House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business Before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
Overall traffic flow at UK ports has now stabilised. The Government have helped exporters to meet new requirements and also worked with EU border control posts to ensure that any issues are quickly resolved.
Nick Fletcher [V]
World Feeds Ltd in Thorne and FourFriends Pet Food in Dunsville, both in Don Valley, are having issues importing and exporting pet food products between the UK and the EU. It pains me to know that two businesses in my constituency are seeing their cash flow severely disrupted and their reputation damaged in the eyes of their European customers and suppliers. Can my right hon. Friend therefore inform the House what her Department is doing further to rectify such issues? What reassurances can she give these two particular businesses?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear that the two businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency are suffering cash-flow issues as a result of, one assumes, goods coming out of customs controls and being then exported back into the EU. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations have set up the UK Agriculture Market Monitoring Group, which is looking at these issues, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the precise issues those companies are facing to see what further we can do in the interim while these things are resolved.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
Each year, the Government spend some £290 billion on public procurement. Now that the EU transition period has ended, we aim to make it simpler, quicker and cheaper for small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for Government contracts, as set out in our ambitious procurement Green Paper. We received over 600 responses to that consultation and the submission from the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed our drive to simplify and diversify public procurement.
Robbie Moore
Across Keighley and Ilkley, we have some of the finest small to medium-sized businesses which are passionate about the products they produce and the services they offer. Many are hungry for growth and expansion opportunities—I think of Wyedean Weaving, which is based in the Worth Valley. However, sometimes small businesses feel disadvantaged in comparison to larger businesses when it comes to bidding and being selected for Government contracts. Can my hon. Friend outline what her Department is doing to ensure that there is no disparity in the process and that small businesses have just as much chance of being selected as larger businesses?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that businesses in Keighley will really appreciate what a great champion he is for their interests. We are doing a range of things within our new measures. We want to slash 350-plus regulations and put this into a single uniform framework. We want to do things such as reserve contracts below a certain threshold for SMEs, be able to discriminate by virtue of geography and divide contracts up into smaller lots. There is much more that I can talk to him about if he is interested in this subject.
Julie Marson [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Alongside wonderful small businesses, does the Cabinet Office also look at venture capital companies to enable Government Departments to have the opportunity to support and benefit from our brilliant, innovative venture businesses?
Julia Lopez
We are looking all the time at how we innovate in public procurement. Some of my hon. Friend’s query might be better addressed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or Her Majesty’s Treasury, but we hope that the improvements that we are proposing will open up many more opportunities to SMEs. She might also be interested in existing programmes such as the small business research initiative, which funds organisations to conduct challenge-based R&D to develop products or services that address a specific unmet public sector need.
Elliot Colburn [V]
I thank the Minister for her response. May I invite her to come and visit Carshalton and Wallington post pandemic to meet some of the small and medium-sized businesses that are keen to bid for Government contracts, to hear their concerns about the process and to encourage more to look at opportunities to do so?
Julia Lopez
I would be very happy to do so. My hon. Friend understands that the Government have tremendous buying power, which we think we can use to drive the recovery. We want to use our procurement reforms to open up many more opportunities to SMEs. We are doing that in a range of ways, which I have discussed, but we also have a new social value model, which explicitly allows greater weight to be given to those bids that will help to drive the post-covid economic recovery.
Sir David Evennett [V]
The economic success of our country depends on small and medium-sized businesses and their enterprise and entrepreneurial skills. As the UK seeks to rebuild our economy, does the Minister agree that SMEs should be at the forefront of bidding and securing Government contracts?
Julia Lopez
I completely agree. We want to see a much greater variety of companies deliver contracts from every corner of our country, not just because it benefits local economies and communities, but because we think it helps to diversify our risk, creates a more resilient supplier base and delivers some of our critical priorities.
Andrew Jones
Small businesses are often the source of innovation, particularly in the digital economy. It is often through digital investment that productivity is boosted, so how is my hon. Friend ensuring that those responsible for Government procurement and implementation have the skills that they need to take advantage of the opportunities that small businesses are creating?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Along with our procurement reforms, the Cabinet Office has also created a new Central, Digital And Data Office under expert leadership, and through that, we want to improve digital capability and expertise across Government. We also want to create many more opportunities for tech start-ups and other dynamic digital SMEs to bid for Government work, and the CDDO team is closely engaged in how we can do that through the forthcoming procurement Bill.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, naturally, my heart is always in the north-west of England. However, I am delighted that more civil service jobs will be moving to York. I am also delighted that other Departments have made their own announcements about the relocation of senior positions in our civil service, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announcing plans to create a second headquarters in Wolverhampton, the Treasury creating an economic campus in Darlington, alongside the Department for International Trade, and, of course, DIT has established trade and investment hubs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Cabinet Office has also announced that our second headquarters will be located in Glasgow, with 500 officials to be located there, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has established a joint headquarters in east Kilbride with 1,000 new roles relocating to Scotland.
Rachael Maskell [V]
First came the promise on the House of Lords, then it was the northern Government hub, then some Cabinet Office jobs, with hopes raised and then dashed in York—one of the worst hit economies from covid-19, yet one of the best connected northern cities, with a brownfield site adjacent to the station and full of people eager to serve. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out the framework within which his Government determine which locations are recipients of central Government jobs, resources and projects across the piece, so that we can all understand whether transparency or cronyism is driving this Government? And exactly how many jobs will York get?
Michael Gove
Transparency drives everything that the Government do—that and a commitment to levelling up and ensuring that our Union is stronger. That is why we are moving jobs to Glasgow, a beautiful city that, sadly, has not flourished as it might have done under the Scottish Government’s stewardship over the course of the last 14 years. It is also why we are moving jobs to York, the city that the hon. Lady so ably represents alongside my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). We will be increasing the number of Cabinet Office jobs in York by 50% in the coming months, and it is not just the Cabinet Office; other Government jobs will be coming to York as well, because, as she rightly points out, its transport connectivity, its historical connections and its potential for brownfield renovation all make it a superb site for investment.
Giles Watling [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. Moving Government Departments to the provinces is a fantastic initiative, but I implore him not to forget the southern coast. We may be near to London, but we have deprivation and we need the benefit of civil service jobs in our area. I ask him to give us in Clacton serious consideration.
Michael Gove
Thanks to my hon. Friend, I never give Clacton anything other than serious consideration. Clacton, Frinton and the communities that he so ably represents contain talented people who have a contribution to make, and of course we will do everything possible, not necessarily by relocating civil service departments to that part of Essex, but by ensuring that there are opportunities through apprenticeships and the civil service fast stream, to ensure that talented young people in Essex have an opportunity, like him, to serve.
Sarah Atherton [V]
The Minister may know that Hollywood has bought into Wrexham football club, and seeing as our American friends are investing in Wrexham, may I ask the Government to consider doing likewise? We already have the much welcome promise of office relocations to the north of England, so will he make such a commitment to north-east Wales? Will he consider Wrexham, the gateway to Snowdon, with its skilled workforce, business-minded council and easy transport links to Liverpool, Manchester and London, as a candidate for some levelling-up relocation?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for Wrexham, and an economic renaissance is taking place across north Wales from Dolgellau to Wrexham, ably assisted by the brilliant advocacy of new Conservative MPs such as my hon. Friend and her colleagues. The Government want to get behind that, not just by ensuring that our new levelling up fund can provide additional resources for local authorities and businesses in north Wales, but by ensuring that we can have senior decision makers relocated to north Wales—whether that is in Wrexham, Bangor, Prestatyn, Rhyl or other locations that are still to be decided. Of course, the case that she makes for Wrexham is a formidable one, and one that has been heard in the Cabinet Office and, indeed, in No. 10.
Martin Vickers
In the recent bidding process for freeports, the port of Immingham in my constituency came out top, scoring high in every category. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that moving the civil servants who oversee the freeport operation to one of the Humber ports—preferably Immingham—would be a good move?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important case. Overall responsibility for freeports rests with Her Majesty’s Treasury, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear his commitment to ensuring that civil service and other decision-making jobs are relocated effectively across the UK, with the establishment of a second campus in Darlington in Teesside—something that has been done in partnership with the outstanding Mayor of the Tees Valley, Ben Houchen. Of course, there is a concentration of expertise in Humberside, both in north Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire, not just in commerce but in renewables, and we will do everything we can to ensure that that expertise is supported by Government.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith) [V]
The Office for National Statistics has assessed the census operation and made adjustments in the light of the pandemic to ensure the safety of the public and census staff. Following census day—which was, of course, Sunday—the ONS remains on target to deliver a high-quality census, and I would reassure and encourage Members that there is still time for those who have not completed the census to do so.
Steve McCabe [V]
With research suggesting that 40% of those aged 75-plus are digitally excluded, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the now largely digital census does not result in a grossly skewed picture affecting long-term service provision for elderly people?
Chloe Smith
Considerable steps have been taken to ensure that that scenario does not come about. While I welcome the ONS’s intention for this to be principally a digital census, because that is generally in line with the times, the hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point about our needing to work together to ensure that nobody is left out from that method. The ONS has taken extensive measures to ensure that that is the case, starting, for example, with the ability to use the telephone call centre to request a paper form and then going on to there being many types of support available for completing the form. Indeed, that happens in other communities where extra support may be required. I would be very happy to write to him with fuller details from the ONS, but I stress that that is already available on the ONS census website. Again, I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to familiarise themselves with that so that we can all best encourage our constituents to fill in the form in the way that suits them best. That will help us all to have a successful census, with the data that will help us to deliver public services.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I am incredibly proud of the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, which has fundamentally shifted the dial when it comes to looking after our veterans in this country. Whether it is the guaranteed interview scheme, the £10 million mental health care pathway that we established last week, veterans’ railcards or national insurance contribution holidays, we are making slow and irreversible progress in this domain, and we will continue to do so under this Government.
Fay Jones [V]
I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his work with the Secretary of State for Wales to create a veterans’ commissioner for Wales. With so many veterans in and around Brecon, this would recognise the circumstances faced by Welsh veterans where services such as healthcare and education are controlled at a devolved level. Will the Minister confirm that work to create the post is under way at pace and that the postholder will work across both Welsh and UK Governments to ensure that all hurdles for Welsh veterans can be overcome?
Johnny Mercer
I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend for campaigning so energetically on this issue. Veterans’ commissioners are incredibly important across the country. There is no doubt that in some areas there is excellent veterans’ care, and in other places not so much. What this Government are absolutely committed to is levelling up that experience as a veteran across the UK. We have a veterans’ commissioner in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland for the first time. I am delighted that the Welsh Government are working with us on this. We will deliver it so that the whole United Kingdom becomes the best place in the world in which to be an armed forces veteran.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
The port infrastructure fund is granting £200 million of public funding to ports to build facilities required for border controls, which will now come into effect on 1 January 2022, while checks on live animals, low-risk plants and plant products will come in from 1 March next year. The delay to the introduction of controls announced this month allows more time for accreditation in operational testing of those facilities.
Stephen Morgan [V]
Ministers continue to withhold vital funds needed for Portsmouth International Port to build post-Brexit livestock inspection points, yet other inland sites have been fully funded by Government. The absence of this control post threatens trade worth £10 million per year to local authority-controlled ports. Can the Minister tell the House why she is picking winners when it comes to post-Brexit trade and whether she will deliver on the long overdue promise to explore alternative funding?
Julia Lopez
We are not picking winners on the issue of facilities. The port infrastructure fund is an investment that ports do not have to make themselves, and Portsmouth has received £17 million. The hon. Gentleman may interested to know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is undertaking a review of facilities that will be needed at border control posts, including facilities for live animals, in advance of March next year to see whether the size and scope of the facilities have changed. We will continue to engage with Portsmouth, as I have been. I have had several meetings with representatives there, but with the change in import controls, there will now be more time to deliver and build these facilities, and we hope that this time proves useful.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
Our trade and co-operation agreement with the EU provides for 100% tariff-free and quota-free access to each other’s markets—the first trade agreement in the world to do so. We are working closely with business, including manufacturing, to minimise any potential disruption.
Alex Cunningham [V]
I wrote to the Minister six weeks ago about my constituent Graham Leggett, who said his worst fears had come true, and shared the concerns of a local freight operator who said that Brexit
“is a far bigger disaster than the huge disaster that I predicted.”
Mr Leggett imports materials to sell across the UK and EU, but now finds it near impossible to arrange exports because he does not have a physical operation in the EU. The impact of paperwork—which he has in order—and extra charges has been catastrophic for his business, 60% of which is with the EU, and it appears that his and other businesses will go bust. This is more than a hiccup or teething problem. What message and help does the Minister have for Mr Leggett?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that that business is having ongoing difficulties and that other businesses are too. Frictionless trade would have required regulatory alignment with the EU, which would have undermined our own autonomy in that area and our sovereignty as an independent trading nation. That was not a price that we were prepared to pay. However, we do recognise that these are ongoing difficulties. I would be very happy to look at the individual case. We will be bringing forward further practical measures to address these issues and to provide business with more support.
Mohammad Yasin [V]
Bedfordshire chamber of commerce is doing an excellent job helping businesses in Bedford and Kempston to cope with the significant challenges that the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal has imposed on them. Businesses are in shock, trying to overcome the new and complex operational challenges around rules of origin, unexpected tariffs, VAT implications and the vast swathes of logistical paperwork. The Minister needs to understand that these are not just teething problems. Will she attend a roundtable with Bedfordshire chamber of commerce to hear the real experiences of small and medium-sized enterprises that do not know whether they will survive this disruption?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that offer. I am always happy to meet businesses. My noble Friend Lord Frost and I are looking at ways that we can gather information more swiftly and in real time from businesses that are facing difficulties. I would be very happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman after this session.
Jeff Smith
Unicorn Grocery in Chorlton tells me that
“the notion that no tariffs means no problem is not the case at all. We still have to deal with agent fees, phytosanitary certificates and organic certificates. The admin fees are the same whether it’s a box of broccoli or a pallet of broccoli.”
These barriers are going to cost Unicorn £170,000 a year. What are the Government going to do to reduce the administrative burden, or support the small businesses that are disproportionately affected?
Penny Mordaunt
We have already provided financial support to compensate sectors that are suffering particular issues. We have also put in place a framework whereby we are able to work through these problems. While we do that, we are obviously looking at what we can do to mitigate and reduce prospective burdens that other businesses might be facing, such as stretching out the timetable by which people would have to comply with other rules and regulations. Again, I would be very happy to look at any specific cases, and that offer is to all Members.
Mr Robertson [V]
At the last Cabinet Office questions, I mentioned that a lorry from my constituency was unnecessarily detained in France for 12 hours. The Cabinet Office took that up with vigour. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster really went about it; I thank him for that and congratulate him on that work. Is the Minister making assessments of any other lorries that are unnecessarily held up as they try to get their goods across the continent, since of course frictionless trade benefits not just this country but our friends on the continent as well?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his thanks and praise to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We look at and vigorously pursue all cases that Members raise with us to ensure that such businesses are being supported in every way. What this case shows is that, as well as some genuine issues that need to be worked through with our partners in the EU and with member states on a bilateral basis, there are some issues that are purely related to people not understanding the processes or implementing them incorrectly. That has caused a large share of the difficulties that we have seen, but those issues are being resolved. I am very pleased that we were able to help in my hon. Friend’s case.
Ruth Jones [V]
Like many on the Opposition Benches, I believe that Ministers must be held to account for the commitments they made to British businesses and industry during the Brexit negotiations, so can the Minister outline what discussions she has had with the Welsh Government about protecting the businesses and livelihoods in Newport West that are paying the price for this Government’s bad deal?
Penny Mordaunt
I have had a very large number of discussions with the Welsh Government, and also with officials there, with regard to a whole raft of issues related to our leaving the EU, and I will continue to do so in my new role.
Margaret Ferrier [V]
The Road Haulage Association has highlighted that UK exports to the EU will not recover until summer at the earliest due to a shortage of customs agents. The industry estimates that we need 30,000 customs agents for the whole of the UK, and we are presently well short of that target. Will the Minister delineate what steps are currently being taken to meet that target?
Penny Mordaunt
The original assumptions that were made about numbers of people that we would need either in customs or of vets, for example, were overestimated, because having looked at it we now have a much clearer understanding of what is actually required. We have obviously, through securing this agreement, been able to mitigate a lot of those things. A great deal of these things are, as I say, about people not understanding how things should be implemented, so a large part of our work is about ensuring that businesses, agents and others understand how these processes need to be operating. With the problems that genuinely remain, we now have a framework in place where we can work through those things.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
The Food and Drink Federation reported this week that exports are down by 75%, salmon has collapsed by 98%, and beef is down by 91%. The industry is suffering a total loss of £750 million, and much of that collapse is down to the bundles of red tape introduced by the Government’s Brexit deal. Indeed, the British Meat Processors Association has said that the extra paperwork will cost its members £120 million a year. This is not what British business was promised by the Government. What do the Government now propose to do to help the industry though a crisis not of its own making but which threatens jobs, livelihoods and indeed businesses up and down our country?
Penny Mordaunt
Our management information shows that overall ro-ro freight traffic between the UK and the EU is now back to normal levels for this time of year. That is, in very great part, due to the hard work put in by traders and hauliers to prepare for the end of the transition period and to work through the new things that they are having to do. I would point the hon. Gentleman to the deal that we secured and the framework that we have put in place to agree to trade facilitations going forward, including potential reductions in the frequency of import checks where that is justified. It is in both parties’ interests that we do that. That is how we will be resolving these remaining issues. Our track record since we left the EU shows that, where further support, either financial or in other ways, is needed for sectors, we will do that.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
The overarching principle in all public procurement is to secure the best value for money for the taxpayer, and that principle lies at the heart of our plans in the procurement Green Paper. Simpler procurement procedures will drive increased competition and innovation in public procurement, ultimately saving taxpayers’ money. We are also due to publish version 3 of the “The Outsourcing Playbook” in spring ’21, which includes 11 key policies that help Government and industry to work better together to deliver quality public services and value for money, and our new approach to social value will help to secure wider public benefit, allowing us to contract with firms that deliver more apprenticeships, local growth opportunities and environmental benefits.
Karl Turner [V]
I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will not be surprised to know that taxpayers in east Hull expect Government contracts to be awarded responsibly and fairly, and not with a nod and a wink and a text message between Secretaries of State and pub landlords. Does she want to say something about that to my constituents and perhaps apologise?
Julia Lopez
I think that the particular thing the hon. Gentleman is referring to relates to personal protective equipment, which I know has attracted a lot of interest. I wish to assure the House that although there has been a lot of discussion about the high-priority lane, it was effectively an email inbox that triaged the thousands of suggestions that were coming in for particular contracts. Even if people got through that—90% of people from that process were rejected—the contracts then went through the same eight-stage process. I wish to assure him that there have been no corners cut.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
From the start of this pandemic, the Government chose to use a centralised, privatised approach to contact tracing through a handful of large companies, rather than putting local public health teams in charge. While a growing number of councils have now had to establish their own systems on a shoestring, it is a completely different set of affairs for the expensive management consultancies. Last night, we learned that as well as the Government paying Deloitte £323 million for its role in the Test and Trace system, it is even paid to draft Ministers’ parliamentary answers defending the indefensible. This is a Government who appear even to have outsourced themselves. What will the Minister do to end this practice, or do I need to write to Deloitte to find out?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that interesting piece of information. It is not something I am aware of. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised about the use of consultants in relation to some of the work that has been done during the pandemic. We had to surge our capacity very quickly, but I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the cost of contracting. We are doing various things to improve the capability and expertise of the civil service. We are looking at secondments for senior civil servants, and we are looking at having our own in-house consulting hub, but I am very happy to look into this idea that consultants are drafting responses for Ministers. It is not something I am aware of.
Fleur Anderson
It surprised some attendees of the recent OECD global anti-corruption and integrity forum that the Government’s anti-corruption champion defended the Government’s handling of public contracts. That role is occupied by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). As well as being a Conservative MP, he has, of course, a very close family interest in the Government’s pandemic response. Does the Minister agree that the post of anti-corruption champion must be independent from party politics to avoid the growing conflicts of interest within Government?
Mr Speaker
Can I just check that the hon. Lady let the Member know that she was going to mention him?
Mr Speaker
The apology is not for me; it is more to the Member. The hon. Lady needs to let him know.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her concerns, but I have no questions or concerns about the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose).
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
The Minister will be aware of recent mergers and acquisitions of outsourcing companies, some with substantial public contracts worth many millions of pounds, including Mitie, Interserve and, most recently, G4S. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that, in such circumstances, the public interest is protected and does not play second fiddle to the interests of capitalism and greed, as referred to by the Prime Minister a few days ago?
Julia Lopez
The Prime Minister was asserting the importance of capitalism in being able to get the best answers when finding solutions to difficult problems, and I do not think we should doubt his intentions on that particular matter. I am happy to look into any concerns the hon. Gentleman has about the G4S merger, which I have not looked into personally, but I would be happy to do so. Our officials have regular conversations with key outsourcing providers and often have assurances on the work they undertake.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith) [V]
On 5 February this year, the Government published a delivery plan outlining how the polls will be delivered in a covid-secure way. That is backed by a £32 million funding uplift for returning officers and local authorities to address costs related to covid and by changes to the law made by Parliament to help voters and candidates participate safely in elections.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is clearly important that democracy is allowed to flourish and that electors get the chance to vote for their local representatives. Could she provide an update on what actions she is taking to ensure that the count is secure and that postal votes are treated appropriately, particularly during the pandemic?
Chloe Smith
I can, and indeed, an update will be provided to the House today by written ministerial statement, which will give Members full details. The Electoral Commission has produced guidance for the count, and we have worked with it to ensure that that is properly up to date and assists in understanding some of the tensions in the arrangements that will be needed by returning officers to run successful counts. Of course, the need for free and fair elections often comes to the fore of people’s minds at the count, where scrutiny is just as essential as public safety in this case.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to put out guidance on other elements of the overall election process, including postal votes. I take this opportunity to emphasise that postal votes and other items of paperwork do not need to be quarantined, contrary to some recent media reporting. That has also been made clear by the Electoral Commission and others.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The trouble is that our democracy is not open to everyone. Millions of voters are still missing from the electoral register, but instead of prioritising that, the Government have chosen to prioritise their discriminatory policy requiring voters to show photo ID—plans that will cost millions of pounds and put up barriers making it more difficult to participate in democracy, and all that while curbing free expression and the right to protest. I should not be surprised at the Minister’s half-hearted approach to being innovative in making this May’s elections accessible. What would she say to a vulnerable person who has voted in person for their entire life but now feels it is unsafe to do so due to this Government’s lack of action?
Chloe Smith
I would encourage any such person to apply for a postal vote, which I will be using at this local election. Many people will prefer to do it that way, and that is absolutely fine, as it has always been. May I call out the hon. Lady for her needless posturing? I would like to say that I am surprised by it, but it is not even new—she does it every single time—and in this case, she has not taken the opportunity to explain to the House why the Labour party does not even practise what it preaches. It still asks for voter ID at its own meetings, and that is because it is a reasonable and sensible policy.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
It is very difficult to follow that, Mr Speaker.
We recognise that newspapers are the lifeblood of communities, and we have negotiated an unprecedented partnership with the newspaper industry. Since 1 January, paid advertising has appeared in up to 600 newspapers across the UK, including 60 titles predominantly directed towards ethnic minority communities. We have also supported 105 Scottish titles that reach 3.3 million people—over half the population of Scotland.
Regional and local newspapers received at least 60% of the funding allocated from January to March 2021. All the titles in the press partnership have been selected independently by the media planning and buying agency OmniGov. We publish spending on gov.uk monthly as part of routine Government transparency arrangements, and we regularly review the cost-effectiveness of that spend against audience surveys, focus groups and operational data.
Kenny MacAskill [V]
Food producers and manufacturers in East Lothian are in despair at the additional costs, paperwork and procedures brought about by Brexit, costing orders and threatening jobs. Would the Minister care to pay for an advert in the East Lothian Courier setting out the facts of Brexit, not the fiction that has been promoted in other paid outlets and adverts?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. Not only would I be happy to pay for an advertisement in the East Lothian Courier; I would be happy to come to Haddington to support Craig Hoy, the excellent Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate standing in the Scottish parliamentary elections, who will be a strong voice for East Lothian in Holyrood, just as the hon. Gentleman is here in Westminster.
Martyn Day [V]
In Government-sponsored ads on the alleged success of Brexit, the same three or four companies have been highlighted in at least 16 newspapers throughout the UK. Are these the only companies that the Government could actually find that would be willing to discuss the benefits of Brexit?
Michael Gove
No, there is a limitless list, and I could take up the rest of the day by running through all the businesses and all the business people who believe that the Government’s approach is right. One thing I would not be able to do, however, is to find many businesses that would be prepared to endorse the reckless approach towards a second independence referendum that the Scottish National party is pushing. I cannot think of a single reputable business voice that thinks the priority for Scotland now is constitutional uncertainty and wrenching Scotland out of the partnership for good that is the Union.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to Chris Law. That is not Chris Law. I do not care what anybody says, that is definitely not Chris Law—in which case, I am going to go to spokesperson Stewart Hosie.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
In relation to these native adverts regarding the so-called benefits of Brexit, the Advertising Standards Authority says that
“Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such”
and that marketers—in this case, the UK Government—
“must make clear that advertorials are marketing communications”.
Some newspapers do say “Ad features sponsored by the UK Government.” Others say, “in conjunction” or “in association”, which is less clear. Many simply say “sponsored” but not who by, and at least one newspaper describes the UK Government—the marketer—as a “contributor”. Why have the Government, as the marketer, chosen to flout the ASA code in this way?
Michael Gove
I have been furnished with no evidence of any flouting of the code. Of course if there are any complaints that have been raised by readers or citizens, we will of course investigate them. But it is the case that the Scottish Government themselves, entirely understandably, devote tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money to also furnishing content in newspapers such as The Press and Journal, The Courier and even a newspaper called The National, which I understand has some popularity among some communities in Scotland.
Stewart Hosie
There are many examples of what I am talking about, and the Government do not know them. That the Minister does not know is to his shame. Rule 7.2 of the ASA code makes it clear that:
“Marketing communications by central…government…are subject to the Code”
and rule 3.5 says:
“Marketing communications must not materially mislead by omitting the identity of the marketer.”
So let me ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in terms of the code: why have the UK Government, by omitting their own name, chosen to mislead the public?
Michael Gove
I am very happy to put my own name and that of the UK Government to all of this material, and I am also proud of the contribution that we have made to supporting independent press and media titles across Scotland. It is vital, as we move towards the Holyrood elections, that we have a strong and vital independent press and that newspapers such as the Glasgow Herald, The Press and Journal, the Dundee Courier and others should hold the Scottish Government to account for what has been happening over the last 14 years.
Chris Law [V]
Good morning, Mr Speaker, and I also hope that the same press hold the UK Government to account. Does the Minister not agree that the fact that the UK Government need to buy news stories to promote Brexit, rather than relying on companies to share their success themselves, is a sign that Brexit is an utterly failing project?
Michael Gove
No, I would not say that. I have a great deal of respect and affection for the hon. Member, and that is why the work that we do in advertising in these titles is work that we do in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. We work with them in order to make sure that we are placing content appropriately, not least of course to help people keep safe during the covid pandemic. The Scottish Government of course also devote money themselves to advertising and supporting newspapers—quite right too; that is something that is appropriate at this time. Of course, he and I will disagree on certain policy questions, but on the broad point about keeping our media live and vital, I know that on that at least we are at one.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
I would like to place on record my thanks to Lord Dunlop—Andrew Dunlop—for the report that he completed into strengthening institutions across our United Kingdom and, in particular, strengthening intergovernmental relations. It is a great report. Many of its recommendations the Government are already implementing. I commend it to the House, and I also commend Lord Dunlop’s selfless work to this House. He is the very model of a public servant.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The ministerial code makes it clear how important the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is, yet the post has remained unfilled since November last year, when Sir Alex Allan resigned on principle. Transparency International believes that, last year alone, there were a potential nine breaches of the ministerial code—I can share the information with the right hon. Gentleman. So can he advise the House when the unfilled post of Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests will be filled, and what guarantee can he give the House that this time, the Prime Minister will actually listen to their advice?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. First, may I place on record my thanks to Sir Alex Allan for his contribution both in that role and previously in public service? We are seeking to find someone who is suitably independent, experienced and authoritative for this critical role. I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady to ensure that the broadest possible range of candidates can be identified, and that whoever is put forward for that role can appropriately be scrutinised by the House to ensure that we can satisfy ourselves about their appropriateness for the role.
Rachel Reeves
It has been four months. A good way to find someone might be to advertise the position and seek a candidate. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why this is so important. The Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is responsible for producing the list of Ministers’ financial interests, including those of the Prime Minister. Page 16, paragraph 7.5 of the ministerial code, states that
“a statement covering relevant Ministers’ interests will be published twice yearly”
to avoid any conflicts of interest at the heart of Government. That list was published only once last year, in July, and there has been nothing at all since then. So can the Minister advise the House when that overdue list of Ministers’ financial interests will be published? If he cannot give us that date, should we conclude that the Government are deliberately delaying this to avoid much-needed scrutiny of this Government?
Michael Gove
No, not at all. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, it is the case that every Minister complies with all the expectations placed on them, not just by the ministerial code but by the Nolan principles on standards in public life. It is also the case that Ministers are transparent about the areas that she correctly identifies as of public interest.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend still agree with himself in his opposition to covid vaccine certification to attend the pub, as he expressed on Sky News recently?
Michael Gove
Consistency is often the hobgoblin of small minds, but my view on this issue is consistent. A system that relied purely on vaccination would not be appropriate, but what would be right was a system that ensured that we can open up our economy to the maximum extent, that takes account of vaccine status, but also recent test status and potentially antibody status. But the best thing to do is to be guided by scientific and clinical advice and then to subject that advice to proper, rigorous, ethical questioning, rather than taking an instant, off-the-shelf, instinctive approach.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
I cannot see the merit in that juxtaposition, but I do see merit in ensuring that the independent advisory body on public sector pay, which governs the NHS, should consider all the evidence. All Members of the House should make clear our solidarity, respect and admiration for those who work on the NHS frontline.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Michael Gove
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that Yorkshire is the home of ingenuity, enterprise and creativity when it comes to responding to all sorts of crises and challenges. In Keighley, the success of the business that he identifies is one that we should all seek to emulate. He points out that sometimes companies that have been strong in one area can adjust over time to produce other products such as PPE. Some people on the Opposition side of the House have sometimes said, “This company doesn’t have a track record, so there must be something sniffy about its producing PPE.” They seem not to understand that savvy, smart Yorkshire business people can actually adapt their business models to help this country at particular times. It is called the free market, and it exemplifies the best of British and the best of Yorkshire.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
It is the case that the new Office for Environmental Protection will be in Worcester, which is to my mind an equally attractive location for civil servants and for those who will be working in that critical role. The most important thing is that we have good people, making sure that we maintain the highest environmental standards. That is what the OEP will do, but our commitment to making sure that there are high-quality civil service jobs in Bristol remains. Bristol is one of the principal locations outside London at the moment for civil service jobs, but it is only right that other areas, not least in the west midlands and Teesside, as well as Worcester, benefit, because let’s face it, when we have brilliant Mayors such as Ben Houchen in Tees Valley and Andy Street in the west midlands, making a superb case for locations such as Darlington and, indeed, for Wolverhampton, it would be foolish not to pay attention to their brilliant advocacy and to hope—who knows—that they might be re-elected in forthcoming polls.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Michael Gove
Yes. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the President for COP26 and ensure that we have a joint roundtable for the companies that my hon. Friend has spoken up for in his constituency and elsewhere, to ensure that the international event taking place in Glasgow, thanks to the UK Government, also benefits people in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
I absolutely will. I can think of no better contribution to raising morale, not just in Newcastle but in the European Union, than ensuring that people in the EU can enjoy beer brewed in Newcastle rather than the stuff that they brew elsewhere.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
Bridgend’s position—brilliantly, close to Cardiff but with good transport links to Swansea as well—gives it the perfect opportunity to benefit from the additional investment that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has put into a new trade hub in Cardiff. Of course, it is already the case that Swansea is the home not only to an outstanding university, but to the DVLA. We continually keep under review how we can support civil service relocation, not just to north Wales, as I mentioned earlier, but to south Wales as well, making sure that, not just in Cardiff and Swansea but in communities such as Bridgend, people can benefit.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman has always been a fair-minded and pragmatic Member of this House and a strong advocate for his constituents. I look forward to working with him, Mr Lambert and others in precisely the way that he mentions.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
It sounds like a brilliant idea. I know that this investment in Falmouth will not cost us a packet; I know that it will be a good investment for the future. Absolutely: we need to make sure that the G7, which is coming to Cornwall for all the right reasons, leaves a lasting legacy of environmentally sustainable investment. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend for precisely that goal.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Michael Gove
I have not given the issue much thought lately, but I will look closely at it and write back to the hon. Gentleman.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Michael Gove
I think it is a very good idea. I have to say that Shetland and Sutherland are benefiting from space investment as well as Cornwall. At this stage, I cannot make any firm commitment, but I do think that my hon. Friend has made a strong case for Cornwall.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point; when it comes to many foreign defence and security questions, his is a sane and sensible voice. He is absolutely right that all political parties should be made aware of some of the potential attempts to subvert our democracy. Therefore I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that the material that we can share is shared and that everyone is aware of what we need to do to defend our democracy.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The first thing that I would say is that it is important that we make sure that the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland come first. The decision on grace periods was taken in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of commercial operators in Northern Ireland. It is interesting that Northern Ireland retailers, businesses and so on, without prejudice to their views on Brexit or the protocol, welcomed these pragmatic steps.
I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, but this must be the first time ever, in this House or anywhere else, that I have been described as a calming influence, and I can only say thank you. All sorts of epithets have been flung at me, but to be described in such a way as to suggest that a former occupant of your Chair, Mr Speaker, might have described me as the equivalent of a parliamentary soothing medicament is perhaps the kindest thing that has ever been said about me.
Mr Speaker
On which basis, I am now suspending the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
10.35 am
Sitting suspended.
Petition
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I rise in the context of the Minister having just said in the covid debate that we are not yet out of the woods. I present this petition on behalf of the residents of Putney about the vaccination of school staff, alongside an online petition on the same topic, which has been signed by more than 250 teachers, parents and students.
Students have lost so much teaching time and we should do everything we can to keep schools open. Other countries have given their school staff priority for the vaccine and so should we. A major factor in the need to close schools has been staff shortages due to teachers themselves or other teachers being covid-positive, as social distancing is very difficult in schools. To ensure that schools can stay open rather than close because of staff shortages, to protect shielding parents and so that teachers and school staff are safer doing their jobs, it is crucial that teachers are prioritised for vaccines when vaccine supply allows. The residents of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields petition the Government urgently to prioritise vaccinating teachers and all school staff.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Putney,
Declares that those working in schools are extremely vulnerable to the spread of coronavirus; further that a major factor in the need to close schools has been the failure to put in place measures to reduce the risks which school staff are subjected to; further that it is crucial that teachers are prioritised for vaccines to ensure that schools can stay open rather than close because of staff shortages, and so that teachers and school staff are safer doing their jobs.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urgently prioritise vaccinating teachers and school staff.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002655]
UK Steel Production: Greensill Capital
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will make a statement on the future of UK steel production following Greensill Capital’s recent insolvency.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
As many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, it would not necessarily be appropriate for me to comment on commercially sensitive matters at this stage. However, I do appreciate that many Members of this House have expressed concerns to me, individually and in groups, about their constituents working in the steel industry and the families and workers that the industry supports.
Following Greensill Capital entering into administration on 8 March, I and the Department continue to follow developments very closely. As many hon. Members know, I have directly spoken to local management on a number of occasions, and I have also spoken to representatives of the trade unions—as recently, in fact, as yesterday evening. On all those occasions, I have seen a strong and united commitment across management, across the unions and certainly among officials in my Department. I have seen a united commitment to the workforce and our steel industry.
Lucy Powell
The Secretary of State has been dragged here to finally say something, because earlier in the week he had nothing to say. I do not expect him to disclose commercial information, but it is in the commercial interests of UK plc and the customers, suppliers and workers in Rotherham, Stocksbridge, Hartlepool, Scunthorpe, Newport and elsewhere to know whether the Government will step in if Liberty fails to refinance.
We have called for a plan B. It is in our national interests for all options to be on the table. Those options should not be blinkered by ideology, because domestic steelmaking is a cornerstone of our national security and economic prosperity. What is more, Liberty Steel businesses are viable and have made the switch to electric arc furnaces, at great cost. Can the Business Secretary confirm that he is considering all options, from immediate support—if due diligence is met—to public ownership, should the business fall into administration? Does he agree that nationalisation could be the best value-for-money option, especially when we look at British Steel, which the Government spent £500 million on and then sold off on the cheap to the Chinese?
Let us be honest: UK steel and steel communities have been betrayed by this Government, because they have no vision nor any plan. There was not a single mention of steel in the Secretary of State’s plan for growth. There has been very little sector support during covid. The clean steel fund keeps being kicked up the road. There has been no action, despite promises, on the crippling issues of high energy prices and business rates. There is no buy-British guarantee in Government contracts. He just scrapped the industrial strategy. It is no wonder that the investment climate in UK steel is so uncertain. Will he finally take this opportunity to set out his vision and plan the future of UK steel?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I appreciate that questions are getting very long in this House.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I am the judge of that. The Secretary of State may be new to the Dispatch Box in his new position, but the Opposition are entitled to two minutes, and the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) was within that time. Please, let me make those judgments.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very happy to defer to you, Mr Speaker; I have huge regard for your position, as I have mentioned many times. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about my being dragged back to the Dispatch Box, that is not the case at all. As she knows, I was the Secretary of State who reconstituted the Steel Council on 5 March. That was a top priority for me, because I feel that we have a future for UK steel: the Government’s infrastructure plans will need around 5 million tonnes of steel over the next decade. It is absolutely a commitment of mine, as Secretary of State, to ensure that we have a viable steel industry in this country.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
In 1998, 234 jobs were lost at a steel mill in Darlington. In 2001, the Llanwern steelworks closed, with 1,300 jobs gone. In 2003, 95 jobs were lost at the Shotton site in Deeside, and 116 at the Avesta site in Panteg. In 2004, we lost 156 jobs in Scunthorpe and a further 80 in Lincolnshire. In 2006, two closures led to losses of 250 jobs and 40 jobs. Of course, in February 2010, Teesside Cast Products was mothballed, putting 2,400 jobs at risk. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the Opposition’s abysmal record on steel, the Government are right to discard their failed vision and continue with our proactive approach to helping the sector?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What devastated the steel industry was, as we know, 13 years of Labour Government. We have made it very clear, with our industrial decarbonisation strategy, published only last week, that we remain committed to a UK steel industry and a decarbonised future, and also to green jobs, particularly in in our levelling-up agenda.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I commend the shadow Minister for securing this urgent question on what is an incredibly important topic, not least for the workforce, who I assume are listening very closely to the Secretary of State. Of course, this issue is important not only to England and Wales but to the people of Scotland. The Dalzell and Clydebridge steelworks are very much at the forefront of my thoughts, and so too are GFG’s wider holdings, such as the Lochaber smelter. I am very conscious of the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism made a proactive and informed statement to the Scottish Parliament yesterday. I would welcome assurance from the Secretary of State that he will engage in open and transparent dialogue with my colleagues north of the border moving forward. Finally, I would welcome a little bit of clarity from the Secretary of State on quite how far his Government are willing to go in respect of supporting what are, as I understand it, perfectly viable businesses.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and he will be pleased to learn that I have spoken to representatives of the Scottish Government. We have mutual and very strong interests in the ongoing future of the businesses under the GFG umbrella, and he will know that my door is always open to conversations with him and his counterparts in the Scottish Government to see a way through. As far as specifics of Government intervention, I have said repeatedly that it is not appropriate now, given where we are, for me to disclose anything of that kind, but of course this is an ongoing situation that we are monitoring extremely closely.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, for his recent visit to Teesside and for all he is doing to support the industry at this difficult time. Under the last Labour Government, steel production in this country fell by almost 50%, so we should take no lectures from Labour on this. In Redcar, we lost our blast furnace in 2015 with the closure of SSI, but the only reason we have any steel manufacturing left at all is that the Government stepped in and saved British Steel at Lackenby and Skinningrove. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will address key industry concerns such as energy pricing, that he will champion the UK steel charter and that it is our policy to increase domestic steel production, and will he work with me and Ben Houchen on a new electric arc furnace for Redcar?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I commend my hon. Friend, who, only in his brief time as a Member of Parliament, has made a real impact on these discussions and in representing Redcar. I remember a Redcar that was represented by a Liberal Democrat precisely because of the closure of the SSI plant, and I am delighted to see that it is now represented by an excellent Conservative MP.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
The circumstances surrounding the collapse of Greensill Capital throw up a lot of questions about how decisions are being made regarding the use of public money to guarantee loans to struggling companies during the pandemic. It is important that Parliament has sight of those decisions to properly scrutinise them. On 12 November 2020, in response to a parliamentary question tabled by the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Minister said that the list of companies offered coronavirus business interruption loans would be published “in due course”. Does the Secretary of State agree that transparency is essential for effective scrutiny, and will he commit to publishing the list of companies that have received Government-backed loan support without delay?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will certainly look into the hon. Lady’s request. This is something that has been brought to my attention and I will try to see if we can publish something soon.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
It is absolutely right to support the steel industry, given the jobs and the simple fact that steel is a fundamental material in our construction industry, and the Government do. I am sure the Secretary of State will note my Environmental Audit Committee inquiry looking at sustainable building materials for the future, such as engineered wood, which is stronger than steel and embodies carbon. Does he agree that we must explore these avenues alongside supporting existing industries as we transition to a greener economy?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I welcome my hon. Friend’s report and his contribution to the debate around the green industrial revolution. He is absolutely right that, alongside steel, we should consider all forms of innovative and novel materials—advanced materials—that can help us build back greener and more sustainably.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The three fleet solid support ships, at 40,000 tonnes, are equivalent in size to the two aircraft carriers. That is a lot of steel. Only this week, the Ministry of Defence finally conceded that they will be designated as naval vessels, meaning that they will be built in British yards. When the Secretary of State goes back to his office, will he get on to the Defence Secretary and tell him they must also be built with British steel?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I admire and am always impressed by the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for these issues, and I think he is absolutely right. We do have a need for huge amounts of steel in infrastructure in this country. That is why I have said repeatedly that there is a future for the steel industry in the UK.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) [V]
Obviously, steel is also a crucial part of this Government’s decarbonisation strategy. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in Oldbury, where a Liberty Steel site is currently based, that he will ensure that Black Country steel is placed at the heart of that decarbonisation strategy and that they will get the support they need from the Government as we go through this difficult time for Liberty Steel Group?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to the steel industry in the UK. That is why, last week, we published the industrial decarbonisation strategy, which I was very pleased to commission as energy Minister. I look forward to speaking to him about the next steps forward for this industry.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]
British steelworkers make the best steel that money can buy, but they are having to compete with one hand tied behind their back because electricity costs our steel companies 86% more than in Germany and 62% more than in France, an issue I raised with the Secretary of State when he met steel MPs on 3 February. On 22 February, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that
“we must indeed address the discriminatory costs of energy.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 647.]
