laws on freedom of information.
I want to suggest that there are two different views about ARIA: one is that we should let the organisation simply do what it wants, relying on the wisdom of a genius chair and chief executive; and the other subtler and, in our view, more sensible approach—one more consistent with the lessons of DARPA—is that Government should set a clear mandate and framework for ARIA and then get out of the way and not interfere with its day-to-day decision-making. I also believe there is a democratic case, because the priority goals for the spending of £800 million over this Parliament should be driven by democratic choices; not about the specific items that it funds, but about the goals and mission.
That takes me to the three points that I want to make: first, about the mandate for ARIA; secondly, about its position in the wider R&D system; and thirdly, about accountability. I will try to emulate the Secretary of State’s brevity—perhaps not exactly his brevity, but as much as I can.
The deputy director of DARPA says about its success that
“having national security as the mission frames everything.”
The Secretary of State said to the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells at the Science and Technology Committee:
“If I were in your position, I would be asking what the core missions of ARIA are.”
I think the point that Dominic Cummings made, or I am sure would have made, is that this will be a job for the people we hire who are running the organisation. The Secretary of State went on:
“It will be up to the head of ARIA to decide whether he or she thinks the organisation should adopt what the innovation strategy suggests…or reject it.”
I really understand the wish to give freedom to ARIA, but surely it is for Government to shape and not shirk the setting of priorities, and it is not just DARPA where we can learn that lesson. Moonshot R&D—the Japanese agency established in 2019 to fund challenging R&D—has seven specific moonshot goals set by the Japanese Government, and my understanding from the evidence taken by the Science and Technology Committee is that the UK scientific community agrees with that idea.
I notice the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) putting his head in his hands. He has done that before when I speak, but let me just make this point in seriousness: £800 million is not in the scheme of things a huge amount of money, certainly when compared with UKRI’s budget. The concern is that unless, as the Select Committee said, ARIA focuses on a single or a small number of missions, it will dilute its impact.
Take the net zero challenge. I believe it is a challenge of political will and imagination, but it is also a technological challenge. If it is the No. 1 international challenge, as the PM said last week, and if it is the No. 1 domestic challenge, as I think it is, why would it not be the right mandate for ARIA for at least its first five years? Indeed, Professor Richard Jones and Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who perhaps have even greater claims than Dom to being godfather and godmother of this idea, said that climate change would be an ideal challenge on which an agency such as ARIA would focus. To be clear, providing a mandate does not mean micro-managing decisions, and it would be grossly simplistic to suggest otherwise.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to my feet, first, because I think he does a tremendous disservice to Dominic Cummings. Without his inspiration, this Bill would not be before this House. Secondly, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the chart that Mr Cummings showed while giving evidence to the Select Committee. It showed a large circle of areas with potential for people to investigate and a smaller segment of that, which is where all of the foreign Governments and our Government focus their research, precisely because they are driven by the political decisions, frameworks and missions that politicians set. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think there is some opportunity for us to do something slightly different and without the sticky fingers of Government interfering?
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman and I have a respectful disagreement on this: I think it is for the Government of the day and this House to say what are the massive national priorities. Then it is for an organisation such as ARIA to fund the research in the high-risk, high-reward way that I mentioned. That is simply a difference of view. Without a clear policy mission, we risk a fragmented approach.
I will make this other point, which is that the chair and chief executive will be in the somewhat unenviable position of having to decide which Government Departments to prioritise. Of course they can work with different Departments, but let us set a clear challenge for the organisation.
The second point is not just about the question of mandate, but how it sits in the life cycle of technological innovation and how it works with other funding streams. ARIA is born of a frustration about the failure to fund high-risk research. We do not disagree with that thinking, but that makes it especially important that it does not duplicate the work of existing funding streams. Let me give an example. Innovate UK, part of UKRI, is supposed to be a funding stream to turn ideas into commercially successful products. I do not know from reading the Government’s statement of intent what Innovate UK would fund that ARIA would not and what ARIA would fund that Innovate UK would not.
The vagueness of the mandate for ARIA is matched by vagueness about where in the innovation cycle it sits. I was not doing Mr Cummings a disservice on this score by the way, because I support the Bill, but he said to the Select Committee:
“My version of it here would be…to accelerate scientific discovery far beyond what is currently normal, and to seek strategic advantage in some fields of science and technology…I would keep it broad and vague like that.”
He went on to say that he would say to the agency:
“Your job is to find people…with ideas that could change civilisation completely”.
I am sorry, but that is too vague, and I do not believe it unreasonable to say that there needs to be greater clarity about where in the life cycle ARIA sits.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I think the right hon. Gentleman at heart is a secret Cummings-ite, because he is constructing a number of paper tigers to try to find offence with a Bill that he fundamentally wishes his party had thought of first. What possible incentive would a new disruptive ARIA have for trying to replicate the work already being funded by existing councils? It will have access to all of that body of work. What incentive would it have to try to replicate it when it could pursue new, disruptive and exciting opportunities?
Edward Miliband
That just makes the case; if what the hon. Gentleman says is the case, would it not be a good idea, as the former Science Minister Lord Johnson suggested, for ARIA to share information with UKRI, for the two bodies to work effectively together and for the agencies to enter into a memorandum of understanding, which will benefit us all? If it is as easy as that, I am sure that will not be a problem for ARIA. I have been called many things in my time, but a secret Cummings-ite? Perhaps not. I have been called worse things. If it is as simple as that, they should be able to work together, and I hope the Secretary of State will reflect both on the mandate question and on this life cycle question.
Thirdly, let me turn to the issue of Government oversight and public accountability. We believe it is right that ARIA should be given operational independence from Government. As I say, we support the idea of specifying high tolerance to risk and failure. The challenge for public policy is how to establish this tolerance of failure. Obviously it starts with the agency’s leadership, where the Bill is also very vague on what attributes or skills the Secretary of State is looking for. My understanding is that this position is not going to be recruited outside the normal civil service procedures—okay, I think I understand the reasons for that—but it cannot just be decided on the whim of the Secretary of State, brilliant though he is. I hope the Minister will clarify this during the passage of the Bill. There does need to be an answer on who else from the scientific and research community will have a say on the decision and how this person is going to be chosen, given that, in the Government’s own words, they will have
“a significant effect on the technological and strategic capabilities of the UK over the course of generations.”
On freedom of information, we just strongly disagree with the Government. I do not think there is justification for ARIA’s blanket exemption from FOI. The Government say it is necessary for agility. DARPA is subject to the US version of the Freedom of Information Act. The Secretary of State and the Minister might be interested to know that DARPA, in the US, had 47 of these requests last year, so this is hardly an obstacle to getting on with the day job. There is a disagreement here about how we give public confidence. Just saying that everything should be secret does not give public confidence. Accountability matters to the public and we should have confidence that we can defend the approach of the agency. Tris Dyson from Nesta Challenges has said:
“The public will expect to know what’s happening with public money and greater risk requires transparency and evaluation in order to determine what works.”
We also believe there is a role for the Science and Technology Committee in scrutinising ARIA’s role. Perhaps that can be clarified as the Bill progresses.
I am conscious of time, so let me say in conclusion that we face enormous challenges as a society, including new threats from disease, as tragically illustrated by the pandemic, the advent of artificial intelligence and, as I have said, the climate emergency. So the challenges we face are huge, but I believe—I know this is shared across the House—that the ingenuity, know-how and potential of our scientists, researchers and others is as great as, if not greater than, the challenges. If we support them, they can succeed. ARIA can support our scientific research. We support this Bill as a way to add capacity and flexibility to our research and innovation systems. It needs to be done in the right way. On the Bill and what is happening to British science, we will support the Government when they do the right thing but we will also call them out on cuts to science funding, and during the passage of the Bill we will seek to improve it so that it can strengthen our science base and do what is required to help us meet the massive challenges we face as a society.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and to warmly welcome the introduction of this important Bill. This is an extraordinary time for science, as the Secretary of State and his shadow have made clear. The interest in and standing of science in this country and around the world have never been higher during my lifetime. In a year, we have gone from discovering a lethal new virus to having not just one but multiple effective vaccines against it. That has never been done in the history of science, even going back to Jenner. This is a fantastic time for the House to be backing, as it evidently is, further investment in and progress of science in the UK. For all the horrors of the last year, some of the lessons that can be learned already—for example, the testing of new scientific procedures in parallel rather than in sequence—may, in not too many years’ time, save more lives than have been lost during the last year. We need to reinforce this.
British science is not just exceptional in the life sciences. Whether it is in space and satellites, with 40% of the small satellites in orbit above the Earth today being made in Britain, or the fact that the next generation of batteries are being researched by the Faraday Institution in Oxford, we have in this country so many of the pieces of science and technology that are transforming the world. This is at a time when the Government have made a historic commitment to invest in science. When I occupied the Secretary of State’s position, I was pretty pleased to negotiate out of the Treasury an increase in science funding from £9 billion to £12 billion a year—the biggest increase that had ever been achieved—but this Government have committed to an extraordinary increase to £22 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. That is the important context of the Bill.
For our inquiry, the Science and Technology Committee took evidence from people all around the world, including current and former staff of DARPA, and in our report of 12 February, we welcomed strongly the £800 million being committed to this new institution. Like the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, we recognise the important contribution that a new body outside the main research and development system could make, benefiting from a different culture. We saw the benefits to be had from transformational research that may be riskier than is commonly funded. The House should expect that quite a lot of the projects undertaken by this agency will fail, and we should not be quick to criticise that, because transformational breakthroughs are usually accompanied by failure on the way, and we need to be used to that.
Our report asked questions that I hope will be clarified as the Bill moves through this House and the other place. The question of what the agency’s focus will be is a legitimate one, if only for the fact that it is easy to dissipate £800 million in so many projects that we do not get the transformation that is in prospect. With that budget, and based on the evidence we took, our Committee recommended that the organisation should have no more than two focal points. The question of whether it should be about blue-sky research and brand-new thinking, without particular regard to the application, or whether it is looking to turn already nascent good ideas into practical applications, should also be clarified.
The role of Ministers and the chief executive, and the choice of the chief executive, will be important. Our Committee found that it is very important that, in pursuing our ambitions for ARIA, which is ultimately 1% of our annual research funding, we do not forget the other 99%, given some of the criticisms of bureaucracy and micromanagement that have been advanced by friends and to which ARIA is the answer. In fact, the founding chief executive of UKRI, Sir Mark Walport, thought that this was a good moment to refresh some of the procedures that it operates under.
Finally, it is important to state that we welcome ARIA because it is in the context of rising science funding. But it is paradoxical that, just at the point that we have the biggest increase by far in science funding and the whole scientific community is rejoicing at this country embarking on a golden age of scientific research, we should unexpectedly have the prospect of cuts to the science budget for the next year or two. To put it into context, the £2 billion subscription to Horizon, which has never been part of the science budget before, would amount to about a 25% cut in UKRI’s budget, and the official development assistance reduction would mean £125 million of cancelled projects.
This Bill reinforces the commitment that the Government and, I hope, the House make to building on the successes of UK and international science. The Secretary of State is a serious and committed advocated of this agenda. He was clear and candid when he appeared before the Select Committee. The decisions are not all in his hands, but I hope that he will continue to battle and, indeed, persuade his colleagues in the Treasury and the Prime Minister so that he can, I hope, have a long and flourishing tenure in his post, presiding over a period for UK science that we will look back on as a decisive acceleration of its potential.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Like other Members, I tuned in, eyes wide open, to hear what was said. I look forward to further instalments of that show in the month to come, as I am sure others do. I place on record my thanks, as other Members have done, for the fantastic work that has been undertaken by scientists in the UK in relation to the vaccine programme. It is something that unites us all. We all know that it will transform our lives, and we are collectively thankful on that front.
I commend the Secretary of State, as he has achieved something that is quite remarkable, certainly during my short tenure in the House. He appears almost to have united everyone in vague or cautious support for the Bill. On the face of it, it is something that we can welcome, but we have concerns, which I shall come on to, and reservations that need to be addressed in a positive manner, and hopefully the Secretary is willing to do that.
Before I deal with that, I am conscious that for my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who is sitting to my left, today is his last day in the Chamber, and he will make some valedictory remarks. I wish him the best going forward. As everyone in the Chamber will be well aware, all Scottish nationalists do not want to be here. He is getting away a little sooner than the rest of us, but we wish him well, and I am sure that Members across the Chamber do likewise.
Turning, you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the substance of the Bill, I hope that, while I have made some positive comments, the Secretary of State will forgive me for saying—perhaps I have picked this up wrongly—that his short speech may reflect the fact that the Bill is incredibly vague on details. The first thing to reflect on in that regard is the wider mission of the Bill. That was addressed at length by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and by the Select Committee in its hearing last week. What is the Bill trying to achieve? Is it health outcomes, defence outcomes or transport outcomes? The clarity is not there. I heard what the Chair of the Select Committee said about having a focus on two issues. That is all well and good, but we do not have those answers yet from the Government. We need them moving forward, because there is a real concern and risk that what we have is something that becomes a jack of all trades, but a master of none. The Committee said that it was
“a brand in search of a product”,
which is entirely apt at this stage.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North has rather stolen my thunder in that regard, because I want to discuss what the Bill could seek to do. It could follow Scotland’s lead. In Scotland, we have the Scottish National Investment Bank, which has a clear purpose to invest in net-zero technologies. Why do we not replicate that in the Bill? Why do the Government not put that front and centre of their agenda? The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is shaking his head, and he is more than welcome to intervene, to state why climate change should not be at the forefront of the Bill’s agenda.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to speak. I want to check that we are talking about the same aspects of the Bill, because he is trying, while saying what he thinks in a broad way, rather narrowly to define the scope of what research science projects can be. Does he not accept that there is a tension there, and that the Scottish example is precisely not what this is about?
Stephen Flynn
I reject the suggestion that climate change is a narrow focus given that climate change covers a whole host of areas. I see the Secretary of State nodding along with that. Presumably he is in agreement having previously been the Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth. When we look at this, we need to bear in mind DARPA, which has been talked about at length by others. DARPA had that clear focus, and that clear focus has allowed it to excel, in terms of GPS, the internet and the like. We should seek to replicate that, with climate change at the forefront.
It is regrettable that the Government have not simply made that suggestion, but it is not surprising, because, just last week, they sought to invest billions of pounds in new nuclear weapons. They could have said, “Here is £800 million that we are going to invest in trying to save the planet rather than destroy it.” In relation to the mission, therefore, the Secretary of State still has a great deal of work to do.
The second key area that I would like to pick up on is in relation to the wider leadership on the Bill. Although that has been referred to already, we do need to have clarity about how that process will work. What will be its outcome? Who will be the leader, or the leadership team, that takes this forward? There have been suggestions, indeed by Dominic Cummings himself, in relation to eminent scientists—scientists who, unfortunately, have been excluded from their professional role given the comments that have been made in relation to eugenics and race. Although I appreciate that the Secretary of State may not be in a position to say what the qualifying criteria will be for someone who takes on this role, I expect him to say what the disqualifying criteria will be. I certainly expect that someone who projects views of eugenics would fit into that disqualification category.
My third point relates to resources and accountability. I am very conscious of the fact that much of what I am saying is a repetition of what has already been said, but that is often true of what is said by everyone in this House, and I am sure that there will be more of that to come. I cannot get my head around this notion that we can throw away freedom of information and public contract processes in order to achieve something. I may have incorrectly picked up the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) on that point he made earlier about being inspired to do that. I do not see it as inspired. I do not think that the public will see it as inspired. They certainly will not see it as inspired coming, as it does, from a Conservative Government, given what we have seen over a number of months in relation to cronyism and the concerns that we all have about that. When it comes to public money, public trust is of paramount importance. Frankly, the Government are not being as clear, transparent and open as they should be about the Bill.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that UK Research and Innovation receives about 300 FOI requests a year? A small and nimble organisation such as ARIA would be completely buried under the weight of that many FOI requests. That is why we are taking the approach that we are here.
Stephen Flynn
That is an interesting point, but it appears that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what was said earlier in relation to DARPA. I think it was 40 FOI requests for DARPA, which is, obviously, a much larger organisation than ARIA will ever be. It is one that will perhaps attract a lot more focus, and yet there were just 40 FOI requests. If that is the strength of the argument that Government Back Benchers will put up in relation to this, then, frankly, it will fall short in the eyes of the public. The reality is that we are talking about £800 million of public money. There will of course be a tolerance of failure. Everyone accepts that there must be a tolerance of failure, but there needs to be openness and transparency around the process, and, quite frankly, at this moment in time, there is not. I do not have confidence that the Government will be able to deliver on that front.
Finally, I just want to touch on what is perhaps the most important aspect of this Bill, which is, unsurprisingly, in the Scottish context. A total of £800 million will be flowing towards this project. How much of that is coming to Scotland? Will it be Barnettised? Will there be consequentials from it? Is this going to be a UK-wide project? If so, why? Why are we not investing in Scotland? Are we trying to undermine the Scottish Parliament once again? We have seen it with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, the levelling-up fund and the shared prosperity fund; are we now seeing it with ARIA, too?
Why do the Government not seek to invest in the Scottish Parliament? Why do they not seek to allow the Scottish Government to put the money into the Scottish National Investment Bank, which I have already mentioned, so that Scotland can create the scientific achievements that it wants to use to shape our own agenda, particularly—I repeat—in relation to climate change? Why have none of those things come forward? It appears as though Scotland does not exist in the context of this Bill. The Government seek to talk up the Union; the way to solidify the Union is not to trample continuously over the Scottish Parliament, because the people of Scotland are well aware of what is going on in that regard.
Let me conclude by making one more important point. We all have concerns about the Bill. It has broad support, but we have concerns that ultimately it will become another London-centric project, and not only that but one that gets hijacked by the right wing of the Tory party for its own ends. That is not something we are willing to support.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the creation of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.
As they say, necessity is the mother of all invention, and that necessity has never been greater as we try to build back better following the huge consequences of the pandemic. It is fitting that we should hold this debate today, as we mark the one-year anniversary of the lockdown. As well as looking back over the past year, the Bill gives us an opportunity to look forward.
Before I look forward, I want to look back at the incredible contribution that UK scientists have made to scientific endeavour and their list of achievements. Over centuries, the UK has been responsible for many great discoveries and inventions—from the first refracting telescope in 1668 to the discovery and understanding of DNA, and from the humble tin can to the jet engine. Probably the most poignant today is, as we have already heard, the development of the first vaccine more than 225 years ago in 1796. That discovery is helping the UK and the world to tackle the ravages of covid today.
UK research and the work of UK scientists have truly led to inventions that are potentially saving the world. But we cannot rest on our laurels, which is why I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to science and research and development. I welcome this debate and the meeting of our manifesto commitment to establish a high-risk, high-reward research agency, ARIA.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk a little about the wider R&D landscape. I warmly welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to making the UK a science superpower. Their commitment to spend 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027 and the £22 billion commitment to science in 2024-25 are fantastic but, as we have heard, there is no point in our making progress in one area if we are taking funds from another to do that. I will not labour the argument about funding for our participation in Horizon Europe, but needless to say I would like to see that money coming from a different pot rather than the existing ones.
Let us talk about the positives and the investment of £800 million in a new advanced research and invention agency, based on the principle of high risk and high reward and free from Government interference. To make the most of that, we have to change our view of risk. Risk here is good. That requires us to acknowledge—indeed, to embrace—failure as part of the process.
For the agency, that is fundamentally about people. It is about having top-quality, confident and knowledgeable people in the right places—the right chair and the right chief executive. It is also about having a command structure that is fleet of foot, which is why I think some of the measures in the Bill to exempt ARIA from FOI are the right thing to do.
ARIA needs to encourage and embrace new and novel ideas in the areas of artificial intelligence, quantum and, potentially, superconductivity. I accept that some of its endeavours, if not many of them, will fail, but even where there are failures, I still want its culture to be one of encouraging future submissions—a culture where project managers are not judged on individual outcomes that encourage them to play safe.
ARIA should be judged as a whole, and only after a reasonable time. It should work with both the usual suspects—the established research bodies—and potential sectoral disrupters. If we are searching for inventions, ARIA also needs the ability to work with individuals who may have promising ideas but not necessarily the resources or experience to make them work. ARIA has a role there to help people find the right development path.
While there will be failures, I am sure there will be many successes, so I would like to hear more about how a successful ARIA-funded project will make the transition from lab bench to product or service. The UK has a great track record of innovation and invention, but we do not have the best track record of commercialisation—of turning an idea into an industry that keeps the rewards here in the UK and provides our citizens with well-paid, rewarding jobs.
ARIA needs to help research to cross the so-called valley of death, and it needs to be alive to that challenge. It needs to work with ideas to ensure that they do not fail due to a lack of funding, support or interest. If an idea is novel enough that it has potential, ARIA needs to support it until it can hand it off in the confidence that it will be in safe hands and that it will thrive. There is no point having taxpayer-funded research or invention only for it to fail through lack of practical support.
I welcome this Bill. The creation of ARIA gives us a fantastic opportunity to fill a gap in the current landscape, and I very much look forward to working with Ministers as we take the Bill forward and reap the benefits that it can provide us with.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). Anyone who has attended the annual STEM for Britain event hosted by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which he chairs, will know that we are a country not short of brilliant ideas and young people—and many of them, I have to say, come from Cambridge.
However, that immediately begs the question, is ARIA a solution in search of a problem? As the excellent Science and Technology Committee report put it—I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and his colleagues on that—is it
“a brand in search of a product”?
We have heard a lot about Dominic Cummings. I just caution Government Members that they may not want to associate themselves too closely with a man who, in the public’s mind, is very much associated with one set of rules for some and a very different set of rules for them. Many will wonder why a vanity project designed to assuage the ego of one key adviser is being pursued by the Government when they have finally had the sense to ditch that adviser—or was it that he ditched them? Who knows? We will be generous, and I will ask an open question: can we do better?
Of course, our answer as a country is always yes, but if this is really about setting people free—and who does not want to cut the bureaucracy and set people free?—is it not curious that just yesterday, the Government announced a review, to be led by Professor Adam Tickell, the not “bog-standard” vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex, of the whole issue of bureaucracy in our research sector? I suggest that there is muddle, not least around the problem we are trying to solve.
Could we do better? The landscape of research funding is complex. UKRI is a relatively new organisation, but there are some long-established principles in this country—the Haldane principle, dual funding and QR, or quality-related research funding. Add Horizon, and there is a balance in there. Add the catapults launched a few years ago under the coalition and the result, if we are not careful, is lots of people competing for the same funding. It is not simple, and it is frequently a subject of discussion in Cambridge, as I am sure the House can imagine. To be frank, in Cambridge the general view is that the issue is not finding the breakthrough ideas, but how they are developed and taken forward, as the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock just said.
Sadly, we have very few home-grown unicorns like Arm, although we have done better over the past 30 years because we have a strong investor community in Cambridge and real efforts are made through organisations such as Cambridge Enterprise to develop our spin-outs. Thoughtful contributions have been made by entrepreneurs such as David Cleevely, who rightly pointed out throughout the Cameron-Osborne years, when they were promoting Tech City in London, that we already have a tech city; it is called Cambridge and it is just up the railway line, along a powerful innovation corridor that has huge potential.
There are other powerful voices who identify a very different problem from the one that it is suggested ARIA might address. Take David Sainsbury and David Connell. Lord Sainsbury is a highly regarded former Science Minister; look at the work he did a few years ago on economic growth, in which he cautioned—sensibly, in my view—against trying to import systems from elsewhere and expecting them somehow to work in a different culture. He also rightly queried the lack of co-ordination of research across Government Departments —an issue that I suspect is yet to be seriously addressed. David Connell has been a passionate advocate over many years of small business research initiatives—something we have adopted and adapted from the Americans—and of using contracts rather than grants and driving innovation through procurement. That idea has too limited an uptake, I would say, and needs a stronger champion in Government. Is DARPA really a model for the UK? Well, the US has an infamous military-industrial complex and we have nothing similar here. Who will be the client? The Secretary of State seemed to be touchy about this, but whether it is learned from, not modelled on, is a key question.
The obvious question about whether the current system can be reformed to address some of these concerns is also not answered, and some of the potential problems have been made worse by decisions the Government have already taken, or sort of taken. Reference has been made to the disappearing industrial strategy, which must be rather galling for the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, given the effort that he and others put in and the huge amount of work done across so many sectors. What is to replace it? Perhaps the Minister can tell us later. Perhaps it is nothing, but the mission-oriented approach that ARIA points to and is widely welcomed replaces, frankly, something remarkably similar. As we have heard, the great challenges are not that different, but for iconoclasts, of course, everything that went before has to be laid to waste. Not a very British approach, I would say. What is very British is the tradition of paying public servants badly. If ARIA can free up pay levels, good, but it really does not need an ARIA to do that, so stop making a song and dance about it; get on and do it.
All this is important because we have excellence. How ironic that the Government have turned a potential good-news story into a story about cuts. As we have heard, Universities UK estimates that if the cost of Horizon association is taken out of UKRI, it will cost 18,000 research jobs. That would certainly be a big hit to cities like mine. At the weekend, Stephen Toope, the University of Cambridge’s vice-chancellor, warned that Government claims about global Britain risked ringing hollow. As he says,
“World-leading research cannot just be turned off like a tap. Once our highly trained young researchers leave our universities they will not come back, and once they leave the country they will not return.”
He is so right. I visit many labs in and around Cambridge—the magnificent Laboratory of Molecular Biology being just one of them—but what strikes anyone who goes into any of them is that it is an international microcosm, with people from all across the globe. We are good because good people want to be here, but they can always go somewhere else. I tell the House, there are plenty of people who want them and plenty of inducements. Then there are the ODA cuts—so foolish, for so many reasons, not least the threat to our diplomatic soft power at a time when China is ramping up its influence everywhere. I am told that institutions have been sending letters to researchers who already have grant letters telling them that those grant letters will not be honoured. The system has worked for decades based on trust, and that is now being undermined. That is a clear message that with this Government, Britain cannot be trusted to keep its word. There is nothing that ARIA can do that will repair the damage—the huge damage to trust—that has already been caused and is continuing to be caused.
We need a fightback within Government. Last week, I encouraged the Minister to seek operatic inspiration, but far from “Vincero”—I will win—from “Nessun Dorma”, her reaction was more, “When I am laid in earth” from “Dido’s Lament”. That is Puccini’s Dido, not Track and Trace’s, I hasten to add. We need so much more. UK research is a success story. Please stop doing unnecessary harm. In my view, ARIA is worth supporting, but it is a distraction. It is worth discussing how we can do things better, but please, Secretary of State, stop doing harm now.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is genuinely a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who speaks with great knowledge on this issue and who of course represents an area where many people will be interested in the Bill.
In common with other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill, but I just want to make sure I am welcoming the same Bill as they are. In many of the contributions today, Members appear to have aimed their guns at destroying those elements of the Bill that are unique, special and different. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who is no longer in his place, started that off by talking about R&D as an example of an industrial strategy. Well, industrial strategies are playthings of Ministers and, as we know, Ministers can change from time to time. The whole design of the Bill is intended to prevent those issues.
The spokesperson for the Scottish nationalists, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), chided me a little about the importance of the environment and asked whether that should be a focus. I am not denying that the environment and climate change is an important issue, but the point here is that we do not prescribe that that is the only thing that this organisation can research—I am not saying that it should not look into it.
I do not wish to smother at birth the unique characteristics of this organisation. Essentially, the purpose of the Bill is to create an institution that, in Donald Rumsfeld’s terms, would look at the unknown unknowns, and politicians are not in the right place to define what those would be. If I may, I would gently disagree with the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), when he said that we should choose a couple of focal points for ARIA. That really gets to the point, because the question would then be, did we choose the right focal points? I am not sure that that is something the Bill is seeking to do with this agency.
I want to ask some questions, and perhaps the Minister can cover them in her summing up or perhaps we can cover them in Committee. Many hon. Members have spoken about the importance of the programme manager in DARPA. I looked at the worked case example cited in the policy statement released for ARIA. In it, somebody was recruited on the basis of a £50,000 grant and a three-month project. Subsequently, on review, they would, in this example, be granted £20 million for further research. I would say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that there are three key tensions there that we need to tease out.
The first is that that approach places tremendous responsibility on the evaluation of those initial projects, so how do we see that going? What are we thinking about in terms of the framework in which that evaluation will take place? That seems a very thin basis for the initial judgment—it is not wrong, but it is a thin basis.
Secondly, the appointments of the chief executive officer and the chair, which my right hon. and hon. Friends are already considering, also seem to be extremely important, because they will, in such an important way, define the culture of this organisation—certainly for the initial five-year term of the chief executive and at least for the first 10 years of this organisation.
Thirdly, DARPA has been commented on a number of times. It estimates that 25% of its programme managers turn over annually, so there will be quite a large turnover of these key members of staff in the UK. What is our expectation? As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, America can draw on an enormous pool of talent. Is the goal that we will be able to draw on a larger, perhaps global pool of talent to play a role in this agency? That would be a very good aspect of global Britain.
In 2019, 65% of DARPA projects were undertaken by companies, and only 17% by universities. Is that the intention here? If so, I would very much welcome that. Also, there is the opportunity in the Bill for ARIA to create companies and joint ventures, and a document will come out to explain how that will work. However, it would be helpful to know whether it will also include what happens to any returns from those joint ventures and companies, and whether the money will go back into ARIA itself or be returned to the Treasury—I think we all know what the answer to that might be, but it would be interesting to at least pose the question.
The Secretary of State will know that ARPA was set up in the same year—1958, if I can read my writing—as the Small Business Investment Act was enacted in the United States. I would like to close on this point. There is very positive reinforcement between the initiatives being taken in the Bill and encouraging support for venture capital and small businesses. I refer Members to my declaration of interests on the issue of venture capital. There is a tremendous opportunity.
DARPA likes to say that it created the internet, but venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins can point to the fact that it made billions out of Amazon, billions out of Netscape and billions out of Google. That is the essence of the problem we often hear about in this country. We are very good at doing the research, but we are very poor at commercialising it. Can we see further efforts by the Department to ensure that we have the same parallel tracks as the United States had when it successfully launched its equivalent of our initiative, ARPA, in 1958?
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate, and this will be my last speech in this Chamber. I shall come to that in a moment, but first let me address the substance of the Bill.
I represent a constituency, Airdrie and Shotts, with significant and incredible scientific research based around BioCity and MediCity as well as the Newhouse and Maxim Park industrial estates. Indeed, just last week Amphista Therapeutics, based at BioCity, secured £38 million of investment in its series B financing round to continue its work on potent and selective bifunctional molecules, known as amphistas, and to extend its targeted protein degradation approaches. I am incredibly proud to represent that major hub of the biosciences industry in Scotland, which is projected to be worth £8 billion to the Scottish economy in the coming years.
That industry needs continued support. It needs the start-up funding and ongoing research funding to continue to thrive. I am delighted that the Scottish Government have led the way with the establishment of the Scottish National Investment Bank, which is to have £2 billion of capitalisation and has a clear ambition to achieve net zero. The industry also needs significant and ongoing support to stop the Brexit drain of scientific researchers who have sadly returned to the continent in recent years.
Although I obviously welcome the UK Government’s following the Scottish Government’s lead in establishing a state-backed investment organisation, it is incredibly disappointing that they have not matched that with the ambition to tackle climate change or reduce inequalities. That example has been set by the Scottish Government through the Scottish National Investment Bank. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in his incredible and fantastic speech from our Front Bench, and by others across the House, the lack of clear focus for ARIA is a major disappointment.
I also want to seek clarity from the Minister on a few issues, to follow on from my hon. Friend’s speech. I want clarity that the Minister has no intention of using ARIA as another Tory Trojan horse to bypass devolved decision making. Will the Minister ensure Scottish researchers and firms such as those in Airdrie and Shotts that I have already spoken about will receive their full Barnettised share of ARIA funding through the Scottish Government? Will the UK Government also commit now to give any powers going to ARIA in areas such as borrowing and debt financing to the Scottish National Investment Bank to ensure that there is parity there?
A string of cronyism scandals has engulfed this UK Government, from funds prioritising prosperous Tory-held constituencies over other areas with genuine need to multimillion pound covid contracts being handed out to pals by WhatsApp. What safeguards are in the Bill to ensure we do not see that repeated in the funding of this agency? Excluding ARIA from FOI does not fill us with confidence in this regard. There is a big difference between tolerable failure and a lack of scrutiny allowing for further misuse of public funds.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is the final time I will be making a speech in this place before I take my leave tomorrow, I wish to make some brief remarks not strictly related to the matters before us. As many colleagues will be aware, I am resigning from this House in order to seek election to be the MSP for Airdrie and Shotts in Scotland’s national Parliament.
I want to thank my colleagues and friends in the SNP group and its staff, as well as friends from across this House, for their support, and staff of the House across the estate, who are diligent public servants. My incredible constituency office staff have been with me throughout my time in Parliament: Adam Robinson, Lawrie Kane, Lesley Jarvie, Margaret Hughes and Michael Coyle. They have provided me and the people of Airdrie and Shotts with incredible service, and I thank them. I thank my campaign team, led by my incredible election agent, Graham Russell—we go again!
I also want to thank the people of Airdrie and Shotts. It has been an incredible honour to serve them for the past six years. They first placed their faith in me in 2015, and I hope that I have gone some way to repay that trust, both in this House, with approaching 1,400 oral and written contributions, and also in my campaigns locally. Of everything we have achieved over the past six years, I am most proud of having led the campaign to keep the new Monklands Hospital in the Airdrie area and worked on 14,500 constituency cases for people in every part of the Airdrie and Shotts constituency. Politics is always about people, and my driving ambition, which I am sure I share with others across this House, has always been to do what I can to help people locally as well as tackle injustices, poverty and inequality across these isles.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I have the unenviable task of following my hon. Friend in his success in the role of SNP work and pensions spokesperson. He has been thanking people for their support. May I, on behalf of those of us who are Airdrie fans, particularly the Airdrie Supporters Trust, genuinely and sincerely thank him for his support of us as a community as well? He will be well aware that there are many people in the Diamonds community who think very highly of him and very much hope to see him elected to continue that good work in the Scottish Parliament.
Neil Gray
It is very kind of my hon. Friend to say so.
In my maiden speech, I thanked my wife Karlie and my then 11-month-old daughter Isla for their love and support. I said then that it would not be standing up to Tory Governments or standing up for the people of Airdrie and Shotts that I would find most challenging, but missing my family when I am here—and so it has proved. But now that I have not only Isla, but Finlay, Emmie and Freya to be missing, being closer to home to be a good father, and being in the constituency more, is what motivates me to want to leave this place and seek election to Holyrood to continue my service to local people. If I am successful, I just hope that that service will, soon, be in an independent Scottish Parliament.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
May I, on behalf of all the hon. Gentleman’s friends from across the House, wish him well on his last appearance here in this Chamber? I fully appreciate that, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) said a few moments ago, no Scottish nationalist ever wants to be here in this Parliament, but I thank him for the service that he has given and the contributions that he has made while he has been here. Of course, I will try very hard not to say anything further than that, except that he is clearly going to be busy with his ever-growing family, regardless of what happens over the next few weeks, and in a personal capacity we wish him well.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) [V]
May I echo the sentiments that you just expressed, Madam Deputy Speaker? I have found the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) to be a good colleague, as was his predecessor, who is still a very close friend of mine.
The UK space industry has arguably benefited the most from the US ARIA equivalent, DARPA. For a very recent example, we need look no further than Astra, the launch vehicle manufacturer that had a successful launch on 16 December 2020. While discussing ARIA, however, attention should be paid to the necessity of having an ecosystem approach. There is now an acknowledged and accepted dependency on space, and the space sector is one of the 13 critical national infrastructure sectors. The UK is at a decision point and is reaching a critical stage in terms of launches becoming commercially viable. To secure launches as part of the UK offering of space ports would ensure access to hugely significant economic opportunity through whole-sector participation, including end-to-end delivery.
While there is no doubting the UK’s space ambitions, there needs to be a clear line of investment, which will have two elements. At present, most of the Government’s investment is focused on academia and technology. There is little focus on launch infrastructure and the development of logistical support. Noting that it is generally accepted that a launch will make the difference for the UK’s standing and therefore economic benefit from the global space market, it is estimated that this alone will be worth £400 billion to us by 2030.
Regulation, though, is a key enabler of development in the space sector, and much has been achieved through the introduction of the Space Industry Act 2018. One anomaly is the Civil Aviation Authority and the intention of lifting the insurance liability from a £60 million cap to unlimited liability, which will make UK launches unviable from UK soil, with many other countries offering less liability. So that must be addressed very soon.
Have the Government ensured sufficient harmonisation between the existing regulatory authorities and the UK Space Agency? Is the UKSA playing its full role as the Government-sponsored agency with responsibility for all strategic decisions on the UK civil space programme and to provide a clear and single voice for UK space ambitions? That has to be clarified.
The environment is rightly the lens through which we need to examine current and future actions and ambitions. The space sector is demonstrating its commitment to the environment through the development of new materials and processes, but with space acknowledged as one of the key enablers to understanding and monitoring of global environments and environmental change, are the Government driving the right relationship between space and the UK environmental agencies, acknowledging devolved responsibilities?
Ambition itself cannot deliver on enterprise for a nation. Leadership is key to ensuring the right information and that action takes place at the right time and with the right entities. Does the space sector enjoy the right nature of strategic leadership both in the Government and the private sector? Has the UK established the types of structures, executive councils and committees necessary to provide the support, confidence and assurance of decisions, making opportunities for the space sector to thrive under the new ARIA regime? A lot of clarification needs to come forward, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will provide that development and regulatory structure to allow a commercial and viable space industry to grow. I have highlighted some anomalies within the structure as it currently stands.
I would like to see the Bill pass, and I am certain it will. It will enable the UK space sector to do a better job than it is already doing. The UK space sector, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has already said, develops 40% of what is already flying around in orbit, and we can do more. The UK space sector has bucked the trend over recessions and pandemics, and the sector is increasing.
I want to end on a positive note. I will be backing the Bill, and I would like to see more money for the space sector.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I am delighted to welcome the Bill and the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency that it creates. I want to echo the sentiments of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, and the tributes that they paid to our scientific community, who have done outstanding work during the pandemic.
Today’s Bill is one of the most important to come before the House in this Parliament. First, it lays the foundations for Britain to become the science superpower envisaged by the Prime Minister in the integrated review and building on the Government’s existing commitment to deploy 2.4% of GDP to research and development. Secondly, a new agency will create new jobs, products and services, and innovative communities across the whole country, levelling up our science and technology base and backing our scientists and entrepreneurs. Finally, it will enable Britain to lead the new fourth industrial revolution, pioneering in fields from artificial intelligence and robotics to genomics and quantum technologies. Just as Hargreaves’ spinning jenny and Stephenson’s Rocket propelled Britain to a new era of prosperity and invention in the past, this new agency, ARIA, can help us to success in the decades ahead.
We have all seen during the covid-19 pandemic the importance of investing in research, science and development, and as we build back better, ARIA can unleash the potential of our most visionary scientists, helping Britain to shape the future and get to the future first. In terms of shaping the future, many in the House will know President Kennedy’s words from 1962:
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.
Those stirring words are often remembered for their soaring rhetoric, but they were in fact designed to persuade the American people of the benefits of the Apollo space programme after the US had been caught off guard by the Soviet Union putting the first satellite and then the first man into space.
To beat the Soviet Union to the moon, the Americans relied on a radical new organisation that would be a catalyst for new ideas. America’s Advanced Research Projects Agency—ARPA, as it was originally known, founded by President Eisenhower and backed by his successor, JFK—would help to deliver not only the moon landings but an early version of the internet, the global positioning system and driverless cars. By launching ARPA, the US was determined that in the future, it would be the initiator and not the victim of strategic technological surprises.
By launching the UK equivalent today, as the fourth industrial revolution accelerates, we provide ourselves with an insurance policy against future challenges and an opportunity to shape the future through innovation. It is therefore welcome news that ARIA will incorporate the key features of the ARPA model that have been credited with its success, including a sole focus on high-risk, high-reward research; a high tolerance for scientific failure; freedom to explore new funding models, including prizes and taking equity stakes; minimal bureaucracy, with low Government intervention; and empowering talented programme managers to find and fund complex research programmes. That is the right framework, but what sort of technology should those programme managers focus on? That has been the subject of some debate this afternoon.
It would be tempting for ARIA to spread itself thinly and widely, diversifying across a range of technologies and disciplines, but that would be the wrong approach. If ARIA is to succeed, it must focus on the most impactful and transformative technologies that are most likely to create whole new industries, produce thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom and apply across a wide range of economic sectors where the UK can develop a strong and sustained competitive advantage. Those key technologies include robotics and artificial intelligence, which will become pervasive across all sectors of our economy; life sciences and synthetic biology, where the big theme of the coming decade will be personalisation; fusion, which has the potential to deliver a new carbon-free source of clean energy; space, where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said, growth is driven by manufacturing, including in satellites, ground systems and components; and quantum technologies, including quantum computers, which are exponentially more powerful than today’s devices.
It was in Britain that the first industrial revolution took off in the 18th century. It was this country that gave the world penicillin, unravelled the structure of DNA and pioneered the world wide web. Cambridge alone has produced more Nobel laureates than any country in the world except America, and more than France, Japan and China combined. We have an outstanding record of scientific innovation and discovery to be proud of. The creation of this new agency will help Britain cement its status as a science superpower, and it is a project that I am proud to support.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the setting up of ARIA. Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly welcome any announcement of new public funding for science and technology.
I was struck by the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) about Britain’s history of scientific technology and innovation. When I was a child growing up in the 1980s, we were still coming towards the end of the cold war, and science and technology felt almost threatening in a time of conflict revolving around nuclear weapons. A transformation has taken place over the last 35 years in public attitudes towards science. We have had a digital revolution. Here we are today, on the anniversary of the first lockdown of the pandemic, and in the last few months, scientific research and scientists have dominated the headlines with the extraordinary work they have done in developing the vaccine. It makes me think that today’s children have a very different attitude towards science, and I very much hope that the experience of the last few years will encourage more and more children and young people to consider science as a career. I hope they will be inspired by our great national history of science and innovation, and that this new agency will in some way pick up that great inspiration and some of that great talent, which is surely being fostered in our schools and universities as we speak, and bring new innovations and great scientific thinking to the world.
There is no doubt that in funding for science and innovation we have lagged behind somewhat in both the private and public sector. We have fantastic science, education and research capacity in this country, as we have done for many years, but our biggest failing has been our inability to match up the great work and innovation that we are generating in our universities, research centres and private sector companies and bring it into economic activity so that it can deliver wider benefits to our economy and workforce. It is a problem that Governments of all stripes have wrestled with for many years.
However, while I welcome the fact that ARIA has been set up with that express purpose in mind, is this particular agency the result of Government analysis of where we have been going wrong or is this Mr Cummings’s brainchild? Conservative Members seem to have almost limitless faith in Mr Cummings’s abilities and analysis, but I have to be honest that it is not that clear to those of us on the Opposition Benches that just because Mr Cummings thinks something is a good idea, the rest of us should automatically follow.
So I am very interested to know what analysis the Government have done as to how ARIA can fix some of these questions that have dogged our science and innovation space for so many years. How is the agency going to direct its activities to make sure that it can really address the issues we are facing? My first question is about who is going to be addressing these particular issues. The legislation is broadly drawn, which is probably right given that we want an unencumbered agency, but who is going to be appointed to lead it? I notice from the legislation that the board will be appointed by the Secretary of State; it will obviously include the chief scientific officer as that is clearly right, but beyond that what will be the qualifications of the people who are leading it? Will they be scientists, will they be from industry, will they be academics, will they be economists? The legislation is silent on what will qualify somebody to sit on that board and how they will direct the agency and to what particular ends. That is an interesting point, and I look forward to hearing more about how the Secretary of State will make those appointments.
I welcome the plans to provide the substantial funding for this new body, and particularly the direction that the projects it undertakes can have a high risk of failure. However, the Secretary of State must be aware that he is committing to taking big risks with taxpayers’ money. How can he or the hard-working taxpayer be sure that this use of public money delivers greater value to the British public than any other use? I acknowledge that that will be a difficult question to answer and that we need to accept that there will be downsides, but the Secretary of State should be clear about whether this high-risk investment is new money or whether it is being taken away from other established and lower risk programmes elsewhere. For example, is funding for ARIA coming from money for research and innovation for other programmes—perhaps money that UKRI received for official development assistance research into global challenges, which we know has been cut by two thirds? Is that money now going into ARIA? Are we cutting existing programmes in order to fund this high-risk research?
We know that ODA budgets and also the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Academy are seeing cuts, and again I ask is ARIA the new destination for that funding? It is essential that the Government confirm that this is new money and that it is going to be introduced to sit alongside existing funding streams. Otherwise, far from being a boost to scientific research, ARIA will put successful current research at risk. As has been pointed out, the wide-ranging remit of ARIA also represents a risk that research projects will be undertaken that duplicate work already being done elsewhere, which again risks taxpayer value for money.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are very pleased to support the Bill. We are 100% behind efforts to increase science and innovation, particularly where they can have wider applications for the economy and quality of life in this country, but we will be watching very closely for answers on appointments to the board and funding.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Second Reading of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, which marks an increasing awareness across Government, Parliament and the country of the importance of innovation in securing our collective prosperity well into the future. The last year has shown us just how vital it is that we further bolster this country’s science and research ambitions. The Royal Society of Biology, with which I spoke last month, can attest to how our assiduous investment in the life sciences has clearly paid off, as we are reaping the benefits with our vaccination roll-out. Indeed, just look at the dividend that the UK’s sequencing expertise is now paying. That is why I emphatically welcome the Government’s commitment to increase public R&D expenditure, which, along with ARIA, forms part of the fundamental building blocks for the Britain of the next era.
We have thought hard about the pennies. Now we are turning to the pounds we pack internationally. Last week, we on the Science and Technology Committee heard from Dominic Cummings, who spoke about the need for the UK to take science more seriously. He said that competitor countries around the world debate at the highest level cutting-edge S&T on a daily basis. We are not entering—but rather have already entered—a new era of heightened global competition. We should not fear such a transition, as change is the only constant. I suggest that we all read “Who Moved My Cheese?”, and advance our science and technology expertise.
The strategic framework for the integrated review has S&T as the very first of four overarching objectives. I agree with the implicit argument that science and technology is often the forgotten magical element in Britain’s soft power. I trust that the Minister is considering how we use the global talent visa programme to add to this effort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) rightly pointed out, the UK has had 99 Nobel laureates. This fills us with pride. Aiming for at least another 99 fills us with focus. Taken together with the integrated review, this Bill will provide the UK with immense opportunities to become a science superpower across many domains.
The Government are here to get the big things right, but we must also—slightly counterintuitively—be prepared to get things wrong. By this, I mean that we face a cultural challenge in Whitehall, Westminster and, indeed, all walks of life when it comes to failure. It is an acutely British niggle. Fear of failure in both Government and business has limited our ability to take more calculated risks. Who can blame people, when the media is constantly ready to take someone down for the slightest slip? I am hopeful that ARIA can be part of a cultural change that can boost us in taking more risks for higher reward, and to scale up our ideas to compete with the east Asian and US giants.
ARIA may currently be of no fixed abode, but we are on standby to fix its abode in Bolton. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) will be up shortly to join what is probably going to be the most important debate of our generation: should ARIA’s office be in the west or the east of Bolton? Bolton and Greater Manchester’s thirst for radical innovation is palpable, with the National Graphene Institute a stone’s throw away and the University of Bolton just a few doors down from me. As the Bill outlines, ARIA’s membership is to consist of a small network of executive and non-exec members, in line with the Government’s agenda to level up, and what better location is there to base that network in than the north-west, surrounded by the brightest young minds, at the centre of Bolton North East?
Through the vaccine roll-outs, we have all witnessed the benefits of being able to work at speed and scale, and this has been testament to relinquishing overreaching bureaucracy. In its present form, the Bill can engender more clarity to signal adequate space for ARIA’s leadership to operate independently from Government. Exceptional scientists need room to decide which research to pursue and to give them the confidence and agility to make decisions, although I also appreciate the need for some parliamentary oversight. This has been emphasised repeatedly by the Science and Technology Committee’s witnesses. Let me finish by saying a big well done to the Government for being ambitious and bringing this Bill to the House, and for providing us with the stepping stones to punch not above our weight but above our basal metabolic rate.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Most Members understand the importance of proper science funding, both in terms of supporting research excellence and as an economic multiplier, and I certainly welcome any announcement of additional funding. However, in a week when we have seen UK Research and Innovation funding for official development assistance being cut, and when we are facing ongoing uncertainty regarding our association fee for Horizon Europe, we have to be sceptical about whether this agency will really attract new funding, or whether this will simply involve the re-profiling of existing funds.
In his evidence on ARIA to the Science and Technology Committee last week, Dominic Cummings referenced the Manhattan project, Turing’s work on the Enigma code and the development of computers as projects that would have benefited from funding free from bureaucratic constraints. All those projects had one thing in common: a specific target. We need to have some idea of what ARIA’s mission should actually be. What are its priorities? Net zero technology? Autonomous vehicles? Quantum computing? I do not think any of us would deny that, if the UK were to face a specific urgent challenge, there would be a need to get money where it was needed, and fast. The difficulty here is that we are being asked to support a Bill to set up a body to fund high-risk research, but we do not know what we will be researching or why. In last week’s evidence session, Dominic Cummings talked extensively about the bureaucracy of current funding, and stated this as one of the reasons for the new body. We have heard from researchers about the difficulties in applying for funding, but we would surely be better off tackling that, rather than creating a new agency when we do not have a mission.
Earlier, the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), talked about the importance of failure. It is frustrating that we do not recognise how key failure is to scientific development. Failure is information. It tells us that something does not work, and science research often has many instances of failure before we experience success. This speaks to how we measure success in science through papers looking for positive outcomes. Maybe we should be looking more at papers that talk about negative outcomes or nor outcomes at all, because that is information too.
In everything, there must be accountability. Government spending during the pandemic on flawed procurement contracts should have taught us that there must be checks and balances in public money to ensure that cronyism is not the overriding decision maker. Removing ARIA from any freedom of information requests is problematic and will certainly leave it open to such cronyism. I would like some clarification on how extreme freedom in research does not mean extreme recklessness and cronyism in spending.
I would also like to raise the issue of national inequality of research spending. The recent National Audit Office report on the industrial strategy challenge fund noted:
“The Fund is unevenly spread across the UK with the majority being provided to the West Midlands, South East and London”.
This is not a new situation. For decades, we have seen capital spending on research concentrated on the south-east of England. I would therefore like to hear something about how the Government will ensure that ARIA is fully representative of the devolved nations.
The Government promised to double R&D spending to £22 billion by 2024 and repeatedly talk of being a science superpower. However, we are yet to see full details on this spending. The Business Secretary has admitted that UKRI’s 2021-22 budget has not yet been agreed, so a long-term funding plan for science should have some certainty for the funding cycles that we are already in.
The UK’s status as a science superpower is underpinned by international research collaboration and we need to make sure that that is protected. It is concerning that UKRI has announced a shortfall of £120 million between its official development assistance allocation and its commitment to grant holders. I have asked repeatedly about our commitment on Horizon Europe contributions, and, in the last few weeks, there has been no further information. We need to know whether the contributions will come from new money or whether UKRI will see its budget further squeezed to pay our association fee. Although many of us support an additional £800 million for science research, it really is difficult for us to work out whether it is actually new money. We need to see the sums and we need that clarity.
Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). He is a well-respected and much liked colleague across the House. I know personally how hard he works and that he gives 100% both to his parliamentary duties and to his family. I hope that he has great success in his new endeavours and that he has the opportunity to spend more time with his family, because all of us with families who have to travel to this place know that it can be a huge strain. All the best, Neil, and take care.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to add my good wishes as well, as this is my first time in the Chair today. Good luck, Neil.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to have been called to speak in this debate and I will attempt to be brief to avoid the virtual grimace that Madam Deputy Speaker threatened.
There is so much to like and be excited about in this Bill and the creation of ARIA. The Secretary of State was spot on when he raised the covid pandemic and the breakthrough vaccine that has been developed in the UK. This is one of those moments that shows what UK innovation can achieve: saving lives, catalysing interest and effort, and instilling pride. However, ARIA could put those amazing developments in the shade, or, at the very least, normalise them. This year has shown the absolute importance of scientific innovation and ARIA could allow the UK to play to its strengths, tackling some of the biggest challenges facing our country, such as net zero. This is a statement of intent about the future direction of the UK and of our economy.
Going back to covid, interest in UK science and innovation has never been higher, but by focusing ARIA on ambitious and cutting-edge work, we will strengthen the sector that is driving that interest. Indeed, I am delighted that the Bill gives particular focus to projects that carry a high risk of failure. Those projects will be at the very cutting edge of science and technology and need support to determine whether we can gain a high reward or learn from their failure. We have seen too few of the genuinely exciting technologies of the last few decades being taken to market overseas. Providing a route to finance for the most cutting-edge science in the UK will be a huge benefit to us as a nation, driving the creation of new industries, jobs, skills and growth.
I am fortunate to represent Barrow and Furness, where roughly 10,000 people are employed in the national endeavour of producing the nuclear deterrent. On my last visit to the shipyard, I was struck when it was mentioned, almost in passing, that only one thing is made by man that is more complex than a nuclear submarine, and that is the international space station. The research, innovation and technology that underpin these incredible ships have been created over generations to produce vessels that travel in near silence, under tremendous pressures, and which keep their crew alive and our nation and NATO secure. That immense achievement is the end point of generations of research and development, some from the UK and some from further afield. That is what is exciting about ARIA and what it could deliver. With £800 million of funding behind it and genuine strategic and cultural autonomy, let us think what could be achieved in strides to keep us safe and secure, and to enable innovations in technology that genuinely shift the paradigm and which can brought to market.
The ability to be nimble and agile is key to ARIA’s success, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the right approach in exempting it from public-contract regulations relating to its research goals. That will allow it to procure at speed and act more like the private sector organisation that it needs to be. Balancing oversight for this new beast will be difficult, and hon. Members have expressed genuine concern about that, but I believe that my right hon. Friend has got it right. In directing ARIA to consider the benefits of its activities for the UK as a whole the agency will, by its nature, foster a positive environment for developing the technologies of tomorrow, helping to make the UK a global scientific superpower. Indeed, alongside UK Research and Innovation, ARIA gives the UK a full-spectrum approach to funding scientific research. As the Jack Sprat and his wife of UK research and innovation, ARIA and UKRI will generate greater pull for UK science and research as a whole.
Finally, we must continue the tradition of pushing the boundaries of human knowledge with cutting-edge research and science. Without taking risks we will miss groundbreaking discoveries that will have far-reaching benefits for our nation, including the development of the jobs and industries of the future, based here in the UK. By launching the UK equivalent of DARPA, we have the opportunity to seize the future right here and today. Surely there can be no more exciting prospect than that.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
In my brief remarks, I should like to focus on the context of the Bill—on how we make the most of our country’s extraordinary research capacity, about which many Members have spoken.
Six years ago, I led a Westminster Hall debate highlighting the fact that the UK had fallen behind others in research and development investment, from a position in which we had led OECD countries. We had particularly fallen behind in publicly funded R&D, and I argued that we needed almost to double spending to 3% of GDP. Six years later, actual spending has not increased much—it is still about 1.6% or 1.7%. The Government are talking about their ambition to increase spending to 2.4% although, as ever, the Prime Minister’s rhetoric of the UK as a science superpower does not match the reality of his plans, as 2.4% simply brings us in line with the OECD countries overall. It is an ambition to be average.
There is an even bigger concern that the reality does not live up even to that target. The Bill proposes a new agency for research and innovation, but its funding is unclear. Some £50 million is set aside in 2021-22, but future funding remains unallocated, and there is no long-term investment model. The Government’s rhetoric is ambitious, talking the talk about an innovation nation, but real results are delivered through sustained investment in our brilliant science. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is obviously the most cited example today, and is the most current instance of the extraordinary capacity that we have as a country, but it was delivered through years of consistent funding and focus, incredible new science providing the route to reopening society and the economy.
The scientific community has made it clear that without certainty and stability we will lose out in the global market. I think one of my colleagues has cited this, but the vice- chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge Universities said:
“World-leading research cannot just be turned on and off like a tap.
Once our highly trained young researchers leave our universities they will not come back, and once they leave the country they will not return.”
Of course, the importance of research extends well beyond Oxbridge, throughout the universities sector and right across the country. It is worth remembering, at a time when we all share a concern about regional imbalance within our economy, that universities are one of the few national assets we have that are spread evenly right across the country, well positioned to generate economic growth in all regions and all nations of the UK.
The problem is that contrary to their stated intentions, the Government have started reducing research funding. First, as we have heard from others, £120 million is going from the international development budget, cutting about half of development-funded research activity. Only yesterday, the Royal Society described powerfully to me how this has forced it to withdraw funding from current projects that will not be able to continue, as well as shut down future opportunities, with huge implications not just for global research, but for the very relationships with the Indo-Pacific nations that the Prime Minister has been so keen to foster.
Secondly, there is the threat to give back word on funding the association with Horizon Europe. Clearly, participation in Horizon Europe is hugely welcome. The understanding has always been that it would continue as a separate funding stream. Now, apparently, there is a suggestion it might come from UKRI’s existing budget. When I met UKRI a month ago to discuss funding for extending studentships in cases where research has been delayed by covid, we discussed the immense pressure on its existing budgets. If it is expected to pay for Horizon out of existing budgets, that would take about 11% of its funding, or £1 billion. That is the equivalent of 18,000 research-focused academic jobs.
In a city of two large universities and more than 60,000 students, I can testify to how important research is to our communities and to our economy. We know that public sector research informs and improves private innovation, while generating revenue for the public purse. The University of Sheffield’s advanced manufacturing and research centre is a great example; one that is recognised internationally. From seedcorn public funding, it now has more than 125 industrial partners, and employs more than 500 researchers and engineers from all over the world, with the university at the centre of that network, pulling together that collaboration. Although the Prime Minister talks of increasing their investment in R&D, the Government are reportedly on course to miss their target of 2.4% of GDP spent on R&D by 2027, so now is the time to put their money where their mouth is and protect our research capabilities, and with that their futures.
In winding up, I ask the Minister to respond to three questions: what assessment has been made of the £120 million cut to official development assistance funding in R&D? Will she confirm that Horizon funding will not, in fact, be drawn from UKRI’s existing budget? Will she tell the House when the Secretary of State will be able to confirm what the UKRI budget will be for 2021-22?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
As with the mood around the Chamber, I rise to welcome the Bill. In the 1920s, a young pilot officer in RAF wrote a thesis about how planes would be able to achieve longer ranges and higher speeds by flying at higher altitudes, but that they would need a new and different form of propulsion. At that time, they were powered by piston engines and propellers, and he realised that the lower air pressures at height would prevent the engines of the day from working, so he started to think about the alternatives. In 1935, he secured financial backing, formed a company and developed a new type of engine, which was first ready for flight in May 1941. The RAF officer was Frank Whittle; the new engine was the jet; and the development work was carried out at the British Thomson-Houston works in my constituency of Rugby. The site is still available—it is part of an industrial complex—and I recently visited to see where the work was done and was able to see the hole in the wall where the prototype was placed.
Whittle’s invention led to international air travel as we know it today—or as we have known it until recent months—and, significantly, to commercial success, with Rolls-Royce going on to be one of the world’s two major jet engine manufacturers. It seems to me that one purpose of the Bill is to answer the question: how do we encourage a present-day or future Frank Whittle? The creation of a new agency will improve the prospect of our creating truly life-changing inventions and, significantly, lead to commercial opportunities for their manufacture in the UK.
The current primary funder of invention is of course, as we have heard, UK Research and Innovation, through the seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. It has a budget of £6 billion and provides grants for research and development. Some of the work is developed through the Catapult centres, which were set up from 2001 to promote research and development through business-led collaboration among scientists and engineers. Significantly, a third of the Catapults’ funding comes through the private sector.
I have a close association with two Catapults, one of which is in my constituency and one of which is close by. The Manufacturing Technology Centre is in my constituency and I visited it in 2011. I have since seen its massive expansion, with the list of companies involved taking up more space on the wall each time I have been there. The centre has done particularly effective work on additive manufacturing.
Close to my constituency is the Warwick Manufacturing Group at the University of Warwick campus, which of course has a close relationship with the automotive sector—highly appropriate as Coventry is the heart of motor manufacturing. The WMG has had a big hand in the research for the industry and is currently working on battery technology. As an aside, Coventry would be an excellent location for a gigafactory.
I sought the views of the two Catapults. The question for me was whether ARIA would be a threat to their funding or complementary to their work. In each case, there was strong support for the proposals in the Bill. The WMG
“welcome and support the establishment of ARIA”
as
“a funding agency with freedom to operate. The proposed structure is an improvement on the current UKRI set up and should allow for more informal and flexible working.”
The MTC said:
“Because ARIA will be able to fund different kinds of scientific and technological research within a single programme, organisations like the West Midlands based Manufacturing Technology Centre will benefit from joined-up funding streams, allowing projects to access funding in a more effective and efficient way”.
That shows strong support.
The MTC also draws attention to the additional funding and support for risky programmes. We have heard a lot about the risky nature of the programmes that ARIA will fund. We know that only a small fraction of the goals will be achieved and that failure will have to be accepted as part of the scientific process. The MTC believes that beneficiaries of funding will be able to take bold but calculated risks that they would not previously have been able to take. We have already heard that in these areas of development we often do not know exactly what we are looking for until we find it, but the benefits of success will be greater.
The WMG drew attention to an issue that we have heard about in this debate: the key role of the chair and how important it will be that this individual is strong and independent. In many ways, it will be perhaps one of the most important of ministerial appointments. It must be a multi-year programme with a long-term perspective, and the 10-year commitment in the Bill is incredibly important. The chairman must be free to set his own agenda and priorities.
We have heard discussion about how ARIA’s mission will fit with other Government priorities and the need for the organisation to be free to follow its own course. I am particularly concerned about the closeness of the links with industry and how important they will be. I was reminded of that this morning at an excellent Industry and Parliament Trust event on the UK role in the development of the UK battery industry. We heard Professor David Greenwood of the University of Warwick speak about the need to link research and development to the existence of a market for what is being introduced. He told us an account about the development of the lithium ion battery, I think at Oxford. It was developed in the UK at a time when there was no commercial application for it. The mobile phone and the move towards electric vehicle that we know about today did not exist, and it took a Japanese camcorder manufacturer to recognise the opportunity that small powerful batteries created. That gave an application for the battery, and once used in that application, other uses became apparent. This new body must be close to industrial applications.
We live in a fast-changing world, and UK businesses need to be able to respond to those changes. It is vital that we retain our manufacturing base to provide a mix to our economy, and the best manufacturing opportunities arise when they are close, both physically and with personal links, to those areas where the ideas are developed. Making full use of the energy and dynamism of inventors, researchers and entrepreneurs will enable that to happen, and this Bill, which creates the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, is key to that. I believe it makes the kind of invention developed by Sir Frank Whittle more likely.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I welcome the general concepts behind the Bill. Support for ambitious blue-sky research where application in the real world is not always clear could bring massive economic benefits if successfully applied. Electricity is the backbone of modern industrial society, but if the early pioneers had had to specify what it was used for, we might not have got beyond experimenting with shocks from electric catfish. On a day-to-day basis, where we all deal with so many emails coming in and out, without innovation and invention we might still be reliant on a flock of pigeons to deliver those messages.
A healthy research environment needs a healthy range of options and healthy funding levels. Additional funding from ARIA is therefore a welcome new tool in the box, as long as it is additional funding and not a subtraction from other important funds. Applied that way, ARIA could complement the high-impact, hypothesis-driven, goal-driven research and support currently delivered via UK Research and Innovation, but it cannot simply be there to replace that. Nor should the agency become just another political tool to bypass and crowd out devolved decisions on funding and support for innovation.
I have a clear constituency interest in any research funding, as some of the UK’s best work comes from my neck of the woods. Midlothian Science Zone is at the cutting edge of global research across many disciplines, but particularly in the fields of animal health, human health, agritech and related technologies. The world-renowned Roslin Institute, for example, looks forward to pitching some of its high-risk ideas to ARIA, in particular to investigate how the integrated transformation of the food system could contribute to solving global hunger and climate change, to improving human, animal, plant and environmental health, and to developing preparedness for future pandemics.
That type of exciting research certainly seems to fit the mission of another state-backed investment organisation that is already open for business. The Scottish National Investment Bank, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) mentioned earlier, is the single biggest economic development in the history of the Scottish Parliament, with a purpose to power innovation, reduce inequalities and accelerate the move towards net zero emissions.
I hope that in developing this new body, the UK Government will take decisions that support and do not undermine the progress of the Scottish National Investment Bank. There is room for both, but the powers given to ARIA for borrowing, debt finance and multi-year transfers should also be given to the Scottish National Investment Bank.
Given that it is public money, it would be wise, without any need to be too prescriptive, to have clarity over ARIA’s purpose and focus. We do not need every step mapped out, but we need at least to have the rudder in place and a general course of travel made clear. We know that DARPA, the US defence research organisation that inspired the model, has a mission focus. Horizon Europe has a mission focus. The Scottish National Investment Bank has a mission focus on reducing inequalities and tackling climate change. If we do not know what we want to achieve, how do we have any idea whether ARIA is being successful in achieving its goals?
There are serious questions not just about the focus but about the planned oversight and governance of the new agency. Alarm bells go off when I read that it will be exempt from freedom of information requests and public contract regulations, especially given the current Government’s woeful record on accountability and transparency. The Government seek to excuse that on the grounds of avoiding bureaucracy, but as the Campaign for Freedom of Information has pointed out, the US equivalent of ARIA is covered by the US Freedom of Information Act and was subject to just 48 requests in 2019. Such a volume of FOI requests could not conceivably be seen as a block to ARIA’s success.
Bureaucracy looks increasingly to be a convenient byword for bypassing scrutiny of this Government, who, ironically, have dramatically increased damaging bureaucracy for international businesses and academia since our leaving the EU. Covid has also been used as a cover for all sorts of contracts being handed out without competition, clarity or comeback. The need for speed is not an excuse for keeping the paperwork, for not printing the details within legally required timeframes, or for misleading Parliament over what has been made public.