What progress has the Secretary of State made in addressing this critical issue since our 3 February discussion, and does he think that the Chancellor understands that there can be no post-pandemic recovery without a strong and healthy steel industry?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is fully aware of the importance of the sector. The hon. Gentleman will know—I think he attended the Steel Council where this issue was raised—that we have commissioned work to see what can be done to redress the balance he alludes to.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
I was really pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak yesterday about the opportunities he sees for British steelmakers in major projects such as HS2. Can my right hon. Friend provide more information on that and can he—I know it is difficult—reassure the Liberty Steel workers in Scunthorpe that the Government will do all they can to support them?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would like to reassure my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that we need a huge amount of steel—about 5 million tonnes—over the next decade and that this Government are committed to an ongoing steel industry. As she knows, I have spoken to local management and workforce representatives, and we are doing all we can to look at all options to make sure that this vital piece of infrastructure continues and remains a going concern.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
We know that David Cameron was an adviser to Greensill Capital, with shareholdings of potentially tens of millions of pounds, and that he made private texts and calls on a number of occasions to the Chancellor to help secure funds for Liberty before Greensill, a high-risk company, went bust, putting thousands of jobs at Liberty Steel at risk. What investigation will BEIS carry out? Will the Secretary of State ensure that in future taxpayers’ money is no longer interfered with by David Cameron and former Conservative Ministers, but is instead invested directly to protect our jobs in British steel and other vital industries?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will know that officials often meet with a range of businesses affected by policy changes—that is part of policy development—but it is always done with proper and due consideration.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
A key part of our efforts to drive long-term green growth is to support workers in high-carbon sectors such as steel to retrain in new green technologies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that upskilling and retraining workers will be integral to our efforts to level up opportunity right across the country?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted to relate to my hon. Friend that she is absolutely right. We need to retrain people in new green technologies, which is precisely why I, as energy Minister, with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), set up the green jobs taskforce to look at exactly the requirements and skills we need to drive the green industrial revolution.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
We know that Greensill was a major financer of the Gupta Family Group and, understandably, the questions today have focused on the employment concerns that its workers might have, but we do not know what other businesses may have relied on financing from Greensill and been affected. When does the Secretary of State expect to have that information fully pulled together, and can he undertake, as far as is allowed by commercial confidentiality, to keep Members of Parliament informed of any other businesses that might be at risk as a result of the collapse at Greensill?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point. The collapse of a company like Greensill has ramifying effects, and I, Ministers and officials in the Department are looking closely at the potential impact.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal engagement with me on this issue and for acting so quickly. Liberty Steel is a big employer in the Black Country and we have been hit particularly hard by the worst effects of the pandemic. I know that he needs no convincing about the importance of the steel industry in our part of the west midlands, so will he continue to prioritise this issue and work with me to help protect jobs in West Bromwich East?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would be very happy to work with my hon. Friend to protect jobs. She is doing a great job of representing her constituents. All I would say on this is that we published last week the industrial decarbonisation strategy, which is the first of its kind in the world, and we are absolutely committed to a continuing future for British steel.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Liberty Steel has a diverse portfolio with a long supply chain. These jobs are often trade-unionised, so they have better pay. Losing them will have a big impact across our country. How will the Secretary of State protect the different elements of this complex company, such as the tubing plant in Tredegar in my Blaenau Gwent constituency, with its loyal and skilled workforce who have kept it going through tough times?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The company has a range of assets spread across England and Wales, in particular, and we are looking very closely at what specific assets and jobs are necessary. We hope to support the company in its entirety.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]
The funding challenges faced by Liberty are serious, but I have been reassured by meetings with my right hon. Friend, and by the Prime Minister’s response to my question yesterday, that the Government are committed to doing whatever is possible to safeguard jobs and livelihoods in the UK steel industry. However, in the longer term, for steelmaking to thrive in the UK, we must make sure that UK infrastructure projects use environmentally friendly UK steel, providing well-paid jobs and helping to level up. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that future procurement processes will favour British steelmakers such as Speciality Steels in Stocksbridge?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I reassure my hon. Friend, whom I have met on several occasions on precisely this issue, that we remain committed to decarbonised steel and a decarbonised industrial strategy, which I have referred to. That is the basis on which we can have a strong future for the industry.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State is well aware that Liberty in Rotherham employs 900 people, along with five times that number in the local supply chain. Our steel goes into defence, energy, aviation—all key strategic industries. In this post-Brexit world, will the Secretary of State please make a commitment that all Government procurement projects using steel will commit to buying British steel for them, because a full order book is the best way to see a future for steel in this country?
Kwasi Kwarteng
On procurement, I want to relay to the hon. Lady that we have constructed in government a UK Steel and BEIS Procurement Taskforce, which met for the first time only a couple of weeks ago, on 12 March, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Grimstone. We are absolutely committed to seeing what we can do to make sure that we have a strong steel industry in this country that will support the huge infrastructure needs that our country has in the next decade.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I strongly support all the measures that the Government will be taking to ensure that public orders concentrate on UK-made steel, where that is possible, but what further measures can the Secretary of State take to ensure that energy prices are realistic and competitive? If we have very dear energy in this country, it will be a major problem for our steel industry.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to electricity and energy costs. I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to see what can be done, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, to address that problem.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Greensill affair raises the issue not just of Liberty Steel’s refinancing but of ex-Prime Minister David Cameron bending the ear of the now Chancellor, although he was not on the lobbying register. With ex-Minister Eric Pickles overseeing the body regulating current Ministers’ interests, how can the Government ensure transparency on conflicts of interest when they seem to operate a culture of friends with benefits and mates’ rates, with British steel jobs being mere collateral?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Obviously, I completely reject the hon. Lady’s characterisation of what goes on. She will know that officials often meet huge numbers of business people who are affected by policy. That is part of policy development, but it is always done in a transparent, open and proper way.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
The Labour party talks about vision. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s commitment to net zero and their clear vision of being a technology-led innovation superpower, as demonstrated by initiatives such as the Clean Steel Fund, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, and the Future Fund: Breakthrough, mean that the future of UK steel is positive and in very good hands?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Obviously, I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Reflecting on two years as a Minister within the Department, I can tell her that we have had the 10-point plan for the green industrial revolution, the Energy White Paper, the decarbonisation industrial strategy, and, as she says, we have committed hundreds of millions of pounds to making sure that we drive the green industrial revolution. It is a very exciting time to be in Government and I look forward to speaking with her precisely about how we can move forward.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
With booming metal prices, GFG’s business in Scotland, including Liberty Steel in my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency, remains profitable. Notwithstanding his previous answers, I must press the Secretary of State to echo the promise given by the Scottish Government and do all in his power to protect this profitable industry. Will he do so?
Kwasi Kwarteng
That is a fair question, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that the assets in Scotland relate particularly to aluminium smelting, whereas in England and Wales their job is really focused on the steel industry. None the less, we are looking at all options to see what we can do to sustain these crucial jobs.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
An acquisition strategy based on supply chain financing arrangements, plus a future receivables derivative scheme, plus an additional month’s cash-flow, and a liberal mix of state guarantees has the characteristics of a potential Ponzi scheme. Has my right hon. Friend been able to ascertain the facts here, or is this an issue for investigation by the Serious Fraud Office?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend raises very serious questions about the business model, which I am not prepared to go into now. What I will say is that, in the first two months of my tenure as Secretary of State, I have pushed forward audit reform as a big issue. A consultation on it is under way. It is issues relating to things such as Greensill capital that show how necessary it is for us to reconsider what we are doing on audit reform and to have the best standards in the world.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I think we all understand the importance of commercial confidentiality, but, where significant sums of taxpayers’ money are concerned, that cannot not be a barrier to full accountability. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Scottish Government are out for guarantees north of £500 million as a consequence of Greensill’s difficulties. Is that not something for which there really ought to be full explanations?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My understanding is that the Scottish Government are very exposed to Greensill’s financial engineering—let me put it that way—and there should be far greater transparency in this regard.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
A strong domestic steel industry is vital to so much of what the Government do, from frigates and submarines to schemes such as HS2. With that in mind, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he will work with colleagues across all of Government—not just with the Treasury, but with the Ministry of Defence and the Transport Department—to ensure that we protect this strategic sovereign capability?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is crucial that we work across Government to look at procurement and the strategic interests of this country in having a strong steel industry, as he describes, and in order to work out how best to progress with this key sector.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
Investing in transport infrastructure such as the full HS2 route and a rolling programme of rail electrification is an excellent way to boost economic recovery and put the UK on the path to net zero, but the Government will be wasting a huge opportunity to safeguard and grow jobs in our steel industry if they do not use public procurement to support it. Will the Secretary of State commit to setting targets for UK steel content in contracts for major public works, and if not, why not?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will know, as I have said at the Dispatch Box today, that we have a taskforce in BEIS chaired by my noble Friend Lord Grimstone. This is absolutely something that we are looking into, given the huge need we have and the huge demand for steel products in our infrastructure plans.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) [V]
For all the many reasons set out by Members today, retention of a domestic steel industry is vital for our economy and our security. Will the Secretary of State set out what he is doing to ensure that we have the right regulatory climate for steel to thrive? Will he commit that, if other countries dump steel on world markets that has been inappropriately subsidised, he will take action via our trade policy to introduce anti-dumping measures to protect and support our steel industry?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend will know that the steel industry in particular is subject to fairly stringent World Trade Organisation rules. She will also know, given the publication of our industrial decarbonisation strategy, that we are rigorously focused on trying to source clean, green steel in order to drive a green industrial revolution and to create the infrastructure projects without which we cannot have any real economic growth.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Last year, the Government spent £4.8 billion on subsidies for wind power, yet almost no wind farms use UK steel. Those orders would be a boon to the struggling steel industry, but the Department does not even include renewable energy products in its annual list of orders that went to domestic suppliers. In January, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), said that the Government would consider reporting the share of UK steel used in offshore wind projects
“if it is in the public interest.”
Will the Secretary of State accept that it clearly would be in the public interest to name and shame the developers that do not use UK steel, and will he commit to making that change?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will appreciate that, as part of the offshore wind sector deal, we have explicitly said that 60% of the supply chain should be UK-sourced, and clearly steel is a big part of that supply chain. She will also appreciate that, as Energy Minister, I made it a priority to ensure that in the fourth auction round at the end of this year, these targets will be met. Steel is part of that, and we are absolutely committed to having more UK content in the supply chain for offshore wind.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Being in the European Union prevented us from prioritising British steel, despite steel and its component parts being strategic resources. Now that we have left, will the Secretary of State prioritise British steel, at least in Government procurement? Will he ensure that steel and its component parts are, where possible, protected and bought from UK producers to prevent us being strategically vulnerable in the future?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend—another Conservative who won a so-called red wall seat. He has done a fantastic job in representing his constituency, particularly on this critical issue. From my answers, he will know that we are committed to making sure that UK steel has a big part to play in the construction and infrastructure plans that we ambitiously set out.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
Tata Steel has reportedly said that it is in active discussions with the British Government about creating a “decarbonised footprint” for the future, especially in Port Talbot. While I welcome that, will the Secretary of State confirm that at the heart of those strategies, the British Government will prioritise maintaining volume of production and jobs in the Welsh steel industry?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will know, but I say in the interests of transparency, that one of my first meetings when I was appointed Secretary of State was with the head of Tata Steel. He will also know that having visited Hinkley Point as Energy Minister I am fully aware of the impact and the contribution that the Tata plant makes to infrastructure. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that this is a top priority of mine. I have made the point many times this morning that our infrastructure plans are absolutely intertwined with a strong domestic steel industry.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am very sorry I was late for the start, Mr Speaker, but I was having a rather shouted conversation with the Chief of the General Staff about the massive cut of 12% in our Army, and particularly the loss of my battalion—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think this has anything to do with the question; I think I would stick to the business question. You do not want to lose your place—come on, Captain Bob.
Bob Stewart
I knew I was going into the Valley of Death. The question, Sir, is this: what percentage of our national steel production, which is a sovereign capability, is affected by the Greensill Capital financial crisis? I am very sorry—I knew I was going to get into trouble.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very pleased to see my right hon. Friend in his place. The key point is that Liberty Steel produces via electric arc furnaces, so it is clean steel. A lot of the steel that we produce relies on older methods. That is why, for me, in terms of our decarbonisation strategy, the future of Liberty Steel is of great importance.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
For national security reasons, to tackle the climate crisis, and to build our rail infrastructure, electric vehicles and the like with well-paid unionised jobs, domestic steel production must be a strategic national priority. However, time and again the Government have let down Britain’s steel industry. On their watch, we have seen British Steel collapse, minimal action taken to tackle the huge handicap of high energy prices for our steelmakers, and an over-reliance on imported steel for Government projects. Prior to Brexit, the excuse for the lack of Government intervention was EU state aid rules. What is the excuse now?
Kwasi Kwarteng
There is no “excuse now”. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman lost me rather when he said that the Government have done nothing. We have heard from all around the House the devastating impact of the last Labour Government on the steel industry. I even took a question from an extremely able Conservative Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), whose seat was represented by a Liberal Democrat, because of the debacle around the closure of SSSI.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to re-establish the Steel Council. Does he agree that this is a perfect opportunity for the Government to work in partnership with the industry so that we can create a long-term, sustainable plan to ensure the sector’s transition to a low-carbon future?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned the Steel Council. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Steel Council last met in February 2020. It was a first priority of mine, on becoming Secretary of State, to have another meeting, so we had a meeting on 5 March that went extremely well and is a solid basis for our ongoing dialogue with the sector not only among employers but among union representatives. It is an excellent body and I look forward to working very closely with it in the months and years ahead.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I am sure the Secretary of State will recognise that Sheffield is the home of steel. Stainless steel was invented in Sheffield, steel made in Sheffield is famous not merely in the UK but throughout the world, and thousands of Sheffielders still work in the steel industry and in related industries as well. So will he give an absolute assurance that the term, “Steel made in Sheffield”, will not be consigned to the history books?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It certainly will not be consigned to the history books. We have an excellent firm in Sheffield, Forgemasters, among others. We all know the great history and traditions that Sheffield embodies and its vital role in the development, and the birth, really, of the steel industry worldwide.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
On behalf of manufacturers in my constituency relying on specialist grades of steel, I thank my right hon. Friend for his Department’s work to support UK steel and ask him to keep working with the industry so that we can be leaders in green steel production as we transition to a low-carbon economy.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I commend my hon. Friend’s work in representing COP26 and doing a great job in engaging with businesses on COP26. I assure him that green steel is very much at the front of our minds. It is something that I am very focused on. We have mentioned the Steel Council, and I have also mentioned a number of times the industrial decarbonisation strategy. Green steel is absolutely the way forward, and I look forward to working with him to see how we can make progress in this vitally important area.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
Can the Secretary of State explain why Greensill—an unregulated shadow bank with close links to the Conservative party—was given access to the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, which is backed by 80% taxpayer guarantees? Following its collapse, which puts the future of Liberty Steel and thousands of jobs at risk, will the Minister practise the transparency he has just been talking about and tell the House how many millions of pounds of losses incurred will end up being dumped on the UK taxpayer?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Lady will know that I cannot possibly comment on that, because it is part of an ongoing series of discussions. We do not really know the full extent of the impact of Greensill’s collapse on the British economy. We are looking into it very closely and looking at which companies have been affected, but until that further investigation we cannot possibly comment on the extent of the liability.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
One of the lessons of the pandemic has been that we need a robust domestic industrial strategy and we cannot be dependent on imports—either of final products or through the supply chain—from China or anywhere else. Does my right hon. Friend agree that steel is an integral component of that industrial strategy—and, with time, decarbonised steel?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I reassure my hon. Friend that the fact that we published the industrial decarbonisation strategy only last week suggests to me, and is a signal to the world of, how seriously we take the strategic impact and necessity of steel, and the net zero commitment.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
We know that David Cameron used his direct line to contact the Chancellor regarding Greensill’s difficulties. However, when did current UK Government Ministers first become aware of the firm’s difficulties? What actions were taken beyond acting on unsolicited advice from a former Prime Minister? And how will the Government categorically ensure the industry’s future and the thousands of jobs that go with it?
Kwasi Kwarteng
There were a lot of questions there. Briefly, on Greensill, we are continually looking at the potential impact. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to a future for the steel industry here in the UK. As hon. and right hon. Members have suggested, the decarbonised nature of that sector—green steel—is absolutely the focus and at the front of our minds as we try to forge a path for the industry in the near future.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me to discuss the issues around Liberty Steel and for working with me to save jobs in that great company. He knows as well as I do that good British steel—and, hopefully, Sheffield steel—is an essential component of our ongoing green industrial revolution, from electric cars to wind turbines. Will he assure my constituents that there is a place and a need for the steel industry, and for many, many steel jobs here in South Yorkshire?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend taking part in these critically important proceedings. I know how hard he has worked not only to win his seat and be an excellent, first-rate Member of Parliament, but also in his passion for green energy, renewable technologies and hydrogen; in fact, I am surprised that he did not mention hydrogen in his question. I am delighted to work with him to ensure that we have a future for the steel industry here in the UK.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Tackling emissions from steel is critical to the fight against climate change, and I have heard the Minister refer to green steel. The clean steel fund was announced in 2019, but steelmakers will not be allocated any funding from the £250 million scheme until 2023. Why will Ministers not bring forward this funding to boost the industry and its green future?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As the hon. Lady knows, we are always looking at ways in which we can promote green steel and industrial decarbonisation. I have alluded many times to the fact that we published the strategy last week, and the steel fund is clearly part of that strategy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
British-made steel, British electric car manufacture and British-backed clean growth: would my right hon. Friend agree that the prospects for all three are stronger and brighter now that we have left the European Union?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will remember that I was a Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union, as I think it was called. I do not want to revisit those debates, but I will say that the future of our industrial strategy, in terms of our green commitments, in terms of the steel commitments and in terms of electric vehicles, is a very bright one indeed.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
On behalf of all those working at the successful Liberty plant in Newport, may I reiterate how difficult this uncertainty is for the dedicated workforce who make world-class steel, and for their families? May I urge the Secretary of State to keep talking to and meeting virtually with groups of hon. Members, with Liberty plants and with the steel unions over the coming days? As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said, the UK steel industry is the cornerstone of our national security and our economic prosperity, and it is absolutely crucial to our building back better.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will know from our bilateral conversations that I am very committed, as Secretary of State, to the future of this sector. I am always happy to meet representatives, experts, workers, representatives in a trade union capacity and local management. I am always open to seeing people and trying to work out pragmatic, positive solutions. This is a really important issue and I am pleased to have engaged with the hon. Lady in the past, as I am sure I will in the future.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Abortion in Northern Ireland
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the provision of abortion in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
On Monday we made the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021, and we laid them before Parliament on Tuesday. We have taken that important step because women and girls are still unable to access high-quality abortion and post-abortion care in Northern Ireland, in all the circumstances that they are entitled to under the law made by Parliament in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, and reconfirmed in the regulations laid last March.
This is about ensuring compliance with the legal duties that Parliament imposed on me in mid-2019. The legal duties on me as Secretary of State are clear: I must ensure that the recommendations in a specific report by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women are implemented in Northern Ireland. We are not seeking to open the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, which were approved by a significant majority in Parliament last year. Those regulations delivered a CEDAW-compliant legal framework, ensuring that the health and safety of women and girls, and clarity and certainty for the healthcare profession, remains paramount, while also remaining sensitive to the circumstances in Northern Ireland.
This is not about new laws; this is about ensuring that the existing law is acted on and delivered. As I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members will agree, at the heart of this matter are women and girls who have been, and continue to be, denied the same rights as women in the rest of the UK. Women and girls are entitled to safe, local healthcare. Indeed, during the pandemic, that has been even more crucial. The law changed more than a year ago, and abortion services should now be available as a healthcare service in Northern Ireland, so that women and girls can safely access local services. This is not a new issue or a surprise for the Executive.
Following the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 receiving Royal Assent and section 9 duties coming into effect, we engaged with all Northern Ireland parties on this matter, and we continue to engage. We have always sought to deliver in a way that respects the devolution settlement, by putting in place a legal framework, and recognising that healthcare is devolved and therefore service provision should be delivered and overseen locally by the Department of Health, as well as by health bodies with the relevant legal powers, policy and operational expertise to do so.
We are disappointed by the continuing failure of the Department of Health and the Executive to commission abortion services that are consistent with the regulations, despite having extensively engaged on this issue for more than a year. I recognise that local interim service provision has been established from April last year, resulting in more than 1,100 procedures being accessed locally. I put on record my thanks to those medical professionals who have done what they can to ensure that women and girls have had some local access to services in Northern Ireland to date, and to those organisations that have supported that work. Looking ahead, I want to be clear: our strong preference is, and remains, for the Minister of Health and his Department to take responsibility for upholding these rights, commissioning services, and delivering on what the law now clearly allows.
Carla Lockhart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report are not legally binding on the United Kingdom, and do not constitute international obligations, as confirmed in the explanatory notes to the 2021 regulations, therefore undermining the whole premise for forcing a change in Northern Ireland’s abortion law in 2019? Can the Secretary of State also confirm that according to the devolution settlement established by the Belfast agreement, access to abortion services is a devolved issue and this action represents a breach of the Belfast agreement? Furthermore, can he confirm that his sole legal basis for intervention in this area is section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, and that during the passage of that Bill, which was opposed by every Northern Ireland MP who took their seat, it was made clear that the only reason Parliament was interfering in this issue was that there was no sitting Assembly at that time?
Will the Secretary of State explain why he has chosen to take action to use his powers in relation to abortion under section 9 but has failed to act in his duties in relation to the Executive’s failure to introduce payments for victims, under section 10 of the same Act? I know that the Secretary of State shares my support for the Union, but does he not understand that at the heart of the devolution settlement must be a respect for areas that have been determined to be for the devolved authorities? There is still time for him to think again before he takes action that will undermine and further destabilise the devolved institutions. It is time for the Government to recognise the error of their ways, repeal section 9 and restore Northern Ireland’s life-affirming laws.
Brandon Lewis
I recognise the hon. Lady’s consistent position on this, the strength of feeling on this issue and the contributions she has made in previous debates and conversations in this House, and indeed in the conversations she has had with me and with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
It is important to be clear that Parliament stepped in. Parliament placed me under this legal obligation during a period of no functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Even though the Executive and the Assembly have now been in place for more than a year, those legal duties do not fall, and have not fallen, away.
I appreciate the points the hon. Lady made about comparisons with payments to victims, but I should point out that that matter is being progressed by the Executive; it is being delivered on, that scheme will open shortly and victims will be paid. I share the frustration of a number of Members in this House that the Department of Finance and the Executive have not yet allocated the moneys that the Department of Justice needs to move forward with that, and I hope that they will move on with that. However, that scheme is actually being progressed by the Executive, and the victims will be able to apply shortly.
We have been clear, and we have conveyed the message to the Health Minister and his Department throughout, that it is crucial that abortion, as a fundamental healthcare service, is delivered and overseen locally by the Department of Health. That ensures that it is delivered in a sustainable way and becomes embedded in the health and social care system in Northern Ireland in the long term.
I fully appreciate that abortion is an extremely emotive subject, but we must not lose sight of the women and girls in Northern Ireland who are absolutely at the heart of this matter. It is unacceptable that there are women and girls in part of the UK who cannot access these fundamental rights, as they can elsewhere in the UK. Even though the law was changed some 12 months ago, services have not been commissioned yet, and that leaves many women and girls in vulnerable positions.
I have spoken to many women and healthcare professionals in Northern Ireland, and some of their experiences are truly harrowing. Too many women and girls are still having to travel to other parts of the UK—to mainland Great Britain—to access this care. One story was of a much-wanted pregnancy where, sadly, doctors informed the mother that the baby would not survive outside the womb. This woman had to travel to London, without her network of family support, to access healthcare. She described to me a harrowing ordeal, where she was unable to travel back on a flight to her home because of complications and bleeding. She was stranded in London, alone, grieving and in pain. I have been informed of two other women who have attempted suicide in the past year after their flights were cancelled and so they were unable to travel to England for proper care.
The distress and unacceptable circumstances that women and girls continue to face at a time when local access should be readily available, given that the law changed more than a year ago, is unacceptable. It is only right that women and girls in Northern Ireland are able to make individual informed decisions with proper patient care, the provision of information and support from medical professionals, based on their own health and wider circumstances—similar to women and girls living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have used every opportunity and avenue to encourage progress and offer our support over the past year. That is why I am so disappointed that we have reached this impasse.
We take this step now to further demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that women and girls can safely access services in Northern Ireland. Our priority is to ensure that the Department of Health takes responsibility for commissioning full services, consistent with the conditions set out in the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020. That is why we are moving forward in this way. While Parliament considers the regulations, we will continue to engage with the Minister of Health and the Executive to try to find a way forward over the coming weeks before any direction is given.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) [V]
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has done the House a service by raising this issue. Her predecessor gave the House his advice on relationships before he left.
The choice is between compassion and politics. I put it to the Secretary of State that the key point is this: if there is going to be an abortion, it should be legal, safe, early and local. There has been too much delay. Let us put first the interests of women and girls. Going south or coming east is not the answer. Let us get on with it. I hope he understands he will have support from most people in Northern Ireland.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that people are getting access to the right healthcare. It is a legal obligation on us following the Parliament vote, but he is right that we need to make sure people get the right healthcare at the right time and in the right way, and do not have to go through the challenges they face at the moment.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for raising this important issue. We respect the dearly held convictions of all those who make their case today, but it is important to remember how we reached this point. The existing laws, according to the United Nations, amounted to a “grave and systematic” violation of women’s rights in Northern Ireland. This Parliament had and still has a duty to act to uphold those rights.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) gave women in Northern Ireland a right to a safe, local abortion. Parliament made its will clear. No longer will we ask women to use unsafe, unregulated services or to make a heartbreaking journey across the Irish sea to seek an abortion in Britain. That was why the vote on that amendment tabled by my hon. Friend passed overwhelmingly. It was the clear will of this House.
Nineteen months on from that vote, it is extraordinary that women and girls are still being denied safe, local services. We know of more than 100 women who have been denied access to services, leaving them in the desperate situation of travelling alone across the Irish sea or accessing unregulated medicine online. The cycle of inaction must end, so I urge Ministers in Northern Ireland to commission these vital services.
The cross-party letter supporting the Secretary of State’s decision to step in demonstrates the continued strength of feeling across the House. The Government will have our full support when the regulations come before the House for a vote, but I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could provide a date for when that is likely to be. Can he also outline the deadline for when he intends to use the powers contained within the regulations if services have not been commissioned in Northern Ireland? Will it be before the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission takes him to court in May?
As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I fully understand the sensitivities around the devolution settlement. The United Kingdom is at its best when we work together to uphold fundamental rights, and those obligations lie with this Parliament and with the UK Government. Labour has always been clear that where those rights are being denied, there is a moral and legal duty for the Government to act. That is happening now in Northern Ireland. Quality healthcare is a basic human right. The time to act has long come and gone. For the sake of women and girls in Northern Ireland, it is vital that access to these services is commissioned immediately.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady has strongly and powerfully outlined the importance of why we all hope that the Minister of Health in the Northern Ireland Executive will move forward and commission services in a way that is right and appropriate in Northern Ireland, using that local knowledge and expertise and making it, as I said in my opening remarks, sustainable. She has strongly outlined the cross-party support for that, and I know that colleagues on the Government Benches have argued strongly for this in the past as well. The House showed, through the size of the vote last year, a strong will to see this healthcare properly provided, as it rightly should be across the UK so that people can get the support and care that they need close to home and locally. I appreciate her comments and her support for that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend how many women and girls, during the pandemic, have had to make that awful journey across to England, Wales or Scotland to have an abortion?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend highlights the point that the simple answer is too many. To be frank, any single case is one too many, particularly if we think about the circumstances through the pandemic, and I outlined a couple of harrowing examples a few moments ago. Having to travel across to mainland Great Britain without the network of family support that one would normally hope to have when going through this kind of procedure with medical support is just a harrowing thought, and some of the stories are just too emotive to do justice to or to outline here today. We have to ensure that that does not continue and that people can get the support they need close to home, locally in Northern Ireland.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his efforts to uphold the human rights of all women in the United Kingdom. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland has said that, because this is a new service, it will need additional funding to provide it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his officials have spoken to the Department of Health and that the funding will be provided, so cost will not be a barrier to ensuring that the women and girls of Northern Ireland can access abortion should they wish to do so?
Brandon Lewis
We are talking to the Department of Health all the time, and we will obviously continue to—I myself have spoken to the Minister of Health consistently. This is something that the Department has the funding for. There is a substantial block grant for the Executive to make their decisions, and we got that £900 million uplift in the spending review just last year. The Department of Finance outlined just a few weeks ago the underspend on last year, so there is no issue with money. At the moment, there is obviously a substantial cost for people who are having to travel from Northern Ireland to mainland Great Britain, in a way that is financially inappropriate, let alone unjustifiable morally and in healthcare terms.
So this is something that the Northern Ireland Executive can provide and that the Department of Health should be moving on with. We will continue to work with them to ensure that that is done, giving them whatever support we can, but, ultimately, I think we would all much rather see this being provided and worked through by the Department of Health locally in Northern Ireland than this Parliament having to take the action we are taking now.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
Does the Minister agree that if this House is to help preserve the Union and respect the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, we should refrain from imposing unwanted primary legislation on this part of the UK? After all, poll after poll shows that Northern Irish voters are against the liberalisation of abortion laws.
Brandon Lewis
On this occasion, Parliament stepped in on human rights grounds to ensure that women and girls have equal treatment and equal access to important healthcare services available to women and girls living in other parts of the United Kingdom. We also need to be clear that this is not something we have unilaterally imposed on Northern Ireland. We undertook a public consultation on the regulations in late 2019, which included engagement with, and carefully listening to the views of, the Northern Ireland political parties, medical professionals, women’s groups, civil society, religious organisations, service providers and women with lived experience. It is now crucial that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland takes responsibility for commissioning abortion services in line with the legislative framework that is in place.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
This week, the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health, which I co-chair, along with the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the president of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the chair of the Northern Ireland regional FSRH, wrote a letter supporting the Secretary of State’s actions. Clinicians are frustrated by the continued failure to commission abortion services in Northern Ireland and cannot see any legitimate reason for the delay in commissioning services, which are governed by regulations. What message does the Secretary of State want to send today to clinicians in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate all the right hon. Lady’s comments. There are two clear messages. First, I thank all those medical professionals for the work they have been endeavouring to deliver; as I say, there has been some provision on the ground since April last year, with around 1,100 women and girls looked after. Secondly, however, we recognise the need to ensure that, while Parliament considers these regulations, we work with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to commission these services in the way that it should have been doing in the first place, rather than our having to take action here in this Parliament.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
Yesterday, the Women and Equalities Committee heard from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on this subject. We heard harrowing stories, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, including of women forced to take overnight ferries to the United Kingdom for a termination having to return the same day, because of course, during the pandemic, no hotels were open for them to stay in. I know he takes this duty seriously and that we are discussing this today because of the failure to commission safe services locally. I thank him for the action he is taking, but also ask that he uses every endeavour to make sure that services are commissioned swiftly, so no more women have to make those journeys.
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I give her my assurance that we will continue to work with the Department of Health to ensure that it commissions these services as quickly as possible. Obviously, the principle of these regulations, which are subject to the affirmative procedure here in the House, means that we will have the power to direct should we need to do so. I hope that, in the next few weeks, while Parliament debates and discusses this issue, the Department of Health, which we stand ready to support and work with, is able to commission these services locally, so that, as she outlined, women and girls in Northern Ireland can get good, appropriate healthcare, in the way that anyone across the United Kingdom can, locally in Northern Ireland. That is what should happen, and I hope that it will, but we must make sure it does.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) [V]
We of course want women in Northern Ireland to have access to the best healthcare, but we also believe passionately in protecting the life of the unborn child in Northern Ireland. That view is shared right across our society and is the view of a majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government seek not only to impose abortion regulations on Northern Ireland but to direct the Northern Ireland Executive to implement regulations that they never signed up to. Surely it should be left to local Ministers to decide what services to commission and not for Westminster to impose its view, in breach of the devolution settlement.
Brandon Lewis
As I said earlier, I absolutely recognise the sensitivity and the strength of feeling of people across the House, in some cases, and as the right hon. Gentleman outlines, in Northern Ireland. First of all, this is about ensuring that we follow through on the legal obligations that Parliament put on me. It is also only right that women and girls in Northern Ireland are able to make those individual, informed decisions, with the right medical support and advice provided locally, based on their own health and wider circumstances, in the way that women and girls living elsewhere in the United Kingdom can. I absolutely fervently hope that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and the Minister for Health in Northern Ireland will take this forward and deal with it locally, so that Parliament does not need to take further action.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State not only for taking this action but for using the power of the Dispatch Box to tell harrowing tales of what women and girls have had to suffer. I went to Northern Ireland some years back and heard those same tales, and I vowed that I would do what I could to bring about this change. Equally, I have respect for those across the divide who have a very different view. Does he agree that views are now irrelevant, and that what is relevant is the law? The law is clear and has been passed by Parliament—a view has been expressed by Parliament. If that were not the case, does he agree that another of those unfortunate victims in Northern Ireland would have to go through the court process and compel him to act?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend has been a powerful voice on this issue, along with other colleagues, over the last period. I know that a number of people appreciate the support he has given and everything he has done to make sure that women and girls in Northern Ireland get the right support and care. He is absolutely right: we really should not be in a position where people have to bring this matter to court individually in order to get the right healthcare. Parliament has put a legal obligation on us. There is now a legal requirement and a legal duty. I hope the Department of Health in Northern Ireland will take this forward itself, but we obviously have a legal and moral obligation in this House to follow through on the legal obligations that were put in place in 2019.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his robust defence of the human rights of women in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether he is aware of the troubling reports of women being wilfully misled by anti-abortion organisations, which encourage them towards anti-choice clinics, disguising themselves as abortion services. These clinics then string the women along until they are over 10 weeks, so ensuring that they cannot access early medical abortions in Northern Ireland.
That is happening because of a failure to commission services as there is not a clear pathway to abortion services. Have the Government made an assessment of how many women have been prevented from accessing early medical abortion services because they are being directed to these clinics?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Even putting aside the legal and moral obligations of this House to ensure that the right healthcare is being provided in Northern Ireland, doing nothing, as some people may make a case for—I understand the sensitivities behind this—does not actually mean that nothing is happening. Doing nothing actually means that people are at risk of the kind of problems and misleading guidance and advice that the hon. Lady has rightly outlined.
There is also a risk that people turn to unofficial, shall we say, healthcare—inappropriate healthcare—that does not give them the right sort of healthcare. Actions and procedures then end up being performed illegally and in back-door areas in a way that means that people are not getting the right sort of support and healthcare. That leads to other complications and problems.
As the hon. Lady has said and others have referred to, as I did earlier, there are too many harrowing examples of people who have not been able to get access to healthcare in the right way. Whatever our views on these matters and the sensitivities, we need to ensure that women and girls in Northern Ireland, like those in the rest of the United Kingdom, have access to good quality advice and good quality, proper, official well advised healthcare that takes into account their own individual needs.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
Given what the Secretary of State has just said about people being misled, will he be clear that the assertion that Northern Ireland is violating human rights obligations is simply untrue? CEDAW reports are not binding in law and the CEDAW convention, which is, does not even mention abortion.
Surely the Secretary of State must know that the imposition of this measure, against the express democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, is not only unjust and unwelcome, but rooted in an entirely invalid assertion?
Brandon Lewis
I say to my right hon. Friend that this is a matter of domestic law; I have been clear about that. It is about the legal obligation taken forward from this House in 2019. It requires us and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that they have an offer and services that are CEDAW-compliant. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the implication and obligation of that are in domestic law; it is not an international law issue. But it is a domestic law.
These regulations are not actually about opening up the abortion laws themselves; they are about applying the laws in place that mean that Northern Ireland women and girls will have access to care in the same way as they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
Polling by Amnesty and others has consistently shown that Northern Ireland is pro-choice. I have had the great privilege of meeting Sarah Ewart and Denise Phelan—two women who have campaigned tirelessly for abortion rights and human rights in Northern Ireland. They both suffered the most traumatic and devastating of losses: fatal foetal abnormalities that meant that they needed an abortion. But they could not even access the most basic of healthcare in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State make sure that their suffering and trauma and their bravery in speaking out and campaigning are not in vain? Does he agree that wherever in the world a woman is, she should have the right to choose and to have her dignity and human rights upheld?
Brandon Lewis
The short answer is absolutely yes; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. I would go further. She has outlined a couple of specific cases. I did not name people, for a particular reason that she will appreciate. This is not a criticism of what she said at all. She is absolutely right and I know the individuals concerned. It is not just the poor access to healthcare and the harrowing examples that I outlined—the hon. Lady gave an example of a couple of people who have been through dreadful situations—but the bravery of those women in having the strength to stand up and highlight the issues so that others can understand. I also fully understand the abuse that they have had to withstand for speaking out and being clear about their own experience. That is unacceptable and we should all be calling it out.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State be honest and open with the House? He quotes section 9 of the 2019 Act. This House took the fact that the Assembly was not sitting as an excuse to impose its views on Northern Ireland. The Assembly is now sitting. The abortion industry talks about the right to choose; what about the right to choose of the people of Northern Ireland? What would happen if they tried to impose their views on us? The fact of the matter is that Northern Ireland can run its own Government as long as they keep doing things that we do not disagree with. This is not democracy. Whatever our views on abortion, the Secretary of State is putting the Union at risk. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland believe in the sanctity of life. They oppose abortion. They have their own devolved Administration. They should be allowed to run their own affairs.
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a strong point about devolution. It is absolutely right that the devolved Administrations have the ability to move on and deliver on their own affairs, and I absolutely hope that the Northern Ireland Department of Health will do that. This is not about us stepping in on a devolved matter, although I appreciate that others have made that case; it is about us ensuring compliance with the legal duties that Parliament imposed on us in mid-2019. Those duties are such that I am under an obligation to ensure that all the recommendations in the CEDAW report are implemented in Northern Ireland. The fact that the Northern Ireland Executive are back—that is a very good thing, and I hope they will take this forward; of course, they have been able to take it forward themselves with any amendments they like—does not remove the legal obligation on the Government to take forward what was voted on in this House in 2019.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
As a Northern Ireland MP, I strongly support what the Secretary of State is doing, and I stress that there is large-scale support in Northern Ireland for these actions. It is simply not tenable to have a right on paper but not in practice, and for different reproductive rights to exist across the UK. Will he give a timeframe in which he may potentially use these powers, and an assurance that he will not allow the Northern Ireland Executive to drag this issue out indefinitely?
Brandon Lewis
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that our laying these regulations now is a clear indication that we are not in a position where we think it is appropriate for this to be dragged on much further. Obviously, there is a process through this House; the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so the House will discuss and debate them. I passionately hope that, in the next few weeks, while this House is doing that, there is still time for the Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Executive to take this on board and take it forward in a way that is right and appropriate for them, with the expertise that they have locally, and to do so driven by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. However, we are taking this power as a clear indication that that cannot go on indefinitely and they do need to take action.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
Is it not true that this legislation was based on an incorrect assumption that Northern Ireland was in violation of human rights obligations? Repeated assertions were made—they have been made even today in this place—that this is a matter of human rights law. Those were based originally, as I understand it, on the work of a small working group of CEDAW. May I ask the Secretary of State again: is it not correct that that CEDAW report is not binding in international law and that this Parliament chose to treat certain assertions in it as binding? Surely, that is no answer to the unwarranted and unwanted imposition of this legislation on Northern Ireland’s people now that their Assembly is back up and running.
Brandon Lewis
As I have outlined, these regulations are about the UK Government fulfilling our legal obligations imposed by Parliament in 2019, and it is about ensuring that women and girls in Northern Ireland have access to the same quality and kind of healthcare that they would have anywhere else in the United Kingdom. As Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it is right that people in Northern Ireland have access to healthcare in the same way they would if they were on mainland Great Britain.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]
The Secretary of State on a number of occasions has talked about healthcare for women and girls, and we concur—it is important to look after expectant mothers and young pregnant woman—but the one thing he has not mentioned and the one person he has not mentioned is the right of the unborn child. If Parliament is seeking to overlook the devolutionary settlement in that regard and he is seeking to do that, who will look after the rights of the unborn child?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman has outlined the strength of feeling, and as I said earlier, I appreciate that there are strong feelings on this issue. It is a sensitive issue across the United Kingdom—we refer to Northern Ireland, but I know that people have strong views on this across the House and across the country. He has also outlined, I would argue, why it is right that we ensure and the Department of Health ensures that women and girls have access to proper quality, qualified healthcare and support in Northern Ireland, as they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to ensure that they are not being treated unofficially, potentially by people who are not properly qualified to assess the genuine individual needs of any given case. A medical professional is, and that is why it is right that this is done in the way that it is elsewhere in the UK and they get the proper support that they should be and are entitled to.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
There is nothing more important than the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but this relationship needs to be built on mutual respect, not coercion. These abortion regulations are a democratic and constitutional assault on Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend explain why he has taken on new powers to enforce measures on abortion that were predicated on the continued absence of a sitting Assembly, when that Assembly has now been in situ for over 14 months and has voted against the first section 9 regulations?
Brandon Lewis
As I have said, the legal duties imposed by a significant majority of Parliament in mid-2019 are such that I have an ongoing role legally in this issue, and that duty did not fall away with the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. My clear preference is and has always been that the Department of Health takes responsibility for delivering this healthcare, and to that end, we have given every opportunity and offered support to the Minister of Health and his Department to take this forward for more than a year now, but no progress has been made. While Parliament considers these regulations, we will continue to engage with the Minister of Health and the Executive to try to find a way forward over the coming weeks before any direction is considered to be given.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Secretary of State’s clear reference to the duty on him and welcome his personal work to learn of these harrowing cases; I totally agree that one journey made, particularly in an epidemic, is far too much. Does he agree that the United Kingdom seeks to be a beacon across the world for the rights of women and girls and supports many countries in access to healthcare, including abortions, and that the continued lack of this service within the United Kingdom is a stain on our reputation? I know that, as a strong Unionist, he is keen to assert that. Does he agree that getting this sorted now and working with Northern Ireland is critical to the future of the United Kingdom and the role that we want to play in the world?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes an important and powerful point, which does not surprise me, because I know that she has worked hard on this issue and been a strong proponent of it for some time, including in her previous role as shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. I commend her for the work she has done, particularly with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. I know that she has always been a fulsome supporter of ensuring that women and girls in Northern Ireland get access to the same quality healthcare that they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom. She is quite right that that allows the United Kingdom to continue to lead globally in making the case for ensuring that women and girls around the world get the good-quality healthcare that they rightly deserve.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend has rightly referred to the sensitivities around abortion not only in the United Kingdom but across the world. However, the situation here is that we in this House imposed on Northern Ireland rules when the Assembly was not sitting. The Assembly is now sitting and considering what is appropriate for Northern Ireland. Would he not consider stepping back and saying, “Let us hear from the Executive and the Assembly,” and then dropping the powers that we imposed in the emergency?