Questions continue to be raised, and dodged, about why so many Tory donors, friends and associates have been the recipients of directly awarded contracts, even when their CVs show little experience in the field. I draw the Minister’s attention to my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, which would ensure that Ministers were answerable to Parliament where such situations arose—not to hold up the awarding of contracts but to allow Parliament the opportunity to question their appropriateness. I have written to the Cabinet Office seeking the Government’s support to take that Bill forward. Certainly, if there is nothing to hide, the Government should have nothing to fear from it.
In setting up a new funding body, especially for high-risk funding such as this, it is imperative that safeguards are built in to protect against the risk of corruption. There is an urgent need for more, not less, oversight in public spending decisions, and I am dismayed that the Government continue to dismiss those concerns.
In conclusion, while I support the concept and the dedicated high-risk research funding, more clarity is certainly needed about the plans, the funding implications for devolved Governments, and the relationship with existing R&D structures. I know that the Government do not always like detail, but a bit more understanding of who ARIA’s customers might be, how the body will be held to account and what it seeks to achieve would certainly be welcome. Big ambition is a good thing, but Government goals are more likely to succeed when we actually know what they are.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Bill. As the former Science Minister who ushered in this concept of the UK ARPA—now ARIA—in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, I am delighted that the introduction of this Bill so early in the Parliament demonstrates the Prime Minister’s key determination that research and development will be a priority as we look to build global Britain on the back of recovery from the pandemic.
The Bill needs to be placed in the context of the uplift in research and development spend that has been spoken about, from the £9 billion per annum that we have spent in the past to £22 billion by 2024-25. To put that in context, ARIA will represent just 1% of total research spending in the period it is set up for, over five to 10 years. That is obviously due to our commitment to spend 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027, and we need to look at how we achieve that by creating multi-annual financial budgets. We know that ARIA will have £800 million over a five-year period, and that is incredibly welcome. We need that certainty and stability for the rest of the R&D sector to be able to plan ahead and devise research partnerships.
A number of Members have spoken about the current insecurities regarding the Horizon Europe subscription. There were plenty of insecurities when it came to seeing whether we would be an association member of Horizon Europe in the first place, yet we crossed that line. I am in no doubt that these issues will be resolved within the appropriate timescale to provide certainty for the science and research sector when it comes to plugging funding shortfalls, but in the future we should learn the lessons by creating multi-annual, sustainable, long-term budgets that stop us reaching this stage in the first place.
I believe that the Bill designs the right structure for ARIA, with that 10-year certainty that it will exist, free from ministerial whims and able to plan ahead. It is right that the Bill strikes the tone and balance between, necessarily, independence and autonomy, as well as providing the right flexibility to prioritise discovery-led research. There has been some discussion on Second Reading today around whether we should be taking a mission-oriented approach or whether we should be looking for moonshots for ARIA, but that is fundamentally to misunderstand the purpose of creating an organisation that will prioritise disruptive innovation. There are plenty of other opportunities for moonshots elsewhere within the R and D ecosystem. ARIA’s sole purpose will be to look at how we can create paradigm shifts in technologies or, indeed, in technologies that do not even exist at the moment. I reference back to the UK being a founder member of CERN in 1983. We put £144 million a year into CERN now, so our spend on ARIA is quite modest by comparison. No one expected CERN to help to develop the internet or touch-screen computing, and yet they have been spin-outs as a result of prioritising discovery-led technologies and putting our faith in research, not knowing where it might lead us.
Other countries are doing the same. When we look at this discussion around ARIA, it is important to understand that it is not just about ARPA—and it is nothing to do with DARPA. Obviously, DARPA is a mission-oriented defence-led project. We focused our intention on the 1950s and ’60s version of ARPA when looking at how to create ARIA. There is Vinnova in Sweden, which is £260 million a year; imPACT in Japan; and SPRIN-D in Germany, which was set up in 2019 on exactly the same framework as we are looking at for ARIA. In a way, therefore, we are behind the curve. Other countries are already powering ahead, looking at setting up these disruptive innovation centres that will prioritise discovery-led technology, and we need to step up to the plate now.
When it comes to the Bill, I will make two final points. First, there is the issue around commercialisation. As I have mentioned, £800 million is a modest amount. We can supercharge that, just as we need to supercharge our 2.4% target by leveraging private investment. How can we do that? We can look towards prizes that have been established, such as the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which has leveraged $100 million. ARPA in the States also relies heavily on SRI International at Stanford University to help drive the spin-outs. We need to be cautious about not leaving an open door when it comes to focusing on the “R” in research and then forgetting about the “D”. This has been mentioned before, but what we do not want to see is discoveries coming out of ARIA being taken advantage of by other companies abroad. We need to look at how we protect the intellectual property. We need to look at how we can create an organisation that will focus on the “D”. I do not believe that Innovate UK has the capacity at the moment to be able to achieve that, so we need to look at the Fraunhofer in Germany, which spends 10 time the amount of investment than the catapult centres, for focusing on how we can look at applied level research for the future.
Then there is the issue of high risk. Yes, we need high-risk research, and yes, we must have the freedom to fail, but we must also understand the risk when it comes to collaboration with foreign powers, hostile research and making sure that we have the right security measures in place for dealing with research integrity and that we have trusted research partnerships. That is why it is exactly right that we have the FOI exemption in place to be able to protect this research and make sure that other countries do not take advantage of it.
Finally, it would be remiss of me, as a local MP, not to mention the location of ARIA. It is right that it should be practically a virtual location spread across the country, and we need to ensure that universities and national laboratories have the right investment to be able to help conduct the research for ARIA. When it comes to the headquarters, the Bristol and Bath Science Park in my constituency has land that is free, and I am sure that it would give a very good rate if ARIA wished to set up there, right next to the National Composites Centre and the Institute for Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems. It would be a huge opportunity if ARIA wished to locate in my constituency, which is only down the road from Chipping Sodbury—as the Secretary of State mentioned, the birthplace of the vaccine used by Edward Jenner.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and wish him all the best as he leaves this place. I always find him a very easy fella to get on with. We have worked together in many debates; usually I intervened on him, and maybe there was the odd time when he intervened on me. We have a good friendship, and I wish him and his family well. We will miss his friendship in the Chamber.
I am a strong supporter of Government’s aim to increase public research and development funding to £22 billion by 2024-25 and to increase overall UK spending on R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. I welcome and am really pleased to see the Government’s proposals. I will not make a plea for my own constituency, but I will make a plea for Northern Ireland as an area where we believe that we can help each other.
If we ever needed proof or a supreme example of just how well we can do things—when I say “we”, I mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; all of us better together under the Union flag, which is where the strength of our co-operation and friendship should be—who could fail to be amazed by the development of the vaccine? From the start to the end, we have got a number of effective vaccines on the streets within a year. After all the difficulties of the last year, the success story has been the vaccine and its roll-out. Which of us did not feel a wee bit better when the vaccines were announced by the Health Secretary in the Chamber? We could almost feel a smile on our face and a skip in our step. That was because of the scientists and the expertise that we have in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, leading the way. That is why I believe that the science and the R&D can and, indeed, will succeed.
I can understand those who are concerned at the speed of the vaccine development—they know that R&D usually takes years, but the coronavirus is an example of where it can take less time. The difference that dedicated funding and governmental support makes is clear. The Government and the Prime Minister in particular initially made sure that money was set aside for the research. Clearly that was a good move, and we thank them for it. The money is there to roll out the programmes, hire the staff and purchase the necessary equipment, and we have vaccines available because we invested; our Government and our country—our great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—invested.
Imagine what we could achieve if we put resources into other goals—if we thought big and funded those thoughts. Is it wrong to aim for the stars? I do not think it is. In the last year, we have aimed for the stars and achieved it. The right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) referred to the moonshot goals. One of my favourite films is “It’s a Wonderful Life”. We all know the scene where James Stewart’s character talks about lassoing the moon, and it is not impossible to do some things we have always talked about doing in a romantic way. We can do great things in research and development through the moonshot goals.
Of course there must be regulation and restrictions. Common sense should go hand in hand with idealism, and we must ensure that safety is paramount. If we look at what we have done, it shows the best of British and the best of what we can achieve, with co-operation between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the mainland, as well as with our international colleagues; what a sight that is to behold. The Bill applies to the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Supporting scientific research and development sits within the legislative competence of the devolved nations—in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly—although specific reservations exist, and I look forward to the devolved nations contributing to this process and passing their consent.
In a debate in Westminster Hall last week, at which the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), was present, I mentioned Queen’s University Belfast and the great partnerships that it has in health research in particular to find cures for diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Every now and again, that research has dividends and they are able to announce some of the good things they have done. Again, I ask the Minister to ensure that we can all benefit from the partnerships with universities and companies. As others have said, universities across the whole of the United Kingdom can deliver opportunities for people to progress their degrees, carry out investigations and find cures.
Northern Ireland has an excellent workforce—highly skilled, young, capable and educated to the standard that we all want. To give just one example, cyber-security in Northern Ireland is the best in the United Kingdom—indeed, the best in Europe. I suggest to the House that our workforce, their skills and their capability be used as we all move forward together.
My one note of caution is that while we must be ambitious, we must also be realistic. There cannot be a blank cheque for any project, but I believe that clause 3, on long-term ambition, must have a common-sense element and that projects must have an end date. We must be aware of our finite budget and of the need to fund projects that can provide immediate results and benefits such as pancreatic cancer drugs. I am my party’s health spokesperson, so I am very interested in how we can work together to find cures for diseases and reduce the number of deaths they cause across the whole of the United Kingdom. I look forward the fund being made available for health projects, as well as technological advances.
I support our research and development, I support the Bill and I support this Government and the Minister in the work she does. The Bill gives us a vision of the future—a vision that we must grasp. We have a glimpse of what we can achieve, and the potential can and must be exploited in a reasonable way for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, always better together.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the next speaker, I point out that everyone remaining to speak in this debate is from one political party, so if you go wildly over the five-minute mark, you may be pushing one of your colleagues off the list. There is a challenge for Ian Liddell-Grainger.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
For the next hour, I will enthuse you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Seriously though, the Bill has an enormous amount going for it. It is a good Bill with a lot in it that I feel very comfortable with, although there are always things that one can question.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the great sites in the United Kingdom is in my area—the Gravity site, just outside Bridgwater. This 660-acre enterprise zone has incredible potential. It is run by the Salamanca Group, with enormous support from the local community and Sedgemoor District Council. We could do something enormously important there with innovation, research and, I dare say, the very essence of what we want to be in the future. It is easy for a Government to say they will put all the money into universities or into proven areas, but I think of the Prime Minister’s policy of levelling up and making sure that every region and every area gets part of the money, be it for fusion or whatever. Let us use that constructively.
The Gravity site is halfway between Bristol and Exeter. It is enormous and it has everything in place to enable us to do something remarkable. We are close to Bath University, Bristol University and Exeter University. We could facilitate all this work. We are also very lucky in having next to the site one of the great tertiary colleges of the United Kingdom—the best, in my humble opinion. Bridgwater and Taunton College has 25,000 tertiary students. It has trained most of the people in the local area, including those working at Hinkley Point nuclear station and in our huge distribution and massive manufacturing sectors.
We get a lot of, “This is about innovation,” but so much of what we have had to learn in the past year is about how to keep supply chains running during a pandemic or any other crisis. We have learned that, and that is innovation. That is invention. That is what this is all about—learning from mistakes. We have heard a lot about vaccines, but again, we have a site where we could do this. We want to be levelled up. We want to strive to do better. That is why sites like Gravity in the west country lend themselves to the Government’s being able to say, “Yes, we can buy into this.” When there is a shovel-ready site ready to go, it is fairly easy for any Government to say, “Yes, we can do this.” I would welcome the opportunity to prove our case. I know the Secretary of State is fully aware of the Gravity site because we have talked about it and the opportunities. This is something we have to grasp. It has proceeded somewhat in the teeth of the local county council, which has been particularly unhelpful, but we are ready.
I am conscious of time and that colleagues wish to speak, so let me say finally that I believe that the very future of the United Kingdom lies in innovation. Napoleon called us the country of small shopkeepers. He was right: we are brilliant at this sort of small innovation. So much of the tech, the FinTech and all the other things that we now take for granted came from the United Kingdom. It came not just through our great universities, but through our entrepreneurs—in the west country, we have Dyson, who lives just outside Bristol.
Let us use what is great about Britain, which is our ability to think outside the box, laterally, in a way that turns the world on. Rah-rah Britain, and rah-rah Gravity.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
Of course I welcome the idea that we should do everything we can to promote greater science and better technology. Our country has a fine history and tradition of scientific breakthroughs and scientific excellence in our universities and our scientific societies. We also have a fine tradition in technology, with entrepreneurs developing new industrial processes and new products and making great breakthroughs that have benefited humanity widely, and of course we should do everything we can to support that. There may well also be a gap that this body can fill between all the methods we have of backing science and technology, and I wish it every success.
In his introductory remarks, the Minister pointed to the recent great success of universities, companies, medics, scientists and Government in coming together—here and elsewhere, but particularly here—on the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine. Why did that work? Because there was a very clear, defined task. There was great excellence and expertise already in companies and university science, and the Government helped to bring that together, to pump-prime the process and then to provide very large orders, as did other Governments and health services around the world, to make it worthwhile and to defeat the virus.
Now, we hope that do not have too many of those concentrated needs, but that model worked without ARIA, so this body has to define something a bit different from that. I notice that MPs are already discussing the adequacy or inadequacy of its resources, by which they usually mean money. I do not think it is possible to have any idea of what would be a good and realistic budget for it until talented people have been appointed to run it and have set out what it is trying to do. The first thing the Government need to do, therefore, following the success of this legislation—I am sure it will pass quite easily—is to appoint really great people to lead this organisation who just have that feel, that touch and that intelligence to judge risk, to sense opportunity, to see where the niches are and to define the unique breakthroughs and areas where this body can make a serious contribution. As some have said, a scattergun approach is probably not going to work; trying to do too much across too broad a spread would require a lot of good fortune. This body will need some targeting.
ARIA then has to work out how it commercialises whatever it produces. The UK has had a century or more of plenty of breakthroughs and technical innovations, but in quite a lot of cases we did not go on to commercialise and exploit opportunities, and we allowed others around the world to adapt patents or take the underlying principles and develop their own products, making many more jobs and much more commercial success out of these things than we did. The leaders of this body therefore need to ask how they will commercialise the ideas, how big a role that will play, and at what point they will work with commercial companies that could come in and take advantage.
That leads on to the issue of security. I do not think British taxpayers want to spend more money on blue-sky research and interesting technical ideas only to see them taken away, perhaps resulting in many more products for the Chinese to export back to the United Kingdom. What we want is that integrated approach, where the ideas that the Government have helped to pay for through this body, working with universities and perhaps with companies, can go on to be commercialised and add to the stock of wealth and jobs and make a wider contribution to the human position.
I suggest that the Government link the development of this body to the work that they have started to do, and they need to do much more widely, on national resilience. I am an admirer of what President Biden has set out to do in the United States of America on supply chains. He has a very ambitious programme—a 100-day programme for targeted sectors and a one-year programme for all the sectors of the US economy. It is looking at what America can do better, at where America needs to fill in gaps in her knowledge and understanding of patent, designs and specifications, at where America needs to put in new capacity to avoid shortages or more hostile powers interrupting her production processes by withholding import, and at where the Government machine can use intelligent procurement, appropriate grants and interventions to work with the private sector to have a much better supply chain, creating more jobs and providing national resilience.
I hope that the agency will look at what we can do to ensure that we make our weapons and defence requirements, as the new policy suggests that we will do more often. It should look at how we can grow more food and make sure that we have more of our own fish so that we have fewer food miles and more national resilience in the food chain. It should look at a series of industrial areas where we have in the past been very successful to see where we can improve the technology and add to the UK capacity to produce.
My suggestion to Ministers is that the first task is to get really excellent people; the second is to work with them on defining realistic and achievable objectives; and the third is to ensure that the agency is properly resourced—£800 million might be the right amount, but if the agency comes up with really worthwhile things that look as though they will work, we will want to back it with more money. If it was not getting very far, I think a number of MPs who say that they do not mind failure would become rather more critical. This will need quite a lot of ministerial and parliamentary supervision. I wish the agency every success, and I look forward to hearing to more detail about what it is trying to do.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who captured a number of key issues. He finished on the topic of national resilience, and there are so many areas in our economy and society in which we need to be more resilient. The covid crisis is a particular area of interest, but no doubt many other countries in the world and many organisations are looking at that. It may not be the opportunity on which the Advanced Research and Invention Agency might want to focus. Many other people have focused on the idea of disruptive technologies, which might be particularly well fitted to what ARIA is there to do. Those are areas where industry or sectors have perhaps become complacent, with old, established technologies, and it is about making the next-generation leap forward.
The debate has rather lent itself to the idea of the Haldane principle, going back 100 years or so—to the idea of having a research-led approach that is therefore taken away from the direction of politicians. That approach would be natural and healthy and would complement the wider research, innovation and development ecosystem. I was reassured by what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said; after he had conversations with a couple of his local catapults, they said that they are not worried that ARIA might step on their toes. It is a natural complement to so much else of what the Government are doing. This championing of science, technology, innovation and invention is immensely important, and it ought to be very reassuring to businesses and other organisations seeking to invest in the United Kingdom, and ideally also companies seeking to reinvest from the UK and into the UK. It sends the message right across the world that we are ambitious—the global Britain idea that we are not looking inward and downward but out to the world.
That is part of the reason for our ambition by 2027 to take our R&D spend to 2.4% of GDP. That is a stepping-stone, not the end point of the ambition. The ambition is to get to 3% in the longer term, looking to emulate other countries around the world who do that, and to be competitive. To be in the position we want to be in and ought to be in, we need to be seeking to reach that next level of 3% R&D spend, and ARIA is a stepping-stone towards that.
Ultimately we want high-tech, innovative progress in the United Kingdom. That is not an end in itself. Universities and other organisations are not an end in themselves; they are great generators of wealth to improve our standards of living, but ultimately what people around the country will be focused on is having good jobs. We want people right around the country to be ambitious: to seek jobs in this sector, and to be studying physics and mathematics and all sorts of other subjects that will come into this territory for research and development, invention and innovation.
It will be interesting to see how in future ARIA works on that invention side of things with UKRI, which is still relatively new, to get those inventions into innovation and into businesses, and to create those works and those jobs of the future. We could go on to mention so many different topics from nuclear fusion to the next generation of batteries to satellites. There are so many sectors that involve artificial intelligence and life sciences, and so many of them are in the UK. We are already in a leading position and we have the opportunity to make that leap forward. We do not know what sectors will be around in 10 or more years’ time, but this is the ambition—this is the timeline, this is the vision for the future that ARIA has.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), started off with a war of words about where the headquarters will be, and he suggested it might end up being in London. I am sure it will not; I am sure there is a huge amount of competition around the country, and I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) made a compelling argument for Bolton. I am quite modest in my ambitions and would not demand that the headquarters be located in Bolton West; I will sacrifice my personal ambition for Bolton North East—or even Bolton South East. Where the headquarters ends up is incredibly important as it is part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, but will my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), the science and innovation Minister, confirm that, wherever ARIA is based, it will be a collaborative organisation that will do so much for the United Kingdom?
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green). As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), scientific and engineering leaders—such as Stephenson who almost 200 years ago started passenger rail travel on the Darlington to Stockton railway on the Aycliffe levels in my Sedgefield constituency —stimulated changes that we could not imagine. The bicentenary of this event in my constituency is 2025 and we look forward to welcoming visitors to see the celebration. This Bill can be an inspiration for more leaders to grow up among our young people as they see that our country supports the development and motivation of great ideas.
In speaking in support of this Bill, I remind the House that we heard in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that the UK ARPA needs to be able to take risks. It therefore must be kept at arm’s length from existing public R&D structures to avoid culture-capture. Many of the UK’s existing research bodies seek to manage out risk, which is contrary to the terms of the UK ARPA, which must be able to tackle high-risk, high-reward projects with pace and energy.
We were also informed that the Science and Technology Committee had been told that creating a British ARPA could be destructive if it were to end up overlapping with the responsibilities of existing structures. It is important that we address these points; I believe this proposal does so but would like the Minister to confirm it. For too long we have not delivered the support that delivers innovation into a commercial space and this can be a lever to help.
I have on many occasions since joining this place referred to the hierarchy of knowledge: there are things we know; things we don’t know; but also things that we don’t know we don’t know. It is this latter space that I have found myself in so many times in the last 15 months. It is also the space that ARIA is to work in. It therefore feels appropriate that its remit is vaguer than some colleagues might like. This clearly makes the determination of its leadership critical, and this process must be credible and given time.
I will further explain my support by using a real-world example from a company that has already raised with me its belief that ARIA can be a force to develop UK innovation. There is a business in my Sedgefield constituency called Kromek. It is an innovation and export-led business in the UK and California that is based at NETPark in Sedgefield, which is the home of similar innovative businesses, including Catapult. Of course, this is in addition to the newly announced economic campus in Darlington that will include an International Trade footprint. The area would therefore be an outstanding site for ARIA to base itself.
Given the space that Kromek operates in and its footprint in the USA, it is very used to working with DARPA. That is interesting, because we understand that the intention is for ARIA to be in the same sort of space. Kromek has worked with a number of innovation agencies. For businesses like Kromek, innovation-led funding that accepts a higher risk can be the key that opens scientific advances quicker. It also provides better opportunities for such companies to develop production and supply chains in the UK, and, in Kromek’s case, in the north-east—helping the levelling-up agenda and frustrating the brain drain.
ARIA can provide transformational change to the innovation landscape by helping to create technology and solutions to address current UK needs. For example, Kromek developed a unique radiation detection solution that is now protecting critical infrastructure in New York. The products developed under this programme have been sold in more than 25 countries around the world so far. Further investment here could mean massive job opportunities. I invite any Minister who is visiting the north-east to join me in visiting this exceptional organisation, to understand the difference that an innovation-led business can make.
Kromek is currently working with DARPA to develop a virus detection system that can detect viruses, including covid-19, in open spaces. With ARIA support, these initiatives could be more UK-oriented and leverage more UK supply chain growth. The company has created a whole biotech part of the business, and because of this funding, this part of the business has already created 20 high-paid jobs and intellectual property in the space; it has real leverage potential.
ARIA, like DARPA, is to be positioned so that it can cut through most of the bureaucracy and act at speed. It is speed and greater risk acceptance that facilitate innovation within the necessary timeframe. For ARIA, we must be cognisant that not all rolls of the dice will be successful, but that the funds we are risking are proportionate and appropriate for the potential they could deliver—not just in hard cash, but also in mindset. Standing behind funds like this gives the investor confidence of intent, and encourages innovation and risk taking.
ARIA can help businesses to develop products and services linked to real-life applications that can meet the needs of the UK. As a result, it can make not only the companies globally more competitive, but the UK more sustainable in its capabilities; and it can drive global Britain as a world leader in innovation. The support of investment in innovation and innovative research, particularly in places such as Sedgefield, has the potential to help build back better and support levelling up. It can also make UK products to support our security forces, and provide the potential for us to be more self-sufficient and an exporter of products, rather than of IP and jobs.
I welcome the creation of this fund and hope that its initiatives are successful. I also hope that the expenditure is viewed in context and does not become the target of pressure from the first failure, but rather that it is given the time and space to deliver.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell).
This is the second time I have been able to speak on this programme, the first being in the Budget debate, and it is safe to say that as a proud Conservative and businessman, I am extremely excited about this initiative. This Government have spent much on supporting this country as it has battled against coronavirus, and that has been hugely appreciated by many in my constituency, but now is the time that we look at ways in which we can raise revenue and transform our economy for the better.
The ability to borrow money comes only through being a responsible debtor and showing your creditors that you are serious about paying the money back. If we are to maintain our position as a fiscally prudent country, we have three choices: spending less, taxing more, or growing our economy, primarily through exports. We must not forget that, as predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility, spending will reduce through the roll-out of the vaccine and the subsequent opening up of the economy. Furthermore, we now know that the books will not be balanced through one-off wealth tax grabs that were predicted; instead, the Chancellor rightly decided to introduce a tiered system of corporation tax while still encouraging investment through super deductions.
Today I want to touch on growth through innovation and exports. This innovative and export-led growth will of course only be possible if the UK has the best products and services to sell. This is possible now, more than ever, as we are no longer constrained by Brussels red tape. By establishing the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, we can finally fund our budding scientists, inventors and visionaries properly. The high-risk, high-value objective of the agency will ensure that the very best talent that the UK has to offer can solve problems, introduce ideas and create technological wonders that would not otherwise be possible. That is not just for show: this new approach will help to create wealth, jobs and prosperous futures for decades to come. After all, similar projects are what led to the creation of the internet and other transformative technologies that we once considered unimaginable. As highlighted, if we are again to become the workshop of the world, research and innovation projects must not be hindered by bureaucracy and slow decision making. Only then can the real risk-takers go ahead so that our innovators can be set free and get on with formulating and envisioning the next great technological changes of the 21st century. With the budget being offered to ARIA, I know they will be able to.
We have seen through this pandemic what talent our country has at its disposal. ARIA will unleash this talent and no doubt help to catapult our great industries on to the world stage, thus bringing our trade deficit and national debt down and supercharging a green industrial revolution right here in the UK. Yet the Advanced Research and Invention Agency can only unleash this talent if its chief executive is forward-thinking and a real visionary, for we are embarking on something truly revolutionary in the world of innovation and technological advancement. In other words, this initiative is far too important to be left in the hands of someone who does not share the stated aim of supercharging scientific discovery. I hope the Department advertises this position widely and is meticulous in appointing the right person who can lead this aspirational agency forward.
As someone who prides themselves on being a constituency-focused MP, I say to the people of Don Valley: “Do not think that what we are discussing here today will not affect you. Quite the contrary; the establishment of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency is as much for you as it is for anyone else in this country, for I know that future innovators, scientists and entrepreneurs from Don Valley will all benefit from this forward-looking, exciting programme.” Finally, if the Government truly want to demonstrate their commitment to levelling up the north, there will be no better way of doing so than by establishing this agency right here in Doncaster.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and his wise words. For decades the UK has been at the cutting edge of innovation and technology, and our fantastic universities in particular have been a powerhouse of science and research. They include the formidable Loughborough University in my constituency, which has a global reputation for its cutting edge theoretical and applied research. It has been responsible for, and party to, many technological advances and scientific discoveries, including a recently announced and incredibly exciting project that is looking into the potential for human brain stem cells to be used to power artificial intelligence devices and bring about a revolution in computing.
One of my aims as an MP is to assist in creating pathways between our universities and businesses to ensure that talent and research are maximised so that projects such as these can be turned from an initial idea into an innovative and marketable product. As such, I am fully supportive of Loughborough University’s science and enterprise park, which provides businesses of all sizes, including start-ups, with an opportunity not only to collaborate with one another but to access the university’s research base and skilled workforce supply. As the Minister and I witnessed last year in a science showcase in Portcullis House, this country has a wealth of ideas and innovations just waiting to be shaped and developed.
That being said, there is still much more we can do to harness and grow our research and development sector, which is why I am very supportive of the UK’s R&D road map. In particular, we need to focus on creating more and stronger pathways between universities, research establishments and transformational businesses, and on removing unnecessary bureaucracy. That is something the USA does very well, and it is the reason that it is incredibly successful in bringing innovative products to market. I therefore welcome the Government’s proposals for the Advanced Research and Invention Agency modelled on the USA’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. Crucially, we need to ensure that the agency is run by our brightest and best scientists, and that they have not only the funding and freedom needed to identify and invest in the most important and innovative research but the flexibility to redirect funding quickly when a project has come to the end of its lifespan. To that end, I would be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister how she will ensure that ARIA is not constrained by the bureaucracy that can currently inhibit R&D funding.
Alongside ensuring appropriate funding, flexibility and freedom, we also need to ensure that we mirror the USA’s culture of tolerance for failure, which is a huge part of research and development and often the key to its success. If we allow the risk of failure to hamper research, we ultimately jeopardise our pursuit of breakthroughs and potentially our ability to happen across another promising technology in the process. Instead, we should provide scope for failure within the agency, and I would be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend how that can be achieved.
By creating the space to maximise potential in our United Kingdom, we not only give all aspects of the economy the chance to bounce back now but create new routes to market for the future. New ideas and invention are the ways in which disruptor technology and science are created, leading to a new way of living for our future. Many of the great minds we have in this country have the potential to create great change; they just need the opportunity to come their way. ARIA is the opportunity. Let us not stifle innovation. Let us find the next internet, the next GPS and the next hydrogen technology. Now that we have left the EU, we are in a great position to reimagine how we support our researchers and harness our research base to cement ourselves as a global science superpower. The Bill will go a long way to achieve this, and I will be supporting it today.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). On Anglesey, we have a huge focus on research and innovation, which fits perfectly with the remit of ARIA. Our island hosts the Menai science park —M-SParc—which is Bangor University’s hub for creative and STEM innovation. The park supports companies and businesses in the low-carbon, energy and environment, ICT and natural product sectors, and links into the green energy agenda that Anglesey embraces through its Energy Island initiative. Professor Iwan Davies, the vice-chancellor of Bangor University, said to me recently:
“At Bangor University we treat innovation and entrepreneurship as an ecosystem with impact. An important pathway to impact is supporting funding for research and I welcome ARIA funding which can support the role that universities can play in promoting innovation, which is so often non-linear in its development.”
M-SParc has already seen the benefits of Innovate UK funding, with more than £1 million invested in 2020 in businesses such as Haia and BIC Innovation. Menter Môn—another resident at M-SParc—has spearheaded the work on the Holyhead Hydrogen Hub, which was awarded £4.8m funding in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget earlier this month. Bangor University, M-SParc and Menter Môn are all part of my Anglesey freeport bidding consortium, and we are working together on a proposal to bring freeport status to Anglesey, with an emphasis on local innovation.
Through UK Government funding, businesses and opportunities like these are able to grow and generate much-needed local employment. Young people across the island tell me that they want to be able to afford their own home, bring up their families in their community, and keep the Welsh language and culture alive, and to do this they need a good quality job on Anglesey.
This July I will be hosting an innovation jobs fair at M-SParc which I am proud to say will be opened by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation. Not only will this fair highlight the good quality well-paid jobs that are being made available as a result of UK funding, but it will raise awareness among local young people of the opportunities afforded to them through scientific endeavour.
By filling a gap in the UK’s current R&D funding system and focusing on funding paradigm-shifting science, ARIA will provide a new source of finance that can be used by operations such as M-SParc to support transformational science projects that create real long-term benefit locally, nationally and globally.
The Managing Director of M-SParc, Pryderi ap Rhisiart said:
“R&D Funding is crucial for our network of innovative companies on the Menai Science Park. Despite the pandemic I have been especially pleased to see so many tenant companies securing R&D Funding, working with our Universities and growing in the region.”
By stimulating and supporting cutting-edge research and development, the ARIA fund also offers an opportunity for both Bangor University and Coleg Menai to attract exciting new talent to the region, creating further seams of innovation and enterprise.
As a scientist myself, I am excited that ARIA will empower the science community to identify and fund creative and groundbreaking research that can ensure the UK remains at the forefront of global innovation. The fund will allow the UK to be more responsive and flexible so that projects can be supported to give maximum impact.
I welcome the introduction of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill and this new funding agency and I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to Anglesey to open the island’s first innovation jobs fair.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
It is a delight to follow my colleague from the beautiful island of Ynys Môn on this crucial and exciting Bill—well, exciting on the Conservative Benches anyway, as I look at the rows of empty seats on the other side of the House.
The UK has always been a world leader in scientific research and innovation. Creations such as the steam engine, antibiotics and even the internet hail from our wonderful shores. Considering that all those discoveries have been instrumental in shaping the world that we know today, I welcome the Bill, which will work to maintain the UK’s position as a global science superpower. The Advanced Research and Invention Agency created by this Bill will allow us to continue to build back better through innovation and will be vital in the UK’s economic and social recovery.
North Wales is no stranger to technological advancements, and I am proud that Airbus has a strong base in our region, with a 50-year plus track record of innovation and technological firsts, meaning that it is a pioneer in the aerospace world. It is fantastic that one of the central elements of the agency is its ability to deliver funding quickly to researchers across the UK; the £800 million committed to ARIA over the next four years has the potential to greatly benefit many different sectors, including aerospace.
As Airbus is so vital to Delyn’s economy, I share a sense of regret a little that the Budget did not mention funding for the aerospace sector through the Aerospace Technology Institute. Airbus has experienced a 69% decrease in net orders compared to 2019, and the additional funding that the Bill provides is needed now more than ever to ensure that research and technological advancements can continue long into the future. I am keen to see how ARIA works with and complements the ATI to further fund world-class research and development in this important sector.
I am likewise ecstatic to see that a key element of the agency includes a tolerance for failure. Failure is an important part of any individual or business life and is fundamental to success. As Thomas Edison said many years ago,
“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
Without his efforts and many failed attempts, we would not have the technology on which we rely so much today. Failure is particularly central to finding technological breakthroughs that have the potential to create the industries and jobs for the future, and it is fantastic to see that that is recognised in the Bill. I have long said that we need to have a greater focus in the UK education system on skills, because many of the jobs that our children will be going into have not even been thought of yet, and it will be skills and the adaptability of our education and training that will add to and enhance ARIA in future.
I have said many times on these Benches that one of the main reasons that I joined the Conservative party in the first place was empowerment. One of my fundamental beliefs is that capital belongs in the hands of the people, not the state—that innovation is found in the imagination and inventiveness of the community, away from the bureaucracy and painfully slow machinations of government. Therefore, nothing filled me with more delight than read about the agency under the section headed “Organisational Form” the words “small number of programme managers with significant autonomy”, followed by the section headed “Relationship to Government” which included the magic words “very free from Government direction”. It was music not only to my ears, but, I am sure, to those of the scientific community at large.
Throughout history, giants of seemingly disparate fields of literature, science and sport have all agreed with the same principles. Two of my favourite quotes from Einstein are that we “cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used” to get them, and:
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
He also said:
“I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”
It is curiosity and passion for discovery that will chart the course for the future of science in this country.
I mentioned earlier that failure is nothing to be feared and is, in fact, absolutely desirable. One of the most celebrated sportsmen of his generation, Michael Jordan—arguably the greatest basketball player ever to grace the court—said:
“I’ve missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I’ve been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again…And that is why I succeed.”
Another celebrated sportsman, ice hockey star Wayne Gretzky, said that the only thing that is ever guaranteed is that
“you will definitely not achieve the goal if you don’t take the shot.”
In conclusion, the Bill ensures that this Conservative Government maintain their commitment to increasing public research and development funding and ensure that this country remains a world leader in scientific research and innovation. By pursuing a highly ambitious agenda, ARIA will provide transformational science and technology, and I look forward to seeing the economic and societal benefits that it will bring to the UK. Earlier, I mentioned literature, so I will end on a quote from one of the giants, Mark Twain. His words embody exactly what I think this Bill seeks to achieve:
“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), who has added to our lexicon of quotes most eloquently today. Today is the national day of reflection, and I join my thoughts to those of the Prime Minister when he said:
“The last 12 months has taken a huge toll on us all, and”—
we offer our
“sincere condolences to those who have lost loved ones.”
I remember my own father, John Griffith, who passed away from covid on 2 April last year.
Sometimes—not often, but sometimes—an idea comes along that makes so much sense that we just want to get on with it and see it succeed. Today’s Bill is one such proposal. It is bold, additive and disruptive, very much like, if I may say so, my wonderful colleagues on these Benches from the 2019 intake—and I will support each and every one of their bids for the location of ARIA. It comes against the context of this Government’s already world-leading approach to research and development: increasing spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and £22 billion by 2024, publishing the R&D road map, setting out a vision for global talent and making the UK the best place in the world for scientists, researchers and entrepreneurs. Only this week, the Government consulted on cutting red tape to free up our brightest minds so that they can continue to make cutting-edge discoveries while cementing the UK’s status as a science world superpower.
If we have learned anything at all from the past 12 months it is that we need more disruption, not less. Look at the success of the Vaccine Taskforce, ably led by Kate Bingham. Last summer, she put her role as a life sciences venture capitalist on hold, and used her industry and investment experience to direct the UK’s vaccine purchasing strategy—an outsider in conventional research council terms; someone empowered to take swift decisions, comfortable with owning those decisions, while politicians had her back, and were not peering over her shoulder.
A year into the pandemic, despite limited buying power, we have secured deals for more than 400 million doses of covid-19 vaccine, and we lead all the global rankings for roll-out speed for a country of our size. It is a magnificent, unadulterated success, but it pains me greatly that, rather than being a united national effort, that had to be achieved in the teeth of opposition, with members of the party led by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) still calling for us to be part of an EU-wide vaccines programme.
Disruption works, and we need more of it. No one is saying that ARIA will live in a bat cave—perhaps it should—or occupy a perfect vacuum, but limited exemptions from freedom of information and public procurement rules make perfect sense. I do not envy the Opposition their job today—clearly neither do they—and I question whether the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was a Cummings-ite. Not only should he accept that as a compliment, but he should know that we generally welcome the Opposition’s constructive tone on the Bill. Perhaps in the winding-up speeches we will learn whether the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) describes herself as a Dom disciple.
The Opposition take issue with the disapplication of freedom of information measures to the new invention agency. I not only point to public bodies that benefit from similar exclusions, including the BBC and Channel 4, but I am very much with the former boss of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North—the former Member for Sedgefield, who wrote in his autobiography:
“Freedom of Information…Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head ’til it drops off. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate.”
I conclude where I began. This is a rare and excellent piece of policy that I hope everyone in the House can get behind. It has been welcomed by the chief scientific adviser, the head of UKRI and the head of the Royal Academy of Engineering. It piles up money invested in research and development to ever greater heights, and by introducing a pinprick of disruptive process and innovation into Government funding, perhaps its biggest long-term impact will not be the money spent by ARIA but the leverage of that disruption, making even more productive the billions of money that is spent elsewhere.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and participate in the Second Reading of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill. In what at times has been a gloomy and difficult year since we locked down last March, it is wonderful to debate a Bill that is truly blue sky in its thinking and forward looking, and which delivers on our manifesto commitment to create a high-risk, high-reward funding agency that will drive UK innovation as we build back better from the coronavirus pandemic.
It was a pleasure to discuss the Bill with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), before Second Reading. I am happy to tell the House, as I did her, that science, research an innovation are certainly not my “Mastermind” subject—as it clearly is for many hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken today. I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to their expertise and important contributions, especially those who outlined our wonderful history as a world leader in innovation in the past. Instead, I have an enormous interest, derived as a constituency MP, in the success of this Bill, and I congratulate all involved on securing £800 million of funding from the Treasury. Guildford is home to the brilliant University of Surrey and Surrey research park, and exciting sectors such as space and satellite. Guildford is not only a UK leader, but a global hub in gaming and technology derived from the gaming sector, such as virtual reality.
Although we do not know what ARIA will eventually focus on, my understanding of the intention behind the Bill is that it is to transform our lives and make the world a better place. I hope that climate change can be tackled as a result of investment in either UKRI or ARIA. I am on record with my desire, expressed at a climate hustings I attended during the general election campaign in 2019, to see brilliant inventions help to tackle climate change. Climate change is a concern I share with my constituents, and I will support any measure to truly improve the future outlook for generations, not only in the UK, but the entire world, which we live in and share.
This is not just about climate change; the research undertaken has the potential ability to transform our way of life through technology, improve economic growth and prosperity, and even to improve the quality of the lives we live, particularly through healthcare solutions. I have been able to witness the wonder of robotic surgery at the Royal Surrey County Hospital; it is truly mind-blowing, and it is technology we have at our fingertips today.
To say that I am excited about this Bill is an understatement. I might have even mentioned to the Minister that Guildford would be an excellent home for ARIA, as we have an innate understanding of the value of research and development, coupled with a cultural appreciation of the long-term benefits that high-risk, high-return investing will bring. Clearly there is some friendly competition for the home of ARIA, having listened to the pitches from many of my hon. Friends today. It is absolutely right that ARIA must sit outside electoral cycles and the day-to-day ministerial functions in order to truly deliver on the Bill’s intention. It fundamentally must be judged by what it learns through failure, rather than what it produces in measurable output, although it is also right that there should be an annual report directly to Parliament—I welcome the inclusion of that in the Bill.
To conclude on a slightly tangential note, ARIA is an inspired acronym. In music, an aria is a self-contained melodious piece for one voice, not the whole orchestra, and so this encapsulates the vision around this important Bill. With its adoption, we can get UK science, research and development truly humming.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and to speak in this debate, because this Bill demonstrates our national ambition. The creation of an Advanced Research and Invention Agency is a clear statement of intent on science and technology, research and development, and innovation and entrepreneurialism. It means that when we say we want to be a superpower in all those things, we mean it and the world knows it. It also means that we have a tangible impact in those areas. All this matters because research, development, science, technology, innovation and entrepreneurialism are directly linked to our prosperity and to the job creation that all our constituents rely on. This is what will determine the kind of economy we have for decades to come, not just here in the UK, but around the world. Will it be an economy based on UK designs and UK ideas, fed by our universities and research centres, businesses and entrepreneurs, or will be a global economy based on the ideas of others? We all know in this House what we would rather it be, and ARIA is the way we can deliver that.
However, there is a question about what we model ARIA on. Is it an accelerator? Is it a funder? Is it a venture capitalist? Or is it a moonshot organisation, one that tackles the tough questions that we might not even have asked yet and that tolerates failure? On that, I recommend that we look really closely at DARPA. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who referenced a number of organisations around the world—not just DARPA in the US, but others in Japan, Germany and other such places—but DARPA has been truly transformational. In 1960, it launched the Transit satellite, the first space-based navigation satellite. Twenty-three years later, in 1983, the US Marine Corps went to DARPA and said that it was fantastic that it had that navigation, but it needed it to be smaller—smaller than we had ever contemplated before—and DARPA did it. That invention led to GPS receivers in our smartphones, smartwatches and cars. It is what allows farmers to irrigate their fields remotely and logistics companies to get products from China to the UK, monitoring from one centre.
In 1969, when DARPA was known as ARPA, it launched the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, ARPANET, a pioneering network for data to be shared between computers in two different locations. Ten years later, in 1979, it launched the internet protocol—IP—which packaged data up and sent it. DARPA then introduced the computer mouse as a way of allowing us to interface with computers, something now so commonplace that we do not give it a second thought. Much more recently, in 2002, DARPA launched its Personal Assistant that Learns programme to create a cognitive computer system. Today we know that as Siri, and it is on iPhones across the world.
I mention all that because it shows that these things have the potential to shape the modern world, and our ambition and optimism for ARIA should be equal to that. We should aim to shape the world—not just the world we know now, but the world decades into the future—to create the things that we have not even thought about but that will be the backbone of our economy and economies around the world.
However, I want to make a recommendation to the Government. The thing that set DARPA apart and led to its success was having a client—a customer who could ask the questions and show the problems that DARPA then went on to fix, and who could flag the programmes that it needed. We have lots of Departments and organisations that could be that client. It could be the NHS and healthcare. Do we want to be a leader in healthcare, asking the difficult questions and looking for solutions for treating an ageing population and dealing with remote healthcare? Could it be the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, looking at how we get battery technology into homes, how we do carbon capture, and all those things? Is it Defence, as it is in the US, with its unique ability to look across the whole of society, from logistics and communications to civil contingency and health? Or is it all of the above? If it is all of the above, then we should match our optimism and ambition with funding.
ARIA demonstrates our ambition to the world. It could, if successful, genuinely shape our economy and the economy of the whole world, but it needs to be given a direction so that it can ask questions, channel research and deliver prosperity for the nation, and it needs to be free from the shackles that normally govern Whitehall, tolerating failure, and allowed to innovate free from political interference.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
It is a clichéd truism that research and development is the growth of tomorrow. It is an expression of confidence in the future prosperity of our country. Recent modelling by Cambridge Econometrics suggests that increasing R&D investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 would boost annual growth by between 1.2% and 1.4%, and increase our productivity by 1%, with further increases thereafter. It is obviously the right course of action for the Government to continue to grow investment in R&D from the historic lows of the last Labour Government.
The lion’s share of Government investment is rightly channelled through UKRI, with its objective of growing a large and vibrant research and innovation culture throughout the UK. UKRI is deeply engaged with both the academic community and the business community, and it will continue to do the heavy lifting in this sector. ARIA will provide something additional to the mix.
Looking around the world for examples of effective applications of R&D investment, I am glad that the Government have learned from the experience of others. DARPA has been instrumental in assisting the crossover of research into commercial opportunities, despite having an overt focus on defence technologies. Given its global impact and consequent reputation, it is surprising to learn that it is a small organisation. I looked it up and found that it has around 220 employees, yet it supports some 250 research projects and has a track record to be proud of, as referred to by many speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham). DARPA has been operating since 1958, so it is fair to say that the Government have allowed the start-up wrinkles to be ironed out before emulating its success.
Much as the £800 million allocated in this Parliament will be welcomed by the research community, the greatest contribution of ARIA will be the expression of intent that it articulates. We are living in a new world in which the cosy certainties of previous years are no longer there. That democratic western societies have technological and economic superiority is no longer a given. Membership of the protectionist European trading bloc has been left behind. Our leaving the European Union has provoked a new spirit of national endeavour. Depending on one’s politics, this is either in response to opportunity or out of necessity—it does not really matter. What is important is that we recognise the change in attitudes and do all we can to promote it.
The creation of ARIA reflects this new dynamism: let us learn from the lessons of covid, breakdown bureaucratic barriers and be prepared to take risks and accept failures as part of the price of ambition. Global Britain must be not just a marketing slogan but a reflection of countless investment decisions in boardrooms right throughout the country. ARIA is part of a wider message to business and society as a whole that post-Brexit Britain is dynamic, taking control of its future rather than just hoping for something that is not too bad. It is saying no to the status quo and its cosy relative decline; it is saying yes to the new, to the unproven, to the possible, to the opportunities of low-carbon growth and to scientific endeavour. It is as much a response to the lessons taught to us by the Chinese Government as it is a lesson learned from the United States of America. I suspect it will just be the start.
DARPA has in the US military a guaranteed customer, helping with the development of commercial products from its technological advances. Close attention will need to be given to this process of commercial exploitation. Is there a role for Government to create markets and prime industries? The deindustrialisation of globalisation has delivered us cheaper products in the short term, but there is a difference between offshoring production, and with it the hubs of capacity and expertise, and growing a resilient domestic manufacturing base. To ignore that is to pretend that the geopolitics of the world have not changed in the past 10 years. We need to respond to that, and the response involves the shortening of supply chains. I therefore welcome the focus on UK exploitation as well as UK exploration.
As for the criticism of the Opposition parties, they have a choice: they can snipe from the sidelines, waiting to pounce on the mistakes of those brave enough to try new things, or they can support our dynamism, recognising that risk and opportunity are the two sides of the same coin. The Government have made the right choice in this Bill and they should be supported.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
If you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a slight confession: I am suffering from a rather extreme out-of-body experience. I have spent the past three and a half hours listening to Members from all parties—from not just the Conservatives but Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the DUP—praising the Advanced Research and Invention Agency. I am having an out-of-body experience not because the House is the most united it has been since I arrived in this place, but because it is so united behind an idea promoted by Dominic Cummings. That shows what an indisputably good idea it must be.
It is absolutely right that the Government do everything they can to promote innovation, which has been the single engine for human progress over the past few centuries. Innovation is the single main reason why our health and wealth are immeasurably better than they were in generations past. Cambridge, my city, is the capital of innovation in the UK and, indeed, in Europe—perhaps in the world. It has had many successes, which have been referred to by a lot of colleagues—it is the global headquarters of AstraZeneca and it has had more Nobel prize winners than almost any country in the world.
One strange feature of innovation is that people often cannot tell where it will lead to when they are doing it. To give one topical example, when the Cambridge researcher Francis Crick was decoding DNA, he had no idea that more than half a century later, it would lead to the Wellcome Sanger Institute in my constituency doing more decoding and genome sequencing of the coronavirus than the rest of the world put together, helping us to track and tackle this pandemic.
The Government do a huge amount to promote innovation already, and we have heard a lot about it this afternoon, so why do we need another agency? Why do we need ARIA? ARIA will help tackle one of the main obstacles of innovation in the public sector, which is that in the public sector, as compared with the private sector, the costs of failure are higher and the rewards for success are lower. What do I mean by that? In the public sector, if somebody fails, they get pilloried in the press and they get the Opposition after them. Ministers have to resign and civil servants lose their job. That does not happen in the private sector. In the public sector, if someone does something that succeeds massively, they do not get bonuses. They are not rewarded by an increase in profits and share prices. The incentives are less.
What we need to do with ARIA is reduce the costs of failure, and that is why it is so important to have a separate, stand-alone organisation that is not part of UKRI—one that has a culture of taking risks and knows that sometimes it is worth having failure. Indeed, if there are not occasional failures, it is not really succeeding in its objective of disrupting and taking risks.
It is important—I urge the Minister to do this—that we help ARIA get more of the rewards for success. Several of my hon. Friends touched on this point earlier. ARIA is able to commercialise and go into business, but let it keep some of the rewards from success, if those projects succeed. That would be a huge incentive for it to try to make sure that those things work.
I have four general points about ARIA. The first is that it must be additional to other forms of research and development. If it is just funding projects that get funded by UKRI already, it is not really doing what it should be. Secondly, it is very important that it can experiment to try out different forms of funding. It has to be able to do a whole range of different types of funding for different projects as it sees fit, and it should be flexible in doing that. For example, we can have a company or academics doing some sort of research that we think is disruptive and amazingly good, but it does not fit into any of the general pots we already have. ARIA needs to be able to give grants to projects that it thinks are worthwhile. It has to have flexibility, and that means not going through the public procurement rules as they exist at the moment.
When I worked in City Hall in London, I was responsible for the London Development Agency, and I did a whole range of projects with public procurement. All I can say is that the only people who think that public procurement rules do not strangle innovation are people who do not have direct experience of them. It is absolutely right that ARIA is exempted from the worst parts of those rules.
Thirdly, picking up on value for money, which some Opposition Members mentioned, it is absolutely right that the Treasury and the Government ensure value for money from public investments across the piece. The Treasury Green Book does that, but it is also right that the Government have a portfolio approach, like a private investor. They might have some lower risk investments in Treasury bonds and then some higher risk investments in venture capital, and they are not all judged by the same rules. We absolutely should not judge ARIA by the same blanket value-for-money rules as we would if we were building a bridge. That would strangle ARIA.
Fourthly, it is absolutely right, as a couple of Members have touched on, that ARIA has multi-annual budgets inasmuch as the Government and the Treasury can allow. Funding disruptive research often takes many years, and simply giving a drip-drip of funding one year at a time will mean a lot of disruptive technologies cannot take flight.
When I was chair of the Government’s Regulatory Policy Committee, I remember civil servants at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy saying to me sagely, “Governments have always set up organisations as independent, and then the politicians realise all the problems of independence and then chip away at the independence over coming years, and the organisations gradually get brought down to heel.” It is very important that does not happen to ARIA, otherwise it will lose the reason for its existence. We have heard Opposition Members in particular talk about the need for FOI requests, for procurement rules, for mission statements and value for money assessments. I ask the Minister and the Government not to listen to those siren calls, which will clip ARIA’s wings at birth, and it will then never take flight.
Finally, I just want to settle one little discussion or dispute that we have had this afternoon. Many of my hon. Friends have been making bids for the location of ARIA; we have heard about Bristol, Bolton, Sedgefield, Doncaster and Guildford. I can sort this for the Government. Put the innovation agency where the innovators are: Cambridge—done.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
I enthusiastically welcome the Bill, which not only fulfils a manifesto pledge made in 2019 but is the first step in demonstrating that the United Kingdom is an innovative superpower in the post-covid world. A high-risk, high-payoff research organisation has the potential to provide groundbreaking innovations with military and civilian applications.
Examining and utilising the United States Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency model in creating ARIA will be critical. I am encouraged that the explanatory notes to the Bill emphasise a desire to do exactly that, but in examining DARPA and why it has been such a success, one must look beyond its organisational structure. The flat management structure, sense of mission, minimal bureaucracy and streamlined process of project approval are all vital to DARPA’s success, but a number of other vital factors must be considered. DARPA’s success has also stemmed from the culture it has fostered and the connections it maintains with industries and academia. Project managers are recruited on a temporary basis from a permanent position in the academic or industrial research community and given tremendous autonomy in their duties.
DARPA has spent more than 50 years nurturing links with academia and industry, and attempting to replicate them hastily in the UK may threaten ARIA’s success. I appreciate that Her Majesty’s Government wish to have ARIA fully operational by 2022. Erica Fuchs’s article “Cloning DARPA Successfully” notes the risk of haste, and I strongly recommend that any of my colleagues who are interested in ARIA read all the arguments that Fuchs makes.
Those sceptical of the importance of DARPA’s model should just examine its successes. The internet, GPS, video-conferencing and the F-117 fighter-bomber—the first aircraft to be designed around stealth technology—are all projects based on funding by DARPA. The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy both have a similar model, focusing on high-risk, high-reward in their relevant areas.
Her Majesty’s Government look to provide ARIA with initial funding of £800 million until the end of this Parliament. But if we truly wish to make ARIA a resounding success, increasing funding, so that more innovative projects can be pursued, will be critical. DARPA had an annual budget of $3.427 billion, allowing for groundbreaking innovations to be achieved. I notice that a number of Opposition Members accuse ARIA of being a waste of money. Projects may well fail, and funding may be turned off, but that should be expected. We cannot expect to make significant gains without there being high risks. I also note that some have raised concerns regarding ARIA’s exemption from freedom of information requests. By doing so, we will reduce the administrative requirements on ARIA, ensuring that it is as flexible and agile as possible. Without normalising the idea of failure, ARIA will not be able to drive forward change in how we conduct research and innovation.
In tandem with establishing ARIA, Her Majesty’s Government have championed research and development, committing to spend 2.4% of our GDP on R&D by 2027 to ensure that we remain a leader in science and innovation. The Bill is vital in establishing the United Kingdom as a nucleus of innovation, but if ARIA is to triumph, we must learn from why DARPA is such a success and how we can adopt its practices.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
This country is steeped in science and invention, so it is fitting that the Bill paves the way to create an agency that will lead to who knows what UK discoveries and innovation.
Members might not think that my constituency would be home to some of the most famous British inventions we have ever heard of, but they would be wrong. Christopher Cockerell, who was at Gresham’s School in my constituency, began with a prototype using a vacuum cleaner, a cat food tin and a coffee jar. He tested his invention on Oulton Broad in the 1950s, before it became the hovercraft, which saw its first commercial crossing of the channel in 1959. Perhaps one of the most famous inventors this country has ever produced grew up in North Norfolk and retains a close affinity with my constituency. He invented the ballbarrow, before inventing the dual cyclone vacuum cleaner. We all know him today as one of our greatest living inventors, Sir James Dyson.
What those two people have in common, apart from their connections to North Norfolk, is that they failed a great number of times until they created the inventions we know today. That is exactly what is so special about the Advanced Research and Invention Agency—that it will cut the red tape and bureaucracy and enable creativity and talent to take the risks that failure so often curtails before people are ever allowed the chance to succeed. With £800 million behind it, and the freedom to explore, ARIA is the launchpad that could so effectively uncover the next leading and pioneering inventor.
We are a scientific superpower. If anyone has any doubt about that, or about what we are capable of, they need only look at what we have achieved in this great nation in the last year, with the University of Oxford developing the coronavirus jab. That encapsulates why we should invest in science and pour money into such transformative research, which I have no doubt will be necessary again in our lifetimes. Free from the political union with Europe, the Government made the right choice. We sought our own vaccination strategy, and we backed our scientists with millions of pounds to develop the vaccine as quickly as possible. Long-term research investment also helped, and that is exactly what this new fund will provide. Oxford scientists had already been researching a vaccine that could be used against a disease such as covid-19. That research investment, which stretched back years, and the willingness to invest have added to the situation we find ourselves in today.
Sometimes in life, we have to take a little risk if we want to deliver rewards worth fighting for. Those who want to dismiss the Bill should think a little harder. They worry about the immaterial detail rather than the overriding thrust of the Bill, but they have to look back and they have to think, what could be? We should remember what one of the greatest entrepreneurs and inventors of the last 20 years said—a lot of my colleagues have spoken about disrupters, and this person was certainly just that:
“The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.”
That was Steve Jobs. This Bill is essential to support the efforts of UK people like that and to develop the entrepreneurs, scientists and researchers of the future. I warmly support the Secretary of State in all his efforts.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
I am privileged to have lots of world-class science in my constituency, not least at Harwell campus, which used to be hidden from Ordnance Survey maps when it was doing what it was with atomic energy, but is now very much on the map of the world’s leading scientific research and development centres in the world. I warmly support what Government do in this area, not least the £800 million that it will put into ARIA, which fulfils another manifesto commitment and takes us further along the route to 2.4% of GDP going on research and development.
When I was reading through the various briefings on the Bill, most of what I wanted to say came under three As. The first A is ambition. I hugely welcome the Government’s ambition to invest more in R and D; their ambition to get better at commercialising the world-class research that we develop; and their ambition to have our version—not the same—of DARPA, which has been so vital to the US and the world with its contribution to things from GPS to the internet.
The second A is autonomy. It is hugely important that we are to give autonomy to programme managers, and not to have Ministers direct them as to what they should research and what they should fund. Let us hire great people and let them do what has made them great. Let them get on with the things that they are successful in, and not ask them to conform to a particular type of what we are used to dealing with.
The third A is acceptance: acceptance of the need to do things differently; acceptance of a greater risk; and acceptance of failure. There is not enough of that in Government. That naturally leads us on to the various exemptions that ARIA will have, which I fully support. It is right that it is exempt from the traditional bureaucracy that comes with Government funding. It is right that we exempt it from public procurement regulations. It is right that we exempt it from FOI. I know that FOI has probably had more attention than other things. We can make a case that FOI has all sorts of benefits, but one benefit that we cannot claim that it has is encouraging people to take risk, because, on the contrary, what it does is encourage people to be risk averse. They may worry that people will go through with a hindsight ruler and decide that they should not have done the things that they did.
I smile to myself when people, whom I hugely respect, start by saying that they support the Government in wanting to do things differently with ARIA, but then come up with a list that is about doing things in the same way that we have always done—how we fund, what rules it is subject to, and putting it under the umbrella of UKRI. The more that we do that, the further we will get away from the purpose of this. Ambition, autonomy and acceptance of greater risk are exactly what the Government should be doing more of. It will help us both retain our own talent and continue to attract more talent from around the world. While we do not yet know what ARIA will create, I am very confident that we will look back and feel very pleased that we created it.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this important debate and to be part of an ever decreasing group of diehards from the new intake.
In November 2020, the spending review set out the Government’s plan to invest £14.6 billion in R and D in 2021-22 at 2.4% of GDP. That got me thinking and it got the juices flowing. One thing that struck me most about this Government is their appetite for the future: they plan, they set targets and they invest. They have ambition. They support opportunity. We can name it and it is there: electrification, infrastructure, and emissions. We were the first western nation in the world to specify a carbon neutral target. It is not about plans for the next five years, but about the next generation and over-the-horizon planning, which is really important.
The Bill has everything. It is about performing or commissioning others to conduct scientific research, developing and exploiting, and autonomy. It provides financial freedom for those willing to take the risk. It allows early decisions to be taken, it contributes to economic growth, it promotes innovation and it improves quality of life in the UK because this is about the future, and the future is really important. It also gives the freedom to fail, which for any innovator is really significant. Backed by £800 million of Government investment, the Bill complements the work that UK Research and Innovation and the R and D road map already set in concrete. It is really exciting and I commend it strongly to the House.
The Government have made no secret of their wish for the UK to become the innovation powerhouse of the world. The Bill is about maintaining and enhancing our competitive advantage. It is about synergy between public and private research. We can foster a better collaborative environment, with commercial and state investment coming together. ARIA’s funding will be absolutely pivotal, and I welcome it.
Before I sum up, I want to say that outside London, the Thames valley really is the economic powerhouse of the south-east, and Bracknell, my constituency, is the silicon valley of the Thames valley. With neighbouring Slough having the highest concentration outside London of UK headquarters of global companies, and the offices of 150 international companies in Bracknell, the Thames valley is absolutely ready to welcome employers and innovators to our area. Look at what we already have, though: the UK head office of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daler-Rowney, Honda, 3M, Dell, Waitrose, Fujitsu, Panasonic—the list goes on. It is a fantastic place to do business and I urge any CEO or director watching the debate to bring their business to Bracknell. It is a great place to be.
We often forget just how important innovation is to the UK and across the world. Fittingly, given current circumstances, we should recall Edward Jenner, who created the world’s first vaccine back in 1796. In 1930, Sir Frank Whittle patented the jet engine. More recently, in 1990, in the most important step forward in global communications, Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the worldwide web. What is yet to come? What else is out there? What do we not yet know? The Bill certainly paves the way. To summarise in three simple words: bring it on.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). We have heard about Bracknell; I will tell the House about the wonders of Warrington.
We in the UK have a proud history of scientific excellence and innovation. From the early theorists, such as Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, to the major scientific discoveries of hydrogen by Henry Cavendish and penicillin by Alexander Fleming, and of course Oxford University’s coronavirus vaccine, we have made huge contributions to science both past and present, so I warmly welcome the plans that the Secretary of State set out today to support and encourage our next generation of pioneering inventors and innovators, backed by this new independent research funder.
By funding high-risk, high-reward scientific research, ARIA will give visionary scientists the support and freedom to identify and fund transformational science and technology at speed. Our brilliant scientists have led the way in the development of the coronavirus vaccine and our high-risk strategy has shown the world what can be achieved when academia and private and public investment are brought together. ARIA will allow the UK to make good on its Government’s ambitions as a global scientific superpower and allow us to contribute to Build Back Better through innovation. The agency will be able to operate flexibly and quickly, better supporting the UK’s most pioneering researchers and, importantly, avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. By stripping back the red tape and putting power in the hands of innovators, ARIA will drive forward the technologies of tomorrow. While there is definitely space in the UK’s research landscape for a new funding agency that supports that sort of risk and investment, it should be designed in a way that complements the wider system of funding streams that already exist. Will the Minister set out clearly how the new agency will complement the existing bodies?
I want to see funding distributed across our prime science capabilities in the north of England. The Daresbury laboratory sits on my constituency doorstep, so towns such as Warrington, perfectly located midway between the two great northern cities of Liverpool and Manchester, could really benefit from such investment, allowing the high-tech sectors that develop there to be rocket-powered. I am sure that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) will not mind my plugging the opportunities further to bolster the Daresbury campus, which is recognised as the north’s centre of excellence for innovation in high-tech business from start-ups to multinationals across all kinds of sectors and research disciplines, including the growth challenge areas of healthcare, energy, environment and security.
As the Minister will know, the Cockcroft Institute and its particle accelerator research already has a home at Daresbury, and I know there are spaces there for a few more new ideas. Warrington is also well known as the research centre for the nuclear sector, and building on that campus at Daresbury and encouraging collaboration between the brightest minds and those that are already in the north-west means we have an opportunity to level up through the programme. Life sciences make up an integral part of the north’s economic ecosystem, generating £7.5 billion annually for UK, but the north has historically been underfunded for research and ARIA offers a great opportunity to narrow that divide.
A report published just last week shows that in the past 10 years, 72% of additional jobs created in the 10 most R&D intensive industries were located in the regions covering London, Oxford and Cambridge, despite those regions containing only 20% of the population. In 2018, London and the south-east received almost 50% of Government and UKRI’s total R&D spending. The Nesta report estimates that the regions outside London and the south-east have missed out on Government R&D funding of about £4 billion each year, which could have leveraged a further £8 billion from the private sector.
For ARIA to achieve its transformational change, it must work closely with industry partners. The north-west of England receives private investment in R&D at three times the rate of public investment. Industry recognises the opportunity available in my region, and ARIA is an opportunity to add extra drive and open up more opportunities in constituencies such as Warrington, where jobs and livelihoods are already supported and sustained by the thriving Cheshire life science corridor. We are already seeing northern universities collaborate through the Northern Health Science Alliance, N8 and the introduction of Northern Gritstone. We just need to give them the financial backing and the freedom to make this happen. I very much welcome the plans set out today and look forward to supporting the Bill later.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), and a particular pleasure to do so in person. He and I have been hanging around the same Zoom waiting rooms for much of the winter, and it is nice to be back in the Chamber.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said at the beginning of his speech, today is the national day of reflection as we look back over the past year and remember our collective loss and, for many people, including my hon. Friend, our personal losses, but also look forward to a brighter future. That brighter future is because of science. In the past year, it has been a privilege to serve on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, together with the Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who spoke earlier, and other Members who have spoken in the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and for Arundel and South Downs, and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). I praise the Clerks of the Committee for all the work they have done. We have had a number of sessions on covid at very short notice and have also considered ARIA—or ARPA as we knew it at the time, and I have in my hand our report which was published on 12 February.
Looking at the past year and the work that the Science and Technology Committee has done, there is a real read-across from what happened with covid to ARIA. As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, at its best ARIA will learn from what we have done on covid in the past year. If covid has a silver lining, it is what it has enabled us to do in the science sphere, allowing us to throw off some of the shackles related to funding, innovation and things such as mRNA vaccines.
The Government have not exactly followed the Committee’s recommendations, and that is fair enough, but the Secretary of State was very forthcoming when he gave evidence to us last week about the reasons for that. As my right hon. Friend the Chair said, it is easy to dissipate £800 million. I know that it sounds like a lot of money, but in the context of our overall science budget it is not quite all that much. The Committee recommended that there be a client, but if there is not to be one, it is important that there is focus. If we are going to have focus, the leadership of ARIA will be key. I hope that our Committee can be involved. There has not been an Order in Council because ARIA does not yet exist, so there is no pre-appointment hearing, but I hope that our Committee can speak with the prospective chair and chief exec of ARIA.
Let me turn to some of the detail. I am pleased to see the range of innovative funding envisaged for ARIA, particularly through prizes, which can leverage huge amounts of private sector investment. We have this target of 2.4% of GDP for R&D. It is all very well spending more Government money, but the key is getting more private sector investment to get us to that 2.4% target. Any ways that we can leverage private sector investment through ARIA would be hugely welcome. We are also looking into grant-prize hybrids, seed grants for very early stage developers and equity stakes. As many hon. Members have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), we need to be better at capturing the commercial benefit of the world-class science that takes place in this country, and perhaps equity stakes through ARIA can be a part of that.