Brandon Lewis
I recognise that Parliament stepped in at the time it did in the way it did and imposed this duty on me on human rights grounds. However, the duty to implement the CEDAW recommendations in this context, as I have said, is a matter now of domestic law, with that legal obligation. We as a Government take our responsibility and our obligations in this regard very seriously and have always engaged constructively with the UN treaty body processes. It is only right that women and girls in Northern Ireland now are able to access safe local healthcare similar to that available to women and girls living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I fervently hope, as I have outlined already this afternoon, that this is something the Department of Health and the Executive, even in these next few weeks, will find a way to be able to take forward in the way they feel is most appropriate for Northern Ireland, and to do so in a positive way for women and girls in Northern Ireland, therefore avoiding us as a Government or as a Parliament having to take any further action.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State tells the House that he is under a duty to invoke a piece of law that has been overtaken by another piece of law. The actual law on standing today is the devolved settlement, which is very clear that abortion is a devolved matter and services arising from that are a devolved matter.
The Secretary of State speaks very emotively and emotionally from the Dispatch Box today saying that he speaks for women and children—“for women and girls”, I think was his phrase—and that he has a moral obligation to do that. Where is his moral obligation to stand at that Dispatch Box and defend the most vulnerable of lives—the unborn life? When is someone from the Government going to actually do that and defend that vulnerability, or is the unborn life an unfortunate commodity that can be disposed of so lightly? That is the point that is being made.
The carefully balanced New Decade, New Approach agreement, which the Secretary of State is signed up to, is being upset by the Secretary of State. Indeed, today’s report, the “Review of UK Government Union Capability”, says:
“A core principle underpinning…devolution…is…respect”.
Where is the respect for the Government of Northern Ireland, for the people of Northern Ireland and for the unborn lives in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
I do recognise the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and it is a point he has made to me directly on a number of occasions, about the unborn child. I have to say and I appreciate that this is an area where we do not have a similar view. There are many where we do, but not on this one. I do actually think that the situation of an unborn child is a hugely important issue, and it is something that we do need to ensure is properly respected and understood. The best way to do that is to make sure that proper, qualified, official health officials are able to give the right care, advice and support to women and girls in Northern Ireland. Part of the danger of the situation at the moment is that there are too many cases of women and girls, as was outlined by Members earlier this afternoon, who are sadly taking advice from the wrong quarters, making bad decisions and suffering badly—and, potentially, unborn children suffering badly—through bad healthcare that is not properly provided. I would argue that that is also a reason why this should be taken forward.
I do agree that I would like to see this being taken forward in the most appropriate way for Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Executive. They have not been able to do that over the last year, and there is still—even after the New Decade, New Approach deal, which we are all working to ensure is delivered, even in the difficult times of covid—a legal duty on me, as per the Act of Parliament in 2019, to make sure that these services are provided. I will continue to work with the Department of Health to make sure we do everything we can to make sure this is taken forward locally in Northern Ireland, but this does need to be taken forward.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the care and sensitivity with which he has approached this matter. He knows that I, as a Unionist, am deeply uncomfortable with the position that we find ourselves in. However, I equally accept that he has a legal duty to act based on amended legislation and votes in this House. Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is possible for the Northern Ireland Assembly to develop its own plans provided that they are CEDAW-compliant, and that it is still the policy of the UK Government that sex-selective abortion is illegal?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I absolutely respect that point and his feelings on the issue. He is right that abortion remains a devolved issue, as others have rightly outlined. The Assembly can therefore seek to amend the regulations in a way that is compliant with convention rights. I absolutely recognise the sensitivities on the issue and take them very seriously, but the regulations, as he has highlighted, do not allow abortions on the grounds of sex selection. We will continue to work with the Department of Health to ensure that the right and proper official healthcare can be provided for women and girls in Northern Ireland on what is a very sensitive issue.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Women in Northern Ireland have waited decades for the same rights as women in the rest of the UK. Since the regulations became law at least 200 women have had to travel to Britain in the middle of a pandemic to access abortion services, and the Northern Ireland abortion and contraception taskforce reports that two women attempted suicide after their flights were cancelled and they were unable to travel for abortion in the absence of safe and legal healthcare in their own area. For those listening today, how long will they now have to wait for abortion services in Northern Ireland to be commissioned? Will the Secretary of State put a deadline on using the powers outlined in the written ministerial statement on Tuesday?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady has outlined some of the harrowing examples that too many of us have heard or read about. We need to ensure that that does not happen to women and girls in the future. That is why we are bringing forward these regulations now. I fervently hope that we will be able to work with the Northern Ireland Executive, and that the Department of Health with the Executive will find a way to take this forward. The timeframe for the regulations is now a matter for this House, as it is an affirmative procedure situation, but it is clear from the fact that we are bringing this forward that the situation described by the hon. Lady will not be allowed to continue. We are putting these regulations in place so that we are able to take this action should we need to; it is a clear indication. If the Northern Ireland Executive are going to sort this out themselves, they need to do so swiftly—otherwise, once the measures have been through Parliament, we will be looking to ensure that these services are provided in Northern Ireland.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Although some people may wish to use this opportunity to reopen the discussion on the abortion regulations themselves, does my right hon. Friend agree that that time has passed and that instead we should be focused on ensuring that the legal right for women and girls to access full abortion services in Northern Ireland is implemented?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not seeking to reopen the debate on the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, as they were approved by a significant majority of the House. They delivered a framework that strikes a balance between delivering CEDAW compliance, ensuring the health and safety of women and girls, and giving clarity and certainty to healthcare professionals. I want to put on record my thanks to the medical professionals in Northern Ireland who have been working to deliver and support the rights of women and girls in this regard so far, but it is crucial that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland takes responsibility for delivering these services in line with the regulations.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I pass on my appreciation to Mr Speaker for allowing this urgent question? In my view, the Secretary of State should have been in the House on Tuesday and he should have brought forward a ministerial statement.
I am pleased with the Secretary of State’s comments in response to the last question, because throughout the course of this urgent question to suggest that this is about applying the law, and offering appropriate and quality healthcare, dismisses entirely the fact that our healthcare professionals are applying the law. The chief medical officer was incredibly clear about that this morning; he has taken it upon himself to advise healthcare professionals of their obligations, and the services are being provided. That has been lost in the course of this urgent question. Can I ask the Secretary of State to be incredibly clear with the House—at any point, even though services are being provided today, has the Health Minister in Northern Ireland suggested that he will not commission those services?
Brandon Lewis
A few points arise from what the hon. Gentleman has just outlined. First, the action we have taken this week was outlined on the Floor of the House during oral questions. We laid a statement on Tuesday. This action is being taken under the affirmative procedure, so it will be a matter for debate and can be properly discussed in this House. It is about our legal obligations as per 2019 to ensure that the services are properly provided.
We are now, as an hon. Friend outlined earlier, some 14 months on from the re-establishment of the Executive and the Department of Health is not at this stage providing the full range of services, although the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, as I outlined in my opening remarks on this urgent question, some 1,100 individuals—women and girls—have been given services over the last period. I thank the health professionals for doing that, but there are still far too many individuals who are having to travel to mainland Great Britain to get the full range of medical support and services—services that are not available in Northern Ireland which are available elsewhere in the UK. We are under a legal obligation to ensure that that ability to access healthcare for women and girls in Northern Ireland is similar to that across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now briefly suspend the House in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Business of the House
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 12 April will include:
Monday 12 April—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 13 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 14 April—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a motion in the name of the Official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 15 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill.
Friday 16 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 April will include:
Monday 19 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 20 April—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 21 April—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to counter-terrorism followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.
Thursday 22 April—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 23 April—The House will not be sitting.
May I announce to the House that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June?
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business, and of course for the Opposition day. It is the 19th allotted day, so it would be useful to know when this Session is coming to an end and when we are going to prorogue and have a Queen’s Speech.
I note that there is a motion on the Order Paper, which I hope will be passed, allowing an extension of the procedures until 21 June. I think they have all been quite useful. The numbers of cases and deaths are now slightly rising; I noticed that they were going up as of yesterday.
I know the Leader of the House will join me in condemning the rise in hate crime against Asian people, particularly Asian people in America, and the deaths of the Asian women last week.
Yesterday, the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), spoke of the loss of a generation in his family—his parents-in-law and his mother—and he and the Leader of the Opposition called on the Prime Minister to set up an inquiry. The Leader of the House will know that nurse Mary Agyapong was sent home after collapsing and then died, so it is really important that we start looking at best practice, at where things are going wrong and at what is happening.
I will try this again. Arj Singh is the deputy political editor of HuffPost UK. He is not a “cheat”, he is not a “knave” and he is not a “fool”. There was no clipping—the shearing season has not started yet—and it was not poor-quality online journalism because it was in The Times. The headline was:
“Ignore human rights and strike trade deals”,
and the Foreign Secretary has admitted that it was verbatim: he said that that is exactly what he said. I note that the Leader of the House did not apologise in his podcast to the journalist in question; I wonder whether he could do so today. We want sanctions; we do not want trade deals. A seven-year-old was shot in her father’s arms in Myanmar.
I thank the Leader of the House for his assiduousness in dealing with everything that I raise in business questions. I got a response from the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), who said that Mehran Raoof had not requested consular assistance, yet Amnesty International has labelled him a prisoner of conscience. Richard Ratcliffe has said that nothing has been decided on Nazanin, and there is nothing on Anousheh or on Luke Symons. They have still not been returned to their families. I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary is going to update us, or when they are likely to be coming home to their families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said that she had seen a newspaper exclusive that Dr Harries may be in line for a promotion. I am not sure that it is acceptable to announce that first as an exclusive to a newspaper and then as a written statement which was published yesterday. What is this new UK health security agency? Why have things been rearranged while we are in the middle of a pandemic? Why has the Secretary of State for Health not come to the House to explain what this agency is, so that we can ask questions? Worse still, 18 written statements have been published today, according to the Order Paper. That is not acceptable at all.
Could we have an urgent statement—there is still time before we rise for Easter—on the Department for Work and Pensions having been held to have an unlawful policy on regulations? It is charging people by taking fines from their universal credit.
I would also like a statement and clarification on whether turning the green belt into a car park is a new Government policy. The current Mayor of the West Midlands wants to turn a meadow off Walstead Road into a car park so that people can drive there and then get on the Sprint route. He thinks that Transport West Midlands is not under his jurisdiction, but it is. He also says that he does not want to build on green spaces, but he is building that right in the town centre. Could we have a statement on whether there are different Government policies for the west midlands on the green belt, housing, buses and cars?
I wonder whether the Leader of the House can help me with another matter. A constituent rang yesterday. He said that he exports saddles and that when he did so to a customer in the Netherlands, the customer was charged €200. He said that he thought that we had a free trade agreement with the EU that would protect his business. Can the Leader of the House please tell him what he can do? I presume that it will be Lord Frost who will answer that.
May I now wish some people a happy retirement? I have heard that Dido Harding might be leaving Test and Trace next month. No announcement has been made to the House. It would be useful to find out about that. More importantly, Dr Chris Handy from Accord Housing in the west midlands is to retire. He started there 50 years ago with 24 employees and a few hundred homes. Now he has 3,500 staff, 13,000 homes and a fantastic eco-home, which he has innovated. He has written books on the law of social landlords and “Housing Association Law and Practice”. He has given voice to some of the most vulnerable and has helped them to find homes after coming out of prison. He will be missed, so I say thank you to Dr Chris Handy for his innovation at Accord.
The Lord Speaker is also stepping down in April. I thank him for all his work over the past four years. He has made a great contribution, and I know that he will campaign on HIV and AIDS. Tomorrow is International Epilepsy Day, so I hope that everyone will be wearing purple.
Finally, 365 days ago on Tuesday the world shook, and it is still shaking now. We all know someone close who has died in the pandemic, and I wish everyone a very peaceful Easter.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I join the right hon. Lady in wishing everybody a happy Easter? I also thank everybody who ensures that the House of Commons runs so efficiently and so effectively. There is always an appropriate time—there is never an inappropriate time—in which to thank the Doorkeepers for their magnificent work. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are such a visible show of the dignity of the House of Commons when they are seen on television and such an unfailing help to Members. I also thank everybody else who is involved behind the scenes, who have been here when Members have been zooming in. Without them, Members would not have been able to zoom in. It is the behind-the-scenes staff who have allowed us to do our constitutional duty and I am sure that we would all like to record our thanks.
May I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to my noble Friend, Lord Fowler, who is retiring? He has been a very distinguished public servant—a statesman, it would be fair to say. He is famous for many things, not least for developing the term, “Retiring to spend more time with his family”, which became code when people left Government at one point for perhaps more profound disagreements, but, none the less, on this retirement, I hope that he genuinely will be spending more time with his family.
I do not know Dr Chris Handy, but what the right hon. Lady says of him is so impressive. Trying to give people a second chance and getting prisoners to have homes is a very important statement about the society in which we believe, so I wish him a very happy retirement.
The Queen’s Speech is scheduled for 11 May, and that has now been announced. The motions that are being laid before the House and which will be debated with the motions on the coronavirus restrictions will take us through to 21 May and are based on the advice that the Government are using on the road map.
I share the right hon. Lady’s criticism, shock and outrage at hate crimes that lead to people being killed. Society must do absolutely everything to stop that. The law must be upheld and the law must be enforced.
On online news organisation, I refer to what the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said last week:
“We regret that this audio has been deliberately and selectively clipped to distort the Foreign Secretary’s comments.”
The effect was to leave a fundamentally false impression in the mind of the reader. This is why I encourage all journalists to ensure that quotes fully reflect the audio available. I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees with that and would do the same. Let them huff and puff, but they will not blow this particular House down.
The right hon. Lady rightly raises, every week, the issue of dual nationals held improperly overseas. The Foreign Secretary obviously takes this very seriously. We have discussed before the limitations of what Her Majesty’s Government can do, but within their powers, Her Majesty’s Government do what they can. There is regular engagement not only with the families concerned to offer them support, but with the Governments concerned to try and pursue the interests of those British nationals held overseas. I think the treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is so outrageous that the Iranian Government should be ashamed of how they have treated her.
The changes to Public Health England were announced some months ago, so I do not think it is unreasonable that further information is becoming available and is made available to the House in a written ministerial statement—half the time the right hon. Lady asks me for more statements and then, when we give more statements, she says we have too many and that is unfair. It is inevitable; we have had so many oral statements recently—I think we have had five this week and six last week, in addition to the urgent questions that have been asked—so there has been real effort to keep Parliament up to date. There are always constraints on the time available, so there are often things that we would like to give statements on but we cannot have a third statement on a particular day. That is the normal organisation of business and it is perfectly reasonable. Before a recess, all Governments always put out a larger number of written statements for the very obvious reason that there is an obligation in the ministerial code to tell Parliament first. Anyone who has worked to a deadline will know that the deadline of a recess encourages Government Departments to put out their statements, quite rightly.
Let me finish on the wonderful achievements of the Mayor of the west midlands, who has done such a fabulous job in making the west midlands a place where people want to do business and are succeeding in doing business. It has been an area of prosperity under his excellent and benign leadership. I visited, in the right hon. Lady’s constituency, a fantastic brownfield site development that was being led—energised—by the Mayor for the west midlands, and I wish him every possible success in the upcoming local elections, where I am sure he will triumph because he has been so good at doing his job.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
On the eve of the launch of the Dame Vera Lynn memorial fund appeal, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the distribution of discretionary grants to businesses by local authorities during the coronavirus pandemic? I have had a number of local companies, including sole traders, complaining about delays in receiving funds, the interpretation of eligibility by my local authority and no commonality with other councils. Surely with the Government giving the money to local authorities to distribute, it is their duty to make sure that it reaches businesses that need the support as soon as possible. I do wish everyone a very happy Easter.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government have introduced an unprecedented package of support for businesses throughout the pandemic and are working closely with local authorities to ensure that funding can get to the right places as quickly as is practicable. The additional restrictions grant continues to enable local authorities to put in place discretionary business support. Local authorities are free to provide support that suits their local area, including support for those businesses that are not required to close but whose trade has been severely affected by restrictions, and those businesses that fall outside the business rates system, such as market traders. But it is a discretionary system and if we believe in local accountability and local decision making, sometimes we have to accept that the local decisions will not be the decisions that we ourselves would have made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am sure that the Lord President of the Council will welcome the launch of the Dame Vera Lynn appeal.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]
I associate myself with the comments of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), about the urgent need to tackle the rise in hate crime. Equally, I wish all Members of the House a happy Easter and express my thanks to the staff of the House, who have helped all Members in such a difficult period over the last year.
Not only does today represent day 38 of 42 days of strike action by British Gas engineers over the shameful fire and rehire threat, but it—or more accurately, noon just passed—was the deadline given to those engineers to sign up to new, reduced terms and conditions or to face the sack. Unless British Gas takes that off the table at the eleventh hour, those who refuse to be bullied into signing the new contracts will be sacked on 1 April. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) questioned Ministers on this issue time and again, including bringing legislation to outlaw the practice, which has led the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to instruct ACAS to carry out a review. As I understand it, that reported to Government over a week ago, but it has not yet been brought forward. Can the Leader of the House please ask his colleagues in BEIS to come to the House as a matter of urgency to make a statement on this heinous practice, which has already affected so many across the country?
Governments have a long and bitter history of interactions with mining communities. I was certainly very welcoming of the Scottish Government’s commitment to issuing pardons for unjust convictions that ruined the lives of so many miners in the ’80s. I still hope that we could see action from this Government to play their part and launch a full inquiry into the policing of miners’ strikes in the ’80s. May we have a debate in Government time to look at that issue, but also at how we can use those mines today to create new jobs and opportunities, for example through geothermal energy?
Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House to join me in expressing his thanks to my constituent Jim Ralston, who this week has announced his retirement as captain of the Loanhead Boys’ Brigade company? Jim has been its captain for 12 years and we wish him well in his future endeavours. Will he also wish every success to the former hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and now Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead, Neil Gray, in his future endeavours, as well as to our candidate in the upcoming by-election, Anum Qaisar?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I always wish to spread goodwill. The hon. Gentleman is pushing me a little bit far in wishing SNP candidates success in by-elections, but I do wish Neil Gray every personal success outside this House. He is a wonderful person to deal with. I was on the Joint Committee on restoration and renewal with him, and he was a voice of good sense, good humour and kindliness. He will be missed by this House. Unfortunately, I cannot wish my electoral opponents electoral success, but I hope he has every other success.
Jim Ralston sounds to have been a wonderful servant of the people in his work for the Boys’ Brigade. I am more than happy to congratulate him on his retirement and thank him on behalf of the Government. Our whole country depends on the voluntary work that so many millions undertake with enthusiasm and we have seen that particularly over the last year.
As regards fire and rehire, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that BEIS has received the ACAS report. It is being considered by Ministers. It was received only a week ago. There will be the normal routine of questions to BEIS once the House is back after the Easter recess. The Government have been very clear that employers threatening to fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic are doing something that is quite wrong. Employers must treat employees fairly and in the spirit of partnership during contractual negotiations. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) has had a number of meetings on this issue and has condemned the practice in the strongest possible terms in the House and elsewhere.
I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about the possibility of using mines for geothermal energy. I cannot claim to be an expert in geothermal energy, but we should always be looking to find new and clean ways of providing energy.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) [V]
At football stadiums in Germany and Scotland, safe standing has been successfully trialled and found to be safe, according to a report by England’s Sports Grounds Safety Authority. The Conservative manifesto committed to working with fans and clubs towards introducing safe standing at football. Will my right hon. Friend provide an update to the House on when the Government will bring it forward?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is an important question and I know that many football supporters have a great interest in it and in the atmosphere created by safe standing. The Government are committed to working towards a return of standing areas for football spectators. Obviously, the immediate priority are the preparations for the return of fans to stadiums, as set out in the road map for stage 3—although it is not football, dare I say that I have my tickets for the test matches at Lord’s later on in the year, and that I am hoping the New Zealand one is open to spectators, but we shall see—and the work of the events research programme to consider how we may, among other things, increase the number of spectators. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will then, in due course, return to the pledge made in our manifesto. It has not been forgotten, but there are other things going on at the moment—I suppose that is my message to my hon. Friend.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench Business Committee business for Thursday 22nd. It is our intention that the first item will be a Liaison Committee-sponsored debate, led by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), on covid data transparency and accountability. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you a happy Easter, and wish a happy Easter and a pleasant break to all Members and House staff and staff who have facilitated our virtual participation in this Chamber, in Select Committees and in all allowable business in these extraordinary times? May I also wish the Jewish community, who are my friends, neighbours and constituents here in Gateshead and across the country, a very happy celebration of Passover, which begins this weekend?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing the Jewish community a happy Passover? I recall that when studying A-levels I looked in some detail as to whether the last supper was a Passover feast or not. In St John’s gospel it seems not to be, whereas in the synoptic gospels it seems to be. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s good wishes and for his telling us the first debate in the next Backbench Business Committee business.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
Last week, I was delighted to visit the new vaccination centre at the St Nicholas centre in Sutton, where Carshalton and Wallington residents will soon be invited to come forward to receive their vaccinations. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the site matron, Wendy, and all the staff and volunteers who have made this possible? May we have a debate on how we can recognise them and everyone who has stepped up throughout this pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is so right to raise this and the incredible work that has been done by staff and volunteers at vaccination centres across the country. I am looking forward next Tuesday to going to the Bath racecourse, which is in my constituency—it is not actually in Bath—for my vaccination. For the record, I am not giving up my racecourse to Bath. I particularly congratulate Wendy, the site matron. She sounds absolutely splendid and deserves the commendation of the House. People like Wendy have played a vital role in the vaccine roll-out, and thanks to their incredible work about 28 million people have now received their first dose across the UK, which is more than half of all adults in our country.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Leader of the House should be aware of the widespread concerns about the Government’s proposals for the NHS reorganisation in the middle of a pandemic. For many, this is seen as creating more opportunities for Government cronyism and dodgy contracts. The creation of strong, well-co-ordinated governance arrangements seems to have been an afterthought and that reflects this Government’s priorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) said, given these concerns, why has there been no oral statement to the House on the next stages of this reorganisation? A written statement gives no opportunity to hold the Government to account.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I said earlier, there are huge pressures on time in this House, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be at the Dispatch Box immediately after this session in a debate on covid regulations, and it will be possible to intervene on him to raise points. But I fundamentally dispute, disagree with and reject the question of cronyism. The success of the ordering programme—the procurement programme—over the last year is quite extraordinary, and something of which this country should be proud. The vaccine roll-out depended upon being fleet of foot in ordering the vaccines and putting the money forward. On other procurement, 1% of personal protective equipment was domestically produced a year ago and now, excluding gloves, 70% will be domestically produced. Normally, awarding government contracts takes three to six months. If we had waited six months, we would not have had the vaccine roll-out starting until this summer—it would have been too late. What has been done was quite right, entirely justifiable and in the best traditions of the British state acting properly.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Last weekend, just outside Ipswich, 83 stolen dogs were found. There have been six people arrested who are currently out on bail. Suffolk police deserve to be credited for their successful operation—one of the largest involving stolen dogs. But the concern among many of my constituents is that those responsible get away with little more than a slap on the wrist. I have raised this matter before during business questions and I have also led a debate on it. I have written to the Sentencing Council asking it to amend the guidance around the Theft Act 1968 and was rebutted. It is clear to me that only action in this place will ensure that this will cease to become a high reward, low risk crime. Will my right hon. Friend find time in this place to debate what action this place can take to stand up for our pets?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a matter that is of concern to a number of hon. and right hon. Members. It is an appalling crime that causes great distress, and it has increased over the past year. The theft of a pet is a criminal offence under the Theft Act and carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, so when he says that it is a low risk, high reward crime, that shows that people should perhaps be better informed of the risk they are taking. Seven years is a very serious sentence. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines on theft now take account of the emotional distress for the victim caused by any theft offence, including theft of a pet, meaning that the courts will now take this into account when considering the appropriate sentence. As I understand it, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are discussing possible ways of strengthening the enforcement of pet theft, and of course the Government have hired over 6,600 new police officers during the course of this Parliament, which will help us to tackle this crime better. My hon. Friend will be aware that by raising this issue in the Chamber and making it one of political importance, the police will pay attention and will know what is of public concern. Police resources, and police and crime commissioner elections, tend to follow where there is greatest public concern, so he is ensuring that this issue will be taken more seriously merely by raising it in this House.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
This week a Health Minister said that in her discussions with NHS staff they had not asked for a pay increase. Can we have a debate in Government time on a motion drafted by the Government that defends the 1% pay increase, which is in effect a pay cut, for NHS staff so that hon. Members in all parts of this House can hear from their constituents who work in the NHS and come here with true testimonies about what they think about a 1% pay increase?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This has to be seen in the context of the economy as a whole and what has already been done. The starting salary for a newly qualified nurse increased by over 12% in 2017-18, and the average nurse’s pay is now at £34,000 a year. The starting salaries for the lowest-paid, such as healthcare assistants and porters, have increased by 16% since 2017-18 from £15,404 to £18,005. So steps have been taken over the longer term to help those working for the NHS. In this current financial circumstance, there is a 1% pay increase for all NHS staff, but an additional 0.7% has been awarded for nurses. The NHS and nurses have been excluded from the general pay restraint because the country—the nation as a whole—recognises the extraordinary work they have done in the past year, the courage they have shown and the public service they have shown, and that has been rewarded as much as possible in these difficult financial circumstances.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
This week, on 22 March, the United Nations released a statement about the conflict in Ethiopia relating to the Tigray region in which it outlined the gross violations of human rights, including sexual violence against women and rape. The UK has a long history in tackling this issue—since 2012 and the creation of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative—but unfortunately we have been somewhat muted on the subject. Will the Leader of the House push for further action from the Government so that we can have a statement when the House returns and ensure that the PSVI unit is deployed where possible to help those who are suffering from an outdated, horrific crime that we have a moral duty to respond to?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an issue of greatest concern. I particularly commend my noble Friend Lord Hague for establishing the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative in 2012, which has had widespread support. The Government have received reports of widespread sexual violence perpetrated by different armed groups. These attacks ought to stop and those responsible for such crimes must be held to account. The protection of civilians is at the core of the UK’s response to the crisis. In Tigray, we will work to promote justice for survivors of sexual violence, provide support to survivors and children born of conflict-related sexual violence and prevent further sexual violence from occurring.
The United Kingdom has a zero-tolerance approach to abuse and exploitation in our aid programmes. UK-funded organisations operating in Tigray are aware of their obligations to protect beneficiaries from exploitation and abuse and of the need to manage such risks appropriately. We are working with the co-ordination system to ensure that collective mechanisms are implemented in Tigray. Prevention is central to aid.
I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He said it was not getting enough attention. Thanks to him, it is now getting more attention. The issue has been raised, and it is one of fundamental importance.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Scottish Government have just enshrined in law the UN convention on the rights of the child, they have just announced plans to nationalise our rail fleet and they are, of course, giving NHS staff a 4% pay increase. That is in contrast to the UK Government, who are seeking to restock and increase the nuclear arsenal, who are moving forward with plans to limit peaceful protest and who are giving NHS staff just a 1% pay increase. Should we not have a debate in this Parliament on the most important of issues: a tale of two Governments?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is brave to bring to this House a discussion of two Governments. There are all sorts of things I could be tempted to say about the Government currently in Scotland and all the extraordinary shenanigans going on there—who said what to whom, when and where, and who may or may not have put pressure on prosecutors. All sorts of things are going on; it is all pretty unsatisfactory, and it is lucky that there are elections coming up.
I would point out that devolution has the benefit of the strength of the United Kingdom behind it. That is why the UK taxpayer has been able to provide £12.12 billion to Scotland during the pandemic. United Kingdom taxpayers—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters away from a sedentary position, and I know that the people of Scotland pay taxes—particularly high taxes, because of the rapacious left-wing Government they have that likes to take money from them. However, it is UK taxpayers combined who have provided this £12.12 billion, which was supported 779,500 jobs, provided 78% of the tests that have been done in Scotland and then processed in the rest of the United Kingdom, and supported over 157,000 people on the self-employed scheme. The strength of the United Kingdom is quite extraordinary. Scotland benefits from that, and that is why it is able to afford to do the other things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
Making a success of Brexit, rebuilding after the pandemic, and changes to patterns of working, such as working from home, will all require a comprehensive and efficient broadband infrastructure. My constituents in Edgware and Mill Hill have already found to their detriment that current provision is not adequate, so I dread to think what it is like in other parts of the country. Will a Minister attend the Dispatch Box and outline what the Government are doing to make reliable, efficient broadband connectivity a reality? Red tape and regulation must not be excuses and hinder our progress in this field, given that we currently rank 47th in the world speed league.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I understand from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that his constituency has pretty good coverage, with over 66% of Hendon having access to gigabit-capable broadband, compared with the UK average of under 40%. Nevertheless, the Government are aware that we need to upgrade more of the broadband network to gigabit-capable speeds as soon as possible. We are targeting a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage by 2025, but we are ambitious to get close to 100% as soon as possible, and we are spending £5 billion of taxpayers’ money in subsidising the roll-out in the harder-to-reach 20% of the United Kingdom. The first areas to benefit from the £5 billion Project Gigabit programme were announced on Friday. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working with suppliers to ensure that there is maximum transparency around their plans, but I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Secretary of State.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Community energy projects are an excellent way to bring people in behind our ambition to get to net zero by 2050, yet there are still significant regulatory barriers to making community energy more widespread. The Local Electricity Bill, sponsored by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), received 258 signatures from cross-party MPs, and an Adjournment debate on the same topic last autumn attracted a record number of MPs who intervened in support of the Bill. Clearly, we need more time to debate this issue, so may we have a debate in Government time on the importance of establishing a statutory right to local energy supply?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, and I am delighted that the Lib-Dems are now becoming a party of deregulation. Speaking from the Treasury Bench, I confess that deregulation is something that warms the cockles of my heart. Seven private Member’s Bill managed to go through to the House of Lords, although inevitably not every Bill got through. The hon. Lady is right to raise the deregulatory ambition of herself and of others in the House, and there will obviously be private Member’s Bills in the next Session which, as I announced earlier, will start on 11 May.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), our excellent Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, is concerned about the growing issue of pet theft. In Devon and Cornwall there are, on average, 80 dog thefts a year, a quarter of which are linked to organised crime, yet no one has received the maximum sentence of only seven years. Will my right hon. Friend allocate Government time to debate how to tackle the issue of pet theft and ensure that the punishment reflects the crime? The loss of a loved pet—a member of the family—is far more than mere theft.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), this is a terrible crime, and the Government are taking measures to help tackle it better, with more than 6,600 additional police officers. I join my hon. Friend in thanking Alison Hernandez for her terrific work as police and crime commissioner, and for highlighting this important issue. It is worth adding to my earlier remarks, that if someone causes an animal to suffer in the course of stealing it from its owner, they are liable for prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill is currently in the House of Lords. If passed, it will increase the maximum penalty for such a crime to five years, which would be the highest penalty for animal cruelty in Europe. There is the risk of seven years in prison for pet theft, and five years for cruelty to animals. The penalties are there—or will be if the House of Lords obliges—and this is a question of enforcement and catching wrongdoers. That is where the extra 6,600 police will help.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) [V]
The Leader of the House will be aware, as we all are, of a number of hospital rebuilds in the pipeline, one of which—Whipps Cross Hospital—is in my constituency. Those rebuilds are welcome across the House, but there are also concerns that a number of the projects imply reductions in bed numbers. Particularly after the pandemic, that seems to me, and to many other Members, very misguided. Indeed, people were saying that even before the pandemic. When Parliament returns, may we have a statement from the Health and Social Care Secretary on bed numbers in hospital rebuilds?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased by the hospital rebuilds programme, and he raises a serious and important point. My right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box shortly, and that question could be raised with him in an intervention. I will pass on the point to my right hon. Friend after this statement, and try to get the hon. Gentleman an answer regarding what is the policy, and what has been learned from the pandemic.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government are rightly working on a scheme to protect blameless leaseholders from financial ruin owing to the cladding scandal, yet as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and others movingly explained on Monday, lessees are even now being handed bills well in excess of £70,000 for hugely expensive waking watch arrangements and other costs, which they cannot possibly afford. May we urgently have a Government statement on how to prevent such innocent people from being forced to forfeit their leases, sacrifice their homes and declare themselves bankrupt before the new scheme has been fully activated?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government have always been clear that leaseholders should not have undue worry about the costs of remediating historical defects that they did not cause. Waking watch arrangements have been in place for far too long, and leaseholders are being left to pick up sometimes very high bills. That is why the Government are providing £30 million for a waking watch relief fund to install fire alarms and other interim measures, providing alternatives to the expensive waking watch systems. I will take this up on my right hon Friend’s behalf with the Secretary of State, but Housing, Communities and Local Government Questions are on 19 April. I point to the measures that the Government have introduced, which my right hon. Friend referred to, which will be of considerable assistance to leaseholders and get the right balance between leaseholders, the taxpayer and freeholders.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) [V]
I know that the Leader of the House will agree that, throughout the pandemic, our posties have been working harder than ever, and I pay tribute to those frontline, dedicated individuals. Two communities in my constituency, Llanharan and Brynna, have in some periods gone more than four weeks without the delivery of mail during the pandemic, with Royal Mail therefore not meeting its universal service obligation. I wonder if the Leader of the House could find time for a Minister to issue a written statement or, indeed, to come to the Floor of the House after the Easter Recess, to explain what work they are doing with Royal Mail HQ to ensure that our hard-working postmen and women are supported on the ground and that Royal Mail meets that obligation. I have too many constituents missing, for example, letters of confirmation of their vaccination, which I am sure he will agree is not acceptable.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Indeed, I am in considerable agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Four weeks without mail will be a real problem for people. Royal Mail has a universal service obligation. I absolutely understand that the pandemic has made things difficult for some businesses, and that staffing arrangements, rotas and so on have been problematic, but I would have thought that in four weeks alternative arrangements could have been made. A well-run businesses ought surely to be able to organise its staffing in such way that nobody has to wait that long. I will of course pass on his points to the relevant Department.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I am extremely concerned about the wellbeing of our children and young people due to their isolation from their friends and peers during the pandemic. May we please have time for a debate on the importance of voluntary organisations, such as the 1st Hathersage Scouts, the 1st Matlock Boys Brigade, the 2nd Matlock Brownies, the 1st Doveridge Scout group and Girlguiding groups in places such as Bakewell and Calver, which provide vital support and socialising opportunities for our young people and children? They must be supported and protected now.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government recognise the strain that has been put on children and their families over the past year. Ensuring that children can play and socialise safely again is a great priority. They also have fun; am I allowed to use the word “fun”, Madam Deputy Speaker? Children ought to enjoy themselves. The Scouts and Brownies ensure that children enjoy themselves. They look at that great figure Bear Grylls and think, “Perhaps I can eat a slug too; what will my parents have to say?” [Interruption.] There may also be vegetarian scouts who do not want to eat slugs; I accept the heckle from the Opposition Bench.
That is very important, as is the mental health of children, which the Government are doing a great deal to support, with an extra £79 million to boost mental health support for children and young people. Some 22,500 more children and young people will have access to such services next year, and an additional 345,000 by 2024. The last year has been difficult. Let us hope that the Scouts and Guides, wonderful features of our civic life that they are, will open up soon and that children will be able to enjoy themselves and, dare I say it, do those things that their parents probably do not always approve of until they find out about them later.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
In my constituency, there are a number of large developments that are at complete odds with many residents’ wishes—a pontoon at Market Dock, the destruction of fields and a popular playpark at Holborn Riverside, and the construction of an unnecessary flyover at Tilesheds. The planning system is completely failing them. Residents were not involved in the decisions at the outset, and now they are expressing concerns that they are being ignored, railroaded and, in some cases, treated with contempt. Can we have an urgent debate on reforming planning so that local people have a real say in what happens in their community?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have visited the hon. Lady’s constituency and know what an attractive place it is, and it deserves to remain attractive. This always leads to arguments over planning, but the planning system is fundamentally a local one, with local councils having the majority say in planning developments. I suggest that, initially, this is taken up with the local council. It is only at the stage when things are called in to national Government that they become a matter for central Government.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Easter is a time for love, but there is not going to be much love this Easter because very few people will be able to get married. It is a traditional time for marriage. This continues to be a very difficult situation for the wedding industry, which is mainly run by women, and I hope that the Government have not forgotten women’s industries and businesses. Pubs and sporting venues will be allowed to open, but it is a very difficult situation for the wedding industry. Brides have not been able to buy their dresses for nearly a year. The wedding industry contributes millions of pounds to the Exchequer, but these businesses are not being allowed to open properly, and yet pubs can. Can we have an urgent discussion about how we can help the industry understand these very conflicting rules, get these people back to business and let love flourish?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend reminds us that, historically, marriages did not take place during Lent, and therefore took place immediately after Lent. She is right to say that spring is a time when people want to get married and the weather is better for their celebrations. I can assure her that the Minister for Small Business, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), is regularly in contact with the industry-led weddings taskforce, established to represent all parts of the UK wedding sector, to understand the effect of the pandemic on jobs and businesses.
Over the course of the pandemic, the Government have provided an unprecedented package of financial support to businesses, including those in the wedding industry, and that is kept under regular review. I understand that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has further discussions planned with the industry-led weddings taskforce to appreciate the sector’s concerns and help it through the reopening period.
Over 28 million people in the UK have received their first dose of the vaccine, increasing the likelihood that restrictions will be eased at each step of the road map, including restrictions on weddings, but I sympathise very much with what my hon. Friend says and the representations she makes on behalf of her constituents. She is right to say that the wedding industry has been particularly badly affected by the pandemic, and it is important that it can get back to normal as soon as is practicable, in accordance with the road map.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The UK Government have promised to publish their national strategy for disabled people this spring and have consulted the public and committed to listening further. Given how all-encompassing this strategy will be, can we have an interim statement on the general direction of the strategy, informed by their survey, ahead of publication, so that Members can debate the intended strategy and provide further input on behalf of our constituents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to mention the national strategy for disabled people. Spring has only just sprung—we are only a very few days into it—so the intention is still very much to publish it in spring. In terms of parliamentary time, with the recess that is coming up and the end of the Session in sight, I fear that I cannot promise her the debate that she asks for in Government time, but it may well be a subject for an Adjournment debate, or indeed the Backbench Business Committee may be able to slot it in on one of its remaining days.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
After many months of conversations with senior executives from BP and McDonald’s, I am pleased that the two companies have agreed to progress a scheme that will resolve the long-standing problems at Rush Green roundabout in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many residents and councillors who have campaigned on this issue and encourage the companies to implement the necessary alterations to the site as quickly as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We do not want to go round in circles on this issue, but I thank my hon. Friend for her question and the work she is doing in her constituency.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am certainly not a revolutionary—or a gyrator, either, for that matter.
I am sure that this will be welcome news for residents in Hertford and Stortford. It is fantastic to see businesses—leading forces of capitalism such as British Petroleum and McDonald’s, international titans that they are—contributing to their local communities, ensuring smooth and fast journeys for their customers and all the people in Hertfordshire. It is in their interests, is it not? If the roundabout runs smoothly, people can go and fill up with petrol and then go for a drive-through McDonald’s. The businesses are quite right to contribute, because it will benefit them in the long run.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
This week we saw a historic result for the campaign for the Shrewsbury 24, who had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal. That verdict is significant for the rights of working people in the UK. Sadly, many of those involved, who saw their lives ruined by the politicisation of charges, did not live long enough to see justice done. Given that, and the fact that this verdict was achieved after half a century of injustice, does the Leader of the House believe that time should be allocated to debate the merits of the Government’s holding a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the dispute and the trial?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Appeal Court has ruled, and that shows that British justice works and that we have a country where, when mistakes are made, we have the systems to ensure that those mistakes are admitted to, even if after a long time. We do not just say, “Well that happened a long time ago; we are therefore ignoring it.” We should be proud of our justice system and the fact that it spends time looking at historical cases and setting the record straight. For those who have not lived long enough to see it, at least their families know that there was no stain on their family member’s character, and I think that is important and reassuring to those who mourn.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I am enthusiastically looking forward to the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, which I hear will be the best ever. What will make them even better is Perry the mascot, which was designed by my constituent Emma Lou from Westhoughton. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating her, and will he perhaps pose with Perry?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I absolutely congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituent Emma Lou on winning the mascot design competition for the 2022 Commonwealth games, which will take place in Birmingham. I am delighted to hear that they are going to be the best ever—we take that as a firm promise from my hon. Friend—and to hear about Perry the bull, inspired by the city’s famous Bullring.
I remember as a child a story about Ferdinand the bull, who did not like to fight but liked to sit there smelling the flowers, until he got stung by a bee and therefore charged around like billy-oh. The bullfighting catchers were around that day and they took him off, and then he sat in the bullring sniffing the flowers. It was a bit of a disappointment for the audience. I hope Perry is a more active bull, with his fantastic horns and his colourful hexagons. It is very encouraging that the mascot has been chosen—and would I pose for a photo with Perry? I would be honoured, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope you will join me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am sure I would be delighted, Lord President.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
May I add my concerns to those of other hon. Members about the increasingly common tactic of fire and rehire across businesses? I welcomed the Leader of the House’s comments earlier, and I reflect on the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), talked about it being “bully boy tactics”, and he is absolutely right. BEIS has had that ACAS report since 17 February. There will be a couple of extra weeks now after the Easter recess. I urge the Leader of the House to bring forward emergency legislation, which by the sound of things would have support, so that we can outlaw this disgraceful tactic of fire and rehire.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reiterating the point, which is a serious one. Employers threatening to fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic are doing something that is wrong and that decent employers do not do. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could not have been clearer about what a bad practice it is. The hon. Gentleman says that BEIS has had the report since 17 February, which was slightly longer than I had realised, but none the less for something of this importance that is not an enormous amount of time, and I know it is being considered extremely carefully.
Companies should know better than to behave in this way. All companies operate best when their employees are working there with enthusiasm, and these types of tactics are very bad for morale in businesses, so I would say to my capitalist friends, “Behave well as a business, and your business will do better.”
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
When we come back after Easter, can we have a statement on Yemen? I know the Leader of the House will understand how it must feel for the family of Luke Symons when they hear about incidents of detention centres being attacked in Sanaa and when they hear about the cut in aid to Yemen and the continuing supply of arms to Saudi Arabia, but most of all their and my concern is for the welfare of my constituent held captive in Sanaa by the Houthis.
If we cannot have that statement, will the Leader of the House encourage the Foreign Office at least to be a bit more active in providing me with briefings and updates on what is going on in relation to this matter? I have asked for one and not received one. He is always assiduous, so through his good offices, will he give them a nudge and seek to provide me with an updated report?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can absolutely give the second commitment that the hon. Gentleman asks for. The Government are working closely with our partners in the region to ensure that Mr Symons is released and reunited with his family as soon as possible. We obviously do not have direct representation there. It may be helpful if I tell hon. and right hon. Members that after this session every week, I write to relevant Ministers with any issues that have been brought up, and obviously I particularly emphasise ones of this kind, because I think hon. and right hon. Members have a right to be kept informed about their constituents and to make representations for them. It is our basic obligation as Members to seek redress of grievance for those we represent, and I will always do anything I can to help in that regard.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Large-scale infrastructure projects place a huge burden on parish and town councils that cover the areas of construction of those projects. Parish councillors in my constituency tell me that dealing with local matters relating to projects such as HS2 and East West Rail has become something like a full-time job. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking our parish and town councils for all the work they do and find time for a debate in Government time to recognise the additional burden of big infrastructure on those local councils and to find a better way to support them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
With projects of this scale, local effects will unfortunately be unavoidable. The Department for Transport encourages close co-operation and engagement between such projects and local councils, including parish councils. The HS2 Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), has been looking at this issue closely and, as set out in detail in the parliamentary report published last week, has taken a number of further steps to improve HS2 Ltd’s approach. The Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), is also supportive of the recently introduced monthly meeting between the leaders of Buckinghamshire Council, East West Rail Company, Network Rail and the EWR Alliance, which can act as a point of escalation for construction issues if required. As regards a debate in Government time, I am sorry, but I cannot promise that. I do think that an issue concerning the councils, including parish councils, of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) is ideal territory for an Adjournment debate.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on air safety? For whatever reason, the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU did not include access to the EU EGNOS—European geostationary navigation overlay service—satellite system, which is used to provide 3D glide slope for instrument approach procedures for planes coming in to land at airports. As a consequence, come 21 June, the limits at which planes will be allowed to approach a runway without visual contact will be significantly increased, which will be particularly acute across the highlands and islands, at exactly the same time as we will be wanting more people, hopefully, to come back and start to visit us again. We need a memorandum of understanding with the EU on that, and we really need to hear from the Secretary of State for Transport what he intends to do if we do not have one.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I cannot claim that I know a great deal about that particular issue, which may not surprise the House, but this is absolutely one of those things, as I said to an hon. Gentleman earlier, that I will take up with the relevant Minister, and I will try to get the right hon. Gentleman a detailed response to what sounds a very serious matter. Obviously we want transport to resume as safely as possible, so that tourists are able to come back. He raises an important point, and I shall do my best to get a detailed answer.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
My best friend is a 12-year-old west highland white terrier called Alfie, and life without him would be almost unbearable. Yet every time my wife takes him out for a walk she is scared to death that he will be stolen. That is a shocking, shocking crime and should carry a mandatory jail sentence, in my opinion, and my residents would back me up on that. So, for the third time today, could I ask my right hon. Friend to please reassure me that he will do all he can to ensure a debate on that important issue in the House, or ask the Government to make a statement on the matter and help protect man’s best friend?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is clear from this session that pet theft is of considerable concern to hon. Members. This session is often a straw in the wind as to the issues that are of political importance, because Members raise whatever they want, and when you get three questions on the same subject it shows that there is public concern. The Government are doing the things that I set out previously, including providing the additional police force, but people ought to feel confident going for a walk, and it is unreasonable, unfair and unpleasant that my hon. Friend’s wife, Mrs Anderson, does not feel safe going for walks for worry that her dog will be stolen. We want people to feel secure taking their dogs for walks, and I have heard the concerns of the House.
Points of Order
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to raise this point of order regarding the NHS contaminated blood scandal, the biggest treatment disaster in NHS history. The vast majority of Members of Parliament will have at least one constituent infected—or have had one constituent, because those infected die at an average of one every 96 hours.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that it took many years of cross-party campaigning before the NHS infected blood inquiry was announced in 2017. Alongside the public inquiry, the Government agreed to undertake a review of financial support available to those infected and affected, and to work on a compensation framework if later required by the inquiry’s findings.
Last week, Caroline Wheeler of The Sunday Times reported that Ministers planned to make a statement this week on financial support for infected blood victims. A written ministerial statement appeared this morning, on the last day before the Easter recess and, crucially, after the deadline to secure an urgent question today. This leaves no opportunity for Members’ questioning of a Minister in the House for at least two weeks.
The failure to make an oral ministerial statement in the House today, allowing Members to ask questions, may not be disorderly, but it is grossly insensitive to people who have suffered so much for so long at the hands of the state. I seek your advice on how we can get this issue discussed in the House at the very earliest opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Lady for notice of her point of order. As she well knows, and as Mr Speaker has said many times, it is a matter for the Government whether they make a written or oral ministerial statement; the occupant of the Chair has no say in that matter.
The right hon. Lady asks the question always asked during points of order, but I appreciate that it is a way for her to bring to the attention of the House and those on the Treasury Bench her concerns about how this matter can be brought before the House. There are, of course, many ways in which the right hon. Lady can do that: she can seek an Adjournment debate; ask for an urgent question; go to the Backbench Business Committee; urge a Select Committee to have an inquiry; and write to Ministers. I think she knows about all those. I am quite sure that, given her experience and determination—for which she is renowned in this particular matter—she will find one of those ways of bringing this matter to the Floor of the House.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you and Mr Speaker for allowing me to make this point of order.
On 8 March, in Department for Work and Pensions questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), told me that in Feltham and Heston there were 77 kickstart vacancies and 11 starts. She also shared kickstart data for Tower Hamlets with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). On 17 March, I tabled a written question asking for kickstart placements and vacancies by constituency; I was surprised to be told that that data is not currently available by constituency.
Three other colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—have been similarly rebuffed when asking about their own constituencies. MPs have also been told that the Department is unable to publish data below regional level.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Minister told me figures for my constituency in this House, the data does exist and could be published. Given that young people’s jobs have been worst hit, transparency matters so that Parliament knows where opportunities are reaching and where they are not. Could you advise me on how Members can seek to get this important data published by the DWP?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As I said to her right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) a few moments ago, it is not for the Chair to comment on the accuracy or completeness of ministerial answers; that is a matter entirely for Ministers. But it is fairly obvious that if the Department holds the information that she has requested, it should provide that information to her.
The hon. Lady has used her point of order to draw her concerns to the attention of the House and Ministers. Of course, she will also be aware that the Procedure Committee monitors departmental performance. I suggest that she considers drawing the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee if the Department’s response remains unsatisfactory.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answer to my question about the ACAS report on fire and rehire, the Leader of the House indicated that the report had been presented to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy a week ago. However, it has come to my attention that a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said that the report was actually presented on 17 February—a number of weeks ago.
I have no doubt that the Leader of the House did not intentionally give the wrong date. However, given the pressing deadlines involved, can you give me advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can further press the issue to make sure that it is reasonably considered and that action is taken urgently?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very reasonable point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can see that the Leader of the House agrees that it is reasonable.
I may be mistaken, but after the hon. Gentleman asked his question of the Leader of the House I am pretty sure that I heard the Leader of the House give an answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) saying that he had been slightly mistaken about dates and confirming that the relevant date was in fact 17 February.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, that is what I understand from the questions I received. I thought that the hon. Gentleman indicated a week ago and then the hon. Member for City of Chester indicated 17 February. I think, but this is not an absolute statement on oath, that 17 February is the accurate date.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you. I heard the Leader of the House say that in answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester and I hope that the matter has now been cleared up. I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for giving us all the opportunity to make sure that the information given here in the Chamber is always accurate.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Coronavirus
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 484 / Noes: 76 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to motion 2, on public health, which, with the permission of the House, we will debate with motions 3 to 5.
Before I call the Secretary of State to move motion 2 and speak to the other motions, I can confirm that Mr Speaker has not selected any of the amendments. I should also mention that there will be a limit on Back-Bench speeches not of three minutes initially, but of four minutes.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 364), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 March, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall discuss the following:
Motion 3—Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions) (No. 2)—
That the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should not yet expire.
Motion 4—Coronavirus Act 2020 (One-year Status Report)—
That this House has considered the one-year report on the status on the non-devolved provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Motion 5—Proceedings during the Pandemic (No. 6)—
That the Order of 2 June 2020 (Proceedings during the pandemic (No. 2)), as amended on 1 July and 22 October 2020, the Order of 4 June 2020 (Virtual participation in proceedings during the pandemic), as amended on 1 July, 2 September, 22 October and 30 December 2020, the Order of 3 November 2020 (Proxy voting during the pandemic (No. 2)) and the Order of 25 February (Sittings in Westminster Hall during the pandemic) shall have effect until 21 June.
Matt Hancock
Over the past year, we have all been engaged in a monumental national effort to fight coronavirus, which has required the House to take extraordinary measures in response to this extraordinary threat. Today, we debate our road map to recovery and what is legally needed to take the cautious but irreversible path out of this pandemic. We propose to remove some of the emergency powers that the House put in place a year ago and set the steps of the road map that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out into law, replacing the existing national lockdown. We are able to take this action and propose these measures thanks to the perseverance of the British people in following the rules and the success story that is our UK vaccination programme, which has now vaccinated more than 28.6 million people—55% of all adults in the United Kingdom.
Hospitalisations are now at their lowest point since September and are down 90% since the peak. To put this into context, there are today just over 5,000 people in hospital with covid. At the peak, just two months ago, there were just under 5,000 new admissions with covid each day. Deaths are now at their lowest point since October and they are down 94% since the peak. The research published today shows that our vaccination programme has already saved the lives of more than 6,000 people across the UK, up to the end of February.
The success of the vaccination programme means that we are now able to carefully replace the short-term protection of the restrictions that we have all endured, with the long-term protection provided by the vaccine. Our goal is to be cautious yet irreversible. I must tell the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that while I am still, by nature, an optimist, there remain causes for caution. Cases are rising in some areas and they are rising among those under 18. There are early signs of cases flattening among the working-age population, too.
I am delighted that uptake of the vaccine is now 95% among over-60s and that protection against dying from the vaccine is around 85%. Both of those figures, 95% uptake and 85% protection, are higher than we could have hoped for, but while we are confident that we have broken the link between the number of cases and the hospitalisations and deaths that previously inevitably followed, no vaccine is perfect and take-up is not 100%, so that link, while broken, is not yet severed.
New variants also remain a risk because we do not yet know with confidence the impact of the vaccine against the new variants. We all want these next few months to be a one-way route to freedom, so as we restore the freedoms that we all cherish, we must do so in a way that does not put our NHS at risk.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On that point about the take-up and the efficacy, one thing that the chief medical officer said was that the timings in the road map were driven by some of the modelling that the Government had seen. The assumptions behind that modelling I think came from February and are much more pessimistic than what we now know about take-up and efficacy. Can the Secretary of State ensure that that modelling is redone with the new assumptions to see whether that would justify a faster unlocking of the country, which is important to save jobs, save businesses and maximise the economic future of our young people?
Matt Hancock
While modelling is obviously something that is looked at, the observation of the actual data is I think the best guide. The good news is that the number of deaths has fallen very sharply and continues to fall sharply, and the number of hospitalisations has fallen sharply—not quite as sharply as deaths, but nevertheless sharply. Critically, the link has broken, so the weight that we place on the number of cases as an indicator is not nearly as great as it was before, because it used to be inevitable that that led to hospitalisations and deaths.
The reason for the timings in the road map is so that, after each step, we can see its impact before being able, carefully, to take the next step. That is the core reason for the timings in the road map—four weeks to see the impact of a step, and then one week to give warning of the next step. It is that, rather than the modelling, that I put the stress on for the timings in the road map.
Mr Harper
To come back very briefly on that final point, if deaths and hospitalisations are what is important, is the Secretary of State able to confirm the information that was published in The Times this morning on the modelling by SPI-M—the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, the Government’s advisory committee —showing a dramatic reduction in hospitalisations and deaths taking place over the next week and throughout April? That really drives my assumption that we could go a bit faster. Is he able to confirm that for the House?
Matt Hancock
I have not seen that article in The Times—I have read parts of The Times, but not that bit—so I cannot confirm, but I can write to my right hon. Friend with details on this point. However, I would stress that the focus only on modelling is not really where the ultimate judgment on the timings of the road map is; it is about being able to observe progress and then take the next step with confidence. The central point here is that cases may well rise. In fact, I would say cases are likely to rise, not least with schools going back. The critical thing is that the automaticity—cases going up having an impact on hospitalisations—is no longer there. However, if cases got extremely high, even with a much weaker link from cases to hospitalisations, that is something we clearly have to guard against and it is set out in test 3 of the Prime Minister’s four tests.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Health Secretary has talked of protections for the over-60s. Can he appreciate why, for some of our constituents who crave a foreign holiday, it looks very odd that a Stanley Johnson loophole seems to have been negotiated, so that someone over 60 with their own property abroad can get around that? Can he also appreciate that a lot of our constituents think that these measures—the Prime Minister used to talk about women who look like bank robbers—have now mandated us all to wear these masks?
Matt Hancock
I am not quite sure what point the hon. Member is making, but this is what I was going on to say. The critical point where I ended the exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) is that we must restore the freedoms that we all cherish, but in a way that does not put the NHS at risk. Throughout the crisis, we have successfully protected the NHS, and I am delighted to be able to inform the House that there are now record numbers of NHS doctors and NHS nurses in England. New data published this morning show that there are over 300,000 nurses in the NHS in England for the first time in its history. So we have protected our NHS and we are delivering our commitments to it. Nobody wants to have to reimpose measures, as we have sadly seen elsewhere in Europe only this week, so we must follow this cautious and, we hope, irreversible road map.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions data on occurrences within the NHS. Does the NHS have data to suggest how many people have, sadly, died from covid in NHS hospitals three weeks after receiving their first dose of a covid vaccine?
Matt Hancock
Yes, the data on the impact of the vaccine—including side effects from the vaccine and the rare occasions when, sadly, people die after having had the vaccine—are published by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. If there are any data in this area that are not published but my hon. Friend would like to be published, he can write to me and I would be very happy to look into publishing them. Essentially, we take an attitude of being as transparent as possible, because there are side effects to the vaccine as there are to all pharmaceutical drugs and we want to be completely open and transparent about those side effects—essentially to reassure people that the risks are extremely low.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend answered a question from me on this very subject by saying that the data was not available. I cannot understand why crucial data—such as the number of people who have been vaccinated for more than three weeks, who are then admitted to hospital and subsequently die—is not collected. Why is that?
Matt Hancock
This data has been collated recently; it is in the so-called SIREN study from Public Health England. I am very happy to look into exactly the data that my hon. Friends are looking for and, if we have it, to publish it. I think we have what has been asked for, but let us try to do this by correspondence to ensure that we get exactly what is being looked for. On the face of it, my hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is exactly the sort of thing that we are looking at, but I want to make sure that we get the details right.
As I was just saying, each step of the road map is guided by the data and the progress against the four tests. We were able to take the first step on 8 March, when we allowed the return of face-to-face education in schools, relaxed the rules on two people gathering outside for recreation and allowed care home residents to nominate a single regular visitor, supported by regular testing and personal protective equipment.
The regulations before the House today ease restrictions further—again, in a careful and controlled way. First, they allow us to put in place the remaining measures of step 1, which will come into force on Monday. That means that the “stay at home” rule will end and six people or two households will be able to meet outdoors, and outdoor sports can resume. The regulations also commit the remaining steps of our road map into law, so that we can gradually ease restrictions at the right time before eventually removing them all together, which we hope to be able to do on 21 June.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
My constituents have been in touch to raise concerns about these measures being in place for longer than absolutely necessary, but they have also been raising concerns about long covid. Will the Secretary of State respond to my constituents on both issues, and explain to the House what he and his Department are looking into to better understand the effects of long covid on the population?
Matt Hancock
We clearly want to lift these measures as soon as is reasonably possible. My goal is that we will eventually see covid as something that has to be managed rather like flu. We do not put in place restrictions on normal life to tackle flu, but we do have a regular vaccination programme. With vaccines, that is where I hope we will be able to get to.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Hancock
I just want to answer my hon. Friend’s second point before taking further interventions. His point about long covid is important. In fact, the National Institute for Health Research, which has done a brilliant job during the pandemic, has today put out a £20 million call for further research and diagnostics, including patient and public involvement, so that long covid can be properly understood, and people who catch covid and have symptoms over a long time—which I know can be deeply debilitating for some people—can get the support they need on the NHS.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions the fact that we live with flu every winter and act against it. Has he made an assessment of what level of hospital admissions would be consistent with protecting the NHS?
Matt Hancock
It is very difficult to know in advance. At the peak of this pandemic, we had 38,000 patients in hospital across the UK at any one time with covid, but of course that meant that other non-urgent treatments had to be delayed. There is a question of the trade-off and how much treatment is delayed. In a bad flu season, elective operations and non-urgent treatments are delayed. That is one way in which the NHS manages through a difficult flu season in winter. Measures like that will be necessary if we have an increase in covid cases.
If we have learned anything in the last year, we have learned that we have to live with risk as a society. That is a reality, so the goal and the strategy are to invest in the NHS so that it has more capacity, make sure that it can expand capacity and make sure that we have the vaccine effort and the continued efforts that people will no doubt take personal responsibility for, such as mask-wearing—and people will be highly likely do that to protect themselves and others, after the experience we have just had. I want to get to a point of personal responsibility plus the vaccine plus the test and trace programme, so that people can be regularly tested and we can use that to break the chains of transmission. I want to manage covid in that way, while restoring our freedoms. That is the best way, once we have made our way carefully down this road.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
What my right hon. Friend has just said is extremely encouraging, and I am very grateful. Will he confirm that the reason that step 4 is not in the regulations is that it does not need any regulations? It is freedom from these regulations.
Matt Hancock
Yes—that is a very good way of putting it; in fact, it was on the next page of my script. It is a pleasure to be as one with my hon. Friend after all this time, and I hope very much that he joins us in the Lobby later.
Matt Hancock
I am an optimist, as I just said.
Let me carry on detailing the purpose of these measures. Step 2 allows non-essential retail and personal care services to reopen. We have said that that will happen not before 12 April. It will also allow the reopening of leisure services, indoor leisure such as gyms, and self-contained accommodation. Step 2 also sees the reopening—outdoors—of our pubs and restaurants, which I know so many of us are looking forward to.
Step 3 will lift restrictions on meetings outdoors, subject to a limit of 30, and up to six people, or two households, will be able to meet inside. Indoor hospitality, indoor entertainment and all other types of accommodation will be able to open their doors once again. Step 4 will begin no earlier than 21 June. This is the final stage in the road map, because, bolstered by a mammoth testing effort and capacity and by the protection of the vaccination, that is when we aim to remove all legal limits on social contact and restore our freedoms once again.
I know how hard these restrictions have been. I know they have meant missing out on special moments with loved ones and putting important events on hold, and they have also taken a significant economic toll, so we do not want to keep them in place any longer than we judge we have to. I am therefore pleased to say that these road map regulations will expire at the end of June.
Let me turn now to the renewal of the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which are also before the House today. The Act has been a crucial part of our response to this virus. It helped us to protect the NHS in its hour of need, to keep public services, courts and local democracy running and to offer the financial assistance that has been a lifeline to so many people.
Some provisions in the Act require renewal every six months. If we were to remove the temporary provisions in the Act altogether, we would lose, for instance, measures protecting commercial tenants and renters from eviction, we would not be able to run virtual court hearings, which are an integral part of maintaining the rule of law, and people would not be able to receive statutory sick pay for the full period for which they are required to self-isolate. So there are some important technical provisions that allow for the running of public services, given the social distancing we have at the moment.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The word “crucial” has been doing a lot of heavy lifting in the Minister’s speech. Is it not correct that if these measures are voted down today, the Government would have 21 days to bring a new Bill to Parliament? Is it not also correct that a lot of what we are relying on comes from other legislation and not actually the Coronavirus Act?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. The main provisions under which we put in place the lockdown come from the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, not the Coronavirus Act. The mainstay in terms of the Coronavirus Act is to allow us to support people and public services. For instance, furlough is in the Coronavirus Act; that is not up for renewal, because it is a permanent part—it is for the full period of the Act. Nevertheless, in terms of being able to pay statutory sick pay to people when they are self-isolating, I am asking the House today to renew that provision, and I think that we must.
I want to stress this point to those who are understandably concerned about the extent of powers in the Coronavirus Act. Although the Act remains essential and we are seeking the renewal of elements of it, we have always said that we will only retain powers as long as they are necessary. They are exceptional powers. They are approved by the House for use in the most extreme of situations and they must be seen in that light. Because of the progress we have made, we are now able to expire and suspend a whole raft of measures in the Act, just as we expired provisions after the previous review six months ago.
We propose to expire 12 provisions in the Act: section 15, which allowed local authorities to ease some responsibilities around social care; section 24, which allowed biometric data held for national security purposes to be retained for an extra six months; five provisions that required information for businesses and people involved in the food supply chain; section 71, which allowed a single Treasury Minister to sign on behalf of all Treasury Commissioners—I know the Whips Office is looking forward to getting its signatures out again. There are two provisions that created a new form of emergency volunteering leave, which we have not needed and are retiring. Section 79 extended arrangements for business improvement districts and section 84 allowed for the postponement of General Synod elections. Those are not needed anymore and we are therefore not seeking to extend them. We only extend that which we think is necessary.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome the expiry of some measures, particularly the social care easements, which were discriminatory against the most vulnerable in our society. Will the Secretary of State accept that under the Coronavirus Act we have had 250 people wrongfully charged? The Act is full of far-reaching powers that are not needed. The practical measures he talked about can be brought forward in the next 21 days. As he suggested, the fake news that furlough cannot go on without renewing the Act is just untrue, because that is a permanent provision.
Matt Hancock
Furlough is provided for under the Act. As I just said, it is a permanent provision of the Act, but the statutory sick pay is not and I think we should be giving people statutory sick pay to help them to self-isolate.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Secretary of State is asking for a further six months under the Act, which is all that we can do. The Prime Minister has been talking in the last few days about the need for section 2, for instance, on the emergency registration of nurses, to help us to deal with the backlog. The same is true of sections 53, 54, 55 and 56 with respect to the courts. In six months’ time, will we need that? Will we have dealt with the backlog in the health service and the courts, or will he need to renew this again in six months?
Matt Hancock
That is a good question. The truth is that we have a record number of nurses in the NHS, over 300,000, in part because the Act allowed for their emergency registration much more swiftly than previously. Parts of the Act have allowed us to do good things like that, which everybody would like to see. When we come to retire the Act, which we must within one year and preferably within six months, we will need to make sure we can continue to do that sort of thing to ensure that nurses can be enrolled into the NHS as easily as possible. I cannot answer whether we will be retiring it in six months. My preference would be yes, but given the last year I think a prediction would be hasty.
Steve Brine
Further to that point, may I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend? The expansion of the availability of live links for criminal proceedings will be put into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, so that will not be needed. The Secretary of State is bringing forward a new health Bill during the new Session. Would that be an opportunity to update that?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is an important point. We have just started the process of working on that. If measures have worked well and we want to keep them because they are good, can we put them permanently on the statute book? That should, properly, take the process of normal primary legislation. My hon. Friend mentions a forthcoming health and care Bill. I look to the Leader of the House and I can see that he is smiling, although I cannot, of course, say whether that Bill will be brought forward until we have a proper sign-off—it is nice to see him looking so handsome there. [Laughter.]Our aim would be to get that on to the statute book, should we bring it forward, in the middle of next year, so there is a shorter-term question of the handling from here to there. We need to do that with the best administrative efficiency that we can, but I am talking here about the less controversial elements of the Act.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s judgment and I will try not to test his patience again. He mentioned that there are some very valuable administrative measures. If they were the only things being rolled forward, I do not think people would mind, although my reading of the Act is that the registration provisions for medical staff are in section 89, in the permanent part of the Act rather than the temporary part. The controversial parts include the police powers to detain potentially infectious persons, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) referred to, and which have been used unlawfully on a number of occasions. It says in the one-year review of the Act that those are intended to be long-term powers and my right hon. Friend has just suggested that those provisions might be rolled forward a further six months. That is why so many of us are worried. These are extraordinary provisions, not for normal times, and they should be expired at the earliest possible opportunity.
Matt Hancock
I actually agree with my right hon. Friend that they should be expired at the earliest possible opportunity. The challenge, especially as we lift measures on all of us, is if there are, for instance, new variants that we need to pin down absolutely—in the same way that a new variant came about in Liverpool and we tackled it. We have not seen any new cases of it, not only because of fantastic local work, but because in lockdown that is easier. Having these very targeted interventions for now is important. Therefore, we have made the judgment that we should propose that they are necessary for now. I know that we disagree on that point, but I suggest that by voting against all these renewals, a whole load of valuable things that he and I would agree on would not be renewed, were that vote to go through.
Matt Hancock
I will just make a little more progress.
We are also suspending three further provisions, although they may need to be restored and called on if required. As well as that, we have completed the six-month statutory review on covid-secure regulations for businesses, the collection of contact details and self-isolation, and concluded that they remain necessary at this time. The Coronavirus Act is temporary, time-limited and proportionate to the threat we face, and we are keeping measures only where they are necessary as we exit this pandemic, and then we can do away with this Act for good.
Throughout the pandemic, this House has also found a way to meet. I cannot wait for the time when this Chamber will be full and rowdy once again as the cockpit of our democracy, where we can almost literally take the temperature of the nation. I may pay for that when I say something particularly unfortunate, but I prefer it, and I think everybody in this House does. After widespread consultation and on the basis of detailed public health advice, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has tabled a motion to extend virtual participation and the current proxy voting arrangements until 21 June, the proposed date for the removal of all legal restrictions on social contact. We thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and through you the other Deputy Speakers, Mr Speaker and the House authorities for the work that has been done in these unprecedented times to keep people safe here.
The measures before the House today show how we will put the pandemic behind us and restore life to normal. We are on the road to recovery, but we are not at the finish line yet, and by passing these measures, we can keep protecting lives and livelihoods while we get our nation back on its feet once more.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
On a specific point, which I rather hoped the Secretary of State would cover but I anticipate will not, we are obviously very concerned about variants in Europe and the surge that we are seeing there. Is it the Government’s intention to impose restrictions on those coming in from France or Germany—to add either France or other European countries to the red list—or to impose testing on hauliers coming into the country?
Matt Hancock
All these questions will be answered as part of the work of the global travel taskforce, which the Prime Minister has announced will be published on 5 April, so I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman waits until then. In answering that final question, I commend the motions to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate the Secretary of State allowing me to intervene on him at the end of his speech.
It is right that this week we remember all those who have lost their lives to this horrific virus, and that we reflect on the grief of all those who have lost loved ones. Across the House we pay tribute to those who put themselves in the face of danger—our NHS, care workers, and all our public servants and key workers who have kept our society functioning.
More than 126,000 people have died. In social care, the impact has been devastating, with more than 30,000 deaths. Residents have been left isolated and frightened, deprived of visits from their loved ones for months on end. Across the NHS, cancer patients have had surgery cancelled and screenings postponed, and more than 300,000 people have been waiting for more than a year for treatment. A study today from the University of Leicester suggested that 71% of those patients who were hospitalised and discharged have not fully recovered after five months, and 20% have been left with a new disability. The long-term impact of covid is likely to be severe for many people.
Our NHS staff face burn-out, and children have lost months of education and social interaction. They risk being among the biggest victims of the pandemic. Families are worried and anxious. Our NHS has suffered. Public health funding has been cut for many years, which left our public health services without the capacity they needed when the pandemic hit. The poorest communities saw more than double the death rate in the first wave of the virus, and in ethnic minority communities the death rate has been up to 50% higher. It did not have to be like that. A healthier more equal society would have weathered the storms better. We could have planned better, acted more quickly, and responded more comprehensively.
Our vaccination programme has been successful, and again I thank everybody who has been involved in that. But the reality is that we are not yet out of the woods. The pandemic still has some way to go, and it is right that we proceed with caution and do not become complacent. Vaccination alone does not make us bullet-proof. It makes us safer, but we are not safe until we build population immunity and roll out vaccinations everywhere across the world.
Last week I asked the Secretary of State about the vaccination of children, and he rightly said that we had to wait for the research and clinical trials. Yesterday it was suggested that the vaccination of children could start as soon as August, if safety requirements are met. I hope Ministers are commissioning the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to produce a plan for how children’s vaccinations could roll out. That will be an important way to drag down transmission.
A third wave is surging across Europe, much of which is due to the B117 Kent variant. Increasingly, we are seeing higher prevalence of other variants, and as the Secretary of State rightly said, we are uncertain about whether they will evade the vaccines. We therefore have to be careful and proceed with caution. Although we are making extraordinary progress in this country with our vaccination rates and in bringing infection rates down, we know that the virus mutates and that it could come back and hit us even harder, particularly at a time when a considerable amount of virus is circulating.
Infections are still running at more than 5,000 day, and last week the Office for National Statistics estimated that 160,000 people in England had the infection in the past week. We must still work hard to break transmission chains and shut down opportunities for the virus to replicate. Given the loss of life we have suffered, and the risk of mutations that could set us back, we must have zero tolerance of letting the virus rage unchecked. For that reason, Labour accepts that restrictions must stay in place, and we will support the renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the public health regulations.
We do not support that renewal with any enthusiasm or relish—quite the opposite. Neither the Secretary of State nor I came into politics to put powers such as these on the statute book. These powers curtail so many basic freedoms and deregulate so many basic standards for which our forebears fought so hard and that so many people have taken for granted.
I am also acutely conscious that this deadly virus spreads rapidly, exploits ambiguity and thrives on inequality. Suppressing the virus does depend on social distancing measures, which is why we need them on the statute book, but it depends on other measures as well, such as properly isolating the sick and paying them fully to isolate. It depends on having proper community-led contact tracing, both retrospective and looking forward. It depends on investing in science, so that we have not just the vaccines but the therapeutics that will lead us out of this crisis.
Restrictions in themselves are a blunt tool, but sadly they will be needed, given that the virus is still surging across the world. That is why we supported the measures 12 months ago and will support them again today. Indeed, it was 12 months ago that I met regularly with the Secretary of State. It was just over 12 months ago that I sat round a very small table in the Prime Minister’s office in Downing Street with the Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), alongside advisers such as Dominic Cummings and others, to negotiate the content of the Act.
We pressed for statutory sick pay from day one, and that is in the Act. We think that the Government should go further—it is not enough, but at least we have statutory sick pay from day one. We pressed for a ban on evictions for those in rent arrears, and again, the Prime Minister gave us that concession. We pressed for furlough as well in that meeting. On each of those, I want the Government to go much, much further, and it is a monstrous failure that decent sick pay and financial support have not been provided over the past 12 months, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise that we had that meeting and that concessions were offered as a result of it.
Even though we supported the Act 12 months ago, I raised at the Dispatch Box a number of concerns about its content and said that, in different circumstances, with a proper process whereby Members could table amendments in good time, we would have hoped for better scrutiny of it. We raised concerns about the easements of the Care Act 2014, and I am pleased that those clauses will be removed. We raised objections to the Coronavirus Act giving the Secretary of State powers to change section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. I understand that those powers have not been used since July last year, but we remain concerned that they appear still to be in the Act. I ask the Secretary of State and Ministers to reflect on that and to take those clauses out of the Act.
We also raised concerns about the more draconian elements of the Act. Indeed, I said at the Dispatch Box a year ago:
“The Bill contains the most draconian powers ever seen in peacetime Britain—powers to detain and test potentially infectious members of the public…powers to shut down gatherings, which could impede the ability to protest against the overall handling of the crisis or against the abuse of the powers themselves. It needs no explanation and very little imagination to understand the huge potential for abuse that such powers and others in the Bill, however well intended and needed, still give rise.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 59.]
Sadly, we have seen such abuses. Schedule 21, which gives the power to detain potentially infectious persons, has been used for a number of prosecutions, every one of which was found to be unlawful when reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service. The Joint Committee on Human Rights advised in its report of September last year that
“In the absence of any clear evidence to support the retention of these powers”—
the schedule 21 powers—
“they ought to be repealed.”
We have huge sympathy with that, as do Members who have contributed to the debate so far, and we urge the Government to look again at that schedule.
Mr Steve Baker
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman just said. I am very sorry—although I completely understand it—that my amendment on schedules 21 and 22 was not selected, because we probably would have gone through the Lobby together on it. Could he advise the Secretary of State on whether he would vote to call upon Ministers to remove those schedules, should such a question come before the House?
Jonathan Ashworth
I understand why we should want to deal with somebody who is infectious and refusing to isolate, but I do not think the schedule and the way it has been applied is needed. That needs to be looked at again.
I make a broader point. Although I understand why the Government have to put, or maintain, these restrictions on the statute book, and I am a strong believer in doing all we can to suppress the virus, drive down infections, cut transmission chains and prevent opportunities for it to replicate—I am a strong believer in putting public health and prevention first—I also think that the Government could have found time for this debate to take place in the House over a couple of days, so that Members could table amendments and we could properly scrutinise the legislation. The Government have a rather handsome majority; I am sure they would have got their way on most things, but who knows? Perhaps through proper scrutiny we might have improved the legislation.
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman invites me to offer endorsement before I have read the details—he is a canny operator in this place—but in principle his suggestion sounds reasonable. I look forward to no doubt receiving an email from him later today, which I will be able to read when I am on the train back to Leicester.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving us an interesting insight into the history of the epidemic in this country and the discussions that took place. Would he care to put it on record that we should immediately start an independent public inquiry into what has gone on so that we can get a full picture? It is a feeble excuse to say that people cannot attend a public inquiry when virtually every Select Committee in this House is having witnesses every day.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need a public inquiry. Mistakes have been made. There have been examples of poor decision making. When we went into the crisis, our health and social care capacity was less than it should have been, and our public health capacity, after cutbacks over many years, was lacking. We were late going into lockdown a year ago; maybe that was not unreasonable, but we were also late going into lockdown the second and third time. Of course we need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of all these matters.
The Secretary of State is embarking on a reorganisation of the national health service. Yesterday, he made an interesting speech about the future of public health, which he opened by saying that one lesson of this crisis is that we need to set up a national institute of health security. I agree with him on health security, as it happens, but the Government cannot, on the one hand, say that they have learned lessons from this crisis and they need to do X, Y and Z while, on the other hand, the Prime Minister says it is too early to learn lessons and we cannot have an inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) is absolutely right and I totally agree with him.
We have concerns about schedule 21 of the 2020 Act, but we are where we are, and the procedures of the House leave us little room for manoeuvre, so we will support the Government in the Division Lobby, should it come to that, albeit that we would rather not be in this situation.
Schedule 22 is another schedule that is open to abuse, and I hope the Government will review it and come forward with alternatives; given recent events, the power it contains on gatherings has caused understandable concern. However, some progress is offered by the public health regulations, which expressly include—I think for the first time, and in relation to each step of lockdown relaxation—the right to gather for purposes of protest. That is welcome but, to be frank, it should have been there all along. I have some concerns that, to comply, organisers must take into account, in the words of the regulations,
“any guidance issued by the government relevant to the gathering”,
which means that the Government, through guidance, which could be general or specific to a particular protest, can determine what is allowed by way of protest. I hope the Minister, who is a decent man and a fellow Leicestershire MP, can offer us some guidance on that in his response.
Notwithstanding our concerns, we understand why the 2020 Act must stay on the statute book and why the public health regulations must receive the support of the House today. The pandemic is not over. The virus is surging again. Deaths are increasing across the world after going down for some weeks. Mutations could emerge, which could bounce back at us and set us back considerably. Although they would probably not put us back to square one, they could evade the success of our vaccination programme. A year ago, I concluded my remarks by observing:
“The crisis has exposed the vulnerability of a society in which insecure work is rife, deregulation is king and public services are underfunded. When we come out on the other side, as we will, we have to build a society that puts people first.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 61.]
Rebuilding that society becomes ever more urgent every day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The four-minute limit will now be on for Back-Bench speeches.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) [V]
It has certainly been a challenging time for my constituents in North Herefordshire, but their fortitude and community spirit must be highly commended. It is a triumph that vaccines were produced and approved in record time, and this was the silver bullet I have been asking for in all my speeches to this House for so many months. We are all so proud that ours is one of the world’s most successful vaccine roll-outs. Therefore, it is disappointing not to see more justification from the Government as to why the Coronavirus Act needs to be extended for as much as another six months. People must be able to understand the exit from lockdown and understand that these powers are for their own good. This is especially true when the most vulnerable in society have been vaccinated with the first of two jabs against this dreadful disease. Thanks to the work of the vaccine taskforce, the pharmaceutical companies, NHS staff and volunteers, and the regulators, we should all be truly proud of our world-beating vaccine roll-out programme. Herefordshire continues to top the list as one of the areas with the highest vaccination rates. More than 91,000 people in Herefordshire have now received their first dose; nearly 100% of the first five categories laid out by the JCVI have been jabbed, as have more than 61% of the 55 to 59 category. Some 28.6 million people have now been vaccinated in this country, saving nearly 6,000 lives. Nearly 850,000 people received a dose on Saturday alone, and I had my first injection today.
Now we must capitalise on this success and the global opportunities it creates for the UK. The roll-out of the vaccine was always going to change the game, and it is doing the job required of it. Let us not now miss the chances that this golden opportunity presents. We are free from the EU, and we can manoeuvre economically and commercially, safe from covid-19. Globally, this is an almost unique advantage for our businesses, which have been supported throughout the crisis. Now, let us make sure that we can collect on our investment. From 9 March to 15 March, Herefordshire had a covid case rate of 34 per 100,000. When we entered the latest set of restrictions, the county’s rate was at 254 per 100,000. Now, there are only 58 cases in the county. On 10 May 2020, the Prime Minister announced a relaxation of some of the lockdown measures. At that time, the R rate was between 0.5 and 0.9, whereas on 15 March the county had a rate of between 0.6 and 0.9. On 10 May 2020, the seven-day average for hospital admissions was 987.3, whereas now it is 426.1.
The country had restrictions lifted the first time around in very different circumstances last year. Given that children are back at school and the vaccine roll-out is so successful, we are actually in a safer place than we were last May, and because of the good behaviour of the people of this county, we need to capitalise on this. We are doing so much better than Europe. When we look at the statistics, we see that our record is fantastic. That is why I will dig deep into the loyalty vault and today vote with the Government, but we need to remember that we need to keep the people properly informed as to why these restrictions are necessary. I would love to hear the Government do more of that.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is hard to believe that it is a year since the four nations officially went into lockdown. I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to everyone for everything they have done to support us and the NHS during this unprecedented period: everyone who helped out, be that by staying at home or continuing to go to work to allow others to stay at home, and those who volunteered or supported our NHS. I am truly grateful to everyone whose effort has assisted in whatever way.
Over that year, many have lost loved ones to covid, with 126,000 covid-related deaths to date, and regrettably this figure is still rising. Many will also have lost loved ones to other causes too, and irrespective of whether the losses were related to covid, the grieving process has been even more complex and stressful than it would otherwise have been. My thoughts and prayers are with them too.
On a personal note, I look forward to receiving my first vaccine dose next week. There are some advantages to turning 50 this week, it seems. The continued vaccine roll-out offers us all a realistic hope for the future to come, and I encourage everyone who is offered a vaccine to take up the offer.
I recognise that Governments globally have had to make some very difficult choices over the past year, and unfortunately these difficult choices endure because the virus has not yet gone and will remain with us for some time to come. As it mutates into potentially more harmful variants and we witness countries entering a third wave, current decisions continue to require consideration of competing challenges. That said, I think it fair to say that we are on the road out of lockdown—perhaps not as fast as some would like, but there is a delicate balance and we have to get this right. It is inevitable that as we unlock there will be a rise in cases, so successful roll-out of vaccinations and protection of the most vulnerable is essential.
To that end, I urge that for continued suppression of the virus in the UK as we come out of lockdown, the UK Government should follow the Scottish Government’s example on hotel quarantines. A Public Health England study showed that quarantine-free travel corridors contributed to the spread of coronavirus in the UK last year, with travel from European countries accounting for 86% of imported cases between May and September, and now England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer has told MPs that 68% of those arriving from France were exempt from quarantine measures. Data shows that South African and Brazilian variants that may be more resistant to vaccines now account for 40% of new cases in some regions of France.
My SNP colleagues and I have repeatedly called for the UK Government to follow Scotland’s lead and bring in supervised quarantine for all arrivals to the UK to prevent the spread of covid-19 variants and save lives, but we have been ignored. If the Prime Minister will not listen to us, he should at least listen to the experts who are advising that the best way forward is to implement tougher border controls to stop mutant strains being imported to the UK. Huge numbers of people are still being allowed to enter the UK without the proper public health checks. This is dangerous. The Scottish Government have followed the science and done what they can within their power, but this will not stop new strains coming into Scotland via other parts of the UK. We need Westminster to act. By continuing to ignore expert advice, the Westminster Government are putting Scotland and its recovery at risk.
The Prime Minister must stop dithering, heed the calls and bring in a comprehensive system of supervised quarantine for the whole of the UK to stop us going backwards and to save lives. I cannot stress this enough. Having tougher quarantine restrictions for incoming travellers is a scientifically sound, sensible and overwhelmingly publicly supported option. The UK Government must change their position to ensure that imported cases are kept down as we reopen. Given how highly infectious coronavirus is, general anti-virus measures may be needed until a sufficient proportion of the population is vaccinated—perhaps 70% or more.
It is therefore crucial that unlocking must be data and not date driven, so I am somewhat nervous when I hear the PM and Ministers use phrases like “irreversible road map out of lockdown”. This does not sound data driven to me and risks repeating previous mistakes. It was the Prime Minister’s refusal to follow SAGE advice in September that delayed lockdown and allowed the Kent variant to take hold. We must learn those lessons.
Businesses and individuals must continue to be helped through the remainder of restrictions. With health measures and covid restrictions being devolved matters, I stress that while restrictions continue in any part of the UK, support must too. While I welcome the extension of furlough in the spring Budget, it should be continued for as long as it is needed. There must also be sector-specific support for aviation, hospitality and tourism. There is much more I could say on these matters, but time is short and I wish to cover the other motions being considered today.