Our Committee took evidence from a number of organisations in our inquiry into what has now become ARIA. We heard from organisations that had worked well, such as DARPA, and some that had not worked quite so well. I wonder whether the sense of crisis to which I referred earlier is necessary for these sorts of things to work. In world war two, the Manhattan project obviously led to the atomic bomb. The cold war led to DARPA and the need for the United States to secure its own defence. What we have seen in the last year with covid has led to so many innovations in vaccines, therapeutics and beyond that will last well beyond this period; as was said earlier, these innovations may ultimately save more lives than have been lost, because of the speed of their development.
If ARIA is to work well, it needs somehow to harness that sense of crisis, and the breakthrough, breakneck response to crisis and existential threat. It needs the space to do so, autonomy from the Government and the freedom to fail. Science often learns more from what does not work than what does.
Before I draw my remarks to a conclusion, it would be remiss of me not to make my own pitch. Keele University in the wonderful constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme is a fabulous university. It is a university enterprise zone and part of the Energy Research Accelerator, which links up multiple universities and private sector organisations across the west midlands. We also have a fabulous science and innovation park. We are a proud host of Cobra Biologics, one of the manufacturers of the amazing Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine that is doing so much good in this country. It is not doing so much good elsewhere because of some rather foolish remarks by regulators, but we are very proud of our vaccine; if other countries do not want it, we will have it.
ARIA is a great idea. Like many of its would-be projects, it has the potential to be bold and transformative itself. But it also has the potential to fail, or at least not to work for as long as we might hope. I welcome the 10 years that we have set out in the Bill to give it a chance to work. Many iconoclastic structures end up being captured and overrun by bureaucracy; we must be really careful in that regard. As the Bill progresses through this House and the other place, I hope that the Government will be very firm in resisting all those who would strangle it at birth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the final Back-Bench speaker, Richard Holden.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) [V]
Some places save the best until last, but I am afraid that the House of Commons just saves the Member for North West Durham.
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and many hon. Members from across the country who have been so positive about the Bill. I speak in support of the Bill, because through it we will create the Advanced Research and Invention Agency. Britain can finally back the sparks of creativity that flicker in the dark space—too often infrequently sampled by our existing scientific research institutions
ARIA will enable us to press forward on the global stage at the cutting edge of innovative scientific research, and to maximise the opportunities that science can bring to the benefit of my constituents in North West Durham, to our United Kingdom and to humanity. A few months ago, those words may have perhaps sounded hyperbolic, but, as many hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned, the United Kingdom’s world-leading vaccine programme has changed all that. Moreover, Madam Deputy Speaker, the ability I am afforded today to speak to you virtually in our historic House of Commons Chamber from my constituency office in Consett through the use of the internet is a product of innovation in digital telecommunications—innovation backed in its inception by the United States in a nimble, non-bureaucratic institution called the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. As many hon. Members have noted, by backing a few brilliant minds with a modest sum, that institution helped to develop and pioneer technologies such as the internet and GPS—innovations that have since generated trillions in pounds wealth, and, on the human level, kept the lonely connected throughout the pandemic. On a personal note, it allowed me to see my own grandmother in the weeks before she died—something that just a few years ago in similar circumstances would have been impossible.
The scientific research institutions we have today include UKRI, which incorporates our seven research councils. It backs bidders from business and academia to identify important societal and industrial challenges faced by the UK that might merit financial support from the industrial strategy challenge fund. It sets its assessment against aims set out by the Government to raise long term productivity and improve living standards. This has, for example, aided the development of batteries for electric vehicles, which has no doubt helped companies such as Nissan, one of the largest employers of my constituents. It has helped to transform food production, backed clean growth, advanced artificial intelligence and big data, and assisted in projects aimed at tackling our ageing society.
Combined with the largest ever increase in funding—over £22 billion—for UK research and development announced by any Government, one might ask, “What’s wrong, then?” Well, like many similar institutions in comparable nations to ours, UKRI is rigged to the academic calendar. It naturally focuses on papers with “sound” cases, it is tethered to burdensome bureaucracy, it is slow off the mark, and unfortunately it is, far too often, too risk adverse. If the men and women who kicked off the industrial revolution in constituencies like mine had been as risk averse, I wonder if it would ever have happened—whether the sparks that ignited the first industrial revolution and literally forged a new world in constituencies like mine would ever have come to pass.
As we look to the fourth industrial revolution, that risk-averse situation is what we are facing today. A constituent of mine, Professor Pal Badyal of Durham University’s chemistry department, who is a member of the Royal Society, has founded three successful start-up businesses and is one of the leading scientists in his field, has struggled to gain funding for his research into antiviral surfaces, despite successful preliminary proof of concepts funded by Durham University. This professor previously invented the waterproof coating for smartphones. That idea was turned down by UKRI for being “out of scope”, only to be subsequently adopted by industry an entire 10 years later. This waterproofing technology can now be found on over 1 billion smartphones worldwide. There exist in the world many such sparks of creativity in science and other fields that fizzle out, out there in the dark space. Far too infrequently are they nurtured by our existing scientific research institutions. In the case of Professor Badyal, his first spark came to light 10 years later through industry, but his latest, on antiviral surfaces, could save lives today and tomorrow. We cannot afford to miss out on such innovation.
This Bill creates ARIA, which can operate at pace, undertake groundbreaking research and back our scientists with its high tolerance for risk of failure. Decisively different, with less bureaucracy, ARIA has the power to launch dynamism supported but unfettered by the usual constraints of government. Clearly, as many Members have said, the role our scientists have played in jabbing our way to freedom throughout this pandemic, the spirit they have showcased in innovating the Oxford vaccine at pace, the generosity shown through their decision to do so at cost price, and the early backing with generous funds from our Government has afforded Britain a leading role in freeing the world from the coronavirus pandemic. Spirit, pace, backing and benefit: that makes the case for ARIA and this Bill better than any words any Member could hope to say. I urge hon. Members across this House to support the Bill and to back those sparks of innovation that can benefit my constituents in North West Durham, help us to level up the north of England, turbocharge our United Kingdom, and benefit the world.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a real pleasure to respond to today’s debate, which has in many ways shown this virtual House at its best, united by cross-party consensus on the importance of science and support for our scientists. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken so constructively on both sides, even if I cannot do justice to every contribution. As the shadow Secretary of State emphasised, it is vital that we get the Advanced Research and Invention Agency right. As many hon. Members have observed, the UK has a proud tradition in science, engineering, innovation, research and development; it is renowned across the world. The Secretary of State mentioned the discovery of penicillin. The hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) referred to the spinning Jenny and Stephenson’s Rocket. As a chartered engineer from Newcastle, I particularly appreciated the last example, and I would add to it the steam turbine, invented on the Tyne by Parsons. It made cheap and plentiful electricity possible, revolutionised marine transport and powered our Navy.
Again and again, UK science has pushed back the boundaries of knowledge, shrinking the vast expanses of ignorance which, as the pandemic has shown, may threaten humanity’s very existence. And science is a key economic driver. Our university research base alone contributes £95 billion to the economy, supporting nearly 1 million jobs in science institutes, charities and businesses of all sizes. Research by Oxford Economics commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy found that each £1 of public research and development stimulates between £1.96 and £2.34 of private research and development in the long run, and together they help address the key challenges facing humanity, from climate change to inequality, from pandemics to productivity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, Labour recognises that the UK needs new mechanisms to support high-risk/high-reward research. As such, ARIA is a step in the right direction. The United States Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency programme, which the Secretary of State cites many times in his statement of policy intent, has helped give us inventions from the internet to Siri, from cyborg insects to GPS technology.
Of course we want Britain to back similar high-risk/high-reward research that unlocks the full potential of our scientific creativity. But there are concerns—concerns shared across the House. Many Members highlighted the lack of direction for ARIA. The Secretary of State claimed that the Bill equips ARIA with the “tools and freedoms that it needs”. By implication, then, it doesn’t need a mission. But the renowned economist Professor Mariana Mazzucato has said:
“ARIA should be oriented around societal challenges with broad buy-in that define the 21st century and can just as effectively stimulate cross-disciplinary innovation, for example climate change”.
The Institute of Physics has said that a clear mission is “essential” and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee raised concerns about ARIA’s lack of “focus and purpose”. Setting a mission would bring together business, Government and the wider public in support of ARIA. This Bill seems more designed to set it adrift.
We heard from Government Members best described as the disciples of Dominic Cummings. The former adviser to the Prime Minister said that the UK was in need of a blue skies thinking agency. But can I gently suggest that we should not test Mr Cummings’ ideological eyesight by driving to a scientific Bishop Auckland without a credible mission—not with public money at least. On the “Today” programme this morning, the Secretary of State for Health said that the vaccine programme
“will be a model of how Governments can make things happen and move fast and deliver for their population”.
But not, it would seem, when it comes to scientific research. The vaccine programme definitely had a mission.
Leadership in any organisation is critical, but ARIA seems entirely dependent on its CEO and chair, with little external accountability or ministerial direction. Hon. Members, including the hon. Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), highlighted some of the concerns this raises, including the potential for crony and vanity projects. I would like to add two points. First, however great the initial CEO and chair are, they will move on. What then? Secondly, science is a collective endeavour— perhaps one of the greatest collective endeavours—yet the Government seem to believe that by recruiting one or two star performers, ARIA can transform our science landscape. We need to build an institution that furthers our societal aims for decades to come.
The Secretary of State tried to present freedom of information as an obstacle to the UK being a science superpower, but he also said that ARIA was inspired by DARPA in the US, which is subject to freedom of information. We are concerned that this Government are driven more by an ideological disdain for scrutiny than by a desire to further UK science. The Campaign for Freedom of Information shares our concerns, fearing that without public accountability, ARIA will lack the weighty public interest needed to support its mission.
I also want to add a word of warning here, echoing the words of many Members today including the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), and the chair of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). Let us not kid ourselves: high risk means failure. There will be failures—high-profile, expensive failures with public money. Is the CEO expected to weather that storm without ministerial accountability? Is it the Government’s intention to be able to throw ARIA to the wolves and keep Ministers safe?
The creation of ARIA must not serve as a distraction from the UK’s wider research and development challenges. My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) both emphasised the lack of certainty and ambition on science funding now, and they both represent great science communities. The Government are reportedly on course to miss their target of spending 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027 following cuts to overseas research, which the vice-chancellor of Newcastle University, Chris Day, tells me may lead to immediate redundancies in the north-east. Labour is committed to raising the proportion of GDP spent on R&D to 3%, and for this Government to fail to reach their target of 2.4% would be shocking indeed.
Further, and even more astonishingly, just two weeks before the new financial year, the scientific community still does not know what funding is to be allocated for science. Just this morning, the Secretary of State did not deny the prospect of £1 billion-worth of cuts to next year’s science budget. He must stand up for science in his negotiations with the Treasury. I am sure I am not the only one to be somewhat dismayed by the languid tone, during his short opening remarks, in which he said that discussions were ongoing.
The Government have also failed to support medical research charities. They have failed to support early career researchers and doctoral students during the pandemic. The Government like to talk up research, but their actions do not match their words. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North asked how ARIA would work with existing bodies, given the lack of clarity on its mission. I am concerned that it may end up competing for existing funding rather than leveraging in new funds. That is a criticism levelled against some catapults.
It is also interesting that the worked example in the statement of policy intent from the Secretary of State uses—I think that is the most appropriate term—a female programme manager. Women are hugely under-represented in science research. They make up just 15% of the principal investigators applying for Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grants, for example. I am sure the Minister would agree that this lack of representation holds science back, and I hope she will tell us how ARIA will help to address that and the other fundamental disparities in science.
Labour wants ARIA to be a success, and we support its creation. We believe that science is an engine of progress and that ARIA can accelerate it, but we also believe that it must have a clear mission to address our great societal challenges and that it must be accountable. It is not as if there is a lack of challenges for it to address. Indeed, they are many, but without direction from the Government, the agency risks losing its way. We are determined to amend the Bill to empower ARIA to succeed, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to achieve that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I, too, want to go, “Yay!”, because this has been an absolute pleasure. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, we have seen the House at its best, and it is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. I listened to the fantastic contributions, and I thank all hon. Members for their thought-provoking input. Without exception, the debate indicates how essential and central science is to our economy and society. That has been recognised across the House, so I shall expand on how ARIA will build on the strengths of our R&D system.
The proposal to create the Advanced Research and Invention Agency—ARIA—has been welcomed by leading scientists, institutions, businesses and colleagues today. We have listened to agencies around the world, and consulted the research community at home. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) asked about that. We have, of course, considered carefully the recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee, brilliantly chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I am confident that this is a bold, brave and positive step towards our ambition to cement the UK’s position as a science superpower. One of the things that we must be clear about is the way in which ARIA fits into the wider landscape and what it will achieve. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central asked how we would define ARIA’s purpose, so let me set that out.
ARIA will fund high-risk, high-reward research in a different way from UKRI and the rest of the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) highlighted in his excellent contribution, ARIA will give us something genuinely different, drawing on the UK’s existing R&D strengths. In that way, it will reach fantastic people with brilliant ideas who are not currently funded.
There have been several questions about funding, but I think that the Secretary of State made the position clear. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) raised ARIA’s mission and what it should focus on. That is an important issue, and I have listened to the different views with great interest. Climate change has been suggested. The Government continue to invest in net zero, including through the £1 billion net-zero innovation portfolio fund announced as part of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I should make it clear that ARIA’s programme will be motivated by a single clear ambition set by the programme manager. However, those decisions will be made by ARIA, and ARIA’s leaders will be responsible for strategic oversight of their programme portfolio. They will be able to speak to researchers, other funders and Government Departments to help to inform their judgment. There are UK funding programmes for which Ministers set the strategic direction, and ARIA has been set up specifically without those constraints.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) asked about the need for ARIA to have a specific customer. ARIA’s groundbreaking work will absolutely draw partners for its projects and programmes, but we want to leave the door open for it to be able to forge those relationships across a range of sectors.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the hon. Member for Richmond Park and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby asked about recruitment and ARIA’s culture. I recognise how crucial that that will be for ARIA, which is why we will recruit a CEO to provide the creative, inspiring leadership that the organisation needs—someone uniquely able to build a team of high-performing people. That will not be on a whim. We will conduct a genuinely open and fair recruitment process for a CEO and chair.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen South and for Glasgow North West asked about the oversight that Government will have. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) queried the way in which we will hold ARIA to account. They are absolutely right that ARIA will be at a greater distance from central Government than we are used to. That is a deliberate move based on international experience. The evidence suggests that freedom and autonomy is what makes this kind of agency work. I am mindful of the effective governance of ARIA, which is incredibly important, but it must be tailored to ARIA’s objectives if we are to get the balance right—and it is about balance. There are powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State to intervene on issues of national security and to introduce additional procedures to measure conflicts of interest. They sit alongside powers to make non-executive appointments to the board, which will of course include the Government chief scientific adviser in an ex officio role. The arrangements are robust.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray)—whose final speech was commendable; I wish him the very best—raised the Freedom of Information Act. ARIA will have a very small number of staff, and because of the load that FOI requests would place on the organisation we do not think they are the right way to provide scrutiny. I remind Members that the Departments and public authorities that work with ARIA will of course be subject to FOI requests. There will be other statutory commitments to transparency. The Bill makes it clear that ARIA will be required to produce an annual report on what it does, which will be laid before Parliament alongside its accounts.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen South and for Airdrie and Shotts also spoke about procurement. The Bill exempts ARIA from the obligations on a contracting authority in the public contract regulations, but procurement decisions will be taken by ARIA, not by Ministers. It is because it is one step removed from Government that the exemption will empower ARIA’s talented programme managers and directors. Again, the freedom to act quickly will be balanced by the requirement for ARIA to audit its procurement activities, as set out with the Department in the framework document.
The hon. Members for Cambridge and for Airdrie and Shotts, my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and for Bolton West (Chris Green), and many other Members made representations on ARIA’s location. I recognise that they care passionately about the scientific excellence found in all parts of Bolton, Cambridge, Airdrie and, of course, right across the UK, but ARIA will be run by a small number of people and will have a small physical presence, and the potential candidates to be its CEO and chair will have a strong interest in the location of the headquarters. I cannot commit to a specific location at this stage, but if ARIA is to deliver UK-wide economic benefits, it should, like UKRI, function and deliver on a UK-wide basis. Stakeholders in the devolved nations—such as Universities Scotland—have been clear in their support for that approach.
Let me finish by thanking Members from all parties for their rich and considered contributions. My door is always open and I invite any Members who wish to discuss the Bill with me further to do so. We must remember that the United Kingdom is a hotbed of brilliant invention and innovation. The Secretary of State spoke about our proud history of scientific excellence, which I am confident the creation of ARIA will help to safeguard far into the future.
In the previous century, the US ARPA funded the ambitious research that underpins the internet and GPS—technologies that have transformed our lives, opened countless avenues of inquiry and created extraordinary value. Such successes do not happen overnight or by accident; they all start with a wild ambition that is nurtured into reality against all the odds. It is this ambition that will course through the veins of ARIA’s staff and the talented researchers they fund. As Science Minister I have listened to many inspiring scientists and inventors, and it is now my ambition to give their brilliant ideas the best possible chance to profoundly change lives and the lives of our grandchildren—and of my granddaughter—for the very better. I wait with excited anticipation for the remaining stages of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill:
Committal
(1) Public Bill Committee shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 27 April 2021.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Third Reading No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(David Rutley.)
Question agreed to.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(David Rutley.)
Question agreed to.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Carry-over)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(David Rutley.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Agriculture
That the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions and Simplifications) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 24 February, be approved
That the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 1 March, be approved.
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and Restrictions: All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 247), dated 5 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 March, be approved.
Extradition
That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Codes of Practice and Transit Code of Practice) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 22 February, be approved.—(David Rutley.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I would like to present a petition to the House on behalf of the excellent Knockhall Primary School in my constituency, and specifically year 2, who have been doing some excellent work on insecticides. The petitioners declare
“that consideration could be given to banning harmful pesticides”
because of the dangers they create for bees and other pollinators, which are an essential part of our environment and play a crucial role in food production.
Following is the full text of the petition
[The petition of a teacher and pupils of Knockhall Primary School,
Declares that consideration could be given to banning harmful pesticides.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider banning harmful pesticides.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002652]
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who were shocked to discover that an application for a 24-hour gambling licence had been granted for a vacant shop premises in Green Lanes in my constituency. Due to the fact that publication occurred during the most recent coronavirus period and they were legally permitted to leave their homes only for specific purposes, and that they did not have a local newspaper, residents did not become aware of the application until it was granted.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Enfield, Southgate,
Declares that the requirement to publish a notice of application for a gambling premises licence in local newspapers and to display a notice on the premises as required by Section 12 of the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licence and Provisional Statements) Regulations 2007 is wholly inadequate for bringing such applications to the attention of members of the public and as such is in urgent need of reform; further that no additional provisions were made for these requirements to take into account the fact that the public were legally required not to venture outside except for certain specified purposes during coronavirus lockdown restrictions which disadvantaged their ability to view such notices; and further that gambling premises licences granted during the coronavirus lockdown restrictions should be subject to a review.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that Section 12 of the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licence and Provisional Statements) Regulations 2007 and other associated legislation is urgently revised and gambling premises licences granted during the coronavirus lockdown restrictions be subject to a review.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002653]
ANPR and Width Restrictions
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I wanted to secure this Adjournment debate because of an issue that originated in Woodmere Avenue in my constituency but which has highlighted a more national issue associated with section 6 powers under the Traffic Management Act 2004. I feel a bit odd, because I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill today, so, a bit like it is for the Minister, two buses have arrived at once for me today. This is my second long speech, but I will try not to make it too long.
I wanted to raise this issue for three reasons. First, I would like to highlight the issues with Woodmere Avenue in my constituency, the concerns of residents and why those are important. My second point is about the use of section 6, which I think could solve some of the issues in my local area, and I will highlight some broader issues. My third point is about the critical importance of the power of local people to have control and a say in what happens to them in their local area.
I will start with Woodmere Avenue. The issue with Woodmere Avenue began for me when I was campaigning way before I was an MP. I had been out with a local campaigner called Carly Bishop, who had petitioned and spoken to local residents about issues in this area. Let me describe the situation. A width restriction has been in Woodmere Avenue in the Tudor ward of Watford for decades, and it is known as a bit of a landmark, but not in a positive way. There is a massive bus route through the middle of the road, and on either side there are width restrictions for cars. Increasingly, I hear people say that they have scratched their car recently or over the past few years on those restrictions. It does not feel right that somebody trying to drive to work in the morning, pick up their kids from school or just go to the shops should be worried about damaging their car en route because of the way that a width restriction was designed many decades ago.
The issue, for me, is about fairness. There is a whole debate that could be unpicked about the decisions that were made many years ago, why this has not changed and why petitions have not enabled change, but I do not want to get into a blame game. For me, this is about how we look forward and make a difference. When I was discussing this with local residents and the local council, I found that one potential solution is the use of automatic number plate recognition. It was highlighted that, instead of having rigid physical stops for people to drive through these areas, we could have a camera that recognises cars going through, perhaps with some speed bumps and other less invasive measures to calm traffic, make sure it is safe and slow and reduce the number of wide vehicles.
It turns out that the section 6 rules, which the council would love to use to stop certain vehicles doing certain things on roads such as Woodmere Avenue, are not available in Watford—but they are available in London. The section 6 rules actively apply to London but not to the rest of the country, despite the Local Government Association being very supportive of the change. Why is that an issue? First, it is one of fairness. Why should London be able to put in place mechanisms to make traffic safer that are not allowed outside London? Secondly, if there is a solution out there that is already working, why should it not be applicable in my constituency for my constituents?
When I visit Woodmere Avenue—which I do quite regularly because it is very close to my constituency office—I find myself carefully driving through the width restrictions, and I see the marks on them that have clearly come from cars and vans being scratched over the years. While driving through, I sometimes see a driver who does not want to go through the width restrictions, so they go straight through the middle where the bus lane is. The width restrictions are not even doing the job that they should, because cars are still breaking the rules, and there is no real comeback, because there is no way to detect it—there is no ANPR and no cameras. Is that fair? No, it is not.
The people who are scratching their cars are not necessarily bad drivers. I have had people say to me, “Perhaps they just don’t know how to drive their car,” but even if someone is not a great driver and is a bit cautious or wobbly when going through the restrictions, is it fair that they should scratch their car, damage their vehicle and face the cost of having to go to a garage to fix it? I do not think so. In addition, I have seen vehicles have their axles broken, not because the drivers have driven through the restrictions at a particularly fast pace but because they have slightly misjudged it and the front wheel has been hit and damaged.
There is a moral issue and a fairness issue, and there is the issue of ANPR and the rules being applicable in London but not elsewhere. There is also a bigger topic of the right of individuals to have a say in what happens outside their own homes. There is a really good argument here around what I call pavement politics. Surely a resident of a street—a member of the British public—should be allowed to have a say in what happens outside their front door. They should have more of a say than somebody who sits in a council office at a distance and is not affected by that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. He has come to the crux of the matter: this is about local residents. I believe that those who are affected by the measures on the roads have a right to be consulted and then to have a say in what happens or does not happen. Does he agree that sometimes, common sense has to prevail and the authorities just have to listen?
Dean Russell
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly powerful point. This is about common sense. People invest in their houses, they invest in their gardens if they have them, and they invest in their local community. Common sense should be part of the community.
One thing that we have seen over the past 12 months is the cutting of red tape. That has been forced upon us because of the awfulness of covid—the pandemic has meant that we have had to cut through red tape to do things quicker—but it has allowed us to trust people on the frontline. It has allowed us to trust local people to form community groups and help their neighbours—to set up Facebook groups to get food delivered and help people in their community. Why can we not also trust those people to have a stronger say in what happens on the road in front of their house?
Not so long ago, when I was with someone from the highways department, the council and a local resident, I had a conversation with a gentleman who lives near the width restriction. He told me that, as someone had gone through it and it had pinged their car, something had shot off and gone through the window of his car on his drive, causing damage. That does not seem sensible. People who live in these areas live with the repercussions of that day in, day out, yet they do not have more of a say than someone who lives in another part of the county. That seems rather bizarre to me.
Surely, when we look at this in the round, there is an opportunity here to look at the way we engage with local communities—the way we do surveys, for example. At the moment, if another survey is done, the taxpayer will have to pay an awful lot of money for the county council and other groups to go and ask residents things, in a way that we could probably organise on our own by going door to door at the weekend. As the Member of Parliament, I even offered to go around and do a survey, asking people exactly the same question about what they would like to be done, but that is not possible, because a very rigid, bureaucratic, red-tape-driven process has to be followed to get those views. That does not seem right.
All I ask the Minister to do today is to address those three points. First, I would really appreciate further discussion around Woodmere Avenue—an opportunity to explore the issue and to see whether we can solve it for local residents while keeping the road safe, ensuring that large vehicles that should not go down the road do not, and ensuring that people do not speed down there, but in a way that does not risk people scratching their cars or causing large traffic jams because they drive through so slowly.
Secondly, I would really appreciate it if time were spent looking again at section 6, to identify why rules that work in London cannot be applied outside it. To be fair, Watford is not far from London, so even if it were just a case of expanding the rules slightly to solve this big issue, I would appreciate it. However, on a serious note, why do we not look at this again? I would really appreciate it if time were taken to understand why this is the case and whether there are any plans in this respect.
Thirdly, on the much bigger point about local communities, the past year has shown that, when we give people on the frontline trust—when we embrace our communities, give them a voice and listen to them—the common sense that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned is there. People know what the issues are in their local community. They usually know the solutions way before red tape and bureaucracy kick in. I would really appreciate a view on whether we can start to ensure that local communities can have that say, what we would do from there, and what the timeline might be for some of the solutions. I thank the Minister for listening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on securing this end-of-day debate. May I take this opportunity to commend him and councillor candidate Carly Bishop for their tireless efforts in representing so well the views of the residents and motorists of Woodmere Avenue and the wider Tudor ward to find a solution to the issues that he has outlined? I hope that Carly and the residents of Woodmere Avenue are watching. We in the Government totally understand the desire for that common-sense pavement politics approach. Of course I will do everything in my power to help my hon. Friend advance the case, but I do not think he needs much assistance; he is doing it very well at the moment on his own.
I will start by setting out some background on where responsibilities for traffic management issues such as this lie. Managing traffic on local roads is a matter for local traffic authorities. They have a range of duties, powers and responsibilities on them in doing so. Local councils have a wide range of powers and tools available to help them manage their roads, including the ability to restrict access to roads to certain types of vehicles through width restrictions.
It is a matter for local authorities to decide whether a width restriction is the right solution for a particular road, taking into account local circumstances, and to design such restrictions appropriately. Traffic signs for width restrictions are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The Department has provided advice to local authorities on using these signs in chapter 3 of the “Traffic Signs Manual”, which is available free online. The Department advises that the width shown on the sign should be at least 6 inches less than the actual available width. If the signed width is, for example, 7 feet, the actual width between the bollards should be between 7 foot 6 inches and 7 foot 11 inches.
Last year the Government announced that they would implement the moving traffic enforcement powers in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. That will enable those local authorities outside London with civil parking enforcement powers to apply to the Secretary of State to take responsibility for enforcement of a number of moving traffic offences. Work is under way on drafting regulations and statutory guidance, but it is not possible at this stage to say exactly when in 2021 the powers will be commenced.
I must also explain that part 6 powers would not help resolve the situation in Woodmere Avenue in the way that my hon. Friend has set out. Width restrictions are not included in the list of offences that part 6 powers would be used to enforce. Along with other safety-critical restrictions, such as height and weight limits, they will remain the responsibility of the police, and the Government have no plans to change the legislation to include width restrictions.
By design, width restrictions of this type are self-enforcing, as traffic over the specified width cannot continue down the route. It is therefore not clear what benefit CCTV enforcement would provide at this point. The restriction in question is alongside a bus lane. Local authorities have powers to enforce bus lane infringements using CCTV, which might be something that the local authority could consider. Drivers should also be properly informed of width restrictions in advance, in time to take an alternative route and avoid them altogether. The local authority could review whether the signing on the approaches to this junction is clear enough to drivers.
As my hon. Friend knows and has set out, local councillors have a vital role in representing the concerns of their constituents to the local authority and to their Member of Parliament and in securing change. They also have a role in determining what schemes are prioritised and how funding is allocated locally. We are clear that authorities should take into account the needs of all road users in designing their schemes. They must engage properly with local communities when considering changes to local roads to ensure that they reflect their concerns and priorities.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to be such a vocal local champion and continuing to seek a suitable solution for the residents in the affected area. I am very happy to continue working with him, and I am sure that my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Vere, who is responsible for roads specifically and some of the regulation that my hon. Friend has referred to, will also be very happy to continue working with him. I am certain that the local authority and the local councillors who are concerned with these matters are watching tonight, and they will have heard his advocacy on behalf of the residents. I am confident, therefore, that these continued efforts will lead to an appropriate solution being found.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the draft Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell, to debate the regulations, which were laid before the House on 24 February 2021.
As we strive to rebuild the economy after the challenges that it has suffered as a result of the covid-19 pandemic, it is vital that we have a strong and robust insolvency regime to provide confidence to businesses, creditors and investors alike. That is why last year the Government made certain changes to the insolvency regime in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. The changes included reviving a power previously introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 to regulate sales to connected persons in administration. The power is intended to strengthen the regulatory framework and provide greater reassurance to creditors in respect of what are commonly called “pre-pack sales”.
A pre-pack sale is where a company is in financial difficulties and an arrangement is made for the sale of all or part of the company’s business prior to its entering administration. The sale is then completed on the same day or immediately after the appointment of an administrator. Pre-pack sales are an invaluable part of the UK insolvency framework, allowing viable businesses to be rescued while preserving value and saving jobs. However, the nature of the sale, the speed with which it is carried out and the fact that such sales are often to a person previously connected with the insolvent company, such as a director or relative of the director, has led to criticism and concerns that such sales might not always be in the best interests of creditors.
A number of industry measures were introduced in 2015 to try to ensure greater transparency of pre-pack sales. These included strengthening the professional standards for dealing with a pre-pack sale and the opportunity for a connected purchaser to seek an independent opinion on a transaction on a voluntary basis. A Government review of the measures concluded that they had not gone far enough in restoring creditor confidence. Consequently, the Government have determined that it is necessary to strengthen the legislative framework.
Draft regulations were published in October 2020 for stakeholder consultation, following which we have made certain changes to take account of the feedback received. The regulations provide that an administrator will not be able to make a substantial disposal of an insolvent company’s assets to a connected person within eight weeks of the company entering administration unless creditor approval has been obtained, or the connected purchaser has obtained an independent report from an individual—an evaluator—qualified to do so.
The regulations define what is meant by a substantial disposal. It includes where the disposal takes place through a series of transactions to prevent parties from side-stepping the requirements by parcelling the disposal into a number of smaller transactions. In addition, the regulations make provision about who may act as an evaluator and what their report must cover.
The regulations also impose responsibilities on the administrator, who must review the report and be satisfied that the evaluator has sufficient knowledge and experience. The report must state whether the evaluator is satisfied or not that the disposal is reasonable. An administrator can still proceed with a sale where the report states that the evaluator is not satisfied that the disposal is reasonable, but where this is the case, they must provide a statement to creditors setting out their reasons.
As I mentioned earlier, the regulations were published in draft for consultation, and following comments from stakeholders they have been amended. In particular, we have strengthened the requirements for an evaluator, and they must now also be covered by professional indemnity insurance to carry out the role. We envisage that those acting as evaluators are likely to be accountants, surveyors, lawyers with corporate business experience, and also insolvency practitioners. However, depending on the nature and specialism of the business for sale, individuals in other fields may be suitable to act, provided they meet the relevant requirements in the regulations.
A key concern from stakeholders was the risk of shopping around and commissioning multiple reports to obtain a favourable opinion. For that reason, the regulations require that each report must include details of all previous reports. If a connected person refuses to disclose a previous report, or the evaluator believes they are concealing one, the evaluator must record that in their report. If any previous report includes a statement that the person providing it was not satisfied that the disposal was reasonable, the administrator can still proceed, but they must provide a statement to creditors of their reasons for doing so.
The regulations allow the continued use of pre-pack sales as a viable form of rescue, but at the same time will provide enhanced scrutiny of connected sales, giving greater reassurance to creditors that the sale is appropriate. They will improve and strengthen the reputation of the UK’s renowned insolvency and rescue framework, and will contribute to restoring economic confidence. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell.
We have supported, and have indeed called for, many of the changes that have been brought through the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 1986 and the subsequent extensions. Pre-pack administration sales are a useful tool for quickly rescuing businesses in financial difficulties, and are vital in these current times, but such sales must always be balanced against the need to protect the veracity of the restructuring process and the interests of creditors.
In recent years, there has been criticism of and considerable attention paid to pre-pack sales, which occur before the creditors are given an opportunity to vote on the administrator’s proposals to sell a company’s business or assets. The speed with which the pre-pack sale takes place helps to preserve the value of the business and the jobs, but concerns centre on the lack of transparency for creditors and the fact that, in many cases, businesses or assets are purchased by the same owners or other persons connected with the insolvent company.
The regulations will require that where a person intends to acquire a business or asset from a company in administration within the first eight weeks and that person is connected to the insolvent company, they must seek an independent opinion on that purchase, unless the creditors have already agreed the sale—a principle that we very much support. However, some have raised concerns that this statutory instrument appears to be an attempt by the Government to control the pre-pack sales process without an understanding of what they are necessarily trying to achieve.
Some of the concerns centre around the identity of the evaluator and the qualifications requirements for that evaluator. I note that the Minister mentioned that point, but there is no requirement in the regulations for the evaluator to hold any professional qualifications, so perhaps he could say a bit more about that.
On connected persons, several people wanted a carve-out to be included in the definition of connected persons in the regulations for secured lenders. That has not been included. Will the Minister explain why not?
On the responsibility for the report, stakeholders argued that it should be the administrator and not the connected person who must obtain the qualifying reports. However, that recommendation was not included. That relates to the issue of “opinion” shopping that the Minister mentioned. I note that steps have been taken on that issue, but some concerns still remain.
To conclude, some concerns have been addressed and some have not been addressed fully, so perhaps the Minister could reassure us on those points. However, we are happy to support the regulations today.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central for her constructive response. I will address the issues she raised.
On the definition of connected parties, any changes would require primary legislation and could not be done through regulations. We will monitor what happens and reflect on any changes as we go forward.
In terms of identifying the evaluator, we did not want to introduce unnecessary burdens at this stage. However, we wanted to make sure that the guarantee requirement, whereby the evaluator effectively needed professional indemnity for this charge, would mean that, in the vast majority of cases, if not all, the evaluator would be someone who was regulated by dint of having to have that insurance.
Clearly, pre-pack sales can be contentious, which has been reflected in some of the previous comments on and considerations of the measures. As I said in my opening remarks, when used correctly, pre-packs can be a valuable rescue tool, which is specifically relevant in this particular climate. The powers under which the regulations are made in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 are sufficiently wide to potentially permit regulations to be made to ban pre-pack sales to connected persons completely, but it was clear from the Government review of the 2015 measures that stakeholders believe that the opportunity to pre-pack a business and to be able to sell it should be preserved, but that there needs to be a stronger regulatory framework. The regulations strike that balance.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the regulations, we will monitor their implementation to see how they operate in practice, in particular to see whether they meet the objective of improving transparency for creditors and whether they dispel the perceived controversy surrounding pre-pack sales. If the evidence demonstrates that problems persist, the Government will consider whether further changes are necessary, including whether pre-pack sales to connected persons should be banned altogether. Similarly, if time proves that the regulations are impeding legitimate rescue attempts, we will consider whether there needs to be an adjustment to the provisions.
It is imperative now more than ever that we have a range of different tools within our insolvency and restructuring framework that allow companies the flexibility to choose the mechanism that will best help their particular circumstances. At the same time, there needs to be confidence that those affected by the insolvency of a company are treated fairly in order to encourage investment and entrepreneurship. I believe the regulations meet that challenge by retaining and strengthening the legislative framework for pre-pack sales to connected persons. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton
The UK Government take the issue of water and sanitation very seriously, as a development concern and as part of our approach to dealing with covid-19. Members have raised the importance of hand washing. Recognising that hand hygiene is a critical element to tackle the virus, in March last year we forged a unique partnership with Unilever: the Hygiene and Behaviour Change Coalition. It is a brilliant example of what we can achieve through partnership, with the private sector, the public sector, civil society and research institutions all working together. We provided £50 million of funding, which Unilever matched in hygiene products and expertise in promoting behaviour change.
[Official Report, 18 March 2021, Vol. 691, c. 590.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Wendy Morton
The UK Government take the issue of water and sanitation very seriously, as a development concern and as part of our approach to dealing with covid-19. Members have raised the importance of hand washing. Recognising that hand hygiene is a critical element to tackle the virus, in March last year we forged a unique partnership with Unilever: the Hygiene and Behaviour Change Coalition. It is a brilliant example of what we can achieve through partnership, with the private sector, the public sector, civil society and research institutions all working together. We provided up to £50 million of funding, which Unilever matched in hygiene products and expertise in promoting behaviour change.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Live Events: Government-backed Insurance
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerk’s email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery initially and move on to the horseshoe when seats there become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government-backed insurance for live events.
Everybody here today will be aware that live performance production is an inherently risky economic activity, as the majority of capital is expended on pre-production and rehearsal prior to any income returns retrieved at the performance stage. In other words, as a business, it needs to invest money before it can take money back again. And therein lies the problem: for all the glorious music and theatre that live events offer, behind the scenes it is all about money and the integrity of the business. Organisers simply cannot get the ball rolling—by sourcing locations, paying performers, hiring equipment and so on—if they are not guaranteed that the show will go ahead.
I have heard the Government say many times that it would be too expensive to create an insurance scheme. I beg to disagree with that. I think there needs to be a perspective shift inside Government. Government must stop seeing our calls for an insurance scheme as expenditure and see this instead as an investment opportunity. I say that because ultimately, if they help facilitate the return of live events, the economic and cultural returns will end up paying for the initial investment—it will pay for itself.
We know the economic potential of the industry. The creative industry contributes—can you believe it?—£13 million every hour to the British economy, with the live events industry adding £70 billion to the UK economy every year. However, the significance of live events is not limited to the UK-wide economy. When events take place, local economies benefit, not only in direct revenue but through the increased use of hospitality or transport services. For example, and as I have said many times, the Edinburgh Festival Fringe generates no less than £500 million in direct spending, and a further £560 million goes into the Scottish economy indirectly.
Up in my own patch in the far north of Scotland, my beloved Highland games are worth an estimated £25 million. The House can imagine what that means to rural areas. With 25% of the people attending those games, they provide a much-needed economic boost to my constituency and to other Scottish constituencies. But they also allow us to share Scottish culture with people all around the world.
At a time when this nation needs to recover, and aligned to employment opportunities, increasing the consumption of hospitality and bringing tourism to every nook and cranny of the country will help us not only build back better, but build back together. As the House can imagine, I do not want to see my constituency being left behind in this regard, but that is exactly what is happening. I am hearing now that Highland games are being cancelled all over the highlands and Scotland because of uncertainty as to what the Government advice is.
I am asking for a scheme to be arranged whereby the Government would back insurance and underwrite it. I am asking our Government to underwrite their own policy. If the Government are confident enough about their handling of the pandemic to ease restrictions, and if they have promised an irreversible road map, meaning the industry should not have to worry about further lockdowns, why are they so reluctant to put their money where their promises are?
If all the things that insurers are worried about never come to be, the Treasury will never have to make a payment. What this really demonstrates is the Government’s lack of confidence in their own policies; either that or they have a different definition of what their responsibilities are.
I think every hon. Member here today must have expertise in the industry. I am no expert, but I listen to experts such as Tim Thornhill from Tysers Insurance Brokers when they tell me that insurance is the key to unlock the festival and live events door. On discussions with industry experts, the Minister promised my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) last week that she would release documents relating to her discussion with industry experts and insurers. I am grateful that she has agreed to come and respond to our debate.
There is a precedent, with the Government underwriting insurance in the face of terrorism, and they make a lot of money on that—over £200 million in each of the two previous years. There is a precedent. I beg the Minister to listen to my plea.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening the debate today. I am co-sponsoring this debate with the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), with whom I serve on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
I want to focus again on the festival industry. I say “again” because I spoke about it in the DCMS estimates day debate a couple of weeks ago. The risks to events taking place this year revolve around three things: uncertainty, even with the road map; lack of working capital for our festivals; and the ongoing absence of the insurance solution.
There are, believe it or not, around 975 festivals in the UK every year—an incredible number. We reckon they generate around £1.75 billion to £1.8 billion for the UK economy every year and support around 85,000 jobs. According to the excellent UK Music, more than 5 million people attended a festival in 2019—including me. It was a Boomtown Fair in my Winchester constituency, and, for the record, Pattishall—a small community music festival in Northamptonshire. That really shows the difference between a very big event of tens of thousands of people and a very small village affair.
I would attest that a Government-backed insurance scheme is essential to the festival industry. I am not saying that insurance is the sole barrier to kickstarting festivals, and it is a leap of faith, in some respects, with taxpayers’ money. However, organisers cannot enter into the usual planning for 2021 without an insurance solution in place. It is simply the key that unlocks the process. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, it is unfortunate that we have not yet managed to persuade the Government of the case. I have to say that it is almost too late for 2021, but we must try, and we will. That is the purpose of today.
The sector is not churlish; it very much welcomes the Prime Minister’s road map out of lockdown, that it has “no earlier than” dates, and the news that many festivals may be able to go ahead in some capacity later this year. However, we must understand that this is surrounded by caveats, and the problem is the planning cycle. There will be no more than a week’s notice of step 4 being brought in. If all factors line up and 21 June is possible, festivals may not get the go-ahead until 14 June. The Government’s event research programme—which I welcome very much—including the pilots, will need to be successfully completed by 21 June to enable step 4. Yet this does not start until 12 April. Clearly, that has a significant impact on whether some festivals can proceed with planning for July and August this year, given the timeline without an insurance solution and the average go/no-go cut-off point being the end of this month. That is why I say it is almost too late.
The insurance we are talking about does not exist in the commercial market, which is unlikely to mobilise this until at least 2022, so there is a market failure, or a market gap. Even if festivals sell out well ahead of time, many organisers cannot draw down the revenue from the ticketing companies, as it remains ring-fenced to be paid out, rightly, post event or refunded to customers if necessary. It remains an enormous risk for any independent festival to proceed with costs up to 14 June, without insurance and many just will not take it. Major festivals such as Reading and Leeds have said that they will go ahead this year—Glastonbury, of course, has not—but it is important to say that they are not the barometer for the entire festival industry.
Members of the DCMS Committee wrote to the Treasury on 6 January. We reminded the Government that they have backed insurance for the film and television industry to the tune of some £500 million. It is now time to do this for other creative industries. That could take a number of forms: one requires no up-front contribution from the Government and utilises the existing Pool Re structure, developed in response to unpredictable and devastating acts of terrorism. That would leave the Treasury with a maximum liability, we think, of £1.5 billion and could be adapted to cover a range of sectors, including hospitality, sports and leisure, as well as festivals and live performances and events. The point is that none of this need ever be needed. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said on opening the debate, all the Government need to do is back their own road map. In his reply on 8 February, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said:
“My officials are working with DCMS officials to understand what a viable roadmap would be for the reopening of the events sector and therefore the right point to consider potential support options which could unlock a reopening of the sector, including insurance-based solutions.”
That sounded positive, but it was obviously over a month ago. Please will the Minister update us on that today?
The key question put by UK Music ahead of today’s debate is: do the Government believe that festivals should start planning for post-21 June without insurance in place? It made Government-backed insurance a key plank of its excellent “Let the Music Play: Save Our Summer 2021” report, which made it clear that it was welcome that the Government delivered on so many points in the report—an indicative date and extending financial support, to name but two. But without insurance, UK Music feels—and we agree—that the benefits to the sector are restricted.
The live sector desperately needs to return to work. The Minister is a great champion of that sector and she knows this. The Government have stated that they will do “whatever it takes” to support the economy and jobs and boy, have we done that. Seventy per cent. of musicians have seen their work fall by at least 75%; grassroots music venues, such as the Railway Inn in my constituency, have lost an average 75%—two thirds—of their income. Arenas are in the same position and technical companies have lost on average 95% of their income. This is devastation across the sector. The longer the live music sector is shut, the greater the damage and the more difficult the recovery. Therefore, quickly clearing this insurance barrier is key to guaranteeing recovery. UK Music has calculated that a £680 million Government-backed insurance scheme for music could underwrite £2 billion in activity.
The Government have stated that they are not intervening because insurance is not “the only barrier” to events taking place and has pointed to other interventions they have made, such as the job retention scheme, the self-employed scheme and the cultural recovery fund—all excellent schemes. The music sector is very grateful for those and other interventions, but they do not negate the need for insurance, and their utility in supporting reopening is less than it would be without an insurance solution.
It is unclear what the Government mean by “the only barrier”. If reopening goes ahead on 21 June, the only reason for live music events not to go ahead would be this inability to get the insurance—we keep coming back to that. If public health in defence of delaying reopening is the other barrier referred to, the industry is—let’s face it—in a Catch-22, because it is the possibility of that intervention that is distorting the commercial music market and raising the need for Government intervention in the first place.
In conclusion, this matters for all the reasons that I have touched on this morning, but it matters right now when events, short of insurance, short of certainty and short of cashflow, are selling tickets to young people desperate for something to look forward to.
We cannot have events that do not have a licence in place, as sometimes happens. I found one the other day that had not even contacted the safety advisory group of the respective local authority and was selling tickets—often at £100-plus a go—on the promise of hope alone. That will do the vast majority of this well-run and professional industry no favours whatsoever, but in many ways it is a symptom of the situation that we are in.
I appreciate that the insurance situation is difficult. It is not the only issue in play here and we do not pretend that it is, but it is the key that can unlock the door.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and it is also a pleasure to be part of this cross-party supergroup this morning, which has got together to work across party lines and to argue for proper insurance indemnity for events this year from the Government.
I thank the Minister for her attendance, although, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—who, like me, is on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee—has just said, we would really like to hear from the Treasury, because we would like to know what it has made of all the representations that have been made to it by the industries that we are talking about today. For fronting up for the Government time and again, the Minister deserves some kind of award, but we need to know the answers, and one wonders whether they are currently locked away in a vault somewhere across the road in the Treasury. We want to know what the Treasury really thinks.
As the hon. Member for Winchester did, I will focus today on festivals and live music events, but I will also say a little bit about theatre. I will not go through the whole set of statistics, as the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Winchester have already done. Suffice it to say that one statistic for Cardiff is that across the river from my constituency, in the Principality Stadium, Ed Sheeran played four nights in a row in June 2018 to 60,000 people a night, which is nearly a quarter of a million people over the course of just a few nights. I do not need to spell out to hon. Members and to people watching this debate the economic impact of such events, and their importance to the economy of Cardiff and to the wider economy of south Wales.
In talking about festivals this morning, we want the Government to provide some clarity. If it is the case that it is not going to be possible for them to underwrite events and if it is going to be the case that they do not think that they will stick to their irreversible timetable and will probably have to impose further restrictions in the future, they should say so, because at the moment the sector is being led along on a string effectively and is unable to progress appropriately.
I have heard it said that the Government think that because festivals and live music events are selling tickets they do not need insurance, but of course normally—in a normal year—that ticket revenue would be used to do the build and provide the infrastructure to put on things such as festivals. However, this year is not a normal year, because festivals cannot get any cancellation insurance; they cannot get insurance against not being able to proceed, which would normally be available in the market, as the hon. Member for Winchester said. As a result, that money would have to be returned to ticket purchasers if the event was unable to go ahead and there would be a huge impact on those trying to put on festivals and also further down the supply chain.
That is why the hon. Gentleman—who, as I have said, is on the DCMS Committee, like me—was quite right to draw the attention of that Committee and of the Minister to the possibility of money being taken from people that will never be returned to them, and potentially fraudulent activity taking place around the festival scene this year without the kind of certainty that insurance provides. So we need either insurance to be underwritten for the sector to be able to restart or a clear indication that festivals will not be able to take place and financial support to allow the sector to survive into 2022.
Other countries are doing things about this situation.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman is making a splendid contribution to the debate, which I really appreciate. Does he agree that the longer we delay in getting these events up and running, the more danger there is of people losing momentum and even deskilling, in terms of performance and generating public enthusiasm?
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have praised the investment in the culture recovery fund, which the Minister will mention in her remarks at the end of the debate—she has to do that; it is an important riff for her as the Minister. There are criticisms, however. In the 1980s, we had the concept of the neutron bomb, which was developed so that it would kill the enemy but not destroy the buildings all around. In a way, the culture recovery fund is a wonderful thing, but if it just saves the buildings and some infrastructure, but does not protect the people in the sector and the skills that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that will be an additional cost. He is right to make that point.
I was going to mention what is happening in other countries. The Danish Government have announced an event cancellation fund of €67.2 million. The Dutch Government have just announced an insurance fund of €385 million. Finland’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment is working on a Government-backed insurance scheme for summer events, to be finalised by the end of the month. The Estonian Government have a scheme. The Germans have a similar fund, of €2.5 billion, to cover promoter risk. I could also mention schemes proposed by the Austrian, Belgian and Norwegian Governments. Such a scheme is not without precedent, because there is a precedent in the creative industries in this country, in the film and television sector. All that many people in the industry are asking for is a similar scheme. It is vital for live music events and festivals that action is taken.
I want to speak briefly about theatre. The theatre sector, and UK Theatre, have been lobbying Government hard for months. Many people involved in theatre production are also involved in film and television production, and they do not understand why the Treasury could provide an insurance indemnity scheme for the film and television industry, but could not provide an identical scheme for the theatre sector, as UK Theatre is asking for. Without a return to normal for theatre production, there will be a huge negative impact on the total economy, including loss of tax revenues and economic activity. That will be felt particularly badly in city centres and some towns.
The insurance market is not offering a scheme of this kind, and it is clear that it will not offer one for the foreseeable future—into 2022 at the very least. The risk exposure figures have been provided to Her Majesty’s Government by, for example, UK Theatre and the new umbrella body for the live sector. The Treasury has not publicly said what is wrong with those figures, and that is what we need to know—if it does not agree with what the sector is saying, it should say so.
We need to hear from the Minister not only about the culture recovery fund, although we understand how important it has been, but about the discussions between her and the Secretary of State and the Treasury. What have the discussions been like, and what is the Treasury saying? If it will not be possible to provide an underwriting insurance scheme, the Government should come clean with the creative industries, so that they can plan accordingly, and Ministers should offer support to help them through to the next stage of this dreadful pandemic.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this valuable debate. I share with him direct experience of involvement with the live events sector, and know how close it is to his heart, as a former performer. Although my hon. Friend and I represent the same party in Parliament, we represent very different constituencies. In both our constituencies—his in the far north, in the rural highlands, and mine on the outskirts of London—live events are an important part of the cultural experience. I am sure that that is the same for every constituency in the country and that live events, particularly in the summer, are part of the lifeblood of the community.
Other Members have talked about events in their constituencies. We have some fabulous events in Richmond Park. Kew Gardens, which I am privileged to represent, holds a wonderful live music concert called Kew the Music. We also have lots of little events going on. There is open-air cinema in Canbury Gardens, and there are fairs in all our neighbourhoods every year, but much of that is being put at risk this year.
There is so much pent-up demand, with people stuck at home all year. They have been staring at their laptops, as I am now, or their television screens. Live events are such an important part of the cultural and economic life of the country because nothing can replace that personal experience of theatre or live music. There is nothing like it. I am sure we can all remember our favourite gig, our best experience of live music, whether that is the Proms, Glastonbury, Glyndebourne or just a band in the local park. We will all remember that as an exciting experience that we long for more than ever after the terrible year we have had, which we are commemorating today.
That is why I wanted to be in this debate and to speak up for live events. I have had experience of appearing in theatre and putting on theatrical productions. I know that, above all, live events are risky—you have to take a chance. Planning will start in January or February, tickets will start to be sold, notice will be given of what will happen in June and the acts will be booked. Anything could go wrong in that time: the headline act could fall ill or encounter some other obstacle, or the weather might not be what was hoped for—any number of things could go wrong.
Paying for insurance is already a large part of the cost of putting on a live event. This year we have the additional massive uncertainty of whether the Government will allow live events to go ahead in the summer. I support the Government’s road map; I think it is right to be cautious, to take things slowly and not to make a decision until June on whether live events can go ahead. The frustration and tragedy is that we have great pent-up demand for live events. We have a huge number of people who are ready, able and willing to get out there and start performing again and putting on events. We just need to be able to bridge the risk gap, which is why I support calls for a Government-backed insurance scheme and think it is so important.
The sector supports a huge number of jobs. Obviously, a lot of that is unskilled seasonal work, but that is an important part of our economy, not just for students but for young people leaving school and those constrained from entering the regular workforce. The live events industry also gives opportunities to entrepreneurs, particularly in food and retail. There are lots of easy-to-access opportunities to sell directly to the general public, without some of the cost barriers that might be experienced in other retail.
There is also skilled work for technicians of all types in lighting, sound, logistics and freight. To pick up on the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, there is a risk that we will lose some of those skills. Once people find that they cannot earn a living doing what they trained for, they will do something else. Even more importantly, I am concerned that we will lose the pipeline, particularly in our creative industries. I am concerned for musicians, actors, set designers and costume designers, many of whom have been without work for 12 months.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who has done fantastic work as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in support. We must not forget that a lot of those people who are waiting to hear whether they have work this summer have not had any financial support all year. They have often worked on a contract basis. As we all know, contractors have lost out on furlough and the self-employment income support scheme. Many of them have really had no support at all, so I urge the Treasury to look at what it can do to try to get the live events sector back up and running this summer, particularly to support those people.
I am very concerned for the creative sector in particular. It is such a strategic sector for our country in terms of what we export abroad. Our cultural products are among the best in the world, and it is absolutely essential that the Government maintain this pipeline. There will be young people leaving school or university this summer—talented musicians and aspiring actors—who will look at our cultural sector at the moment and think to themselves, “It’s too risky to try to earn a living. There isn’t enough economic support out there for musicians or actors.” Then they will go off and seek employment in other sectors. That will lead to the weakening of our cultural sector. I just want to reiterate that it is such an important sector for us in terms of projecting our values and our soft power around the world, and there is no more important time than now for us to be doing so.
I know that the Treasury is not present in this debate, but I take this opportunity to call on it to think strategically about supporting the cultural sector. I really value the work of many of those present in identifying the need for a Government-backed insurance scheme; it is a straightforward solution that can really help to kickstart things and remove some of the risks and barriers to getting live events back up and running this summer. That will be so important to so many people—both those working in these industries and those of us who have been stuck at home for a year and who just want to get back out there. It will be a massive boost to the mental health of the nation if live music events can take place again this summer.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I agree with one of the critical points that she made, which is about people involved in the arts, and support to the arts, having fared particularly badly in this pandemic. That has been an issue of real regret.
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for leading this debate, and I agree very strongly with the points they made. I will not speak for too long, because I just want to echo some of those points, specifically in relation to festivals on the Isle of Wight.
The Isle of Wight is effectively Britain’s festival island; we are home to a new festival almost every weekend, over and above the significant, major festivals that we have hosted, such as the Isle of Wight festival and Cowes Week, which is the biggest sailing event in the world. Festivals contribute significant value to the island’s economy, although their value is wider than just economic. They support extensive supply chains, local businesses, equipment hire and similar areas of the economy. They also support the island’s visitor economy, such as shops, bars, restaurants and accommodation, and they also help local farmers to diversify their incomes. The funding and spend of almost all the smaller independent festivals also go directly into the local economy, employing hundreds, if not thousands, of people. As well as an economic impact, they also have a significant cultural impact on the island.
As has been pointed out, festivals are year-long endeavours; as soon as one festival is finished, those involved are already planning next year. A year’s worth of effort goes into something that is mostly only a weekend long. While other elements of the hospitality industry, such as pubs and restaurants, can turn off and on during lockdown—however inconvenient that is—it has been very difficult for the festival and arts industries to do that.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West eloquently explained why Government-backed insurance—pooled reinsurance, to use the term that was used in the IRA days—is a very good idea, and I fully support it. Given the long lead times, we need to help, and we need to give confidence to festival organisers, so that they know that their work will not be wasted. It is likely that festivals will be able to go ahead this summer, with all the new mitigations in place around testing and the vaccination process, so I do not quite understand why we cannot have a pooled reinsurance scheme, which could be relatively cheap but help to kickstart this element of our arts and entertainment industry.
What concerns me is that every day we are in lockdown, it costs us a minimum of half a billion pounds in lost economic output and cost to the Treasury. If we can come out of lockdown only a few days earlier, we could be billions of pounds better off. A very small percentage of that money could be used to provide a scheme of pooled reinsurance for festivals—not only on the Isle of Wight, but across Britain. As everybody who has spoken in the debate has said, we need those festivals for people’s mental health and for the enjoyment of arts, culture and music, including the music festivals that we have on the Island. We badly need those in our lives again, because we have missed them in the last year. As well as helping our economy, they enrich our souls.
I hope very much that the Minister, who I know is absolutely passionate about her role, can see her way to working on the Treasury a bit harder, so that we can have some kind of pooled reinsurance scheme to support all the great festival businesses and all the jobs that they support on the Isle of Wight and throughout the United Kingdom.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. It is also a real pleasure to sum up the debate for the Scottish National party, and I congratulate our trio of trusty troubadours, led by the choirmaster, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), on bringing this important issue to the House. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This is yet another instalment of the ongoing travails of our live music industry and the artists who are involved on the frontline of it—the next verse in the song entitled “The Worst of Times”. Live music is vulnerable, like no other sector, to the strictures and conditions of covid. It suffers probably more than any other sector under the requirement to keep people socially distanced as we get on top of this pandemic. Music is a social business: it involves people coming together, and it involves performance. It is all about community and coming together, and it is obvious that music will suffer as a result of people being restricted in coming together. Whereas other sectors can now look forward with a degree of optimism to the possibility of getting back to work and back to normal, live music can only surveil its future with continuing anxiety and concern, underpinned by the lack of clarity at the heart of the planning.
Everybody just wants to get back to gigs. We have heard from hon. Members about how imperative that is and what it does, not just for the economy of this nation, but for our wellbeing, our sense of ourselves and our enjoyment of the things that we like to get out and do that make us feel normal. A YouGov survey that really struck me a couple of weeks ago showed that half the UK population want to go to live events this summer and that 75% believe that live events are a critical part of our culture. We know that the demand is there and that people are just waiting for the green light to go out and see their favourite bands once again.
Hon. Members are right to remind us of the contribution that live music brings to the economy and of the sense of joy that music gives us all. The Government can help unlock this boost to the economy, at no real cost to themselves, by giving a commitment to help underwrite the costs in case of any cancellations that might occur—cancellations that have nothing to do with the festivals, but that result from obeying the requirements set by the Government.
We recognise what the Government are doing, and we welcome the measures that have already been outlined—I am sure the Minister will tell us about them again, and there is no question about the fact that they have been thoroughly good. The expanded support for freelancers and the self-employed is a step in the right direction for an industry in which three quarters of the 200,000 workforce are self-employed. We welcome the £300 million boost to the culture recovery fund, but I still do not understand why it cannot be extended to include freelancers, which is how we operate our schemes in Scotland and Wales.
All of that is welcome and will help, but for live music, and particularly for our festivals, as we heard from hon. Members who discussed the festivals in their constituencies, there have to be guarantees and assurances so that events can go ahead, secure in the knowledge that, if there are covid events beyond their control, there will be somebody there to step in. There is only a period of weeks for staging live music events this summer. Organisers will have to make decisions in the next few days and weeks about whether they can proceed or whether they will be forced to cancel. It is all about having the confidence to proceed and the security to go ahead. The live music industry urgently needs this Government-backed insurance scheme to protect against the risk of losses if a festival or concert is forced to cancel due to covid.
Already, as we have heard, it is too late for some great music festivals across the UK. Some have decided that they just cannot take the risk; Glastonbury will not be going ahead for a second year this year. Others have decided that the risk is still worth taking, and are still planning to put on their festival events. Reading and Leeds festivals have been mentioned, and I really hope they are able to go ahead this year. Some are still assessing the risk. Festivals such as Latitude, Wireless and Download say that everything hangs in the balance, with the final choice dependent on whether an insurance scheme is in place.
It is worth recognising that, even without covid, festivals are already a risky business, and that risk could be of the order of millions of pounds. The fields of the UK are littered with failed festival enterprises. Every year, the margins get tighter and it gets tougher and tougher for festivals to prosper and succeed. The festival experience is variously a holiday, a rite of passage and an opportunity to participate in a little weekend of all-consuming hedonism. The general rule is that if you remember it, you were not really there.
I have been pretty lucky: I have seen festivals from both sides. I have played in most of the big festivals around Europe, and I know exactly what they mean to people—not just the people who go to see it, great as it is for them, but for the artists. I think it is only me and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) who have appeared live on the Pyramid stage at Glastonbury, though I think I am the only one who appeared there with a musical instrument. For the artist, it is the highlight of the live performance calendar, and for so many it is an essential source of income. If a new band is invited along to a festival such as T in the Park, Reading or Glastonbury, they share a stage with legends—people who have been in the business for decades. It is such an immense thrill and opportunity. Sometimes, they get the opportunity to play to tens of thousands of people, maybe after just performing in the local pub. They are tipped as being the next big thing, and it is a real opportunity to test their talents. For musicians, it is immense; it is such an important feature of the development of their career and the progression of what they have to offer.
It is not just about the musicians; it is also about the crew, the stage constructors, the security staff and the hundreds of members of the public recruited to ensure the success of the event. In fact, building a festival is like constructing a temporary large town or small city, with all the infrastructure that is required. I had T in the Park just next door to me in the Ochil and South Perthshire constituency, and for one weekend per year when T in the Park was on the go, it was the eighth-largest settlement in Scotland.
It is more than that; it is about what it delivers for the community in Perthshire. T in the Park was the second-biggest festival in the UK, and throughout the weekend when it was on, every single hotel and restaurant in Perth in my constituency was full. The communities of Kinross and Milnathort, which were a sort of base camp for T in the Park, were practically part of the festival. We need reassurance that these festivals can go ahead, not just for the artists, the musicians and the industry but for the communities we serve. They need to know that the festivals can go ahead with security. People need the confidence to put on festivals again.
I think it was the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)—it was certainly one of our trio—who said that other countries are able to do this. They think it is valuable. Last week, Denmark became the latest country to introduce Government-backed insurance for events. I know Danish festivals really well. Festivals are an intrinsic part of the music offer in Denmark. Every single town and city has a festival, so the Danish Government have moved in to protect their industry, and I congratulate them on that. It is not just Denmark; festival organisers have been supported in Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium. If all those countries right across Europe can do it, why cannot the UK?
It all starts with the UK Government engaging with the industry on how best to ensure that we get an insurance scheme that works for our live music sector. As we have heard, the Government have already backed the film industry with a bespoke insurance scheme. That is great: it is required and it needed to happen, but it needs to happen for music too. There is a proposal on the table. We know that several live events organisations have got together and worked to produce a scheme that is probably sitting on the Minister’s desk: all she needs to do is sign it off, and we are there.
Tysers is calling for the UK to support a £650 million insurance scheme to get our live sector back on its feet. This proposal could support the whole of the live events sector—promoters, venues and artists—and prevent job losses and economic inactivity. As an insurance fund, it has the added benefit that it may not even be used, making it even more cost effective than grants. The Government have absolutely nothing to lose from getting involved with the live music sector and going along with this. This package of support will be targeted directly at UK beneficiaries, providing them with the support and confidence they need to put on shows and events, and unleashing over £2 billion of economic potential. The Minister has nothing to lose, so I ask her to look at the scheme, and give it her backing and the green light.
The proposed scheme would have a timeframe only up to the end of 2022, and it would be available only to companies putting on shows in line with guidance. It would not cover non-coronavirus issues, and claims would be capped at a certain budget and must be justified. This is all in the Government’s hands—it is all there, ready to go, if there is the political will—and the benefit for the Minister is that this time around, she does not have to deal with the invidious EU. This is nothing to do with it; it is not a constraining feature or factor. She does not have to sit around the table to negotiate a visa arrangement with it: it is all about her and her Department. The only door she needs to knock on is that of the Treasury, to unlock this fund, give the assurance, the confidence and the backing, and get this unleashed. People want to go to gigs; let them go. The artists just cannot wait to get back to performing live. I have tried every week to watch a live show online, just to make sure that our artists are supported, but believe me, they want to play in front of audiences again. They have been deprived of that for a year, and they need to have that contact. They need to get those guitars, keyboards, drums, basses, or whatever in front of an audience and play them.
People want to get back to gigs. Live music is important to all the communities we represent, and live music and music tourism give a real boost to our economy. This is in the Government’s hands; they can give the reassurance that is required. Let us bring the music back.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve virtually under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on having brought forward this important debate this morning.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has spoken extensively on the importance of live music; in fact, listening to him talk about Glastonbury made me feel quite unambitious in life, in comparison with the passion that many people feel about their opportunities to perform. I understand that because, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) mentioned, nothing can replace live events. Most of us knew that before; we certainly know it after the past year of hell without them.
I also thank all members of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who have spoken expertly on the issue of an insurance scheme. The Select Committee has done very good work on this, and I am sure the Minister will be looking very closely at what its members have said this morning, in addition to the extensive evidence that it has provided to the Government.
I want to ask one further thing on that, and then make two more brief points before we hear from the Minister. It does seem that the Treasury is the decision maker here, so I wonder why we have a Minister from DCMS before us this morning, not a Treasury Minister. It feels as though, on a number of issues, DCMS is essentially communicating messages from the Treasury, and it would be good to hear directly from the horse’s mouth.
On other support, Members also mentioned the way in which some Treasury schemes have not suited well those in the creative and cultural industries. I really hope that point has been heard and understood, not only by DCMS Ministers but by those in the Treasury; it would be good to hear directly from them on that.
Secondly, we know that events are crucial to our economy. Members also spoke this morning on the size, scale and centrality of creative industries generally, and the events industry specifically, in the UK. We currently have trial events taking place, and it would be good if the Minister could say a little bit more about the process for those, particularly as, again, some of the issues there will not necessarily be handled completely by DCMS; there will obviously be input from the Cabinet Office and potentially the Department of Health and Social Care. Will she talk about the process for reviewing those, who will be involved and who will be the decision makers in Government on the steps to move forward? Will the Minister also commit to an open-book approach? Will we be able to see and review evidence that the Government collect, because that would be helpful in building confidence in the process? A huge number of uncertainties face the events industry—as Members already covered; I will not go over them again—so making sure that we are all able to work together will be helpful.