Those of us in the SNP have serious concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the powers contained in the UK Government’s Coronavirus Act, and we raised our concerns on Second Reading. The reviews must not be a rubber-stamping exercise; they must have the teeth to provide meaningful scrutiny, protect human rights and promote public health. It is important that Parliament has its say so we have stronger regulations in place to tackle the biggest health emergency we have seen in our lifetimes. The Government are under huge pressure, but their decisions need the insight and legitimacy of Parliament. I say that not in an attempt to hamstring the Government, but to help them to do better.
Giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise schedules and measures individually would go a long way towards that. That it does not have that ability is, in my opinion, simply unacceptable. For example, the SNP supports repeal of schedule 21, which contains very broad police detention powers. Those have clearly proven problematic, with schedule 21 having been used for 246 prosecutions, every single one of which was found unlawful by the Crown Prosecution Service. That is as unprecedented as it is unacceptable. I point out that Scottish police have not used schedule 21 powers in Scotland, and that alternative laws could be used in lieu of the schedule.
The Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 contains a range of measures to ensure scrutiny of Scottish Government decisions, including the publishing of two-monthly reports to the Scottish Parliament on all Scottish statutory instruments made for a reason relating to coronavirus. Also, where possible, provisions in the Scottish coronavirus legislation have been suspended or expired when they have fulfilled their purpose or when the Scottish Government have listened to the compelling views supporting change. The UK Government should consider how similar scrutiny and accountability processes can be introduced in this House.
In conclusion, we are not out of the pandemic yet—it will be with us for some time to come—although I think it is fair to say that we are on the road out of lockdown. But we have to get this right, so more needs to be done to restore public trust in the handling of issues such as covid contracts and in the security of powers contained in the Act. There needs to be reassurance that errors over timing of lockdowns will not occur again. But above everything else, we need to act now to stop new strains coming into the country, so I urge the Government to think again on measures at the borders.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
As sure as eggs are eggs, we will be back here in six months, at the end of September, being asked to renew this legislation again. It is inevitable, and anyone who thinks it is not is deluding themselves. But this afternoon I am not here to talk about eggs; I want to talk about milk.
In the remaining days of this lockdown, I am going to allow myself an act of defiance—my own protest, which others may join me in. I am going to protest about the price of milk. I am not sure whether I think the price is too high or too low—I shall come to that decision later—but for the next few days I am going to walk around London with a pint of milk on my person, because that pint will represent my protest. There may be others who will choose, too, to walk around London with a pint of milk on their person, and perhaps as we walk past each other in the street our eyes might meet. We might even stop for a chat. But I was thinking to myself, and I will continue to think to myself, what will their pint of milk represent—what will their protest be? Perhaps they will be protesting the roaring back of a mental health demon, brought on by lockdown. Perhaps they will be protesting a renewed battle with anorexia, with depression, with anxiety, with addiction. Perhaps, with their pint of milk, they will be protesting the lack of agency in their life—not being able to make a meaningful decision; maybe a loss of career or job or business. Maybe they will be protesting this country’s slide into authoritarianism, or perhaps they will be protesting the fact that we allow unelected officials to have lecterns at No. 10 to lecture us on how to live our lives. But there might even be people, with their pint of milk, quietly protesting that the route out of lockdown is too slow, or perhaps even too fast. You see, the point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these people can project what they like—what concern they have—on to their pint of milk.
My protest, as I said, will be about none of those things. It will simply be about the price of milk and, as I said, for the next few days I will have that pint on me, it will be of symbolic importance to me, and at the end of the day it will be warm, it will have suppurated, and I can choose whether to drink it or pour it away, because it will be robbed of its refreshing elegance by the time it has been in my pocket for 12 hours. And if I pour it away, that might cause people some concern, but it does not matter because it is my pint of milk and it is my protest, and I am not seeking people’s acclaim, endorsement or support in my protest.
And you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard and I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This will pass; my protest will pass, the pandemic will pass, and in years to come I will be sitting at my kitchen table—perhaps with my wife, and hopefully my children, who will still want to see me—and I will break away from our excited conversation about the day because I will spot that pint of milk on the table, and that pint shall remind me that the act of protest is a freedom—a freedom, not a right, and unless you cherish freedoms every day, unless you fight for freedoms every day, they end up being taken away from you.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
On 7 March in Manchester there was a demonstration, not about milk but about the pay of NHS staff. Karen Reissmann, a political opponent of mine at general elections, was arrested and served with a fine of £10,000. That is an extraordinary attack on civil liberties. The very small group of people at the demonstration were socially distanced. Professor Woolhouse has told the Science and Technology Committee that while no risk is zero, the risk of catching covid-19 in the open air is minimal. We need to stop these restrictions now. That is one of the reasons why I will not be voting for the Government’s proposals.
The second point I want to make is about the Government’s statement that they believe in “data, not dates”. That is a curious thing for them to say, because when you look at what they say, there is no data there. There are dates—lots of dates—and when we have asked Ministers and scientists, how we, as parliamentarians can check the data to see whether things are going well or badly, and so that we can ask for it to be speeded up, no information is given to us. Quite simply, it is a slogan. The Government should be telling us what level of admission into intensive care, what level of infections, what level of hospital admissions and what level of vaccinations could lead to us being freed earlier. That is another reason why I will not be voting for the proposals before us; they are not giving Members of Parliament the tools that they need to deal with this.
My third point, in some ways my most fundamental point, is that we have only ever been given one side of the story. People have died of covid, but if we look at what the cancer charities are telling us at the present time, we will see that at least 50,000 people are expected to die because they have not been tested over the past 12 months. Every area of health service provision has been diminished because of the actions that have been taken on covid.
I cannot get past this point without also highlighting what Patrick Vallance told the Science and Technology Committee. If we had had the same level of intensive care facilities as Germany and France—they have about five times the level that we have—many of those other services could still have been provided. We have lost jobs. School children will suffer for the rest of their lives—hopefully not, but I think that that is the case—because of what has been done to protect people.
I cannot support what the Government propose. The big reason behind it, I suppose, is that Governments can get a taste for authoritarianism and for large powers. I do not want them to get a taste for that. I want this to be the end of it. I would like it to be the end of it today, or in six months, or on 21 June. I think that is unlikely, but I do not want this or any other Government to think that we should give these powers to a Government ever again.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).
I originally put in to speak in this debate because of the procedural motions. I expected there to be a separate debate on the procedural motions and therefore, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, I was expecting to make some comments. As there other things to debate, I shall mention some other things.
On the procedural motions, the motions that have been tabled are in line with the report issued by my Committee. I do have to point out that there was a division in the Committee. It was the majority of the Committee, not the entire Committee, that wanted to see the motions in the way that they are tabled today, but that is what the Committee decided and I am pleased that the Government have acted on that. Some may think it odd that they are the only motions that we are debating today that actually end on 21 June, but I will come on to that point later.
I also make the point—I hope that those at the Whips’ end of the Treasury Bench will listen to this—that, yesterday in the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister committed to a debate in the future so that we can consider whether we want to continue with some of the procedural things that we have been doing over the past 12 months. There may also be other procedural changes that we want to make. The Prime Minister committed that such a debate should happen.
In my remaining two-and-a-bit minutes let me move on to the main event of the day. First, let me make the point that, when we pass laws in this place, they are the law of the land. We cannot say that we do not want them to be enforced. We cannot say that we would like them to be ignored. We expect law enforcement and others to enforce the laws that we pass. The difficulty with these laws is that they are contrary to the way that we normally carry out laws. Under the common law system, one is free to do whatever one wishes unless the law says otherwise. These laws are Napoleonic. They give us permission to do certain things. They say that we can do nothing unless we have permission to do it. That has led to enormous confusion, enormous difficulty, for people. It has meant that the interpretation of these rules has been very difficult for all of us. I will just say that, while I understand that we must have the rules in place—perhaps in a pandemic it is impossible to do them in any other way—we should not be critical of those who enforce the rules that we make in this place if we do not like the way that they are enforced.
Secondly, let me talk about the amount of time that we have for debate. Three-and-a-half hours for a debate on these topics is simply not enough. The length of the call list makes it easy to see just how many Members wish to take part. I say to the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), that the Government should not be frightened of amendments, because if an amendment is proposed that has the support of the majority of the House and the Government cannot find a good reason to say no to it, it is probably a good amendment. I suggest that the Government think about providing more time for debate and more opportunities to amend. I do not agree with every single thing in these measures, but I will support the Government today. The Secretary of State’s opening remarks were very conciliatory, and they set out very clearly the direction of travel, and I will therefore support the Government.
I want to make a final point about managing public expectation. I had my vaccine on Saturday—I was one of the large number of people who did so—and one of the volunteers in my vaccine centre said to me, “Now you’ve had the vaccine, you can vote against the stupid restrictions.” People are expecting that these restrictions will end. They are queuing up in droves to get their vaccine, because that is the end of these lockdowns. That is their passport out of the pandemic, and the Government need to make that happen.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
A year ago, the House gave the Government unprecedented powers to curtail and limit economic activity and our normal liberties, and placed huge responsibilities on our public services to deliver us from the dangers of the pandemic. A year later, we are not properly scrutinising this legislation. We are not apparently debating any amendments to it, and we have been given a take-it -or-leave-it approach by the Government, which is unacceptable in any democracy. Earlier this week, the renowned human rights group Liberty produced a very good document that suggested a better, alternative way of approaching this, and my great friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) introduced it earlier this week as a Bill in this House.
I represent a densely populated inner-urban constituency. My local authority, Islington Council, my local hospital, the Whittington Hospital, and others have performed wonders during the past year in supporting people through this desperately difficult time. Volunteers, through mutual aid groups, have done fantastic work. They have organised and run food banks very efficiently, provided mental health support and supported our NHS workers. They are the very best of our society.
The effects of lockdown are not even across the whole country, however. If you live in a good-quality suburban house with a garden and plenty of space, working at home is difficult but it is not the end of the world. If you have space for your children to study, it is okay but not great, because they ought to be in school. We understand that. But if you are a family with three or four children living in one or two-bedroom flat with no balcony, no open space, insufficient computer access and insufficient income because of the coronavirus crisis, it is a very different story indeed. They are the children underachieving in school and the people going through a mental health crisis and, sadly, that has led to an increase in domestic violence. I have raised these matters before during debates and questions on this.
Overall, the Government’s record through the pandemic has been lamentable. They did not take seriously what the World Health Organisation was telling them in January last year, 15 months ago, and their levels of incompetence over the provision of PPE and their handing out of massive contracts to the private sector for the failed track and trace do not inspire confidence. We say well done to the scientists who have developed the vaccines and to those administering the vaccine programme as we speak, but why are the patents for these vaccines going to continue to be held by the private sector when the public have invested so much in them? Why are the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world not getting any access to these vaccines at all?
We should review this situation. It has brought out the best and worst of our society. Healthcare workers and others are now rewarded with a pay cut as a result of this. We need instead an approach that increases statutory sick pay and universal credit, guarantees decent housing and recognises the fact that those refugees and migrants without access to public funds also need to be protected. Our liberties are at stake under this Act. Why on earth could the Government not at least review section 21 on the powers of the police to prevent protest and demonstration? We need to live in a free society in which people can express their wishes. That surely is the very least we can expect from this Parliament and this Government. That is why I will not be supporting this legislation when we are invited to vote on it later today.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
What an extraordinary thing! This evening, I imagine I will find myself in the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke before me, although he will do it by proxy, I presume, and, perhaps more concerningly from my perspective, with the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who is to follow me.
It is an eccentric thing, I suppose, to talk in this House about beliefs and fundamental rights, but if we cannot talk about such esoteric things in the House of Commons, what on earth can we talk about, except that we have been reduced to the Facebook Commons, with clips and YouTube, in recent times?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) was spot on in her characterisation of the Napoleonic code under which we now live. Further, she was correct to suggest that UK law tends to say what it is unlawful to do. Indeed, rights and freedoms are not in the ownership of the state, but are innate.
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) brought to our attention the matter of protest in Manchester, which was an extraordinary situation to have arisen because of poorly drafted law that this House, not in its wisdom, decided to pass. Indeed, I liked his aside about data, not dates. Hope springs eternal.
Yesterday at the Liaison Committee, a stir was created—it could have been deliberate—when the Prime Minister floated the idea of covid vaccine certification to visit the pub. Of course we should encourage the take-up of the covid vaccine. What a miraculous achievement and what great foresight the Government had on that particular aspect. Indeed, in the recess next week, I shall be volunteering as a car park marshal—such is the level of my competence on these matters—at one of my local covid vaccine centres.
I cannot help but think we have a back of fag packet-esque approach to this whole question of covid vaccine certification. If I may be so bold, I suggest that as the Conservative party, we might actually think about what we believe in as a party, and not let ourselves be carried away by a utilitarian urge that seems to have swept across the Treasury Bench, leaving very few standing.
I will leave the matter there, but on the matter of the Procedure Committee, on which it is an honour for me to serve as a member under the very able chairpersonship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, we did indeed produce a report that was subject to, I think, 14 separate votes. I had the temerity to table amendments to that particular report. All I would say in ending is that in paragraph 26, we said:
“We recommend that the House reverts to all aspects of its pre-pandemic practice and procedure.”
Let us hope the same can be said for our freedoms as citizens, too.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
Renewing the Coronavirus Act 2020 is about extra powers for Ministers—powers that have serious implications for people’s freedoms but are not crucial to help the fight against covid. The Liberal Democrats will of course vote against this motion tonight.
We have supported any necessary powers to keep people safe throughout this crisis. Indeed, a year ago we supported the original Coronavirus Bill, albeit with a very heavy heart. While we have sometimes had to accept that such public health actions were needed to preserve people’s liberty to survive this pandemic, we have always sounded a liberal warning.
A year ago in the debate, I said about the Bill that
“the powers must be used only when absolutely necessary during this emergency, and not for a moment longer.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 79.]
The experience of the past year shows that many of the powers that the Government still want to keep have proved totally unnecessary, including the extraordinary powers for police and immigration officers to detain innocent people potentially indefinitely. The Government themselves say that such powers have not been used once in the whole pandemic, yet they are still asking MPs to renew them for another six months. These unnecessary powers are causing enormous confusion for police and prosecutors. The Crown Prosecution Service’s review reveals that, as of the end of February, 252 people had been incorrectly charged under this Act, with not a single person correctly charged.
I do welcome the fact that Ministers at last accept that a few of the provisions should expire, especially the reduction in people’s rights to care. I warned on Second Reading last year that these were
“some of the most alarming provisions in the Bill.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 79.]
We called on the Government to remove them last September, when we showed that they were illegal under international law, so I am glad they have gone.
However, the Government still seem determined to keep most of these unnecessary draconian powers. Indeed, what is disturbing is that Ministers are now resorting to desperate false arguments to persuade MPs to vote for this motion. Ministers said that voting it down would end furlough; it will not. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said it was needed for people to carry on volunteering in the NHS; that is not true. This is fake news, and this House should not fall for it.
There are some parts of the Act that are needed, but that is not justification for renewing all these sweeping and intrusive powers for another six months, not least because there is an alternative. Liberty has published a protect everyone Bill to replace the Coronavirus Act. It contains the laws necessary to protect both public health and human rights. That is the law we should be debating, as our amendment calls for.
Conservative Ministers are asking for a blank cheque for another six months, so I really hope that Conservative Back Benchers, and indeed Labour and SNP colleagues and others across the House, will do what the Liberal Democrats are going to do, and that is not support this Bill. We will vote against this motion, and I hope Conservative Ministers go away and think again, and put liberty first.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
This debate is not about the Government’s response to covid-19 so far, but about what we do next. The most significant shift in the situation we face today is of course the success of the vaccination programme, for which all involved deserve credit, but my concern is that the logic of that success has not found its way into the approach to lifting the covid-related restrictions on our daily lives.
Before significant progress was made on vaccination, the primary driver in our response to the virus was to prevent or to minimise transmission, and that was clearly right when transmission in any part of society was likely to lead to the infection, hospitalisation or death of those most vulnerable to the virus. However, the Government have—rightly, in my view—prioritised those most clinically vulnerable in the vaccine roll-out, meaning that, by the end of April, those accounting for 99% of mortality from the virus will have received at least one dose.
We know that the vaccine is effective and we know that take-up is very high among vulnerable groups, as the Secretary of State confirmed earlier, so by the end of April we know that the level of protection given to those most likely to die or be hospitalised by this virus will be very extensive. We know, too, that those remaining unvaccinated will overwhelmingly be younger and less vulnerable to that virus, and that about a third of the population will have no symptoms of infection, meaning that if they have had the virus, they may already have antibodies, and if they have not, they will not be ill.
All of this taken together must mean that the overall risks of death and hospitalisation are much lower than they were, and that is surely the most important consideration. Pre-vaccine, those risks clearly outweighed the risks to our mental health, our general welfare and our livelihoods that come from extensive restrictions to our liberties. However, in quantifying those risks for May or June of this year in a substantially vaccinated Britain, how different are they likely to be from the risks posed by other illnesses such as flu, or even other causes of death such as road traffic accidents, in response to which we do not seek to impose even the restrictions scheduled for the later stages of the Government’s road map?
If we were considering not the continuation of restrictions today but their initiation, would we consider those restrictions justified? I am not convinced that we would. We have never run our lives or our country on the basis that no risk is acceptable. We have always balanced risks and we have to do so again here. The truth is that the risks of reopening too slowly are not negligible. Removing restrictions in June and not in May means weeks more misery for those who have found these restrictions particularly hard and for businesses, including hospitality and tourism businesses, for which this is an important part of the year.
I do not think that we should remove all restrictions in the next 21 days and I will vote accordingly, but I do think that we should combine steps 3 and 4 of the Government’s road map and remove almost all restrictions in May. An entirely precautionary approach is simply not feasible. We know that covid will be with us for some time—perhaps indefinitely—and we cannot respond to that with indefinite restrictions any more than we would, or do, in response to the risk of other diseases. Although I support much of what the Government have done and are doing in response to the pandemic, I cannot support the continuation of damaging restrictions any longer than I consider they are necessary, which I am afraid is less time than the Government propose in these regulations.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
One year ago, the Government’s Coronavirus Act was passed to address an unfolding emergency in the UK. It was an unknown situation and we understandably rushed through the extraordinary provisions without line-by-line scrutiny. But that was a year ago. Look at how much we have all now learned about viruses, mutations and vaccinations—so why are we still voting through an old bit of legislation? The Act is a blanket of draconian powers that the Government have wrapped themselves in. Last October, we were told that there was not enough time to write a new Bill, but that is simply not true now, is it? We have 21 days to write a new Bill and present it to Parliament and we will not lose anything like the furlough scheme, as has been said before. In fact, most of the measures that we have used have come under other bits of legislation.
There is no need to panic about writing a new Bill, because yesterday I presented to the House the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill. The Prime Minister has agreed to read it and to respond to me. May I say that it is oven-ready? In fact, it is not just oven-ready; it is baked and ready to eat. It is a shame that we will not be able to discuss it today because we will not have time. The sponsors of my Bill—it is cross-party—are willing to discuss the Bill with everybody and to take amendments, because it is based on lessons learned and on the science. I sincerely thank Liberty, because without it we would not have this Bill, and it is a really good Bill. Liberty’s “Support Protecting Everyone” paper is a compelling read that outlines the society that we could build as we emerge from the pandemic.
Today Parliament is voting on a piece of legislation that has failed us on so many different levels, even though Ministers have decided that they are going to get rid of some bits of it. It is not good enough; that is Parliament’s job. Worryingly, through cronyism we are seeing the greatest transfer of wealth from ordinary working people and independent businesses into the hands of corporations and multi-millionaires—some old and some newly made. All this is happening at a time when the most vulnerable, those most in need of help and those most in need of support and praise, such as the NHS, have been left out in the cold. That is why I am proposing a new approach—one that is more in line with where we are now and where we are going.
Most powers that have been used to enforce coronavirus rules have their origins in other legislation. Less than 5% are from the Coronavirus Act, so that legislation is quite literally not fit for purpose. That is why we need the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill. It would protect disabled people and ensure proper sick pay so that people would not have to choose between spreading the virus and staying at home. It would protect those in rented accommodation. It is an efficient Bill. It has been said that nobody is safe until everybody is safe, so let us make everybody safe.
We do not have to cling to the draconian blanket of the Act just because it is there. My plea to Parliament is: let us take back control and vote against this Bill. My plea to the country is: let us stop allowing this Government to gaslight us, and let us show the Government that we care and that we want to build back better coming out of this pandemic. Parliament has a chance today, and the country will have an opportunity to take back control on 6 May when people vote Labour at the ballot box. Some 126,000 lives of loved ones have been lost due to this pandemic. If we cannot learn the lessons from this, when will we learn the lessons?
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The habit of inhumane policy soon trickles down to the servants of the state. This morning, a constituent of mine undergoing a miscarriage was denied the company of her husband. I have sent the details to the Secretary of State.
Tyranny is a habit, and the motions on the Order Paper this evening show that we have not quite kicked it. The powers that touched our personal choices and came at such a huge cost remain. We were told that they were there purely temporarily to deal with the emergency. Well, by any measure the emergency is over and the hugely successful vaccination campaign is the guarantee against its return. Yet on the Order Paper tonight the Government seek to retain those powers to control aspects of our lives, together with the punishment regime for those who disobey.
Now, those of us who can spot the trajectory will have seen yesterday that, after months of denial, people will now indeed have to provide their vaccination bona fides when they go to the pub. Those who are teetotal and imagine that they might be spared such intrusion and inconvenience can dream on: this will undoubtedly be extended to restaurants, theatres, sporting venues, and so proceed to total social control. Did it ever occur to Ministers that they might actually incentivise vaccination—carrot, not stick? Undoubtedly it did not, because they cannot kick the habit. They are wedded to the stick.
Let there be no wringing of hands by Members of Parliament who vote for oppressive legislation and then wail with indignation when the police actually enforce it. When families are fined thousands of pounds for staying over together at Easter, we will know that it was because this House willed it so. Those people, those hon. Members, wishing for these measures to pass tonight should reflect clearly on exactly what it is they wish for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The Member who was No. 14 on the call list has withdrawn, so we go to Sir Bernard Jenkin.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I suppose I have an opportunity to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who has just spoken. I have a rather different take.
Many people seem to be seized of the idea that the vaccination programme has already freed us and that we are entitled to take back freedoms now. I want to challenge that. The threat of a third wave exists—in fact, there will be a third wave; it is just a question of how large it is going to be. The only thing that will constrain it is the proportion of the population who are resistant.
There is 85% take-up in half the population at the moment and the vaccines are on average 85% effective: that means that only 72% of half the population has immunity. The Secretary of State referred to Public Health England advice—based on very fresh data, I hasten to add—that bears out the most recent Imperial College modelling, which shows that even if all the restrictions are not lifted until July there is still a danger of a third wave. If the restrictions were lifted at the end of April, say, there would be a dramatic rise in the number of hospitalisations.
Mr Harper
I read with great care my hon. Friend’s article on ConservativeHome this morning. He refers to the modelling that Imperial and Warwick did. I went through that in some detail, but the problem is that the assumptions they made—I went through every single one—are all overly pessimistic compared with the actuality. That is why I asked the Secretary of State to redo that modelling, because if he did so, I think he would come to a much more optimistic conclusion than my hon. Friend has reached.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is a worst-case scenario, but we are dealing with projections that are based on a great deal of speculation, and they do not take account of the possibility of new variants. I rather share the concern expressed by some Members in the debate that we need restrictions on people coming into this country, particularly from the continent, and that there should be more testing of people coming here. I am sure that the Government will want to implement those measures if they can. It is rather easier to call for them to implement them than to do so without causing a great deal of disruption.
I want to briefly touch on the continuation of our vaccination programme. One of the risks that we need to factor in is that the rate of vaccination will slow, and particularly the rate of first doses, because the vaccination programme now has to cope with the large quantity of second doses. The restrictions on vaccine supply mean that the number of first doses will perhaps reduce to as little as 50,000 a week in April. That does not rule out that we should adopt a generous attitude towards our European friends, however much they may be casting around for blame and trying to salvage their reputation from the failure of their own vaccination programmes. We can draw comfort from the fact that they are resorting to possible bans and blockades because they have no contractual obligations to enforce upon AstraZeneca—it is a misunderstanding of the difference between contracts that give rights over stock that exists and contracts that give rights over the flow of production, which is creating stock that does not yet exist.
The fact is that we are at the front of the queue, but I think that the United Kingdom should seek to be generous and to avoid this vaccine nationalism, even if it means giving up some of the flow of our vaccine, although it is understood that there are actually some large quantities of vaccine in the European Union that are not being used. The fact that they have trashed the reputation of the AstraZeneca vaccine is most unfortunate, and while understandable in psychological terms, it is unforgivable in public health terms.
Finally, on the issue of lifting covid restrictions in Parliament, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who cobbled together a majority in the Procedure Committee to get what he wanted in the Committee’s report. But I suggest that, in the end, it is a matter for the whole House what the House’s procedures are. There are things to learn, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that will make the House more equal, fairer to people who are sick and fairer to people who have caring responsibilities and perhaps take the pressure off the shortage of time we have because we do not want too many late nights. Some of our debates have got too short, and speeches have got too short, and if those who had to be away could have proxy votes, we could have longer debates, better debates and better scrutiny of legislation, as well as a House that is more attractive for women to stay in and take part in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I need to point out that, if Members take interventions, it would be helpful for them to stick to the four-minute time limit, because otherwise we simply will not get everybody in. Colleagues in the Chamber may not be able to get in if Members do not stick to the time limit, which would be a shame.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
I will vote against the Act today. The Government’s response has been one of the worst in the world: one of the world’s highest death rates and one of the world’s deepest economic downturns. Contracts that lined the pockets of political contacts were given greater priority than investing in public health measures that could have saved lives and livelihoods. Some on the Government Benches will vote against their Government today. I share nothing with their extremist views on how to respond to this health crisis. Regardless of any tactical splits in the Conservative party, the common thread between them has been an ideology that put profit before health. That is why we closed down too late. That is why we opened up too early—repeatedly.
For months, I have called on the Government to implement an alternative strategy, alongside the vaccine, to drive the virus down to very low levels, as other countries have successfully done, with a maximum suppression or zero covid strategy. This remains essential if we are to prevent dangerous mutations that render the vaccine less effective. However, any covid strategy will only be effective if there is proper economic support for those affected. Yet one year after lockdown began the Government still refuse to provide sick pay at levels that cover real living costs. It is simply unacceptable that many of the lowest-paid workers on furlough are still expected to live on less than the minimum wage. That cannot go on for months more. This is about not just social justice, but public health. Covid deaths have been over twice as high in the most deprived communities as in the better off. Lower-paid workers are much more likely to die from covid. I am increasingly fearful that this is becoming a disease of the poor. Urgent action is needed to ensure that it does not.
People have been brilliant throughout the whole crisis, looking after each other and respecting the lockdown rules. It is the Government who have failed. While the Government continue to fail to put in place proper sick pay to those who need to self-isolate, a decent minimum income floor and other measures that deal with the deepening social crises that people in our communities face, I cannot support extending the Government’s Coronavirus Act for six months. I will vote against that Act. The Government should bring back a better Act—one that protects civil liberties and tackles both the public health and social crises.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome motion 5 in the name of the Leader of the House. It is high time that the House of Commons took back some control. I expect the House of Commons Commission to follow the lead and move in lockstep with the road map for everything else here when it comes to it.
I welcomed the road map in the House when it was published last month and I will support the regulations today, because it is a route out that I called for and it would be churlish not to. I have not changed my view that it is too cumbersome in parts—it is. I do not think it shows enough belief in vaccines, which must give us immunity from covid at the same time as giving us immunity from the restrictions on our lives—otherwise what is the point? I have not changed my view that it unfairly singles out hospitality as the villain, for instance, opening all retail and personal care businesses on 12 April—which the Prime Minister says is a date that is looking good—yet ensuring Winchester’s pubs and restaurants cannot open in any truly profitable way until 17 May at the earliest. I asked the Prime Minister on 22 February why, after all the good work they did last year to create covid-secure environments, restaurants and cafés face another three months—it is still seven weeks from today—before they can open in any meaningful way. Again, I ask those on the Front Bench today, given that we are putting the road map into law, what evidence have the Government seen that has convinced them to make that decision? It is, let us remember, data, not dates.
Turning to the Coronavirus Act, I have been through the one-year report on the provisions of the Act and I thank the team for it. I note and welcome the parts that Ministers are retiring, such as section 8 on emergency volunteering leave and section 24, which gives the state crazy provision to retain the fingerprints and DNA profiles of my constituents. There are other sections—for example, section 14 allows the NHS not to comply with the requirement to continue healthcare assessments—which could be expired, given that we are nowhere near last resort territory and the NHS is clearly not at risk of being overwhelmed. There are many others. I dislike intensely schedules 21 and 22 in particular, which is very sinister, and would gladly have supported the amendment to remove it in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) had it been allowed.
Generally, however, we are in danger of conflating the regulations, the road map out of lockdown, with the Act. They are not the same and one can happen without the other. The real action centres around the four reviews, the main three being social distancing, covid status certification and international travel, but ahead of today, I checked in with my local NHS and the two main professional bodies impacted by the emergency registration of nurses. They tell me that some provisions are still needed. I cannot deny that they said that. I checked in with the legal beagles and, given the backlog, I can see the importance of live links for criminal proceedings in our court system. So, if I am honest, I think we are rather hoist by our own petard on the renewal of the Act. Six months is way too long and it does not fit the road map, but that is what the Act says—those of us who were involved in drafting it have to take our share of responsibility for that—so it is take it or leave it territory and “leave it” would have consequences, too, even if it left behind some parts of the Act that I have said I do not like. There is no “perfect” here and I cannot, in all good sense, allow this to be a binary “good versus evil” choice of the kind so ridiculously set out, in a rare appearance, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats. It is not.
The Government should deliver on their road map, keep on retiring parts of the Act, which they can do on the two-monthly schedule, and make damn sure that we are not back here in six months’ time, because they will get a very different answer from the House of Commons.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I would like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who made some important points, particularly about what we do and do not do to tackle the importing of variants from overseas and about the chance that it could undermine some of the efforts we are making here and the success of the vaccine programme. Unlike my hon. Friend, I have not been lucky enough yet to have my blue envelope. Sadly, I still have some time to wait—in other senses, of course, that is a positive—but I am happy to do so, in the full knowledge that the vaccine is being rolled out to those who really need it. The success on that has to be very much welcomed across the board.
For much of my time, I would like to speak about the focus that we need to have on virtual proceedings. I acknowledge the comment from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) that the Procedure Committee recently published a report saying that its majority view was that it wants to return to normal as soon as possible, but it was a majority view—it was not unanimous—and a number of us on the Committee would like to see what can be done to consider any positives that we can take from virtual participation. I certainly welcome what the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) said about comments by the Prime Minister that that will be looked at, which back up comments previously made to the Committee by the Leader of the House.
There are positives that we can take forward from virtual participation in proceedings, and simple measures such as pass readers have benefited a lot of the work that goes on here, but it is important to highlight that there has been a distinct lack of opportunity for the House to debate a lot of these processes. Too often, it has been a “nod or nothing” motion—a take it or leave it. If we want any virtual participation at all, we have had to accept what is in the motion, and there has not been the opportunity to debate, to amend and to consider what else would be possible.
Finally, I appreciate that no amendments are being taken today, but perhaps the Minister will take account of my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill. It would not put any restriction on the Government’s ability to act quickly when issuing contracts relating to the pandemic. However, it would put in place a mechanism whereby, if there was a connection and there were some of the issues that have been highlighted in the press, there would be an opportunity after the event for Parliament to scrutinise, to question and to make sure that full transparency was available, so that it could have absolute confidence that those contracts had been awarded in an appropriate manner. The Bill would not slow anything down, and if the Government have nothing to fear, they have nothing to hide.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
A year after the lockdown, may I begin by thanking people in my constituency? Of course, I thank the core workers, whom we recognise so often, in the NHS and in education, but also those on the supermarket tills, public sector transport workers and those who have been delivering to our homes and who have kept our lives going. They do not always get the mention they deserve. I also thank the community groups and volunteers who have silently and often invisibly managed to keep our communities afloat. Above all else, I thank the men, women and children in all our constituencies who have forgone the basic human pleasures of family and friends and made sacrifices to keep the rest of us safe—very unlike, I have to say, the selfish, reckless and self-indulgent individuals who were rioting close to my constituency, in Bristol, last weekend.
I would be dishonest if I did not say that I resent having to vote for a six-month extension to these rules, given that they are out of step with the lockdown path set out by the Government. However, I also accept that we have no alternative, given the legislative position in which we find ourselves, so I will support the Government today. After looking back on how we have handled this, including the legislative elements, we need to ensure that, when the same or a similar situation happens in the future, we do not allow such long periods for the Government to hold emergency powers without the House of Commons being able to regularly review them. A six-month period where the Government have such powers is out of step with our constitutional conventions in this country. It is certainly out of step with what I regard as the principles of conservatism to allow the Government that leeway, so I hope that will change.
There has been a lot of talk about the concept of passports. I will say something briefly about that. In international travel, we are all used to the concept that we cannot cross a border without having immunisation. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for any country, including the United Kingdom, to want to do. It is when it comes to domestic issues that I think there is a real problem. Were the Government to try to compel individuals to carry some proof of either immunity through vaccine or a negative test, that would be completely unacceptable in a country where civil liberties are held so highly and are so prized. However, we as Conservatives should be careful not to constrain the private sector in how it chooses its customers. If companies—whether airlines or pubs—choose to have particular customers in particular ways, that is up to them. I would not like a Conservative Government to intervene in the freedom of the private sector to choose its customers. We cannot pick and choose which freedoms to protect and which to disapply.
On the concept of a third wave, it is not a third wave; it is a continuing wave. If a population does not have immunity to a particular pathogen, it will continue to spread until community immunity increases, either through vaccination or because of recovery from infection.
We have to ensure that we do better globally. We have not done well, as a global community, on this pandemic. We have mrNA technology, which should make it much quicker for us to deal with any emerging pathogens, yet we have a global pandemic disaster on our hands. We have to recognise that, if we are going to do better in the future, we have to have global protocols. However, we cannot have global protocols without global metrics—and we cannot even decide exactly how to measure the number of people who have died from the pandemic. We have a long way to go and, when we look at how we handled it, we need to look at how we handled it as an international community. A global pandemic requires global solutions.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
This week marks one year since the first UK lockdown. My thoughts and prayers this week are with the loved ones of the almost 130,000 people who have lost their lives since then. It is also a year since the Government were given an unprecedented set of extraordinary powers via the Coronavirus Act. This was not done with a recorded vote. The only possible justification for giving the Government the powers outlined in the Act is to keep us safe, but this Government have presided over the worst coronavirus death toll in Europe and the worst economic recession since records began, so that clearly has not worked. Many of the measures have barely been used, as Secretary of State admitted today. Even worse, a year on, with all the experience we now have of dealing with the virus and its ramifications, Members of Parliament are not given the opportunity to scrutinise or amend measures to better serve our constituents, who continue to suffer.
It seems that, given the Act is not about safety or support, and does not even adhere to our equalities law, it is yet another means of consolidating power in an ever-failing Executive. The Secretary of State actually proved that when he announced today that the Government were suspending a number of measures in the Act. While I believe the Secretary of State thought that announcement would appease those with concerns, like me, all I heard is that, while democratically elected Members of this House can only vote yes or no, the Government can do whatever they like—no checks, no balances, no scrutiny. This Government’s majority does not give them the right to run roughshod over our democracy and prevent Members from representing their constituents. I would argue that perhaps if alternative measures were permitted before the House, the Conservative party might find the numbers in its Lobby dwindling as MPs decided to vote in the best interests of their constituents. This Act is not the best we can do by this country.
Last March, when the Act was introduced, human rights organisations warned that the powers that it contained were loosely drafted, giving too much discretion to the Home Secretary and leaving too much room for confusion. The vigil in my constituency to remember Sarah Everard shows exactly what this meant: the decision to stop women exercising their civil liberties and expressing their anger and grief actually left everyone less safe. The police should never have been in a position to do that, but they cited this Act as their legal right to do so. It has also been used to fine nurses protesting the disgraceful 1% pay rise and GMB workers picketing the disgraceful fire and rehire practices.
It is not irresponsible or unreasonable to vote against this Act today. It is, some might say, a vote against measures that are not going to keep us more safe, and it is a demand for measures that will protect us all. The first time that this Act was passed, it was done in one day. Voting this Act down would give us 21 days. We do have time. That is why I was pleased to support Liberty’s “Protect Everyone Bill”, the alternative coronavirus Bill —the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill—presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). There is an alternative, and I will vote against the renewal of this Act tonight to give us the opportunity to realise that.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I refer to the declarations that I have made relating to support for the Covid Recovery Group. There are people out there who are absolutely furious because of the great harms and losses that they have suffered. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) mentioned his pint of milk protest, which has already attracted the interest of sketch writers. He reminded me that I have learned recently from the National Farmers Union that in our area, south Bucks and Middlesex, three dairy herds have been lost because the closure of hospitality has reduced the supply for their products—three dairy herds lost, with all the livelihoods that go with them and all the wellbeing effects on the farms.
I remember and wish to honour the 302 people who have died in Wycombe district—a district a little larger than my constituency. Of course, we need to remember with humility that people have died from this disease, but we also need to look to the future and remember the harms caused by the response to coronavirus: wellbeing and economic harms from lockdowns and restrictions. We need to be very careful to categorise the causes of those harms very carefully.
According to the “Guido Fawkes” website today:
“Polling by Yonder for the Recovery campaign reveals that the Government’s pandemic advertising has had a shocking impact on the mental health of the nation. Over 15% of respondents reported depression, anxiety, or fear as a direct result of Government pandemic advertising. That’s equivalent to over 8 million people.”
I know that every Minister and every Member of this House wishes to improve the mental health of the nation, but I am afraid the indications are that one of the best ways we could improve the nation’s mental health right now would be to cease this terrifying advertising and say to the public, “There is great news. The vaccines are working.” We should stop terrifying people, treat them like adults and ask them to comply, but to comply while we get the vaccine rolled out and save lives.
I turn to the steps regulations. The reality is that these proposals will pass tonight. I think the House has already heard an excellent case for voting against. I have paid great attention to my great friend Dr Raghib Ali, an epidemiologist and acute medicine consultant in my constituency, who has written on “ConservativeHome” saying why we should unite around these steps regulations. There are proposals in there that I would not be willing to vote for, but I very much hope that, today, the House will choose not to divide over these regulations. They are a path to freedom and, my goodness, we do need one. But I say to the Government, please look at the work of Professor Paul Dolan at the London School of Economics. He and I have spoken about something called situational blindness. However well-intentioned and skilful the professionals are who have formed these policies, I fear that they are rather like all of us—in secure employment, in decent housing, perhaps with gardens and a view. Many, many other people out there affected by these rules are not, have not been and will not be.
There is a great deal more to be said. Schedule 21 of the Coronavirus Act has the 100% record of failure that has been well articulated. I regret that my amendment could not be selected. I would hope that everyone who has spoken against schedule 21 would have voted for it, and I think it would have gone through. I will, unfortunately, have to vote against the Government tonight in order to protest schedule 21, and also schedule 22, which has never been used and is therefore redundant. Those schedules should certainly be removed.
The Act is extreme, unnecessary and disproportionate—I do not have time to go through why—and for that reason I shall vote against it. It is absolutely imperative, as we go forward, that we get the House of Commons back in line with the steps programme, but the one thing we must not do is exempt ourselves from the inconvenience suffered by the public.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
If there is a vote tonight, I shall vote no because of concerns that the Government are still focusing on risk avoidance rather than risk management when the public want to get back to normality and thought they were going to be getting that with the vaccine roll-out. In fact, as I see it, this is a move away from earlier on in the pandemic when there seemed to be a balance of debate inside Government between the economic tendency—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Business Department—and the Health Department. That is a healthy tension because there are real decisions that have to be made. But it now seems almost as though the Chancellor of the Exchequer has become invisible and vanished from that debate, and there is only one group inside Government who are now driving it.
I would have preferred these measures to have monthly renewals by Parliament so that they could be considered much more regularly, because the cost to the economy and to the physical and mental health of our nation has been enormous and is frankly unsustainable. Many parts of the economy, especially in the leisure, hospitality and entertainment industries, are teetering on the brink. Every week more of them go under. Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are being put on the dole and many more are fearful that they face the same fate. This is particularly impacting on young people who are not able to get into the labour market. Many small family businesses, with their hopes, fears and aspirations, are being ruined. Millions of self-employed, as we have heard regularly in this House, have been left high and dry.
As we have also heard today, long supply chains of industries are being hit. Many of these industries are part of our attraction to the wider world and they all need Britain to get back to work—the pubs and clubs, restaurants and cafés, theatres and cinemas, TV and film production companies, sporting venues, sports clubs, betting shops, bingo halls and casinos. They are part of what makes our society, what makes Britain an attractive place to live and work, and why people come here, and many of them are being hit incredibly badly.
The public want to be back to normal. As the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) rightly said, they got the vaccines thinking that that would be a pathway back to normality. That is why, unlike some, I believe that vaccine passports or certificates may be inevitable, not only for foreign travel but here as well. I heard Jonathan Neame on the radio this morning. He is a man who knows the beer business extremely well, but he was not necessarily facing up to the real alternative, which is that if the Government drag their feet on reopening, vaccine passports that enable businesses to open earlier, stay open and keep the whole supply chain going may be something that we have to seriously consider.
There has been quite a bit of discussion about variants, as mentioned by both the Health Secretary and the shadow Health Secretary. I think it is now generally accepted that coronavirus will be a bit like flu with regular recurrences, probably towards autumn and winter. I worry that we are going down the path of the EU precautionary principle rather than managing that risk and accepting that unless we are going to keep shutting down society, we will have to work out how to deal with it. As I have said during the course of this pandemic, we need a policy that enables us to co-exist with the virus rather than vainly hoping we can eliminate it. That is the real challenge, and the question is: can the Government rise to it?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I think in our constituencies there is a real fear that the road map and the extension of the Coronavirus Act are one and the same, that extending the latter means effectively delaying the former, and that if we support the motion this evening, lockdown restrictions will be extended and freedoms not returned. I therefore echo the concerns of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), about today’s motions. They are not all ideal, because many of us would prefer the return of full freedoms to coincide with the end of the Coronavirus Act, and the Health Secretary made the case as to why that could not be so, while ending some 12 schedules of the restrictions within the Act. He made the case for the need for the Act continue.
If we could amend the Act, I would agree with several colleagues that, for example, schedule 14, for health assessments, and schedule 1, which gives powers to the police to detain those potentially infectious persons for up to 24 hours, would be prime candidates. In fact, as my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), pointed out, schedule 22 has never been used at all, and that would be another candidate for amendment. But we have allowed legislation that is not amendable, and therefore the choice this evening is really whether to support the motions, because there are parts of the Act that have been widely useful, such as temporary courts, the different treatment of leases, and statutory sick pay, and those do, I believe, require support from us all.
John Spellar
The reality is that if the Government were defeated tonight, they would recall Parliament and put through the legislation to pass the necessary measures, and therefore they are erecting a false alternative, are they not?
Richard Graham
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to focus this evening on the key messages that I think it is important for us to hear from the Government this evening; when the Minister sums up, perhaps he can allude to them. The first is that we are still trading on a slogan of “Protect the NHS”. Although none of us underestimates the importance of a fully functioning NHS or the incredible efforts made by all our local NHS trusts, the time has come to recognise that actually in many of our hospitals there are now fewer people with coronavirus than would normally be there with flu; that the huge efforts made by our NHS have broadly succeeded in taking out of hospital —certainly in my hospital, the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital—those patients who had been in intensive treatment; and that the time has come to look at the huge backlog of other physical operations that are needed, at the people who have been too shy to come forward because they were frightened of catching the virus just by going into hospital, and at the incredible backlog of mental health issues that is only just beginning to surface.
Last weekend, the father of a young woman currently working for me dived into the River Severn fully clad in order to save a young woman from drowning. She did not want to be saved; she wanted to commit suicide. We are, in each of our constituencies, seeing more cases of that type, and each one has a whole ricochet of tragedy attached to it, as the Minister knows well.
Therefore, whatever the new message is—I shall not try to draft it for the Government this evening—I think the message has to be that it is now time for us all, but inevitably particularly the NHS, to look after those who have not had coronavirus; to swivel our attention, not completely away from the pandemic, which has not gone away and will never completely go away; and to recognise how much more needs to be done to protect others in society and give them the chances and the attention to flourish—which, of course, is where the road map comes in. I still believe that it is an almost impossible task for our police forces to fully implement the requirements of the restrictions that we have laid on them, and I hope that the Government will be able to do more to allow things to open a little bit earlier and give back those freedoms that everybody values so dearly.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
We could scarcely have imagined that, a whole year after a strange virus that we knew very little about arrived on our shores and Ministers were able to railroad a 348-page Bill through Parliament in three days, taking away individuals’ rights and freedoms on an unprecedented scale, we would be here being asked to renew those powers yet further still. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) made very clear, the Liberal Democrats will not and cannot support the renewal of the Coronavirus Act today. We will absolutely not give a blank cheque to Ministers to continue those draconian powers.
I turn my attention to the road map regulations. In the main, I welcome the fact that the Government have finally learned the hard way, after three lockdowns, 126,000 deaths, of which 84,000 were in the past six months alone, and untold damage to people’s lives and livelihoods, that “steady as she goes”, as opposed to what happened last summer, is the key to unlocking safely. However, as the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has already pointed out, vaccination alone will not keep the virus under control as we open up, especially given the third wave that we are seeing surging in so many European countries. That is a huge threat to us, so tough public health measures at our borders are critical, yet the travel ban in the regulations is simply not fit for purpose.
I am appalled that Ministers wish to criminalise people for visiting loved ones overseas, yet the Prime Minister’s father and friends get a free pass to go and take care of their second homes abroad—because of course second home owners cannot possibly bring the virus back into this country, can they? Despite clear scientific advice and international best practice in support of a blanket quarantine for arrivals from all countries, our system was implemented far too late and is far too leaky to properly protect against new variants being imported that could potentially be vaccine resistant. Criminalising international travel with a £5,000 fine and an exemption for second home owners exemplifies the Government’s approach to so many aspects of the pandemic: half-baked, authoritarian, and one rule for them and one rule for us.
Alongside vaccination and tougher restrictions at our borders as we embark on this road map out of lockdown, with virus rates inevitably jumping again, breaking chains of transmission will be critical, as the Health Secretary himself said earlier, yet the regulations do nothing to improve the rate of self-isolation. With as many as 20,000 people a day not self-isolating, when will Ministers realise that paying people to stay at home, and providing practical support for those with dependants and accommodation for those in overcrowded homes, is key to boosting self-isolation?
Robust quarantine measures at our borders and far better self-isolation must go hand in hand with vaccination in order gradually and safely to open up our economy and society. Neither the far-reaching, draconian powers in the Coronavirus Act, nor vaccine passports for domestic use, which would create a two-tier society and an extra burden for struggling businesses, will achieve that aim. Our constituents have sacrificed far too much, and our scientists, NHS staff and volunteers have achieved wonders through the vaccine programme, so I implore Ministers: let us not squander these gains.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Let me deal with the two fundamental choices that we face today. The first is on the Government’s regulations implementing the road map that the Prime Minister set out. I am not going to vote against those. I am not going to support them, but I am not going to vote against them; it would be churlish. They are a road map to freedom, and my only quarrel is with the pace, not with the direction of travel.
I go back to what the Secretary of State said. He was very clear that the Government will not be looking at modelling; they are looking at real data. If we look at hospitalisation data, the dramatic reduction in the number of deaths and the fantastic pace of the vaccination roll-out—we have seen data today showing how fantastic the take-up of vaccination has been—it is clear that we are going to be able to save lives and protect the NHS not by staying at home but by the vaccination doing the heavy lifting.
I want to pick up a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) made about the quantity of the population that has been protected. It is absolutely true that we will not have vaccinated everyone by the end of April, but importantly, we will of course have vaccinated groups 1 to 9, which account for 99% of the deaths to date and over 80% of the hospitalisations. While we will not have stopped everyone getting covid, we will have dealt with the problem of significant numbers of people becoming seriously ill, going into hospital and potentially overwhelming the NHS, and large numbers of people dying. That is why I maintain—and, increasingly, the data will bear this out—that we could safely reopen society more quickly than the 21 June deadline. The reason why that is important is that there is another side to this situation: in that time, jobs will be lost, businesses will fail and some people will find the personal burden incredibly difficult to bear. We do not need to go through that for another two months if we are able to reopen safely earlier.
On the Coronavirus Act and the renewal of the temporary measures, I am very pleased that the Secretary of State confirmed at the Dispatch Box that what we have been hearing about the furlough scheme being brought to an end if we voted against the temporary provisions is nonsense. I said that at the weekend and I am glad that the Secretary State has now confirmed it at the Dispatch Box. I accept that there is a choice, but the problem is that some measures the Government want to take forward are very sensible, and I support them, while many others are egregious and absolutely not supported. Given that we have an up or down vote and no ability to amend, we have to balance these things. I will vote against the renewal of the temporary provisions, because the measures that the Government want to take forward are sufficiently bad and unwarranted that they do not deserve to continue. If the Government were to lose that vote—they are not going to lose it—they could, given their majority, easily implement the more sensible measures that are necessary in an alternative piece of legislation that would no doubt get through this House with cross-party and, I think, almost universal support.
Finally, I wish to reflect on what the Secretary of State said. I raised with him the point that was in the one-year review of the Act, which suggests that the schedule 21 powers—the ones that give the police the power to detain people—are necessary for the long term, and he did not rule out extending those measures for another six months. By the Government’s own admission in their explanatory notes, these measures are extraordinary and would not be acceptable in normal circumstances. Given that the Prime Minister wants us to have removed restrictions by June, it is not acceptable to extend those measures to October and I certainly do not think it necessary to extend them to March. That is why, regretfully, I will be voting against the renewal of the temporary provisions.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I am pleased that some provisions are being removed from the Coronavirus Act. It is important to note that, although no amendments were selected for debate, the Opposition rightly pointed out that the Government’s handling of the pandemic has resulted in one of the highest death tolls in the world and the worst economic crisis of any major economy, and they have allowed the pandemic to exacerbate the inequalities in our society and to impact black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and disabled people disproportionately.
The public health restrictions have been essential to protect our most vulnerable, but the Government have damaged public trust by failing to publish and communicate effectively the data behind key decisions. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, concluded in our recent report that the Government’s communication
“has not always been transparent enough.”
It said that the lack of transparency in relation to the local lockdown and tiering decisions led to “confusion and mistrust”.
I have heard at first hand from businesses in Luton South, especially from the hospitality sector, the frustration that they felt at not being able to access the information and data that the Government used to inform the decisions that stopped or interrupted their operations. The failure to communicate the 10 pm curfew and the restrictions on wet-led pubs caused particular distress and anger. Businesses could not understand why the Government did not work with them. Publicans told me that they already ran licensed, controlled premises and had already introduced additional coronavirus health and safety measures to keep staff and customers safe.
Businesses need to be able to plan effectively. While the Government are giving confirmation that certain restrictions will be relaxed no earlier than a specific date, that is not sufficient assurance for businesses without having sight of underlying information, and any trends and thresholds to be met. Hospitality businesses need this information to help plan for full reopening, which can take around two or three weeks, if not more, if they need to order supplies and fresh stock and to ensure that they have sufficient staff.
Building trust with the hospitality sector is vital and the Government must improve on the approach taken over the past year. As the PACAC report put it:
“Transparency builds trust, and trust aids compliance with rules.”
Alongside the new road map regulations, I press the Secretary of State to learn from past mistakes and urgently to publish detailed information and data that underpin each step in the relaxation of restrictions.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Let me start by congratulating the Government on the remarkable success of the vaccination programme. It has been phenomenal and it has made many, many people feel incredibly safe, me included—I have only four weeks until my second jab, and. I cannot wait to get it, as I will feel even better. It has given reassurance to the elderly, the disabled and those people who have felt trapped in their homes for so many months—some did not even take advantage of going out much last summer. The Government have done a fantastic job with the vaccination programme.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), I want to congratulate those people who have worked day in, day out, without much thanks, to keep the country moving. I refer to the people in the public health system and, in particular, the people in the supermarkets, who have had all sorts of people coming in and standing pretty close to them, without knowing whether covid was being passed on or not.
There have been some remarkable successes in this pandemic, but there have been some errors. My view is that we have been moving the goalposts—they started at Wembley and they are now nearly at Derby County! I am extremely worried that if we are not careful, they will be up in Scotland. We thought the vaccine was going to be the thing that would save us, and it is going to save us. We are not where we were a year ago. We are much safer than we were then. People feel safer, but we seem to be thinking that still we cannot open hospitality businesses and weddings cannot go ahead in any sort of normal circumstance. That has such a huge impact on the rest of society—it is about the supply chains and all those single-people businesses that have had no help and no earnings for a year. We need to get those people back to work so that they can earn and get back on their feet.
We have to remember that this is not just about the pandemic; it is about the all-round health of the nation. We heard tragically from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) about suicides. There was one down the lane from us, which I did not even know about. It is tragic that there are so many suicides because people cannot face being trapped in their homes any more and they are frightened to go out. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) about stopping all these terrifying views through adverts and things in the paper. We need to say that we are doing well and will continue to do well—Europe permitting —to get the vaccines in. But we must move forward; we must let people out. Those hospitality businesses and wedding venues have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds protecting their businesses, but they are not allowed to open. The wedding industry—I wonder whether it is because the businesses are mainly run by women—has been left with contradictory messages, and I feel the Government could be much clearer about how weddings can operate and how quickly. It is Easter and love should be in the air, but it is not.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said a moment ago, Liberal Democrats will not support the proposals on the table today. We consider the request for extended powers for the period of time to be an overreach—these are powers the Government do not need, and certainly do not need for a period of six months, taking us right into the autumn.
My great concern is that the Government’s default, knee-jerk attempt to seek these draconian powers for a lengthier period is beginning to fit into a pattern. We saw the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in this place just a week or so ago, under which the Government are seeking powers to incarcerate people for up to 10 years if they protest against the Government. We are also seeing reports of the Government wanting to force carers to be vaccinated, when they have done so by choice already. That shows a complete lack of respect and tenderness towards people who have put their lives on the line for this past 12 months and longer to support others in their deepest moment of need. Of course we now have pub landlords being asked to be, in effect, border guards in their own pubs and to check a vaccine passport.
All this seems to indicate that we have a Conservative party in government that loves talking about liberty until it has to do something about it in practice, and when it comes to dealing with these issues in practice, its instincts are authoritarian. As always, if you care about liberty, you need your Liberals—and so the Liberals are guaranteed to be voting against this draconian set of powers on the table today. It is also worth bearing in mind that I do not think the police are crying out for additional extensions to their powers. What they want is two things: resources and clarity in the guidelines and laws that they do seek to enforce.
Throughout this pandemic the strictness of the laws has not been the issue; it has been the clarity of the guidance. The Government have very often been contradicting themselves, mixing messages and sending out the wrong messages, as well as not keeping the guidance themselves as individuals and therefore setting a terrifyingly awful lead.
I want to make just one suggestion. On the road map out of this difficult time that clearly we are all experiencing as a national community, outdoor education has no place whatever. We know when nightclubs are going to open, but outdoor education facilities in my constituency in the lakes and dales, and across the rest of the country, have no date for reopening. The Government are killing off a vital industry that is there to support our young people. Its skills are especially needed at a time like this, when we want to reconnect young people with a love of learning.
The lack of a date and of bespoke funding is killing off outdoor education. My friend Kirsty Williams, the Minister for Education in Wales, announced just the other day a particular package for outdoor education centres in Wales. There is a package in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why is there not a bespoke package for outdoor education centres in England today? Today is surely the day for them to do just that.
It is also worth bearing in mind that as people become able to move in significant numbers, as of next Monday, to beautiful places such as the Lake District, we need—and have needed for some months now—investment in popularising the countryside code. That is so that people know how to behave in beautiful places, how to treat the local residents with respect and how to look after the environment that they have come to enjoy. I am pleased that the Government are, as of the Easter weekend, putting resources into the countryside code. They should have done it nine months ago when we asked them to.
My final point is about hospitality and tourism businesses beginning to reopen. They will not all be able to open at capacity when they are allowed to. That is why financial support for them must continue until the autumn.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I open up by wishing everyone well on what has been a rather unhappy first anniversary of covid lockdowns and the passing of the Coronavirus Act. I do not think it has been a very happy time for anyone around the country.
The incredible success of the vaccination programme—whether it is the technicians, engineers and scientists or the roll-out itself—has been much more of a positive and its effectiveness has been startling. I do not think that a year ago anyone would have expected to be at this stage. The United Kingdom is leading Europe and the world in vaccine delivery.
The Secretary of State ought to be proud of that success. He has spoken of that sense of breaking the link between transmission, hospitalisation and death. That link is fracturing in a very significant way. At the moment, we are pretty much able to say that that link has broken. At the end of this month—certainly next month—that link between transmission, death and hospitalisation will have gone.
I welcome the fact that we are now seeking to retire certain temporary provisions. Some were never needed and some were needed only for a temporary period and are no longer needed. But I am concerned that the Government are seeking to retain schedule 21, the provision for controlling people, given that there has been a 100% failure rate for prosecutions. I am also concerned that schedule 22, for controlling gatherings, is also being retained. That has not even been used over the past year, and we have been through the worst parts of the lockdown. It has not been as bad as some of the projections have suggested, but it has been a pretty bad time for a great many people, so why are we seeking to retain schedule 22, which was never needed during the worst of times?
I am also concerned by the increasing political narrative conveyed through the media of compulsion in vaccination, including with children being vaccinated—children who suffer so little, if at all, from the virus itself. We are going on now about vaccine passports, and the covid status certificate is a very concerning issue. I think that is being increasingly raised, and it seems to be inevitable. I just wonder about the European football championships, which will be held later this year, and whether the Prime Minister’s offer to hold them in the United Kingdom will be used to showcase how effective such certificates can be. Is that the reason that schedule 22 has been retained—for the control of people at those sorts of events? Will it be restricted just to those events, or could it be widened out further to pubs and restaurants, public transport, places of work or places of education?
I am not sure these concerns have been decisively ruled out, and I do think that the debate should be had. It would be welcome if my hon. Friend the Minister explained the retention of schedule 22; we have been going through this for a year now, and we must know exactly why it is being retained.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), who posited many of the absolutely central questions in this debate.
I readily confess that I find this a slightly frustrating experience, and it does come to the heart of the House’s role in scrutinising legislation. Many of the issues that are central to this legislation are about the definition of the relationship between the citizen and state. To try to deal with these matters in a four-minute time limit is a level of ambition to which not even I—notwithstanding the fact that I am a Liberal Democrat—am able to aspire.
It is worth recalling that, when we enacted this legislation last year, we were trying to imagine what the future would look like. We did not know what would be the course of the pandemic or how this place would work, so we were right to be cautious and we were right to trust the Government with our freedoms, but a year on we know an awful lot more than we did then.
As the hon. Member for Bolton West has said, it is surely apparent that many of the powers we gave to the Government in the Bill last year were not needed or have not been used, and some of them have not even been enacted. As he said, 252 people have been charged with criminal offences under this Act, with not one single prosecution as a consequence. That and that alone should surely be ringing alarm bells on the Treasury Bench about the advisability of continuing with this.
Of course, it will always be the case that when we give a Government a power, they will want to hold on to it. We can go back to 1939, when this House said it was okay to have an identity card scheme. Did the Government stop the identity card scheme in 1945? No, they did not. They held on to it, and it took a private citizen to raise a court case in 1952 before we saw the back of the identity card scheme.
Mention of identity cards brings me to vaccine passports and the idea, today, of some sort of certification of people’s vaccine status that will allow them to get a pint in a pub when pubs reopen—or a measure of whisky if that is their preference. I have to say that this idea of vaccine passports is a dangerous one. It is the very thin end of a thick and illiberal wedge that we approach with caution. It raises all sorts of questions. If it is okay to force people to carry a piece of paper or a card to confirm their health status in relation to this particular virus, once we have conceded that principle, where does it take us? Is it then going to be okay for people to carry a piece of paper, under some future Government, that says they are HIV-negative, or whatever it is?
Mr Steve Baker
I am no stranger to the right hon. Member. I am confident that it will be even worse than he imagines. It is bound to be an app on our phones with face ID that leaves behind an enormous swathe of data everywhere we go.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was in the House in 2006, when Labour tried to introduce identity cards, but I remember the objections, which were forcefully put by the then Opposition—the Conservative party—regarding the need for a register, or a database of its use. That is exactly where a vaccine passport scheme would take us back to.
I do not know whether many on the Treasury Bench have ever worked in a bar for a living. I did it for five years, before I went to university to do my law degree. If those on the Treasury Bench think that the best way to bring us in this country to a place where we become the sort of “papers please” society that we have always resisted in the past, is by doing that through pubs, I warn them that they are sadly—or perhaps happily—mistaken. Such a situation would put those who work in our pubs in the most unpleasant and difficult situation, and inevitably lead to complacency. It all would mean that instead of continuing to focus on masking, social distancing and the rest of it—those measures will be necessary to avoid a spike in infections, if and when we reopen licenced establishments and elsewhere—we will inevitably end up with a spike in infections.
For all sorts of reasons, both practical and due to matters of high principle, the Government are currently going in the wrong direction. If the House gives them carte blanche and offers them a black cheque to go in that direction, by renewing the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020, we will not be doing the job that our voters sent us here to do.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and delighted to follow the wise words of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I am the 31st Member to speak in this debate. I have been here throughout, and I think I am right in saying that only two Members have given their unqualified support to what the Government propose. The Government would be wise to reflect on that, considering the gap that is opening up between our rulers—the Executive and the Government—and those of us who represent the liberties of the British people. I am particularly pleased to be the fourth Greater Manchester Member to speak against what is being proposed, because we come from a city with a fine and long history of standing up for liberty, and I am glad that is continuing.
The danger in what is being proposed is that we risk normalising an extreme policy response. It was put in place during the emergency a year ago with very little thought or debate, and draconian powers were given to the Government, who initially expected a three-week lockdown, which then became a three-month lockdown. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), were released for three weeks, and then they were again put under heavy new restrictions.
I have asked before in this Chamber a question about whose rights we are dealing with. Do the Government have the right to tell people whether they can see their children or grandchildren, or whether they can start a relationship with someone? My answer is an emphatic “no”. Even those who are less certain should reflect on whether extreme control over people’s right to family life, intimate relationships, and freedom of association should be introduced just briefly by the Government in an emergency, or for more than a year.
On 6 January—the last time we had an opportunity to assert some control on the Government exercising these powers—the Prime Minister told me, when I intervened on him, that it would be very surprising if the House did not get a vote to get rid of any of these restrictions before the end of March. Well, okay, it is 25 March, so perhaps we should prepare to be surprised. I stand with Members in all parts of the House who have said we should expect that, if the Government are given these extreme powers and allowed them for longer, they will retain them and are likely to seek to extend them. That is why the House should say no to extending the Coronavirus Act—it would have been in force for a year and a half at least.
The danger is that Government start to believe that these fundamental civil liberties belong to Ministers to grant to us or withhold. They do not—they belong, as of right, to British citizens. It is this habit of control that leads to coercive laws that have no sense. Government have, for example, a legitimate interest in people who entered the United Kingdom from high-risk countries, but there is no public health argument for fining people £5,000 for leaving the country, and the Government should think again about that. This habit of coercion and control has gone too far, and it has gone on for too long. It is time for this House to trust the British people and return their rights to them.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I thank him for his leadership in the campaign that so many of us support, trying to ensure that some common sense and proportionality are brought to this debate and that we have our freedoms back, because we should not have them taken away from us unless there is the most compelling justification.
As my hon. Friend said, this is also an issue of trust. The Government are using the slogan “data not dates”, but the data is either being withheld or ignored. I have been regularly looking at the so-called coronavirus dashboard. Suddenly, when the data got rather good from my perspective but bad from the Government’s perspective, it disappeared. The latest data on the dashboard for hospital admissions in Dorset goes back to 11 March, so I had to make my own inquiries, and I found out that within the last week, there have only been three hospital admissions in all the hospitals throughout Dorset. We have 1,200 beds in our hospitals, and we have a population of over three quarters of a million people. That data does not tell me that it is reasonable that we should continue to have a lockdown and that people should be deprived of their social and economic liberty. One of my constituents who is very good on these things wrote to me saying that 5,000 cases from 1.9 million tests shows that 99.993% of the population were unaffected. That is what we are talking about in terms of proportionality.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 extend to 94 pages. How do the Government believe that we can support the regulations when there is not even an impact assessment for them? If there was an impact assessment, it would point out that every day those regulations remain in place is costing the economy about £1 billion—£1 billion a day. We can get a lot of for £1 billion, and if a cost of £1 billion a day is being incurred, there certainly needs to be a lot more justification than the Government have so far adduced during this debate.
I expect that people will increasingly take the law into their own hands as they see that there is no risk in going out and meeting in the open, as was confirmed in evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, and that there are very few risks associated with social mixing with people who are already vaccinated. The Government have got it completely wrong on risk assessment. My advice to the Minister would be to go and get some risk assessment therapy during the Easter break and then come back with some new ideas in April. He should reflect on the adage that the welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. That, in essence, is what this debate is about, and that is why I shall be voting against these measures.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
After Greg Clark’s four-minute contribution, there are seven Members left to speak. To get everybody in, we will reduce the time limit to three minutes, and the winding-up speeches will start no later than 4.44 pm.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) mentioned the evidence to the Science and Technology Committee that there is no known instance of outdoor infection from covid. That comes from a session that we held to scrutinise the science behind the road map measures, and I thought in my few minutes today I might just draw the House’s attention to some more of the evidence we took.
First, the road map was set based on an assessment based on evidence that is more than six weeks old. It did not have the advantage that we now have of the experience of what has happened since the vaccination programme returned results. What we know, very happily, is that the assumptions made were much more pessimistic on vaccine take-up and vaccine effectiveness than have come to be realised.
My hon. Friend will know that witnesses to our Committee suggested strongly that if we are to be driven by data not dates, we should have the flexibility to advance more quickly, should that be possible. We know that there is not the opportunity today to revise those dates, so we have what we have, but I hope that the Minister will take from this debate the real determination that we should stick at least to those dates and be rigorous in looking at the data, all of which is encouraging.
I have some concerns, as did witnesses to the Committee, about what might happen in the future. A fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), talked about the opacity of some of the data that is there to trigger further releases. The road map is in place, but the powers of the 2020 Act will continue, and I was a little concerned to hear the Secretary of State in his opening speech, having noted the 90% fall in hospital admissions from the peak of the pandemic, then use words of great caution about continuing to need to protect the NHS. Of course we need to do that, but we need to know what that means.
In evidence to the Committee, both Chris Whitty and Dame Angela McLean begged this House—politicians and Ministers—for some indication of what we regard as a tolerable level of risk. In the case of flu, which they cited, we have deaths each year, but in seeking to avoid them we do not lock down the whole country, so we need to supply an assessment of what degree of proportionality we should take. I do not say that should boil down to a number, as we do not do that with flu; we should nevertheless come to an understanding of what are appropriate measures in the context of the disease.
Finally, it is important to reflect on the evidence that we heard that we will not be entirely able to keep out infections and new variants from overseas, short of doing such damage to our society and our economy as is unconscionable for a trading nation as well connected as we are. I hope therefore that the Minister will confirm that we are not going to pursue a policy of repelling boarders, which would be ruinous for our economic future and our reputation as an open trading nation.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
This pandemic has put a great strain on our society and our economy, but it has also shown the strong social cohesion in the country. People have worked together and co-operated with what the science has suggested will beat this virus. As a Conservative, I do not like to see restrictions on our freedoms any more than other hon. Members, but the measures we have put in place to combat this fast-moving novel virus have saved lives. Let us compare the Spanish flu epidemic after world war one with this one. The response to the former was driven by ineffective measures to prevent transmission and incomplete responses when it was clear that it was a fast-spreading pandemic. Spanish flu killed 50 million people worldwide and at least a quarter of a million in the UK—double the number of those who have died so far from covid.
We said we needed restrictions last year to protect our NHS and to allow it to function, and they have worked and saved lives. Of course we sympathise with everyone who has lost a friend or relative, or is suffering from the effects of long covid, but it must be clear that the situation would be much worse had we not had the restrictions. Because we have contained the virus more, we can now move along the road map, and I welcome the revocation of the all-tiers regulations with the new framework. That will allow us to reduce the levels of restriction at each stage.
I quite understand the concerns of constituents who want us to move on from lockdowns and get back on track, but we do need this framework to avoid a free-for-all at a time when we still have to vaccinate such large numbers of adults. We must keep our guard up against potential new variants and the emerging new wave in the EU and elsewhere. New mutations can develop when a virus is able to spread through unprotected populations.
My support for these regulations was reinforced yesterday at a meeting of the Hampshire local resilience forum. We heard from Dr Nigel Watson, a retired GP, who, like many others, has come back to help the NHS. He would like to continue to help with the backlog of medical cases over the next few months. Extending the regulations will allow him and others to do this. The help of Dr Watson and others is an extremely important part of getting the NHS back to normality, so I am pleased that we are extending section 2 of the Act to ensure this can continue. His story is typical of that of so many people who have helped our national effort to eliminate this dreadful disease, so let me finish by thanking him and everyone else in the NHS and the public sector who have worked so hard to support society so that we can now move on again. I will be supporting the extension of these regulations.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond).
I will start with some positives. The success of the vaccination programme is a fantastic achievement; Katie Bingham is a national hero. The Secretary of State has also worked tirelessly, as have many other Ministers. I thank again everyone involved with the vaccination process on the Isle of Wight, including the NHS teams in primary care and secondary care.
However, I am not happy with the Government’s plans today and I think they are unbalanced. In the next couple of minutes, I will explain why. First—this has been echoed by others—the Government have said that they will base their response on data, not dates, but it has become clear that the data has changed quicker than predicted and the dates have not changed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) just said, Government action is now based on data that is old and negative—too old and too negative. I have yet to hear a credible explanation as to why. Where is the new updated data that we should be using if we have fresh, new data? I fear that, yet again, science is being used gently to lead the debate, rather than to frame it with the evidence necessary for us to make decisions.
Secondly, basing lockdown on cases, not deaths, is not good enough. I was listening to Professor Van-Tam briefing Members a couple of days ago. He is clearly a very impressive man, but his presentation was clear: lockdown was being justified on cases. But cases are not deaths or hospitalisations. I felt as though I was almost being misled, and I say that with great respect to him. He was saying that we have to continue this way because we have cases, despite the Government saying that we cannot eliminate covid from our society and we have to live with it. We have been under house arrest for nearly a year now. Justifying continued mass house arrest based on cases, not deaths or hospitalisations, frankly felt like very thin gruel from the Government.
Thanks to the miracle of vaccination—and it is a scientific miracle, as this is the first time in human history that a pandemic is being defeated with science, which is an extraordinary event in the history of humanity —the link between cases, hospitalisation and death has been broken. Yes, we need to be mindful of cases, but cases are not deaths. The continuation of these draconian measures, now based on a “not quite sure” approach, is not normal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) said, we should not be normalising this response, because our liberties belong to us, not to the Government. Continuing in this way now, when we have broken the link between death, hospitalisation and cases sets a dangerous precedent.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
I think the day when all the regulations under the Coronavirus Act are lifted will be my highlight in this Parliament. That is a day that cannot come soon enough, but I do accept that today is not that day.
There is a road map and an end in sight, but the events on the continent remind us that we have not reached the end point just yet. Were the measures lifted today, many that have been deemed necessary to curtail the spread of disease and some of the measures that are helpful, such as statutory sick pay, would be removed. Given how far we have come, it is necessary to lift measures gradually to ensure that this is a one-way process, rather than taking too many steps forward now, only to have to revert at a later stage. The vaccination programme is our route out of lockdown and about 30 million jabs done is a fantastic success. I worry that sudden change might undo a lot of that good work.
The road map as it stands will see most restrictions lifted by June, and this House is being asked to renew measures for six months. I understand that that will effectively mean that large parts of the Act will be dormant, but that they can be reactivated if necessary, without primary legislation. I do not support coronavirus legislation with enthusiasm, but I understand its necessity. That is why I will be supporting the Government today.
While covid and the restrictions are on the decline, there is talk of living in a covid-tinged world for some time to come. There is a broader question. If one accepts restrictions on personal liberty to prevent the spread of deadly disease, should they be necessary to prevent its reoccurrence? There has been talk of certification or so-called vaccine passports. Earlier this week, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, heard evidence on that from, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). We heard questions in that evidence session about the effectiveness of such a scheme. Its introduction, for example, might be not just for a football stadium, but for the train there and back where a virus might be spread. If holding a vaccine passport is likely to affect access to key public services such as public transport, I think it will be necessary to show clearly the effectiveness of such a scheme and the data on which it is based.
That is, perhaps, a debate for another day, but a thorough debate on that subject will be necessary. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing to follow the road map to get us all out of the pandemic.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) [V]
This past year has been incredibly difficult for all of us, and I would like to start by paying tribute to the people of Runnymede and Weybridge for their boundless resolve and community spirit, and remembering those who have lost their lives as a result of the pandemic.
Many of my constituents are hurting. The pandemic and lockdown have hit us hard. Many have lost their jobs and many are desperate to see their loved ones. The road map and the fantastic vaccine roll-out bring those most valuable of commodities, certainty and hope—something to look forward to that life will get better. I want to go faster, but I also agree that the need for irreversibility and certainty weighs heavy. I will therefore support the regulations we are voting on today, but I must reiterate that every day we have the restrictions in place they are causing great harm. The Government should move heaven and earth to lift them as soon as possible.
In the brief time I have in this debate, I want to talk about the broader provisions of the road map. As with all discussions on the coronavirus regulations, they are only half the story. We talk a lot about the new normal and the return to normal life after the pandemic. The road map charts out the plan for the lifting of legal restrictions, but not the return to normality. Covid has changed many aspects of life and I have been calling for a long-term plan for living with the virus. I am pleased that the road map starts to tackle that through the four reviews on: large events, covid certification, international travel and social distancing.
Those four reviews will do all the heavy lifting. They are critical to setting out what our post-pandemic covid world—our endemic covid world—will look like after June. When legal restrictions lift, the impact of the recommendations will still be felt. They will have a far longer lasting impact than what we vote on today. They will form the basis of what the new normal will be on a huge range of issues that impact on daily lives, from social distancing requirements in pubs and restaurants to the wearing of face masks, self-isolation and contact tracing.
I ask the Minister, in his closing remarks, to clarify that we will get to debate in the House the outputs of those critical reviews—the Government’s endemic covid road map, as it were—and that we will be able not just to vote on any resulting legislation, but to approve any formal guidance and provisions resulting from it.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) was clear about the desire of his constituents to move on from these restrictions. Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is no different in that respect—people have borne with fortitude the restrictions on their lives.
However, I very much support of extending the measures before us this evening, and I will support the Government. It is clear that there have been a number of false dawns on the way away from the impact that covid has had on all our communities. There have been times when we thought we had it on the run but it became more of a problem, and more of our residents died or were seriously ill as a consequence, so we need to make sure that we have a package of measures in place that will enable the Government and the country to support all our citizens and communities. While I completely understand that we are chafing against a number of the restrictions in the legislation, there are far more important elements that are entirely about support for businesses and people who are affected.
As we look forward to that road map, with businesses of different kinds reopening and people being welcomed back to our high streets and shopping centres, and to activities such as sport and the arts, which have had to go into the deep freeze during this covid period, it is absolutely vital that we have these backstop powers so that if there is a resurgence of covid, perhaps from a mutation, the Government are able to act swiftly and respond to dampen that down and keep our people safe. For all those reasons, I support what is before us and will support the Government this evening.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who talked about the importance of keeping some of the provisions within the Coronavirus Act, very much in a just-in-case manner. I will speak from my perspective as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee about three components that have caused us concern in the past and one that still does.
We very much welcome the action taken by the Health and Social Care Secretary to remove the Act’s provisions around the Mental Health Act 1983 and sectioning back in December. They had not been used and were therefore not needed. I also very much welcome his actions over the course of the last 24 hours in deciding to retire, as it were, the Care Act 2014 easements, which the Women and Equalities Committee had called for and, indeed, which I would be calling for this afternoon had he not already done it.
However, the same step has not been taken over the education easements in the Act. Too many disabled children have not received the support they need during the pandemic. These easements have not been used since July, yet the justification for keeping them, sent to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), is that the Secretary of State is keeping them under review in case the evidence changes. The Minister acknowledges in her letter to me, dated today, that the powers are unused and have not been used since last July. Indeed, she goes on to state that, compared with May, June and July last year, these flexibilities are much less needed. If they are unused and the evidence shows that they are less needed, why are they being retained? I am not some great conspiracy theorist; I do not think that this is an attempt by the Secretary of State for Education to keep this power indefinitely, but it is not used and it is not needed, yet it remains on the statute book. Of course, there is no ability to amend just that one section this evening.
Respectfully, I argue that the justification we have been given makes no sense, and I urge the Secretary of State for Education to think again on retaining these powers. Parents are desperately worried that children with special educational needs are not getting access to the assistance they need. They are back in school now, which I absolutely welcome, but I urge the Education Secretary to reconsider and to remove these unneeded easements.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I have been privileged to serve on two Select Committees during the pandemic, the Science and Technology Committee and the Procedure Committee, both ably chaired by hon. Friends who spoke earlier in the debate. I therefore have quite a lot to try to say in these three minutes.
I have supported the Government on their measures throughout the pandemic and I will do so again, with some reservations, tonight. I said in the debate in this Chamber in September:
“By the spring, we will need a new plan, informed by the scientific evidence at the time and by what we learn over the winter, because we simply cannot continue to live like this forever.”—[Official Report, 28 September 2020; Vol. 681, c. 109.]
We cannot live in fear. Luckily the vaccine works, but even if it had not, we would still need a way out of lockdown.
We now have a new plan and, to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), I think it would be churlish of me to reject it because it might not be as fast as I would like or what I think would be manageable given the data. We have heard a lot about “data, not dates”, yet there are a lot of dates in the legislation and not a lot of data. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister both describe the plans as “cautious but irreversible”, but I think there is a tension there with what we could achieve. The scientists told us in the Science and Technology Committee that they needed four weeks to assess the effects of each step, and the Government want a fifth week so that we can make preparations. I think the Government could consider scrapping that fifth week and taking the associated political risk, not the scientific risk, on to their own broad shoulders.
I also feel that there is an overall sense of mission creep. We have protected the NHS, which is how the lockdowns were sold to us, but the sooner we have our lives back, the better. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) that the way forward in step 4 is personal responsibility allied to the vaccine and to test and trace. I should pause to praise my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. His belief in science and in the possibility of rapid vaccine development has been rewarded in spades, and his wisdom in ensuring that Oxford tied up with AstraZeneca is clear from the contrasting experiences we see across the channel and in other countries.
Turning to the procedural elements of the motions, I have been glad to serve under the excellent chairmanship of my fellow north Staffordshire MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), but I was also glad to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) in that Committee. It is a matter of honour for many of us that we return, as we promised, to how things were before the pandemic. There may be many things we can learn from the procedural innovations that we have seen, and I think we should have the chance to do that. I welcome what the Prime Minister said in his response to the Chair of the Committee that we will have a debate on this, but I fear that there has not been enough time for us to debate these procedural innovations. It is a matter of honour that we return as promised, and it is also a matter of honour that this House aligns what we are doing with what we are asking the country to do.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a solemn moment. In the week when we mark the anniversary of our first lockdown and of this emergency legislation, we must start by reflecting with sadness on the loss of the lives of 125,000 of our countrymen and women: mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends. That is an awful lot of broken hearts, and our thoughts and prayers are with all of them.
Today, were are acting to protect the country as much as possible as we go forward, and in that spirit, we have had a really high-quality and interesting debate. I reflect particularly on the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who talked about the disproportionate impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority individuals in our country. We should reflect on what that says about Britain. I also reflect on the contribution from the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about some of our most vulnerable people. We must hold them very much at the forefront of our minds as we act today.
I am in the slightly iniquitous position of agreeing with, but having to disagree with, a number of my own colleagues, but I do not think that it serves me, them or anybody else well to disagree with them and not say so. I agree with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) on hospitality, by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on low pay and support for those who need it, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) regarding protest. I have a lot of sympathy with many of the provisions in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and I agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said about her desire to amend what is in front of us today. I also share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that it is wrong that this is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I agree with all those points, but I cannot agree that the answer is to vote against these measures today. I do not think that that is the right course of action, because we would lose all these provisions. I will reflect on them shortly.
I disagree, too, with what colleagues in the Liberal Democrats have said. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) have completed the set today. On some points they have agreed with the proposals, on some points they have abstained and on some points they have disagreed. I do not think that that sort of going with the wind is what we need in a pandemic. We have been consistent: we support the Government on the restrictions we have needed to protect public health.
Reflecting on contributions from Conservative Members, I agree with everything the excellent Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), said regarding amendments. I slightly disagreed with the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—although I agree with the spirit of what he said—about being hoist by our own petard. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) talked about us being stuck with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, but there is nothing inevitable about that. The Government could have brought forward amendable provisions today, and we would have been in a much better position if they had done so. I think I would have looked fondly on what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said, and our amendment is also sensible. We could really have improved this legislation, and I hope the Government will reflect on what it is they are recoiling from when it comes to Parliament improving their laws.
There was a strong but, I would still argue, fringe line of argument from a group of colleagues that we need fewer not greater protections for the British people. It was well represented by the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). I believe, as I have said before, that those colleagues have been wrong at every turn and are wrong again today. It is wrong to look at the pain that this virus has caused and to continue to advocate weakening our tools to fight it.
I do not believe either that it is a question of liberty—I do not think it can be. Every one of those colleagues voted last week for draconian fetters on the right to protest.
Sir Charles Walker
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware that I was not able to vote in last week’s Divisions, because I am chairing the relevant Bill in Committee, so that is not a legitimate point of debate from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The shadow Minister will have heard the comments, and I am sure he would want to respond himself.
Alex Norris
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am wrong there, and I would like the record corrected.
I would say that those colleagues—those who were present in previous Parliaments—also voted for the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and for reforms to trade union rights. I also believe that most, if not all, of them intend to vote for what are pretty draconian reforms to our voting process, particularly regarding identification. So I am not here to take lectures on individual freedom.
I think this is about ideology and worldview. If someone spent the 40 years since Ronald Reagan became President telling people that the thing holding them back was Government and that the way forward was less Government, then this last year has been a problem. It has shown at home and abroad that Government do have a role in making sure that people have an income, do have a role in making sure that they have housing and do have a role in protecting their health, and that it is not always best to leave things to the market.
Sir Graham Brady
I am listening carefully to the argument the hon. Gentleman is developing. Is he saying that there is simply no limit to how long he would be willing to have these restrictions on people’s freedoms in place, should there always be some threat of another variant of covid?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. That is not my position and I am going to develop that argument shortly. I would hope to hear from the Minister that, particularly with these provisions lasting into October, he intends to bring them down much more quickly than that and as soon as we can. The point that the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands made about 21 June being present only in the procedural motions was a very good one.
Let me make a couple of points about the specifics and substance of the Act. It is right that the opportunity is being taken today to sunset provisions in it—certainly ones that have not been used—and we support the Government where they have chosen to do that. However, I do wish to question the Minister on the three provisions that are suspended. On sections 22 and 23, which expire tomorrow, I would like clarity that, as they have expired rather than been formally turned off, they will not be revivable and there is no intention to revive them. On section 58, in relation to transportation, storage and disposal of dead bodies, why was that only suspended? There does not seem to be a foreseeable use for that.
I also wish to query a number of powers that the Government have chosen to neither turn off nor suspend. Why is section 14, on continuing healthcare assessments, not being turned off, given that its counterpart, section 15, is? Section 37, on the temporary closure of educational institutions and childcare premises, has never been used, and I do not think its use is foreseeable. On section 50, on the power to suspend port operations, I do not think there is any anxiety about Border Force’s resourcing levels to cover our ports. Why has that not been turned off yet? On section 52, which many colleagues have raised, on events, gatherings and premises, there are surely better tools in other bits of legislation and regulations that we could use.
I hope that we will learn from this crisis. In particular, the points made by colleagues about a public inquiry are important. It would be very difficult for the Government to get independent feedback about why we have one of the worst death tolls in the world and one of the worst recessions in the world, but we simply must learn the lessons for the future, no matter how hard it is for Ministers to hear them.
I want to reflect on a couple of things that are still missing in the approach and in the road map. It is a really significant gap. For all the good news in the Budget for self-employed people, so many—possibly millions—are still ineligible for that support. Those excluded continue to receive almost nothing beyond social security—and some of them are not eligible for that because they have been saving, for example, to pay off tax liabilities. That is wrong, it has been wrong throughout, and I cannot understand why Ministers have not moved more quickly on it.