Finally, we need to make sure that the current economic turbulence driven by covid does not reinforce any of the pre-existing structural inequalities that exist in the United Kingdom, whether that is labour force inequalities—unemployment statistics out today show the hugely disproportionate impact of covid on jobs for younger people—or places in our country that previously experienced deindustrialisation or other economic disadvantage. Several Members highlighted the important role that the live events sector plays in those places; many of the jobs that we are talking about are good jobs in areas that really need them. It would be terrible if the virus exacerbated any of the structural inequalities that previously held our country back, particularly over the past 10 years. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Work and Pensions and others to make sure that it is not only the Treasury that understands that its schemes and programmes need to better fit the creative industries?
I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope she listened carefully to all that those Select Committee members have said and will let us know how decisions on this will be taken from here.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
It is such a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Rosindell, and to respond on behalf of the Government to this important debate. I start by heaping praise on to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this vital debate and enabling this discussion on a subject that is so important to such a vast number of our sectors. It is quite poignant that this debate comes a year since the lockdown started. What a horrible year it has been. So many speakers highlighted just what a huge loss it has been to so many of us to have live events missing from our lives.
The hon. Gentleman spoke with great passion about events in his part of Scotland, including the highland games, of course, which as well as being wonderful for local morale, spirit and wellbeing are a huge contributor to the local economy and a global phenomenon that really puts Scotland on the map; they are well known all around the world. I completely understand his desire to see them back up and running again as soon as possible. In fact, the strength of sentiment shown across the room demonstrates how desperately important the digital, culture, media and sport sectors are not just to our economy and our heritage, but to our sense of wellbeing as a nation. We are desperate to be able to return to live events.
As if to taunt me, we have had representatives from some of the areas where I was due to have seen live events last year. I was due to go to Kew the Music to see the Gipsy Kings. I was due to have been at Boomtown and at the Isle of Wight festival. All of that was taken away so I can completely understand people’s frustration from a personal perspective as well as a professional one. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) spoke about the pent-up demand and she hit the nail on the head. We are all desperate to be able to return to live events from festivals, gigs and theatre to business and sporting events, and we want to do that as soon as it is safe to do so.
Many hon. Members have highlighted the vast contribution that DCMS sectors make to the UK’s international standing, to all our lives and specifically to the economy—in 2019, £116 billion from the creative industries, £17 billion from sport, £151 billion from digital, and £75 billion from tourism. These sectors together support a total of around 6.9 million jobs. We have an economic imperative as well as a cultural one to stand by those industries.
Kevin Brennan
We have our differences but I am grateful to have this conversation. I know the Minister’s personal support for the sector and she has rightly emphasised its economic value. Have the Government looked at the schemes in other European countries that I highlighted in my remarks, which are being put in place to underwrite the possibility of having events go ahead? What is her assessment of what other countries are doing and whether the UK could mirror that?
Caroline Dinenage
I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised this because, of course, we are looking at all the schemes. I was coming on to say that the hon. Member for Richmond Park talked about that as a straightforward solution and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said how we have nothing to lose, but the person who hit the nail on the head was my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who said this is a leap of faith for the Government.
There have been different schemes announced around the world, but most recently the German scheme has now been stalled. The €2.5 billion that the Germans promised has been stalled in light of the public health situation as they have announced a third lockdown in Germany over Easter. That is the worst possible situation—to announce a package of support and then withdraw it. That is the situation that we want to avoid, which is why we are looking at this so carefully.
I understand more than anything the urgency of the situation when it comes to a decision on indemnity, and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said it is key that this decision is made soon. Like so many of the tough decisions that have been made over the last year, it is a really difficult one, and ultimately it is a decision for the Treasury because it is a financial one, as he pointed out. In DCMS, our job is to work very closely with the sector, as we have been doing right the way through this crisis, to figure out exactly what is needed, to gather all the evidence together and to present that to our colleagues in the Treasury.
As many colleagues have said today, the circumstances of the pandemic have left so many of the sectors that DCMS is proud to represent without the certainty they need to confidently reopen. Our engagement started from day one. Almost on a weekly basis, I am talking to one group or another from across our sectors. We have working groups and those that are bringing together guidance. I have met individually with representatives from various sectors. I met with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) along with all the festivals on the Island. I met with all the festivals in Edinburgh, for example. We are continually engaging with stakeholders throughout this period to understand what they need, what the barriers are to reopening, and what the challenges are, and that will, of course, include indemnity cover.
Jamie Stone
If I understand the Minister correctly, she is saying to us, in drawing the comparison with Germany, that the time is not ripe. Can I then assume that there will be some stage, hopefully as soon as possible, when the time is ripe to look at such schemes?
Caroline Dinenage
What I am saying is that the decision is with the Treasury right now. We are working very closely with the Treasury to provide the evidence it needs to make a financial decision on this, and it is a big financial decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester hit the nail on the head when he said it is a leap of faith. It is obviously a big financial decision that the Treasury has to make. I am trying to articulate the background within which that decision will be made. But it is absolutely still on the table, and it is absolutely still a decision being looked at right now. In DCMS we are really keen to gather all the evidence that is needed to make that case.
Steve Brine
I want to stiffen the argument that the Minister is making to the Treasury. It is about the supply chain, which the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) touched on. It is not simply the case that they are going to have another rotten year; for many in the supply chain, two years of this will end their business, and then they will fall into other support schemes. The calculation that the Department can make to Her Majesty’s Treasury, therefore, is of a reduction in other areas if it saves here. I think that there is very much an argument about investing to save that the Department can make to Treasury colleagues.
Caroline Dinenage
I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. Another Member—I cannot remember who it was—said that this is, by definition, quite a precarious industry anyway. My eldest son was due to go to the Boardmasters festival down in Newquay the year before, which was tragically cancelled because of the weather. The festival organisers have had to put up with two years of cancellations already before 2021, so Members can see what a huge pressure has been put on them.
However, hon. Members will recognise that the bar for considering Government intervention is set extremely high, as of course it has to be, especially in light of the considerable extension to so many financial packages that have already been helping our sectors—the furlough scheme, the business rate relief, the VAT cuts and local business support. The key thing that will give us much more certainty as we move forward is our world-class vaccination roll-out, along with all the steps we have been taking to beat the virus. This, along with reopening when we are confident that it is safe to do so, will reduce the chance of cancellation and interruptions due to covid-19, creating a much more predictable and secure opening context for all sorts of events to take place. Hopefully that will de-risk the sector as well.
In that context, we are continuing to engage with organisations to work through all the barriers to staging events, and indemnity insurance is of course one of those. It is part of our wider drive to reopen our crucial sectors as quickly as it is safe to do so. We are also working with other Departments. The Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), asked me about that. We do meet regularly with other Departments. I met with representatives from a number of Departments last week, and we worked very closely with them to talk about the public health context and ensure that we are in a good position. In an ideal world, the insurance sector itself would step up to the plate and support this vital part of our economy, but in the absence of that, any decision on a sponsor package rests with the Treasury.
The Government recognise the challenges that have been faced by organisations and individuals alike and have ensured that support is available. The hon. Member for Cardiff West trailed this, but I will now talk about some of the specific things that have taken place across the wider economy. A number of Members have spoken about freelancers, and we know that so many of our live events depend upon an army of really talented freelancers, who do a whole range of really skilled jobs. Our sectors rely on freelance work more than any other, and I am keenly aware of the financial needs that many have found themselves in. That is why I was really pleased that in his Budget speech the Chancellor extended the self-employed income support scheme, which means an additional 600,000 people can access support on top of those who have already received it. In addition, Arts Council England has so far awarded £51 million to individuals needing support. Those things are important as well, as we try to work our way back.
The Chancellor also announced that the 100% business rates holiday for retail, hospitality and leisure in England has been extended by an additional three months. He has also extended the 5% VAT reduction until 30 September, before then tapering it for the rest of the financial year. It is worth saying that the VAT cut alone is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to be worth around £4.7 billion for hospitality and tourism and visitor attractions. A new recovery loan scheme will also be launched to replace the existing Government guarantee schemes that close at the end of March, which have supported £73 billion of lending to date. This will help businesses of all sizes, including in our vital DCMS sectors and numerous live events, to take the next stage of recovery.
A total of £700 million of extra funding to support our world-leading arts, culture and sporting institutions was announced in the Budget, all serving to protect what makes the UK a world-leading destination. The levelling-up fund—45 new town deals and city growth deals in Scotland and Wales—shows how the Government are investing right across our Union.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister is being generous in giving way; I am grateful. I understand that she has to outline the other things that the Government are doing—in another debate, many of us would argue that there are still a lot of gaps and that a lot of people are missing out—but the subject of today’s debate is Government-backed insurance for live events. Just to take her back to that for a moment, I listened to what she said earlier. Some in the creative industries feel that the Government might be delaying an announcement on this because they are going to cherry-pick which sectors they will be prepared to provide some insurance indemnity for eventually, and that the major victim of that will be live music and the festivals sector. That will just be filed in the drawer at the Treasury marked “Too difficult.” Are they wrong in thinking that?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is slightly over-complicating this. I do not think that is the case at all. The film and TV restart scheme was something that many thought would be too difficult, but we were able to do that at pace last year, and by the last quarter of last year we were seeing more film and TV production than virtually any other quarter, so we know that these things can be done despite obstacles.
Also, the hon. Member for Cardiff West must be careful not to brush away the £65 billion-worth of measures announced in the Budget for this year and next, which will support the economy through the pandemic. Those things are literally saving livelihoods every single day, and of course that builds on the existing support already committed, which totalled £353 billion across the economy. The support that has been put in place is world leading and has been vital to the continued survival and recovery of our DCMS sectors. I meet parts of our sectors every week, and they have seen measures such as the furlough scheme and the business support measures as a lifeline allowing their survival.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West talks about bricks and mortar, but it is also about individuals, and there has been a lot of direct support for individuals. At the end of the day, however, the one thing that so many of our great performers, artists and professionals in these sectors want to do is get back to work as quickly as possible. They need to have venues in which to be able to do that. That is why it is important that that support is across the board and why the culture recovery fund has been so successful, with an additional £300 million dedicated to that in the Budget. That is an extension of the original £1.57 billion fund, which is unprecedented. That will safeguard our cultural and heritage organisations, while it also helps support supply chain organisations, which rely so much on them, with supply chain organisations able to apply for both of the rounds so far.
I want to talk a little about the road map and the reopening. The Prime Minister announced the scientific events research programme and a number of hon. Members have asked me about that. It is an integral part of the road map, which will explore how larger events across the cultural and entertainment sectors can reopen safely. Over the spring this will include a series of pilots that will use enhanced testing approaches and other measures to run events with larger crowd sizes and reduced social distancing and evaluate the outcomes. The road map sets out the planned caps on capacity for events when they reopen at stage 3, but the findings will come from all different sectors and settings to determine a consistent approach to lifting the restrictions when the time is right.
I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that I cannot wait to have our theatre, sport, festivals, live music venues and events open as soon as possible. As the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, the Government stand ready to do whatever it takes to help our country and our economy recover from the disruption of the coronavirus pandemic.
Jamie Stone
I rather fancied that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) was hinting, perhaps with tongue in cheek, at my role in events and festivals in the past. I therefore rise to my feet as a former panto dame—I have waited many years to utter those words. When I was in costume, I would have said that it was madness to suggest that I would ever be in the House of Commons to say that.
I thank all who have contributed to this debate. I am more grateful than I can say for their thoughtful contributions, and I am grateful to the Minister, who, within her role, has given us the best answer that she can, but I think it is a moving situation.
I want to touch on several points. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, the Minister indicated that she might share the documentation of reasoning with my hon. Friend. May I appeal to her to share it with Members present here today? I say this not as an effort to try to score points, but to see whether we can work together constructively to see how we can get the industry back on its feet. I emphasise the point again that it is an investment that we seek. Money injected into an industry that desperately needs it will be a shot in the arm, and that money will in turn be recycled into not only the national economy, but local economies—a point made eloquently by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) pointed out that other countries are putting into place such schemes, so I hope that we are on a road map to doing something similar as and when we can, or as soon as possible.
I want to end with this point: at the end of the day, we are all talking about something that is terribly important to the way we live our lives in the UK, because events and festivals brighten up people’s lives and they are fun. God only knows, after the horrific time we have had with the pandemic, we need some fun in this country, and it would make an enormous difference to everyone’s lives.
Finally, Mr Rosindell, apart from thanking your good self—it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—I say to the Minister that when we have the Tain highland gathering again, it will be my pleasure to buy her a glass of our excellent local beverage called Glenmorangie.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government-backed insurance for live events.
Smoke-free Society by 2030
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind hon. Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times to each other and to us here in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reduced-risk smoking products and proposals for a smoke-free society by 2030.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, albeit from such a long distance. I am pleased to see the Minister there too. At the outset, I declare my interest as an honorary life fellow of Cancer Research UK.
This is not the first occasion on which I have raised the need to pursue the goal of a smoke-free society. I raised it previously in a Westminster Hall debate in 2019. I continue to pursue this issue because the ills of smoking continue to persist and they will continue to trouble our society for many years to come unless we take action now.
Today, I speak with hope. This year, we have an opportunity that we must embrace. Our exit from the European Union has provided us with the opportunity to take control of our own policy to improve public health, to contribute to the Government’s levelling-up agenda and to enhance the United Kingdom’s reputation as a world leader on tobacco harm reduction. The Minister’s Department is currently reviewing the regulations that have in recent years transposed the EU’s tobacco products directive into UK law and the Minister has committed to producing a new tobacco control plan this summer. I hope that in her remarks today she will set out what progress the Department has made in the process and confirm the plan’s anticipated publication date.
Since the last Westminster Hall debate that I secured on this issue in June 2019, the Government have committed to delivering a smoke-free society by 2030. There is no time to waste, and nor should we waste the opportunities that we have this year. The needs of the 7 million people in the UK who, sadly, still smoke must remain at the forefront of our minds. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is listening, I am sure he will be pleased to hear, especially in these difficult times, that nothing I propose this morning will require any expenditure by Her Majesty’s Treasury.
It should, of course, go without saying that smoking kills. While the number of people who smoke has fallen in recent years, the problem is still real, and it is a problem that reflects inequalities. We might not all see it in our constituencies, but there are large parts of the country where smoking rates remain troublingly high. The health costs of tobacco consumption fall disproportionately on the poor, ethnic minorities and those suffering from mental health conditions. Disadvantaged communities across the country are being left behind and the inequalities gap is getting worse.
In addition, statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that intention to quit has gone down almost year on year since 2015. Analysis by Cancer Research UK indicates that the Government are not on track to meet the new smoke-free 2030 target. In fact, its modelling predicts that adult smoking prevalence in England will not reach 5% until 2037. The pace of change needs to be around 40% faster than projected to deliver the ambitious target, so now is the time to act. It is time to make use of our newly restored policy making freedoms to make a difference with the forthcoming tobacco control plan.
The Minister’s predecessor closed the last Westminster Hall debate on this issue by saying:
“We will continue to be driven by the evidence.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2019; Vol. 662, c. 335WH.]
I am sure that approach is something that the Minister will be happy to endorse now, and it is something that I believe will set us on the right course to make the difference. Making a difference starts, first, with understanding that the fundamental problem with smoking is the smoke—the combustion. Acknowledging that should be the core principle under which we regulate. While it will always remain the case that smokers should aim to quit completely, if they are unable to do so, there are now many non-combustible alternatives that they can try, which will be less harmful to them.
Secondly, making a difference means that we cannot take our foot off the pedal in introducing further barriers to cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products. I am not generally an advocate for high taxes, but I can see the benefit of using taxation to increase the price gap between combustible and non-combustible products. We must do more to secure our borders to ensure that smugglers from abroad do not profit from health inequalities here.
Thirdly, and most importantly, making a difference means helping smokers who cannot quit smoking to change to something that is less harmful for them than cigarettes—products that are not combustible. The forthcoming tobacco control plan gives us the opportunity to take a fresh look at the new products and innovations in the UK, as well as those that we could have now that we have left the European Union. To make the most of that range of products in a sensible and controlled way calls for the creation of a new, reduced-risk smoking products category, to provide a robust regulatory framework.
It is important that products be regulated and controlled to ensure that they are used in the right way, but they will not be sufficiently effective if we do not get the information about them out to smokers. We have made great progress on tobacco harm reduction over recent years, but both those elements—regulation and information—should be addressed if we are to give ourselves the best chance of reaching the smoke-free 2030 goal.
We have seen great results from e-cigarettes, and Public Health England recently found that in every region of England quit rates involving a vaping product were higher than those for any other method. However, while they have worked for many smokers, e-cigarettes are not a panacea. In fact, nearly half the smokers in Britain have tried vaping, but did not continue. Now the number of vapers is falling, which should be a cause for concern for us all.
There are two measures that the Government can take to address the issue. The first concerns communications. Existing communications are not cutting through. When it published its annual vaping report last month, PHE said:
“Thousands more could have quit except for unfounded safety fears about e-cigarettes.”
Does the Minister agree that we could do better at communicating directly and clearly to smokers the harm reduction benefits of e-cigarettes and, indeed, all reduced-risk alternatives? The Government could, for example, allow the use of cigarette pack inserts or even online communications as ways to reach smokers directly.
The second measure concerns the nicotine level in e-cigarettes. The EU imposed a seemingly arbitrary 20 mg per ml limit on e-cigarettes, under its directive. The fact is that many smokers do not find that sufficiently satisfying to lead them to make a permanent switch away from combustible cigarettes. Now that we have the freedom to do so, we should look at setting our own limit at a level that would make the products more effective.
E-cigarettes will, however, never be the answer for all smokers. Nicotine pouches, which have been on sale in the UK for only a year or so, have rapidly grown in popularity. Around 100,000 people already use them. I understand that a reason for that is the success of point-of-sale advertising and the ability to advertise online. At present the products are not regulated beyond our general consumer protection laws, so they could benefit from being part of a sensible framework.
The use of heated tobacco in the UK continues to grow. Sales increased by 270% in the past year alone. The benefit is that there is still tobacco in the product, but it is not combustible. As I mentioned in the previous debate, 70% of heated tobacco users give up smoking altogether, but at the moment smokers cannot hear about those products, as they can hear about others. That is where smokers could benefit even more from receiving the targeted information that I mentioned earlier, online or from shopkeepers.
Finally, snus is another tobacco product and is currently not legal in the UK owing to a ban imposed by the EU. In Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, which are exempt from the EU ban, the availability of snus has had an enormous positive impact on smoking levels. Lifting the ban would show that our policy is driven by evidence, making the UK the true global leader in tobacco harm reduction. If all these smoke-free products were part of the controlled framework, with the same regulations, we would give smokers the best possible chance of moving away from cigarettes and we would give the country as a whole the best possible chance of achieving a smoke-free 2030.
Before concluding, I must touch on the opportunities that Brexit offers us in tobacco harm reduction. Every two years, we send officials from the Minister’s Department to the conference of parties to the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, a body that has taken positions that run completely counter to our own. Worryingly, just last month the WHO proposed a ban on vaping. The Minister will undoubtedly have noted the remarks of Clive Bates, an expert and the former director of the anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health, who said that that proposal was “irresponsible and bizarre”.
When we have attended the COP before, we have had to conform to the views of the EU grouping. This year, we will be attending, albeit perhaps only virtually, in our own right. This is the opportunity that I urge the Minister to consider. We have a strong story to tell on tobacco harm reduction at home, and we now have the freedom and ability to embrace bold, innovative new policies, such as those I have suggested this morning; so will we simply go along to get along at the COP, or will we do what is right by taking a bold and progressive stance in favour of tobacco harm reduction and proudly defend our own domestic position? I believe there is much that the world can learn from our approach, and I therefore urge the Minister to make the tobacco control plan one that will help us to deliver a smoke-free 2030, and one that we can showcase to the world later this year.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) on the way in which he brought this motion to the House; it is very timely and was very well introduced. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the chairman of the Gallaher Trust, a job creation and skills development charity in my constituency, set up after the last tobacco manufacturing plant sadly closed there some years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the point that tobacco harm reduction is a strong story for the United Kingdom to tell. That is a very solid line on which the Minister should listen and respond. I am sure other Members will talk about the opportunities of vaping for small companies, whether they be retail outlets or manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom, and for helping to reduce the harm associated with tobacco. That is a strong piece, and it needs to be looked at. It is challenging, because people just want tobacco usage to end. Of course, anyone who has been a smoker knows that it is just not that simple, and that there have to be harm reduction programmes in place.
I also refer briefly to security and criminality. I have encouraged the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to continue to work closely with the companies at the heart of producing these products. Whether it is the tobacco manufacturers or spin-off companies that develop these products, it is important that we work with credible, accountable companies that can be held to account.
Last year, The House magazine and Dods very kindly helped to sponsor a programme to put out a report called “The Gathering Storm”, published by Japan Tobacco International. It looked at the issues to do with criminality around this entire sector and how the criminals are alive to every opportunity to bite into this, to seize these opportunities and pollute this area. It is absolutely important that the Government are alert to the opportunities that criminals see and face them down bit by bit. The only way they can do that is in conjunction with the large companies that know exactly what they are talking about, that work in and understand this sector and have an interest in protecting legitimate trade, not in promoting illegitimate activity. I hope the Government will put resources in place to assist with that.
Finally, my comments would not be complete if I did not mention the Northern Ireland protocol. You may ask, Mr Rosindell, “How can you bring that into this debate?” Put simply, it is about consumer choice. Companies have already indicated that they cannot bring to Northern Ireland the same products as they can bring to, and make in, the United Kingdom. Consumer choice is not available to the consumer in Northern Ireland, whether it be for actual tobacco products or for spin-off vaping products. They are not going to be available in Northern Ireland because of EU regulations pertaining to, and chaining down, one part of this United Kingdom. It is a disgrace. My message to the Government after every meeting I have with them is to please fix the protocol—fix it and fix it fast, because it is permeating every aspect of life in Northern Ireland.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I will be very brief, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. I fear that it is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve a smoke-free society by 2030. It could be achievable, however, if we embraced vaping far more than we do at present and if we promoted those products as being 95% risk free, as stated by Public Health England, and as being substantially safer than smoking. It is not risk free and people who do not smoke should not vape, but it is absolutely right that we encourage smokers to take up vaping. There are a variety of different, innovative ways to do that, including my right hon. Friend’s suggestion of inserting in cigarette packets a card encouraging the smoker to use a particular vaping product.
Brexit gives us the opportunity to ensure that vaping regulations pertain to vaping. That is not the case at present: they are lumped together with tobacco products, which creates and radiates the fear that vaping is as dangerous as smoking. Too many people in this country feel that there are greater dangers with vaping than actually is the case. Through Government changes to regulations, we can change that and ensure that people who smoke are made aware of the comparative benefits of vaping. Post Brexit, there is a great opportunity to ensure that that happens.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I just want to add a few comments. It is all very well to say that smokers should transfer from cigarettes to vaping, but I have a concern. Although I am encouraged that the number of people quitting cigarettes and turning to vaping products shows that they are more successful than nicotine-replacement therapy, does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that people are not, to use an Ulsterism, jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Does she believe that this has been looked at robustly enough to reach a determination? If cigarettes are harmful, we have to be absolutely sure that vaping is safe as an alternative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) for securing the debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their comments. What joins us together is the passion shared across the House. Everyone wants to tackle the harms of smoking. Smoking kills.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West that we have a good story to tell and should not be afraid to tell it. As he is aware, some good work has been done over the past couple of decades to drive smoking rates down. Rates are now at their lowest level, at just over 13% in England. It is one of the public health success stories. However, we have to do more. We cannot be complacent. There is wide variation, and smoking rates remain too high in certain areas of the country.
Like my right hon. Friend, I would look specifically at the levelling-up agenda in deprived areas, among the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, and among pregnant women and people with mental health conditions. Our focus on driving down rates across the country must be relentless. We must ensure that they are levelled where they are lowest and that no community gets left behind. The differential between good and poor areas is almost 10 times greater.
Fantastic work is being done to tackle health inequalities in different areas, including recently through the NHS long-term plan with regard to smoking in pregnancy. Its commitment to the maternity transformation fund has provided additional training to give midwives the knowledge, skills and confidence to offer brief advice to women during antenatal appointments, and upskilled practitioners to deliver stop- smoking interventions to those who need help.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister has spoken about having a good story to tell. Is not the take-up of vaping in this country a good story? She will know that we have a very active all-party parliamentary group on vaping. We are about to send her a report—it is currently in draft form—relating to the WHO conference of the parties in November. We took evidence and I wonder whether she agrees that the WHO’s negative view of vaping has been counterproductive. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) said in his excellent speech, its attitude is partly responsible for the downturn in the number of people vaping. Given the level of interest in this debate, does the Minister think we ought to have a longer debate in order to consider these issues more fully?
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Given that this is a 30-minute debate and there is a lot of interest in it, I agree that a longer debate might allow us to explore these things. I will comment on COP and the variety of products. We need to use everything in our armoury to encourage people to quit smoking.
We need to help people give up. We are working to ensure that no communities are left behind, as part of the bold ambition to be smoke-free in England by 2030. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West talk about how we pack a punch in this area, but things will need to be evidence led. We will set out how we will deliver this later in the year, when we publish the new tobacco control plan for England in the summer. He asked me to reconfirm that we are on track for doing that, and I agree with him that it is a stretch to reach our target by 2030.
We know that the best thing a smoker can do is quit altogether. Covid-19 has brought into clearer focus the need for us to care for our health. PHE has issued guidance on the impact of covid-19 on vaping and smoking, and we know that if people smoke, they have an increased risk of contracting a respiratory infection. With covid-19, symptoms can be more severe if people smoke, but the evidence base is mixed.
As I have said, the best thing people can do to improve their health is to quit. However, it remains the goal of the Government to maximise the public health opportunities presented by e-cigarettes to reduce smoking. UK-regulated e-cigarettes are far less harmful than smoking, but I reiterate that they are not risk free, which I think plays to the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford.
Research shows that e-cigarettes are effective in helping some smokers to quit, and therefore we need to support them. We will continue to discourage non-smokers from using them, monitor youth uptake and consider tougher regulatory proposals if we see an increase in youth rates.
There are about 3 million people currently using e-cigarettes in Great Britain. Half of those have quit smoking, which indicates that the other half are using them as part of a strategy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West said, and others have alluded to, it is not a panacea. The UK’s approach to the regulation of e-cigarettes has been, and will remain, pragmatic and evidence based. The current regulatory framework aims to reduce the risk of harm to children, protect against the re-normalisation of tobacco use, provide assurance on safety for users, and provide legal certainty for businesses. We are committed to ensuring that our regulatory framework enables this to continue but does not encourage non-smokers and young people to start taking up the habit.
We made a commitment through the 2017 tobacco control plan to monitor the safety, uptake and impact of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes and other novel nicotine delivery systems—and we have done just that. Public Health England has published a series of evidence reviews which further our understanding of their effectiveness in helping smokers to quit. The latest evidence review was published last month.
In our future tobacco control plan, we will consider further research on other emerging nicotine products that have the potential to help people quit—because there is no such thing as a safe tobacco product and all tobacco is harmful, including smokeless tobacco and other tobacco products that we have discussed today.
No assessment has yet been made of the safety of tobacco-free nicotine pouches. These products are not covered under the tobacco regulatory regulations, but rather the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, and the current numbers are from industry and therefore will need a degree of validation.
There are no plans to go further on snus at the moment because all tobacco products can cause harm. However, we are currently undertaking a post-implementation review on the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and this is an opportunity for people to feed in and present new evidence for the Department to consider.
Non-nicotine vapes are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, and we will review feedback from the post-implementation review if this area needs to be strengthened, including if the products are a health concern. We have paused a further evidence review due to the impact of covid on resources. However, we are looking for people to come forward, and Public Health England will publish its final evidence review, including a chapter on heated tobacco, later this year. The evidence suggests that these products still pose a risk to users, and, compared with e-cigarettes, we know far less about them. As such, we will be following the principle of ensuring that we have a full evidence base.
Under the Northern Ireland protocol, which the hon. Member for North Antrim referred to, things are in equilibrium at the moment. There is no difference. However, under the protocol, Northern Ireland is required to adhere to the EU’s tobacco products directive. We will work in collaboration with the devolved Administrations on matters that are reserved, and, along with that firm evidence, and in the interests of public health, put that forward.
As part of the regulatory review, the Government are undertaking post-implementation reviews. These will assess whether the regulations are meeting their objectives, and if there are gaps that need to be addressed. We have held a public consultation and we will review the responses.
The UK is a global leader and was very grateful to receive an award from the WHO for being instrumental in helping lower middle-income countries to tackle tobacco use. We are determined to tackle smoking and health inequalities both at home and abroad. We will take targeted action to support communities where rates may remain high. I would like to extend my thanks to hon. Members for debating this important subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Outer London Congestion Charge
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements.
Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they will remain visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerk’s email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposal for an outer London congestion charge.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I am very grateful to have secured the debate. The Mayor of London’s proposal to charge drivers to enter Greater London would have a catastrophic impact on places like Dartford and all the areas surrounding London. It would also have a detrimental impact on outer London boroughs. Businesses located in outer London boroughs would suffer from people being reluctant to travel the—often short—distance across the border to use that particular business.
That would have an impact on drycleaners, pubs, takeaways, shops, hairdressers and more. Those are the exact same businesses that have been hardest hit as a consequence of covid. The Mayor of London’s financial stability plan, which was published in January, proposes a seven-days-a-week charge of £3.50 for all motorists using a vehicle registered outside Greater London, rising to £5.50 for the most polluting vehicles.
Sadiq Khan is looking at building a literal financial wall between London and its neighbours. The proposal would divide communities and set London against all others. It is a border tax that has been called various things: Checkpoint Chigwell, Labour’s Dartford car tax, and many other things that are unrepeatable in this Chamber.
More than 26,000 people have signed a petition against Labour’s Dartford car tax, and I pay tribute to Tom Oliver and Kyle Stealey in my constituency who have organised that. The Mayor of London claims he needs to do this to offset the fact that Londoners cannot keep the £500 million per year they pay in road tax. However, no other area gets to keep the road tax they pay either. Although it is true that Highways England does not own a great number of roads in London, it does not have many roads in some other areas too; London is not alone in that.
Is the Mayor of London claiming that Londoners do not drive on motorways? Of course they do, and of course those have to be paid for. It is as if the Mayor of London is saying, with this proposal, “Give me even more money, or look what I can do. I can ruin you. I can hit you financially and make you pay if I don’t get my way.” That is effectively what the Mayor of London is saying. This proposal sends out the clear message that far from London being open, as the Mayor claims, it will be very much closed for motorists entering the capital.
It is laudable for any mayor to lobby for more funding, and I fully understand why Sadiq Khan wants to raise more finances. Every mayor around the country is trying to do the same thing, but it should not be attempted on the back of blackmail that says, “Give me money, or I will ruin you.” He is saying, “I will charge you to visit loved ones. I will charge you to drop somebody off at the local railway station. I will charge you to use London’s small businesses, and I will charge you just for driving out of your road.” That is not laudable; it is an abuse of power.
The border around London is not neat, and does not run along major routes. Instead, it straddles residential roads. In Dartford, for example, there are residential roads that are located in Kent and it is not possible to drive out of them without entering the London Borough of Bexley. We have a number of roads like that and there are also roads where the border literally goes down the middle of the road, so someone drives out of the road in Kent and back into it in London. We have a park home situated in Kent, and the only exit from it is in the London Borough of Bexley. Each of those journeys by a motorist would, of course, incur the proposed charge.
Many of my constituents would therefore face paying at least £3.50 a day just to drive out of their own roads. The proposal is for the charge to apply seven days a week, so hundreds of my constituents will pay over £1,200 a year just to be able to drive out of the road where they live: £1,200 a year just to get out of the house. For thousands of others, it would mean a £3.50 charge just to visit loved ones, to drop a child off at school, to visit a hospital, or to go to work. So many frontline workers in London live in neighbouring counties. These are the people who keep London functioning. They too will be hit with this charge.
I would argue that integration along the border between Kent and London is currently excellent, but the Mayor of London wants to change that. He wants to levy a charge on people, yet he is unaccountable to those people. The people who would have to pay the daily charge cannot vote him out or do anything to stop the charge, and he knows it. It is taxation without representation, taxation without accountability, and it needs to be stopped.
Dartford is not part of London. We are proud of our Kentish heritage. Yet many people who are now Dartfordians used to live in London. Many of us commute to London—obviously, I am one of those people. There is a good relationship with London and with the neighbouring counties, but the Mayor of London wants to change that. He wants to set London against its neighbours, but in doing so he damages not just the people who live outside London, but the people who live in London.
Businesses in outer London will see so many of their customers put off spending money at their establishments because it will be too expensive to travel to them. No wonder YouGov found that the majority of Londoners—Londoners—oppose the proposed charge. It is claimed that the opposition to the proposal is timed to marry up with the London mayoral elections. Actually, the proposal’s timing is completely down to the Mayor of London. He decided when to announce the proposal; he is responsible for the timing and he published it in a document just the month before last. So it is hardly surprising that we are having the debate at this time. It is hardly surprising that, come March, we are now talking about the issue.
If the proposal goes ahead, it will have the most profound impact on Dartford of any governmental action. It will be taken by somebody who Dartfordians have absolutely no control over. The London Mayor knows that the ring of seats around London, with the exception of Slough, are Conservative. He also knows that, generally, outer London areas—there are some exceptions—are more likely to vote Conservative than inner London seats. He knows who he is hitting with this idea. It is the most divisive issue ever conceived by a London Mayor and it needs to be stopped. It will have a profound impact, not just on the counties around London, but on the outer London boroughs. It is an abuse of power and it needs to end.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Opposition spokesperson at 3.38 pm at the latest. If speakers confine themselves to seven minutes or less, we should get everyone in. I call Adam Holloway.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for a superb speech. My constituency is neighbouring his. Although we do not have as extreme a situation, his point that the borders of London are not neat is very apt. That really does reflect the position of many of my constituents. I will read a couple of quotes from emails I have received:
“I have elderly grandparents who reside within Greater London… I often go to their aid, bringing shopping or medication or (before covid) visiting to keep them company.”
Another says:
“I have relatives in the London Borough of Bexley. I also visit my mother’s grave in Hither Green.”
Another asks:
“Would it also be possible for Adam—
that’s me—
to talk to Kent County Council to charge London motorists to drive on Kent roads?”
As I said, although we do not have the same situation as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, we have large numbers of people who work in hospitals and travel to large retail in Bexley. We have plenty of people who, as their families have expanded, have moved out of south London into towns such as Gravesend. We have large numbers of building contractors who have no choice but to drive their vans into town. Many of my neighbours work in the hospitality industry and have suffered so badly commercially over the past few months. They drive in and out because they have antisocial hours.
Please will the Minister ask my old friend the Mayor to think again on this? It will cause massive inconvenience and cost huge amounts of money to lots of people here, who are just trying to live their lives and do their jobs.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Ms Rees. I apologise that I have not been able to log in in the usual manner, so I am using my telephone. Sorry for the sub-optimal reception.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for raising this issue, and for the leadership he has shown in the strength of the petition that has raised, in Dartford alone, more than 26,000 signatures, as I understand it.
All I want to do is echo the points my two hon. Friends have made. I particularly emphasise the divisive nature of the charge for the community I represent. Banstead, Chipstead, Hooley, Netherne and Woodmansterne tend not to look to the centre of the Borough of Reigate and Banstead, to the towns of Redhill and Reigate. Quite naturally, they tend to look north, to Sutton and Croydon. Indeed, many people in that part of the constituency have grown up with their family and work being located in those boroughs, and have then moved out as time and opportunity have presented themselves, to get out of the centre of Sutton or Croydon. However, their lives and connections very much remain across the London boundary. I have received letters from people whose children’s schools or jobs are affected. In one family, the mother has to cross the boundary every day to take children to school and the father has to cross it every day to go to his job in in Wallington.
People have tended to look to those town centres to shop, or their GP, pharmacy or dentist may be there, and given the pattern of people’s lives many of their relatives are there as well. One family has written to me, having now been alerted to this issue. It is not a charge of £3.50 for the odd day of the year; it is £22.50 every week for both of them. So it is in the order of nearly £45 for them every week, which is an enormous cost to put on people’s lives, simply because they suddenly find themselves adjacent to a boundary. This measure will do profound long-term damage to the relationships of the people who find themselves living just outside the London boundary and it will also do grave damage to the businesses just inside the Greater London boundary that are used by those people.
I urge the Mayor not to proceed down this road and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that he does not do so. This is a singularly bad idea. I realise that the Mayor is in deep trouble because of the nature of the Budget, but that should not be visited in this reckless way on those people who live in the communities neighbouring Greater London.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Rees.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing this timely and important debate, and I speak in it as a Member whose constituency is right on the edge of outer London, just inside the boundary.
The proposal by Sadiq Khan to impose an outer London boundary tax is one of the silliest ideas that he has come up with in the past five years. Some of his defenders have said that it is about improving air quality, but that is nonsense. This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with improving air quality.
Transport for London knows where the bad air is in London; indeed, it has published the analysis it made when considering the creation of the ultra-low emission zone some years ago and it is still available for anyone who wishes to see it. That analysis is in the form of a heat map, which shows the bad areas for air quality inside Greater London. Unsurprisingly, they are around central London, around Heathrow airport and on some of the trunk roads into and out of London. Where the bad air demonstrably is not is in outer London.
This proposal is, purely and simply, a revenue-raising exercise. Since the Mayor will aim it squarely at people who do not live inside Greater London and who therefore have no say or vote in the matter, it is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has said—effectively “taxation without representation”. There is a huge democratic deficit here.
However, just because the people forced to pay this charge do not live in Greater London does not mean that it will not have an impact on those who do live inside Greater London. As other hon. Members have said, this proposal would deliver a hammer blow to outer London’s businesses. They rely on suppliers and customers driving in from outside the local area to shop and work, and this measure would jeopardise people’s livelihoods and our recovery from the pandemic.
It is not just those working in or using our local businesses who will be impacted. Those who provide our public services will also be hit; 51% of Metropolitan police officers and 52% of London firefighters live outside the Greater London boundary. They work shifts and often have to drive to work, as do almost 3,000—more than one in five—of the employees of my local NHS trust.
A few weeks ago, I wrote to headteachers in all the schools in my Orpington constituency, to seek their views on the charge and to find out how many of their staff and pupils would be impacted by it. A great many have written back to me, all of them expressing serious concerns about the detrimental impact it would have. A common concern has been the impact it would have on teacher recruitment and retention. One headteacher commented: “For us as a school this equates to 40% of our teaching and leadership staff and 33% of our administrative staff. To penalise staff by imposing a £3.50 daily charge would undoubtedly add financial pressure to individuals, but would also negatively affect recruitment from Greater London boroughs such as Bromley. I honestly believe that if this proposal is to go ahead, it will have a profound effect on recruiting and retaining staff in Greater London boroughs. Some of these staff are young, who took advantage of relatively lower housing costs to purchase outside the Greater London area. For them and others, this additional daily cost will be particularly hard. There is no serious public transport alternative to use, and therefore this will be a severe blow to those who are impacted. It will feel like a tax on work.”
Another observed: “For our full-time staff the additional cost will be like a salary reduction of £1,000 per annum. This will make us less competitive in terms of recruitment relative to schools in Kent and Surrey, or those who have public transport close by. This potentially would result in some families not being able to afford to bring their children into school, some of whom are deemed vulnerable children.”
Finally, I had a letter unprompted from another constituent. It is worth quoting this at length: “I am a teacher. I have taught in Orpington for 22 years. This charge will affect me and other workers every single day. This charge might be appropriate for inner London, where there are alternative means of transport, but that is not true here. We do not have a good, reliable bus service. We do not have the tube. With a newly unemployed husband and a family, this is a cost I just can’t bear and one that is grossly unfair, given the lack of available alternative public transport. I doubt Orpington High Street and the Nugent retail park will survive if shoppers from Swanley, Dartford and other surrounding areas put off by the charge cease to come.”
Sadiq Khan has been Mayor of London for five years, and for most of that time City Hall has been an achievement-free zone. There has been lots of virtue signalling, a good deal of showboating, and lots of finger pointing and blame shifting, but in terms of the core deliverables—building houses, running a transport system and keeping people safe—the past five years have been marked by ignominious failure. One thing that he has said has struck a chord, however. His “London is open” slogan is a sentiment that previously united Londoners and the surrounding areas, but introducing such a proposal shows how empty that slogan is. London is not open if people are taxed whenever they attempt to enter it.
There is no denying that under Sadiq Khan’s leadership, TfL’s debt has risen to record levels, key infrastructure projects have been delayed or cancelled, the delivery of Crossrail has been bungled, and hundreds of millions of pounds of potential income have been thrown away on pet projects. It is simply not acceptable for him to look to recover his losses by imposing a damaging border tax. He should drop this silly proposal immediately. If he refuses, I will call on the Government, in common with colleagues, to remove his power to impose it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on initiating a much-needed debate on the proposed outer London tax. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on laying out London MPs’ concerns about the impact of any proposed tax being imposed in such a way.
We should be clear about why the tax is being proposed. It is not to clean up the air in London or to make travelling around London any easier—far from it. It has come as a direct result of the Mayor of London’s failure to control TfL’s spending and to balance its books. It is fair to say that TfL’s finances have of course dropped as a result of covid. When TfL’s finances are dependent on fares income, which has fallen by 90%, gaps emerge. It is also fair that the Government have provided grants to enable TfL to continue during the pandemic. As we come out of the pandemic, we will then have to look at what happens going forward.
I and most of my constituents live on the outskirts of London, and we have enjoyed a position whereby waves of immigration have taken place from inner London, to the suburbs and beyond, so families are stretched out across the south-east of England. The reality is that those families want to come together, and not only for family celebrations but for jobs, schooling and other opportunities to get together, and equally for business.
The harsh reality is that over the past few years, businesses in the outer London areas have tended to migrate outside Greater London and set up around the M25. Those businesses have already migrated. If an outer London tax were to be introduced on crossing the Greater London area boundary, the impact would be to encourage even more businesses currently based in outer London to transfer out of London completely. That would have a knock-on effect on business rates income, where business rates continue, and on the number of people coming into London in any case to work. So clearly that would have an impact.
There is another impact. I have Stanmore station in my constituency, which is the terminus of the Jubilee line, and more than 350 vehicles from all over the area use the station car park on a daily basis. Drivers from Bushey, Radlett and other parts of outer London start their journeys into central London from the station. As we know, during the pandemic the view has been that people should work from home where possible, and I predict that in future more people will work from home more often. Preventing people driving to the terminus of the tube network will reduce TfL’s finances still further as we emerge from the pandemic. It is a short-sighted approach. There are, of course, termini outside the Greater London area. The likelihood is that people will drive to those areas in order to get on the tube network and get into central London if they have to, so this is a self-defeating proposition.
We also have those who come to celebrate with their relatives and their religious communities, for example at festival times. They would all be disadvantaged—charged —for the privilege of driving their car into the outskirts of London. All in all, this is a bad idea and one that needs to be roundly defeated.
Of course, the suggestion is that the Mayor of London would love to have the vehicle excise duty retained in London. Just imagine if the west midlands, the north-west of England or any other part of the country said the same thing. Would we then have taxes for London drivers driving outside London, and taxes for those driving into London? It would eventually end up as a cash cow for local authorities. It would not advantage anyone in relation to improving air quality or connectivity.
It is a good idea to have this debate and I hope that the proposal will be dismissed. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in her response that the Government will not allow this tax to be introduced under any circumstances.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this important debate.
As we have heard, the Labour Mayor of London’s plans to charge people to enter the Greater London area by car would be a disaster felt both by those who live just outside the boundary and those who live in communities such as mine, just within it. The Greater London boundary is not a great and obvious spectacle. London is not Las Vegas; there are not roads covering great expanses of nothingness. Motorists do not go through deserts or deserted countryside and suddenly drive up to some great metropolis—suddenly, there they are; they have arrived in London. I am afraid that crossing the border is, frankly, quite underwhelming. Very few people would know or care that they have crossed an arbitrary line that was drawn in 1965.
Carshalton and Wallington sits on the border with Surrey. The two roads leading directly out of my constituency into places such as Woodmansterne and Banstead, and beyond into Reigate, Redhill and Epsom, are not great thoroughfares. There is nothing about them that signals that some great line has been crossed. Indeed, Carshalton Road to the south is fairly narrow, with a few houses dotted along the way down to Woodmansterne, with home on one side of the border and a country lane on the other. It is fairly unassuming.
Under the Mayor of London’s plans, that quiet little spot would suddenly become some kind of outer London checkpoint or toll road. Residents living just on the wrong side of the line would be charged up to £5.50 a day for driving across it. While I am on the subject of the charge, whether we are talking about £3.50 or £5.50 is a moot point, frankly. TfL’s estimate is that up to 82% of the expected revenue would be lost in the overhead and implementation, so there is likely to be pressure to increase the charge from day one in order to make the scheme worthwhile.
Although residents living inside the boundary, such as my constituents, might not be the ones facing the charge, the impact could be equally damaging, not least on family life, as many hon. Friends have said. Like many families, my dad and several of my relatives live just outside the Greater London boundary. Suddenly, they will be charged for crossing the boundary to come and visit. We also need to think about families who rely on another family member for childcare, who could be charged up to £1,000 a year. That is not to mention the hit that it could have on the economy and our public services. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), 51% of Metropolitan police officers live outside London. Who on earth would pay to cross the border to go shopping in constituencies such as mine when they could look elsewhere in Surrey without being charged at all?
One of the issues that this proposal could end up having the greatest impact on is health. It is fantastic news that the Government have given the go-ahead to a £500 million investment to improve Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals, and to build a new third hospital in Sutton, which will benefit patients not just from Sutton and Merton but from Surrey. However, patients, NHS staff and visitors coming to the new Sutton hospital from Surrey would face a daily charge to cross the boundary. It is no good saying that people will find alternative methods of transport. Public transport between outer London and the home counties is notoriously poor, because TfL and the county councils do not have good working relationships with one another. Bus services from Sutton into Surrey are not nearly frequent enough, and there is absolutely no discussion of funds being used to address that.
There is another weakness shown up in the plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington pointed out, this is purely a money-making scheme; it is not a green initiative. The idea came from a financial sustainability plan, not an environmental policy announcement. Even if people could afford to go on to a purely electric vehicle, they would not escape the charge. As many colleagues have said, the Mayor of London has said that he will drop the idea if he can retain the £500 million of vehicle excise duty. That demonstrates once again that this is about money, not the environment.
The policy has generated a lot of concern from my constituents. The outer London boundary charge would hit families, the economy and our public services, and would punish not just Londoners this time but those who live just outside the capital too. I am really pleased that our Conservative London Assembly candidate, Neil Garratt, has been supporting Shaun Bailey in opposing this move. I urge the Minister to do all she can to ensure that the Mayor scraps the plan and does not punish Londoners for the cost of Khan.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I am going to call three further Back-Bench speakers—Ruth Cadbury, Matthew Offord and Wes Streeting—before moving on to the Opposition spokesperson.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. We are here today because of the failure to give Transport for London the long-term support it needs to keep London’s public transport financially viable. If it cannot survive financially, public transport in London will grind to a halt, and frankly so will London. The Government’s failure to support the finances is yet another sign that they are ignoring both the needs of hard-working Londoners and the role that London plays in the UK economy.
From scrapping the Government grants in 2015, to trying to scrap free travel for under-18s last year, refusing to devolve train travel to London because the then Transport Secretary did not want it in “the clutches of” a Labour Mayor, or sitting on their hands over Hammersmith bridge, successive Conservative Governments have a long record of simply refusing to give the UK’s capital city the support it needs to keep moving.
London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has not only been standing up for London; he has also been cleaning up the mess left behind by his predecessor, who is now Prime Minister. Because of this funding history created by Conservative Governments, TfL is almost totally reliant on fare sales. I am proud of Sadiq Khan’s record on public transport over the past five years. He not only opposed efforts to cut free travel for under-18s, but has worked to introduce new, cleaner, low-emission buses, to cut the deficit at TfL, and to support much-needed action to clean up toxic air pollution, including here in my constituency.
By the start of 2020, the Sadiq Khan had fixed the financial mess left by his predecessor, who had raised fares in London by 42%. He also inherited a TfL that was making a loss of £1.5 billion on a like-for-like business. He reduced TfL’s operating deficit by 71% and increased its cash balance by 13%, ensuring that it was in a strong financial position prior to the pandemic. That is despite the fact that London was one of the only major cities in the world without a Government grant for day-to-day transport operation. For instance, Madrid gets 47% of its operating income from national and regional subsidies; Singapore gets 56% from Government grants; and Paris gets 16%. As with all the world’s major cities, London’s transport network is vital for key workers and business. It has kept our NHS workers going into work, it has kept supermarkets staffed, and it has kept our city moving.
The pandemic has had the same devastating effect on TfL’s finances as it has had on the failing privatised rail companies, yet the Government immediately bailed out those companies, handing out 18-month support packages to keep rail moving, with next to no strings attached. The same was not done for London, and there is simply no reason why that could not have happened. The Mayor has asked the Government to consider another option for funding London’s transport: to let London keep the £500 million in annual vehicle excise duty, which is spent almost exclusively outside London, but the Government will not countenance that.
Because of the lack of any alternative option, Mayor Khan is proposing a Greater London boundary charge for non-residents, which would apply only to vehicles registered outside Greater London that are driven into the capital. The charge would apply only once a day, when vehicles are driven across the Greater London boundary, and Londoners would not pay. A thorough public consultation process and impact assessment would be required before any charge could be introduced. This would take at least two years, meaning that any new charge would not be levied until after the capital’s recovery from the pandemic.
I accept that this proposal is not ideal and that it is quite a crude measure, but it is better than the impact of public transport in London grinding to a halt; an impact that would be felt not only by all Londoners, but by commuters from the constituencies of the hon. Members who have already spoken. London does not get any income from drivers from outside London who drive into the city. That is despite 1.3 million vehicle trips being made every weekday from outside London into the capital, which is about 25% of all journeys. Around 1 million of these trips are into outer London alone; 80% of car trips from outside London into the capital terminate in outer-London. The majority of those journeys are made by vehicles registered to addresses outside the London boundary, which highlights that drivers from outside London greatly benefit from using the capital’s roads, but without having to contribute to their upkeep.
Initial estimates suggest that such a boundary charge for non-residents, if levied at £3 50 a day and applied only to non-Londoners, could reduce the total number of weekday car trips across the Greater London area by 10% to 15%, and the vast majority would switch to more sustainable modes of transport. You could charge more. For example, £5.50 for the more polluting vehicles—those that do not meet the ultra low emission standard—is a possibility, although I am not proposing that. However, assuming two-way journeys in and out of London, total traffic coming off the road each weekday could reduce trips by around 250,000 to 400,000 vehicles, with the amazing associated air-quality benefits.
In conclusion, all of the UK deserves and should expect decent transport and decent public transport. The more good quality, affordable public transport there is, the less we need to be dependent on the private car, leaving the space available for those for whom a private car journey is the only option.
Public transport has to be paid for somehow. If this scheme goes ahead, I do not think that asking those drivers not paying the London council tax precept to pay a bit more towards the costs of running London’s transport network and contribute to the cost of the congestion and pollution they cause is unreasonable.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Rees. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who is the first Labour Member of Parliament who has been willing to speak on this issue on behalf of the Mayor of London to give us an alternative perspective. I thank her for that.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for bringing this debate this afternoon. It is welcome because many of the issues surrounding the Greater London Authority and, indeed, the Mayor of London are devolved issues. We are often told on the Floor of the House of Commons that we cannot discuss them because they are devolved and that the London Assembly is the place to scrutinise and hold the Mayor accountable. We have seen in places such as Scotland, a one-party state, in Wales, where failure is abject, and now in London that devolution has simply failed. This is another example of that failure. First, the whole system of the GLA is set up so that it is rigged, so that the Labour party has an in-built majority, and secondly, the budget can never go through on a simple vote. The Mayor always gets their own way. It is good that we have the opportunity to raise such issues this afternoon.
Ever since the Mayor was elected five years ago, he has persistently and consistently said, “I need more money,” and has put his hand out to central Government on every single occasion. Threatening to blackmail Londoners, particularly in the outer London boroughs, has been the way he gets his own way. Seeking to have the vehicle excise duty is just crazy. He says he needs £500 million a year, but VED is not a hypothecated tax; it is a tax that pays for the whole country. The point has already been made that many Londoners, including myself and other hon. Members here, drive in other parts of the country. How long is it before we are being asked to pay to drive on motorways outside London?
The whole proposal sets a dangerous precedent, and it is divisive. It has also been said that this is taxation without representation for people outside central London. It is an open secret that Mr Khan does not care about the outer London boroughs. However, he knows that this border tax would fall entirely upon those who live and work on the periphery of the capital; people who, as it has been said, traditionally do not vote for the Labour party or, indeed, for the Labour Mayor. These are the people who will end up paying for the Mayor’s failings and that is simply not fair. Any proposal would be a tax based on a person’s geographical location and not on their ability to pay or as a choice over what they buy. I do not think that this is the progressive taxation that we heard of in the past when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. It is simply an opportunity to grab as much money as possible.
It also is not fair because it discriminates against businesses that are on the other side of a border, rather than competing on an open playing field. They would be unfairly discriminated against and it is simply not fair. Many of my constituents have children who cannot afford to buy properties in the Hendon constituency. That could be attributed to the Mayor and his inability to construct affordable housing in the area, but that is a debate for another day. Many of those people return to their parents, particularly those in the Jewish community, who visit their parents for the Shabbat meal and will, no doubt, be responsible for paying an additional tax to visit their parents. A tax on visiting friends and relatives is unfair and unacceptable.
Those in public services have also been discussed, and teachers are one group that particularly comes to my mind. Many of my teachers actually do not live in the Hendon constituency because of the prohibitive cost of housing, and many live outside the London borough of Barnet. These people, who are on starting salaries of about £25,000, would find that they have to pay this additional tax just to enter their place of work each day. It is simply not fair.
In the past five years, as I have said, the Mayor has consistently said that he wants more money and that he wants the Government to pay for it. The fundamental problem with the tube and TfL is that it needs an alternative funding method. The way that it currently operates does not work. We can look at countries such as France, with the Paris metro, or Singapore, as has been mentioned, and indeed Tokyo, and we can recognise that they have mechanisms in place that allow them to raise revenue to provide services without a disproportionate effect on passengers and without disproportionate costs on people who do not use those same passenger services. We will continue to oppose this. I would certainly join some of my colleagues in calling on the Government to stop the Mayor from implementing such a measure.
I am pleased to be working with colleagues at the London borough of Barnet such as Roberto Weeden-Sanz, who is working to oppose this charge. I hope that in Roberto we have a GLA representative who actually holds the Mayor to account, because thus far we have not had one, and we do need to do that.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure for me to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Rees, and I am grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for enabling my participation in this important debate this afternoon. I thought the hon. Members for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) struck the right tone in opening the debate. They engaged constructively, if critically in their case, with the proposals put forward by the Mayor, raising a range of concerns that ought to be taken into account. Indeed, were this measure to be put forward by the Mayor as a formal proposal, it would be subject to extensive consultation, no doubt taking years, rather than weeks and months. Hopefully, if the proposal were to go ahead, it would take into account some of the specific challenges they mention regarding smaller communities, access to which relies on crossing borders between London and neighbouring counties, and the issue of key workers, for whom there would surely have to be some subsidy.
I am afraid that London Conservative colleagues rather gave the game away with their contributions that struck a far more party-political tone. Hats off, though, to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who managed to remember the name of the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. I noticed the other London Conservative colleagues did not mention him, presumably because they got the memo that the Conservative party have dropped funding and are not really supporting the dead horse in the two-horse race.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) launched quite a partisan attack on the Mayor of London, asking what he had achieved. I will not try your patience, Chair, by listing all of his achievements, but they include reducing air pollution by a third, starting to build more council homes than any Administration since 1983, putting 1,000 more police officers on the streets to replace those cut by the Conservative Government, and actually investing more in fighting crime than any other Mayor.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) decided to flog another dead horse, which was this ridiculous claim that somehow the reason TfL’s finances are in trouble is because of the Mayor’s administration of the finances. In fact, in his first term as Mayor up to 2020, Sadiq Khan reduced the operating deficit of TfL by 71% and increased cash reserves by 13%, while at the same time introducing the popular hopper fare and managing to freeze fares run by TfL. Contrast that with his predecessor, our current Prime Minister, who raised fares by 42%, yet handed over a TfL loss of £1.5 billion a year. So let us not pretend that the financial challenges facing TfL are not mostly as a direct result of the pandemic, where we saw costs to TfL of up to £600 million a month during the height of the pandemic, fare income falling by 90%, and we will see ongoing long-tail challenges as a result of the pandemic. That is really what is going on here. The ludicrous charge that somehow this is because of decisions taken by the current mayor, and that is why TfL is facing financial difficulty, is just nonsensical.
We heard from the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) the bizarre idea that decision making is rigged. It should not have to be explained to politicians: if they do not like the fact that we have a Labour Mayor and a Labour-dominated Assembly, they should be better and win elections. Goodness knows from the Opposition Benches that we are having to learn that lesson the hard way nationally. I am afraid that really is the case: if politicians want to run London, they should win elections by putting forward better candidates and making better arguments.
I am afraid that appeals to the Minister that if London Conservatives or neighbouring Conservatives do not get their way, the Government should intervene and stop the decision of the Mayor of London, are not the way to go. Again, we cannot devolve power. That cuts both ways: there are plenty of places where there are Conservatives in Government, or the SNP north of the border, and where they make decisions all the time that we do not necessarily agree with, but I would absolutely defend the right of people in local government or devolved Governments to make decisions on behalf of their communities.
In my remaining minute or so, I want to make a broader appeal, which is a hard thing to achieve when there are elections looming. As MPs across London and the south-east, we need to have a better-quality conversation about what we do about the finances of Transport for London and the relationship between London and the south-east and the rest of the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned, London is one of the only major cities in the world that does not have any kind of direct operating grant from central Government. We recognise that the Government have provided some funding and support to TfL during the pandemic, but we should all recognise that there are significant strings attached. It was a genuine mistake by the previous Mayor of London to negotiate away TfL’s direct operating grant. That left £700 million out of TfL’s finances—a 40% reduction in external funding. That decision ought to be revisited, if nothing else but for the period in the years immediately after the pandemic, because it is clearly going to take TfL’s finances some time to recover.
The final point I want to make by way of appeal—I am sure hon. Members have heard this in debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall—is that there is an increasing anti-London and the south-east sentiment. Often it is characterised as an anti-London sentiment, but I think Members from across the south-east would recognise this too. If we are going to level up in this country, and I absolutely believe that we must and should, that means levelling up, not doing down, the beating heart of the UK economy, which is London and the south-east. If our economy is going to bounce back, it relies on the economic strength of London and the south-east.
Of course we want to see prosperity shared, of course we want to see opportunity enjoyed right across the country, and of course we need to make sure that communities across the rest of the south, the midlands, the north and, indeed, Scotland and Wales also receive their fair share of support and investment and are equipped to grow their economies in order to make a greater net contribution to UK plc overall. If levelling up for others means levelling down for London and the south-east, however, that would be an extraordinary act of self-harm to the UK’s economy on the part of the UK Government. It would be a terrible mistake.
We have to view some of the challenges in that national context, recognising that it is not always easy when we have a Mayor from one party and a Government of a different party, but if we are going to genuinely build back better, and build back a fairer, more prosperous country in the aftermath of this pandemic, the national success will be heavily reliant on the success of London and the south-east. That is why I appeal directly to the Minister in the hope that we can have a more constructive discussion between central Government and the Mayor of London, so that we can avoid some of the challenges that colleagues, particularly those from Kent, have raised this afternoon, but also make sure that we are building a stronger and fairer United Kingdom in the aftermath of the pandemic—driven by London, but with London not being the sole beneficiary.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Rees, and I thank the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing this timely debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who exposed the real situation and raised genuine concerns about air cleanliness and air quality, and my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who laid bare the facts of what is really a Tory transport delusion.
I note that the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) said that London’s electoral system is rigged in favour of Labour. The two terms served there by our current Prime Minister might point in the opposite direction. Indeed, TfL’s financial woes began under that previous Mayor of London. Perhaps the issue is that the current Tory candidate is about to get crushed in the upcoming election.
I would like to thank the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) who showed his fantastic choice of tie and Windsor knot skills. Unfortunately, he shed very little light on the facts of the debate. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), as a military man, will surely see this debacle from the Department for Transport and the Government for what it is: a political improvised explosive device designed to blow up the Mayor of London.
What we have heard today is nothing more than a highly politicised attack on the Mayor of London, just weeks before the mayoral election. Far from being wasteful, the Mayor has been held over a barrel by the Government and forced to consider any and every option left available in order to keep afloat one of the world’s greatest transport networks. The fact that it has reached this point is frankly shameful.
I hope we will hear from the Minister whether the Government will finally give a long-term funding commitment to TfL, or keep stringing it along with piecemeal funding that serves only to kick the can down the road until a meaningful agreement is reached. Perhaps that is why so many Conservative MPs are here today. Perhaps they, too, would like to see the Government do the right thing, rather than simply using the Government’s chronic underfunding of TfL in the middle of a pandemic as a stick to beat the London Mayor with.
I will address some of the fundamentally misleading statements that we have heard today. First, the proposal for an outer London congestion charge is far from set in stone. TfL is currently in the process of carrying out an early feasibility study; no decisions have yet been taken to implement the charge. If a decision were taken to pursue the idea, clearly an extensive public consultation and detailed economic and environmental impact assessments would have to be undertaken.
Gareth Johnson
If the London Mayor were to implement this outer London congestion charge, would the Labour party support it?
Sam Tarry
It is clear at the moment that the key issue we want to focus on is a long-term funding deal for TfL, which would mean such options would not need to be considered. That is perhaps something on which we could all agree. I again point out that there would be no need whatsoever for a Greater London boundary charge if the Government supported the calls from the Mayor of London to allow the capital to keep its share of the vehicle excise duty, which is roughly £500 million a year.
If we gave TfL the level of revenue in capital funding it had for the first 20 years of its existence, that would be a game changer. Let us not forget that it is the current Prime Minister, the previous Mayor of London, who negotiated away the direct operating subsidy in 2015. That ensured that the brutal austerity measures of the then Chancellor George Osborne, inflicted on councils and the rest of the public sector from 2010, were also applied to Transport for London, literally robbing our country’s transport Crown jewels in front of the eyes of Londoners.
Let us focus on vehicle excise duty for a moment. Every year, Londoners pay £500 million in VED, money which is spent almost exclusively on roads outside of London. We, therefore, have the nonsensical situation whereby road maintenance in London is in effect subsidised by people using public transport. To put that another way, tube users pay for car drivers. I would like to know if the Minister agrees that City Hall should be allowed to keep the VED.
Gareth Bacon
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that people do not just use one mode of transport? Car drivers also walk, cycle and use public transport, so they pay into the public transport system. The idea that car drivers are being subsidised by public transport users is further undermined by more than a £1 billion of subsidy that Transport for London puts into the bus system and the other concessionary fares. Would he concede that that statement, which is often used and comes directly from City Hall, is misleading and wrong?
Sam Tarry
I think of lot of Londoners will disagree. Their money is spent elsewhere in the country. As I have said in the Chamber before, it would be good to see an agenda not of levelling down London, but genuinely levelling up the rest of the country’s transport networks, as needs to happen. As I was saying, I would like to hear whether the Minister agrees that City Hall should be allowed to keep that VED, which is paid by Londoners, so that it can be spent on their transport system. That seems only fair, given that London contributes over £40 billion net to Treasury coffers every single year.
Does the Minister agree that allowing London to keep its share of VED, so that TfL can invest in London’s roads and public transport services, is actually a very reasonable request, not least given the fact that the Conservative party at City Hall has supported that very position in a cross-party letter? Indeed, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon is on the record as having previously supported that position.
Gareth Bacon
The letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was written before this proposal was put in place, and this is not an either/or question. The Mayor of London is throwing up smoke and mirrors by saying that either vehicle excise duty is devolved or there is an outer-London charge. That is not the case at all. As chairman of the cross-party budget committee, I was obliged to sign that letter because the majority of the committee said that they wanted vehicle excise duty to be devolved, but that was before the Mayor of London called for this, so the two things are not related at all.
Sam Tarry
The point still stands that vehicle excise duty could be an answer to TfL’s financial woes; or, indeed, the Government could reach into their pockets and give our country support, bearing in mind what we have said about that £40 billion. When London does well, the entire country does well. If we can boost our economy and come out of this awful pandemic, London succeeding will also help millions of other people across the country to succeed as well.
As I have already made clear, no decisions have been taken on this scheme. In fact, no scheme has even been designed. Let us be clear: no scheme whatsoever has been designed and no decisions have been taken on the charge level, exemptions or hours of operation. As we all know, with the election just weeks away, Conservative Members here today are doing their best to whip up this issue and spread fake news. Londoners—in fact, their own constituents—deserve far better.
Let us talk about the facts. Every weekday, 1.3 million vehicle trips are made from outside London to the capital, burdening local communities with traffic and emissions. Of those 1.3 million vehicle trips, around 1 million are made to outer London. TfL informs me that prior to the pandemic, car journeys made by residents within outer London had been in decline in recent years, whereas car journeys to outer London from outside the boundary—in other words, by non-London residents—had been increasing over the same period.
What this all comes down to is the more fundamental choices about what has to be done. Do we all want a well-funded public transport system, with a diverse range of income streams so that it is not entirely reliant on fares, or do we think that it is acceptable to cut services, because otherwise that is where we are headed? Cutting services at a time when we are trying to incentivise people back to using public transport, as they return to work after having their vaccination and the economy begins to move again, would be completely and utterly counterproductive.
When it is safe to do so, we want people to enjoy everything that our capital has to offer. However, if they think that they will be packed in like sardines and that passengers will be rammed in—perhaps from Newbury Park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North, as I have experienced many times—they will not want to get on tubes or buses. They did not like that pre-pandemic and they certainly will not like it now.
I have also heard the argument that if fewer people are travelling because they are working from home, we should put up fares. That is clearly the preference of the Transport Secretary, who forced the Mayor of London to increase fares this year in order to access emergency financial support. The rest of us know, however, that if we price people off the public transport network, we run the risk of forcing them to use cars.
I also find it interesting to hear Tory MPs express outrage today, given what their own Transport Secretary said just last September, in a letter he sent to the Mayor of London:
“Given the significant rise in congestion in inner London, we also propose the extension of the central London congestion charging zone to cover the same area as the Ultra Low Emission Zone…and at the same time, October 2021.”
That would have been an extreme and unacceptable proposal, on the basis of what colleagues have said here today. It would also have meant that every journey within the huge area bounded by the north and south circular roads would have cost £15, in addition to the expanded ULEZ charge coming in from October this year, and all at a time when families and small businesses are still reeling from the covid crisis.
It was clearly totally wrong to suggest hitting Londoners with such an increase in charges, just as we are, hopefully, recovering from a pandemic. That is why the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was right to reject it and right to stand up for Londoners. I stress again that even if a decision were taken to proceed with a Greater London boundary charge for non-London residents, it would take at least two years to implement. It is a last-ditch option, forced on TfL by the Government’s failure to provide long-term funding, which is the key issue.
Let me turn to a point I made earlier on the real reason for TfL’s current predicament. It was a Conservative Government under Chancellor George Osborne and the current Prime Minister, when he was Mayor of London, who agreed to the withdrawal of the direct operating grant. The then Mayor’s decision meant that the network became almost completely reliant on fare revenue, unlike comparable transport authorities in any other global city across the western world. When fares subsequently slumped because the covid lockdown meant no one was travelling, TfL’s income collapsed almost overnight. It is thanks to Conservative decisions in the past that TfL is left between a rock and a hard place, with no easy choices for the Mayor and TfL, having to fix the Tories’ mess and raise the vast amount of money required to make up that shortfall.
To add insult to injury, it is yet again a Conservative Government who are more determined than ever to force through a new era of cuts and the retrenchment of transport in the capital. That is unacceptable. The Mayor, TfL and businesses are united in knowing that would be completely counterproductive. Our capital city, whose economic contribution benefits the rest of the country immensely, is so much more dependent on public transport than elsewhere in the country.
The Government hold all the cards here. On behalf of all Londoners, I urge them to once and for all stop the politicking, put their hands in their pockets, properly fund our capital’s public transport network and allow London to keep its share of VED. If the Government fail to act, my advice to Conservative MPs here today and colleagues across London, including those who have spoken, is to direct their anger to the Transport Secretary and this Government. It is they alone who should carry the can. I have not heard one single word from them about an alternative. Their silence speaks volumes. London deserves better; indeed, Britain deserves an awful lot better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this important debate. He and many other hon. Friends have put on the record their concerns at the Mayor of London’s plans to introduce a border tax for people and businesses travelling into the capital. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Hendon (Dr Offord), so we have a very good sense of the widespread impact of the concerns about this proposal.
The debate, rightly, has focused on the Mayor’s border tax. I will come to that in a moment, but behind this question lies a deeper concern that has been highlighted by many contributors, about the state of TfL’s finances, which brought us to this predicament. Let me say straight away that I do not doubt the impact that the coronavirus pandemic has had on TfL’s finances over the last year. I doubt any transport system in the world has emerged from the last 12 months unscathed, as people rightly heeded the Government’s calls to stay at home and the capital’s streets emptied. That is precisely why the Government have stepped in to help.
In May 2020, the Government agreed to support TfL with a funding settlement worth up to £1.6 billion. Following that, we agreed another settlement in October 2020, bringing the total value of financial support for TfL to more than £3 billion since the pandemic began.
It is worth pausing on that figure of £3 billion. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) bemoaned the lack of a sustainable, long-term strategy. Three billion pounds has been provided to support TfL. It was confirmed in a statement to the House on Monday that this support would, once again, be extended, until May. I remind the hon. Gentleman that discussions are ongoing, to meet the exact call that he made—to put TfL’s finances on a sustainable footing for the long term. When we know how passengers are responding to the Prime Minister’s road map to safely unlock our economy, we can continue to work with TfL, as we have been doing throughout the pandemic, to once again explore what support it needs.
The issue, however, is that even before the pandemic, TfL’s finances were in a perilous state. As many of my hon. Friends have rightly said, years of mismanagement under the current Mayor left TfL completely unable to cope when the pandemic hit. By April this year, TfL expects its debt to reach £13.1 billion. The Mayor pursued ill-conceived policies designed to re-elect him, not to do what was right by Londoners. His fare freeze, which he was warned would have a devastating impact, has cost at least £640 million. The Mayor has failed to get a grip on pensions or excessive salaries. In short, TfL’s finances are out of control and we must tackle that, because people living outside the capital cannot be expected to keep picking up the tab for Sadiq Khan’s mistakes.
Unfortunately, rather than facing up to some of the difficult choices that need to be made to get TfL back on the path to financial sustainability, the Mayor has responded with politicking and measures that will punish working Londoners and their closest neighbours alike. Mayor Khan is increasing council tax by almost 10%. That means that the average band D property is now facing a council tax bill that is £31 more expensive than a year ago.
The other deeply concerning suggestion from the Mayor is that he might seek to introduce the so-called border tax that we have heard about today, which is a charge of at least £3.50 for every single vehicle that crosses into London. The Mayor seems to believe that London exists as an island, disconnected from the rest of the country. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Just as London is critical to the success of the country, so the success of London is fed by countless thousands of individuals who commute to London from outside its boundaries.
An estimated 1.3 million vehicle journeys are made into London every weekday. Critical workers travel into the capital from the constituencies mentioned today, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, to work in London’s hospitals, supermarkets and schools. These are the people who the Mayor proposes to punish for his financial ineptitude during his time in office. It is important not to underestimate the impact that such a border tax could have. A driver who travels into London every weekday could face a bill of almost £1,000 a year—devastating at a time when people and businesses are trying to recover from one of the worst economic downturns of the past century.
This would be a border tax levied on people outside London by a Mayor they were not able to vote for or, indeed, vote out. I am a firm believer that there should be no taxation without representation, as such a move would fly in the face of the Mayor’s supposed mantra that London is open. For that reason, I put it on the record that this is an idea that the Government do not support.
Under Sadiq Khan’s leadership, TfL’s debt has risen, projects have been delayed and income has been thrown away on pet projects. It is unacceptable that the Mayor will now seek to recover the money that these failures have lost by introducing a deeply damaging border tax on families and businesses surrounding London. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for securing this debate and giving his constituents a voice in this House. As families and businesses rebuild, we need a Mayor of London who will support them by getting London’s finances back on the path of sustainability and who will stop threatening measures that could set London and, indeed, the rest of the UK back by decades.
Gareth Johnson
My thanks to you, Ms Rees, for chairing this debate. May I also thank everybody who has contributed? It has been a constructive debate, with much of it centring on whether or not TfL and the Mayor of London are properly financed. Even if one concedes—which I do not—that they are not properly financed, this is not the right route to go down in order to raise funding. It is hugely divisive. It sets community against community and sets London against the others. It will create a literal financial wall right around London’s border. It is totally wrong.
If this policy is implemented, I wish businesses and public sector organisations in the outer London boroughs good luck in recruiting staff. We need to do everything we can to prevent it from being implemented. Raising revenue from people whom to whom the Mayor is totally unaccountably is the wrong way to raise taxation. It is taxation without representation; it is taxation without accountability.
That is why it is a fundamentally poor policy that has been ill thought through and will be devastating to my constituents and to ordinary people in Dartford and around the south-east who are just going about their daily business, going into London to visit friends and loved ones and to work and shop. Those are the people who will be hardest hit by this proposed charge, and that is why it is fundamentally wrong.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the proposal for an outer London congestion charge.
Battle of Barnet: 550th Anniversary
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 550th anniversary of the Battle of Barnet 1471.
Before turning to the subject of the debate, I want to acknowledge that this is a very difficult and sad day for our country. My support and sympathy go to everyone who has lost loved ones, suffered illness or had their livelihood damaged by this yearlong health emergency. Let us hope that the vaccination programme means that better days lie ahead.
At around 5 am on 14 April 1471, battle was joined between the forces of York and Lancaster just north of the village of Barnet, in one of the most decisive battles of the 30-year conflict that later became known as the wars of the roses. At the head of the Yorkist army was King Edward IV. Over six feet tall, handsome, athletic and astute, Edward had assumed the leadership of the Yorkist cause at just 18 years old when his father was killed in a skirmish outside Wakefield. The teenage warrior emerged victorious at Towton in one of the bloodiest battles ever fought on English soil, and he successfully established a new dynasty. Leading for Lancaster was Edward’s former friend and mentor, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick—a man so powerful in the dynastic struggles of the time that he earned the name kingmaker. Warwick had displaced Edward from his throne the previous year.
Three kings were on the field that day, the last of a 300-year line of Plantagenet monarchs: first, Edward IV; secondly, his prisoner, the deposed Henry VI; and thirdly, Edward’s brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who would one day seize power and provoke 500 years of debate on his character and alleged crimes. The stakes could not have been higher for the men peering through the mist at one another that Easter Sunday morning 550 years ago. George R. R. Martin’s character, Cersei Lannister, once said, “If you play the game of thrones and lose, you die.” Well, as the banner created by Barnet Museum aptly put it, the battle of Barnet was part of “the real game of thrones”.
Defeat almost certainly meant death for those leading the armies facing off against one another that day back in 1471. The two sides were relatively evenly matched in numbers. Initially, neither seemed to have the upper hand. Because of the thick fog, however, the two sides were not directly aligned in front of one another at the start of the battle, as would normally be the case. Lancastrian forces under the Earl of Oxford stretched further to the east than the Yorkist troops at Edward’s left, led by Lord Hastings. That enabled Oxford’s forces to attack from the side, partly encircling the Yorkist left flank and forcing them back down the road to Barnet.
When Oxford and his troops returned to the battle, the two sides had shifted around from a north-south to an east-west axis. Unknowingly, he therefore arrived behind the rest of the Lancastrian army rather than alongside them. Mistaking their allies for the enemy, possibly because the fog made it hard to distinguish Oxford’s star banner from Edward’s sun in splendour, or perhaps because they assumed Oxford had switched sides, as so many did in that conflict, the Lancastrian archers fired on Oxford’s men. Believing they had been betrayed, they fled the field. By 8 am, Warwick was dead and the victory belonged to York.
There are many reasons why it is worth remembering these events as we approach the 550th anniversary of the battle on 14 April; not only because as many as 4,000 might have lost their lives that day, but because this was a significant turning point. It was probably the first battle in Britain to see extensive use of handguns. More importantly, it is worth considering what might have happened if the result had gone the other way. Defeat in Barnet and the consequent early demise of the house of York could have seen progress stopped or reversed on Edward IV’s efforts to build a modern state and curb the power of magnates. Although the reforms are generally credited to the Tudors, the transition began under Edward of York. If the difference between the middle ages and the modern era is reining in the power of the nobility and banning their private armies, there could be few more important turning points for achieving that than defeating Warwick—the most overmighty subject of them all—on the battlefield.
However, I am pleased to say that the most important reason to mark the anniversary is to promote my constituency of Chipping Barnet and encourage people to visit our local town centre. This is the only registered battlefield that people can get to by tube; the only one within the Greater London area. Between 2015 and 2017, Glenn Foard and Sam Wilson ran a project for the University of Huddersfield to try to identify the exact location of the battle. Dr Foard found the real site of Bosworth and the burial place of the King under the car park. His theory is that the battle may have taken place slightly further north, towards the Wrotham Park estate, rather than in the Hadley Green, Old Fold and Hadley Highstone area, which is the registered site.
The Huddersfield University work was made possible by the Hadley Trust, a local charity, for which I am very grateful. It included metal detecting, test pitting, geophysical surveys and landscape archaeology. Many local volunteers got involved and gave a hand. The results of the project were inconclusive, but I have to acknowledge that there is some anxiety that the eventual outcome might be that London loses its only registered battlefield. However, even if the main centre of the fighting turns out to have been not in my constituency but in that of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), further up the road to Potters Bar, contemporary accounts confirm that fighting extended back towards Barnet, so my constituency is likely to remain the site of at least part of the battlefield, even if these latest theories on location ultimately prove to be correct.
Once life returns to normal, I warmly encourage people to walk around what is traditionally recognised as the battle site. I am less sure of the extent of public access to the Wrotham Park alternative. Hopefully, in doing so, visitors will take the time to stop off at some of Barnet’s excellent hospitality businesses, as indeed some of the victorious Yorkist troops apparently did after the battle. I very much hope that Barnet’s pubs, restaurants and cafés will soon be allowed to open once again, as planned in the road map. Even before covid, our local town centres across the country had had a tough time, as competition from online retail giants intensified. But high streets, as all of us in the House know, are a crucial part of our communities and we must find ways to ensure that they survive. That is one reason why I have campaigned for many years for a reduction in and reform of business rates. I welcome the continuation of the business rates holiday confirmed in the Budget.
Heritage-related tourism can also play an important part in helping our high streets thrive. I am delighted that the Heritage Lottery Fund gave a grant of £98,600 to the Battle of Barnet project in 2015. This was run by the Barnet Museum, the Barnet Society and the Battlefields Trust. The Chipping Barnet Town Team was also very supportive and got involved. I thank all those groups for their excellent work. The project included a range of activities that have generated local interest in history and heritage.
There was extensive engagement with local schools. For example, Barnet Museum created a loan box full of medieval replicas, maps, pictures and a teacher’s pack telling the story of the battle and suggesting activities and events to inspire an interest in our town’s medieval past. Museum volunteers also painted copies of the family banners of the people who fought at Barnet. Following the lead set by Tewkesbury, the site of the battle to which Edward IV hastened after winning at Barnet, these banners were hung on lamp posts in Barnet High Street and are due to be back up soon to mark the anniversary. Such efforts can make a real difference to bringing people to their local town centre and I thank all the volunteers at the Barnet Museum and local history society for creating them. Thanks must also go to Bouygues, which owns the street lights and put up the banners.
However, the biggest and best event hosted by the Battle of Barnet project was the 2018 Barnet medieval festival. Around 6,500 attended the festival during the two days it ran, and over 100 took part in re-enactments of the second battle of St Albans and, of course, the battle of Barnet. There were tents and stalls that enabled people to understand more about how ordinary people lived in medieval England. The festival’s activities for children were especially popular, although I have to say that BBC London’s TV coverage did feature some rather alarmingly bloodthirsty comments from some of the younger participants in the mock battles that day. I was excited to be allowed to fire off a replica cannon as part of the opening ceremony—it was very, very loud. It was one of the best days out I have ever had in my constituency, and it was a brilliant way to bring people together.
Sadly, last year’s festival was cancelled because of covid, but I hope that this year’s will go ahead on 11 and 12 September. I strongly urge anyone who wants to make it happen to donate to the festival’s Spacehive appeal, at www.spacehive.com/battle-barnet-550. If the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has any spare resources, it is a great cause to support. I make the same appeal to the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Its grant for the 2018 event was a massive success, and I am sure that it would be replicated if further funding were forthcoming for this year’s festival.
I will also take this opportunity to reiterate my call for Government support for pandemic insurance for festivals and events, which I gather was discussed here this morning. Many of those trying to put on events and festivals are finding it difficult or impossible to get insured. We risk a further summer of cancellations if the problem is not solved, so I urge the Minister—as I have done many times already—to offer the same kind of support to festivals and events as her Department has already given to the TV sector. For the sake of economic recovery, to signal that the UK is open for business again this summer, and to enable families to have some fun and memorable days out after the toughest 12 months any of us can remember, will the Government please say yes to a pandemic insurance scheme?
In conclusion, I will return to the battle itself. As well as its historic importance, the 550th anniversary of the battle is an opportunity to reflect on its cultural significance. I have already referred to the influence of the wars of the roses on “Game of Thrones”, in which the struggle between Stark and Lannister bears a number of striking similarities to the 15th century contest between York and Lancaster. Philippa Gregory has also brought the story of the brief tenure of the charismatic Yorkist dynasty vividly to life in her remarkable historical novels, which have enjoyed such massive success. One of my personal favourites is “The White Queen”, which tells the story of Elizabeth Woodville, who waited anxiously back in London just a few miles away for news of whether her husband had triumphed or perished in Barnet.
It is Shakespeare, of course, who gives the battle of Barnet its most enduring place in our literature and culture, so I will close my remarks today with words that our nation’s greatest poet placed in the mouth of a man dying in a field near Barnet 550 years ago; one who is memorialised in Hadley Highstone in my constituency and is forever known to history as the kingmaker:
“These eyes, that now are dimmed with death’s black veil,
Have been as piercing as the midday sun,
To search the secret treasons of the world:
The wrinkles in my brows, now fill’d with blood,
Were likened oft to kingly sepulchres;
For who liv’d king, but I could dig his grave?
And who durst smile when Warwick bent his brow?
Lo! Now my glory smear’d in dust and blood;
My parks, my walks, my manors that I had,
Even now forsake me; and, of all my lands
Is nothing left me but my body’s length.
Why, what is pomp, rule, reign, but earth and dust?
And, live we how we can, yet die we must.”
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms Rees. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for securing this fascinating debate. We have been all over the place, from “Game of Thrones” to Shakespeare, and she has entertained and educated us.
As my right hon. Friend says, we should recognise that this is a very sad anniversary. It is one year since the lockdown started. So many lives have been lost, and so many of us over the period have lost the things we hold dear—the chance to see our friends and loved ones, and to attend the events that we love. This year has also driven us to appreciate more than ever the things that we appreciate in life and the things that bring us together as a community—our sense of togetherness, and our shared history and heritage. Those are the things that unite us.
As the Minister responsible for heritage, I am heartened to see the passion and vigour that our nation’s history evokes. There is absolutely no disputing that the battle of Barnet was one of the most significant and important battles of the wars of the roses. It was a very important moment in English history, when King Edward IV was restored to the throne. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for bringing it to life for us today with so much vigour and passion.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that such events have shaped our national story. The 550th anniversary of the battle of Barnet serves as a perfect opportunity to reflect on our past and engage our communities in a way that fosters a sense of pride, shared history and belonging. As she said, it is a way to reinvigorate our towns and village centres, which have suffered so much over the past year. It is an opportunity to inspire our youngsters in our schools and colleges, and it will potentially inspire some historians of the future.
Barnet’s medieval festival is a perfect example of that, and I am sure it will deliver on those aims. It will mark the prestigious anniversary with a special programme of battle re-enactments, gunnery and archery displays, living history encampments, music, dance, a medieval market and children’s activities. I cannot think of a better way to spend an afternoon—I quite fancy having a go at firing a cannon myself, I have to say. Having been delayed by the coronavirus, the festival is now due to take place in September, and I think it will be an absolutely resounding success. It is the sort of event that we have all be desperate for over these past months.
The Battle of Barnet project, as my right hon. Friend says, serves as a shining example of how, more than half a millennium later, our nation’s history can really be used to enrich the lives of the local community. Running from 2015 to 2019, managed by the Barnet Museum, the Barnet Society and the Battlefields Trust, it sought to improve knowledge and understanding through archaeological surveys of the battlefield, in conjunction with the University of Huddersfield. It is such fascinating work.
The National Lottery Heritage Fund grant of more than £98,000, awarded in 2016, also helped to engage audiences of all ages across the local community, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. It developed a wide range of initiatives. Barnet High Street was enriched with information boards about the battle. My right hon. Friend talked about the heraldic banners, which must have been quite a sight. It is so important to have a greater understanding of the past, and that was fostered through the school activity packs, the medieval replicas, the maps, the pictures, the teachers’ pack, and the publication of a free leaflet, highlighting locations around Barnet relating to the battlefield. That brings it all to life in a spectacular way. The medieval festival attracted several thousand attendees and proved to be a huge success. The festival has been repeated in subsequent years independently of Lottery funding, such was its success.
This anniversary is an opportunity to reflect on the importance of our historical environment. Battlefields such as that in Barnet provide such an important anchor to the evolution of our country and they provide an important reminder of our past as well. Their conservation is therefore integral, for research purposes, to improving our understanding and appreciation of our heritage. The significance of these sites is highlighted by the inclusion of some of the most significant examples in Historic England’s register of historic battlefields. There are currently 47 registered battlefields, including the site of the battle of Barnet, and these sites are conserved through the planning system. I am pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of our registered battlefields, Barnet included, are still in excellent condition.
Like my right hon. Friend, I eagerly await the return of public events such as Barnet’s medieval festival, which contribute so much to our lives through celebrating our culture and heritage. We know that our first priority at the moment must be public safety. However, in February the Government published a road map that aims to provide some clarity to event organisers as restrictions are eased, and that seeks to balance that key social and economic priority while preserving the health and safety of our country.
Crucially, the road map focuses on data, not dates. Alongside this, and to back it up and help move it forward, the Prime Minister has announced some scientific events research programmes, which are an integral part of the road map and will explore how these kinds of events, across the culture and entertainment sectors, can reopen safely. Over the spring, to support this, we will be including a series of pilots using the enhanced testing approach as another measure to run events with large crowd sizes and reduced social distancing, to really prove the fact that they can return. My sincere hope is that, come September, the Barnet medieval festival and similar events right across the country will be able to go ahead as planned. With infection rates falling and now well over 27 million people vaccinated, there is cause for great optimism in our country.
My right hon. Friend spoke about indemnity. The Government acknowledge that the circumstances of the pandemic have left many unable to have the confidence and certainty they need to plan for events. We have been engaging with stakeholders in my office right throughout the period to understand the issues. The potential challenges around indemnity are a very big part of that.
We know that progress on the vaccine and beating the virus are crucial and this, combined with reopening only when we know it is safe to do so, will reduce the chances of cancellations and interruption. That will create a much more predictable and secure operating context for these sorts of events. Any decision about indemnity alongside that will be taken by the Treasury, which I know is keeping the situation under review, and we are working with it to determine the most effective response to the sector within the public health context.
On that note, I again congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate and for entertaining and educating us this afternoon. I have every faith that the 550th anniversary of the battle of Barnet will serve as a fantastic opportunity for the local community to come together again, to engage with our fantastic national heritage and to really begin to foster and rebuild that sense of community pride, shared history and belonging.
Question put and agreed to.
Education After Covid-19
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems they should email the Westminster Hall Clerk’s email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered improving the education system after the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I understand it is your first chairmanship, so many congratulations if that is the case. I thank Members, and most of all the Minister, for taking time to participate in the debate. Frankly, all debates on education are important. I pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done. He is a long-standing Minister and is much respected in his field.
I will start off with a couple of other thank yous that are relevant to the Isle of Wight. I know how hard the headteachers, teachers and pupils on the island have worked, and I thank them all. It has been a difficult year and I think the Isle of Wight has done pretty well overall, especially compared with the national average. It has not been easy and we are grateful to everyone for the efforts that they have made. I thank our education team at the council: Brian Pope and Steve Crocker, and Councillor Paul Brading. I thank them for their dedication to the wellbeing of the island.
One of the worst of many damaging aspects of covid has been the effect on the education of children and young people. Even with our best efforts, it will now take years to repair the damage. Significant events such as pandemics and, indeed, world wars, often serve as disruptors, but they can be positive disruptors. Not only do we now have an opportunity to learn from the past year with its virtual as opposed to real, in-person education, but such situations provide a window of opportunity for sometimes radical change. I want to look at two or three ideas to suggest potential changes to the education system that could benefit not only folk on the Isle of Wight but everyone in the UK.
As I said, the pandemic is no different from significant disruptor episodes, and has identified some important issues such as, in the healthcare context, the link between the health and care home sectors—or lack of it—and how that worked during the pandemic. I want to take this opportunity to ask some big questions about how things can be done differently in education. The Minister has been in his post for some years so I am trying to frame the debate as questions to him, because he has significantly more expertise than I do in the matter. There are three things I want to look at, and the first is term time. The Secretary of State has spoken about that recently. The second is the use of technology to improve education, and the third is Government working in a more integrated and coherent way. I shall refer to my constituency too.
The three-term school year has absolutely had its day. We have not lived in an agrarian society for the best part of 150 years, if not 200 years. Children, teenagers and young people no longer need to go and help with the harvests for a six or seven-week period over the summer. That has not had to happen for decades, if not a century or two. We know that long holidays can damage kids’ learning. I remember going back to school in September pretty much having forgotten everything that I learned the previous year, because in the seven weeks over summer people simply swich off. Research shows that the poorer the children, the worse the damage. Additionally, poorer children are less likely to take part in enriching activities in summer, such as travel abroad, and they are sadly more likely to be malnourished and are more vulnerable to isolation and periods of inactivity. This is a social and mental health problem, as well as an educational problem.
The Secretary of State said that we should look to move to a five-term year, and I completely agree. We should be doing so permanently, and perhaps a royal commission could look at whether it is a four-term or five-term year. We need to split up the term time in order to have shorter but more consistent terms throughout the year. Yes, we still need summer holidays, but they can be staggered depending on the exact school term for any academy or county, with changes in term time. Holidays do not have to be crammed into six or seven weeks in summer; they could be taken in June, July, August or September, depending on when the exact term time falls for any given school.
Why do we have a school year that runs from September to July? Why not from January to December? Why should we have exams in summer, which is full of disruption? Summer is fun—people want to be outside, and it is a very distracting time of year. Why not have exams in March or April, over a winter period in which it is easier to encourage kids to work at home and to study because it is raining outside or it is cold? There is an argument that if we think it is right to do something, let us get on and do it.
My second point is about using technology to improve education. We need to implement the best learnings that we can to enhance education, and I thank the Academies Enterprise Trust, Julian Drinkall and his team for their excellent work at Ryde Academy—some really ground-breaking stuff. Although some schools have struggled with virtual learning, most have not. The Isle of Wight has done very well by comparison and, again, I thank everyone involved, but we need to take the lessons from the pandemic and find the best balance between in-person teaching and virtual learning, because kids need to learn to react with screens as well as in person. I know there is an issue with people saying that sometimes children are watching too much TV at home, but screens can be a great way to encourage engagement with technology at school. Everyone will be living virtually online and in person now, and this is not an option.
Every child should have a tablet or laptop for the duration of their schooling, in the same way that they would have had a pencil and notebook 50 years ago. Certainly when it comes to exams and testing, screens can be almost a non-stressful way to encourage testing at the end of a lesson, at the end of the day or at the end of a week. Testing can become part of the support for children, and indeed for teachers, rather than painful occasional hurdles that need to be overcome. For some children, virtual learning has enhanced their education. For some, it has not worked, and vulnerable children need to be in the classroom, either with in-person teaching or with tablets. For some kids, however—as far as the teachers to whom I have spoken say—more at-home learning has actually been of real benefit, as has been more interaction with technologists. For example, I understand that some children with autism have benefited from being able to work at home with a more flexible timetable. This is about an important duty of care as well as education.
That links to the critical national infrastructure that we actually need, which is not a railway between London and Birmingham; it is fibre to premises for homes, schools and businesses throughout the country. That is the critical piece of infrastructure that we cannot do without in future and that we should prioritise.
My third point is about coherent and integrated working. Talking to educational experts—I like to talk to them anyway, but I wanted to make sure that I had some valid points to make in my speech—there is a sense from some of them, and from some teachers, that although the Department for Education is doing excellent work, it could work more effectively and coherently with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on skills, and with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on kit and support for schools in a virtual world, in order to improve education and work experience. I am sure the Minister will let us know his thoughts on this issue.
Finally, I want to talk a bit about improving education on the Isle of Wight. We have an improving school system on the Island, for which I am very grateful. The officers we have had from Hampshire, who now work on the Island, have helped us drive up standards.
We have had an issue with higher education, only because we have not had it and not had enough of it. My huge frustration has been that for 30 years, while higher education in Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Southampton and Brighton have driven not only education in those cities but student life and the prosperity it brings to those city centres, that education revolution has completely passed by the Isle of Wight, which is painful for us.
The worst thing is that, if someone is young and smart and wants to get a degree, they would pretty much have to leave the island. That inability to keep our most talented people has been a problem for us. Once kids leave, they might not come back until they are 50, 60 or 70. They might come back to retire, but getting them back has been a problem. I would very much like to do more to develop higher education, specifically with a higher education campus in Newport.
We have the Isle of Wight College, under the excellent leadership of Debbie Lavin. Anything the Minister could do, not only with the DFE but also the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, working with me to develop more degree level courses, which people can take on the island, perhaps doing that through the Isle of Wight College or virtually, or with other people setting up a campus here, would be incredibly valuable for us.
I want others to have time to talk, so I will wrap up there. I will be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say to those critical points. To sum up: on term times, can we change the school year and potentially the times we do exams, to enable kids to learn better and more consistently throughout the year? Can we use technology better, with that interaction between the best of in-person learning and learning virtually on screen? We need that for the future, because kids will need to be able to adjust to the real life that they are going to find once they leave school. Thirdly, what can the DFE do to work more coherently with other Departments, to ensure that we drive forward a skills and learning agenda, which is critical for the future of the country?
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Opposition spokesperson at 5.33 pm and the Minister at 5.38 pm. That gives four minutes maximum to Back-Bench speakers, so please confine yourselves to four minutes or less. I call Emma Hardy.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Provision and support for children with special educational needs and disability was broken before the pandemic. During the pandemic, those children have been forgotten. My plea to the Minister is, now that we are looking at how to improve education, let us put those children back at its heart.
The Select Committee on Education report of October 2019 took 18 months, heard more than 70 witnesses and received 700 pieces of written evidence. To quote from the document, these were the problems found pre-pandemic:
“There is too much tension between a child’s needs and the provision available…a general lack of accountability within the system…Parents and carers have to wade through a treacle of bureaucracy, full of conflict, missed appointments and despair…many local authorities are struggling with the reforms, and in some cases this has led to unlawful practice…struggling against the tide of unintended consequences of policy decisions.”
The report states:
“This generation is being let down—the reforms have not done enough to join the dots, to bring people together and to create opportunities for all young people to thrive in adulthood.”
It adds:
“We are seeing serious gaps in therapy provision.”
The summary concludes by saying:
“Special educational needs and disabilities must be seen as part of the whole approach of the Department’s remit, not just an add-on.”
During the pandemic, they have not even been an add-on; they have been an afterthought.
The Government’s response to the report was to commission their own review, which they promised would be published in January 2021. After I submitted a written question to the Department, I was told that it would be published in spring 2021. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us when we can expect to see that document.
That report led me to set up the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, now chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), which is looking particularly at the impact of covid on these children. The situation during covid has got worse for these families, with many families pushed to breaking point, because the children have been an afterthought. As the Government and the Minister were promoting the use of technology and laptops for school pupils, no thought was given to assisted technology for our pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
Although all those children were allowed to attend school, because they had their education, health and care plans, little thought was given to what would happen when more than 90% of children in a special school attend at the same time; or to when we introduce a policy saying that these children have to be tested, knowing that some of them have serious sensory conditions and cannot administer the tests themselves, leading to many parents feeling extremely worried about the idea of a teacher having to forcibly test their child. That left headteachers in the impossible situation of wondering what to do if all the children decided that they could not take the test because they find it too distressing. Again, the children were an afterthought. No thought was given either to the staff working in these special schools, who need to be prioritised for vaccination to keep these pupils safe.
Families have been desperately worried. I am so worried about, and hope the Minister will look into, the number of parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities who have started home schooling and who now inform me that they have no intention of sending their children back to school when the risks of the pandemic have eased. It is not only the parents and the children, but the special educational needs co-ordinators, three quarters of whom say they are experiencing challenges in providing support for children and young people with EHCPs during lockdown. Any question or debate about improving the education system after covid-19 has to put these children back at the heart of the conversation, because a system that delivers for these children is a system that can deliver for all. I still believe that every child matters.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this timely debate. I will concentrate, in the time I have, on two things. On the face of it, they are quite different, but I believe that they are related and speak to two of the major challenges that we face in education post pandemic.
We have long known it to be the case, although the pandemic has emphasised it, that education is about not only those tangible outputs such as exams but the whole self and preparing young people for the world. It is often measured in the absence of things that only become tangible when they go wrong. We are seeing the fruit of that dropping from the tree now—lost learning, and young people with deep mental health concerns, issues with socialising and increasing anxiety. For some, perhaps even many, being away from formalised school during the crisis has left deep scars that we really need to address right now.
The pandemic has taught us some lessons about ourselves too. In my constituency, we suffered disproportionately poor outcomes from covid due to underlying health conditions. We have also seen young people becoming even more reliant on devices and social media for schooling and for their friendships. We have to ask ourselves how we can learn from these things and how we can change them for the better. I do not for a second believe that we can put the genie back in the bottle on using the internet, and nor should we ever want to, but we can challenge ourselves to ensure that this fantastic tool is used better. Similarly, we can re-emphasise the importance of outdoor education and start to head off now some of those issues that will impact young people later in life.
To touch on online skills and political literacy, we are at a time when, like it or lump it, politics is everywhere— politicians have made a disproportionate number of decisions about how people live their lives, earn a living and how they learn—so interest and frustration with politics is at an all-time high, but are we equipping young people with the skills they need to engage and to see the wood for the trees? In 2018, the National Literacy Foundation found that only 2% of children in the UK have the skills needed to determine whether a piece of information is real or fake. If the last year has shown us anything, it is that misinformation and low levels of media literacy pose serious threats to societies across the globe. It has been common to speak of a crisis in democracy for years, but in the past 12 months it has been brought into sharp focus. Our education system is at risk of being out of date. We must ensure that resources are there to prepare students for life in a 21st century democracy. The covid-19 pandemic has brought challenges that most of us could not imagine over a year ago, and the education system and teachers have been hit incredibly hard, but they have more than risen to these challenges. Even with that adversity comes an opportunity—an opportunity to have some conversations like this debate, and to open up about how we can improve and what rebuilding looks like.
Outdoor education is one subject that we should be focusing on. In Cumbria, we are blessed with many excellent centres and I have greatly enjoyed visits to a few of them recently, such as Kepplewray. However, that sector is on its knees. Outdoor education is not just about exercise or getting outdoors. It is about teaching valuable life skills, such as teamwork, resilience and communication. It is already a vital part of the British education system, but without it schools, children and communities will permanently lose important formulative educational experiences.
If we are genuinely looking—to coin a phrase—to build back to a better education system after this pandemic, we cannot only look to protect this sector but must utilise it more and head off some of those underlying issues that I mentioned before. We owe it to the next generation to equip them with the tools they need to navigate the world around them, whether that is online or outdoors. The pandemic provides an opportunity; I really hope the Minister and his team will seize that opportunity.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
The covid pandemic has taught us to revalue many things that we simply took for granted. Top of that list is the importance of teaching and learning, especially the value of quality teaching. The pandemic has also shone a bright light on the high levels of inequality that exist in our country. The pandemic has made them worse. There is a lot we can do to make our education system fairer for young people and mature students alike. The lessons we are learning from the pandemic can be a driver for real positive change.
We talk about schools and universities, but all too often we leave out the further education sector. Yet it is the worst-funded sector in the education system. It is also at the heart of addressing the hard-wired inequalities in this country. At the end of last year, the Government announced that colleges and sixth forms would benefit from an extra £400 million investment, and that funding would be maintained in real terms for 2021-22. That was welcome and long overdue, but not nearly enough to fill the £1.1 billion funding gap that has opened up for 16 to 19-year-olds since 2010. As funding is based on previous student numbers, an increase in students could still result in a fall in funding per student in real terms.
For adult learners, funding is yet more unpredictable. Total spending on adult skills has fallen by about 45% in the last decade. As our economy and workforce prepare to adapt to the new challenges after the pandemic, there is no better time to talk about the vital role of further education. The CBI predicts that nine in 10 employees will have to reskill by 2030. Investing in reskilling our adult workforce is financially clever and imperative for individual and collective wellbeing. Our further education colleges are at the forefront of those efforts.
In Bath, we are lucky that Bath College has formed a partnership with Bath Spa University and the Institute of Coding to create a groundbreaking plan to reskill and upskill our local workforce. The project is called I-START and it delivers across innovation, technology, arts, research and teaching in flexible blended modules that fit easily around busy lives. At the core of the project is supporting learners to build and develop skills in resilience, problem solving, creativity and communication, which will be much sought after by businesses after covid. I hope this unique initiative starting in Bath will serve as an inspiration and a useful model for other parts of the country.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Having met secondary heads in northern Devon last week, they clearly articulated how they see this as a watershed moment for education, and a chance we should not miss to revisit how the education system works and the outcomes it delivers for our young people. I was a newly qualified maths teacher just before my election in 2019, so I speak with some insight into what is going on in our schools in northern Devon. I take the opportunity to thank everyone who works in them, and for everything they have done throughout the pandemic. I also thank all the parents who have been home-educating, which will have ensured this generation of schoolchildren have learnt many more life skills than perhaps previous generations, given the very difficult year we have all endured.
Northern Devon consists of my constituency of North Devon and neighbouring Torridge. As the head of the school where I taught described it, it is located at the top of the country’s longest cul-de-sac. The area is remote, rural and coastal and presents unique challenges that, to date, have not been reflected in education policies, nationally or regionally.
For me, levelling up starts with education and skills. One measure that highlights that there is work to be done in northern Devon is the social mobility index. Of the 324 local authority district areas, in the south of Devon, South Hams is ranked at 49 and Exeter 81, yet my constituency ranks 238th and Torridge is at 283. The pandemic has shown how our schools deliver much more than just the three Rs to our young people and their families. Our headteachers talk of a holistic egality strategy for North Devon and Torridge that comprises education, special educational needs, social services and child support. The headteachers are uniquely placed to feed into that long-overdue strategy, and also to manage the resources that they need to deliver it within northern Devon, more specifically than just Devon.
As we look into education and building back better, I very much hope that the next generation will be inspired by the work delivered by our world-leading scientists in developing treatments and vaccines for covid-19. I know that, locally to me in North Devon, the children at the primary school in Tawstock are keen to become broadband engineers after seeing at first hand how Openreach connects their school and having had the chance to splice fibres and better understand how fibre broadband works and is delivered.
For our levelling-up agenda to be realised we need to better integrate schools with local employers, and embed at a far younger age what it means to be an engineer or a scientist. This might at last be my opportunity to inspire more youngsters to pass their maths GCSE, as a ticket to achieving an exciting career near home in lovely North Devon.
We also need to devise policies that are effective in remote rural locations and use the expertise of the teaching profession in those locations to really build back better. I very much look forward to working with the Minister and the team of fantastic heads in northern Devon to begin to move the agenda forward.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
One year on from the first lockdown marks an entire year since schools first closed, so perhaps it is time for the Department for Education’s performance review. We could reflect on the exam results fiasco or the free school meals U-turns, or even the utterly irresponsible decision to allow schools to open for just 24 hours in January, enabling the post-Christmas virus to circulate far and wide, driving up infection rates. However, I will instead focus on the remote education support scheme, which will be of vital importance for the topic of today’s debate —improving the education system after the pandemic.
After the uncertainty of the opening months it quickly became clear that the pandemic would have a long-term impact on education, and that connectivity would be vital to continue learning. So, back in June, MPs, charities, unions, past Education Secretaries and even a former Prime Minister all joined me in writing to the Secretary of State to call on his Department to ensure that no child would be left behind because they could not access the internet or a device at home.
Ten months on, this week’s results in the National Audit Office report are damning. The Department did not even aim to provide equipment to all children who lacked it. How does the Minister think that children on the wrong side of the digital divide have been able to log in and learn from home? The answer is simple: they have not. Every click has widened the attainment gap. The Government pledged 1.3 million devices, without connectivity, but there are still 300,000 missing. Where are they?
It is now March 2021 and I am still driving around Mitcham and Morden, dropping donated devices to my local schools. Although I am very grateful to all the individuals and organisations who are donating devices, stepping in where the Government have failed, there is still far to go. St Mark’s Academy needs 303 devices, Harris Academy Morden needs 100, William Morris Primary School needs 50, Stanford Primary School needs 15, Liberty Primary School needs 50 and St Teresa’s RC Primary School needs 52.
Before the pandemic, children on free school meals were leaving school 18 months behind other children and the gap was getting worse. How far behind will those on the wrong side of the digital divide have fallen now? This is no problem for the past; we are now well and truly a digital society and there is no going back. The focus has to be on how these children will catch up, and closing the digital divide is an imperative first step.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
I will start my remarks by focusing upon the plight of our outdoor education centres. I am deeply concerned about them. We know that of the 15,000 people who worked in the sector at the beginning of the pandemic, 6,000 have already lost their jobs, and there will be many more who are freelance workers and who have not been taken on again for the seasons that have been missed.
There has been a complete drying-up of the market for these outdoor education centres and of course there is no direct bespoke financial package for them either. We should remember that in Scotland and Northern Ireland there has been a specific financial package to help outdoor education centres. The fact that there has not been one in England is a reason why we are losing thousands of staff and beginning to see the closure of such centres.
On 22 February, which is now more than a month ago, the Prime Minister read out his road map for the unlocking of the country. Lots of things are on that road map—an opening date for nightclubs was on it. That is very good; I am glad it is there. However, there was nothing for outdoor education centres. If, as I do, the Minister speaks to the heads and teachers of primary and secondary schools, he will discover that those heads and teachers throughout primary and secondary education are desperate to be able to confirm, or indeed to book, day sessions and residential sessions at our outdoor education centres, many dozens of which are in Cumbria, especially in my constituency. So, I ask the Minister this: why have he and the Government not added outdoor education centres and their reopening to that road map?
Will the Minister today do three things? First, will he announce the road map for the reopening of outdoor education centres? Secondly, will he provide a bespoke financial package to keep our outdoor education centres going and the outdoor education industry’s head above water, as Scotland and Northern Ireland have done? Thirdly, will he do something truly radical and positive, which is to deploy the talent within our outdoor education centres within schools, to help reconnect our young people with a love of learning, building up the confidence they may have lost during the pandemic and connecting them to education again? Outdoor education centres contain people with exactly the set of skills that we need at this time; the tragedy is that that is exactly the time when this Government are allowing those skills to wither on the vine.
So, will the Minister do those three things? Will he also pay tribute to the teachers who have made such an outstanding contribution in every part of education over the last 12 months? Many people are reflecting—indeed, we all are—that 12 months has passed since the start of this pandemic. It is right to pay tribute to so many different people who have been public servants throughout that time, but it is also right to focus in particular today on the service provided by our teachers.
Thinking about what teachers did at the drop of a hat last March—teach remotely from scratch—we see that, throughout the time since, they have cared for the vulnerable and the most needy, very often providing food for them directly out of their own pockets. We have also seen how, at short notice, they provided ways of ensuring that assessments were made when exams were cancelled; we have seen how they went through their school holidays without taking any break whatsoever, in order to get ready for new arrangements, such as covid testing; and we have seen how schools have reopened again, and how they have done so seamlessly and with attendance maintained at such a high level. Teachers have ensured that our young people get the best possible education, in school if they are the children of key workers, and at home by remote teaching.
Teachers’ performance has been outstanding; they are national treasures. On behalf of every parent in my constituency—indeed, I think every parent in the country—I pay tribute to every single one of them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for setting the scene so very well —we appreciate that. It is good to see the Minister in his place. I think he has always been there—at least it seems like it. That is not a bad thing, by the way. We very much look forward to his response.
Obviously, education is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, so the Minister does not have any responsibility for it, but I wanted to feed in to this debate and give the perspective of what it is like in Northern Ireland. I know that what we have experienced in Northern Ireland is the same as what other hon. Members have experienced across the whole of the United Kingdom.
I have had many fears for our children during the outbreak. I think education probably features fairly high on the constituency problems page. I have fears for children’s paths of learning, fears for those who have not been able to learn online, fears for their mental health, fears for their social skills—so many fears. The question is: what will we in this House do to support them through those fears?
Today’s papers, which I read on the way over—the local and provincial press—were full of photographs of the Education Minister back home meeting some pupils in schools. There were also pictures of the pupils with absolutely glorious smiles. In some cases, they had ice-creams—I am not quite sure if it was 9 o’clock in the morning. The teachers, principals and classroom assistants were all responding very positively, and the hugs that they were giving the children told the story.
We have seen that online learning has a role, but there is nothing that beats physical presence in schools. I have spoken to GCSE teachers recently, and they are very concerned that many children will not go on camera, and they do not know whether they understand the work. They have said that there is nothing like walking around the room to see the children working through, and checking for understanding. That underlines my view that we can incorporate more online, but we cannot and must not imagine that it can replace what teachers are gifted at doing. Teachers get to know their pupils and what works for them. The personal, face-to-face contact really motivates the child individually whenever they are falling behind.
I am given to understand that parents have been given access to teaching staff during the pandemic, allowing greater communication. It has been wonderful to build up relationships. That, I believe, should continue when we get out of the pandemic, but with appropriate guidelines that allow teachers to have their evenings off without being bombarded. All staff in every job, when they finish their day’s work, should have a balance with their home life. There is pressure on pupils, teachers and classroom assistants.
The lessons that we can learn are clear: there is a role for technology and for face-to-face, and there is also a place for greater home-school co-operation. In all this, there is a need for real investment in our education system to ensure that children have access to technology, and that parents are aware of what is happening in their children’s lives. I understand that some parents may not have as big a role in their child’s life, but they need to do that.
I again thank the teaching staff, the pupils, the teachers, the classroom assistants, and everyone in schools who went above and beyond, and who have sourced technology and contacted parents with concerns above and beyond their hours. We are determined to do all we can to get our children back to where they should be, with no one left behind.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I thank all the speakers for staying within the time limit. I call the Opposition spokesperson, Toby Perkins, who can have an extra minute.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
That is very kind; I appreciate it. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees—even more, now I know that you are feeling benevolent. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate, and thank him for sight of his speech in advance. I was expecting to have to express my admiration for his optimism that we might, in one hour, address the many areas of improvement required in our educational system. However, as he made clear, he did not propose to have all the answers in his speech or even to address all the questions. He very sensibly identified some of the issues that a royal commission might look at, and he made some practical suggestions for consideration.
This debate is timely, and the need for substantial action is acute, as we heard from many contributors. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight understandably spent some time on the specifics of the education challenges on the Island. He also identified three national areas for consideration—term and holiday periods, the use of technology, and the coherence of the DFE’s wider approach to education. On term times, he raised some interesting issues. There are many challenges that come with the kind of approaches that he outlined, but I agree that it is useful to discuss them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke passionately about the remote support scheme and the digital divide. She said that each click had increased the attainment gap. Notwithstanding the number of schools that have struggled to access devices and the number of colleges that have been completely left out, on technology, I echo the endorsement that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight made of the fine work done by many schools and colleges to address the academic vacuum that existed in the first lockdown and ensure that things were much improved in subsequent ones. I agree that, at a time when we need young people to leave our educational establishments totally tech savvy, this crisis has opened opportunities that must not simply be set aside in a return to business as usual, post covid.
On the coherence of the current system, I could not agree more on schools, further education, the closing of Sure Start, the huge growth in different apprenticeship standards, and the extent to which so many academies leave parents feeling they have no voice. We feel strongly that this Government have removed the sense of a systematic approach to education. I go further than the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and say that, while there are good providers in all areas of our educational system, there has to be a more systematic approach that empowers learners and their parents, supports educators, and involves employers and local decision makers. I am afraid to say that the skills White Paper offers little hope that the Government’s approach is likely to become much more systematic in the future.
I would like to touch on the contributions of many hon. Friends and Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) spoke passionately about the forgotten children with special educational needs and posed a challenge that we look forward to the Minister responding to. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was right about the pressures on our further education system and the need for a more holistic approach that recognises the need for FE and HE to work together. The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) described this as a watershed moment for education and spoke of the need, which a lot of us feel, for a Government response that matches the scale of the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden was excoriating in her analysis of the Government’s education record over the covid crisis. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) focused on the challenges facing our outdoor education centres, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the number of children falling behind, the pressure throughout the education system and the need to recognise that in the response post covid.
The Labour Party recognises that a decade of underinvestment in our educational system in general—and, as the shadow skills Minister, I would say in further education and skills in particular—has left our nation less well prepared for the challenges of the next decade. Covid has simply exposed many of those challenges more graphically. Labour also recognises the need for an evidence-based response to these challenges post covid and recently launched the Bright Future taskforce, with a dazzling array of contributors who have agreed to take part. I think they will provide an excellent piece of work to address this area.
The taskforce aims to identify the causes of the academic attainment gap, as it pertains to poverty, economic disadvantage, race, and many other areas. It will identify measures that a future Labour Government could take to address those causes. Specifically, the Government must acknowledge that there is a race attainment gap, which goes wider than class disparities, and set specific targets and positive steps to address the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic students who go from outperforming white students at level 2 to getting worse university and work offers and outcomes at level 3 and beyond.
We also identify many systematic failings with the Government’s approach to skills. Many of these have been caused by the missteps of the last 10 years, but we are anxious that the skills White Paper will continue to envisage an approach to education and skills that is far too corporate, and continues to leave thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises and young people on the side lines.
Apprenticeships must be the gold standard, and the Government should recognise that their failure on apprenticeship incentives and on Kickstart means that they need a fresh approach. I urge the Minister to look again at Labour’s apprenticeship wage subsidy proposal.
This has been a welcome debate, Ms Rees, and I share the view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that the Government need to move with real urgency and at scale if, after all their hard work, our educators are not to be left facing an uphill challenge in giving English youngsters the opportunity to compete in the global race with the very best in the world.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairing of a debate, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this short debate, albeit one on a very important subject matter, and the passionate way in which he opened it.
Covid-19 has presented the education system with the educational challenge of the decade. I take this opportunity to thank, once again, all the teachers and support staff for the truly remarkable things they have achieved over the last year, and to echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to the teachers and support staff on the Isle of Wight. I also add my thanks to Brian Pope and Steve Crocker, who have both been working tirelessly with the Department for Education as we tackle the consequences of the pandemic on the island, and, of course, elsewhere in the country.
Our response to this unprecedented situation must be to build on the successful reforms this Government have introduced since coming to power in 2010. Over the last decade, we have worked tirelessly to drive up academic standards for all pupils, especially the most disadvantaged. We want every child to have access to a great school, where they can gain the knowledge, skills and qualifications they need for a prosperous future.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of higher education, and I would be happy to talk further to him about higher education courses on the island, and how they can and should be provided. He also raised digital technology, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for North Devon (Selaine Saxby).
Digital technology has been essential in supporting high-quality remote education during the coronavirus outbreak. In the long term, it also has the potential, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight pointed out, to support teacher workload and flexible working, and to improve pupil outcomes. We are building on the Department’s significant investment in laptops, tablets, training, and digital services, to create a lasting legacy from that investment.
My hon. Friend also asked about teaching school hubs on the Isle of Wight. These are large-scale organisations operating in areas covering, on average, about 250 schools. The Isle of Wight is therefore covered by the hub area that also covers the districts of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, and Portsmouth, and the teaching school hub lead is Thornden School in Eastleigh, which is an outstanding school.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) raised the important issue of children with special educational needs, and she will know, as she pointed out in her speech, that we have prioritised the most vulnerable children throughout the pandemic, including those with education, health and care plans, and special schools have remained open during that period for vulnerable children.
The hon. Member will also know that the Government have increased high needs funding by £780 million this year and by £730 million next year, so, over the course of two years, we will have raised high needs funding by 24%. The SEND review, which she referred to, is important, and we will publish it in due course. The delay has been caused by the challenges of the pandemic, and we want to get this very important review absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) raised the important issue of outdoor education and the importance of such activities for a child’s education, development, mental health and wellbeing. The Government continue to work with industry bodies and sector representatives to address the issues arising from the pandemic, and we will help outdoor education centres plan for the safe reintroduction of educational visits and outdoor education in line with the Prime Minister’s road map.
The covid pandemic has presented one of the greatest challenges to our society in recent times. It is undoubtedly true that extended school and college restrictions have had a substantial impact on the education of children and young people, and we are committed to helping pupils make up the education that they missed during the pandemic. In February, the Prime Minister outlined the road map out of lockdown, and reopening schools was one of the first steps on that road map.
We have evidence of the extent of education lost during the covid-19 pandemic, which shows that there is an impact on all children and young people, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight pointed out, those from the most vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds are among the hardest hit. As part of the Renaissance Learning data, on 24 February, we published interim findings based on more than 400,000 assessments taken in the autumn of 2020, which show that in reading, pupils in years 3 to 9 were, on average, between 1.6 months and two months behind where we would have expected them to be.
Emma Hardy
I have a quick question: has the Department done any analysis of how many children are now choosing to home educate, and have not returned to either mainstream or special educational needs schools? It is of considerable concern to me, especially when considering parents of children with SEND.
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that attendance is very high in primary and secondary schools since we returned to school on 8 March, and of course, attendance in secondary schools increased over the course of that first week. I will write to her with the details of special schools’ attendance rates, and about the proportion of children with ECHPs and children with a social worker—we have attendance rates for those children as well. Again, the figures are good, but of course, they could always be improved. I will write to her, and we can then discuss further her views about that.
In January 2021, the Prime Minister committed to working with parents, teachers and schools to develop a long-term plan to help schools support pupils to make up their education over the course of this Parliament. As part of this, we appointed Sir Kevan Collins as education recovery commissioner in February to advise on the approach for education recovery and the development of a long-term plan to help pupils make up their education. Last June, we announced a £1 billion catch-up package, including a national tutoring programme and a catch-up premium for the current academic year, and in February 2021, we committed to further funding of £700 million to fund summer schools, expansion of our tutoring programmes, and a recovery premium for the next academic year. That funding will support pupils in early years, in schools and in colleges.
The £1 billion catch-up package for 2020-21 includes a £650 million catch-up premium to support state primary and secondary schools in making up for lost teaching time. The package includes £350 million for the national tutoring programme to deliver one-to-one and small group tuition to hundreds of thousands of pupils, which the evidence says is an effective way of helping disadvantaged children, in particular, to catch up. Building on this £1 billion catch-up package, a further £700 million for the 2021-22 academic year was announced in February, and that includes a one-off £302 million recovery premium and £22 million to scale up well-evidenced programmes, building on the pupil premium. That funding also includes an additional £83 million for the national tutoring programme, and a £102 million extension to the 16 to 19 fund.
Mr Perkins
The Minister has announced many different pots of money. One of the things that really concerns us is that he will allocate money, but these chunks of money will not end up getting spent because the mechanisms, or systems, to get them utilised will end up with those funds not being used. What assurances can he give us that the amounts he is announcing will actually be spent on the things he is announcing they will be spent on?
Nick Gibb
The £650 million, of course, is allocated to schools on a per pupil basis—£80 per pupil—and most of that money has now been distributed. For the £300 million that we announced as part of the £700 million, again, the recovery premium is being allocated to schools on the basis of the pupil premium eligibility in those schools, so that will be allocated to schools to use at their discretion. The national tutoring programme is run by the Education Endowment Foundation, and we have approved 33 tutoring companies: we wanted to make sure that the quality of tutoring was there. So far, 130,000 pupils have been signed up for the programme, but we envisage reaching significantly more—something like three quarters of a million students—in this coming academic year.
Through the get help with technology programme, the Government are investing over £400 million to support access to remote education and online social care services, including making 1.3 million laptops and tablets available for disadvantaged children. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised this issue today, as she has done in other debates. She will be aware that we are procuring 1.3 million laptops that have to be built from scratch. They have to be ordered, shipped in, checked and have software added. On top of the 1.3 million that we have acquired and procured, there are the 2.9 million devices in schools ready to be lent to pupils that schools had before the pandemic.
Siobhain McDonagh
The Minister will know that 1 million of those laptops have been distributed. Where is the balance of the 300,000? Where are they right now? How does he address the matter of the 880,000 households that do not have any internet connection, given that only 45,000 MiFis or other routers were provided?
Nick Gibb
Actually, 1.2 million of those computers have already been delivered and the remainder will be delivered before the end of March. The hon. Member will also be aware that we have worked with mobile operator companies to provide free uplift data to disadvantaged families who do not have access to wi-fi in their homes. They can use their mobile phones to get some educational material without paying the hefty charges for data use. We have partnered with the UK’s leading mobile operators, as I said, to offer free data, as well as delivering over 70,000 4G wireless routers for pupils without connection at home. The programmes I have outlined are focused on helping the most disadvantaged pupils, targeting them for support.
Alongside those catch-up programmes, we also continue to learn and understand what more is needed to help recover students’ lost education over the course of this Parliament, and we will ensure that support is delivered in a way that works for both young people and the sector.
We are also concentrating on the quality of teaching and making sure that teachers are supported in the early years of their careers through the early career framework. We are transforming the training and professional development that teachers receive at every stage of their careers to create a world-class teacher development curriculum and career offer for our teachers. That is one of the most important things we can do as we support schools in recovering.
Ultimately, the Government want all pupils to make up for the education they lost as a result of the pandemic. We are doing everything in our power to ensure that pupils get the opportunity they deserve to redress the balance. We are absolutely determined as a Government that no child will suffer any damage to their long-term prospects as a consequence of this terrible pandemic that we are all fighting to defeat.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Bob Seely, would you like a couple of minutes to sum up?
Bob Seely [V]
Thank you very much, Ms Rees. I can sum up in a sentence. I absolutely share the Minister’s sentiments when he says that we must do our best to make sure that nobody suffers a long-term disadvantage. It is clear that long-term debate about delivering the best education system we can will continue, so I thank you for your chairmanship, Ms Rees, Members for their contributions, and the Minister for attending and listening.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered improving the education system after the covid-19 outbreak.
Written Statements
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Report on Victim Compensation for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
In March 2019, the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) appointed Mr William Shawcross as his special representative on UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. Mr Shawcross was commissioned to write an internal scoping report on the subject of compensation for UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. Mr Shawcross submitted his report in March 2020.
The Government thank Mr Shawcross for his report. Since it was commissioned as an internal scoping report, to provide internal advice to Ministers, and draws on private and confidential conversations held by Mr Shawcross, the Government will not be publishing the report.
These important issues have needed careful and thorough consideration across Government given the complexity and sensitivity of the issues raised.
The UK Government reiterate their profound sympathy for UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism and indeed for all victims of the Troubles. We recognise the pain and suffering of victims of violent crime, including terrorism, and provide publicly funded support and compensation schemes for those affected.
The UK Government are clear that the primary responsibility for the actions of the IRA lies with the IRA. Nevertheless, the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA was extensive. It is widely documented in the public domain. It involved money, weapons, explosives and training from the 1970s onwards. It helped fuel the Troubles in Northern Ireland and enhanced the IRA’s ability to carry out attacks in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The responsibility for providing compensation specifically for the actions of the Gaddafi regime lies with the Libyan state. The Government have therefore repeatedly urged the Libyan authorities, including at the highest levels of the Libyan Government, to engage with UK victims and their representatives, and to address their claims for compensation.
However, there are clear practical difficulties in obtaining compensation from Libya for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. The conflict, political instability and economic instability that have prevailed in Libya for most of the last 10 years since the fall of the Gaddafi regime present particular challenges.
Mr Shawcross has considered these issues, including the difficulties of defining UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism given the extensive nature of Libyan support for the IRA, and the range of proposals for providing compensation to victims. The Government have reflected fully on these issues. The Government’s considered view is that an additional, UK-funded mechanism for providing compensation to victims of the Troubles would not provide accountability for the specific role of the Gaddafi regime in supporting the IRA.
Mr Shawcross also considered whether compensation for UK victims should be funded from Libyan frozen assets in the UK. Under international law, when assets are frozen, they continue to belong to the designated individual or entity. Frozen assets may not be seized by the UK Government.
In implementing financial sanctions, the UK is obliged to comply with the relevant United Nations obligations. UN Security Council resolution 2009 (2011) states that the aim of the Libya financial sanctions regime is
“to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) shall as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of Libya”.
There is also no legal basis for the UK to refuse the release of frozen assets once conditions for delisting or unfreezing those assets set out in UN Security Council resolution 2009 of 2011 are met.
Therefore, regrettably, the UK has no legal basis to seize frozen Libyan assets or to refuse the release of frozen assets. The Government cannot lawfully use Libyan assets frozen in the UK to provide compensation to victims.
The UK Government have also considered whether they should provide compensation to victims from public funds, which it may subsequently recoup from Libya. The responsibility for providing compensation specifically for the actions of the Gaddafi regime is the direct responsibility of the Libyan state. It is not therefore for the UK Government to divert UK public funds specifically for this particular purpose.
Victims of violent crime, including terrorism, occurring in Great Britain can access the criminal injuries compensation scheme, funded by the UK Government, subject to eligibility criteria and time limits. Bereaved family members can access bereavement and funeral payments. In Northern Ireland, victims have access to the Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Troubles permanent disablement scheme, to be delivered by the Northern Ireland Executive, will provide acknowledgement payments to people living with permanent physical or psychological disablement resulting from being injured in Troubles-related incidents. Details of when the scheme will be open for applications, and how people can apply, will be published by the Northern Ireland Executive.
The UK will continue to press the Libyan authorities to address the Libyan state’s historic responsibility for the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA.
[HCWS874]
Oil and Gas Decommissioning Relief Deeds
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
At Budget 2013, the Government announced they would begin signing decommissioning relief deeds. These deeds represented a new contractual approach to provide oil and gas companies with certainty on the level of tax relief they will receive on future decommissioning costs.
Since October 2013, the Government have entered into 98 decommissioning relief deeds.
Oil and Gas UK estimates that these deeds have so far unlocked approximately £8.1 billion of capital, which can now be invested elsewhere.
The Government committed to report to Parliament every year on progress with the decommissioning relief deeds. The report for financial year 2019-20 is provided below.
1. Number of decommissioning relief agreements entered into: the Government entered into four decommissioning relief agreements in 2019-20.
2. Total number of decommissioning relief agreements in force at the end of that year: 96 decommissioning relief agreements were in force at the end of the year.
3. Number of payments made under any decommissioning relief agreements during that year, and the amount of each payment: two payments were made under a decommissioning relief agreement in 2019-20, for £54.6 million in total. These were made in relation to the provision recognised by HM Treasury in 2015, as a result of a company defaulting on its decommissioning obligations.
4. Total number of payments that have been made under any decommissioning relief agreements as at the end of that year, and the total amount of those payments: six payments have been made under any decommissioning relief agreement as at the end of the 2019-20 financial year, totalling £148.6 million.
5. Estimate of the maximum amount liable to be paid under any decommissioning relief agreements: the Government have not made any changes to the tax regime that would generate a liability to be paid under any decommissioning relief agreements. HM Treasury’s 2020-21 accounts will recognise a provision of £258.1 million in respect of decommissioning expenditure incurred as a result of a company defaulting on their decommissioning obligations1. The majority of this is expected to be realised over the next three years.
1 This figure takes into account payments made subsequent to the financial year covered by this written ministerial statement.
[HCWS872]
Public Service Pensions: Guaranteed Minimum Pension Indexation Consultation
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government are today publishing their response to the consultation titled “Public Service Pensions: Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) indexation consultation”. The consultation, which took place between 7 October and 30 December 2020, considered how the Government will continue to meet past commitments to public service pension members regarding the full indexation of public service pensions, including any GMP element related to membership of a public service pension scheme, beyond 5 April 2021. It considered options to extend the current GMP indexation methodology to 5 April 2024 or to a later date before reconsidering alternative methodologies, namely conversion, or to make the current methodology the permanent solution. The consultation made clear that the Government remain fully committed to the price protection of GMPs for members of public service pension schemes under any solution adopted.
As proposed by the majority of respondents to the consultation, the Government have decided to discount conversion as a long-term policy solution and make full GMP indexation the permanent solution for public service pension schemes. Public service pension schemes will therefore provide full indexation to those public servants with a GMP reaching state pension age beyond 5 April 2021.
The Government are of the view that this is the most practical solution to GMP indexation. This is because, before conversion could be undertaken, schemes would need to ensure that they have accurate reconciled data, along with a finalised methodology to convert those GMP benefits where conversion on a £1:£1 basis would not result in equalisation. This is likely to be resource intensive at a time when public service pension schemes do not have the capacity to undertake conversion until 2024 at the earliest. There also remains a chance that conversion might not be deliverable by then. Furthermore, the benefits of conversion diminish over time as the number of members with a GMP is steadily reducing. It is for these reasons that the Government have decided to make full GMP indexation the permanent solution for public service pension schemes.
The consultation set out the benefits of undertaking conversion, which include a reduction in administrative complexity in the long term regarding those public servants yet to reach state pension age. In addition, some respondents also highlighted additional benefits of under-taking conversion, some of which were highlighted in the Government response to the previous GMP indexation and equalisation consultation in 2016-17. However, notwithstanding these arguments, the Government does not consider these benefits to outweigh the benefits of making full indexation the permanent solution.
Public service pension schemes will now provide full indexation to those public servants with a GMP reaching state pension age from 6 April 2021. The Government response to the consultation has been published online on gov.uk and can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/public-service-pensions-guaranteed-minimum-pension-indexation-consultation.
[HCWS871]
Tax Policies and Consultations
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I have today laid before Parliament “Tax policies and consultations—Spring 2021” [CP 404].
The measures set out in this Command Paper will shape the next steps in delivering the Government tax administration strategy, announced in July 2020. The Command Paper also includes a range of important policy announcements and updates which will support wider improvements in the tax system, including on business rates and environmental taxes, as well as measures to drive down non-compliance and enhance simplification.
By announcing these tax measures and consultations separately from the Budget, the Government are seeking to provide greater visibility and transparency for parliamentarians, tax professionals and other stakeholders, in order to increase the overall quality of tax policy and legislation.
Copies of the paper are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and at: www.gov.uk/ government/publications/tax-policies-and-consultations-spring-2021.
[HCWS873]
Healthy Weight Programme: Funding for Local Authority Weight Management Services
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
On 4 March this year, the Prime Minister announced an additional £100 million over 2021-22 to support people living with obesity to lose weight and maintain healthier lifestyles. I am pleased to confirm that the Government are dedicating £34.9 million of this new funding to support the expansion of local authority weight management services for adults, children, and families. Funds will be allocated via two ringfenced grants under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 and will be available to local authorities for 12 months from the beginning of the 2021-22 financial year.
The first grant will distribute £30.5 million among all local authorities in England to commission adult behavioural weight management services, based on population size, obesity prevalence, and deprivation. The funding is conditional on local authorities commissioning new, or expanding existing, behavioural weight management services, providing information on current service provision, and regularly submitting user data. This will be critical to demonstrate what works as we build a long-term approach to behavioural weight management services. The grant circular, setting out local authority allocations and the funding conditions, will be published on gov.uk today.
The second grant will distribute £4.4 million to test the expansion of behavioural weight management services for children and families and pilot an intervention to improve access to local services for children identified as overweight or obese through the national child measurement programme. All local authorities may submit an expression of interest for this funding. Funding will be allocated to local authorities according to the strength of their application and local need based on population size, child obesity prevalence and child-specific deprivation measures. The government will look to fund up to 10 areas, depending on the volume and strength of applications received. As with the adult grant, funding will be conditional on successful local authorities: commissioning behavioural weight management services for children and families; piloting an extended brief intervention linked to the national child measurement programme; providing information on current child and family service provision; and regularly submitting outcome data using a standardised dataset. The expression of interest for child and family weight management services will be announced on gov.uk today.
Public Health England will administer both grants and will be working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to monitor and evaluate this important investment in behavioural weight management services.
[HCWS868]
Independent Inquiry into Issues Raised by Paterson
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is now 12 months since the independent inquiry into the issues raised by the convicted breast surgeon, Ian Paterson, published its report. The report made for difficult reading and describes the terrible harms that can occur when the malpractice of an individual, rogue surgeon goes unchecked.
In my statement to Parliament on 28 April 2020 I reluctantly announced a delay in our work to respond to the report. The covid-19 pandemic has continued to exert unprecedented pressures on the health system, and this has necessitated a pragmatic response to the recommendations of the Paterson inquiry.
The independent sector has stepped up and supplied much needed additional capacity for the NHS in its treatment of NHS patients during the response to the pandemic.
We have taken stock of all the recommendations and engaged with stakeholders across the system to gather views on the best way forwards. As part of this we have listened carefully to former patients of Ian Paterson through regular conversations with representatives of the three main patient groups and a bespoke event to ensure their voices are heard.
The immediate safety of patients has been our top priority and we have sought and received reassurance that the recalls of patients by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and Spire Healthcare have proceeded as quickly as possible.
When the recommendations have provided a clear way forward, we have worked with our system partners to put in place, or require, effective action. We will continue to consider all the recommendations and produce a full response to the inquiry’s 15 recommendations during 2021.
Today I am able to update the House on the Government’s initial response to the following five recommendations of the independent inquiry into the issues raised by Paterson, and update on three other developments.
Recommendation 2—Information to patients: We recommend that it should be standard practice that consultants in both the NHS and the independent sector should write to patients, outlining their condition and treatment, in simple language, and copy this letter to the patient’s GP, rather than writing to the GP and sending a copy to the patient.
NHS England and NHS Improvement will examine how current guidance published by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AoMRC) in 2018 on writing outpatient clinical letters addressed to patients (and copied to their GP) using simple, appropriate language can be incorporated into the requirements of the NHS standard contract.
Recommendation 4—Consent: We recommend that there should be a short period introduced into the process of patients giving consent for surgical procedures, to allow them time to reflect on their diagnosis and treatment options. We recommend that the GMC monitors this as part of “Good medical practice”.
The General Medical Council (GMC) published its revised good practice guidance on consent on 30 September 2020. This came into effect on 9 November 2020 and sets out seven principles of decision making and consent, including giving patients the information they need to make a decision and the time and support they need to understand it. The GMC will work with organisations across the UK’s health services to support doctors to embed this into their everyday practice.
Recommendation 5—Multidisciplinary team (MDT): We recommend that CQC as a matter of urgency, should assure itself that all hospital providers are complying effectively with up-to-date national guidance on MDT meetings, including in breast cancer care, and that patients are not at risk of harm due to non-compliance in this area.
Specific questions relating to MDT are already included in appropriate CQC service frameworks. As part of a longer-term strategy (based upon a short and medium term action plan that includes) this recommendation the CQC will work to ensure these become mandatory elements of its assessment and inspection approaches and communicate its expectations to service providers.
Recommendation 7—Patient recall and ongoing care: We recommend that the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust board should check that all patients of Paterson have been recalled, and to communicate with any who have not been seen.
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHB) contacted 4,394 patients between May and August 2020. This has given rise to 355 enquiries. Following receipt of each enquiry, the patient/relative was contacted directly by a member of a dedicated team to ensure that the trust was responding in a way that was respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences. For patients who underwent a breast procedure, care was reviewed by a consultant breast surgeon who was independent from the trust. For patients who had a general procedure e.g. hernia repair or a varicose veins/other vascular procedure, care was reviewed by a consultant from UHB.
Recommendation 8—Patient recall and ongoing care: We recommend that Spire should check that all patients of Paterson have been recalled, and to communicate with any who have not been seen, and that they should check that they have been given an ongoing treatment plan in the same way that has been provided for patients in the NHS.
By December 2020 Spire Healthcare had contacted all known living patients of Ian Paterson for whom they had addresses (approximately 5,500). Spire Healthcare is currently ensuring that those patients’ care has been fully reviewed, that the outcome of the reviews has been fully communicated to them and that, if required, they are getting the support and care that they needed. Additionally, several hundred people have contacted Spire as a result of the letters sent out last year. A proportion of these are having their care reviewed by an independent consultant surgeon and some have been referred for counselling, follow up support or, where clinically appropriate, treatment. Spire Healthcare will continue their review of patients’ care during 2021.
In addition, we are taking three legislative actions to drive up patient safety and ensure care provided by the independent sector is closely scrutinised.
First, prior to the publication of the recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review the Government acted in June last year to amend the then Medicines and Medical Devices Bill to create the power to establish a UK-wide medical device information system. This system will mean that in future, subject to regulations, we can routinely collect medical device, procedure and outcome data from both NHS and private provider organisations across the UK, ensuring that no patient in the UK falls through the gaps. The Government are also considering how best to supply patients with the details of any device that has been implanted, to ensure they can continue to access that information in the future.
Secondly, following the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review the Government are establishing a patient safety commissioner (PSC) for England with responsibility for medicines and medical devices. The main duties and powers of the PSC are detailed in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act which achieved Royal Assent on 11 February 2021 and establishes the commissioner role. The PSC for England will be able to exercise their powers in both the independent sector and the NHS.
Thirdly, the White Paper, published in February 2021 setting out legislative proposals for the Health and Care Bill, announced our intention to extend the remit of the Health Service Safety Investigation Branch to private providers.
The report of the Paterson inquiry shone a light on a set of harrowing events over many years and recommended a way forward to improve safety and quality in both the NHS and the independent sector. I believe it is right that we have taken urgent action where we can, and we will respond in full to the inquiry during 2021.
[HCWS869]
Operation in 2019 of Terrorism Acts: Report of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has prepared a report on the operation in 2019 of the Terrorism Acts.
In accordance with section 36(5) of the Terrorism Act 2006,1 am today laying this report before the House, and copies will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
I am grateful to Mr Hall for his report. I will carefully consider its contents and the recommendations he makes and will respond formally in due course.
[HCWS870]
The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Yesterday the Minister of State made the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 which are today being laid before Parliament. The regulations have been made because women and girls in Northern Ireland are still unable to access high-quality abortion and post-abortion care in Northern Ireland.
The regulations have been made to ensure, as required by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, that all of the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) report are implemented in Northern Ireland.
We are disappointed with the continuing failure to commission abortion services that are consistent with the regulations we made almost a year ago. After a year of engaging to see positive progress made, with no success, the legal duties included in section 9 of the NIEF Act are such that I have to act now.
The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 laid in Parliament today give me a power to direct Northern Ireland Ministers and departments or relevant agencies to implement all of the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report, consistent with the conditions set out in the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020.
We do not take this step lightly. However, the devolution settlement does not absolve us of our responsibility to uphold the rights of women and girls. Our strong preference remains for the Northern Ireland Executive to take responsibility itself for upholding these rights.
It has always been our expectation and preference that the Department of Health would drive forward the commissioning of abortion services. The approach we took was to put in place the legal framework for how abortion services could be accessed and provided, consistent with our legal duties. However, it is crucial that abortion, as a healthcare service, is delivered and overseen locally by the Department of Health and relevant health bodies with the relevant legal powers, policy and operational expertise to do so. This ensures that abortion can be delivered in a sustainable way, and become embedded into the health and social care system in Northern Ireland in the long term.
In March 2020, I wrote to the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers to achieve this, by asking that they work to ensure the implementation of all of the recommendations under paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report. We had anticipated this would be acted upon at the earliest opportunity.
Over this past year the Northern Ireland Office has continued to work closely with the Department of Health, and other relevant Northern Ireland departments, trying to progress this work. I, together with the Minister of State, have continued to engage through political channels to encourage positive progress by the devolved Administration.
However, almost one year later, women and girls are still unable to access high-quality abortion and post-abortion care locally in Northern Ireland in all of the circumstances in which they are entitled to under the 2020 regulations.
We understand that managing the covid-19 response has been an immense challenge, and has placed the health and social care system in Northern Ireland under considerable pressure.
I put on record my thanks to the medical professionals who have ensured that women and girls have had some local access to abortion services in Northern Ireland to date, and the organisations that have supported this work, particularly in the current circumstances and wider strains on the health system. This includes the work that Informing Choices Northern Ireland have taken forward on the central access point and counselling service for women and girls since April last year.
However, more needs to be done with respect to formally commissioning abortion services and supporting the rights of women and girls in accessing safe local services and relevant support measures; as well as putting in place clear guidance for medical professionals.
While Parliament considers the regulations, we will continue to engage with the Minister of Health and the Executive to try and find a way forward over the coming weeks before any direction is given.
We have used every opportunity and avenue to encourage progress and offer our support over the past year so we are disappointed that we have reached this impasse. We take this step now to further demonstrate our commitment to ensuring women and girls can safely access abortion services in Northern Ireland.
[HCWS875]
HS2 Six-monthly Report to Parliament
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I wish to make the following statement: Phase Target Cost Total Estimated Costs Ranges 1 £40.3 billion £35.0-£45.0 billion Forecast costs by phase 2a Not set yet £5.0-£7.0 billion 2b Not set yet £32.0-£46.0 billion* Phase Spend to date** 2020-21 Budget 2020-21 Forecast 1 £11.0 billion*** £3.79 billion £3.33 billion Historic and forecast expenditure 2a £0.4 billion £0.18 billion £0.13 billion 2b £1.0 billion £0.25 billion £0.16 billion Total £12.4 billion £4.22 billion £3.62 billion
Overview
This is the second bi-annual update to Parliament on the progress of High Speed Two (HS2). It marks one year since the Government gave phase 1 of the scheme, between the west midlands and London, the green light to begin civils construction. The report uses data provided by HS2 Ltd to the HS2 ministerial taskforce for phases 1 and 2a and covers the period between September 2020 and January 2021 inclusive. Copies of this report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Covid-19 has made this an incredibly challenging year, and the pandemic has had a devastating effect on individuals, our economy and our communities. However, as we look to the future, with the roll-out of the vaccine firmly under way and a road map out of lockdown now in place, this Government are more committed than ever to “build back better”. HS2 remains at the forefront of our long-term investment plan to better connect people and places, boost productivity and create jobs to help rebalance opportunity across the UK.
Just as importantly, HS2 will play a pivotal role in creating a greener alternative to regional air and road travel. This is essential if we are to meet our commitment to bring greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
The key achievements of the HS2 programme in this reporting period include:
Progressing the remaining enabling works and mobilising main civils construction for phase 1 while employing covid-safe working practices.
Achieving Royal Assent of the Phase 2a High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, cementing in law the Government’s commitment to bring the new high-speed railway to the north of England.
Evolving our approach to community engagement, including an enhanced complaints procedure to address concerns about how HS2’s impact on communities along the line of route is managed.
Speedy implementation of over a quarter of the proposed reforms recommended by the land and property review of November 2020, improving the experience of property owners most immediately and directly affected by HS2.
Supporting over 15,000 skilled jobs and creating more than 500 apprenticeships. Over 2,100 companies now have contracts with HS2 Ltd, with 97% of these being UK-based businesses. At its peak the programme will support over 30,000 jobs and create at least 2,000 apprenticeships.
Establishing HS2 Ltd’s Environmental Sustainability Committee to strengthen oversight and reporting of efforts to limit and mitigate the environmental impacts from the construction of the railway.
Planting over 430,000 trees so far, with the number expected to rise to over 730,000 trees by spring 2021.
Programme update on schedule, affordability and delivery
Schedule
Some schedule pressures on phase 1 have emerged from delays in completing enabling works including issues with completing utilities diversions, postponed land acquisition and access during the first covid-19 lockdown, and slower than planned development of detailed designs by the main works contractors.
HS2 Ltd is currently re-planning its schedule for phase 1 in conjunction with its construction suppliers with a view to mitigating these delays. The schedule pressures reported above will not impact the projected delivery into service date range of 2029 to 2033 set last year, but further cost pressures could still emerge if mitigation activity is required. The re-planning exercise is due to conclude in the spring and I will update Parliament on its outcome in my next report. We should continue to remain cautious of the accuracy of long-range estimates this early in a 10-year programme.
Affordability
The overall budget for phase 1, including Euston, is £44.6 billion (2019 prices). This is composed of the target cost of £40.3 billion and additional Government-retained contingency of £4.3 billion. The target cost includes contingency delegated to HS2 Ltd of £5.6 billion for managing the risk and uncertainties that are an inherent part of delivering major projects.
The target cost for phase 1 remains at £40.3 billion. Around £11.0 billion (actual prices) has been spent to date, including land and property provisions. Approximately £12.6 billion (2019 prices) has additionally been contracted, with the remaining amount yet to be contracted.
To date HS2 Ltd has drawn £0.4 billion of its £5.6 billion delegated contingency to specific additional costs, which represents 4% of the overall contingency for phase 1, and reflects an increase of £0.2 billion since my last report. HS2 Ltd is currently reporting potential cost pressures of around £0.8 billion over and above this. If these, or other costs, come to pass, then they would be managed from within the existing total budget using the remaining HS2 Ltd delegated contingency. In the case of verified cost increases resulting from covid-19, these will be managed from within the Government-retained contingency.
The cost pressures currently being reported by HS2 Ltd which may require a call on contingent if not mitigated are:
An estimate of £0.4 billion, predominately due to slower than expected mobilisation of main works civils contractors, associated with delays to approvals of designs, planning consents, protestor action and some covid-19 impacts.
As already reported in the autumn report to Parliament, an estimate of £0.4 billion that relates to Euston station remains. Work to consider opportunities, efficiencies and scope reductions to address potential pressures is now under way. This may be an underestimate of the unmitigated pressure, so the Department has asked HS2 Ltd to provide a revised estimate once it has concluded its initial design work on the revised design as set out below.
My last report to Parliament included £0.4 billion from expected increases in the scope and duration of enabling works. These costs are now expected to be incurred and so are not shown as pressures but have instead been taken into the core cost estimate. They will be funded through surplus provision within HS2 Ltd’s core budget rather than from its delegated contingency. Estimates of the impact of covid-19 are set out below.
Other pressures will arise as the programme progresses, some of which may crystallise into additional costs that will need to be covered from the contingency within the existing budget, and some of which will be mitigated or avoided.
Over the last six months HS2 Ltd has made progress on a programme of opportunities for efficiencies designed to identify and realise tangible savings in delivering the agreed scope of phase 1. From a deeper pool of potential opportunities, HS2 Ltd has so far identified up to £0.2 billion to pursue to the next stages of development. Going forward I will report on progress towards realisation of these opportunities as well as the identification of others through this efficiency programme.
Delivery
On phase 1 the focus has primarily been on progressing the remaining enabling works and preparatory works, and the start of main works. This includes dedicated power at launch sites for the tunnel boring machines (TBMs) by the M25 and Long Itchington in Warwickshire, and moving two huge modular bridges into place at the Birmingham Interchange station site. The first pair of TBMs, Florence and Cecilia, will launch this summer.
Elsewhere, progress continues to be made on the four new HS2 stations. At Euston, work is under way to develop an optimised design and delivery strategy, alongside work by the Euston Partnership to integrate the HS2 and Network Rail stations and wider placemaking across the Euston campus. The Department has instructed HS2 Ltd to investigate whether building the station in a single construction stage can speed up delivery and address cost pressures. Notwithstanding this, bringing the station fully back within its existing budget presents a significant challenge. The initial stage of this work is expected to conclude in the coming months, at which point the Government will confirm any design changes and set out their intended way forward at Euston.
The start of main construction of Old Oak Common station has now been approved and excavation work for the HS2 underground platforms can begin. I also note the High Court’s dismissal of Bechtel Ltd’s legal challenge to the Old Oak Common station construction partner award, which found that HS2 Ltd’s procurement process was in accordance with the rules of the tender and procurement law.
Tender evaluation is under way ahead of the planned award by the summer of a construction partner for Birmingham Curzon Street station and tendering for a construction partner at Birmingham Interchange station is expected to begin this summer. Budget 2021 announced £50 million of funding to develop transport proposals around Birmingham Interchange. This will be matched by £45 million of funding from Arden Cross Ltd and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. This will support the goal of the West Midlands Combined Authority, by reconfiguring planned car parking at the regional hub station, releasing 28 hectares of land space for new businesses, homes and jobs in the area.
Qualification of bidders is under way for the majority of the rail systems packages for phases 1 and 2a ahead of inviting tenders. HS2 Ltd is finalising the procurement of the new HS2 rolling stock for phases 1 and 2a, with the contract to be awarded later this spring.
I am a very pleased to report that the HS2 Phase 2a Act, for the section of the route between Lichfield and Crewe, was given Royal Assent in February, after its passage through Parliament. This represents a major milestone for the programme and HS2 Ltd can now begin accessing and acquiring land for the necessary construction works as well as taking forward early environmental and enabling works.
Phase 2a will bring high-speed services to the north, helping to realise the benefits of the whole programme and to underpin future phases of the scheme, while also supporting regional economic growth through the construction stage.
Local consultation on the scheme was undertaken during February and I will publish the consultation report in April before detailing the response to its findings in June, following the election period.
With formal agreement on the scope of the phase 2a scheme now set, the funding and schedule ranges will be finalised alongside the delivery model for the construction works. I will provide more information to Parliament once this work has concluded.
Before the end of spring, the Department will publish the integrated rail plan for the north and midlands (IRP) which will consider how best to deliver and sequence HS2 phase 2b, Northern Powerhouse Rail, and other major rail schemes including schemes within midlands engine rail such as midlands rail hub, to ensure transformational rail improvements are delivered to passengers and communities more quickly.
Preparations are under way for a Hybrid Bill for the western leg (Crewe to Manchester) and supporting outline business case (OBC) to be deposited in Parliament in early 2022, or sooner if possible. Further updates on cost and schedule will be provided at the time the OBC is published.
Impacts from covid-19
Although covid-19 continues to pose a considerable challenge to the programme, HS2 Ltd and its supply chain continues to adapt positively. In the early stages of the pandemic, HS2 Ltd successfully kept a high proportion of its sites open and operating safely and at the time of writing this report 100% of HS2 sites are open, in part due to the collaboration and innovation between HS2 Ltd and its supply chain through initiatives such as rapid testing and the introduction of new social distancing technology. Health and safety guidance at work sites continues to be rigorously followed and remains under constant review. Nothing is more important than the wellbeing of the communities we are working in and the safety of everyone working on HS2.
HS2 Ltd’s initial estimates suggest that the financial impact of covid-19 on the cost of delivering phase 1 up to December 2020 is between £0.3 billion and £0.4 billion, largely as a consequence of schedule prolongation from access delays and reduced productivity.
A proportion of this estimate is already captured within the cost pressures that I have set out above. The full impact of covid-19 on cost and schedule will continue to be assessed, including work to disaggregate covid-19 impacts from other cost and schedule impacts on the programme. The Department will be scrutinising these costs very carefully, and only validated and unavoidable costs arising from covid-19 will be funded from the Government-retained contingency, and therefore covered by the existing HS2 budget. I will continue to update Parliament through my reports as this work progresses.
Local community impact and engagement
Since my appointment as Minister for HS2 I have been clear that managing the programme’s impact on communities along the line of the route is one of my key priorities. That is why last autumn I commissioned a detailed review of the acquisition and compensation process for land and property affected by HS2. The conclusions of the review, detailing opportunities for change across a wide variety of policies and activities, were published in November and will ensure that there is a renewed focus on those people who are being directly impacted by the new railway.
The proposals vary in scale and context, but all seek to improve the experience of property owners most immediately and directly affected by HS2 by improving existing processes and interaction with the public. The Department has worked quickly on implementing the proposals, in close conjunction with HS2 Ltd, the residents’ commissioner (Deborah Fazan) and relevant Government Departments, with 25% now in place. I expect to begin a public consultation later this spring to focus on aspects of the proposals that require further engagement. Alongside the land and property review, I am continuing to engage closely with parliamentary colleagues and the communities they represent.
Due to the scale and nature of the HS2 project, some impacts of construction on line of route communities are unfortunately unavoidable. This January, at the Transport Select Committee, I heard first-hand how HS2 construction is impacting on communities. The testimonies I heard were powerful and strengthened my resolute commitment to ensure that HS2 Ltd properly informs and consults communities and minimises negative impacts wherever possible. I have therefore tasked HS2 Ltd to look again at the way it engages communities to improve the responsiveness, sensitivity and objectivity of its approach.
In response, HS2 Ltd is deploying a package of measures to strengthen its community handling approach including:
A unified single management system for community engagement and complaints handling across HS2 Ltd and the supply chain, so there is a single consistent record for all organisations operating in a single location.
Additional proactive local communications to provide notice and raise awareness of HS2 activity in impacted communities.
Shortened HS2 Ltd helpdesk response times so that construction issues can be picked up, assessed and mitigated quickly.
New area-based delivery unit managers with geographical responsibility for joining up construction contractors and communities to prevent and tackle local issues.
New briefing materials to alert MPs and councillors of the agreed single points of contact along the phase 1 and 2a routes so issues can be escalated if they are not resolved in the first instance.
Enhanced engagement and assurance from the construction commissioner (Sir Mark Worthington) and the residents’ commissioner to provide independent advice on potential improvements to HS2 Ltd complaint handling and community engagement operations.
I have furthermore established a small team of construction inspectors reporting to the Department to support the assurance of the delivery of works along the route. An important part of their role will also be to provide a capability to investigate intractable or persistent construction issues working independently of HS2 Ltd and its suppliers where needed.
I expect these measures to improve engagement and responsiveness in relation to avoidable impacts of construction on local communities. I will continue to review this and remain committed to taking further action if necessary.
Environmental Impact
Another of my key pledges as HS2 Minister is to limit the unavoidable impact of HS2 construction on the natural environment both in terms of direct impacts on biodiversity and its carbon impact.
The first report of the HS2 Ltd Environmental Sustainability Committee will be published in the autumn. The approach and content of the report will be informed by the global reporting initiative methodology, and will also be shaped by seeking input from Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, the HS2 Independent Design Panel and members of HS2 Ltd’s Ecology Review Group. The Government have also given a statutory commitment to provide an impact assessment of construction on ancient woodland within the report, building on previously conducted assessments. The environmental impact data in the report will be verified externally.
Alongside the new Committee, HS2 Ltd launched its “Green Corridor Prospectus” in December, providing information to the public on projects along the route which are being introduced to mitigate and compensate for the environmental impact of HS2’s construction. This includes over 30 projects funded through the community and environment fund, and the business and local economy fund, which add benefit over and above committed mitigation and statutory compensation.
Further to the commitments made in my last report to support biodiversity improvements on phase 2a, the Department and HS2 Ltd have initiated a study to investigate options to consider whether and how we might move the HS2 phase 2b western leg scheme from seeking no net loss to aiming to deliver net gains in biodiversity.
HS2 Ltd has become the first UK transport client organisation to achieve PAS 2080 accreditation a gold standard for carbon management across the globe. It will continue its work to reduce carbon emissions during construction and operation ahead of COP26 later this year.
Forward look
As well as continued focus on its construction programme for phase 1, the next six months will see HS2 Ltd award contracts for a construction partner at Birmingham Curzon Street and for the supply of the new HS2 rolling stock. Work to identify affordable design and delivery arrangements for Euston station is also expected to progress.
On phase 2a we will conclude work on a preferred delivery model for the construction stage as well as finalising the funding and schedule ranges for the project’s schedule and cost. Work on the legislation and business case for the phase 2b western leg will also continue and the integrated rail plan will be published this spring.
I will continue to engage closely with Members of Parliament and will provide my next report to Parliament in October 2021.
Financial Annex
*Validation of the Phase 2b cost range is ongoing and will be updated to support the bringing forward of separate legislation for the HS2 route into Manchester, in line with the conclusions of the Oakervee review. The range provided excludes scope intended to be funded by other sources such as Northern Powerhouse Rail.
All figures in 2019 prices, are exclusive of VAT and correct as of 31 January 2021 and made up of a combination of resource and capital spend.
**Spend to date is represented in outturn prices.
***Spend to date includes a £1 billion liability (provision) representing the Department’s obligation to purchase land and property.
[HCWS867]
Expanding DWP Services
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
As part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to support claimants back into work, DWP is moving at pace this spring and summer to introduce new jobcentres, as a direct response to the pandemic.
On top of the 13,500 new work coaches who will be in place by the end of this financial year, this expansion of our Jobcentre network will bolster existing capacity, enabling work coaches to provide tailored, face-to-face support in a covid-secure environment. This expansion will drive forward our ambitious £30 billion Plan for Jobs, helping people back into the labour market right across the UK.
During the pandemic, DWP successfully pivoted to a more multi-channelled approach, offering more digital support in line with social distancing measures. However, as restrictions ease, it is vital we adapt our services and reintroduce face-to-face support, given that we know how effective this has been for our claimants in the past.
As the economy recovers, we will review the need for these temporary sites on an ongoing basis, to ensure we are continuing to strike the right balance between providing essential services for claimants and delivering value for money for the taxpayer.
This is not about reversing previous decisions on the broader renewal of the DWP estate, rather it is a temporary measure, in direct response to the pressures the pandemic has placed on the labour market.
These new sites provide a high-quality, modern and digitally enabled environment for both colleagues and customers. As part of our design requirements, we are reducing the environmental impact, for example, by increasing the energy performance certificate rating across sites. This is something DWP is committed to, as part of the programme to review and renew our estates.
The expansion programme will itself create a further 1,500 ancillary jobs when the sites open, as well as construction jobs generated by the work needed to repurpose the buildings and the supply chain to furnish them, boosting local economies and providing crucial support across the country.
The sites being secured are predominantly in major centres. All new sites meet the planning requirements for a jobcentre, which means they are fully accessible for colleagues and customers, with good transport links.
Leases have already been secured on 80 sites. A list of these sites can be found on gov.uk, and will be continually updated as and when new site leases are agreed.
[HCWS876]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Oral Questions will now commence. I ask that those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points, and that Ministers’ replies are also brief.
Folic Acid
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply from Lord Bethell on 3 September 2020 (HL Deb, cols 444–5), whether they have reached a conclusion on the findings of their consultation on the proposal to add folic acid to flour which closed on 9 September 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his stamina on this important issue. Since the consultation on folic acid in flour closed, there has been considerable progress on this policy work, although this has been hampered by Covid. I commit to bringing an update to the House as soon as I reasonably can.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his Answer but, as he will expect, it is not good enough. Notwithstanding the Covid pressure on the health department, it found time and resources to produce an NHS reform White Paper, so the priority was organisation, not preventive health. Since the Minister answered the previous Question on this in September, on average there will have been 500 pregnancies affected by neural tube defects, resulting in more than 400 terminations, and around 80 live births of babies with a lifelong disability. Fortification can cut these figures by up to 50%. My last question is: how will Ministers face the Daily Mail, which for 15 years has supported the scientists advising that this policy be adopted? I shall be back next month, I give notice.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to both the stamina and the passion with which the noble Lord puts his case. He puts it extremely persuasively. We have worked hard to engage with policymakers on this, meeting mill owners, including artisanal mill owners, and those who are engaged in the supply of food. The supply of food has been a difficult area in the last year. It is difficult to lay this extra burden on the trade. It is extremely open to the option and we remain optimistic that this is a route we can walk down. There has simply not been an opportunity to make that commitment as yet, but I will update the House as soon as I possibly can.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, yesterday, the Minister said that the health of the nation had to change emphatically. The recent NHS White Paper, to which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred, actually promised a more direct government role in improving people’s health. For instance, as president of the British Fluoridation Society, I was delighted that the Government are now committed to fluoridating water supplies. Given that, would it not be a very important indicator if the Government were to announce very shortly that they are going to go ahead with this?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord blows my own words in my face very effectively indeed. He is entirely right—we are committed to preventive medicine in the round. Fluoridation is one graphic example of that and the use of folic acid to address neural tube defects is another good example. That is why we did the consultation in 2019 and are considering the responses, and it is why I have made the commitment to return to the House once we are able to give an update.
Lord Northbrook (Con) [V]
My Lords, while I wholly support measures for larger commercial millers to minimise the risks associated with folic acid deficiency in vulnerable groups in society, I ask that the Government exempt smaller, traditional artisan mills from having to have to mix folate into flour. These mills represent only 0.1% of flour production and it would be prohibitively expensive for them to purchase the necessary machinery and to adapt what are often listed buildings for this change. Also, some customers deliberately seek out traditional flour, free from additives.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend makes the case extremely well. I reassure him that, in February 2020, officials from the DHSC and Defra met representatives from the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings’ Mills Section and the Traditional Cornmillers Guild and visited windmills and watermills to understand at first hand the practicalities around fortification for those premises. The commitments made on those visits will, I think, build a policy that takes into account the very special needs of those important artisanal trades.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his tenacity on this issue, and fail to understand why successive Governments have not recommended the addition of folic acid to flour, as well as fluoride to water, following many western Governments. For those who live on junk food, folate deficiency can turn into a serious disorder and, if left unchecked, can be fatal. In addition, the possible damaging effects to the foetus during pregnancy make this a no-brainer. The consultation closed 18 months ago, so when will the Minister bring the update to the House?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness puts the case well. It is an issue that I feel personally committed to; a cousin of mine was born with a neural tube defect many years ago, and the effects of that hit my family extremely hard. I recognise the problem of unplanned pregnancies and the need to find a way to get folic acid to people who were perhaps not intending to have a pregnancy. We take this matter extremely seriously, and I commit to returning to the House when we have an update on it.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I encourage my noble friend to accelerate this initiative of folic acid supplementation, which the House can see clearly he would very much welcome. But can he also comment on other preventive measures to improve the nation’s wider health?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend alludes to the rollout of the vaccine, which has been the consummate preventive medicine programme that the country has ever seen. It is, I hope, an inflection point in the whole country’s approach to its healthcare. We have for too long emphasised late-stage, heavy- duty interventions, and we have not focused enough on preventive early-stage interventions. Folic acid is a really good example, as are the vaccine and fluoridation, and the kinds of population health measures we hope to bring in will address all of those.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
I too commend the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his tenacity on this important aspect. Do the Government recognise that 90% of women of childbearing age have low folate levels? If these were corrected by the dietary addition of folate to flour, we could see up to a 58% decrease in neural tube defects. These are massive numbers and cannot be ignored. The clock is still ticking and there are women getting pregnant today who have low folate levels.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness’s figures are not quite the same as the ones I have in front of me. The mandatory fortification of bread flour with folic acid in Australia resulted in a 14.4% overall decrease in NTDs—although that is still a really important number, and if we are running at 1,000 a year in the UK, 50% of which are due to unplanned pregnancies, there are clearly important grounds for this measure to be considered seriously.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, last year, a year after the consultation deadline closed, the Minister repeated his promise that, despite seriously delayed government decision-making, major efforts were being made to step up the raising of awareness of the importance of taking folic acid supplements, particularly among at-risk groups such as Afro-Caribbean women and women under 20. Can the Minister tell the House what actions have been taken? What measurable impact has awareness raising had among these at-risk groups and on ensuring that women whose pregnancies are unplanned—as we have heard—are not missing out on these vital nutrients in the early stages of their pregnancy?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of my words on that matter. I will endeavour to find an answer to her very particular question. I worry that the very large amount of engagement we have had to do on Covid, particularly around marketing, has drowned out some of the messages that we have put through to people on these very specialist issues. I will find out from the department what progress has been made and will be glad to update her.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, Britain has a relatively high rate of preventable birth defects linked to low folic acid—around 1,000 pregnancies are affected every year. The Government are aware of this but do nothing, and it is scandalous that this tragedy could be prevented by the mandatory fortification of flour with folates. The burden on mill owners appears to be more important to the Government. When are the Government going to stop letting women down in this way at one of the most vulnerable times of their life?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I accept the passion with which the noble Baroness has made her case, but it is not fair to say that we have done nothing. The consultation is in place, policy-making is being undertaken and the engagement with mill owners is well progressed. I am hopeful that we can make progress in this area.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, since I entered this House at the end of October 2013, there have been 14 Oral Questions on this subject. I had four years as the president of the British Dietetic Association, which came and went with us pressing for government action. On 3 September last year, the Minister said that
“I am not in a position to give him”—
that is, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—
“the date he wishes, but we will come back to the House and answer his Question in due time.”—[Official Report, 3/9/20; col. 445.]
When on earth is “due time” going to arrive?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I accept the challenge from my noble friend, who articulates his point extremely well. I can see in front of me the timeline on this issue. I can only say that we are trying to approach this in a way that creates a durable, long-lasting solution that is endorsed by mill owners, paediatricians and all the relevant stakeholders. It takes time to build that sort of consensus but we totally recognise the importance of this issue—1,000 NTD deaths a year is far too many. I undertake to put pressure on the department to ensure that this issue makes progress as soon as possible.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Youth Justice System
Baroness Sater
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to enable children who commit offences to be tried and sentenced according to the youth justice system, and in particular, those who turn 18 before their first court appearance.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the courts are working to prioritise trials involving youth defendants, particularly when they involve a child who is about to turn 18. When a child turns 18 after an offence is committed but before they appear in court, they must be tried as an adult. However, guidelines state that in these cases courts should use as a starting point a sentence that would have been given at the time the offence was committed.
Baroness Sater (Con) [V]
My Lords, delays, backlogs and where you live can mean that a defendant who commits an offence under the age of 18 but who does not attend their first court appearance before their 18th birthday is treated differently from those who get to court before they turn 18. Through no fault of their own, those defendants miss out on receiving the valuable specialist youth court provision and sentences, especially referral orders, which can be vital in the rehabilitation and turning around of a young person’s life and which I have witnessed as a former youth magistrate. Will the Government consider reviewing this unfair anomaly?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is correct that under current legislation, the date of the hearing determines whether the defendant appears in a youth court or in an adult court. However, she should not draw the wrong conclusion. Measures exist in adult courts to support defendants who are particularly vulnerable, and throughout court proceedings consideration is given to the age of the defendant. Like referral orders in youth courts, community order requirements for adults can also be tailored to address an offender’s needs and support their rehabilitation. Finally, HMCTS is working to increase the throughput of cases in the courts and, while listing is a matter for the judiciary, youth cases have been prioritised to ensure that they are listed as expediently as possible, especially when a child is almost 18.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, the most recent official data show that 1,400 offences a year are committed by children who turn 18 prior to the trial. That number is rising, to some extent understandably, because of Covid delays, which means that the flexibilities and some of the specialities of the youth justice system are lost to these defendants. It is a serious issue. What are the Government doing, particularly with regard to the backlog because of Covid?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The youth justice working group, chaired by the judicial lead on youth justice, has been set up exactly to reduce the impact of Covid-19 delays on the youth court and trials involving youths in the Crown Court. This group continues to meet regularly to carefully monitor the youth recovery programme, and its highlight for this year is to continue to make sure that the lists are as low as possible for a child, particularly if they are just about to turn 18.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, are the Government considering raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12? These 10 and 11 year-olds usually come from seriously dysfunctional backgrounds and need help in the care system rather than convictions or findings of guilt.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have no information that the age will rise from 10 to 12 but that may be debated in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is in the other place and will be coming to this House shortly.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
Not enough is known about the number or experience of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma young people in the criminal justice system except that the number is significantly large in relation to their very small population. Is the Minister aware of a recent Justice report on racial disparity in the experience of young people in the criminal justice system? In particular, would she endorse its recommendation that the Ministry of Justice collects and makes available all data to a much greater extent, and endorse recommendation 16—that the criminal justice agencies should improve their relationship with Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community groups and follow the Traveller Movement recommendation on how to do so?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct about the report, which I read for another Question I was answering quite recently. Absolutely—every effort should be made by the whole of the judicial system to work with the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities. We want a justice system that is fair and open and where no person suffers discrimination.
Lord Dholakia (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is right to raise the question of the age of criminal responsibility, which at 10 years is the lowest in this part of the world. Can the Minister look at the Private Member’s Bill which I promoted previously in this House, and which had a safe passage, to see what lessons could be learned to ensure that young people do not end up in the criminal justice system?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: we need to keep an eye on timings and where these communities are. However, we also need to make sure that we do everything we possibly can through education and support to make sure that children do not come into the system in the first place.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the backlog in the national referral mechanism was growing before the first lockdown and has grown at a faster rate during the past year. How long can youths and youth courts expect to wait for an NRM review, and does the Minister agree that excessive waits are not in the interests of justice or of the youths concerned?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government are working to achieve quicker and more certain decision-making for victims of modern slavery but also youths. The Single Competent Authority was launched in April 2019 to handle all national referral mechanism cases and to provide high-quality, timely decisions for victims. There has been a significant ongoing recruitment of SCA decision-makers to address timescales. There are no set timescale or target decisions to be made; the SCA can make a conclusive grounds decision only when sufficient information has been made available by the parties involved in all cases.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, part of the problem with all the delays and children becoming adults before they go to court is because the Conservative Government massively cut funding to courts. The Minister comes from the Ministry of Justice but this is a clear injustice. What will the Ministry of Justice do about it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think I have answered this question once before. HMCTS is working to clear the youth court backlog at pace. The magistrates’ courts, where most youth cases are heard, disposed of more cases than they received from August 2020, which has led to a reduction in the outstanding caseload.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
[Inaudible]—the Minister to my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss indicates that the important question of the age of criminal responsibility may be raised in the Bill which is at present in the other place.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think I heard the whole question from the noble Lord, but if it is about the age in law, I have answered that question before. If that is an issue, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is coming from the other place shortly, will be the place to discuss it fully in this House.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when there is an admission of guilt and the offender is under 18 at the date of disposal, there is a strong presumption in favour of diverting to an out-of-court disposal. This does not apply if the offender reaches their 18th birthday after the crime occurred but before their first court appearance. Does the Minister not agree that that is arbitrary, unjust and probably not in the public interest? How difficult would it be to correct the anomaly?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord has a point here, but the youth courts look after very young children, who have very different needs from young adults. Special measures exist in the youth courts that are intended to protect young children. Throughout court proceedings, however, consideration is given to the age of the defendant, whatever it is, including in the adult courts. It is important that we realise that there are systems within the adult courts to look after these young people. But the noble Lord is correct in saying that this is an issue that needs to be discussed, and I suggest that it should be discussed in the passage of the forthcoming Bill.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we now come to the third Oral Question.
Social Media: Offensive Material
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to take to remove anonymity from persons who post racist and other similarly offensive material attacking (1) sportspeople, and (2) other high profile public figures, on social media sites.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that being anonymous online does not give anyone the right to abuse others. We are taking steps through the online harms regulatory framework to ensure that online abuse is addressed, whether anonymous or not. The police already have a range of legal powers to identify individuals who attempt to use anonymity to escape sanctions for online abuse. We are working with law enforcement to review whether the current powers are sufficient to tackle illegal anonymous abuse online.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
Can the noble Baroness be more specific about what the online safety Bill will achieve? Presumably, it will force social media companies to take down the racist and sexist rantings of some of their customers and lead to prosecutions where the abuse goes far beyond any free-speech justification. How much has happened since the Culture Secretary’s welcome statement on 8 February that those companies can start showing their duty of care to footballers today by weeding out racist abuse now, and will football be a specific priority in the hate crime unit looking at online discrimination against protected characteristics, as specified under the 2010 Equality Act?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are absolutely committed to making the internet a safe place for all, and of course that includes footballers and other public figures, but it also, very importantly, includes children, other vulnerable people and the general public. A key part of making this work is the duty of care that we will be imposing on social media companies, with clear systems of user redress and strong enforcement powers from Ofcom. I am happy to take the noble Lord’s suggestions regarding the place of footballers within the hate crime unit back to the department and, in relation to the equalities issue which he raises, he will be aware that it was very clear in the 2019 social media good practice code that social media companies are expected to have regard to protected characteristics.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford [V]
My Lords, the requirement to love our neighbours as ourselves makes practical demands of our online behaviour: not only what is posted but also what is endorsed, what is given the oxygen of repetition and what is tolerated. The digital common good is threatened from both sides: by those who post racist and offensive material and by some social media sites that craft algorithms to curate, propagate and perpetuate in order to maximise income. So will the Government give urgent consideration to implementing a code of practice for both hate crime and wider legal harms, perhaps along the lines of the model code that Carnegie UK and a number of other civil society organisations, including my office, recently co-drafted?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises very important points. He will be aware that the Law Commission is reviewing the legislation in relation to offensive online communications to make sure that it is fit for purpose, and that its final recommendations will be made this summer. We are also working more widely with law enforcement to review whether we have sufficient powers to address illegal abuse online.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend include, in the reporting and duty of care on social media companies, harassment and bullying in the way that we have seen happen when people break off relationships or are threatened because they do not agree with a particular point of view? I have heard from a number of people who have been very frightened of going back on to social media because of the attacks that they have had to endure. Will she also make sure that media companies have enough resources to police and that the required processes are in place to do so?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend raises important points about harassment and bullying. The pile-on harassment to which she refers is one of the specific issues that the Law Commission will be making recommendations on. She mentioned the resources of social media companies, and we are less concerned about them. We feel that they have ample resources, but we will also make sure that Ofcom is fully resourced to respond.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, although we need to protect freedom of speech, urgent action is needed to deal with abuse of free speech on social media. Does the Minister agree that social media outlets should be required to remove material that contravenes race hate and libel laws and limit how many times messages are forwarded, as those who post racist and other offensive materials are not entitled to have their voices amplified?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: what is illegal offline should be illegal online, and it is very clear that the social media companies should remove that content. Where there is harmful but legal content, they need to have very clear systems and processes to make sure that it can be removed quickly.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, this is not just a problem for famous people. If anything, it is a much more serious problem for members of the public. For example, mothers campaigning in Scotland to get schools reopened last year were attacked by anonymous cybernats and their children were threatened via direct messages on Twitter. Twitter is a real problem here, but there is a very simple solution, which is for Twitter or the Government to ban anonymous accounts. That would stop the abuse, it would ensure that anybody who tries to be abusive or threatening can be prosecuted and it would be a simple measure for those running Twitter, given the scale of their operation now, to introduce. Will the Government call them in, insist on it and, if they will not do it themselves, do it for them?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right to raise the issue of the general public and the troubling example that he just shared with the House. However, banning anonymous accounts is not as simple as he suggests. They provide important protection for a wide range of vulnerable people, as well as journalists’ sources and others—so these are complex issues that we aim to address through the Bill.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am interested in the Minister’s comment that the department is in discussions with the police about the use of existing powers. Would it not be a good idea for the police to pursue a number of high-profile cases of bullying of children, rampant racism or threats to our democracy under existing powers until we get the proper legislation in place?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Just to be clear, I was speaking on behalf of the Government in conversation with the police. The noble Lord will be aware that the primary responsibility for this matter sits with the Home Office. The police are independent in how they pursue these cases.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about ordinary people who are humiliated and persecuted. May I suggest to my noble friend that, when looking at strengthening the law, the Government look at increasing penalties on media companies that do not obey the laws? Nothing has more effect than hitting the pocket.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is quite right and the framework will aim to protect all users, particularly children and vulnerable users. As for hitting the pocket, she may be aware that the maximum fine that can be levied in future will be 10% of global turnover.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
Footballers, women sports commentators and public figures generally receive daily racist, homophobic, misogynist vile abuse and personal threats inciting hatred and physical attacks. The Minister has promised that the Government will act against this in the online harms legislation. Players and commentators alike have acted against abuse but they need support. When will the Government bring forward their Bill; are they waiting for the Law Commission; what will its scope be in tackling abuse; will its codes be voluntary or statutory; what powers will Ofcom have to act; and will the Bill contain measures removing the anonymity of abusers, difficult though that may be, who post abusive material?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I may answer a number of the noble Lord’s questions in writing but the Bill will be brought forward this year.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB) [V]
Facebook already has a real-names policy but users often provide fake ID. To enforce real-name identity, a government-backed ID scheme would have to be introduced. However, bearing in mind the current public suspicion of surrendering personal data to tech platforms, are there any plans for the Government to introduce such a digital ID policy for all users?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have an open mind on all these issues and the noble Viscount will be aware that the Secretary of State has indicated that he is minded to have pre-legislative scrutiny, which will provide a chance for transparent and robust scrutiny of issues such as that.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, we come to the fourth Oral Question.
Audit and Corporate Governance
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether their proposals in Restoring trust in audit and corporate governance, published on 18 March, conflict with those in the UK Listing Review by Lord Hill of Oareford, published on 3 March.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s proposals on audit and corporate governance reform will enhance the UK’s reputation as a world-class destination for business and investment. They complement the aim of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, to increase the UK’s attractiveness as an international financial centre while maintaining the UK’s high standards of corporate governance and shareholder rights. The audit reform White Paper includes a specific option to exempt newly listed companies temporarily from the new requirements.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, in the 210-page impact assessment, somewhat extraordinarily, no monetary benefits were identified, only costs. The average FTSE 100 company’s annual accounts have some 200-plus pages that are barely read and the proposals will simply increase the number of those pages. Are we now in danger of moving away from legislation on corporate governance to legislation on corporate management by the state? Is this area not best left to shareholders to decide on? With directors to be made personally liable for management errors, is my noble friend the Minister concerned that business will simply move to be listed in a more business-friendly environment?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The impact assessment, in fact, includes examples of quantifiable benefits that will be refined and developed in further iterations of the impact assessment. I agree that shareholders have a vital role in holding companies to account and the White Paper gives them important new tools to scrutinise audit and corporate reporting.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, from what we have read in the Sunday papers, this is a timely topic for debate and reporting on a long line of corporate failures, going back to Polly Peck, BCCI, Barings, Northern Rock, RBS, Carillion, BHS and, doubtless, many more. Throughout that time the audit market for major companies has been dominated by a few private sector accounting firms—now reduced to four. There is an urgent need to address the quality and effectiveness of audit. I presume that the Government support the proposals for a new profession of corporate auditors. What discussions have taken place with the profession itself on those proposals?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed, I have had extensive engagement with the profession, including the big four and a number of smaller companies, as we seek to progress the legislation.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the RBS rights issue trial, Mr Justice Hildyard said that the purpose of Section 87A(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act, concerning information to enable investors to make an informed assessment, had to be appropriate for the ordinary investor whose protection is the statutory objective. Does the Minister agree that the same logic must apply and be preserved in any changes to audit and capital maintenance statements? They are for the ordinary investor, not just expert users.
Lord Callanan (Con)
These proposals are to provide information to expert users and many of the ordinary readers as well. Therefore, both markets are to be fulfilled.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, no self-respecting non-executive director would take on a directorship unless the company arranged adequate directors’ and officers’ insurance but the cost of cover has been increasing dramatically, alongside market capacity reductions. What assessment has BEIS made of the impact of its new proposals on the D&O market, with consequential impact on the willingness of good candidates to take on board appointments?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point but the proposals will not provide a disincentive to people taking on new appointments. It is important to remember that the proposals for directors’ accountability apply only to the largest companies with revenues into the hundreds of millions of pounds and with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of employees. It is right that directors should take more responsibility.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
Professor Karthik Ramanna of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford said in the FT last week that corporate auditing is in crisis and that the UK Government have announced a bold set of proposals aimed at restoring public trust in audits and markets. The UK’s reputation as a world leader in corporate governance is highly prized and a vital part of what makes the UK an attractive place to invest and do business. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of these reforms on UK businesses, and how will the Government ensure that they will not affect the country’s ability to attract foreign investment nor stifle entrepreneurial spirit?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not agree that the audit market is in crisis. Some worthwhile improvements can be made, which is what we are proposing. The noble Lord will see that a full impact assessment is attached to the proposals.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord McKenzie, can the Minister confirm that any annual report on the state of the City, as proposed in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, will clearly outline how the dominance of the big four accountancy firms has been reduced?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The big four accountancy firms are important to the regime but we want to introduce more possible competition into it, which is why we are introducing the proposals for shared managed audit to try to bring up the capacity of medium-sized companies.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, given the clear struggle in the report, Restoring Trust in Audit and Corporate Governance, to find a workable model for auditing large UK companies, and given Deloitte UK managing partner Stephen Griggs’s comment to Accountancy Age, stating that,
“It is important that changes in audit are complemented by reforms to the governance of the UK’s largest and most complex businesses”,
does the Minister agree that the terms given to the UK listing review were fundamentally flawed? We do not need a more complex so-called competitive sector, but rather simpler, more secure, stable and auditable company structures.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are discussing audit reforms and reforms to the audit market. I think that the noble Baroness may want to have a separate debate about reforms to company structures.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I hope my noble friend realises that this audit and governance package is onerous. It will place significant costs on businesses of all shapes and most sizes and is, I fear, unlikely to achieve a lot in practice. Does he not agree that the best and more immediate way forward would be for the existing, comprehensive rules to be enforced properly by everyone—including firms, auditors and, if appropriate, prosecutors—while minimising the burden of any new regulations?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that my noble friend is passionate about not imposing new burdens on companies. I share her desire, but we think that the current regime could be improved. There will be a 16-week consultation period, so we will take the time to get these proposals right, but I think that some worthwhile improvements could be made without damaging competitiveness.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have two points. First, in the absence of a central enforcer of company law, improvement in corporate governance is unlikely. Secondly, in the absence of tougher auditor liability and accountability, there are not sufficient pressure points to secure improvements in audit quality. When will the Government realise that their appeasement of big corporations and accounting firms is actually a recipe for more scandals?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are not appeasing the big accountancy firms; many of them do not like some of our proposals. These are worthwhile reforms that will improve the market and help to bring about the state of affairs that the noble Lord refers to.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, the White Paper proposals place onerous obligations on directors of larger businesses. Does my noble friend the Minister share my concerns that the reforms will discourage candidates, due to the increased and unnecessary liability? Further, does he agree that companies will face greater regulation, higher directors’ fees and indemnity costs at a time when the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is, sensibly, attempting to improve access to capital markets?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not agree with my noble friend. As I said earlier, accountability for directors applies only to those in the largest businesses—that is, those with revenues in the hundreds of millions of pounds and potentially thousands of employees. The new sanctions will apply only in cases where directors have clearly failed in their duties as set out in law, so I do not believe that there is a conflict with the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. Companies are staying private for longer and entrepreneurs are not always in a rush to go public. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider simplifying trading in private company shares, possibly even introducing electronic trading, so that founders and employees can access the liquidity they need?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an interesting point. Although this White Paper does not include proposals on trading in companies’ shares, the listings review of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, does include some recommendations, including making it easier for private growth companies to make the jump to a public listing.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. That brings Question Time to an end.
Trade Bill
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Human Rights Update
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that sanctions against Chinese officials have finally been confirmed. This is a welcome step. I also welcome the moves made yesterday by the EU and other partners, albeit many months after the Board of Deputies, the Uighur Congress, Members across this House and in the Commons called for their introduction. However, these designations are not enough and are certainly not a substitute for Parliament gaining the power to block trade agreements with China based on a determination of genocide. The sanctions do not represent a strategy; they are just one instrument in a foreign policy that is not nearly confident enough about our values. If the Government are truly serious about holding this barbarism to account, they must be consistent in their approach. That is why what the Foreign Secretary said earlier this month is so concerning —that he has no reason to think that we could not deepen our trading relationships with China. Boris Johnson said only last month that he is committed to strengthening the United Kingdom’s ties with China, whatever the occasional political difficulties.
As a country, we can never turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. That means always standing with the Uighur people, not only when it is convenient for us to do so. The Foreign Secretary said that the persecution of the Uighur Muslims represents one of the worst human rights crises of our time and, for that reason, it requires one of the strongest international responses of our time, co-ordinated with our allies. Can the Minister therefore confirm why there are discrepancies between the designations in our sanctions and those of the US?
Last Wednesday, the Financial Times reported Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, when he identified 24 CCP officials. He warned that any financial institution that had significant business with these officials would also be subject to sanctions. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that we will mirror that action.
Our actions must be swift and urgent, and these designations are neither. As a country, we must reflect our values on the world stage and at home, which means that these sanctions must be equipped with domestic legislation to prevent anyone in the UK being linked to this persecution. Will the Minister commit the Government to strengthening Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act to prevent forced labour being supported by UK business supply chains?
Yesterday in the other place, despite the press reports I have referred to, the Foreign Secretary said
“that there is no realistic or foreseeable prospect of a free trade agreement and that the way to deepen our trade with China was for it to improve its human rights record.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 624.]
I hope that the Minister can today give a cast-iron guarantee that the Government have no intention of pursuing trade negotiations with the Government of China during the course of this Parliament. Above all, if the UK is determined to face down the oppression of the Uighur people, we must build bridges with like-minded allies who share our ambition to end this persecution.
Can the Minister tell us in more detail what steps the United Kingdom will take at the UN to raise the situation in the Xinjiang province? The House may also be aware that today marks the conclusion of the UN Human Rights Council’s main 2021 session, which will end without any condemnation of China’s action in Xinjiang, Hong Kong or elsewhere. The UK needs a foreign policy that is clear and confident about our values, but instead, for a decade now the Government have pursued an incoherent and inconsistent approach to the Chinese Government and the Chinese communist party. There is no greater display of this than the efforts to block the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, just as the Government announce these long-awaited sanctions.
As I have warned before, there is a yawning chasm between the Government’s words and their actions. If they share the ambition of these Benches for the United Kingdom to be a moral force for good in the world, they must do more to stand against the barbaric events in Xinjiang. That means acting with greater urgency than we have seen with these sanctions, taking steps domestically to prevent the UK being linked in any way to these events, and working in tandem with our allies who share our values.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for bringing us this Statement. The Foreign Secretary has described the treatment of the Uighurs as
“one of the worst human rights crises of our time.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 621.]
He noted that the evidence is clear in the form of satellite images, testimony from survivors, official documents, leaks from the Chinese Government and much else besides. This has been gathered despite China’s refusal to allow in independent inspectors, as requested by Michelle Bachelet, the High Commissioner on Human Rights, and others.
As well as attacks on the Uighur culture and language, we see forced labour, forced sterilisation and children being separated from their parents. More than 1 million people have been detained without trial. The Statement describes this as the largest mass detention of an ethnic or religious group since World War Two. Many experts are now reporting that every provision of the convention on genocide has been violated. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government accept that this is genocide? When the Chief Rabbi describes it as such, do the Government not concur? The Americans certainly describe it as genocide.
I note the cynicism expressed in the Commons yesterday—that this announcement was amazingly timed, just as the Government sought to see off the amendment on genocide that has come repeatedly from this House, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The UK has said consistently that genocide determination is a matter for the courts, and the noble Lord has always said so. But then the Government resisted that method when presented with a way of doing it. However, when it is not possible for a determination to be made by the International Criminal Court, as here, what is the pathway to genocide determination? That remains very unclear.
I welcome the sanctions announced yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. In this instance, I commend the Government for their close working with our allies. I note that not all of the Five Eyes countries have joined in. If that reflects a concern about repercussions, that is worrying and shows how vital it is that we act together. I am particularly pleased that we are acting jointly with the EU. The integrated review more or less ignored the continent we sit in, yet it was when we were in the EU, as the Minister knows, that we worked with our EU colleagues, particularly Sweden and the Netherlands, to bring forward the adoption of human rights sanctions by the EU. As he himself always and rightly says, sanctions are most effective when applied collectively.
The sanctions announced this week must be seen as a first step, not a final one, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, emphasised. Trade relations cannot be left out. The integrated review promoted more trade with China, yet also said that we would address human rights. Can the Minister assure us that no trade agreement will be sought with China while this situation continues? Cutting off ties with companies implicated in forced labour will also send a strong message to the Chinese authorities. The Government have introduced some measures to address this but, again, these can be only the first step. How will the Government go further to ensure a consistent approach across all parts of government and all aspects of UK-China relations? For example, will the UK follow the US in banning imports of cotton and tomato products from Xinjiang?
China has responded with its own sanctions on European officials, but I note that one official said that the action against him shows that China clearly feels sensitive about this, which means that co-ordinated pressure should continue. I also ask the noble Lord not to duck this question: as we claim we are free of the EU to have higher standards and do more on human rights, why have we agreed a trade deal with Cambodia with no restrictions because of human rights abuses there, even though the EU has used its own human rights conditions to put restrictions on its trade relations with Cambodia? As he knows, I have asked about this in Written Questions and got unsatisfactory answers, so I would be grateful if he would clarify.
In addition, what are we doing to take forward sanctions provisions to address corruption? The Minister keeps saying that they are imminent. Are we looking with allies at sanctions in relation to Hong Kong or do we not have sufficient traction on this? We are in a multipolar world, as the integrated review says, with the US superpower and the rising Chinese superpower, but the EU too. Britain alone is not such, and it needs allies. I welcome the actions here and that we are working with all our allies, but there is much more that we need to do.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their constructive remarks and will seek to address their specific questions. I also acknowledge that we have received support from the main Opposition Benches for what the noble Baroness describes as the first step on sanctions.
Addressing some of the issues, I must admit that I was a tad disappointed by the response from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the speed with which these sanctions have come about. I remind noble Lords that it was only a short while ago that we brought in the structure of the global human rights sanctions regime, and this is another example of taking it forward. Well over 70 people have now been sanctioned under that regime, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will acknowledge that we have acted. That we acted in conjunction with our allies yesterday again shows strong co-operation and the necessity of gathering evidence and ensuring that sanctions imposed on individuals—and an organisation is included in this case—are based on evidence and the facts presented to ensure that they are robust to any challenge that may be made against them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to the Trade Bill being discussed in the other place yesterday and this coincided with that. I am sure that she will reflect on how we were co-ordinating with other allies and how this falls at a time when both Houses are focused on the importance of our future relationship with countries. It is also entirely appropriate that we have introduced these sanctions regimes in co-ordination with our key partners, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord both acknowledged.
The noble Baroness asked about the absence of other Five Eyes partners, aside from Canada, the US and us. As she would acknowledge, that is because they do not yet have a global human rights sanctions regime, but we are very much co-ordinating our actions with key partners. It is worth while recognising that, when we include all the EU partners, as well as the United States and Canada, 30 countries are acting together and in co-ordination on sanctions. There was some discrepancy or difference between the sanctions—the US had moved forward on sanctioning some named individuals earlier—but we now have a coming together and consistency between all key allies in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the Trade Bill, which is returning to your Lordships’ House. Without stealing from any of the debate that will follow, I fully acknowledge the strong sentiments that we have seen over the last weeks and months. I pay tribute particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing to the fore the importance of human rights in our work representing the United Kingdom’s interests abroad. Through both Houses working together, we have seen a move forward and acknowledgement from the Government to accept many of the points that have been raised. I believe that what is coming to your Lordships’ House reflects how the Government have listened to the strong sentiments, expressions and views that have been expressed on these important issues in both Houses.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about our relationship with China, going forward, and the comments of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I reiterate that China has an important role to play on the world stage in resolving conflicts. It is equally important that China has a role in the major issues that confront us, including climate change. On any future trading relationship, we have acknowledged previously and acknowledge again that we do not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. I stand by my right honourable friend when he described the situation of the Uighurs in Xinjiang and their desperate plight, as I am sure all noble Lords would acknowledge. Today we see the next step in ensuring that we continue to profile this abuse and, at the same time, are seen to take actions against its perpetrators within Xinjiang.
The noble Baroness specifically asked about the trade deal with Cambodia. I will write to her on that, if I may. We put a specific human rights lens as we formulate and announce all new trade deals to ensure that it is part and parcel of our thinking and planning. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the Modern Slavery Act, on which we have already seen announcements from the Government. Indeed, in January, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced new measures on issues around the supply chain. There are also further discussions taking place with the Home Office on the penalties that will be employed against those who do not adhere to the forthcoming regulations. I am sure that your Lordships’ House will be updated in due course, as we bring forward further detail on these measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also talked about the lack of co-ordinated activity in this respect. I challenge that directly, as the Minister responsible for both the United Nations and human rights. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom first raised this in a multilateral forum, and that was just shy of two years ago. We have seen steady support for the United Kingdom working with key partners to ensure that there are now more than 39 countries, and growing, which now speak strongly and specifically on the important issues of the abuse incurred by the Uighur community in Xinjiang. It shows the strength of UK diplomacy that we have continued to raise this issue at the UN Third Committee and have raised it consistently at the Human Rights Council.
The noble Lord referred to the various resolutions that have passed. Today, we passed a new resolution on Sri Lanka, which I am sure that many noble Lords will welcome. At the same time, the issue of China, in the context of both Hong Kong and Xinjiang, was very much part and parcel of my right honourable friend’s contribution to the Human Rights Council.
I pick up the point on corruption sanctions that was rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I have used this phrase before in the context of these sanctions, but we are working through this specific framework. They are very high on our agenda and we hope to come to your Lordships’ House and the other place, in the near future, on the framework to widen the scope of the sanctions regime.
I assure all noble Lords that we will continue to engage proactively on this issue, because I know it carries great strength of views, which are expressed in your Lordships’ House and which I greatly value, particularly in my capacity as Human Rights Minister. We will continue to work constructively and engage with noble Lords when these issues arise in the Chamber and, as we have done previously, by proactively updating them on developments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers are brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, as a result of coronavirus, the world, in so many ways, is upside down. Yesterday in the other place 29 Members from my party voted for the genocide amendment and were called “rebels”, including a former leader and a former Foreign Secretary. They are not rebels; they are righteous heroes. As Elie Wiesel said,
“We must take sides … Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
In this Statement, the Foreign Secretary’s words that,
“The suffering of the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang cannot be ignored”
are welcome, and he was right to begin to impose sanctions. But I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will continue to ask for unfettered access to Xinjiang, and whether he agrees that there is an urgent need to establish mechanisms to collect and preserve the evidence of the atrocities, which the Foreign Secretary described as
“one of the worst human rights crises of our time.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—and also his own work in this respect. As I have already mentioned, I align myself with and recognise the strong sentiments of and the incredible role played by many in your Lordships’ House, and in the other place, on all sides of the two Chambers, in ensuring that we move forward in a constructive way on the important issue of the continuing suffering of the Uighur people. I fully acknowledge and respect the important contributions and role of Members in the other place, as well as your Lordships, in this respect.
On the specific point that my noble friend, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised on ensuring that unfettered access should be guaranteed, I absolutely agree; we are calling for that for Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. On the specific issue of accountability and justice for those committing these crimes, I am sure my noble friend has noted the statement that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made jointly with the US Secretary of State and the Canadian Foreign Minister in this respect.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s Statement and its repetition here today by the Minister. In thanking him, and the Foreign Secretary, for the role that they have played in making a reality of these Magnitsky sanctions, I endorse everything that the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have said. I have two questions for the Minister. First, higher up the food chain are people like Chen Quanguo, who has been responsible for giving the orders in Xinjiang against the Uighurs. Can the Minister, without going into individual cases, at least assure us that just because people are higher up the food chain, they will not avoid these Magnitsky sanctions in the future? Secondly, returning to the point made by the noble Baroness about pathways to determining genocide, can the Minister at least assure us that if he believed there to be convincing evidence of a genocide under way, in Xinjiang or anywhere else, he would not be in favour of continuing trade with a country complicit in genocide?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, the United Kingdom has been seen to be taking action against anyone, or any country, that is found to be engaging in genocide following a judicial process, and, indeed, even where genocide has not been declared by a legal court. A good example is the suspension of trading relationships and other agreements. In answering the noble Lord’s first question, I also recognise that, yes, the United Kingdom does ensure that we produce a robust evidence base. As was seen recently with the situation in Myanmar, there have been occasions where we have taken action directly against people such as those leading the coup in that country.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, speaking about the Uighur Muslims, the Foreign Secretary described the evidence of human rights abuses as clear and corroborated, as we have heard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Collins described the various ways in which that is true. In summary, Mr Raab himself described it as
“egregious, industrial-scale human rights abuses”.
I greatly respect the Minister, but I wonder whether he might not reflect that he has been a little complacent about the speed at which we have used Magnitsky sanctions, and that we have missed a number of opportunities to co-operate internationally. If the Government are resistant to using the word “genocide”, will the Minister at least confirm that he can use the expression that is used at the UN, that there are “crimes of concern to humanity” and “crimes against humanity”? If he can, will he confirm the good sense of amending the Trade Bill to make sure that those who benefit from such crimes will not do so by having trade opportunities in their hands?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—on a lighter note, I am always conscious that, when in an opening line “great respect” is expressed for the Minister, what will follow thereafter is a reflection of a challenge, and that has been proven correct today. Of course, I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has said. The Trade Bill will be up for discussion in your Lordships’ House today and I look forward to that. On the issue of complacency, I will challenge the noble Lord; I am afraid, on this occasion, I cannot agree with him. We have seen a structured approach to the new regime being introduced; we have close to 76 people, I believe, who have been sanctioned as part of this, and it is right and important that we acted once we had the evidence. But it is also right, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, acknowledged, that we act in conjunction with our key partners, because acting together shows the strength of the international community in the face of the continued human rights abuses we are seeing in Xinjiang.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the joint UK-China communiqué on the occasion of President Xi addressing both Houses of Parliament in 2015 highlighted seven co-operation agreements, strategic partnership agreements and joint alliances covering preferential trading terms and UK market access—not available to many other countries. Given the horrors we now know of, how many of these preferential trading agreements have been suspended?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—in respect of what the noble Lord asks, I will write to him. I also acknowledge that, while these agreements were signed in 2015, the international community was alerted to the situation that we see emerging in Xinjiang only in 2016. But on the specifics, I will write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, noble Lords across the House acknowledged the Government’s work on this issue, particularly the work of my noble friend the Minister. We were of course one of the first countries to raise the Uighur issue at the UN two years ago, and my noble friend has led and built a strong coalition. I ask him what the next steps are for Her Majesty’s Government—what ties need to be built, and how? Why, in light of my noble friend’s sincere commitment to this issue, which is in no doubt, are the Government unable to hear the strength and breadth of the coalition standing behind the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this place, and my honourable friend the Member for Wealden in the other place? What is stopping the Government supporting and adopting these amendments?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
On my noble friend’s second point, I have already acknowledged the important work that has been done in both Houses in this respect. The Government’s amendment reflects those sentiments quite specifically, and I am sure that there will be further debates in your Lordships’ House on that. In thanking my noble friend for her remarks, in terms of the next steps on building alliances, there is a major area that we need to work on, and that is the lack of condemnation of what we have seen in Xinjiang among the Muslim countries of the world—the Islamic countries. Therein lies a challenge for all of us within the existing alliance, to ensure that we strengthen our partnerships with the OIC, and other specifically bilateral ties, to ensure that we see Muslim countries speaking out against the suffering of over 1 million Muslims in China.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the repeat of the Statement and the Government’s positive move to apply Magnitsky sanctions to principal actors, but I note that there was no reference to genocide, even though there is credible evidence of systematic repression, imprisonment, gang rape, torture, forced sterilisation and the suppression of the Uighur language and culture. Does the Minister agree that putting all this horrific treatment together surely amounts to genocide by any definition, whether it be a moral, political or legal question? Could he tell the House why the Government fail to call it out as such by name?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
On the specific definition of genocide, my response and those of other Ministers are well documented. But I recognise the description that the noble Lord gave us all of the situation in Xinjiang, and I stand by the fact that the human rights abuses that we have seen, and which he described, are why we are acting with partners today.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
I welcome the strong Statement and the actions that are to follow from it, but will the Government act with consistency and similar firmness in relation to other countries where human rights are grossly violated? I could mention a number, but I shall mention one that gets almost no publicity: the continuing atrocities and ethnic cleansing in West Papua. For example, the retired General Hendropriyono, the former head of Indonesian intelligence—the BIN—has called for 2 million West Papuans to be forcibly removed from their homes and relocated elsewhere in Indonesia. I know that the Government repeatedly condemn such actions, but will they go further, be consistent and impose sanctions on him and others involved in what is, in effect, an attempt to destroy a whole people and its culture?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
Again, as the noble and right reverend Lord acknowledged, the Government have rightly consistently called out human rights abuses, not just in the situation he described but elsewhere in the world. On sanctions specifically, as I have indicated, a process is followed to ensure that the sanctions we impose are evidence-based and robust. We will continue to act. We do not shy away. Many rightly challenged us for a number of months that we were not acting on sanctioning figures from China. We have done so, and China is a major world power. We have not shied away from our moral responsibility in this respect. The fact that we have acted with 30 other countries demonstrates the will of the international community.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome this important collaboration with many partners and the creation of these targeted sanctions. I will speak specifically about our embrace of targeted sanctions. Is the Foreign Office engaging with countries that so far do not have targeted sanctions as part of their regimes for dealing with human rights abusers and things such as genocide? The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about the absence of some of our Five Eyes partners from the coalition of targeted sanctions announced in this last day. The reality is that Australia, for example, does not have a targeted sanctions regime. Are we persuading other democracies to take on board this great new development in international law? It gives teeth to international law in a situation where one cannot get people before international courts.
I will also pick up on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Targeted sanctions must be used in a very strategic way. To go after lesser persons is not using the regime in the way that it was supposed to be used. For example, the United States of America has on its list the governor of Xinjiang province, Mr Chen Quanguo. Why do we not have him on our sanctions list? He has been sanctioned by the United States; why not by us?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done in the context of media freedom and the coalition. The independent legal panel has produced some excellent reports in that respect, including on the use of sanctions. The short answer is that we are speaking to other key partners, specifically some of those she mentioned, to see how we can share our experiences so that they can bring about their own sanctions regimes.
On the specifics of future people who may be sanctioned, it would be mere speculation, but I assure the noble Baroness that we remain very firm on working and sharing evidence with our partners in this respect. We have worked very closely with the United States in particular on these issues and we will continue to do so.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
Are we giving the world the moral leadership that it is crying for, or are we just repeating what Pastor Niemöller said of the Nazi regime: “First of all they came for the Jews. I wasn’t a Jew so I didn’t speak out. Then they came for the communists. I wasn’t a communist so I didn’t speak out. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I wasn’t a trade unionist so I didn’t speak out. Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak for me”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
We are giving clear leadership and working with allies. While we are touching on a sobering subject—the situation of the Uighurs in China—we should recognise that we have not shied away. On my personal commitment, I assure the noble Lord that I meet many members of persecuted communities around the world. Yes, we may not always act with the speed that noble Lords desire, but I am proud of the fact that the United Kingdom continues to play a leading role in standing up for those who do not have a voice and acts when it needs to, as we did yesterday with international partners in sending a very strong message to a country such as China that we will call out human rights abuses.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, Australia and New Zealand —Australia in particular—were threatened by China earlier this year over coronavirus. What steps are we taking to get the other two of the Five Eyes firmly on board? Secondly, what steps are we taking in the Council of Europe’s ministerial council, where there are a lot of belt and road countries that are now in deep financial trouble? Thirdly, what are we doing in the Commonwealth to try to get to some Commonwealth solidarity?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I believe that I have already answered my noble friend’s first question in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. He is right to raise how we can further strengthen the profile of human rights abuses and get a wider, more diverse selection of countries to support the actions we have taken. The Council of Europe and the Commonwealth provide opportunities for this. I assure my noble friend that we will focus on specific issues of human rights as part of our discussion at the next CHOGM in the upcoming summit in Kigali.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the sanctions, but in relation to our new trade agreement with Turkey, are HMG also concerned about the increasing clamp-down on human rights there and its withdrawal from the Istanbul convention? Does he agree with the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, who said:
“Any anti-terror operation should comply with international human rights law, and should not be used to target dissent”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
Turkey remains an important partner for the United Kingdom, but I assure the noble Earl that I engage directly on the issue of human rights with the Turkish Government. They have recently produced a new report on the actions they will take this year. We would rather they stayed on board with the Istanbul convention. I agree that any actions we take to ensure that our countries are secure from the scourge of terrorism need to ensure that human rights are always protected.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, like others I welcome the decision to enforce sanctions, but I will press the Minister again on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Can he explain explicitly why the Communist Party boss in Xinjiang is not on the list of those being sanctioned, given that he is considered by many to be the main enforcer of hard-line policies there? If the Minister cannot be explicit now, could he possibly write to me to explain the very odd decision not to include him?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I have noted what all noble Lords have said in respect of sanctions of other individuals. I am sure that noble Lords respect the fact that I cannot be specific on particular names, but, as the noble Baroness requested, I will be happy to explain the process we go through before we sanction any individual or entity under the regime.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I am afraid that the 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions has now finished. I regret that it has not been possible to call all the Members on the list.
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. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. As there is a counterproposition, any Member in the Chamber may speak. Any Member intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw Motions.
Trade Bill
Tuesday 23rd March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 185-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons insistence, disagreement and reason - (23 Mar 2021)
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
That this House do not insist on its disagreement with Commons Amendments 3C and 3D, on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 3F, and do not insist on its Amendment 3E in lieu, to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, with this possibly—perhaps hopefully—being the final debate on the Bill, I will take the chance to say a few words before responding substantively to the amendments before us today. I hope that noble Lords agree that the overall tenor of the debates in this House and the other place has been positive. There will always be disagreements and different opinions on policy; that is the nature of politics. However, I believe that we have worked constructively and made this Bill into a commendable piece of legislation that reflects the will of Parliament.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has been a force of nature over the past few months and shown us how determined advocacy can lead to real change. Again, while there are certainly disagreements about how best we should look to approach human rights around the world and in trade, he has brought to the fore an incredibly important issue, and we are all the better for that fact.
I turn now to Commons Amendments 3C and 3D. The Government have moved in response to noble Lords’ concerns and supported the process and approach set out in the amendment from the chair of the Commons Justice Select Committee, which passed in the other place again yesterday. The Government continue to support that amendment as a reasonable and meaningful compromise on this difficult issue; today, I ask noble Lords to do likewise. The Government agree whole- heartedly with the principle behind this amendment: that we must have robust and searching parliamentary scrutiny of proposed trade agreements, especially where there are credible reports of genocide in a prospective partner country. This amendment delivers on that principle by ensuring that the Government must put their position on record, in writing, in response to a Select Committee publication identifying such credible reports. The committee can then insist on a parliamentary debate if it is not satisfied with this response, and the Government will be obliged to make time for such a debate.
The amendment also gives to the responsible committee for the elected House the authority to draft the Motion for debate. This is a substantive concession. In light of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I can confirm that the Government expect that its production of a report and the scheduling of any subsequent debate would be undertaken swiftly and within agreed timetables. This approach allows us to ensure that Parliament is in the driving seat on this issue, and that it can hold the Government to account for their trade policy, debating the issues openly in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. It does this while respecting the Government’s long-standing policy that it is for competent courts to make determinations of genocide.
The other place yesterday debated the issue of legal expertise and how parliamentarians who have previously held high judicial office might be involved in deliberations over credible reports of genocide. While this proposal was disagreed to in the elected House for reasons of financial privilege, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the remarks made by the Minister of State for Trade Policy at the Dispatch Box. He made it clear that the Government are willing to work with Parliament to develop an approach that draws on judicial expertise, if that is indeed Parliament’s express wish. I repeat that undertaking in your Lordships’ House today. Implementing such an approach could be readily achieved through Standing Orders and we would support this.
Of course, it is ultimately up to Parliament how it wishes to organise its own affairs. It is possible, for instance, for the membership of a new Joint Committee to be made up of members of Select Committees from both this House and the other place. It would be possible for such a committee to be chaired by a former senior member of the judiciary drawn from the Cross Benches and, with the agreement of the usual channels, to appoint additional members with relevant expertise to this Joint Committee. The precise details remain to be worked out but the Government are supportive of working with Parliament on this issue within the bounds of the procedure agreed to—for the second time, I have to say—in the other place yesterday. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Adonis
At end insert, “, and do propose Amendment 3G as an amendment to Commons Amendment 3C—
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I move this amendment only for the purposes of precipitating a debate. The Minister rightly said that the other place has considered this matter three times, and three times produced a majority for the position that comes before us again this afternoon. We obviously should not impose our will again. I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been extremely conscientious in his handling of this matter all the way through. I add that the only reason I am moving an amendment myself is that I could not persuade the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to move one.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is the hero of this whole process. He is held in very high esteem in the House. The Minister described him as a force of nature; I would add that he is also a force for humanity in the House. When, as I hope, we ultimately we get to grips with the situation in respect of China and the Uighurs without the rollout of a full genocide—which could be in progress at the moment—the noble Lord will be among those who deserve credit, as will all those who have fought so hard over so many years for the rights of these people to be heard. They are people who would not be heard if politicians like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, did not take up their cause.
On the merits of the case before us, we have converged. There will be a process involving a formal review of what is going on in Xinjiang in respect of the Uighurs. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, would have preferred that it had a more formal judicial component, a view which I supported. We began with it going to a court and then to a judicial committee; we now have a parliamentary committee. While a parliamentary committee has limitations, I note that the Minister flags up in his own amendment that the committee could bring in senior judicial figures to help in its considerations. We could therefore get quite close to what was being proposed before—and I respect the Minister’s final remarks about these matters being considered in a timely fashion.
It is also very important that nobody thinks that there are easy answers here. Of course our relations with a great trading nation such as China—one of our greatest trading partners and a rising, not declining, power—are always going to be problematic. When the Government say in their strategy paper Global Britain in a Competitive Age, published last week, in respect of China:
“We will continue to pursue a positive trade and investment relationship with China, while ensuring our national security and values are protected”,
that is a perfectly fair statement of policy, which I think any Government would sign up to. I was a member of a Government who sought to maintain precisely this balancing act, and one of the very few Ministers since the war to have visited Taiwan. I went to look at its outstanding education system but I remember being told by very senior members of the Foreign Office what I was and was not allowed to say when I was there. I was urged particularly to avoid having any photographs taken with members of its Government, lest this be taken as somehow giving recognition to Taiwan as an independent state.
We have all been there, in a sense, and I do not criticise the Government for having to maintain a difficult balancing act. This is the nature of modern life, where we live in interdependent economies. I still fondly hope that it will be possible to foster better relations with China, including being able to boost trade on the basis of an improved recognition of human rights in China itself.
As the Bill finally reaches the statute book, however, it is worth us considering the problem we may be entering into. It is not because this issue is not difficult—we all recognise that it is—but because it seems, and I say this with all due respect to the Minister and his colleagues, that the Government are in danger of dialling up both their concern for human rights and, at the same time, their desire for improved trading relations with China, without recognising that there is an inevitable tension between those things. They seem to be moving on from a recognition of the facts of life into, dare I say it, wanting to have their cake and eating it. You just need to read the relevant documents and statements by members of the Government to understand that.
In what I thought was in many ways an admirable Statement by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons yesterday, he said of the persecution of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang:
“This is one of the worst human rights crises of our time and I believe the evidence is clear … It includes satellite imagery; survivor testimony; official documentation and, indeed, leaks from the Chinese Government themselves; credible open-source reporting, including from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International; and visits by British diplomats … In sum, the evidence points to a highly disturbing programme of repression. Expressions of religion have been criminalised, and Uyghur language and culture discriminated against on a systematic scale. There is widespread use of forced labour; women forcibly sterilised; children separated from their parents; an entire population subject to surveillance, including collection of DNA and use of facial recognition software and so-called predictive policing algorithms.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 621.]
He went on in this vein. Let us be clear what is happening: this is prima facie evidence of a genocide, and the Foreign Secretary as good as said that in the House of Commons yesterday.
The Minister’s letter to us, which he kindly made available just before the debate, says that
“the UK is sending a clear message that we believe those responsible for serious human rights violations or breaches of international humanitarian law in China should face consequences.”
But the head of the Government, the Prime Minister, said in a meeting of Chinese businesspeople in Downing Street on 12 February—I know that Harold Wilson told us a week is a long time in politics, but 12 February is only a few weeks ago—that he was “fervently Sinophile” and determined to boost trade
“whatever the occasional political difficulties”.
Are we talking about prima facie evidence of genocide or “occasional political difficulties”? There is a bit of a gulf between those two statements. Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, whom we hold in high regard, are having to walk the tightrope between those policies, and I say gently to him: I think they will fall off.
It is not possible to square what is going on in China at the moment with a policy of expanding trade as if there were only “occasional political difficulties” when another part of the Government, and a large and increasing part of the international community, rightly say that there is prima facie evidence of a genocide and there must be consequences. The reason is not just because it is the right and humanitarian thing to do, although it obviously is, but because it is not a sustainable policy for this country to pretend on the one hand that we can boost trade and have business as usual with China while, on the other, there is ever greater evidence, which will become ever more prominent in the media, of an extreme situation in the western part of China that increasingly resembles a genocide.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was very generous to me in his opening remarks, and so was the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. It brought to mind EM Forster’s book, Two Cheers for Democracy, in which he says that the justification of our political system is the curmudgeonly, awkward, cantankerous and difficult Member of Parliament who sometimes gets some minor injustice put right. I suspect that rather than being a force of nature, that is more descriptive of the kind of role that all of us who have the privilege of serving in your Lordships’ House should take when it comes to causes such as this one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has reminded us, what is happening in Xinjiang is certainly very close to a genocide. Terrible atrocities are occurring there and without a pathway to determine whether this is technically in breach of the 1948 genocide convention, nevertheless, many of us, without using rhetorical flourishes or hyperbole, are able to say: we believe that, accurately, this indeed is a genocide. I will come back to this.
This is not about individuals. This was not my amendment but the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, and it was supported right across this House. Its support was bipartisan and from the Front Benches of the opposition parties but also from distinguished Members on the Government Benches. That was true in both Houses. A former leader of the Conservative Party was the principal sponsor in another place and it was supported last night in the Division Lobby by the former Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. This is not about obscure people who are just trying to make life difficult for the Government; it is better than that. This is about a hugely important cause and it has been an honour for me to work with colleagues drawn from across the divide. In both Houses, there has been a coalition of significant players.
Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, will doubtless be relieved that they have arrived at the touchline and that the Bill will shortly become an Act of Parliament. However, I would caution them if they assume that they have heard the last of the all-party genocide amendment. Last night, 300 Members of the House of Commons brought the Government within a whisker of defeat. That, and repeated majorities of over 100 in your Lordships’ House, have demonstrated that as new genocides occur in places such as Xinjiang, this argument is far from over and is unlikely to go away.
By establishing a degree of parliamentary accountability in the way that the Minister outlined, the Government narrowly avoided defeat in the Commons. They have— and I welcome this—left a way open for Parliament to name atrocity crimes for what they are, enabling us to address our duties under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said it was up to Parliament to decide exactly how to go about doing that. One possibility is a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is not a bad precedent, were we to go down that route.
In line with what the House of Commons decided yesterday, our House could, if it wished, establish its own ad hoc committee comprising former judges who now sit in the Lords. To determine precisely what a genocide is will take time, expertise and great knowledge of the law—things that this House is uniquely equipped to contribute. Such a committee should urgently evaluate the evidence of the genocide and atrocity crimes being committed against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. This is undoubtedly urgent, and I will write to the Liaison Committee urging it to think about the various options open to it.
Yesterday also saw three welcome harbingers of a change in mood music. First, some Ministers accepted the principle that they should not strike trade deals with genocidal states, allowing parliamentary oversight of trade deals with nations accused of genocide. I would like to hear a simple statement from the Minister that he too would oppose trade deals with any state credibly accused of genocide.
Secondly, we have also been told that changes strengthening supply chains will be made to the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That was repeated earlier during exchanges on the Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. It would be very helpful for your Lordships’ House to know when that will happen.
Thirdly, ahead of the vote yesterday, the Government finally announced those Magnitsky sanctions. But they left out the organ grinders, such as Chen Quanguo, referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Blackstone, during earlier exchanges on the Statement. He was the architect of the Xinjiang atrocities and indeed, before that, those in Tibet as well.
Like the famous curate’s egg, the Government’s response to the genocide amendment is there in parts. What is missing is a failure to remedy the policy that only a court can fully determine whether a genocide is occurring and there is no provision of a pathway or mechanism to do so. Undoubtedly, the parliamentary debates on the Trade Bill have exposed this argument for the sham that it is. Since earlier stages of the Bill a bad situation in Xinjiang has only got worse, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly told us.
The outgoing and incoming Administrations in the United States have recognised this as a genocide. The Canadian House of Commons, the Dutch Parliament and others have declared it to be a genocide. A 25,000-page report by over 50 international lawyers says that it is a genocide, with every single one of the criteria in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide having been breached.
Meanwhile, the BBC has been banned in China because it dared to broadcast the testimonies of courageous Uighur women who describe conditions in the concentration camps, including their “re-education”, their rape and public humiliation by camp guards. Those women have been threatened, bullied and defenestrated publicly by the Chinese Communist Party, with their characters besmirched.
Speaking only last month at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that what is afoot in Xinjiang is on an “industrial scale” and “beyond the pale”. Earlier in the year he said
“frankly, we shouldn’t be engaged in free-trade negotiations with countries abusing human rights well below the level of genocide.”
In Committee, on Report and in various iterations during ping-pong, we have tried to address the discrepancy between the rhetoric and the United Kingdom’s inability to make a declaration of genocide and whether we should continue business as usual. The reality is that some in government want to keep things as they are.
Just a week ago, during two sessions of a Select Committee of this House, key witnesses—a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the former National Security Adviser and the former head of the Foreign Office on China—declined to say when asked whether trade should continue with a state accused of genocide. One said there was not enough evidence, another said the question was too political. One rejected suggestions that Britain should distance itself from China owing to its human rights record, saying:
“I see no British prosperity without a trading relationship with China.”
Another said:
“There are many countries in the world with appalling human rights records with which we have had an economic relationship over many decades. That has been a traditional position of the UK”.
But should it be?
Two hundred years ago, the foremost champion of free trade Richard Cobden, that great northern radical, said that free trade was not more important than our duty to oppose both the trade in human beings and the trade in opium. Today, the red line should be states involved in the crime of genocide. Genocide is not one of those “on the one hand this, and on the other hand that” questions; no balance needs to be struck.
In 1948, Raphael Lemkin, who studied mass atrocities throughout the 1930s, was drafting the genocide convention. Nearly two years ago, I visited a site in northern Iraq at Simele, where Assyrians were murdered in a massacre that became a genocide. Raphael Lemkin described that, and he went on to experience the slaughter of all his extended family in the Holocaust: over 40 of his relatives were murdered. He coined the word genocide from “genos” and “cide”—“genos” being the family and “cide” being the destruction, the cutting of the family or any group that is part of it. The genocide convention came out of that. It was his way, and the way of nations, to ensure that the world would not witness atrocities like those committed by the Nazis again. But acts of genocide and atrocity crimes have continued to occur.
Since 1948, we have witnessed genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, northern Iraq and now in China, Burma, Nigeria and Tigray. That is not an exhaustive list. The response to these atrocities has always been inadequate. Whenever a genocide has taken place, there is a collective wringing of hands. But the promise to break the relentless and devastating cycles of genocide has never materialised.
In forcing Parliament to address these questions, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have helped to open the debate. I thank Members of both Houses and people outside of Parliament who have given so generously of their time in promoting and supporting this amendment. I must make special mention of the Coalition for Genocide Response, of which I am a patron, and the role of Luke de Pulford, who organised a campaign in the House of Commons. I also thank the clerks in the Public Bill office for their patience and help throughout.
The debate on the genocide amendment may now be drawing to a conclusion, but the debate it has raised in the country has begun and it will not end here.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, throughout the debate on this Bill, we have had a focus on ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to acknowledge that there has been movement by the Government and that has certainly been prompted by the Minister, who has been listening to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been absolutely determined to ensure that these issues are brought to the forefront of our attention. What we have sought to do from these Benches is to complement the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I also thank him for supporting my amendment to the Trade Bill on this issue. We wanted to ensure that there was a broad debate about human rights in relation to trade and for the United Kingdom’s commitments to match its actions, including on human rights and international obligations.
My noble friend Lord Adonis is absolutely right: we want a proper joined-up government approach to end the position of one department condemning the actions of a country committing outrageous crimes against humanity while another department signs preferential—and I mean preferential—trade agreements. We cannot allow that to continue.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, before saying a few words, I apologise in advance. I have agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the other Whips that, if this debate extends beyond 3 pm—which looks exceedingly likely—I will withdraw and go to the Economic Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. I apologise for not being here, but I will of course read all the contributions in Hansard.
I wanted to speak because this topic started before we got to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, others and I were debating an amendment not dissimilar to this one on a previous Bill, so I have been involved in this for many months—most of the year, I would say. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, did not intend this to be a lap of honour, and he will no doubt be modest, but he deserves great praise for his strength. Many of your Lordships have stood alongside him—colleagues on these Benches as well—but his moral leadership has kept us focused on this issue. Going forward, that support will continue to be important.
As other Peers have noted, there have been changes in the political landscape, as this issue has been debated—it has been changed by things such as these debates. There is widespread recognition and condemnation, here and internationally, of what is happening in China —but, sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, notes, the situation in Xinjiang has deteriorated rather than getting better. It is clear that, while the Government may repeatedly have won votes on this amendment, they are losing the wider argument about this issue.
Yesterday, we saw what some could describe as an 11th hour decision by Dominic Raab to slap sanctions on key senior Chinese officials involved, as we have heard, in the mass internment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. Of course, the timing may have helped to swing the vote against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but it is to be welcomed. We also heard the Foreign Secretary implicitly denounce Beijing itself. However—and we have heard the rationale for this from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—he fell short of using the word “genocide”. That has been at the heart of this debate: acknowledging genocide when we see it and finding ways of characterising it. This has been, and continues to be, an important part of this debate.
As such, we should remember that the atmosphere for this comes soon after the integrated review, and many would say that the Government pulled their punches on China. The Foreign Secretary’s words, reiterated by others, at best describe a moral ambiguity around the trade and genocide issue—the same ambiguity highlighted in the Prime Minister’s words. We should be clear that that ambiguous situation is sitting around the Cabinet table today: the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, spoke about a balancing act and, yesterday, the former Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, was quoted as saying that there is too much naive “optimism”, in his words, in
“assuming that the Chinese will allow us, as it were, an à la carte approach to the menu of relationships”
on trade and human rights.
As such, it is easy to detect why Dominic Raab and colleagues would want to, in a sense, target individuals, rather than the state—because that balancing act is coming through. Of course, the Government are desperate to fill a big hole in our export account, but your Lordships’ House has repeatedly shown that we should not be this desperate. If what we see—as I think this shows—is that this ambiguous view is the actual view of this Government, then we have not seen the last of this debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. Today is not a full stop in this debate; it is a semicolon.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I will now call the following eight speakers in this order: the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Lansley, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I first call the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Having been called first, I lead a very distinguished company; I am most grateful to the occupant of the Woolsack for that.
I have taken part in all these debates, and I have become increasingly impressed by the dogged, persistent leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has carried the flag with distinction throughout and is certainly not laying it down this afternoon. I have also been very impressed by the way in which the Minister has sought to respond. Although he is new to your Lordships’ Houses, I think he has a genuine understanding of how it works, and he certainly has a genuine understanding of the evil that has motivated those of us who have, on three occasions, formed part of a massive majority in your Lordships’ House.
I use the word “evil” very deliberately. One thing that I have been doing during lockdown is to read, as I am sure we all have, and I read again the three volumes of the diary of Harold Nicolson dealing with the 1930s, the lead-up to the war and the war years themselves, then carrying on until 1965. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with those diaries but, if you are not, I warmly commend them. The theme—although he does not put it in those words—particularly in the diaries covering the period from 1937 to the outbreak of the war, is that democracy cannot and must not compromise with evil. If we do, we lose our democratic credentials. Of course, one of the great evils of history was the genocide perpetrated by the Nazi regime in the war, and we have seen other things in my lifetime. Stalin’s purges began just before my lifetime and continued through. We saw terrible things happen in China under Mao Tse-Tung, and we have seen many others, in Rwanda and Bosnia—who can ever forget Srebrenica?—and with Pol Pot, as a noble Lord interjects from the back.
It is a challenge to democracy to repudiate evil. Although one may have to pay a price, which may be to lose a lucrative trade deal, there must never be compromise with evil. That, to me, has really been the theme of our three very passionate debates, and now we move towards the end. Of course, those of us who supported the various Alton amendments, as I shall call them, have not achieved all that we set out to do. But the Government have listened to a degree and have moved, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, readily recognised a few moments ago. For that, we are grateful, but I do not consider that a great victory. What I consider is that Parliament, to which government is accountable and responsible, has impressed on the Government that there are certain things in the immortal words of the great Churchill “up with which we will not put”. So this Bill is going to go on to the statute books significantly different from how it was when it was brought to your Lordships’ House, and with a recognition on the part of the Government that genocide is indeed evil and that anything approaching genocide must make us very careful about what we do.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend. I want to focus on the point that he rightly makes about the Government’s accountability to Parliament and, in particular, the question of how they are going to be accountable to Parliament. I join the tributes to the noble Lord and others, including in the other place, who have put the arguments extraordinarily well, which will be sustained into the future. I also pay tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench, not least for the constructive way he has approached all our debates throughout the consideration of this Bill.
First, before I get on to Parliament’s accountability, the Foreign Secretary, in exchanges on the Statement yesterday in the other place, said:
“the arguments around genocide and the importance of its being determined by a court are well rehearsed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 625.]
They may have been rehearsed, but they have not been resolved, and that is important. I cannot compare with the descriptions in our previous debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, who will speak in a moment, but the questions that she set out of which court, under what circumstances and by what processes genocide will be determined are absolutely instrumental. It will not be in this Bill or the Act, but we need to keep pressing on that issue.
In this Bill, not least by virtue of Sir Bob Neill’s amendment, which we now see as Amendment 3C, we have a process. We have set up that process, it is important and we need to get it right, but I want to illustrate to your Lordships that it is not sufficient. Let me give two examples. First, it relates to free trade agreements; it does not relate to our treaty-making processes in general. We will come back to this regularly, but I think we are beginning to realise, not least after leaving the European Union, that we are making treaties to a greater extent and with greater importance than previously. Parliament should play a central role in those processes, which brings me to the point that my noble friend was making about how the Government are accountable. They should be accountable, but in some respects they are not, because the exercise of the prerogative means that we are not, in Parliament, involved; we simply receive. Where free trade agreements are concerned, we are going to be involved.
Secondly, Amendment 3C refers to a “prospective FTA counter-party.” What is that? It is a state with which the Government are in negotiations relating to a bilateral free trade agreement. We have all been hearing the debate about China. The Government are not in the process of negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement with China, so the question does not arise. If the Government were to enter into a bilateral investment agreement with China, would that qualify under this amendment? I think the Government would say not. If China were to seek accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership—of which, in due course, we hope to be members—would that qualify under this amendment? I think the answer is that it would not. So we could enter into a substantive, wide-ranging free trade agreement with China without this amendment ever being invoked.
The proposition I generally make, as a member of the International Agreements Committee, is that we have an instrument in this House that I hope we will use actively to examine not only bilateral free trade agreements but the whole structure of free trade agreements and international treaties and agreements. Not neglecting the Grimstone rule, which relates to free trade agreements, we should bring forward reports on the negotiating objectives and give at least this House—and, probably by extension the other place, by remarking on what we say—the opportunity to do what my noble friend said, which is say what Parliament will not put up with. That is really important. It may not be written into law at this stage—although I suspect that it ought to be one day—but it will be a further important step in moving the public debate. Although it is not in this Bill, which will be an Act, we should be active in considering by what means we exercise scrutiny of international treaties, trade agreements and agreements generally.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Lansley. I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Alton for the way he has brought noble Lords together in support of the Muslim Uighur people and the crucial principle of our common humanity.
I have only two points to make. First, I am saddened by the Government’s position, because the genocide of the Muslim Uighur people cannot be swept under the carpet as the Government’s rejection of the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House implies. The reason is simple: to be able to sweep an issue under the carpet, one has first to be able to lift the carpet. The carpet is too heavy to lift, because it is saturated with the blood of the Muslim Uighur people, who, as we have heard, are being subjected to genocide by the Chinese Communist Party regime for the supposed crime of being Muslim.
Secondly, in a few weeks’ time, on 6 May, Muslims will vote in the local elections. I trust they, and all who care about human rights, will ask their candidates what their party is doing to stop the genocide of the Muslim Uighur people.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise for joining the debate about three minutes late. I was in a minor road traffic accident with a slowly reversing delivery vehicle. While my chariot has a few scratches on it, I do not, so I live to fight another day.
I congratulate all Peers on the superb speeches we have heard yet again today, and I thank the Minister, who has been exemplary in his courtesy in dealing with us troublesome Peers making the amendments, for his patience in defending the Government’s position. But I simply do not understand why the Government I support, which are so robust on so many matters, are so lily-livered when it comes to China—or the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party, to be more precise.
As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, we all know and understand that we have to trade with China for the time being, because we get too many vital supplies from them, and we do not yet have sufficient alternative resources onshore. So it is legitimate to say, in the medium term, and possibly even in the long term, that we have to carry on trading; and calling China a trading partner is legitimate. But in this House, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has described China as a “strategic partner”—the terminology that we would usually use to describe a NATO ally, not a country behaving as China does.
What does China do? This so-called strategic partner of ours has destroyed what remains of democracy in Hong Kong and removed all human rights. It is stealing sand banks in the South China Sea and turning them into military bases. It is threatening all its near neighbours. It is increasingly flying armed aircraft sorties into Taiwan’s airspace. It is building up massive military forces capable of invading Taiwan in the future. It has lied and lied again about the origins of Covid. It has launched a trade war with Australia, which had the effrontery just to ask for an independent inquiry into the cause of Covid—something we have never done. It has a massive cyberwarfare capability and has used it against companies and government organisations of the United Kingdom. It is running concentration camps in Xinjiang province, with up to 1 million people detained. It has been accused of genocide by Canada, Holland and the United States.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said again in his excellent speech today, last week, more than 50 lawyers published a 25,000 page report stating that every single article in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide had been broken by the Communist Party in Xinjiang. These are not the actions of a strategic partner; these are the actions of a hostile state.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend and I hope he is completely injury-free and that his chariot will be repaired at the earliest opportunity so that he maintains his mobility. I am full of awe and praise for the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I watched him with great admiration in the other place and I think that, if anything, he has come into his own in this place, so I pay huge tribute to him and those who have supported him in this. I also pay tribute to the Minister. I know there will be some disappointment on a particular aspect, but the Bill will definitely leave this place better than it was before.
I have a specific question about the sequencing of the reports that we are now going to have as trade agreements are being negotiated. We know that the Secretary of State is going to do a report, taking into account the report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which I am delighted now has a statutory basis and is on a more permanent footing. That report will come and the Government will presumably find time for it to be debated. I would like to understand better the sequencing of that report with the report that we have agreed today will also come forward if the responsible committee in the House of Commons publishes a draft report and is not satisfied with the Secretary of State’s response. Will the sequencing permit both reports to have been prepared and debated in Parliament before, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, the free trade agreement is signed by the Government and ratified by Parliament?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Polak.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that this Bill will become law, because it is important for the welfare and prosperity of this country. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Grimstone, the Minister, because he has listened and understood. I am grateful, too, to the Foreign Secretary for the limited sanctions announcement yesterday. It is progress. I also agree with a number of noble Lords that the ad hoc committee comprised of former senior judges in your Lordships’ House is an excellent idea; I look forward to seeing it become a reality. As I said earlier, I pay tribute to the 29 so-called rebels in the other place; 29 Members who have shown their humanity and voted in support of the genocide amendments. It is also clear to me that many other honourable Members of my party would have voted the right way had whipping pressure not been exerted.
On 23 February, I referred to the festival of Purim and the role that Queen Esther played in saving the Jewish people from genocide. Fortunately, there are many festivals in the Jewish calendar: this weekend, we celebrate the festival of Passover and we recall that Moses, on behalf of God, appealed to Pharaoh to “let my people go”. My appeal is that the Uighur Muslims are free to go, and free to live their lives in peace and prosperity. That will clearly come about only if we continue to apply pressure, and I will continue to follow the lead of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has just celebrated his seventieth birthday. I wish him a happy birthday. It is a Jewish tradition to wish a person “many more years, up to 120”, which gives him another 50 years of great humanitarian leadership.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I want to mention “Catch-22”. Many noble Lords who are old enough will remember that this is a novel by Joseph Heller that was made into a film. The title refers to a certain rule whereby you might not be required to take part in war if you are mentally impaired, but if you say that you are mentally impaired, it shows that you are not really mentally impaired, so you cannot claim this particular way out. I think we are infected here with the same thinking. Catch-22 is a problem whereby the only solution is denied because there is a rule that cannot be fulfilled. That, of course, is what we keep hearing repeated by the Foreign Secretary and Ministers: that the proper place to determine whether genocide is taking place is a court of law, a competent court, but the problem is that there is no competent court able to do so.
I have mentioned this before, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to it again: there is no competent court because using the International Court of Justice, which would normally determine whether a genocide was taking place, would involve one nation taking another nation before it. However, unfortunately, China has put in a reservation to the treaty establishing the court. A reservation is
“a declaration by a state made upon signing or ratifying a treaty that the state reserves the right not to abide by certain provisions of the treaty.”
So, the idea that China will say, “Yes, of course, take me to the International Court of Justice”, and not claim its reservation, is risible, as we all recognise.
The other international court that might be able to deal with a matter of genocide is the International Criminal Court. But, as distinct from the International Court of Justice—a nation-to-nation court—this is a court where individuals can be brought and held accountable for serious, egregious crimes against humanity, and indicted for genocide. However, as I said, it is individuals who are brought there. The treaty of Rome, which brought that court into existence, involved nations signing up to its jurisdiction; China did not sign up.
So, there is no international competent court to which China can be brought. Determining whether a genocide is taking place is beyond the capacity of the international courts. So what were we to do? That is why the different possibilities were presented by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in amendments to this Bill, and supported by many in this House. The suggestion was: with our courts and competent, able judges—and with one of the great prides of Britain being our legal system and senior judiciary, admired throughout the world—who better than judges in one of our own courts to determine whether there was a genocide? The alternative when that proposal failed was to say, “Well, what about getting our most senior judges, who sit in this House in retirement, to come together, look to the evidence, measure it and decide whether it reaches the standard threshold, which is high, to determine whether a genocide is taking place?”
Unfortunately, we are left with very little. International law has acquired new teeth in the form of sanctions; I mentioned them in an earlier short debate. The fact that sanctions are now being used is to be welcomed. I would like to see our Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office at the forefront in persuading nations around the world to establish regimes to deal with international law in the same way: by creating sanctions regimes, as we, the United States, the European Union, Canada and other countries have done.
Many noble Lords know that I run the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. We engaged with Japan, Australia and other countries and sought to have them join this union of democracies in creating a sanctions regime to deal with serious breaches of international human rights. We are making some progress, but it is a source of great regret to me that we have not decided to confront what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to as this dilemma, this serious problem, that we have no venue to which we can bring this serious allegation of genocide. By and large, therefore, China can get off scot-free.
We must have serious mechanisms for dealing with this. I hope that the Government are listening to the sensible and serious suggestions being made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. They could take different forms, such as a Joint Committee of Parliament or a committee of our judges in this House established by this House. We have the power to make that happen. So, yes, we are seeing some advances being made but, really, they are very slow and very small.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
Before I call the winding-up speakers, does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak? No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and endorse the points that she made. This may be the final debate on this issue for the moment, but it has nevertheless been a strong one.
In my mind, the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Adonis, got to the nub of the issue: the dilemma that we face when we seek to trade with countries that move away from the human rights standards that we seek. However, that dilemma is not new; what is perhaps new is the scale of it over the past few years. I remember clearly when, as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I and a number of committee members shook hands with the Dalai Lama on a visit to Edinburgh. An official Government of China communiqué said that the economy of Scotland would be harmed as a result of this handshake. This was 15 years ago, so there is no new element of the line—as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, put it—that the Foreign Office has trodden for a great number of years, in raising human rights aspects but also seeking to increase trade with the largest trading country in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated that it is not just FTAs that cover this gamut. I am interested to know whether the Minister at the Dispatch Box can confirm that the Office for Investment, set up and chaired by the Prime Minister, is not proactively seeking investment agreements with China at the moment. If the Minister can confirm that, that would be reassuring, because it would be a live-time example of whether or not a government office chaired by a trade Minister is seeking new financial trading relationships on a preferential basis with China. If the Minister could confirm that in his winding-up speech, I would be grateful.
Perhaps it is different now because the tightrope—as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, called it—is impossible to straddle because of, as the Foreign Secretary said, the
“industrial-scale human rights abuses.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 622.]
The question is what consequences there are in our trading relationships with preferential trade. Sir Geoffrey Nice, who is held in very high regard in this area, communicated with me and my noble friend Lady Northover today. He said something in his email which I asked his permission to quote as it really struck me. He reflected on the fact that, in my opinion, somewhere in the last two generations we have lost something. He said that we should understand and recognise that human rights exist for and should be honoured by
“every citizen of the world for every other citizen of the world, not just sometimes by some governments when it suits them.”
Some people argue that trading relationships are between businesses and people and treaty-making and diplomacy are Government-to-Government, but now, in this very interconnected and complex trading world in which we live, with comprehensive trading agreements, investment partnerships and strategic alliances, there is a wide gamut of preferential terms of access to the UK financial sector, the UK market or areas where we have sought the competitive advantage of China’s massive industrial and commercial manufacturing base.
It is the moral ambiguity that my noble friend Lord Fox and others have indicated at the heart of this Government’s policy that we have been highlighting. I would go further and say that there is a degree of intransigence and contradiction at the centre of the Government’s policy in this area. One contradiction is that the very approach outlined by the Minister today at the Dispatch Box and in his letter this afternoon, in which he describes the process now going forward, is against the mechanism that he and the Government have indicated for other trading agreements, and parliamentary approval is against UK constitutional approaches with regard to scrutiny. We cannot have both, so I hope that the Government will see that opening up scrutiny and allowing greater parliamentary say, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated, is of benefit, not against UK constitutional approaches. In my view it should be one of the core elements of the UK constitutional approach that Parliament has a key role in these areas.
I share, as have others, my noble friend’s perseverance on this issue and that of those on the Government Benches in the Commons who have consistently told the Government to think again. On our Benches, Alistair Carmichael and Layla Moran were part of a wide coalition that will not now go away. The debate that has been started—the persistence and the perseverance —indicates that there will need to be much greater comprehensive elements in the Government’s approach to trade and human rights. We have said repeatedly that there should be a trade and human rights policy that outlines the Government’s policy, with triggering mechanisms that will suspend bilateral agreements, not just FTAs, when there are significant human rights concerns.
There needs to be a triggering mechanism, because we know that the nuclear option of cancelling all trade with a country should be reserved for the most grotesque situations, as we have been debating. However, there are other situations where we wish to use UK preferential market access as a lever around the world. It is a contradiction because we have moved away from an approach, which we were party to in recent years as part of the EU, of having triggering mechanisms to suspend bilateral agreements when countries are in breach because of significant human rights concerns. Indeed, there is a contradiction at the heart of what the Government are currently doing by reinstating preferential terms for Cambodia while the EU had withdrawn them because of human rights concerns. This Government have reinstated them without any indication of why.
When it comes to wider aspects of the partnership agreements, strategic alliances and other preferential areas, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in response to the Statement earlier today, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whether any of our current preferential trading agreements with China have been suspended as a result of the alleged genocide against the Uighur community in China. It is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, did not have an answer in his briefing pack—if he had, he would have said so—so I hope that the Minister for Trade will give an indication of whether we have indicated that any preferential trade agreements with China are now open for suspension.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, indicated, it is now time to open the debate about moving some of these decisions away from Governments. If this Government are refusing to, or perhaps any Government cannot, tread the line the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, indicated, of making decisions about suspending trading relations or preferential trading relations when there are gross human rights abuses, now is the time to start debating whether the UK should have an independent trade and human rights commission, not only for the sanctions regime but for other areas of new trading relationships.
When the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was a very young MP for Liverpool—I hope he will not mind me saying so since it was his birthday recently—he was a street campaigner and coined one of things that every Liberal campaigner, including me, has copied since, which was a slogan on the focus leaflets: “A record of action, a promise of more”. We have seen his record on this issue. I know there is a promise of more. As a veteran of three trade Bills in three years, I will not say goodbye to this issue but “Au revoir” until the next one. Inevitably there will be one. These issues—the contradictions at play and the moral ambiguities—need to be ironed out. This House and many others will do our best to do so.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is the last round on the Trade Bill—for the moment, as has just been said—and, as my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State said in the other place, it has taken
“three years, two months and two weeks”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 668.]
to get to where we are today, which is quite a record and may indeed be worthy of the Guinness Book of Records. Given the length of time we have been involved in this, it is appropriate to thank all involved in this parliamentary marathon, not least both Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. Of my colleagues, I make special mention of my noble friends Lord Grantchester, Lord Bassam and Lord Lennie and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Collins, who has been taking the weight over the past few weeks while we have been discussing this issue and hoping for a better resolution than we have got.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his work in trying to forge an amendment on scrutiny issues that we could persuade the Government to accept. As he said, we have not got there yet, but it is a work in progress and I am sure we will get there eventually. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, were instrumental in keeping the pressure on in relation to non-regression of standards. I pay tribute to them for their tireless work on that, and I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been much in our thoughts in the past few weeks, particularly today. He again made a wonderful speech and covered the ground so carefully and so well that we cannot forget the issues that we have in front of us.
In almost three and a quarter years, trade policy has been transformed from being a largely commercial issue handled at arm’s length, because it was dealt with in policy terms by the EU, to being a central policy driver as important to the people of this country as every other mainstream policy—arguably more so, because trade deals that we sign in the future will shape who we are as a nation and how we will be regarded as a partner, even though we have made a bit of a bad start on that.
In some senses, the narrow issue which, sadly, is being determined today in favour of the Government, against the strong wishes of your Lordships’ House over three successive ping-pongs, is a measure of how much further we need to go to complete the work of creating an appropriate structure for the determination of trade policy in this country in the future. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out rather effectively the gaps that already exist in the new arrangements; they are not as comprehensive, and certainly not as complete, as we would wish. But he also urged us, rightly, to make the new system work and to learn the lessons from the activity in the committees and in Parliament when we are able to do so, which will allow us to inform future debates and discussions.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, in my closing remarks there are just a few points I would like to focus on. First, I am sure we would all agree that the tone of debate in this House has been excellent throughout the passage of this legislation. It is a testament to this House that we have been able to have these debates, and noble Lords should be proud of the improvements they have made to the Bill. I would like very much to join with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in thanking all the noble Lords and officials who have helped us to reach the point that we have done today.
In some areas, the Bill is not recognisable from the one that we started with. In particular, I believe that we have demonstrated through our words and actions during the passage of the Bill that trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. Indeed, I think if one wanted a fitting short title for the Bill, given the point that we have reached, that would be a perfectly admirable one: “Trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights”. Speaking personally, I find it impossible to envisage the circumstances in which Parliament would agree to any trade deal to be done with a country that is found to have committed the evil of genocide.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of the content of the FCDO’s Human Rights and Democracy report. Of course, the Foreign Office publishes that report annually, and it touches on many relevant issues, including matters concerning human rights in the context of business and the private sector. I understand completely why the noble Lord has raised these points, and I will look to see whether this can be enhanced in further reports.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about the timing juxtaposition of reports produced under the Agriculture Act and any reports produced under today’s amendment. I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness that, as no process has yet been put in place in relation to reports being produced under today’s amendment, her question is unanswerable.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I can confirm that the Office for Investment is not in the process of negotiating any investment agreements with China. Again, I can also confirm that we have no preferential trade agreements in place with China.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, himself stated in one of our earlier debates, with a memorable reference to Banquo’s ghost, that the reason he was tabling an amendment was so that the other place could take up the baton and adapt and improve his amendment. Similar statements were made by my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. This place has discharged its duties by asking those in the other place to reconsider; they have reconsidered and sent back an amendment.
I believe that the amendment passed for the second time by the other place is a reasonable and proportionate compromise that will ensure that the voice of Parliament is heard loudly and clearly on this vitally important issue going forward. The decisions to be made on future trade agreements are, of course, political decisions to be taken by the Government, but with appropriate oversight from Parliament. This is what the amendment before us now guarantees, and noble Lords can and should take pride in the knowledge that the Bill might very well not have contained such guarantees—indeed, I will go further and say that there are no circumstances in which the Bill would have contained those guarantees were it not for the sustained and passionate representations that Members on all sides of this Chamber have made over recent months. Again, I believe that the House can take pride in that, and I offer my sincere gratitude to all Members who have contributed to the debates we have had on this issue.
I hope that noble Lords can now come together to support the Government’s approach, pass this amendment and progress this Trade Bill on its way, at long last, to becoming a Trade Act, content in the knowledge that we have fulfilled our constitutional obligations and—if I may say—have done so in the most searching, diligent and passionate manner. I say to noble Lords that they have undoubtedly made this a better Bill.
Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months 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 22 February be approved.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) [V]
My Lords, these regulations amend the Marriage Act 1949 to enable the introduction of a schedule-based system for the registration of marriages in England and Wales, which will reform the way in which marriages are registered in the future.
Couples will sign a marriage schedule at their marriage ceremony instead of a paper marriage register, and all marriages will be registered by registration officers in a single electronic marriage register. For marriages taking place in the Church of England or the Church in Wales, after ecclesiastical preliminaries an equivalent document called a “marriage document” will be issued. This will remove the requirement for the 84,000 paper registers currently in use in register offices and around 30,000 religious buildings.
It should be noted that a schedule system is already in place in Scotland—this has been the case since 1855 —and in Northern Ireland. When civil partnerships were introduced in England and Wales in 2005, the opportunity was taken to modernise the registration process and use a schedule-based system. Civil partnerships have always been registered in an electronic register.
Modernising the registration process facilitates updating the marriage entry to allow for the details of both parents of the couple to be recorded instead of just the father’s name and occupation, as is currently the case. Moving to a schedule-based system is the most cost-effective way to achieve this change and will make the system of registration more secure and efficient.
The regulations amend the seldom-used Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916 so that they no longer apply in England and Wales. The regulations also make a consequential amendment under Section 5 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 to amend the Marriage Act to specify the evidence that must be provided by an individual when giving notice of a marriage for immigration purposes. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a priest in the Church of England, one of a small number of Lords temporal who conduct marriages, and so directly affected by these regulations. I hope that this is one of those times when an inside view will add something different.
These regulations make two significant changes to the way in which marriages are registered in England and Wales. I am not opposing them, but I have had representations from clergy worried about the lack of notice. One said:
“We feel a bit stunned about the timing of these changes. We were told some time ago that they were planned and then everything went quiet, and it seems like a strange time to be introducing them now, with a very short lead-in time, with many churches just reopening and the Covid guidance on weddings (and other things) likely to change again soon.”
Another said that it was proving difficult, as he was
“trying to tell brides what their ceremonies will look like now as we have a bulge of weddings in this middle of the passage of this legislation. Not enough time for transitional arrangements.”
The registration process changed on 4 May and, a few weeks later, these regulations changed the processes for marrying people subject to immigration control. EEA citizens without settled or pre-settled status will no longer be able to be married after the calling of banns or the issuing of a common marriage licence, but will have to give notice at a register office and be issued with a superintendent registrar’s certificate. This has been the process for other foreign nationals since 2015, but these changes are likely to result in a significant increase in weddings where clergy have to use this new process because so many weddings of EEA nationals take place, as opposed to others. Can the Minister help me explain to clergy why, two years after the primary legislation went through, they are getting so little notice?
Secondly, where is all the guidance? I met a wedding couple just last Wednesday to discuss their wedding, and at that point there was no official guidance or training available. The training has since appeared, but it is just a series of slides with someone reading a script in the background, and only clergy may watch it, even though in many parishes, lay people are involved in taking wedding bookings; that is from the GRO. Can the Minister explain why?
It is good that mothers’ names can be recorded in the register. The training touches on this and helpfully says:
“In some cases questioning the parentage of a bride or groom may give rise to upset, and the aim of our guidance will be to ensure that any questioning on this aspect is done well before the marriage and not on the day itself.”
I am sufficiently well trained that I was not planning to question the parentage of a bride or groom on their wedding day, but if it is to be done well before the marriage, where is the guidance? We are assured that Guidance for the Clergy will be updated in advance of going live, but it was not on GOV.UK yesterday. Can the Minister tell the House when it will be issued?
Finally, when the marriage document or schedule is signed, the regulations say that the clergyman—sic—has a legal duty to get it to the local register office within 21 days. By the way, why can it not say “clergyperson”? Can the Minister confirm that the legal duty falls on the clergyperson who officiates at the marriage, not the vicar of the church in which it happens, although he or she will also need to keep a record of the marriage? These may not be the same people. A couple may want a particular priest from their childhood or even an ordained parent to take the wedding, who might live at the other end of the country, making it inconvenient to deliver a schedule or document to the local register office. Can the Minister clarify the penalty for not delivering it on time? The Explanatory Memorandum makes no mention of penalties but there is a reference deep in the regulations to a fine at level 3 on the standard scale, so I would be grateful for confirmation.
The training tells officiating clergy that it is their legal duty to get the document or schedule to the register office, but you may
“with the consent of the couple, ask someone else, such as a family member, to return it on your behalf.”
Does this mean that the couple must give their consent for someone other than the priest to deliver the certificate? If someone else does it, is the officiant still liable if it goes astray? Can it be posted if they are not local? Who is liable if it then does not arrive?
These may seem small details, but couples plan their weddings a long way ahead and in meticulous detail. At wedding meetings, we go over every single minute of the ceremony. I am sure the Church was consulted and has been flagging up to local dioceses that these changes would happen at some point, but I am pretty sure that the urgency did not come from the Church. Therefore, can the Minister understand how unhelpful it is for this to happen with so little notice and for us to be six weeks from D-day and still with no detailed guidance available? Why were the regulations not brought forward six months ago? If that was impossible, why can their implementation not be delayed, allowing for more preparation? I hope that the Minister can answer all my questions today, but if she needs to write on anything, can she commit to doing so quickly, preferably within a week? After all, we have only six weeks until this becomes law.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I draw the attention of your Lordships to the issue of marriage registration in some sections of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom.
As many of your Lordships are aware, the marriage ceremony in a Muslim wedding is known as the nikah. It can be performed by any Muslim. However, in the UK, an imam from a local mosque is usually asked to perform this duty, and normally he would issue a marriage certificate at the end of the ceremony, but these marriages are not officially recognised until they are registered with the local registrar.
Many families have two separate wedding ceremonies, one in a mosque, at a private residence or in a wedding hall, and a separate one at the registrar’s office. In some places, the local mosques have arranged with the registrar to join them at a recognised wedding venue and register the marriage on the same day. There is no issue with either of those practices. The issue that I have come across is with those wedding ceremonies or nikahs held at a mosque, a wedding hall or at a private residence, where an imam would lead a ceremony and issue a certificate but the registrar is not aware of those weddings and they are not registered with them—hence, those weddings have no legal status.
Since there is no compulsion on registration of a marriage with an official registrar in the religion of Islam, many people do not bother with registration, and thousands of Muslim marriages in the UK are not registered. I am personally aware of many such marriages. Most of these couples are living a happily married life, but problems strike in cases of post-marriage disputes—over divorces, inheritance, pension rights and so forth. Usually, but not exclusively, it is the female left in a disadvantaged position in such cases. To protect the rights of those engaged in these unrecognised marriages, can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to work with Muslim faith leaders and local registrars to ensure that all marriages taking place in the UK are formally recognised?
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. This is indeed a historic event, the first changes to the content of a marriage register since 1837. It is a pleasure to be here today, having had the privilege of successfully taking the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Bill through this House in 2019. I give special credit to my honourable friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, Tim Loughton, who so successfully secured and piloted the Bill through Parliament in the first instance and has worked so hard to champion these issues. True to form, he spoke passionately about these regulations and raised several probing questions in Committee in the other place earlier this month. While I do not want to repeat everything that was said, I hope that the Minister will use this debate to clarify and inform the House on some of the points that he raised.
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Linda Edwards and her team in the civil registration directorate at the General Register Office, who have worked so long and hard on this issue and been so enormously helpful. I also reiterate thanks to those on all sides of this House who took part in the Bill.
I understand that everything has been hugely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic but I still question that it has taken so long to bring forward these changes. The Bill became an Act in February 2019 with strong government support and became law after Royal Assent last May. I agree with views already expressed by others that the position should have changed soon after that, especially in light of the fact that the Act includes a sunset clause which provided that if the changes were not made in just over a year, the legislation would fall and we would have to start all over again. It is indeed disappointing that this has taken so long.
As noble Lords will know, there are four sections of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019: marriage registration, extension of civil partnership, report on registration of pregnancy loss, and coroners’ investigations into stillbirths. These regulations address only the first two issues, and while I emphasise that this is most welcome—indeed, as a mother, I still find it most extraordinary that it has taken so long for mothers legally to be allowed to sign the register—I would like to use this debate to seek clarity on progress on the other two issues.
Previously described as the Bill of hatches, matches and dispatches, this light-hearted reference, while apt, perhaps did not convey the emotional and personal impact wrapped up in the fourfold practical purpose of the Act. During the initial debates, one could not fail to be moved by the sensitive issues and some of the personal stories and speeches that were given, not least those relating to coronial investigation of stillbirths, an issue that has touched me personally. Can my noble friend the Minister therefore please update the House on what progress there has been on the consultation under the Act for coroners to be able to investigate babies who die at birth without independent life?
Similarly, what progress has there been on the consultation under the Act for registration of children who are stillborn before the arbitrary and artificial existing 24-week threshold? I had been given to understand that the Minister in the other place was going to write to Tim Loughton to explain progress on these two consultations, but I gather that no letter has yet been forthcoming. However, I expect that my noble friend the Minister will have anticipated my raising these questions in the light of the debate in the other place and my Written Questions tabled last week, so I very much hope that she is in a position to give the House a detailed update.
That aside, I give my wholehearted support to the regulations before us today. They are indeed a historic and much-needed step forward, better reflecting family circumstances in society today. I very much hope that colleagues in this House will give these regulations their support and consequential safe passage, as indeed they did with the Act.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome these regulations and I hope that they indicate that the Government are in a mood to consider further changes to our arrangements for weddings in this country—as, it is clear, does the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. My particular request to the Government is that they should look again at the restrictions on where a wedding can take place. We will be faced, I hope, with a considerable surplus of weddings once the restrictions are lifted but anyway, if we were allowed to hold weddings in the open air much more easily or in moving locations, that would provide creative venues and a much-needed increased capacity for ceremonies and would be a contribution to the recovery of places such as Sussex after the Covid epidemic as well as a great delight for those who were allowed to take advantage of them. If the Government are prepared to think of going in this direction, would they be prepared to hold an online meeting with me and officials from Sussex to discuss what might be possible?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome many aspects of the Registration of Marriages Regulations and look forward to the guidance, eloquently detailed by my noble friend Lady Sherlock—I commend her expertise to the House—and the forthcoming Law Commission report due to be published in August, particularly with reference to weddings and their registration.
I am pleased to be speaking in this debate and my primary focus is to draw the House’s attention, as I have done previously, to the hundreds of thousands of unregistered marriages and the detrimental effect of such decisions, which have left countless women in particular and their families, when separated or divorced, facing destitution and without fundamental legal protection and rights. I agree with the sentiments and questions of my noble friend Lord Hussain. This is a grave matter of ensuring equality and opportunity to safeguard hundreds of thousands of British-born women, and a smaller group of men, for whom there are no legal remedies or entitlement when marriages break down.
I am therefore pleased that the Law Commission in its consultations throughout the country cited the work of the Register Our Marriage—ROM—campaign, which, alongside many leading organisations, is supportive of the Law Commission’s proposal to modernise the marriage laws. It is asking the Government to amend and modernise the Marriage Act 1949 and require all persons, regardless of their faith, to register their marriage according to the law of the land. This would send a powerful message and clarity to all parties who enter marriage. It would also remove significant imbalances of power between couples and prevent pain and suffering, as well as enabling legal support. In that context, I thank Aina Khan OBE once again for her relentless efforts and for her comprehensive briefing which underpins this contribution.
I welcome much of the regulations. An important aspect worth noting is that for the first time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, stated, mothers’ names will be recorded by acknowledging both parents. This has been an outrageous anomaly to be remedied given that it is the mothers who gave birth to both partners. I very much welcome those amendments and proposals. I also note that no other institutions will be able hold blank copies of marriage certificates, which it is proposed will be centrally held and registered, and details of marriages will be held centrally on a marriage register. That is indeed welcome news.
Finally, I have a request and a question to the Government and the Minister. In the light of the expertise our Government have developed in the past year in reaching out to communities with public health information, will the Minister assure me and this House that public education and materials on the proposed changes will be made available to all senior schools, colleges and universities, which may empower many women in particular to make informed choices and decisions, and protect and uphold their human rights?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. They are very welcome in that they allow both parents’ details to appear on a marriage certificate rather than just those of the father, as has been the case in the past. This promise was made by the then Prime Minister David Cameron in 2014. Can the Minister explain why it has taken seven years to bring about this change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, also asked? The change from a hard-copy marriage register to an electronic system of registering marriages, with its added flexibility and cost savings, is also welcome.
Can the Minister explain why the Government did not take the opportunity to introduce a uniform system across all marriages, whereby the superintendent registrar in the district where the marriage is to be solemnised issues a marriage schedule for a couple and their witnesses to sign at the marriage ceremony, which is then returned for the information to be entered into the electronic marriage register, and a marriage certificate is then issued? Why is an exemption being made for the Church of England and the Church in Wales, whereby a member of the clergy will issue a marriage document instead of the marriage schedule issued by the superintendent registrar? Marriage certificates will now be issued only by register offices, so why not marriage documents? The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has outlined how confusing this dual system is going to be.
The Explanatory Memorandum states, as the Minister has said, that the Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916 are seldom used and that their removal will enable a smooth transition to the new registration system. However, I cannot see immediately how these Acts would hinder the introduction of the new system. Can the Minister help on this point? How often are they used and what will be the impact on those who might have used the Acts?
The change to Section 28B of the Marriage Act 1949 that requires evidence of nationality to also include evidence of status or pending application for status under the EU settlement scheme is understandable. However, can the Minister remind the House what conditions other than marriage to a UK citizen have to be fulfilled before a foreign national spouse can remain in the United Kingdom? Why are the protections against sham marriage not sufficient? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the regulations before the House. I welcome the modernisation of the system, which allows the details of a mother and father to be documented together and provides flexibility for necessary future changes. This is a modernising measure from the technological perspective and the values perspective; I am pleased to see both. It is also interesting to note from the Minister’s speech that it has taken only 166 years to follow the lead of Scotland in this regard; I am pleased to see that we have finally got there.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock referred to the speed of these changes—that we have waited so long—and their going on to the statute book two years ago. That could cause some problems for couples and celebrants: the priests, vicars and registrars who marry people. It would be good if the Minister explained why there is this haste at the last minute, having taken so long in the first place. This is important. I have been married only once—I have no intention of getting married again, having been happily married for the past 17 years —and unless you are actually involved in marrying people, you do not know about these changes. It is important to understand why we are moving so quickly at the last minute.
The delegated legislation we are dealing with may well, in years to come, be of interest to historians and genealogists because we will be able to see what the mother’s occupation was. When people look back in 100 years’ time, there will be some valuable information about what was going on in Britain at this point and in the years going forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, raised the important issue of post-marriage disputes in the Muslim community where the marriage has not been registered. That is a fair point, which I hope the Minister can help with. We want to avoid people who become destitute having further problems. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, asked important questions about stillborn children; I hope that the Minister can respond. Having said that, I am delighted to support the changes before the House today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. One of the most common questions, put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is why it has taken so long to see any action on this point. The Home Office has been considering options for updating the marriage entry to include the mother’s name, but it has not been straightforward. Any changes obviously require funding, system changes and legislation, all of which must be considered before bringing forward any proposals. Of course, we have had the huge matters of Brexit and the pandemic to contend with. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about the date of implementation. That was announced when the regulations were laid, on 22 February. That was seen as a good time, before we move into peak wedding season, to bring forward these changes. I suspect that a backlog of marriages is about to come forward.
The noble Baroness also asked about the Church. I take the opportunity to thank the Church of England, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans; I know that officials from the Church of England and the Church in Wales have been working closely with us throughout the policy development. They are very much in favour of these reforms because they will bring a number of efficiencies to the existing registration process. They have been very positive indeed. I can also tell the noble Baroness that the guidance for clergy will go out as soon as possible. The term “clergy” is a long-standing one and we have left as it stands. However, I understand the point she made.
The noble Baroness also asked about the various “what ifs” in terms of the timeline. If the schedule or the document is not returned to the register office within the specific timescale, the superintendent registrar will contact the relevant person to advise that the marriage must be registered and to make arrangements for that to happen. It will be an offence not to return the signed schedule or document to the register office. Regarding what would happen if it gets lost or damaged in the post, if the document is damaged before it has been registered by the registrar general, if they are satisfied that the marriage has been solemnised, they will authorise the schedule document to be reproduced and arrangements will be made with the couple, their witnesses and the person or persons who officiated at the marriage to sign another schedule or document, so that the marriage can be registered and the marriage certificate issued.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, made very good points about the legality of marriages in the Muslim community. We heard a lot about this issue when considering the Domestic Abuse Bill—people with a niqab not having their marriage legalised, and the problems that that can cause. I recognise the point that was made. Of course, these regulations are only about marriage registration and not wider marriage law. I will write to the noble Baroness regarding the progress of coronial inquests into stillbirth because I do not have the up-to-date position on the timelines.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about where weddings can take place. As far as I know, weddings can be held in an awful lot of places; we are spoilt for choice. However, I will write to him if I have any further updates. I can also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that question and answer sessions will be taking place in April on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was asking about the difference in systems. As a Catholic, I know that there has always been a difference in systems. The C of E is, obviously, the established Church. We have not removed the ecclesiastical preliminaries for the Church. The marriage document will contain the same information as the marriage schedule, and we are not introducing universal civil preliminaries; we are just keeping in place what is already in place for the Church of England. He also asked me—this is not part of the regulations, I think—about the other obligations on a prospective spouse. Clearly, there are rules on salary specifically for residency.
I think that covers about everything, but if I have not covered anything I shall write to noble Lords. I finish by thanking my noble friend Lady Hodgson for the work she has done on this. I also particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the Church of England and the indomitable Linda Edwards, who has aided so efficiently the passage of what is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, a welcome statutory instrument.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Before we move on to the next business, we will have a small breather to allow people to escape the Chamber.
Extradition Act 2003 (Codes of Practice and Transit Code of Practice) Order 2021
(3 years, 8 months 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 22 February be approved.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the order will update our existing codes of practice for police powers under the Extradition Act 2003 and introduce a new code of practice for non-UK extradition transit. First, I will deal with the codes covering police powers. These revised codes of practice govern the way in which the police use their powers under Part 4 of the Extradition Act. They relate to search and seizure, applications for warrants and production orders, entry to premises and the treatment of detained persons after arrest in extradition cases.
The updated codes take account of changes which have been made to the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice, commonly known as PACE codes, on which the extradition codes of practice are based. They also incorporate necessary changes brought about by the new power of arrest granted in the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020. The codes of practice currently in use were published in September 2011. These changes therefore bring the codes fully up to date, providing operational clarity for policing. Amendments have also been made to set out more clearly the procedural rights for individuals on arrest and throughout the subsequent extradition proceedings.
The code of practice for non-UK extradition transit will provide the basis for transit through the UK in extradition cases. This will enable the UK to fulfil certain treaty obligations, including those established as part of the new surrender arrangements with the European Union. Extradition transit occurs when a country allows an individual who is being extradited to pass through its territory, while remaining in police custody, where a direct route between the countries concerned with the extradition request is not possible.
As the House will know, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 made amendments to the Extradition Act 2003, setting out the legal basis to enable people being extradited from one third country to another to transit through the United Kingdom. Those provisions cannot be commenced without this code of practice coming into operation to underpin them. The code therefore sets out the appropriate powers and guidance for UK police to facilitate this operational activity as necessary.
Commencing these transit provisions is important for the UK so that we can comply with our treaty obligations, as I have outlined, and to assist our international extradition partners in bringing fugitives to justice. They are particularly important at this time, when travel and modes of transport are disrupted and restricted by the current pandemic.
The House will want to know that any decision to grant a request for transit is discretionary. It would be considered only if the requesting country and destination country were ones that we would regularly extradite to and where we have international obligations that require us to do so. A risk assessment in consultation with law enforcement partners and Border Force is also required before any request can be granted.
Both codes being presented today have been the subject of public consultation, as well as detailed consultation with operational partners, including law enforcement, Border Force and the devolved Administrations, and have been updated to take consultation responses into account. The codes will provide a comprehensive and accessible resource for operational partners. For individuals subject to extradition, they will act as a reference to their rights. The legislation will further ensure that there is no disparity between our international obligations and domestic law.
If this statutory instrument is approved by Parliament, these codes will be brought into operation on 1 May 2021. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am conscious that this is a complicated issue and that we in Parliament have to debate under the draft affirmative procedure and give our consent. I am not experienced in this area, but I looked closely at the Extradition Act 2003 code of practice. I studied some of the 63 pages. The code of practice is in principle 18 years old, so it is not surprising that some changes are being made. I have a few questions that arose from some of the reading I have done, first on search warrants, where an entry is made into a property or premises without a warrant for the purpose of arrest or a search of the premises. Has there been any change in the procedure over this period of 18 years? What happens when things go wrong, or perhaps not to plan? Does the aggrieved party have a right to an appeal or is there a review mechanism?
I notice that paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, entitled “European Convention on Human Rights”, states that, in the view of the Commons Minister, the provisions
“are compatible with the Convention rights.”
I just wondered whether anybody has ever challenged that.
I note that paragraph 7.2 talks about
“PACE Codes and how arrests are to be carried out in relation to these new arrest powers. These codes do not apply to Scotland.”
Has that changed? I presume that originally they applied to Scotland; perhaps I am wrong. If they applied but do not now, is that because of something that was done at the time of devolution, or was there some other change in relation to Scotland?
In paragraph 7.4, towards the end, there is a sentence starting:
“Some modifications were made following consultation and further modifications were recently made via direct consultation with operational partners”.
It would be helpful to know in what area those modifications were and whether they were substantial or what I might call of minor interest.
I am not clear about paragraph 8.1 on the European arrest warrant. I am not quite sure what has happened to that.
Finally, under paragraph 12, “Impact”, how often do we have transit requests and are operations undertaken? Is this something that happens a few times a year, or are we regularly called on to help with transit arrangements?
I should be most grateful to the Minister if she can give some response to those questions either now or later in writing.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, these are straightforward regulations and on that level I support them. It is clearly important that our police should have clarity on these issues and that the code provides a necessary update. When people are being extradited, it is clearly essential that they can access legal support and the code enables that, among other things.
However, there are broader issues with extradition. I fear that our police are caught in a situation that is still deeply unfair for British citizens. I refer, of course, to the imbalance between the UK and the US, in the 2003 extradition treaty. On 12 February last year, our Prime Minister said:
“I do think that elements of that relationships are unbalanced, and it is certainly worth looking at”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/20; col. 846.]
But, more than a year later, it has not been looked at. Our police are being asked to help in a process that can see UK citizens extradited to the US for crimes committed entirely in the UK and involving UK citizens and businesses.
When the 2003 Act was first brought in, it was envisaged that it would deal with paedophiles, terrorists and murderers. In fact, the subject of extradition to the US has been almost entirely white-collar crime. It appears that the US has the ability to reach out around the world on commercial crime, so our police will necessarily be involved in dealing with people not only from the UK who are subject to extradition, but in transit from other countries to the US, where they, like our citizens, will face a legal process that is weighted against them. The US legal system is very different from ours and, although it is clear from these documents that we will not extradite or aid the extradition of those who could be subject to the death penalty, we will be involved in extraditing those who could be subject to extraordinarily long prison sentences in conditions which, many would argue, are not conducive to complying with human rights legislation.
The plea bargaining system is essentially unfair. Why American citizens accept it I do not know, but surely the UK should stand up against such an unfair system of justice and safeguard our citizens, and potentially those of other countries, who are subject to the unfairly long reach of the US judicial arm.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I agree very strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, because there is a huge imbalance between us and the US, and it is time to do something about it. The Prime Minister said he would, but he says a lot of things and you cannot rely on any of them.
In looking through this code of practice, it is worrying that the police not only have been dragged into immigration enforcement in this country but are now being used to ferry extradited prisoners in transit between two other countries. I would very much like to know, if the Minister can answer me, how the police were consulted, when and in what form. This is important, because the police have been dragged into this very sensitive area.
One other specific area that is woefully neglected in this code of practice is the guidance for refugees and people claiming asylum. The issue gets one paragraph of guidance at paragraph 1.10 and a requirement to keep records at paragraph 4.20. It says:
“If the person in transit claims that they are a refugee or have applied or intend to apply for asylum, a constable or custody officer must ensure that the relevant immigration authorities are informed, as soon as practicable, of the claim. The immigration authority may then inform the constable or custody officer of any action that he or she may take.”
This is worrying for many reasons, not least because the immigration authorities are constantly making wrong and unlawful decisions about refugees and people seeking asylum. There is no provision here for these people to seek independent legal advice and to be supported to exercise their important rights.
Paragraph 4.19 allows legal advice to be arranged via the citizen’s embassy, but that may be of little use or actively harmful if the person is seeking asylum against that very country.
Paragraph 4.20 requires record keeping of communications with the immigration authorities regarding claims for asylum or refugee status, but those records are of no use if the person is quickly shipped off to their destination country, with no recourse to the UK courts.
Worse still, the guidance at paragraph 1.10 requires the immigration authorities to be informed “as soon as practicable” of an asylum or refugee claim. It is easy to foresee circumstances where the police would say that it was not practicable to inform the immigration authorities before the person was shipped off to their destination country—for example, if the police were simply escorting a prisoner between two connecting flights.
It seems that this code of practice is completely unfit for purpose when it comes to the rights of refugees and people claiming asylum. Lives will be ruined and huge injustices caused as a result of police following this guidance. The police will therefore bear the brunt of this and not the Government. Can the Minister therefore please undertake to go back to the department and revise this code to protect refugees and people claiming asylum properly?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. From what I understand, an extradition case in 2002 called into question whether the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which usually covers the matters referred to in Part 4 of the Extradition Act 2003, applies to cases where the alleged offence was committed abroad. The 2003 Act sets down police powers on extradition cases but, where the A are silent on any matter, police officers need to refer to the PACE codes of practice.
As the Minister said, Part 4 of the 2003 Act deals with police powers, including search and seizur warrants, production orders, entry and search in order to arrest and after arrest, search of the person arrested including intimate searches, the taking of fingerprints and DNA samples, and photographing of the person and of any identifying marks or scars in order to establish the person’s identity—in other words, the powers contained in PACE. The Secretary of State must issue codes of practice in connection with the exercise of those powers.
The instrument brings into operation updated codes of practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland under the 2003 Act and a new code of practice for non-UK extradition transit throughout the UK, where the person being extradited is transiting through the UK but is not being extradited to or from the UK. The latter was added to the 2003 Act by Section 168 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The existing codes of practice under the 2003 Act date from 2011 and, as the Minister explained, there have been changes to PACE and a new power of arrest brought in by the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020, since 2011. The changes to both codes of practice have been consulted on, but further changes have been made, including amendments relating to the new power of provisional arrest introduced by the 2020 Act.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union. This takes us back to when we debated the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020, when the House noted that the legislation had been brought forward just as the UK was losing access to the European arrest warrant. Despite the Government’s denials that the two were linked, they then added all EU member states to the list of category 2 territories.
But I digress. I have two questions for the Minister. On examination of the updated Extradition Act 2003 codes of practice, it is unclear to me how they differ from the PACE codes of practice. Can the Minister explain what the main differences are, if any?
Upon examination of the Code of Practice for Non-UK Extradition Transit, it was unclear to me the differences between when a person is in transit and the relevant UK authority has issued a transit certificate under Section 189A of the 2003 Act, and when a person makes an unscheduled arrival in the UK and a transit certificate will not have been issued. Can the Minster please explain what those differences are? Otherwise, we support the order and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Government are required to issue codes of practice in respect of the use of police powers in extradition cases under the Extradition Act 2003. These codes of practice update existing police powers codes published in 2011. The update is needed to reflect the use of police powers in relation to updated Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes and the new power of arrest under the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020. The police powers codes do not apply to Scotland.
The transit code of practice, which applies across the United Kingdom, sets out the powers for police during non-UK extradition transit under the 2003 Act: that is, allowing a person who is being extradited between two countries—neither of which are the UK—for the purpose of standing trial or serving a sentence to pass through our territory in custody. A constable can be authorised to escort the person from one form of transportation to another, take the person into custody to facilitate the transit, and to search for any item which the person might use to cause physical injury.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that
“Revised 2003 Act Police Powers Codes were consulted on in 2015”,
and again last year, and that
“The draft Transit Code of Practice was published for consultation in 2015. Some modifications were made following consultation and further modifications were recently made”.
Is the draft transit code of practice just being brought into operation, or has it been in operation since the consultation in 2015? If it is not already in operation, which appears the case despite consultation in 2015, why the delay since 2015?
On the Extradition Act 2003 codes of practice, the letter from the Minister of 22 February 2021 states that, in 2015, draft changes in respect of PACE codes were consulted on and agreed. However, revised codes were not subsequently laid. Why was that?
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The approach to monitoring of this legislation is for the Home Office to closely monitor the impact of this Order.”
Could the Government explain exactly what that means in practice in relation to both the Extradition Act 2003 codes of practice and the Code of Practice for Non-UK Extradition Transit?
On the Code of Practice for Non-UK Extradition Transit, who has the power to give authority to a constable to take the person into custody to facilitate the transit, and how is the use of that authority under the transit code of practice monitored, and by whom? The letter of 22 February states:
“A decision to grant any request for transit will be discretionary. We would only expect to grant a request if the requesting country and the destination country are ones we would regularly extradite to and where we have international obligations that require us to do so”.
When the order was debated in the Commons, the Minister said:
“we would not allow transit if … the death penalty may be an issue”,
and that
“we do not agree extradition to all countries in the world, given our concerns about human rights.”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/21; col. 6.]
Assuming that also applies to the code on extradition transit, could the Government say how many countries in the world we do not agree extradition to, given our concerns about human rights?
In the light of the Government’s statements to which I just referred, how often is it anticipated that the powers under the transit code of practice will be exercised this year and next year? How many countries are there that we regularly extradite to and where we also have international obligations that require us to do so, as referred to in the letter of 22 February?
On both codes of practice, is the monitoring on a continuous basis or at set intervals? Does the Home Office or any other body produce a written report available to Parliament on the findings of its close monitoring of the order and how the powers are being exercised?
When the order was debated in the Commons, my colleague the shadow Minister referred to the formal response paper to the consultation that has been published by the Home Office. That paper indicated that suggestions had been put forward on the issue of search and seizure provisions and on legal professional privilege material, but then said that these concerns were already adequately reflected in the codes. The shadow Minister asked for some additional assurances, including what the original concerns were and why they would be raised if they had already been addressed. The government Minister said that he would
“provide slightly more detail in writing.”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/21; col. 6.]
I am not sure whether that has been done yet, but could I also have a copy of that response, since I assume that the Government will not be able to take this issue any further forward in their response today?
The shadow Minister also referred to concerns raised about the then unknown future provisions for extradition proceedings with EU member states post Brexit, and asked about the implementation of the new arrangements and their operational efficacy. In short, he asked:
“is extradition now working as frictionlessly as under the previous regime?”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/21; col. 4.]
Since some EU states have a bar on the extradition of their own nationals beyond the European Union and we are now no longer a member of the EU, does that mean that some criminals who would have been extradited under the previous regime can no longer be extradited?
The Minister in the Commons said of the new arrangements:
“On the operational positions with the European Union, our initial feedback is that they appear to be working fairly well.”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/21; col. 5.]
That suggests that extradition is not now working as frictionlessly as under the previous regime. Could the Government, in their response in this House, spell out in rather more detail exactly what the Minister in the Commons meant when he said that the new arrangements were working “fairly well”? What precisely does that mean in practical terms?
We are not opposed to these codes, which are intended to enhance national security and protect our communities—a top priority issue that can be delivered while also protecting our rights and freedoms. However, I hope that the Government will be able to respond, now or subsequently, to the points and questions that I and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have raised and asked.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, because I did not hear part of his speech. However, he asked about changes in extradition practices. The principles of extradition remain the same, although clearly there are countries that we may add or subtract.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how many countries we extradite to. I do not have the total in my head, but he can see that in the list of Part 1 and Part 2 countries. My noble friend also asked whether our practices were compatible with human rights. Yes, that is a clear principle of our extradition approach.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft asked about extradition to the US. The US-UK treaty is out of the scope of this debate, but clearly we would, if appropriate, seek death penalty assurances from the US. It would not depend on the issue; we would seek those assurances. In terms of transit, we will not transfer either to or from a country with human rights abuses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked about the police. We have extensively consulted them and they are content. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, silence on any matter means that they refer to the PACE codes. The noble Baroness also asked about asylum seekers. This extradition process is a very clear court process by which we would return or receive someone to face sentence either here or in another country. Anyone who wishes to seek asylum obviously can do so when they arrive in this country. However, this order is not predominantly about asylum seekers but about a court process.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about various processes. There are two main changes. The updated extradition codes of practice take account of changes made to the relevant PACE codes on which the extradition codes of practice are based. While police practice is always to refer to them as recent PACE codes, as the noble Lord pointed out, the draft codes of practice have been updated to reflect the most recent amendments to the PACE codes. As he said, most amendments are in respect of PACE code C, which deals with arrest, detention and treatment of persons detained under the 2003 Act. There are also some amendments in respect of PACE code D, which applies to the identification of persons detained under the 2003 Act.
The second change, the new power of arrest brought about by the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020, applies only to Part 2 of the 2003 Act. The provision applies only in principle to a specific and limited number of Part 2 countries—the Five Eyes countries, Switzerland and Liechtenstein—meaning that the number of arrests that would rely on it would be relatively low. However, it is essential that the revision to police powers in the 2003 Act is appropriately reflected in updated codes of practice at the earliest opportunity.
In terms of transit arrangements, a request for extradition transit from any country is subject to approval. The usual safeguards concerning human rights compatibility continue to apply in all extradition cases. Requests for transit that concern countries outside the European Union will be considered by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the policy set out in the overseas security and justice assistance—OSJA—guidance must be applied where necessary. We would expect to proceed only if the requesting country and destination countries are ones that we would regularly extradite to and where we have international obligations that require us to do so: that is, the provision will be used only for extraditions taking place according to a treaty or on a similar international legal basis.
Transit would also be refused if the person has already been convicted for the same offence in the UK or another country on the grounds of double jeopardy or if a person has been, or could be, sentenced to death. Additionally, when considering any request, key risks or concerns will be considered before a decision is made. These include risks to the person in transit or to others. This would be assessed from information concerning the relevant offence, any history of violent behaviour and any significant health issues that it is mandatory for the requesting country to provide.
I turn to other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the Minister in the Commons who said that the new arrangements were working fairly well. I cannot comment on what was in his mind, but I shall study the relevant Hansard and return to the noble Lord in writing. He asked whether the arrangements were already in operation or had just been brought in. These codes will be brought in on the passage of this statutory instrument. The noble Lord also asked for a letter from the Commons Minister when it is ready. Yes, definitely. He mentioned some countries that would not allow extradition. There are a few countries that will not allow the extradition of their own nationals. In those situations, the individuals are tried in their own country and remedies sought thereafter.
The last question was why this legislation had taken so long to come into force. Legislation passed in 2014 made amendments to the Extradition Act 2003. Provisions were not commenced earlier, partly due to the competing policy and parliamentary priorities that I mentioned in the debate on the previous statutory instrument, and also due to complexities in determining how transit should best operate in practice. I am pleased to say that those issues are now resolved.
If I have not addressed any questions, I will do so in writing.
Motion agreed.
Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Order laid before the House on 3 February be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument relates to the renewables obligation renewable electricity support scheme. The renewables obligation was introduced in 2002 to provide a subsidy for electricity generation from renewable sources. It covers onshore and offshore wind, solar, hydro, biomass et cetera. The scheme is now closed to new applications, although support for existing stations continues. The scheme closes finally in 2037.
The scheme was part of a programme of measures aimed at stimulating the renewables industry to enable ambitious climate change targets to be met. Without subsidy, the nascent renewables sector would have struggled to make headway in a market dominated by the established heavyweights of coal, gas and nuclear. The renewables obligation had an initial target of 10% renewable electricity by 2010, but today around 30% of the electricity supplied in the UK is supported under the scheme.
Of course, the scheme needs to be paid for, and this falls upon electricity suppliers. They currently provide almost £6.5 billion of subsidy per year to renewable generators. These costs are then passed on to their customers via their bills, adding about £70 per year to the average domestic electricity bill. Costs will fall from 2027 as generators start reaching the end of their period of support and then exit the scheme.
The draft SI deals with a technical matter, which relates to supplier payment default. More specifically, it aims to prevent electricity suppliers being unduly exposed to the unpaid bills of competitors who fail to meet their obligations. The renewables obligation actually comprises three separate but interlinked schemes: the renewables obligation covering England and Wales, the renewables obligation Scotland, and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation. The Scottish and Northern Irish Governments are responsible for their own schemes. The UK Government cover the England and Wales scheme; the matter under debate today therefore applies only to England and Wales.
The renewables obligation is a traded scheme. It places an obligation on electricity suppliers to obtain a certain number of green renewables obligation certificates in proportion to the amount of electricity they supply to their customers. Certificates are issued to renewable generators, for free, by Ofgem in relation to the amount of renewable electricity they generate. Suppliers typically buy these certificates, providing generators with an income stream over and above electricity sales revenues. Certificates are usually in short supply, so suppliers may make a cash payment, called a “buy-out” payment, in lieu of each certificate. The buy-out price is about £50 per certificate for the current renewables obligation year, and about 10% of the scheme is met this way. At the end of the scheme year, the cash fund is recycled back to those suppliers who met their obligation with certificates. This gives certificates additional value over and above the original buy-out price.
In recent years, an increasing number of suppliers have defaulted on their obligations under the scheme. Payment default leaves a shortfall in the cash fund, meaning that recycle payments are lower than they would otherwise have been. This lowers the value of certificates, which ultimately impacts generators’ returns. The scheme therefore features a “mutualisation” mechanism, which offers protection against payment default. Under the mechanism, shortfalls in the cash fund are recovered from all other suppliers and recycled back to those suppliers who met their obligation with certificates. However, the mechanism is triggered only when the shortfall exceeds a £15.4 million threshold. Mutualisation has been triggered in each of the past three years. In total, £173 million has been mutualised across suppliers in England and Wales. Electricity suppliers and their customers are therefore unhappy about the situation.
In December 2020, the Government consulted on a proposal to amend the mutualisation threshold so that mutualisation would be less easily triggered. It was proposed that the £15.4 million threshold should be replaced with a new threshold, calculated annually as 1% of the cost of the scheme. This 1% is broadly equivalent to the arrangements that were in place when mutualisation was first introduced into the scheme in 2005. Since then, the threshold has been gradually eroded in relative terms; it is now equivalent to just 0.25% of the scheme costs. This means that mutualisation can now be more easily triggered. In other words, the risk associated with supplier payment default has become increasingly tilted away from generators and towards other suppliers.
Our proposal and draft SI seek to redress the balance of risk. In the first year, the threshold will rise to about £62 million. This will ensure that suppliers and their customers are not unduly exposed to the unmet renewables obligation bills of other suppliers. Generators will face an increased risk that unmet obligations will remain unrecovered. This will have a small impact on the value of certificates. However, the new level of risk is broadly equivalent to where it was originally in 2005. In this respect, the SI can be considered restorative.
This draft instrument makes minor technical changes to the Renewables Obligation Order 2015 so that a fixed £15.4 million threshold is replaced with a threshold calculated on an annual basis. As I said earlier, the new threshold is determined as 1% of the forecast scheme cost for the year ahead. It also places a new requirement on the scheme’s administrator—in this case, Ofgem—to calculate and publish the threshold ahead of each obligation year.
In conclusion, the emergence of payment default and cost mutualisation under the renewables obligation is of increasing concern to electricity suppliers. Through no fault of their own, electricity suppliers have become increasingly exposed to the unmet obligations of their competitors, whereas renewables generators have seen their returns increasingly protected. The draft instrument will restore the original balance of risk between generators and suppliers. It will make it harder for mutualisation to be triggered, so suppliers will be less likely to be exposed to the unmet obligations of other suppliers. This is, of course, good news for consumers; they should benefit because the likelihood of mutualisation costs being passed on to them will be lower.
These legislative changes need to be effective on 1 April to enable them to take effect in respect of the next renewables obligation year, which runs from April 2021 to March 2022. Consequently, and subject to the will of Parliament, this draft instrument will enter into force on 31 March 2021. With that, I commend this order to the House.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome my noble friend Lord Kamall to his place on the occasion of his maiden speech. I look forward with interest to his contributions, not only to the proceedings today but in future. He has chosen a good subject because this order is welcome. As Minister for Energy when the Government introduced the first non-fossil fuel obligation, almost—I dare to say—30 years ago, it set the framework for welcome successor initiatives, one of which we are debating this afternoon. Today, the renewables obligation scheme is considerably, and understandably, more complex but nevertheless welcome. It comprises three elements, including the scheme under consideration this afternoon, namely that covering England and Wales.
I will concentrate my few remarks on the representations made by Citizens Advice in its response to the Government regarding proposed changes to the utilisation arrangements under the renewables obligation scheme. I agree with the proposals put forward in the Government’s consultation and call for evidence regarding the proposed changes to mutualisation arrangements under the scheme. However, I would appreciate the opportunity to hear from the Minister more about the thinking behind the Government’s response to the request to require more frequent renewables obligation payments by suppliers. This request was made to offer more protection to consumers and generators and to constrain bad debts from escalating more quickly.
We have all seen that the financial strain on suppliers has led to energy supply company failures, affecting over a million energy customers. Such failures result in financial detriment as well as stress for consumers whose energy supply company fails, and higher costs mutualised among all consumers. The largest unexpected costs come from renewable obligation mutualisation, placing additional financial strain on energy suppliers, and resulting in higher costs for consumers.
Does my noble friend the Minister take the view that his order restores the balance of risks between suppliers who set aside money to pay their renewables obligation and suppliers who do not? It is my view that a more regular supplier payments schedule, as is the case in other schemes, would be a constructive way of reducing overall risk rather than shifting risk from suppliers to generators. Requiring more frequent payments, in addition to Ofgem’s principles-based rules around financial responsibility and the Government’s proposed changes to the RO mutualisation threshold, remain approaches worthy of further review. So, in the interest of clarity, can my noble friend the Minister provide the House with further insight as to what happens if there is a shortfall in the buy-out fund and suppliers do not meet their obligation?
Finally, will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s thinking as to how they balanced the responses to the consultation exercise, where there was clearly a significant discrepancy between views? Those in favour of the proposal to link the mutualisation threshold to the annual cost of the scheme were in stark contrast to the majority of respondents with an interest in electricity generation, who disagreed with the proposal, believing it would lower the value of ROCs, since lowering the value of ROCs by raising the threshold would make it harder to recoup the costs from suppliers when there was a shortfall in the fund.
Lord Kamall (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, thank you for the opportunity to give my maiden speech in this debate today. I start by thanking noble Lords on all sides of the House, as well as Black Rod and her staff, doorkeepers, police officers, advisers and all the other wonderful staff for their warm welcome and guidance, especially during these tough and challenging times. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Callanan for introducing me to the House last month. Both have offered me friendship and advice over the years; I will not say it has always been good advice.
When my appointment to this House was announced, a friend said to me, “It’s an awful long way from Lower Edmonton to the upper House for the son of an immigrant bus driver.” I am sure some of you may be thinking, “Oh no, not another one”; after Sajid Javid and Sadiq Khan, in British politics it seems you wait ages for the son of an immigrant bus driver and then three come along at once.
My father, who sadly passed away a few months ago, would often tell us that there is no limit to what you can achieve if you believe in yourself, believe in God, and work hard. But he would also remind us that not everyone can be as fortunate, that we should not forget those who are left behind, and we should look for ways to help them. During my time as an MEP for London, I worked to highlight the work of local community non-state projects that were tackling poverty and social exclusion, and I hope to continue to do so in the future. I also hope that I can honour my father’s memory by making a difference and inspiring others to make a difference too.
If my father was the talker, my mother—like in many marriages, I suspect—was the doer. When I did not get into the local grammar school, despite getting good grades, my mother marched me down to the office of the local Member of Parliament, Ted Graham, later Lord Graham of Edmonton. His first question to me was, “Young man, what do you want to do when you grow up?”, to which I immediately replied, “I want your job.” Although he was pleased that I did get into the school thanks to his help, as a Labour MP I suspect that he was probably relieved that I did not get his job. But by following in his footsteps and adopting the title of Edmonton, I hope that in time, I will earn the same respect that he did during his time in this House.
Turning to the subject of today’s debate, given that we have this scheme of renewables obligation certificates with a mutualisation mechanism, it makes sense to review the threshold, especially since it was first introduced in 2005. But in the absence of market mechanisms, the challenge for any government central planner is to set a threshold that finds the right balance between the interests of renewables generators and those of electricity suppliers and consumers, especially if renewable energy is seen to mean higher prices for the poorest customers.
As someone who studied engineering as an under- graduate and then went on to work for an economic think tank, I am really excited by the innovations that we are seeing in renewable energy, especially the increased efficiency of renewable power generation—wind, solar and other forms of renewables. I hope that one day soon, renewable energy will be cheap enough to be competitive in a market environment and that we will no longer need state interventions, such as the renewables obligation certificate and the Government setting thresholds.
Once we see a breakthrough in battery storage capacity, this will open up huge new possibilities and could have huge implications for utilities, with local renewable energy regeneration and storage, both on and off grid. This decentralisation will present both opportunities and challenges for electricity suppliers. Furthermore, using renewable energy for electrolysis also offers the potential of green hydrogen providing a clean transport solution for the future.
Innovation, new technology and the fight against poverty are subjects that I hope to return to in future interventions, but for now, I thank your Lordships for listening, and look forward to working with noble Lords across the House for many years to come.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, before I address the subject of this debate, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Kamall and congratulate him on his maiden speech, which, typically, was informative, knowledgeable and entertaining. I say “typically” because I had the pleasure and honour of working closely with my noble friend for many years as a fellow Member of the European Parliament. I see some other familiar faces around the Chamber today as well. We both had the privilege of high office there, but it is much to the credit of my noble friend that he continued almost to the end of the mandate for UK representation to uphold the positive principles of engagement with many other national representatives, especially in our parliamentary group, of which he was leader. In doing so, he ensured continuing and great respect for our country and for himself. I am sure that he will achieve much in our House.
We live in a changing world. On this day in particular, one year on from the start of the Covid crisis, many of us are reflecting on the future as we remember the past. So many things are changing and in need of change, no more so than in the field of the environment, with the UK hosting the COP 26 conference later this year, and as part of that policy area in the way our energy needs are met as we move towards a zero-emission outcome.
Some will say that everything was much simpler in the old days. My late father worked in the electricity supply industry. Coal-fired power stations were all over the place in my native north-east, and consumers obtained their power from local and regional monopolies. The thread from generator to consumer—or wire— was direct and understandable. The measure before us demonstrates how complicated we have become in the ways in which we compensate our generators for renewable energy initiatives, and how our free-market instincts, while they are generally of benefit to consumers, can go wrong.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I am not going to delve too far into the technical and administrative details of the renewables obligation scheme, except to comment that it should perhaps have been monitored better from the start and taken, as we are now doing with this measure, at a much earlier point. The key moment was in 2015, when the new licence arrangements to possible new entrants to the electricity supply sector were formulated. Encouraging new entrants, especially those offering an emphasis on green energy, was good news, and today we have a much wider choice of suppliers, tariffs and sources of power, but that change has also resulted in problems with the ROC scheme. Some of the new entrants have failed, some have not honoured their obligations to pay the sums agreed to in order to undercut rivals and, despite the intervention of Ofgem a year or so ago to tighten up the rules of entry into the market, the shortfall of moneys due has continued.
As I understand it, the impact on generators should be minimal with these provisions unless the value of certificates is reduced because of any shortfall in the cash fund caused by suppliers defaulting on their obligations. Could my noble friend explain how generators can be better protected from changes of this kind, bearing in mind the formula in place for these processes?
A growing proportion of our electricity comes from renewable resources. About one-third of the supply is now supported by the ROC scheme, and it is growing. Use of electricity is growing with our transport system in particular, including cars and buses being progressively electrified. It is therefore important that schemes such as this are kept under review as to their structure and outcomes. I believe that Ofgem wants to carry out an annual review on the efficacy of the rules in place. Can my noble friend confirm that?
At the end of the day, it is in all our interests to increase our green credentials. In doing so, we must always consider those involved—the generators, suppliers and, above all, the consumers, who will need ever-increasing supplies of electricity in the years to come.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, looking around I see lots of former Members of the European Parliament. I think there are half a dozen speaking in this debate, including my noble friend the Minister, and until a moment ago another was on the Woolsack or perched on the steps of the Throne as I started. It is a tribute to the popularity of our new colleague, my noble friend Lord Kamall, that there should be this support from different Benches. We former MEPs know what it is to deliberate unreported and unremarked; we have what the police might call “previous” in this department. However, I hope that in the circumstances your Lordships will indulge me if I add my voice to previous speakers in welcoming my noble friend Lord Kamall. He is a man of immense breadth of character, a handy cricketer, a brilliant footballer and a very talented bass guitarist, but also a man of extraordinary modesty.
Over the past month, there has been a lot of press coverage of the change of leadership in the Scottish Labour Party. People have been saying that the new Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, is the first Muslim leader of a British political party and the first ethnic minority leader. I wish Mr Sarwar every success: you do not have to be a Labour supporter to want the best for the Labour Party in Scotland. It is a party with a terrific tradition—the party of Keir Hardie, John Smith and, indeed, of that flinty patriot, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who is sitting opposite now. Of course, anyone who first becomes a dentist and then a Labour MP in Scotland is plainly elevating the public weal above his personal popularity, so I wish Mr Sarwar the best. Yet it is not really the case that he is either the first non-white or first Muslim British party leader, because my noble friend Lord Kamall had led not only a British political party but a coalition of European political parties with extraordinary diplomacy and talent, remaining popular until the end. That is quite some achievement, as his predecessor in that role, my noble friend the Minister, can confirm.
The Motion on the renewables order is a tribute to two aspects of our current energy policy that deserve a little more acknowledgement. The first is the value of an intelligent use of market mechanisms to deliver environmental goals. Aristotle said that that which no one owns, no one cares for; the use of sensitive and carefully laid incentives so as to encourage the private sector to deliver goals which deal with externalities has been one of the great elements of the UK’s success in getting to a diversity of supply. Secondly, it illustrates that, very often, the things which make the biggest difference in environmental policy are quite technical issues of this kind, rather than sweeping and sometimes histrionic global statements of intent.
As my noble friend the Minister said, the measure effectively restores the mutualisation proportions to what they were when the Bill was brought forward and the change was first made in the previous decade. I share my noble friend Lord Kamall’s ambition that we should get to the point where renewables become competitive, and where technology delivers what state subsidies have, until now, been required to help with as the booster rocket. I support these temperate, judicious and targeted measures.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lord Kamall and congratulate him on a witty and excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing further contributions and working with him in his new place of work. This is very much a family occasion because, of the nine noble Lords due to speak, six are former MEPs and three are former leaders of the UK’s Conservative delegation. I particularly welcome my noble friend Lady Hooper, with whom I had the pleasure of working in 1983 as a humble staffer when I started out in the European Parliament.
I approach the order before us in my capacity as president of National Energy Action, and very much from a consumer focus. I would like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister, another former leader of the UK Conservative delegation in his time. Can he assure us today that the shortfalls, astonishing in their extent, will no longer reach a level above the threshold being set today? We have to pause for a moment and consider that in three successive years, shortfalls have been reached of £53.4 million, £88.1 million and £31.4 million. Never was it envisaged when these ROCs were first created that we would reach anything like that level of shortfall.
I understand that a shortfall occurs when a company leaves the market—a rather euphemistic expression for market failure, when the company has actually gone bust. That is obviously regrettable, not just for its customers but for other electricity suppliers as well. Can my noble friend assure us today that this will be, as far as possible, avoided under the provisions of the order before us? I gather that there have been a record number of market failures in the last two to three years, leading to the extraordinary breaches of the threshold to which I just referred.
We are told that the suppliers of electricity will pass the increased costs flowing from the order on to consumers: my noble friend said that it would be, on average, a £70 increase to domestic consumer bills. Could he repeat that to clarify it for me? It would be helpful to know what the impact will be on business users. Could my noble friend also say what the impact will be on the Government’s green homes scheme and the warm homes strategy, which I follow very closely?
Finally, I press my noble friend the Minister by asking how these additional costs will be passed on to consumers in order to minimise the impact on vulnerable consumers as far as possible. Could he give us an assurance this afternoon that it would be best not to pass these on to those consumers as a fixed charge that hits everyone equally, disregarding their ability to pay? Could he also assure us that they will also not be recovered from those customers on pre-payment meters? With those few remarks, I welcome the order but, obviously, this is a source of concern, with implications for current and future consumers.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to his place. It is not the first legislature in which he, the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Hannan, and I have sat, and indeed worked, together, albeit in our respective groups; I look forward to that happening again.
I turn to the order. It is good to see that renewable incentives have worked, as other noble Lords have said. It is also good to see that, in the wider scale of things, we can soon look forward to the tapering off of the schemes, as it becomes no longer necessary to keep on introducing incentives as renewable energy takes its place as a competitive source of energy.
This instrument will reset the balance of the cost of mutualisation so that it is shared between supplier and generator, broadly as it was when the scheme was introduced in 2005. I suppose I can also identify with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, about how it was perhaps left a bit too long to rebalance and, therefore, it comes as a bigger shock when it happens. Since that time, costs have moved on and the balance is now falling more heavily on suppliers, so, if the cost balance is changed in the manner suggested in this order, suppliers are the winners and generators the losers.
The consultation was predictable, I suppose: the winners were in favour and the losers against. However, adding up the numbers, more seemed to agree with the Government: one supplier disagreed and five generators agreed, and, of the neutrals, three agreed and two disagreed, meaning that, by a net five, the ayes have it.
At the end of paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, there is a suggestion that, by reducing cost to the suppliers, there will be less to pass through to customers. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has indicated, what is passed through to customers is obviously of concern. This raises a question: where does the cost to the generators end up? Part of me cannot help but think that it somehow ends up with households, but could the Minister enlighten me about the effect of costs that now have to be absorbed by the generators?
I have no further pearls of wisdom to dispense on this, and I will not spend any more of the more than adequate time limit to say that, all things being equal and in the absence of any other information, it seems reasonable to restore the cost balance to that which was originally struck. I have no objections to this instrument.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the order before the House today. I also thank all the other speakers who have come forward with views and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on his interesting maiden speech. I look forward to many more insights from him on the energy sector and wider issues in the UK economy.
The renewables obligation has been one of the Government’s mechanisms to bring forward investments in renewable power to reform the energy market away from reliance on fossil fuels. It has been tremendously successful, as the Minister said. At initiation in 2002, it aimed to bring about 10% renewable energy by 2010. It has exceeded all expectations and presently about 30% of electricity supplied in the UK is generated via the scheme. All that is to be encouraged, and the effect on modernising the UK’s power supplies has been considerable.
However, along the way there have been several mishaps and distortions. The most pressing has been the balance of risks and costs between generators and electricity suppliers, which the Government have ignored for far too long and is now the subject of this corrective, restorative amendment. The mutualisation scheme, with a trigger threshold of £15.4 million, resulted in excess payments, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, of £53.4 million, £88.1 million and £31.4 million over the last individual three years falling on suppliers and their customers. Paragraph 7.3 of the excellent Explanatory Memorandum says that with a “notional value” of “£54.43 per ROC”,
“The total value of this support … was estimated at £4.5bn.”
The next paragraph explains how these excess mutualisation debts have arisen—a set of circumstances I remember well in my business’s energy supplies, with chaotic management and incoherent billing by my supplier resulting ultimately in the supplier’s bankruptcy. This amendment order is urgently needed to return the supply market to stable conditions again. We support it today for that stable environment.
An early attempt, introduced by Ofgem, was to set tougher entry tests for energy suppliers before they are allowed to trade. Can the Minister give any figures on how many companies have been denied access through these more stringent tests? It may be too early to reflect how important this element will be in complementing the order to make effective increases to stability. Has the Minister any comments to add about how these tests will substantially ameliorate the problems that businesses like mine will have experienced? I understand that a further two companies have gone bust this year, in addition to the 25 in recent times, resulting in nearly 2 million customers suffering disruption and the mutualisation fund to be paid increasing.
This order seeks as a solution to return the mutualisation threshold to 1% of the cost of the scheme, the initial level it was academically set at in 2005. For the 2021-22 year, the threshold will increase to £62 million. We agree that it restores a balance of risk between generators and suppliers that was established then and to which the consultation did not demur, even if the readjustment will be painful for many generators.
If the percentage is maintained at 1%, will that automatically nullify any future problems? It was originally set at that percentage under the academic assessment that it was at a level where mutualisation arrangements would not arise or be at a level only of immateriality. Does the Minister agree with that assessment— that the mutualisation trigger will return to being immaterial? Will the situation now stabilise? What checks and assessments will be put in place to monitor the effectiveness?
The country remains in a precarious situation in the climate emergency. The initial RO market has been closed to new entrants since 2017. The ceiling on limiting levies on the consumer through the LCF has been replaced by a blanket ban on new levies through the control on low-carbon levies this year.
Companies will be running out of time in their 15-year window periods to recover technology costs, yet the country needs further decarbonisation investments urgently. There will be an explosion in levy requirements resulting from the recent announcements on offshore wind and Sizewell C. The Government have announced confidence in the regulated asset base of the future funding models for these huge investments. While these considerations take us some way beyond this order, nevertheless, is the Minister confident that the regulatory support mechanisms will set robust parameters on the costs for consumers; and that fleet-of-foot, small-scale renewables schemes—and the innovations they may contain—will continue to be able to help with progress towards the necessary decarbonisations? There is a long way to go.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this short debate. I feel as though I should apologise to the House for what has turned out to be something of an ex-MEP fest in terms of the contributions made. I will try the patience of other Members a little longer because it is, of course, a particular personal pleasure to respond to this debate and welcome the excellent maiden speech of my good friend and former ex-colleague—now my colleague again —my noble friend Lord Kamall. I have known him for 16 years. We worked together in the European Parliament. I think the House knows from his excellent, well thought-through, intellectual and witty contribution —I particularly liked the remark about bus drivers—that we will have lots of further excellent speeches from him in the months and years to come, and can look forward to his contributions to our debates, delivered with his usual panache and good humour.
I was going to make a number of other points but, as usual, my noble friend Lord Hannan has stolen all my best lines. One thing that my noble friend Lord Kamall always did when we had the pleasure of serving together in the European Parliament was continue my education because, as a proud Muslim, he is a great exponent of the role that early Islam played in the development of free markets. He is passionate in his belief in and support of that. The other thing that I found particularly ironic and amusing in this House is that, as a proud Muslim, he made his maiden speech from the Benches normally occupied by the Church of England Bishops. He should continue with his challenging behaviour in the months and years to come but, in the meantime, I welcome him and thank him for his remarks. I am sure that the House will continue to benefit from his wisdom in future.
Moving on to the real subject of the debate, I welcome the support of those noble Lords who recognise that the draft SI will ensure that electricity suppliers—and, by association, their customers—are not unduly exposed to the unmet obligations of other suppliers. However, I want to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others—both in this House and elsewhere—about the impact of this draft SI on renewable electricity generators that are supported under the RO scheme.
The Government are conscious that, under the draft SI, an amount equivalent to 1% of scheme costs could remain unrecovered in the event of supplier payment default. In real terms, this represents an increase from the current £15.4 million to around £62 million in the first instance. On a per-certificate basis, this is equivalent to an increase from around 14p to 55p; bear in mind that, notionally, the value of a certificate is currently around £55.
There is therefore no avoiding the fact that generators will face an increase in the amount of recycle payments that are at risk in the event of supplier payment default. However, let me reiterate for the benefit of the House that the draft SI is restorative. By this, I mean that it restores arrangements that were introduced in 2005 and which have since become eroded to the detriment of suppliers. In this respect, what is proposed here is nothing new.
The Government remain committed to ensuring the RO runs smoothly and continues to provide renewable generators with the level of support they have come to reasonably expect. The Government are also mindful of the impact that mutualisation costs can have on electricity suppliers, whose margins are particularly squeezed, and are equally to committed to ensuring that both they and the customers continue to receive a fair deal. It is the Government’s view that this draft SI strikes a balance between these needs.
I am dealing with the individual queries raised by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Kirkhope, who asked about the impact on generators. As I said, there is a potential small impact on generator returns under the proposed new arrangement, as it increases the sum that might remain unrecovered in the event of supplier payment default. But we are of the view that the benefits for suppliers and their customers of proceeding with this SI outweigh the costs.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan also mentioned the views of Citizens Advice. Our intention is to consult further about the guarantee on liabilities. It is our intention to consult further in the next few months on measures that could be introduced to tackle the perceived underlying causes of mutualisation. This would consider both regulatory-based approaches, which would, for example, require suppliers to post guarantees of security, and legislative-based approaches, which would, for example, require more frequent settlement by suppliers.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope asked whether Ofgem does an annual report. The answer is yes; it always has and always will. He also asked whether we were taking action too late—perish the thought. We took action in 2018, when it was clear this was not an isolated incident, and Ofgem has recently launched a licensing review.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about suppliers exiting the retail market and what the SI does for consumers. It is a fact of life in the market that, from time to time, suppliers in a competitive retail market will fail, and when suppliers exit the market, for whatever reason, without paying their renewables obligation, a payment shortfall will occur, and this may result in mutualisation being triggered. The SI we are considering today does not address the causes of supplier failure and payment defaults. However, separate action is being taken to tackle those issues. As I mentioned, Ofgem’s supplier licensing review is seeking to minimise the likelihood and impact of disorderly supplier failure.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked about the impact on consumers and business users. I reassure her that the SI is good news for consumers and business users alike, as it will lessen the likelihood of mutualisation occurring, which reduces the cost risks that suppliers are exposed to, and we expect that this will reflect in a small reduction in their electricity tariffs.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked where the figures came from and whether the SI would prevent mutualisation. The sums at risk are percentages, some of which I quoted, of the cost of the scheme. There are of course no guarantees the new threshold will not be exceeded, but we think it is much less likely under the new provisions.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about the additional generator costs. Generators must absorb the additional costs should mutualisation be triggered. But we think it is less likely. The SI restores the arrangements that unintentionally have been eroded over the years, tilting the risk back towards the suppliers.
With that, I think I am done with most of the queries I was asked. Therefore, I commend this draft order to the House.
Integrated Review: Defence Command Paper
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we mark one year since lockdown began, I start by thanking the Armed Forces for their help during the pandemic. They have been essential to our response, from building hospitals to assisting with the vaccine programme, and we owe them a great deal.
In the last defence review, the Government identified the risk posed by pandemics. That document claimed that the Government had
“detailed, robust and comprehensive plans in place”.
But, after one of the world’s worst death tolls and worst recessions, clearly the Government were not prepared. Covid shows that resilience cannot be done on the cheap. Full-spectrum society resilience will require planning, training, and exercising that must be led by the Government and involve the private sector, local agencies and the public, so the reference to,
“Building resilience at home and overseas”
in the Command Paper is welcome, but it is disappointing to see how little there is on lessons learned from Covid. Can the Minister tell the House that the comprehensive national resilience strategy will be published, at the latest, before the autumn, when a further wave is a real possibility?
Turning to the rest of the integrated review and Command Paper, we want them to succeed, to keep our citizens safe and to secure Britain as a moral force for good in the world, but we cannot escape how the two previous reviews, as well as recent actions of the Government, have weakened our foundations. Some £8 billion cut from the defence budget, 45,000 personnel cut from the Armed Forces, £5 billion cut from international development, and this review is set to repeat many of the same mistakes, with more reductions in the strength of our forces and crucial military capabilities. How will the loss of 10,000 personnel affect our relationship with our key allies and NATO? In total, how many jobs in the defence industry will be lost as a result of axing Warrior vehicles and Challenger tanks? I fear that the “era of retreat”, as the PM called it, will not end but be extended.
The Secretary of State says that he wants to
“match genuine money to credible ambitions”,
but it is not clear from the paper how that will be done. Ministers like to talk about the rise in capital funding, but not the real cut in revenue funding over the next four years. Can the Minister guarantee that core programmes will be fully funded? With a black hole of £17 billion in current programmes, how much of the extra money will be swallowed by this? What new processes have been installed to allow the MoD to learn the lessons of previous overspending?
The review also marks a new shift in the UK approach to nuclear. Labour’s commitment to the renewal of our deterrent is non-negotiable, alongside our multilateral commitment to nuclear disarmament and greater arms control. But the reversal of 30 years of all-party non-proliferation policy for the UK is a serious decision, and this Command Paper does not clearly explain why it is necessary. What is the strategic thinking behind lifting the cap? How are we going to use our P5 status to press for new generations of arms-control treaties? As the Command Paper rightly identifies, threats are proliferating and becoming increasingly complex and continuous, so we should recognise the new domains of cyber, AI and space—but new technologies take years to come on stream. China has invested $31 billion in AI since 2016 and the US is already spending more than $10 billion a year on AI. Will the Government’s investment allow us to catch up?
It is also right that we recognise climate change as a “threat multiplier” that will
“drive instability, migration, desertification, competition for natural resources and conflict.”
Yet, despite it being launched over a year ago, we are still waiting for the MoD’s sustainability and climate change strategy. When will this be published?
There are clear inconsistencies at the heart of the review. The Command Paper says that Russia
“continues to pose the greatest nuclear, conventional, military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”
But the Government have still not fully implemented any of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report’s 21 recommendations. This has left a big gap in our defences which must be filled.
The ambition has been laid out, but it is the actions of the Government that will keep the country safe and allow Britain to be a moral force for good in the world. These actions need to be taken in response to national security threats in co-ordination with allies in order to grow national resilience and jobs back home, and in line with our international commitments. We will continue to hold government actions to these standards in the years ahead.
The Statement and Command Paper are full of fine words—defence Statements always are—but the question is whether there is substance behind the words. To answer that question, we need a full day’s debate to mobilise the wisdom and experience of our Back-Benchers. Accordingly, I have made requests through the usual channels and I hope that the Minister will be able to support me in that request.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches I echo many of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and there are certain questions that I will therefore not reiterate. However, one area that I would like to reinforce is our gratitude to our Armed Forces. The second point that I shall reiterate to the Minister and, in particular, to the Government Chief Whip and the usual channels is that we need a serious debate on defence, covering at least a day. At Second Reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, I believe there were 67 speakers. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have expertise and would be able to contribute very effectively to serious debate and scrutiny of the integrated review and the defence Command Paper. Two Statements, one last week on the integrated review and one today on the defence Command Paper, will only touch the surface.
The integrated review was supposed to bring together security, defence, foreign policy and development. However, for defence, we had a Statement on funding at, I think the end of the last calendar year; today, we have the Command Paper; tomorrow, an industrial policy paper is coming forward; and the Armed Forces Bill is coming, as is, according to the Command Paper, a defence accommodation strategy. All are clearly welcome, but it would be even more welcome if we had a real sense and belief that the review that came forward last week was truly integrated, truly strategic and genuinely provided a review of all our international and security challenges, capabilities and commitments.
The Statement, which the Minister has not had to repeat, raises a set of questions about the future of our defence. The Secretary of State started with his time in the Army and referred to a whole series of reviews over the past 30 years. It is clear that the increase in defence expenditure announced last year is important but, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, there are questions about value for money. What work have the Government put in to ensure that defence procurement will provide value for money? Will we be able to ensure that the long-term capital expenditure is scrutinised and delivers for the country?
I want also to ask about our co-operation with partners and allies, which is touched on throughout the paper. The commitment to working within NATO is absolutely clear, but there is talk of a tilt towards the Indo-Pacific. What conversations have Her Majesty’s Government had with India? Does it have the same views as the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary about the importance of co-operation, or are we trying to catch up and persuade India that it is important to work with the United Kingdom?
The threats from Russia and China are made explicit in this Command Paper, yet there also seems to be an attempt to work with China in terms of trade. Can the Minister tell us what is more important—trade or defending ourselves against China? Is there a real strategy here?
I turn finally to the nuclear deterrent. There is a suggestion on page 7 that our adversaries are breaching the terms of international agreements. What about breaches made by our allies, and indeed, what is the danger if the United Kingdom threatens to breach them? Like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the Labour Benches, we are committed to multilateral disarmament. While we are committed to the deterrent, we are also committed to multilateralism. Does the proposal to increase the number of warheads not fly in the face of the United Kingdom’s multi-lateral commitments? Should we not think again in that regard?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their welcome recognition of the contribution made by our Armed Forces to the Covid response during a worrying and disturbing time for everyone. I think we are united in admiring what our Armed Forces have been able to do to contribute to the response and I appreciate that being both acknowledged and welcomed in the Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, raised a number of issues, including the comprehensive resilience strategy and the date of its publication. I do not have with me the specific date, but I shall undertake to look into it and respond to him. The noble Lord was slightly gloomy about the prospect of this vision for our defence capability and referred to previous strategic defence reviews. I say to him that I remember starkly the review that had to take place in 2010 because, as he will recall, having been in government prior to then, at the time we were facing a £38 billion black hole in the MoD budget. I remember it clearly because in flashing red lights above it was the future location of our RAF base at Lossiemouth. I am not given to going on demos, but I was moved to go on one, with cross-party support, marching in Lossiemouth in an effort to save the base. I am very glad that I went on that demo. I shall not say that it gave me an appetite for going on others, but I am absolutely delighted that we succeeded in saving Lossiemouth. It now occupies, as your Lordships will be aware, a position of strategic importance in our response to the threats we face. I would argue to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the response and vision set out in our defence White Paper is vibrant, visionary, exciting and dynamic. Importantly, it also lays out a strategy that is funded.
The noble Lord expressed concerns about the RDEL budget. I reassure him that, averaged over the years, the budget will increase and, while broadly flat when using the OBR inflation assumptions and the GDP deflator, it will still increase by 0.1% over the period. I can reassure him that, as we modernise equipment and identify estate that is no longer fit for purpose, we anticipate reducing costs. Further, as he will be aware, we now face stringent Treasury rules. We have improved our practices in procurement of equipment, so some of his speculation about the future for these issues is rather bleak and not well founded.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of our nuclear deterrent. I welcome from both sides of the Chamber a clear commitment to our nuclear deterrent. It is vital. It is essential that it remain credible, and that is why there has been a decision to increase the number of warheads. The inescapable virtue of a deterrent is that if it is not credible, you might as well start placing it in the scrapyard tomorrow. In fact, the acid test of a deterrent is: has it stopped happening the things that it is meant to deter? We all know the answer to that, and that is why we need the deterrent at the moment, why it must be credible and why we have made the decision to increase the number of warheads. But I would, of course, emphasise that it is not a target; it is a ceiling.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also raised the issue of artificial intelligence—AI—which is an extremely important area of our activity. He will be aware of the sums we are allocating to research and development and to our new stratagems in that direction, and I think that is to be encouraged. It will transform how we respond to the new generation of threats we face, and I am satisfied that that is both an intelligent and substantive response to that nature of threat.
The noble Lord also raised the question of climate change, sustainability and the strategy within the MoD. I am pleased to say that a very thorough and extensive report was completed which attracted admiration within the department. It certainly made clear to the department the decisions we will have to take and the objectives we should have. I will inquire about whether I can share some of that information with him, because it paints a very positive picture.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, along with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, raised the question of a defence debate. No one is more enthusiastic about a defence debate than I am, and I will certainly speak to my noble friend the Chief Whip and say that, if time can be found in the schedule, it would be a very worthwhile deployment of time in this Chamber. I would be very happy and proud to represent the Government’s position on defence on that occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, specifically mentioned R&D and what we are investing. We have committed to spend £6.6 billion on research and development in the next four years to accelerate advanced and next-generation capabilities. That reverses a decline in R&D across recent decades, once again elevating us to the status of a world-leading science nation. There was interest from both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in what we are doing with all this investment. The answer is that we will drive innovation in game-changing technologies that offer generational leaps, so that we can outpace our adversaries and give us a decisive edge. This will deliver capabilities that are agile, interconnected and data driven.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who raised the integrated review. As she is aware, the integrated review identified four overarching objectives: sustaining strategic advantage through science and technology; shaping the open international order of the future; strengthening security and defence at home and overseas; and building resilience at home and overseas. The defence White Paper is a very substantial response to these overarching objectives, and it indicates clearly how defence sees itself fitting into the pursuit of these objectives and making that essential contribution to our global reach.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the issue of value for money. As I observed earlier, we are making great strides through the reformation of our business case processes, greater transparency and greater accountability for SROs and our continuous improvement of the skills in defence to tackle these vital decisions. I also mentioned that the Treasury is ever vigilant in watching over what we get up to, and there is new and stringent guidance for all investment decisions, including major programmes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the matter of our allies and, specifically, the matter of China, and that is a very important issue. When you have allies—obviously, one of our most important alliances is NATO —the one thing that you want to reassure your partners in any alliance about is that you are serious about the commitment that you are being asked to make. I think that this White Paper will demonstrate to our allies that we are absolutely serious. As she knows, we are the second-biggest contributor to NATO and the biggest spender in Europe on defence. The White Paper simply cements and corroborates our commitment to defence—not just to talk about it but to put our money where our mouth is and deliver the things that absolutely matter to meet the new and different threats we face, which are of a character we have not previously been familiar with.
In relation to China, which the noble Baroness specifically raised, I think that she posed the question whether it should be trade or defence. I think, actually, there is room for both. It seems to me that it is necessary, as we propose to do with an enhanced forward presence and forward engagement, to make it clear that our presence is serious. We seek to influence and to avoid conflict arising, and by our influence we contribute to that end. But it is also important, if we are to understand what one of the major global powers is doing, that there has to be another relationship, both diplomatic and economic, and that relates to trade.
I hope that I have answered all the points that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised. If I have overlooked anything, I undertake to write.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, we should all broadly welcome the defence Command Paper, which puts our Armed Forces in a much better position than they found themselves in after the last two defence reviews. Noble Lords will note the emphasis on a stronger global maritime strategy and persistent forward presence, which should be applauded. However, the workhorses of delivering such a strategy—our destroyers and frigates—are to be reduced from the presently inadequate 19 to 17. The Minister will no doubt attempt to reassure your Lordships about the new Type 26 and Type 31 escorts coming online, but these are years away from becoming operational. Would she agree that every effort should be made to coerce the shipbuilding industry, which the Command Paper extols, to expedite their delivery? The length of time given to build these ships is lamentable.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord. He raises an important point. I would observe that, across the piece, the programme for shipbuilding over the next 10 to 15 years is exciting and substantial. On our immediate ambitions, as the noble and gallant Lord said we are building eight Type 26 frigates on the Clyde and currently assembling five Type 31 frigates in Rosyth. These are important shipping orders. They are doing well, as far as I am aware. They are coping well with the challenges that we have seen over the last year. We certainly anticipate delivery on time.
The noble and gallant Lord will also be aware that we will probably mothball some of the Type 23s which have not been operational. He mentioned a figure of 17, but I would far rather have 17 workable, operational frigates that we can call on than a notional figure of something else with perhaps only 14 being operational. At least we are now much clearer on what we have, and that these things will be working and can be deployed when we need them. Looking at the transition is not to get the whole picture; you have to look at the overall future. As he is aware, that means Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, and eventually Type 32s, as well as fleet solid support ships, six multi-role support ships, an LSD(A) and a multi-role ocean surveillance ship. There is a really exciting package of shipbuilding in there that I hope my friend, the noble Lord, Lord West, will also be excited about.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, it is good to ask a supplementary question on this after seeing my noble friend Lord Younger on the Front Bench, because I had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Defence under his late father. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the policy of continuous at-sea deterrence remains in place. There has been some press comment recently about some industrial difficulties at Faslane and Coulport, which might risk that policy. By continuous at-sea deterrence, I of course mean that, at every hour of every day of every night, somewhere in the world, one of our Trident submarines is on patrol ready to respond, should our supreme national interest so require it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Without hesitation, I reassure my noble friend that such is the case; the continuous at-sea deterrent is just that. It has been doing that important job without interruption. I am aware of his concern about industrial action and understand that it is under control and will not obstruct the operation of our CASD.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth [V]
My Lords, there is much to be welcomed in the defence Command Paper and the integrated review. As the Bishop of Portsmouth, I particularly welcome the ambitious signals to British shipbuilding for the Navy. However, I worry that, noting the tilt to the Indo-Pacific and expansion of Britain’s geographical scope into Africa, the integrated review does not suggest reducing the UK Government’s commitments anywhere, yet the proposed cuts to the Armed Forces mean the smallest full-time Army for centuries. Size is not everything, but are we asking too much of the Armed Forces? Do we risk overstretch? We seem to be gaining commitments, while failing to resource the resolution of existing challenges. Can the Minister indicate how the Government intend to flesh out their order of priorities?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure the right reverend Prelate that, as he is aware, we currently engage in activity in Africa, partly with the United Nations and partly with other allies. That is where we help in trying to defeat terrorism and assist with capacity building. We are satisfied that the plans we have laid out are not just capable of discharging our existing obligations but, because of the focus that we have on a reconfigured and different kind of military force, make us better placed to deal with some of the challenges that we are facing. The right reverend Prelate is aware of the exciting vision for the Army, which involves a number of changes, not least brigades with specific functions and the creation of the Ranger regiment. It is marginally smaller, because the change is not hugely significant, but this regiment is going to be fleet of foot, highly trained, with a professional focus, and the right equipment and technology, so that we can have it where we need it quickly, doing the job that it is required to do.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us whether the latest reduction of our Armed Forces will have any impact on the type of operation that the British military conducts in future? Can she confirm that the Trident replacement programme will be subject to a separate debate and possibly a vote, in the other place? I remind her that, before the last election, the Prime Minister said that he would not be
“cutting the armed services in any form”.
What does this review mean if it is not a cut?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The review means that we have recognised the pace of change to both the intensity and the character of the threat. The noble Lord is aware that it is now in a multidimensional form with which we were not familiar 10, 15 or even five years ago. It requires us to respond with resilience and flexibility, not rigidity. That is why it is no longer appropriate to measure effectiveness by mass. We need to measure the skills and talents that we have, the swiftness of response, the professionalism of our training, the equipment and the technology. That is the sensible and intelligent way to respond to the new character of the threat.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]
Can the Minister explain the logic of increasing our reliance on nuclear weapons and decreasing our conventional forces given that this increases the danger of nuclear proliferation, and can she say how a 40% increase in our nuclear capacity is compliant with Article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I have already indicated to your Lordships why we consider maintenance of a credible minimum nuclear deterrent to be absolutely essential, and it is our judgment that the increase in warheads is essential to underpin that. That is not escalating nuclear weaponry but simply ensuring that the deterrent as it currently exists is adequately supported and capable of doing the deterrent job which it is there to do. We are satisfied that we are compliant with the non-proliferation treaty; of the stated nuclear stockpile nations, we have the lowest stockpile.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the innovative, offensive National Cyber Force taking shape with defence SIS and GCHQ participation will presumably involve the ministerial responsibilities of both the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. To which Minister and which senior military or civilian officeholder will the commander of this force be primarily responsible, and indeed, has the appointment been announced?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord is quite correct that this is a shared departmental responsibility. I am unable to say whether the command structure has been identified but I shall inquire about that and undertake to write to him.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—review, which I warmly welcome. The proposals for Army numbers stand out alarmingly, and that is the cause of my plea. The Army is the enduring core of national defence, the glue that holds combined operations together, yet another reduction—this time of over 12.5%—will mean that it will have halved in size over the last 30 years. That does not seem credible to me, and credibility is vital both as a deterrent—deterrence applies not just in nuclear—to potential enemies and as a reassurance to allies, yet our Army will be smaller than those of France, Italy, Spain and Germany. Does the Minister agree that defence needs more than platforms and robots, that boots on the ground will always be needed, and that hollowed-out battalions and a hollowed-out Army are neither efficient nor inspiring of confidence? Will she carry this message to the Government? A drone can assist a soldier on the ground, but it cannot replace him.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We are aware that much of the conventional and traditional format of the military again has been overtaken by technology. We have seen, for example, what can happen to traditional types of metalwork armoured vehicles made possible by the interception and attack of unmanned drones. We have to recognise that, because of technology, many members of our Armed Forces are now able to do things with fewer people that they could not do in years gone by. What absolutely matters is that we have the skill, resilience, flexibility, technology and equipment to ensure that our Armed Forces are absolutely able to operate at their best, and that means that much of what we depended on before for numbers of boots on the ground has been superseded by innovation and new developments. However, our Armed Forces will be crack forces doing an important job.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the integrated review and this defence paper are extremely important documents. To pick up the Government’s wording, they are critical to the “sovereignty, security and prosperity”—and possibly the survival—of our nation. That is so important that to have two repeat Statements in the last dog watch, one each week, is really not very appropriate. I know that the noble Baroness agrees that there should be a debate. We need to push this harder. It is a disgrace that this Chamber, with its deep reservoir of knowledge, will not have a proper debate. This really needs to be pushed. The survival of this nation, possibly—its sovereignty, its security? It is not good enough that it is not discussed.
In the few seconds I have left, I will add that, after 56 years on the active list, I have often been told about jam tomorrow, and too often it has turned to margarine. I am very worried that the cuts we are having will not be covered by jam in the future. Jam disappears: it has a habit of doing that.
My final question is on numbers of people. Will the work being done by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, on reserves, provide the men who will be needed for MACP, resilience, disaster relief et cetera around the UK, because the regular services will not be able to do that?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the noble Lord that business in the Chamber is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of his and my colleagues, working through the usual channels. Your Lordships will all be aware that an extraordinary amount of time in the Chamber has, rightly, been deployed on the consideration of the consequences of a pandemic, not least in relation to health issues, social support and related educational and broader welfare issues. This Chamber has been coping with a lot. I have welcomed the idea of a debate. The noble Lord referred to two Statements in quick succession. No one is more aware of that than I am: tonight will be a busy night for me, and I look forward to further engagement tomorrow.
On the “jam tomorrow” charge, I would say that it is perfectly clear from the figures disclosed by the Government that there is jam today waiting to be invested. There is an exciting programme of investment, there is a vision and a strategy set out. I think it is relevant and, at last, meeting the threat that we face: that rapidly changing, very diverse, different threat from that which many of us have previously known. It is a new world, and this is an exciting response by the Government and the Ministry of Defence to that world.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned Lossiemouth, and as I had the good fortune to be the Member of Parliament for RAF Leuchars for some 28 years, let me ask her a question about the Royal Air Force. Why have the Government refused in this review to commit to purchase any more F35 Lightning aircraft? Does this mean that, as will be the case when the carrier “Queen Elizabeth” deploys to the Far East in the summer, it will always have to rely in part on American aircraft and United States Marine Corps pilots?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, we have a partnership at the moment with our American friends, who provide support to the carrier. That is a matter of merit; it is about alliance, friendship and interoperability, and we should understand that. The Government’s commitment is to increase the fleet size of Lightning beyond the 48 aircraft of which we are aware. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, now that the Regular Army is once again to be reduced in size in order to provide additional funds for the defence equipment programme, can the Minister give an idea of the thinking within the Ministry of Defence about increasing the size of the Army should the Government of the day wish to take part in a large operation, such as the two Gulf wars, or an enduring operation, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan? My concern is that the future may not look how we might wish it to look; however, history has a habit of repeating itself.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the noble Lord, whose experience in these matters I hugely respect, that we have to look at the future very much on the basis of working with partners, friends and allies. We also want to look at a future where, with a forward presence, we hope to avert the possibility of conflict; it is far better to do so than to go to war. It is also better to be a presence, perhaps assisting and facilitating a diplomatic intervention which may be critical in such avoidance. The noble Lord will be aware that the MoD always has to be cognisant of what may be around the corner, and, certainly, that is part of our longer-term strategy for keeping that resilience to be able to cope with what may be in front of us.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pity that this thoughtful and considered defence review should be so spoilt by the unwise and, I think, dangerous decision to reduce substantially the size of the Army, to the consternation of our allies, the satisfaction of potential adversaries and, I fear, to the detriment of both the Armed Forces and our defence. However, I shall not bang on about that; instead, I shall ask my noble friend the Minister, who knows about these things, about another threat to the United Kingdom entirely—namely, the threat to the union. To what extent can this new Command Paper assist in bolstering the union of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising something of critical importance because we in this Chamber are all aware that the MoD depends greatly upon the presences that we have throughout the United Kingdom. I mentioned Lossiemouth in Morayshire earlier, and of course we also have the submarine headquarters base at Faslane, RAF Valley in Wales and, obviously, numerous significant presences in England and, to some extent, in Northern Ireland. My noble friend is absolutely correct: we need these strategic presences within the union, but, actually, I argue that these nations need the MoD. For example, the spread of personnel in Scotland—regulars, reserves and civilians—totals just over 18,500; in Wales, that spread totals 4,940, and in Northern Ireland it is 4,620. That is before we look at jobs supported by industry expenditure: in Scotland there are 12,400, in Wales there are 5,700 and in Northern Ireland there are 500. That denotes how invaluable the devolved nations are to the MoD, as is the whole of the UK, including England—and it denotes how they benefit from that MoD investment in them.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, we have always maintained that the purpose of our nuclear weapons is nuclear deterrence, not war fighting. That is reflected initially on page 76 of the Command Paper, but it goes on to say:
“However, we reserve the right to review this assurance if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies”—
I assume that this includes cyber—
“that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary.”
In other words, in three sentences, we have shifted to a position where we are apparently prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to any form of aggression. Does the Minister understand that huge step away from deterrence and towards war fighting with nuclear weapons? Does she realise the Pandora’s box that that will open if the Government proceed?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The protocols surrounding nuclear weapons have been widely understood. They exist as a deterrent and to do that job in the hope that they never have to be used. I said earlier that the test of a deterrent is just that: has it deterred what it is supposed to? The current deterrent has done that for well over 60 years. It is the deterrent aspect that is all-important, and that makes it an effective presence within our MoD capability.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The time for questions has now elapsed.