Similarly, we are letting down our nation’s carers. We clapped for them but now refuse to make a meaningful recognition of their contribution. The derisory 1% pay offer for NHS staff is a real-terms cut and completely unacceptable under these circumstances. Also we should not leave out of the conversation social care workers, working in the homes of some of our most vulnerable people, meeting the health needs of people who really need it, but putting their own at risk. What is their reward for that? A clap on a Tuesday and then a pay freeze in the Budget. That will mean that, for the 10th year in a row, their pay will be squeezed. That should be an enormous source of shame for the Government. I hope the Minister could reflect, and perhaps give us some good news on that when he stands up to speak.
To conclude, we will support this. We do not do so without reservation or with much pleasure, but it is the situation we find ourselves in today. There is nothing inevitable about it. The virus has been a problem for every country, but we have struggled particularly. So we need these measures so we can cautiously move forwards and make this lockdown our last.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
This House has come together once again to consider coronavirus regulations. The contrast with the previous occasions on which we did so, of course, is that today we are debating in part the road map to recovery—one that eases rather than strengthens the restrictions we face. It sets out our path to freedom. They are freedoms that none of us would have ever wished to have to curtail, save for the gravest of circumstances, but it is true that, as a country, we have faced some very grave times indeed. It has been a long, challenging year for all of us—individuals, families, businesses—and that was brought home so poignantly on Tuesday, as we remembered those we have lost through the pandemic. We have come a very long way, but equally, we know that those dark days are not that far behind us yet, so the fact that we may cautiously begin to look to brighter days ahead is a tribute to so many.
In that vein, again, I wish to put on record my thanks to our NHS and care staff and, indeed, key workers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) did, for all they have done; and, of course, to thank the British people, whose sacrifices and solidarity have set us on this better course. As more and more of our population heed the call to be vaccinated, we are setting our country up for a safer future, too. So we have much to be optimistic about.
But colleagues will have been watching recent events on the continent with some concern. Not far from these shores, cases are rapidly on the rise. As the Prime Minister recently acknowledged, the wave sweeping through Europe has the potential to
“wash up on our shores as well”.
Equally concerning, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has alluded to on a number of occasions, are the new variants—many of them, it must be recognised, detected through world-leading British genomics capabilities— which continue to pose a threat to the progress we have made. As we debate easing restrictions here today, our friends in France, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic and many others find themselves moving in the other direction—tightening lockdowns, extending curfews and shutting down again. That is a fate we are determined to avoid, and one I believe we will avoid if we proceed carefully and follow the cautious steps set out in our road map.
We all want to see the economic and social freedoms and activities that mean so much to us resume as swiftly as possible and, of course, to be able to see friends and family again. As the Secretary of State set out, at each step of that reopening, we are allowing four weeks to monitor the impact of the previous step and one week to ensure that we give businesses and individuals enough notice to plan for the reopening and easing. That timeframe is playing a vital part in ensuring that we are truly on a one-way route to freedom. I make no secret that this is a balancing act, with each step cautiously weighed and considered.
Much of today’s debate has understandably focused on another aspect of the response to the pandemic that we will be voting on today—the six-month review of the provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020. We have had many passionate and thoughtful speeches. No one wishes the Act to be necessary and to be in place a day longer than is necessary—not me, not the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister and not hon. Members in this House. Whether one disagrees or agrees with the case put by the Secretary of State—hon. Members will not be surprised to know that I agree wholeheartedly with the case he put in arguing that we should be backing the motion today—I would not for one moment impugn or question in any way the integrity, sincerity or motivation of hon. Members who, from perfectly reasonable perspectives, have set out their concerns about this. However, these measures regrettably do remain necessary. To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), I do not believe that there is any desire or intent within Government to in any way normalise such measures.
Let me turn to some of the key specific points raised by hon. and right hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) put the case and highlighted extremely well that, while we have made huge strides forward through vaccinations, and we have seen the death rate and hospitalisation rate come down, we are not yet out of the woods entirely. That is why we must, I believe, continue to be cautious and why the road map is necessary.
I would like to say that it was pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), but I am mindful not to mislead the House. However, I will address one substantive point he raised, when he appeared to be arguing for zero covid. I have to be clear with him, as the chief medical officer has been clear, that such an approach is neither practical nor realistic and we must, as a society, live with residual elements of covid for many years to come. That touches on risk. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and many other colleagues talked about striking the right balance in terms of what levels of risk society is prepared to live with. The Secretary of State alluded to this in his opening remarks. It is hugely important that we weigh up the precautionary approach with the desire and need to open up our economy and society.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, rightly highlighted our common law approach in this country whereby things are permitted unless explicitly forbidden and said how exceptional it would be to have to change that presumption. Sadly, we have faced exceptional times and that is why these measures have been necessary, but they are not measures that any of us would choose to introduce were we not faced with such a grave situation.
Hon. Members talked about the importance of clear comms, building trust and the right messaging. That is absolutely right. It is hugely important that we set the right expectations and that we are clear with the public about how the vaccine is allowing us to move out of lockdown, but also about the challenges still posed. I have to say I was a little surprised to be lectured by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), on so-called fake news. The irony of Liberal Democrats lecturing the House on so-called fake news will not be lost on hon. Members.
Let me move on to some very serious points as I conclude. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) asked why schedule 22 was necessary. The reality is that, while the 1984 Act gives a considerable number of powers, some elements of critical infrastructure would not be able to be closed, even in the event of an outbreak with a dangerous new variant, under that Act. That is one power that was lacking there that the Secretary of State rightly—I share his view—believes may be necessary, although hopefully it will not be necessary, in that context.
I will make two points briefly in the minute I have remaining. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been very clear that we have set out the intention to expire around 25% of the non-devolved powers under this Act. If it was possible to do so without incurring that risk and to be ready for all eventualities, I know that he would not wish to see this Act coming before us today for renewal, but it is. It is necessary and, sadly, is going to be necessary for a few more months.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), talked about the right to protest—I will try to answer this very quickly—and asked what the guidance is likely to include. That essentially is about things such as the need for a formal organiser, for example, and a risk assessment to take place—that is what that is referring to. I commend these motions to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I wish all Members a very good and peaceful Easter, as well as all the staff who have worked here and looked after us during this particularly stressful period.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a matter of correcting the record? Earlier today, during the urgent question on steel and the situation at Liberty asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the Business Secretary said that the closure of SSI happened before 2010, but that is not correct.
If the Secretary of State does not know, the plant was purchased by SSI in February 2011 but closed in October 2015, after David Cameron refused to intervene. How might we get the Business Secretary to correct the record, to reassure Liberty Steel workers—not least those in Hartlepool pipe mills, who remember the fate of the Teesside steelworkers at SSI—that he will not abandon steel? It is very telling that the Government do not know or understand their own record of inaction on steel.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for advance notice of her point of order. As she knows, the Chair is not responsible for the content of any contribution from a Minister. Having said that, Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that where a Minister knows that they have inadvertently misled the House or there is an inaccuracy, they should correct the record as quickly as possible.
Vaccination of school staff
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I rise in the context of the Minister having just said in the covid debate that we are not yet out of the woods. I present this petition on behalf of the residents of Putney about the vaccination of school staff, alongside an online petition on the same topic, which has been signed by more than 250 teachers, parents and students.
Students have lost so much teaching time and we should do everything we can to keep schools open. Other countries have given their school staff priority for the vaccine and so should we. A major factor in the need to close schools has been staff shortages due to teachers themselves or other teachers being covid-positive, as social distancing is very difficult in schools. To ensure that schools can stay open rather than close because of staff shortages, to protect shielding parents and so that teachers and school staff are safer doing their jobs, it is crucial that teachers are prioritised for vaccines when vaccine supply allows. The residents of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields petition the Government urgently to prioritise vaccinating teachers and all school staff.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Putney,
Declares that those working in schools are extremely vulnerable to the spread of coronavirus; further that a major factor in the need to close schools has been the failure to put in place measures to reduce the risks which school staff are subjected to; further that it is crucial that teachers are prioritised for vaccines to ensure that schools can stay open rather than close because of staff shortages, and so that teachers and school staff are safer doing their jobs.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urgently prioritise vaccinating teachers and school staff.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002655]
Conflict in Tigray Region of Ethiopia
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to raise the very important issue of the conflict in Tigray. It is the first time the House has had an opportunity to debate the conflict, which has, since last November, devastated Tigray, the mountainous region in the north of Ethiopia. I have given the Minister’s office advance sight of the questions I will be asking him at the end of my speech, and there are many in the UK and beyond who will be listening very carefully to what he has to say.
The conflict started in retaliation to an attack on the northern command by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. The Ethiopian federal Government cut off all links into the region, closed roads, shut down communications and sent their troops to surround Mekelle. We know that in addition to Ethiopian armed forces, Eritrean forces and Amharan militias are also now present in Tigray. Since November, more than 60,000 Tigrayan people have fled into refugee camps in Sudan—some are reported to have had their exit routes blocked by Ethiopian and Eritrean forces; about 1 million people—some sources put the figure higher—have been internally displaced; and 4.5 million people have become food-insecure. Crops have been destroyed, livestock have been killed and agriculture has been disrupted. Tigray is an area of chronic food insecurity. It is the scene of the devastating 1984-85 famine, so deliberately cutting it off from food supplies and markets, as the Ethiopian Government are alleged to have done, means that people will starve.
Up to 80% of the region is still inaccessible. Some of Tigray’s, and the world’s, most precious cultural heritage sites have been destroyed and priceless treasures looted. Some 70% of health facilities are reported to have been looted or vandalised by Ethiopian and Eritrean Government forces, including, very recently, the only specialist clinic providing care to rape victims in Mekelle. Schools have been taken out of commission—they are being used for housing troops or displaced people. Two refugee camps, at Hitsats and Shimelba, have been razed to the ground. The whereabouts of 20,000 of the refugees they sheltered is still unknown. An estimated 50,000 civilians have been killed, and there is evidence that children have been targeted, and 10,000 women have been raped. Let that sink in: 10,000 women have been raped. The most recent terrible update from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported continuing human rights abuses, severe malnutrition among young children and a food security situation described as “catastrophic”. In considering this catalogue of destruction, I want to focus on three points. The first is the nature of the conflict. The second is the use of rape as a weapon of war. The third is the lack of action by the international community.
First, on the nature of the conflict, the Ethiopian Government originally said that the attack on Tigray was a “law and order operation” to deal with a long-running dispute, but multiple subsequent reports indicate a sustained and brutal assault that has included aerial bombardment and ground shelling of settlements, with the deliberate targeting of civilians. This is not a little local difficulty in Ethiopia’s back yard; it risks a much wider destabilisation and escalation of conflict throughout the horn of Africa. Early information trickling out through the refugee camps in Sudan told, right from the start, of massacres of civilians. At Mai Kadra, where responsibility is hotly contested, witnesses have spoken of both Ethiopian Government and Tigrayan militia involvement. Most notably last November, there was a brutal massacre at Axum, one of the holiest Christian sites in Ethiopia. A total of 750 people are thought to have been killed. The stories circulating last year on social media were confirmed last month by Amnesty International in a report that documents aerial bombardment by Ethiopians, followed by systematic killing by Eritrean soldiers going door to door through the town. They particularly targeted young men and boys, prevented people from burying the dead and then looted the town of everything of value, including food. Some commentators have said that food is being used as a weapon of war.
In January, over 40 people were massacred at Debre Abbay, 300 people were killed in the attack on the Hitsats refugee camp—300 people—and at a village near Samre 500 buildings were set on fire and 60 people are thought to have been killed. At a village called Bora an estimated 100 people were murdered. Emaciated and starving people displaced by the violence are pouring into overcrowded towns. The Norwegian Refugee Council says that 37,000 people have recently arrived at Sheraro, a town in north-western Tigray, where food, water and medicine are running out fast.
“The situation in Sheraro is beyond dire”,
the NRC chief, Jan Egeland, has warned. There are many parts of Tigray, particularly rural areas, where there is no communication and there are grave fears about the fate of local people in terms of violence and access to food, medicine and essential services.
What is clear from both social media and independent reporting is that civilians have been targeted because of their ethnicity—because they are Tigrayan. Footage has been circulating of men in Ethiopian military uniforms speaking in Amharic and shouting abuse at groups of boys while shooting them and throwing their bodies over a cliff. Along with this has been the vandalising of symbols of Tigrayan culture, most notably Debre Damo monastery and the al-Nejashi mosque, one of the oldest in Africa. As the International Development Committee heard last week, economic and service infrastructure has been damaged, with factories looted and vandalised and banks closed, making it hard for humanitarian agencies to operate. The Committee also heard about the destruction of health facilities, the result of systematic looting and vandalism by Eritrean and Ethiopian forces.
Secondly, I want to talk about the widespread use of rape and sexual violence. It has been estimated that 10,000 women in Tigray have been raped, and recent reports on Channel 4, the BBC and CNN have all documented the horrific nature of the attacks, including kidnapping, imprisonment, rape and mutilation. On Monday this week, an unprecedented letter signed by 12 leading figures in the international community called for the sexual violence to stop. They said there is only one medical facility in the whole region fully equipped to meet the survivors’ needs.
What especially stands out are the ferocity of the attacks, which is evident from reports and photographs of injuries to women, including the mutilation of women’s genitals, and the targeting of women because they are Tigrayan. The rapists have talked of “Amharanising” the women and purifying their blood. The use of rape as a weapon of war is always abhorrent and heinous, but for soldiers to claim to be purifying or cleansing women by raping them makes this violence look genocidal. What also stands out is the impunity. There is no indication that either the Ethiopian or Eritrean Governments are taking any steps whatsoever to rein in their troops. Those responsible for the sexual violence inflict it with complete impunity. On Tuesday, the Ethiopian Government admitted there had been sexual assaults on women in Tigray, but sought to justify it as a consequence of the conflict.
In 2008, the UN Security Council unanimously approved resolution 1820, which
“Demands the immediate and complete cessation by all parties to armed conflict of all acts of sexual violence against civilians”,
and says they should
“immediately take appropriate measures to protect civilians, including women and girls, from all forms of sexual violence, which could include…enforcing appropriate military disciplinary measures and upholding the principle of command responsibility”.
It goes on to say that
“rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a constitutive act with respect to genocide”.
This is tough and unequivocal language.
The UK has the privilege of being a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has a responsibility to ensure that this resolution is enforced. It was Lord Hague of Richmond, then the Foreign Secretary, who campaigned alongside Angelina Jolie against the use of sexual violence in war, and he received an award for his efforts from the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Now is the time for the Conservative Government to prove that that was more than a publicity stunt.
That brings me to my third and final point, which is the lack of response from the international community. The European Union, Germany and the United States have paused their aid to Ethiopia, and the US Administration last week sent the respected Senator Coons of Delaware to Addis Ababa. Ireland has led moves for the EU to apply targeted sanctions. However, the rest of the world has done little more than talk, and the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea have turned a deaf ear. What is needed is not more words, but action, so I am asking the Minister for action on the following points. The Ethiopia country programme is the biggest UK bilateral aid programme, as the Minister stressed at the International Development Committee last week. Will Her Majesty’s Government align their policies with the UK’s international partners, the US, the EU and Germany, and pause the parts of their aid programme that are going to the Ethiopian Government?
Will Her Majesty’s Government support the moves to set up an independent UN investigation into the massacres of civilians in Tigray, including those at Mai Kadra, Axum and Samre, and the targeting of refugee camps, including those at Hitsats and Shimelba? Will they do this urgently before evidence, including of survivors at massacre sites and rape victims from hospitals in Mekelle, is removed or destroyed?
Will the Government introduce targeted sanctions against those in Ethiopia and Eritrea responsible for the atrocities in Tigray, following the approach taken by the European Union? Will they continue to ensure that the UN Security Council remains actively engaged in ending the war in Tigray and the abuses associated with it? Will they press for the immediate withdrawal of Eritrean troops, and seek to ensure that there is an inclusive national dialogue in the country, as many Tigrayans have been calling for, to secure a lasting peace?
Will the Government specifically ensure that evidence of the widespread use of rape and sexual violence in the Tigray conflict is collated and that the perpetrators are brought to justice in line with UN Security Council resolution 1820? It is wholly unacceptable that soldiers from the Ethiopian and Eritrean armies should be able to rape women with impunity. Equally, it is unacceptable that their commanders-in-chief should permit their forces to use rape as a weapon of war or fail to bring to justice those under their command who commit such crimes.
Will the Government take steps to support publicly the US Administration’s initiatives to ensure that immediate and full access is provided to humanitarian agencies in Tigray, and that unfettered access will be provided for local and international journalists without repercussions for their translators and fixers?
The Foreign Secretary has spoken of his experience of taking war criminals to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Will the Minister therefore press him to take initial steps, through the UN Security Council, to bring prosecutions against those whom the evidence points to being responsible for war crimes in Tigray, including the use of rape?
The effects of this war will continue long after the guns have fallen silent. There will be empty spaces where civilian populations were murdered, and there will be a cohort of children growing up who are the result of the rape of their mothers. This further illustrates why it is absolutely the wrong time for the UK Government to be reneging on their promise to maintain UK aid spending at 0.7% of gross national income. I hope the Minister will reflect further on that disastrous decision.
Even now, the UK Government can help avert yet more destruction in Tigray and provide justice for the survivors of the massacres and for the women who have been raped. It will, however, take much more than words; it will take action, and that is what I, and many others, hope the Minister will commit to tonight.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate this evening. Normally, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) would have responded, but, unfortunately, he is travelling. I know that he takes the issues that she has raised very seriously, and I shall run through some of the points that he would have made had he been able to be here.
The crisis in Tigray is of grave concern both to Her Majesty’s Government and, indeed, to Members of this House. More than four months on from the start of the conflict, much of Tigray remains incredibly dangerous both for the people who live there and for the humanitarian workers trying to deliver badly needed support, and, as the hon. Lady set out in her speech, the impact on civilians is devastating. Sadly, we are aware that at least five workers—Ethiopian staff working for UK-funded non-governmental organisations—have tragically been killed in this conflict. I pay tribute to them here today for their courage, for their service and, ultimately, for their sacrifice. The targeting of humanitarians is utterly unacceptable.
The conflict has caused the collapse of essential and basic services: health, nutrition, water and sanitation. Life-saving maternal healthcare services and vaccines cannot be delivered, thereby endangering the lives of newborn children and their mothers. Huge numbers of people, likely more than half a million, are in areas beyond the reach of aid agencies. Across the region, as the hon. Lady said, 4.5 million people are now in need of life-saving humanitarian aid. The United Nations assesses that the overall humanitarian response remains “deeply inadequate” compared with the needs that have been assessed on the ground, and the situation is indeed grave.
We have received ongoing reports of egregious human rights violations since the conflict started and, as has been outlined, we are seeing and hearing increasingly harrowing stories, on an almost daily basis, of widespread murder and rape. Armed actors are subjecting civilians to appalling abuses and systematic campaigns of looting, largely with impunity. Eritrea’s role in this conflict is particularly concerning. As such, the UK has called on it to leave Ethiopia immediately. There are numerous reports of atrocities involving Eritrean forces, and their presence is fuelling insecurity.
Since the start of the conflict in November, the UK has consistently called for unhindered and comprehensive access for relief agencies and journalists. One of the greatest defences against the impunity that the hon. Lady has highlighted is the work of the media. We have been clear that the protection of civilians must be a priority, and we have pressed for investigations into the human rights abuses that have been highlighted, as well as for the withdrawal of Eritrean forces. There can be no military solution to the problems in Tigray, and we have urged all parties to seek an inclusive political settlement and to restore security and stability.
In January this year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary travelled to Ethiopia and visited a humanitarian logistics hub in Gondar, run by the World Food Programme. He heard first hand from our agency partners about the difficulties faced in delivering life-saving assistance. He also met Prime Minister Abiy, the President and the Deputy Prime Minister. He emphasised to them the need for immediate humanitarian access, and made clear the UK’s serious concerns about human rights violations, media freedom and political freedom.
The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Africa have also raised the situation with their counterparts across the continent and internationally. As the hon. Lady suggested, that includes recent conversations with the United States Secretary of State Blinken. I have raised these issues with my counterparts in the Gulf, and the UK has been active in discussions at the United Nations Security Council. Most recently, on 11 March, the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth called again for urgent action to be taken to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, during a discussion on food insecurity and conflict in the other place.
The UK has been a generous supporter of humanitarian activities. On top of more than £100 million of humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia this financial year, an additional £15.4 million has been provided specifically for this crisis response. Our embassy in Addis Ababa has been working tirelessly and in challenging circumstances to secure humanitarian access, and to press for investigations into the human rights abuses and violations that the hon. Lady outlined in her speech.
A team of UK officials from the embassy travelled to Mekelle, Tigray’s principal city, on 4 and 5 March. United Nations and NGO staff were open about the complexities of operating in this environment and the extent of civilian suffering. At a site for displaced persons, our staff heard harrowing accounts of truly horrendous abuses. They saw a relief effort hamstrung by confused Government systems struggling to keep pace with the needs of the people. It is clear that obstacles to access have weakened the overall response to this devastating situation.
One positive development has been the recent announcement from the Government of Ethiopia on access and their commitment to move to a system of access notification. Under that approach, responding organisations no longer have to wait for approval from Ethiopian authorities to enter Tigray. The UK is working with the United Nations and others to assess whether changes introduced by the authorities result in a demonstrable and positive improvement on the ground. We can also cautiously welcome the improved access for the media in Tigray.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) will be interested to know, as he has raised this privately with me, that we also support the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Its work is important, and we are glad to see that those staff are planning a joint mission with the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission.
However, it is clear that media workers remain persecuted and at risk of detention. We are also concerned that the proposed joint human rights investigation will not be seen as impartial by the victims of the conflict. The crisis in Tigray comes as Ethiopia already faces huge humanitarian, economic and political pressures. In 2021, relief agencies will assist nearly 18 million people across the country. Covid-19, climate events and devastating locust invasions have already put paid to prosperity in the region. Ethnic violence has increased in many regions and may rise further ahead of the planned elections in June this year. The stakes are very high, and this coming year will need concerted action by the international system and a strong and well co-ordinated United Nations.
Let me conclude by reassuring the House that the United Kingdom will continue to engage comprehensively with Ethiopia and to lead co-ordination with international partners in pressing for a political solution to this conflict that brings about an end to the violence. We will also ensure that investigations into atrocities are robust, unbiased, credible and trusted by the people of Tigray themselves, so that those committing abuses do not evade justice. In the meantime, it is our absolute priority to make sure that humanitarian support continues to reach those in desperate need.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Robbie Moore |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Robbie Moore |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Robbie Moore |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Antony Higginbotham |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Mark Harper |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Robbie Moore |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ministerial Corrections
Defence
(3 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wallace
We will deploy new automated minehunting systems, which will replace the Sandown and Hunt classes as they retire through the decade. The interim surface-to-surface guided weapon will replace the Typhoon missile, and we will upgrade the air defence weapon system on our Type 45s to better protect them from new threats.
[Official Report, 22 March 2021, Vol. 691, c. 638.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace).
An error has been identified in my statement.
The correct statement should have been:
Mr Wallace
We will deploy new automated minehunting systems, which will replace the Sandown and Hunt classes as they retire through the decade. The interim surface-to-surface guided weapon will replace the Harpoon missile, and we will upgrade the air defence weapon system on our Type 45s to better protect them from new threats.
Mr Wallace
In recognition of the growing demand for enhanced assistance and our commitment to delivering resilience to those partners, we will establish an Army special operations brigade, built around the four battalions of the new ranger regiments. This new regiment will be seeded from 1 Royal Scots, 2 Prince of Wales Royal Rifles, 2nd Battalion Duke of Lancaster and 4th Battalion The Rifles.
[Official Report, 22 March 2021, Vol. 691, c. 638.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace).
An error has been identified in my statement.
The correct statement should have been:
Mr Wallace
In recognition of the growing demand for enhanced assistance and our commitment to delivering resilience to those partners, we will establish an Army special operations brigade, built around the four battalions of the new ranger regiments. This new regiment will be seeded from 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, 2nd Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and 4th Battalion The Rifles.
Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
To indicate that you wish to speak next, please raise your hand in front of the camera or use the “hand up” function in Zoom. To intervene or to make a point of order, please unmute and state that. Members being intervened on are reminded to repeat any part of their speech that may have been interrupted by the intervention.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Armed Forces Bill. The grouping list for today’s sitting has been circulated to Members and is available on the Committee’s web page. It shows how the amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue.
Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
As a reminder and perhaps for those watching, this is the first time that Parliament has conducted virtual line-by-line scrutiny of any Bill. This is the first time for all of us. We will go carefully. We will make sure that we are slow and deliberate.
Clause 1
Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Thank you, Mr Sunderland, and for all the comments—I have watched the sessions, which have been very interesting. I am more than happy to engage in debate on any of the amendments that have been tabled.
May I get some guidance from you, Mr Sunderland, and the Clerks? Clearly, I think the clause should stand part of the Bill, but we will then go through the amendments, as I understand it. Is that right, or would you like me to speak to the amendments straight up?
The Chair
Minister, I urge you to speak to clause 1. The order will be: Minister to lead, then Labour spokesperson, SNP spokesperson, anyone else to come in at will, and the Minister to wrap up. We might cover each of the clauses quickly, but people might wish to speak to them. Certainly, Minister to open and to move clause 1.
Johnny Mercer
The primary purpose of the Armed Forces Bill is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2021. The clause provides for the continuation of the Act for a year from the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent and allows further renewal thereafter by Order in Council for up to a year at a time, but not beyond the end of 2026. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. The central effect of the expiry of the Armed Forces Act would be to end the powers and provisions to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. That is all I have to say on clause 1.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Constitution of the Court Martial
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 38, line 11, at end insert
“or lower ranks after a minimum service of 3 years”.
This amendment would extend Common Law rights for people to be tried by a jury of their peers to be extended to those in the Armed Forces.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 3 to 6 stand part.
Johnny Mercer
Following the recommendations of the Service Justice System review, changes are being introduced in the Bill to allow more senior non-commissioned officers to sit as lay members, to change the number of lay members to six or three, and to introduce qualified majority voting. Those changes will have the effect of aligning the court martial system more closely with a civilian jury.
Currently, only officers and warrant officers can be lay members of a court martial. The clause will allow OR-7 ranks to be lay members—that is, chief petty officers, colour sergeants, staff sergeants and flight sergeants. That broadens the pool from which court martial lay members can be drawn, while preserving the seniority of lay members to fulfil the disciplinary role needed by the court martial.
Currently, there can be anywhere between three and seven lay members sitting on a court martial to decide on the verdict and then, if appropriate, on sentencing with the judge advocate. The clause will fix the numbers to either six or three lay members sitting on a court martial board. The intention is that serious cases will be dealt with by boards of six lay members, which is half the usual number on a civilian jury. The intention is that court martial rules will provide that six-member boards are needed where the defendant could be sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment.
The clause would also introduce qualified majority voting on verdicts where there is a board of six lay members. At least five lay members must agree if there are six lay members, or four if the board reduces to five due to illness or another reason. Those numbers are roughly in proportion to the way in which qualified majority verdicts work in the civilian jury system.
The Chair
I am aware that Martin Docherty-Hughes wishes to speak to amendment 1, but I ask first whether the Labour spokesperson wishes to comment.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for moving the clause. I note the Government’s willingness to align the military judicial process so that it is more akin to a civil jury. The concern of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches is that, in the evidence recently given by Judge Lyons to the Committee, he stipulated:
“I believe, in the modern world, that the maintenance of discipline is in everyone’s interests, and as a first step I would wish to see it opened to OR-7. I think opening it further is a step too far at this stage.”
What concerns me and my SNP colleagues is that when pushed on the rationale for such an opinion, Judge Lyons was unable to substantiate why someone with substantial service under OR-7 should be excluded. Therefore, the judicial process, in terms of peer judicial decision, does not reflect the reality of military life.
I hope that the Government will consider accepting the amendment. There are those who have substantial service in the armed forces, not just in the sense of command but in lived experience of being in the Army. Some of the evidence given to the Defence Committee’s Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces, and the armed forces ombudsman’s evidence in recent Defence Committee meetings, reflected that the judicial processes of the armed forces are not held in high regard by many serving and former service personnel. The amendment would—at least in some sense—go some way to rectifying that, ensuring that the military process is reflective of the reality of military life. At this point, if the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment, I will press it to a vote.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I wish to speak in support of the amendment. The issue was quite clearly looked at by Judge Lyons in his report. As has just been said, there is no rationale for why other rank 7 was seen as a particularly relevant cut-off point. The important thing is that we make the move to mirror the civilian justice system, although I certainly accept that there are differences between the two because of operational issues.
To be judged by one’s peers is a fundamental right. The provision would exclude large numbers of individuals, including some who may have many years of experience in the armed forces and of sitting on courts martial. I do not think that a good enough reason for excluding those individuals has been put forward in evidence. One possible justification was that people would not understand the procedures. Well, I find that rather patronising for non-commissioned officers, some of whom have been in the armed forces for many years. I would draw a parallel with civilian courts, where there is no qualification process or aptitude test for sitting on a civilian jury. It is for them to weigh up the evidence.
I think that Judge Lyons was basically saying in his report that the movement he outlined was all that he could get away with in the military legal system. I think that he was pushing for further change, but quite clearly did not want to offend or cause things not to go further. I think that he certainly saw this as a step towards, possibly, allowing other ranks to sit on courts martial.
The important point is to ensure that the individuals being tried feel that they get a fair hearing. In the hierarchical way that courts martial are judged at the moment, individuals might not perceive the process as fair because they are judged by more senior officers who determine promotion and other prospects for lower ranks, and might not only have limited understanding of the individual’s life experience, but could ultimately influence the outcome of the individual’s career, for example. I do not think a good enough reason has been put forward for why this cannot be extended, and I therefore support the amendment.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I will say just a couple of words in support of my colleague’s amendment. The Bill should be seen as an opportunity to modernise and to introduce some fairness—or perceived fairness—into service justice.
To include the NCOs and lower ranks is a step towards a more equitable method of delivering service justice, and how that is viewed by personnel is important. It is important that those sitting on a court martial board understand the experience of the people before them. Unfortunately, the experiences of commissioned and non-commissioned personnel can often be quite different. This is a real chance to build greater fairness, and perceived fairness, into the system. I urge the Government to consider the amendment carefully.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The evidence on this point was interesting. It was clear from the judge’s comments that we are moving a step in the right direction. However, it is only just a step. A review of this measure in five years’ time, at the next opportunity, is the right thing to do. The Committee heard evidence, and I questioned the judge, on the essential nature of this being different to a civilian court and the idea of discipline in the forces. The judge’s recommendations and the expansion, but not total movement, on this point, provide a sensible level. I urge Committee Members to oppose the amendment.
Johnny Mercer
I have read the amendment. It seeks to increase lay membership of court martial boards beyond the rank of OR-7 and the changes we are making, as set out in the clause, apply to all service personnel, irrespective of rank, after serving for a period of three years.
The amendment seeks to bring the court martial board closer to the membership of a jury of a civilian Crown court in England and Wales, entitling all ranks to be tried by their peers. The amendment does not, however, take account of the key difference between the civilian courts and the court martial board. It is only the latter that has a part to play in determining the sentence with the judge.
I should first make it clear that we very much welcome the recommendation on this matter in the service justice review. Increasing the range of ranks from warrant officer to chief petty officer staff sergeant who can sit on a board as recommended is the right thing to do. It increases diversity of experience and also increases the pool of personnel eligible to sit on a board. Very careful consideration was given as to where we should draw the line on eligibility. A key factor in that was the role that the board has in determining the appropriate sentence to be awarded.
As I have already explained, the court martial board deliberates with the judge on the sentence to be awarded and the judge is relying on the collective service experience of those board members to assist in deciding the appropriate sentence. The sentence in the court martial fulfils a number of purposes, including punishment, the maintenance of discipline and deterrence. It must also take into account what is in the best interests of the service and the maintenance of operational effectiveness.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I recognise the move to include at least OR-7, but for the benefit of those watching our proceedings today, by going no further than OR-7, we are not just excluding privates, we are excluding lance corporals, corporals and sergeants, who probably have substantial life experience and military experience. While we are taking a step forward, there is substantial evidence from the ombudsman and the Defence Committee over the last 10 years that we are not going forward fast enough. Does the Minister not recognise that some of the profound issues the military justice system faces would be assisted by the amendment?
Johnny Mercer
I am afraid I do not agree. We need to take this sequentially. It is an important move down to OR-7, and it will be reviewed again in due course. We want to make this the fairest justice system available, and if that includes moving beyond OR-7, we will do so in future, but at this time I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. An appreciation of these factors comes with experience and, to a certain extent, with rank and the exercise of leadership and command over others. That is not the same as having served a specific period of time in the armed forces, as proposed in the amendment. In the light of that, we concluded that those at the rank of OR-7 and above are most likely to have the breadth of experience necessary to undertake the required role in sentencing. I have considered and answered the hon. Gentleman’s points. I hope, following these assurances, he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Concurrent jurisdiction
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) Guidance under (3)(a) must provide that murder, manslaughter and rape must be tried in civilian court when offences are committed in the UK.’.
This amendment will ensure that the most serious crimes – including murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 7, page 6, line 27, at end insert—
‘(ca) Justice Directorate in Scotland’.
This amendment equalises the requirement for all the devolved administrations to be consulted.
Clause stand part.
Mrs Hodgson
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship throughout this Committee, Mr Sunderland, and to be able to participate virtually. I am aware that this is the first time that line-by-line has been done this way. We are pioneers, and I am sure we are doing a grand job for others who will no doubt follow. I hope the Minister will carefully consider all the amendments, which are based on the evidence we have heard and received from experts and stakeholders throughout the process.
Amendment 19 would ensure that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, sexual assault and rape, are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK. The first recommendation in His Honour Shaun Lyons’s 2020 service justice system review was:
“The Court Martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when these offences are committed in the UK, except when the consent of the Attorney General is given.”
Judge Lyons told the Committee in oral evidence that he felt it was not Parliament’s intention for murder, manslaughter and rape that happened in the UK to be tried in the service justice system. Indeed, in 2006, Lord Drayson, the then Government spokesperson in the Lords, said:
“I have already told the House that we do not propose that, under the Bill, murder, rape or treason alleged to have been committed by a serviceman in the United Kingdom will normally be investigated and tried within the service system.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2006; Vol. 686, c. 587.]
During the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill 2006, Major General Howell, head of the Army Prosecuting Authority, also said that he understood that courts martial would be used in exceptional situations. Despite that, the protocols do not reflect that intention or the Lyons review recommendation; the amendment takes account of that.
Throughout the evidence sessions we heard about the culture and archaic views around victims of sexual harassment and rape, with perpetrators being described as being of “good character” but had just had a bit too much to drink and made a mistake. We have to tackle that perception, and that is why I wholeheartedly agree with the written evidence that we received from Tony Wright from Forward Assist:
“Sexual assault…is sexual assault and rape…is rape, it should not be minimised by calling it unacceptable behaviour.”
That culture, coupled with low conviction rates for rape cases at court martial—at just 10% between 2015 and 2019—means that there is little trust in the system that should be there to provide justice. The civilian courts are not perfect but, during the same period, the conviction rate for rape was 59% in civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year in those courts. Yesterday, the Minister said to the Committee:
“I am comfortable, with that protocol in place”,
and that it provides
“a resilient route to justice for those who need it.”
A low conviction rate of 10% for rape, however, does not match the Minister’s words.
Trying the most serious offences that occur in the UK in the civilian courts would help to improve conviction rates and, as Professor Sir Jon Murphy told this Committee, it would put the victim “at the heart” of the system. The Government have an opportunity with the Bill and the amendment to do just that. They cannot continue to brush serious crimes under the carpet as an inconvenient truth not to be dealt with because it could affect the defendant’s career. Sexual assault and rape affect all aspects of a victim’s life for many, many years, and the victim must be the priority.
A judge-led inquiry, the Victims’ Commissioner, the founder of the Centre for Military Justice and Forward Assist all agree that murder, manslaughter and rape should not be tried in the military system, unless in exceptional circumstances. I hope the Minister will join us to make that happen with the amendment.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I fully support the hon. Lady and her amendment. If it comes to a Division, I and my SNP colleagues will vote with Labour.
On amendment 2, it is clear in the Bill that the judicial systems of these islands are included. For example, in proposed new chapter 3A, the “Guidance on exercise of criminal jurisdiction” for England and Wales includes the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. We then go to Northern Ireland, and the measure is clear about including the Northern Ireland judicial service. Within the process, the guidance mentions the criminal jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, which is the Secretary of State and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
When the Bill comes to the process in Scotland, however, with “Guidance on exercise of criminal jurisdiction” in Scotland, there is a glaring omission: we see the Secretary of State, but not the Justice Directorate of Scotland. Given that the directorate covers a completely different judicial process and system, that is a glaring omission. I hope that the Government are willing to include what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I have proposed, the insertion of the Justice Directorate of Scotland, to bring the clause into line with the rest of the Bill, as it is for England and Wales, and Northern Ireland.
I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of that small anomaly, to ensure clarity—he will forgive me for using the terminology—unity and unanimity across the process. I might be willing to consider what the Government say before pressing for a vote.
Johnny Mercer
I will deal with the amendments in reverse order. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the most serious crimes—murder, manslaughter and rape—are tried in the civilian courts when committed by a service person in the UK. It seeks, through statutory guidance, to undermine the current legal position, which is that there is full jurisdictional concurrency between the service and civilian justice systems. I want to take this opportunity to explain clearly why the Government do not consider that to be the right approach.
To begin with, it is important to be clear that the amendment goes further even than the service justice system review recommended. It would mean that murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the UK could never be dealt with in the service justice system. The Lyons review recommended that such cases could continue to be tried in the service justice system with the consent of the Attorney General. Even some of those who were critical of such offences being retained in the service justice system seemed to accept at least some ongoing role for the service justice system. For example, there is general consensus that cases including cross-jurisdiction elements—offending both overseas and in the UK—would be appropriately tried in the service justice system.
The Government resist the amendment on that basis alone; however, as is now well known, the Government are also unable to accept the Lyons review recommendation directly, and have instead opted for an alternative and improved approach. As explained on Second Reading, the decision to retain jurisdictional concurrency was taken after full and careful consideration. The Government are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur, bolstered by the improvements recommended by the Lyons review.
One of the most detailed examinations of the way the service police deal with cases of domestic abuse and serious sexual offences was contained in an audit by retired Detective Superintendent Mark Guinness in 2018 as part of the Lyons review. That audit found that service police have the necessary training, skills and experience to carry out investigations into such cases. The service prosecutors and judiciary are trained, skilled and experienced. Victims and witnesses receive support that is comparable to that received in the civilian system, for example through the armed forces code of practice for victims of crime.
Members have referred to statements by Ministers to Parliament during debates on what became the Armed Forces Act 2006. Ministers at the time said that murder, manslaughter or rape committed in the UK would normally continue to be tried in the civilian system; however, those were policy statements made nearly 15 years ago by Ministers in a different Government. Those policy statements did not alter the legal position set out in the Act: that of concurrent jurisdiction. We are considering what the position should be today and for the future, not what the position was 15 years ago.
In the light of that, the Government have concluded that it is right that the current legal position of jurisdictional concurrency is maintained in principle. The service justice system exists to support operational effectiveness and discipline, and to do that effectively it needs flexibility. That is why the Government have concluded that decisions on where cases should be tried should be taken on a case-by-case basis by independent prosecutors.
Clause 7 places a duty on the heads of the service and civilian prosecution authorities to agree guidance relating to how decisions are made where there is concurrent jurisdiction. That will bring much needed clarity on how decisions on jurisdiction are made, and will ensure that decisions on jurisdiction are transparent and independent of the chain of command and Government. The director of service prosecutions in his evidence to the Committee stated that in cases of murder, manslaughter or rape, service and civilian prosecutors will need to consult on where the proper jurisdiction lies. The Bill makes it clear that where a disagreement over jurisdiction cannot be resolved the civilian prosecutors will have the final say.
To be clear, the aim of that approach is not to increase the number of serious crimes being tried in the court martial; it is to ensure that the service justice system is able to deal with those offences in principle when committed by a service person in the UK, and that there is a transparent, robust and independent way of resolving where jurisdiction lies. I hope that that explains the rationale for the Government’s approach and the safeguards that exist, and that, following those assurances, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 2 seeks to include the Justice Directorate in Scotland as one of the statutory consultees that must be consulted by the issuing authorities of the protocol regarding the exercising of concurrent jurisdiction in Scotland. The hon. Members for Glasgow North West and for West Dunbartonshire have stated that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that devolved Administrations are appropriately consulted.
New section 320B of the 2006 Acts provides for the Lord Advocate and Director of Service Prosecutions to agree a protocol for the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction in Scotland. Subsection (8) requires them to consult all authorities listed there before agreeing the protocol or any revision to it. Those listed for Scotland are the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland, or any other person whom the issuing authorities think appropriate. Corresponding provision is made for England and Wales in new section 320A, and for Northern Ireland in new section 320C.
The constitutional frameworks for criminal justice are different between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a result, the office holders responsible for agreeing the three protocols with the DSPs and the list of consultees are designed to reflect those differing arrangement in each jurisdiction. In relation to Scotland, the clause was drafted in consultation with the Scottish Government and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The role of the Lord Advocate agreeing the protocol and the list of Scottish consultees reflects those comments prior to introduction. On the involvement of the Scottish Government in developing the protocol, it is of course the case that the Lord Advocate is a member—
Johnny Mercer
Yes, but the hon. Gentleman’s last intervention simply reiterated his point. I accept that, but I will take interventions only if they add to the point something that we have not already covered.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I do hope so. The Minister mentioned the Scottish Government. My amendment relates to the civil service through the Justice Directorate, so there is a clear differentiation, and it is not necessarily an engagement with the Government, but with the civil service and differing legal system of Scotland. That is why it is clear that it is about the Justice Directorate and not, for example, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
Johnny Mercer
I appreciate that point, but the outcome that we are trying to achieve will be similar. The clause was drafted in consultation with the Scottish Government and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The role of the Lord Advocate in agreeing the protocol reflects those comments prior to its introduction. We have been around the houses and got those people’s views.
On the involvement of the Scottish Government in developing the protocol, the Lord Advocate is of course a member of the Scottish Government, so there is no question of the Scottish Government not being involved in the creation of the protocol in Scotland. In addition, new section 320B(8) of the 2006 Act provides that the Lord Advocate and the Director of Public Prosecutions may also consult anyone else thought appropriate.
I hope that helps to explain how we have designed the clause in a way that is sympathetic to the differing constitutional arrangements across the UK, and I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.
Mr Jones
May I begin by thanking Justice Lyons for his review? In his evidence to the Committee, he clearly outlined why amendment 19 is needed. I am a veteran of the 2006 Bill Committee, and it is quite clear, as Judge Lyons said in evidence, that when this amendment was made to that Bill, the intention was not for the wholesale movement towards serious crimes being heard in courts martial in the UK. They were for exceptional circumstances in which, for example, one crime had been committed overseas and one in the UK, given the ability of the court martial to deal with such cases. That was a sensible way forward because the service police would clearly be the lead authority in the investigation of such serious crimes committed abroad as murder, rape or manslaughter,.
The problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West outlined eloquently, is to do with confidence in the system. When the system was outlined, I do not think courts martial were meant to deal with these serious crimes. I support the military justice system, and I do not think the amendment would do anything to damage it. I think it would boost confidence in it.
The problem with the current system has been outlined. The conviction rate for rape is not satisfactory—I accept there are problems not just in the military system but in civilian life as well—and one of the key issues is investigation. The Minister said he was confident that the service police have the capacity to investigate such serious crimes. I would not want to criticise professional individuals, but, as with anything, the more specialism someone has and the more cases they deal with, the more expertise they get in gathering evidence and in supporting victims.
Clearly, the service police deal with a limited number of serious cases, so I would have thought that, when such alleged crimes are committed in the UK, it would be important to involve the local civilian police, who deal with serious sexual assaults, rapes, manslaughter and murder more often. Because of that experience not only in gathering evidence but in dealing with victims, they should have primacy. I am old enough to remember the Deepcut inquiry undertaken by Lord Justice Blake and know those cases in detail. I accept that is going back a number of years, but the clear problem there was the way in which evidence was not gathered—in some cases it was ignored or destroyed—and the assumption, without rigorous investigation, that suicide was the main cause of death in all cases.
The amendment is really about the system’s integrity and getting confidence for victims as well. As we saw in evidence from Forward Assist and retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, there is an issue in ensuring that, first, those who complain think they will be listened to as victims, and secondly, the armed forces’ hierarchical structure is not an impediment to the proper investigation of serious accusations. I can see the reason for courts martial dealing with cases in exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the 2006 Act, such as those that take place overseas and in this country, but I cannot see why routine cases in the UK are not dealt with by the civilian courts. I therefore support the amendment.
The Minister said it is a policy decision, but I am not sure. The intention was there, and I do not think much has changed in the past 15 years. What we need to do now is to ensure that, as was outlined in evidence we heard from the Victims’ Commissioner and other witnesses, the victim is at the centre of any system we put in place.
Carol Monaghan
I will say a few words in support of the amendment. The Defence Sub-Committee has been taking evidence on the experience of women in the armed forces. We know there are a whole range of issues specific to female personnel. When we are looking at serious crimes such as rape, so many different issues have to be considered —we need to consider consent and whether there is a proper reporting structure—and those who make complaints must have confidence in the system.
We have already discussed the membership of the court martial board. How can someone have confidence in a trial when those who are deciding the outcomes are likely to be male and of higher ranks, and not likely to have any understanding of the woman or the victim’s experience? In other words, they will not have anything in common with the person who is bringing forward the complaint.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I, too, support the shadow Veterans Minister and the Labour amendment. I sit on the Defence Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who represents the Government party. We are going through extraordinary evidence submitted by women who have served in the armed forces over many years, and the amendment would go some way towards tackling the profound issues they have faced.
Mrs Hodgson
I have listened carefully to the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and other hon. Members. I am minded to withdraw the amendment, while reserving the right to bring it back at a later stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire wish to press amendment 2 formally? It has just been debated.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Not at this stage, though we might bring the amendment back at a different stage of the Bill.
The Chair
Before we move on to deciding clause 7, I will make a couple of process announcements. We are feeling our way with this first ever virtual sitting of line-by-line scrutiny and I wish to make two points. First, for the avoidance of doubt, the decision on amendment 1 to schedule 1, which we debated earlier, will be made later, when we reach the schedules, which are on page 2 of the selection list. The amendment was grouped for debate, but the decision will be made separately, later in proceedings.
Secondly, I am very happy with how interventions have worked so far. Rather than coming through me as the Chair, I am happy for Members to intervene virtually, as Mr Martin Docherty-Hughes has already done successfully, directly on the person speaking.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Armed forces covenant
Stephen Morgan
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 8, page 9, line 16, after “subsection (3)” insert—
“or by regulations under subsection (3A)”.
This amendment, with Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 widens the scope of the Bill to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces Covenant including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 8, page 9, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) a relevant employment function,
(e) a relevant pensions function,
(f) a relevant compensation function,
(g) a relevant social care function,
(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or
(i) a relevant immigration function.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant government department;”.
This amendment, with Amendments 4, 5 and 6 would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government and the Devolved Administrations as the current drafting requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
Amendment 12, in clause 8, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Welsh Ministers, make regulations by statutory instrument to—
(a) specify the person or body in relation to whom the relevant functions in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) apply, and
(b) define what each relevant function in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) means.
(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, in clause 8, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—
(a) specify the person or body in relation to whom the relevant functions in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) apply, and
(b) define what each relevant function in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) means.
(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 10, in clause 8, page 11, line 13, after “subsection (3)” insert—
“or by regulations under subsection (3A)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 11, in clause 8, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
“(d) a relevant employment function,
(e) a relevant pensions function,
(f) a relevant compensation function,
(g) a relevant social care function,
(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or
(i) a relevant immigration function.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 11, line 18, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Wales;”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.
Amendment 13, in clause 8, page 12, line 27, after “subsection (3)” insert—
“or by regulations under subsection (3A)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 14, in clause 8, page 12, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) a relevant employment function,
(e) a relevant pensions function,
(f) a relevant compensation function,
(g) a relevant social care function,
(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or
(i) a relevant immigration function.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Scotland;”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.
Amendment 15, in clause 8, page 13, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Scottish Ministers, make regulations by statutory instrument to—
(a) specify the person or body in relation to whom the relevant functions in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) apply, and
(b) define what each relevant function in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) means.
(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 16, in clause 8, page 13, line 43, after “subsection (3)” insert—
“or by regulations under subsection (3A)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 17, in clause 8, page 14, line 2, at end insert—
“(d) a relevant employment function,
(e) a relevant pensions function,
(f) a relevant compensation function,
(g) a relevant social care function,
(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or
(i) a relevant immigration function.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 14, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Northern Ireland;”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.
Amendment 18, in clause 8, page 14, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the relevant department in the devolved administration in Northern Ireland make regulations by statutory instrument to—
(a) specify the person or body in relation to whom the relevant functions in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) apply, and
(b) define what each relevant function in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) means.
(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Clause stand part.
Stephen Morgan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sunderland. I rise to speak initially to amendments 3 to 6, which are in my name.
The amendments are designed to ensure that central Government and devolved Governments have the same due regard to the covenant that the Bill places on local authorities and other public bodies. The amendments go to the very heart of Labour’s prescription for a Bill that attempts to outsource Ministers’ responsibilities for delivering the armed forces covenant for all service personnel, veterans and their families. As drafted, the Bill places significant new legal responsibilities to deliver the covenant on everyone from local councils to NHS foundation trusts, clinical commissioning groups and school governors, but not to Departments or Ministers.
Over the past few months, I have met many groups named in the Bill, including council leaders and armed forces champions from across the country, and I have been repeatedly struck by the good work that they are doing in places such as North Tyneside, which in 2018 became the first local authority to fund an armed forces officer, and Rushmore, which is closer to home for me, in Hampshire, where the Labour council is pioneering innovative ways to reach armed forces communities to ensure that their views are heard. Their good work, however, is often limited by the lack of resource and direction from the centre. I have also spoken to forces families in my constituency and to organisations such as SCiP Alliance—the Service Children’s Progression Alliance—as well as service charities. They, too, are clear that there should be a consistent approach and that national Governments should be subject to the same duty as councils.
It is true that in some places there is low awareness of the covenant, but many of the policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are clearly the responsibility of national Government, or are based on national guidance provided to other delivery partners. Ministers say that they do not want to be too prescriptive about the outcomes, for fear of stifling innovation at local level, so let me provide some real-world examples of the ways in which that approach damages outcomes for veterans.
I have campaigned for some time to ensure that coroners record veterans’ suicides. In doing so, I saw answers from responsible Ministers and the coroners themselves. Each considered it to be the responsibility of the other to set policy on the issue. Such Catch-22s are allowed to persist and prevent us from making the well-meaning promises of the covenant a reality. The Minister has spoken of his desire to raise the floor of what is delivered by the Bill, which is a commendable aspiration, but that can only happen when central Government are responsible. Ministers could then set measurable, enforceable standards, which are ultimately responsible for delivering.
The current drafting also means that serving personnel, for whom many services are the responsibility of the MOD, will not benefit from the Bill. Government will therefore continue to evade any real responsibility to raise the standard of service accommodation, which we have heard from witnesses is in an appalling state. That will create a two-tier covenant that applies to some in forces communities, but not others, and will risk reinforcing the postcode lottery that the Minister himself concedes is the experience of many veterans.
The Minister also let the cat out of the bag that the Government are not serious about delivering for our armed forces with this Bill. At Defence questions in February, the Minister said that
“the legislation is very clear that it does not specify outcomes, but simply ensures that a set of principles is adhered to.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 668.]
Without the statutory guidance that will underpin the legislation, our armed forces are without the principles and without the outcomes, and this Government will be allowed to get away from responsibility for delivering.
Amendments 7 and 18 are also in my name. Amendment 7, as grouped with amendments 8 to 18, is designed to widen the scope of the Bill to include all areas of potential disadvantage for service communities. The Minister has previously said that the narrow focus of the Bill on housing, healthcare and education is because they are the areas of greatest concern for armed forces communities. Although those are undoubtedly critical areas for the armed forces community, the Bill does not fully cover them, and many areas of disadvantage are totally left out, including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. We heard from the witnesses who came before the Committee what, in practice, that omission will mean: nothing on social care, where service charities continue to highlight fundamental problems with the availability and cost of care; nothing on the shameful scandal of Commonwealth veterans forced to pay eye-watering fees for UK citizenship, despite their service to our country; and nothing for the cohort of war widow pensioners who, according to the Defence Committee, continue to endure a “grotesque injustice”.
In short, Ministers risk creating a two-tier armed forces covenant and a race to the bottom on standards in those areas that have been omitted. The amendments seek to ensure that areas of disadvantage that have been persistently highlighted in armed forces covenant annual reports will be finally addressed. We are challenging the Government to deliver on their promise to enshrine all of the covenant into law, not just pick and choose based on their opinion. Given that the statutory guidance, which will give real meaning to the Bill, will not be published until after Royal Assent, it is still unclear to what extent the limited areas included in the Bill will be addressed.
As I noted earlier, functions that sit within the MOD, such as service accommodation, are also out of scope. Section 343 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 contains powers for the Secretary of State to add bodies and functions. That rare oversight is welcome, but it is not clear in what circumstances those powers would be used. With Ministers suggesting that the Bill will not have prescribed outcomes, there seems to be no review mechanism that would trigger or consider the addition of new public bodies. Service charities such as the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes would be keen to see some clarity on that, so perhaps the Minister can speak to that in his response.
I strongly expect that the Minister will reject the amendment, but both he and I know that in doing so he will be concealing that he has not truly fulfilled his party’s manifesto commitment to enshrine the armed forces covenant into law.
Johnny Mercer
I think some of that speech was written before my evidence session yesterday, where I promised to ensure that statutory guidance is available as soon as possible. I will try to accelerate that, because I want Members to have a copy. We need to look at how it has been done before and what the regulations are around this stuff, but I am keen that we all work as a team to try to get this done.
Clause 8 amends part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by inserting six new sections, which will impose on certain public bodies across the UK a duty to have due regard to the three principles of the armed forces covenant, and provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance and widen the scope of the new duty.
The principles of the armed forces covenant are: the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces; that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces; and that special provision for servicepeople may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces.
Proposed new sections 343AA to 343AD to the 2006 Act impose the duty in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. The new duty will apply where particular types of public body are exercising certain of their public functions in key areas of health, housing and education that are vital to the day-to-day life of our community. The bodies and functions specified in each of those sections are different because they reflect the different systems in place in each of our four nations. However, they aim to cover those bodies that are responsible for developing housing allocation policy for social housing, homelessness policy and the administration of disabled facilities grants, which can be vital for injured veterans.
In education, we know that our service families face difficulties, due to their mobility, in getting children into schools and, more troublingly, in ensuring access to the necessary assessments and support when they have children with special educational needs or disabilities, as it is described in England. We know that service children have specific wellbeing needs. The duty will target those who are responsible for that, ensuring that they understand and consider the very specific needs of our community’s children.
In healthcare, again, much has already been achieved, but service families and veterans still experience disadvantages, often as a result of their mobility and other healthcare requirements caused by military service. This duty will apply to all bodies that are responsible for commissioning and delivering healthcare services across the UK.
Mr Jones
I rise to support the amendments and to say to the Minister that he has read his civil service brief well—if he could do it a bit more slowly, we might be able to follow it. I do not think he addressed any of the points in the amendments. Again, like a lot of things that the Government do, the spin and presentation is very different from what will actually be put into practice. We should not be surprised by that, because we have a Prime Minister who is an expert at saying one thing and doing another.
The Bill would put the covenant into law, but there is very limited movement on that, with an emphasis on local authorities and the local level. I accept that the delivery of services is done at local or regional level, but we have to recognise that a lot of the policy areas are influenced by national decisions.
The Minister might care to read the 2008 Command Paper entitled “The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans,” which was the origin of the covenant report and was launched by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, Bob Ainsworth. Its key point is to ensure that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged because of their service to the nation. I implemented it, and we had armed forces champions across main Government Departments. The main emphasis was to try to hardwire support for the armed forces community, including veterans, serving personnel and their families, into policy making. By excluding Whitehall Departments, the Bill will make it very difficult, even with the best will in the world, to ensure that some Departments have due regard to those things when they consider policies. If it is good enough for local authorities and local health boards, it should be good enough for the national Departments.
The scope of the Bill needs extending if the covenant is to have teeth in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South has mentioned, that move would be supported by the Royal British Legion and the British Armed Forces Federation, because a lot of the issues that affect members of the armed forces are completely outside the scope of local authorities, the devolved Administrations and others. One issue that has been raised—I know a later amendment addresses this—is around foreign and Commonwealth soldiers. That is a Home Office policy in which due regard has clearly not been given to those brave servicemen and women who have loyally served this country, and who will be disadvantaged, because of their service, in getting leave to remain. I do not understand the idea that the main Government Departments should not be covered.
The Minister says that those Departments are scrutinised by Parliament and various Select Committees, and so on, but if we had “due regard” in law it would mean that when policy was being determined within Departments, they would have to have due regard to the effect on service personnel, their families and veterans. That would have a strengthening effect, which was certainly what was intended when the idea was launched in 2008. An opportunity is being missed to ensure that the main Departments will be covered by the legislation.
Another issue that has been raised is something that lets off the MOD. The Minister says that most of the areas in question concern things that are delivered locally by local authorities, but one of the biggest complaints that the service family federations have raised is armed forces housing. There are examples of local provision not being fit, so that it would not be accepted if was provided in the public sector. There are areas that fall within the remit of the MOD that are not covered by “due regard”, and so those things will continue.
An opportunity in the Bill is being missed and the publicity around it—that it will be a sea change—is not being lived up to. The onus is being put on local authorities and providers. I support that, but they are not the problem, to be honest. As with a lot of things in this country, the delivery of local services is often to be commended. The innovation in local authorities and the things we heard about in evidence from the devolved Administrations are light years ahead of what happens in Whitehall.
As to the importance of local delivery, I accept that it might be patchy and might vary, but that came out of the work of the MOD pilot on the welfare pathway, which I think worked very well. It was taken up by the coalition Government and renamed the armed forces covenant. There has been a willingness on the part of local authorities and local bodies to make change. However, if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for Departments, and I have not yet heard a good reason why those responsibilities should not fall to central Departments as well.
I understand how Whitehall works, and that civil servants might not like that to be part of the checklist that they have to check off when they develop policies. However, it would certainly strengthen the position with respect to making sure that armed services personnel and their families, and veterans, are not disadvantaged, and that they are at least taken into consideration and given due regard when new policies are brought forward.
The Minister talks about the statutory guidance, and I thank him for the draft that we have been sent. We will perhaps talk about it later, but it will only be as good as the enforceability for veterans, service personnel and their families, so that they actually get redress when things go wrong.
As I have said, I think that this is an opportunity missed, and I cannot yet see a good reason why what I have suggested should not be covered. If the amendments were accepted, the Government could quite rightly say that the armed forces covenant had been put into law. Without them, there will be very limited scope for the armed forces covenant to have any legal backing at all. With that, I conclude my remarks.
Johnny Mercer
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I respect him and the points he has made, but I disagree with him.
Stephen Morgan
I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I think it is clear that the Government cannot do half a job in fulfilling their manifesto commitment to enshrine the covenant in law. Nor should Ministers be allowed to outsource the delivery to cash-strapped local authorities and other stretched public bodies, especially during a pandemic. They must take responsibility themselves. I will not press amendments 3 to 6 and 7 to 18 now, but I give notice that we may return to them on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Reserve forces: flexibility of commitments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Johnny Mercer
Clause 9 amends sections 24 and 25 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to replace the existing full-time service commitment, which enables members of a reserve force to volunteer to undertake a period of full-time service, with a new continuous service commitment. The amendment will also clarify the basis on which a reservist can perform additional duties.
The new continuous service commitment will in future enable members of a reserve force to volunteer to undertake a period of full-time service or part-time service, or a combination of both, under one commitment, allowing for the first time seamless movement between full and part-time service. These important modernising steps will help to attract and retain people who have the key skills that Defence needs and who want to serve in a way that better suits their personal circumstances. The measures will also allow Defence greater freedom in how it generates military capability, by utilising reservists in a more effective and agile way.
Failure to implement these measures and increase the utility of reservists would be a counterproductive step. It would risk sending a message that Defence does not wish to achieve its goal of a whole-force approach, and that it is not listening to the people who serve our nation so well. It would restrict Defence’s ability to improve the offer to reserve personnel in tandem with the offer to regular personnel. It would delay the introduction of important modernising changes that will bring benefits both for reservists and their families and for Defence.
Mr Holden
I support exactly what the Minister has said. After spending time in the MoD as a special adviser myself, I know that it is vital that we do everything possible to ensure that our reserve forces are part of the whole force approach. This clause is in that category, so I support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Service complaints appeals
Mrs Hodgson
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 10, page 20, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment will remove attempts to reduce the amount of time service personnel have to make appeals in service complaints cases from six weeks to two weeks.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 3 be the Third Schedule to the Bill.
New clause 9—Service complaints—
‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 340A (who can make a service complaint?) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) If a person to whom the Armed Forces Covenant applied find themselves wronged in any matter relating to the Armed Forces Covenant, the person may make a complaint.”
(3) In section 340A (who can make a service complaint?) at end insert—
“(4A) Not withstanding any regulation made under subsection (4), a person may make a complaint about the delivery of the Armed Forces Covenant.””
This new clause would expand the powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman to include matters relating to the Armed Forces Covenant. This would provide service personnel and veterans with an avenue through which they can report and arbitrate disputes regarding its delivery.
Mrs Hodgson
Amendment 20 would remove attempts to reduce the amount of time that service personnel have to make appeals in service complaints cases from six weeks to two weeks. New clause 9 would expand the powers of the service complaints ombudsman to include matters relating to the armed forces covenant. This would provide service personnel and veterans with an avenue through which they could report and arbitrate disputes regarding its delivery. If I may, I will start with amendment 20 on the time to appeal.
During the evidence sessions, we heard about delays at the front of the complaints system, at level 1. The target is that 90% of complaints are dealt with in 24 weeks, but that is not being met and the former service complaints ombudsman, Nicola Williams, says that that is not an appropriate metric if it cannot be met. The delays at the front of the system are the reason why people do not have confidence in it. In my previous speech, I mentioned the culture and archaic views that still persist about perpetrators, but also victims, which makes them often reluctant to come forward with a complaint. Nicola stated:
“If the initial process is taking not months but sometimes years before a level 1 decision, and then you ask the complainant to keep to a two-week appeal timeframe, with reasons, you can see how that is not exactly going to engender further confidence in the service complaints system, either from a complainant or from a respondent.”
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen also supported that and said that reducing the right to appeal
“would not in any way help the system we have at the moment.”
She went on to say that it would be “profoundly unfair”, given that the complainant will receive MOD legal documents and be expected to understand them within just two weeks, without legal representation.
Nicola Williams said that reducing the time to appeal would:
“come across…as if you are trying to prevent people from exercising their right to appeal”.
I am sure that it is not the Minister’s intention to reduce or remove people’s right to appeal, so will he set out what his intention was, given that we have heard that the issue with delays is at the front of the system and not at the back?
New clause 9 would expand the powers of the service complaints ombudsman to include matters relating to the armed forces covenant. This would provide service personnel and veterans with an avenue through which they could report and arbitrate disputes regarding its delivery. The Minister has previously said that the covenant would be enforced via judicial review. Only one in 10 judicial reviews succeed, and the cost of unsuccessful judicial reviews is upwards of £80,000. That is why we have tabled this amendment—to ensure that access to redress is easy and accessible.
The Army Families Federation set out in written evidence that
“there is little value in a review and remediation process that might take months, or even years, to resolve.”
Stakeholders, including Cobseo, back our calls for an appropriate ombudsman to enforce the covenant. Given that complaints to the local government and social care ombudsman on the covenant are mostly about things like school transport and admissions, service families do not have the time to wait years for the outcome of a judicial review. They need an immediate response. I thank the Minister for providing a draft copy of the statutory guidance last night. I note that on page 4 there is a suggestion that the complaints process may include an ombudsman. Will that be instead of or as well as judicial review?
Mr Sunderland, both amendment 20 and new clause 9 seek to ensure that service complaints and disputes about the enforcement of the covenant are dealt with quickly and effectively, to ensure that serving personnel, veterans and their families get the best possible service as a result of the Bill. I hope the Minister will take these amendments on board.
Johnny Mercer
In answer to the Opposition’s veterans spokesperson, I can say that that option is being considered as well as judicial review, not instead of. But these options are being considered at the moment as we try to find a way forward. Clause 10 and schedule 3 are part of wider reforms to support service personnel through the complaints system and to increase efficiency and reduce delays within the service complaints process.
This clause will be complemented by a programme of other changes that do not require primary legislation. The Wigston review into inappropriate behaviours highlighted a lack of confidence in the current system. The previous service complaints ombudsman for the armed forces has also made an assessment in her annual reports that the service complaints system is not yet efficient, effective or fair. It is crucial that our service personnel feel confident that complaining will not adversely impact them. Therefore, complaints must be dealt with appropriately and in a timely fashion to build that trust further.
It is key then that legislative changes are implemented to ensure that the service complaints system is more efficient. Ensuring that complaints are resolved in an appropriate timescale is part of a wider package of reform to increase trust. Clause 10 changes the minimum time limit that can be set out in regulations for submitting an appeal against a first level decision or for making an application to the service complaints ombudsman to two weeks. I should point out that bringing the minimum time limit down to two weeks does not mean that all appeal applications will be limited to two weeks regardless of the circumstance. Where a serviceperson’s duties mean that this will not be appropriate, additional time will be provided.
Clause 10 also provides the ability to set out in regulations the grounds on which appeals can be brought, for example where correct process has not been followed or where new evidence has come to light which may have had a significant impact on the original decision. At present, an appeal can be brought against a decision body where the complainant does not agree with its decision for any reason, with no limits on what that reason can be. This legislation will ensure that an appeal can be brought only where there are procedural errors or where new evidence is provided.
Schedule 3 makes a consequential amendment to equality legislation to make sure that procedural requirements remain consistent with the changes in this clause. Service personnel will not be penalised by this clause and mechanisms will be in place to ensure that individuals requiring extra time to submit an appeal will be able to do so where appropriate. We must ensure that we modernise and reduce delay in the service complaints system, creating, where we can, a consistent experience across defence and following best practice from other parts of the public sector.
Mr Jones
The important thing to say is that everyone wants the complaints system to be efficient. It is in the interest of the complainant. It is in the interest of someone who is accused that they get a swift resolution. The evidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West highlighted, is that the delay does not help anyone. Part of it is due to not only the complexity of some of the cases but, in some cases, the inefficient way in which the armed services, particularly the Army, deal with them.
Mrs Hodgson
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but due to the strength of the evidence that we received from witnesses I would like to test the will of the Committee and press amendment 20 to a vote.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. Could the Clerks advise whether we should make sure that Members turn their videos on when they are voting?
The Chair
Thank you. We have agreed that. Could all Members have their microphones and their videos turned on when voting? We have a few technical issues, so please bear with us.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Johnny Mercer
The service police are members of the armed forces who perform for the armed forces, wherever they are in the world, broadly the same role as their civilian counterparts in police forces across the UK. The recent service justice system review recommended that the MOD set up an independent complaints system to deal with complaints against the service police.
Each of the provost-marshals operates complaints procedures, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Currently, only MOD policy requires that, which leaves those who are unhappy about the actions of the service police without a legal right for their complaint to be dealt with. It also means that there is no one independent of the service police who can investigate serious complaints about them.
The clause therefore amends the Armed Forces Act 2006 to create a new regime for complaints against the service police and related matters. It does so by establishing the service police complaints commissioner and enabling the creation of a regime for complaints, conduct matters, and death or serious injury matters, which is modelled on the regime for the civilian police in England and Wales. That regime is overseen by the director-general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
The clause also contains provisions in relation to recent changes to the England and Wales regime that allow for super-complaints and whistleblowing to be made. Those will enable us to replicate the civilian regime here, too. [Interruption.] Sorry, Chair, would you mind putting yourself on mute? I keep thinking someone is trying to intervene, and I do want to let people intervene.
The new independent service police complaints commissioner will oversee the new complaints regime, and in particular will carry out investigations into the most serious allegations against the service police. The commissioner will also have overall responsibility for securing the maintenance of suitable arrangements for making complaints and dealing with other serious matters. The creation of that new oversight regime brings the service police into line with their civilian counterparts.
In making its recommendation, the service justice system review did not set out what the new regime should look like. However, it did suggest some areas for consideration. First, the service justice system review considered who would be able to make a complaint and when. It proposed that people who are able to make a complaint should include all those subject to the Armed Forces Act and all those who have been subject to that Act. Under the new regime, anyone will be able to make a complaint so long as they have been adversely affected by the matter complained of.
With regards to time limits, the service justice review suggested that the MOD should consider a time limit to be set on bringing complaints. The new regime will aim to replicate the civilian one wherever possible, and so there will be no time limit for complaints that occur after the SPCC is established. For historical matters, which will apply to incidents that may happen today, in addition to something that may have occurred in the 1970s, for example, we will look at the Police Reform Act 2002 model, but need to give greater consideration as to how that will work. Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise that in detail when we bring forward regulations under new section 340P of the Armed Forces Act, which is proposed in this clause.
Finally, the service justice system review suggested that a clear distinction should be drawn between which complaints fall to the SPCC and which to the service complaints ombudsman. Further details as to how the new regime will operate will be set out in regulations under proposed new section 340P, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure, with full parliamentary scrutiny.
Forgive me if I missed any interventions, Mr Sunderland. You might have had to keep your line open. I do not mean to ignore everyone, and I am sorry if I have.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. We are having mute problems here and are just going to bear with it as best we can. Just to reiterate, if any Member wishes to intervene on anybody who is speaking, please do so directly. Can you hear me okay now?
Johnny Mercer
I can hear you okay. It was just that I could hear someone talking and I thought they might have been trying to intervene. I then realised that it was you and asked you to mute, but you were not able to do so. Then I heard the noise again and assumed it was you, so I carried on. If it was someone trying to intervene, I am sorry.
The Chair
It was probably us here. I think the mute button here is not working, or we have an issue with it. We are doing our best to stay very quiet, but there is lots of movement in the room. Please bear with us.
Mr Jones
I welcome this proposal, because I think it is a huge step forward in terms of having oversight of the service police. I support the idea of having a separate ombudsman or complaints procedure, rather than the current police complaints procedure. Obviously, it will be a learning curve for whoever is appointed and for the system.
I want to ask about the way in which it will be formed. Obviously, as the Minister has outlined, it will mirror some of the systems that are already in place for oversight of the civilian police force. It will be helpful in terms of understanding how service personnel can make complaints.
There are two aspects that I would like some clarification on. One is about how this is going to be communicated to service personnel. It will be a new departure, and an important point will be to ensure that service personnel know that this is open to them, in terms of making a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way in which service personnel deal with a complaint or any other concerns they have regarding issues relating to their service.
I would also like some clarity about complaints from civilians. In many cases, civilian contractors are employed on Army bases, RAF stations and naval facilities. Many civilian personnel also live at armed forces facilities if they are married to or are in a relationship with members of the armed forces. This is about whether or not they will be able to make complaints as well. Clearly, there may be situations involving civilians who are dissatisfied with the way in which service police investigate something or the way they are tret. I would be interested to know what the remit is.
The other area relates to families of service personnel. I accept that much has changed since Lord Justice Blake’s report on Deepcut, but I spoke to the families of the four young people who tragically lost their lives, and one of the issues was their huge criticism of the way in which the service police conducted those investigations. Will there be an option for the families of service personnel, especially in cases where someone loses their life, to make a complaint to the new ombudsman if they are not satisfied?
Overall, I welcome this proposal. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I think it will not only help service personnel, but help drive up standards in terms of the way in which service police operate.
Johnny Mercer
I think that the questions you asked have been answered in the speaking note that I just went through.
Mr Jones
The issue around civilians, in terms of the jurisdiction and families being able to complain. I know you’re just reading the notes out, but it might be worthwhile just thinking, when you’re reading them, that some people might want to scrutinise this, rather than have to listen to you reading what the civil servants have told you.
Johnny Mercer
The reality is that that question around jurisdiction has been answered. I am happy to repeat the answer, but it has been answered already.
Johnny Mercer
Okay. Would the Clerks like to come in and confirm whether or not it has been answered?
Mr Jones
Chair, can I make a suggestion to help the Minister? If he does not know the answer to that question now, could he possibly write to Committee members to answer the points that I have raised? They are perfectly legitimate points. We are not hostile in any way; it is just that the Minister is clearly not on top of his brief.
Johnny Mercer
As ever, I am hugely appreciative of the advice from Mr Jones. I am more than happy to write another letter on any of these issues. I am more than happy for him to have a copy of everything I have said today, and if he still has questions, I would be more than happy to sit down with him and go through them.
The Chair
Mr Jones, I thank you for your intervention, but it is the Minister’s prerogative to wrap up and he has done so.
Mr Jones
If he knew what he was talking about, it might help, Chair.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power of commanding officer to award service detention: Royal Marines
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to consider clauses 13 to 17 stand part, and that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Johnny Mercer
A discrepancy currently exists within the Armed Forces Act when it comes to the sentencing of personnel of equivalent rank in the Royal Navy. Under the current law, commanding officers are empowered at summary hearing to award a sentence of detention to personnel up to and including the rank of leading hand. However, this does not apply to the Royal Marine rank of corporal, a position that is equivalent to that of a leading hand. Should a commanding officer decide at summary hearing that an offence, if proven, might attract a sentence of detention for a Royal Marine corporal, that individual would have to be referred to the court martial, where such a punishment could be imposed.
As a result of this discrepancy, there is a lack of clarity in how discipline is administered for all equivalent ranks within the Royal Navy under the terms of the Armed Forces Act. This clause seeks simply to remove that disparity by aligning sentencing powers available to commanding officers of leading hands and Royal Marine corporals at summary hearing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Johnny Mercer
On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. Clearly, I want to answer everybody’s questions. I have checked with my team and there was no question from the right hon. Member for North Durham, but we will go over Hansard again, and if I have missed anything, I will go back to him to ensure that he has the answers he requires.
Johnny Mercer
I do not think that is a point of order; it is a personal opinion.
The Chair
Order.
Clause 18
Posthumous pardons in relation to certain abolished service offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Johnny Mercer
Clause 18 reflects the Government’s commitment to the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender armed forces personnel. The clause amends section 164 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to extend posthumous pardons for very old, abolished service offences.
Presently, section 164, in so far as it relates to the armed forces, refers only to historical service offences from before 1881 of men who served in the Navy, but not of those who served in the Army or the Royal Marines, the latter being when ashore. The amendment will ensure that those who served in the Army or Royal Marines before 1881 and were convicted at court martial for now abolished service offences can be pardoned for those offences. The RAF is not affected by the amendment because it was not constituted until 1917 and is already covered in the existing provisions of section 164. I am pleased that through this clause, we continue to address historic injustice and demonstrate that the military is a positive place to work for all who choose to serve.
LGBT personnel have made, and continue to make, significant contributions to the armed forces. I hope that the Committee has seen the work that we have done over the past 12 months to try to right the horrendous wrongs that were done to that community during their time in service.
Carol Monaghan
How will the Minister determine who is in that group? Many people in the LGBT community left the armed forces, but not because they were convicted of being LGBT. They left under other circumstances—in some ways, to make it easier for the military to get rid of them. Can he give a bit more detail on how he will identify those affected? That has to be done.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Lady makes a really good point, and there is a lot to work through in that space. There is also the question of those who would have received the medal for long service and good conduct but were asked to leave because they were part of the LGBT community. I have been clear that the apology and medal restoration is a first step. We are working through the legal ramifications of addressing some of those historical wrongs. That is ongoing, but I am unable to comment on the progress at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Power of British overseas territories to apply AFA 2006 etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Johnny Mercer
Clause 19 confirms that a British overseas territory can rely on section 357 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to apply the UK service justice system to a British overseas territory force even if the section does not extend to that territory. The clause is necessary as the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar have been working on Gibraltar legislation, which would bring the Royal Gibraltar Regiment into the UK service justice system in reliance on section 357.
Johnny Mercer
I do not think that is rabbiting on. I think that is a very personal insult, Chair. Is there a point of order or an intervention, or shall I carry on?
The Chair
Order. Minister, please carry on. I urge you to slow down in accordance with the Member’s wishes.
Johnny Mercer
I will of course slow down my speaking to make sure my hon. Friend can clearly understand what I am saying.
Johnny Mercer
I am terribly sorry—my right hon. Friend, with emphasis on the friend.
The clause is necessary because the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar have been working on Gibraltar legislation, which would bring the Royal Gibraltar Regiment into the UK service justice system in reliance on section 357. This is the first time that a British overseas territory has made use of section 357.
Unlike other British overseas territories, as a result of amendments made in 2011 and 2016, the Armed Forces Act 2006 no longer extends to Gibraltar. This clause therefore confirms that the Government of Gibraltar can make use of section 357 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to apply the service justice system contained in the Act, with or without amendment, to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.
Johnny Mercer
Is my right hon. Friend asking me to predict the future? Is he asking how many times they are going to use this power?
Johnny Mercer
The clause simply brings the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the use of section 357 of the Armed Forces Act into line with our other overseas territories. It is simply about aligning what happened when the 2006 Act came in. The amendments that were made in 2011 and 2016 no longer extend to Gibraltar, because of changes in the overseas territory. We are simply realigning Gibraltar with the rest of the overseas territories at this time.
Johnny Mercer
I would be delighted to write to my right hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Age of Recruitment
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 328, subsection 2(c): leave out “without the consent of prescribed persons.”—(Carol Monaghan.)
This new clause would raise the age of recruitment into the Armed Forces to 18, in line with NATO allies and UN standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Equalising the Minimum Term for Service in the Army—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 329, subsection 2(c) substitute “or to transfer at a prescribed time to a reserve force” with “or to transfer to a reserve force after a prescribed number of years from the date of their enlistment without regard to his age on that date”.
This new clause ensures that service personnel aged under 18 are not required to serve for a longer period than adult service personnel.
Carol Monaghan
New clause 1 establishes age 18 as the minimum age for recruitment into the UK armed forces. Each year, the British armed forces enlist over 2,000 young people aged 16 and 17, mostly for the Army, and particularly for the infantry. It is notable that most Army recruits are 16, more than any other age. The United Kingdom is out of step with many of its allies in allowing enlistment at 16, and in a response to a written question from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), we find that underage recruits require longer training. We also know that they warrant more complicated duty of care plans and demonstrate a greater frequency of attrition.
In the three-year timeframe from 2015 to 2018, the Army enlisted just under 5,300 16 and 17-year-olds, and of this cohort, nearly a third dropped out before they completed their phase 2 training. As the Army’s accredited educational requirements for under-age recruits are limited to basic literacy, numeracy, and information and communications technology courses, it is clear that many 16 and 17-year-olds who withdraw from their training will re-enter the civilian world without immediate access to further employment, training and education. Typically, it has been commonplace for the Army to recruit young people from economically deprived areas, and while military service is a fruitful and fulfilling career for many of our service personnel, it is undeniable that encouraging 16 and 17-year-olds to remain in full-time education generates considerable benefits. Full-time education until the age of 18 should be the norm for all young people, and the opportunities for professional and personal development are indisputable, alongside the invaluable psychological, emotional and social growth that full-time education facilitates.
On top of these considerations, it also makes clear economic sense to increase the age of recruitment to 18, as the large drop-out rate that I have previously mentioned is costly in terms of both resources and time spent on training. Finally, adopting such a policy stands to bring the UK into line with the vast majority of its international contemporaries. Three quarters of states worldwide now have armed forces personnel who are exclusively aged 18 and over, including most of our NATO allies. While 16 and 17-year-olds cannot serve on the frontline, recruitment at the ages of 16 and 17 is detrimental to international efforts to end the use of children in military settings. The UN convention on the rights of the child has urged the UK to increase its minimum recruitment age to 18. If, as this Government have often stressed, we are entering an era of a truly global Britain, it seems appropriate that the UK should align with its global partners in the international community.
Adopting an adults-only enlistment policy would also be welcome domestically. The Children’s Commissioners for the UK’s four nations, the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights and numerous trade unions and health professionals have expressed their support for adult-only recruitment. If we are to safeguard the wellbeing, development, educational opportunities and physical safety of our young people, it is crucial that we change the minimum age for armed forces recruitment to 18.
New clause 2 would ensure that service personnel aged under 18 would not be required to serve for a longer period than adult service personnel. Most of the Committee’s discussion up to now has centred on removing any disadvantage experienced by service personnel in relation to their civilian counterparts, but we have not yet discussed the age discrimination that exists within the armed forces. The Bill does nothing to ensure that personnel recruited under the age of 18 experience no disadvantage compared with those recruited as adults.
At present, Army regulations that define a minimum service period discriminate against younger recruits. An Army recruit has a right of discharge for a fixed period of time after enlistment, but, once that period has expired, a recruit who enlisted at age 18 or above must serve for at least four years from the date of their enlistment. However, for recruits who enlisted at age 16 or 17, the clock restarts at age 18, so they must serve until they turn 22 at least—another four years. That commits them to up to six years of service when they are still a minor. As result of that disparate treatment, young recruits have to serve longer to have the right to leave the Army.
That inconsistency on service relates solely to the Army; it does not exist in the Navy or RAF. Only due to an armed forces exemption in the Equality Act 2010 is that allowed to remain. Such age discrimination would be prohibited in the civilian workforce, and new clause 2 would correct that by equalising the minimum service period for all recruits across the Army, ensuring that recruits under 18 experience no disadvantage compared with their adult counterparts.
The new clause builds on comments in the Army’s 2019 review of its junior entry policy that considered new terms of service to align the minimum commitment length of recruits aged under 18 to those who joined over the age of 18. The review commented on how a change in this area could attract potential young recruits and their parents and
“would mitigate some external criticism and provide greater consistency.”
In addition, the review mentioned that the change could make the process of leaving the Army as an under-18 “more transparent” and easier to understand. As such, the new clause would be an entirely reasonable and straightforward addition to the Bill and bring a consistent and logical approach to the minimum length of service across the armed forces. I urge the Committee to consider it carefully.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I recognise that the Minister will oppose the new clauses, especially on the age of recruitment—I am sure we disagree on that principle—but I hope the Government and members of the Committee will recognise the age discrimination for those under 18 who remain in the armed forces and the detriment caused through their service not being recognised. I hope we can agree in a collegiate way that anyone who remains in the Army once they reach 18 must have that prior service calculated in their long-term service in the armed forces. Anything else is a detriment to them and also underscores our lack of commitment to them, with their military service not being counted.
Mr Jones
I understand that there are individuals who wish to support a ban on those under 18 joining the Army. I know that that has been campaigned on for quite a while now. Those individuals draw an analogy between what the Army does and the situation of child soldiers around the world. I do not agree with that, and I must say I do not agree with the provisions of the new clause.
It is quite clear now that individuals under 18 cannot be sent into combat, which I totally support and think is right, but we must balance that against the opportunities that recruiting 16 to 17-year-olds gives those individuals. I suggest that anyone who wants to see the positive way individuals can and do improve their lives visits the Army Foundation College in Harrogate.
Many of those individuals, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West highlighted, come from deprived communities; many have been failed by the education system, so credit to the Army particularly for the work it does at the Foundation College, giving people a second chance, which the education system has failed to do. On my visits there, what appalled me was the fact that the education system had failed individuals, but the Army had given them a second chance with raising basic numeracy and literacy skills. Individuals who would possibly not have had an opportunity to have a fulfilled career were able to do so through the work undertaken at the Army Foundation College.
The other issue raised is the duty of care for those individuals, but we have come a long way on the duty of care for under-18s. There was a huge problem with the way under-18s were supervised and looked after, especially those who joined the armed forces who came from care, for example. Mr Justice Blake’s reforms following Deepcut had a huge amount to do with that.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
We will disagree, I am sure, on the age of recruitment, but on new clause 2 on minimum service terms, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, if under-18s who are recruited at 16 remain within the armed forces, that minimum service should be included? While we may disagree on the recruitment age, should that minimum service not be included within their service period?
Mr Jones
I will come on to that—I was going to address that in the second part of my contribution.
There has been change in terms of the duty of care of individuals. Ofsted, for example, now inspects places such as the Army Foundation College, and the practices that the Army has in place to ensure that there is a duty of care around those young people set an example that many other institutions could follow. In terms of the opportunity it gives people, I would not want, by banning under-18s, to stop many young people getting the positive move forward in their lives and the opportunities that the Army gives them.
There are two issues on which I do agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, relating to early service leavers. That is not just an issue for under-18s, but for those who join post 18. To be fair to the armed forces, they have done quite a lot on ensuring that early service leavers have support. That is an issue that I raised when I was in the Ministry of Defence, because some of those individuals end up in the social services network, homeless and so on.
The question is about when people leave, if they are under 18 and decide that the armed forces, or the Army in particular, are not for them. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I think there is a package around those who have left care and joined the armed forces. Anything that can be done to improve their experience is the right thing to do.
I am not against new clause 2, but we need to look at what happens in practice. There are quite good reasons why people have to sign on for a certain period of time, because of the commitment. From my experience, however, there is a mechanism to enable most people who do not want to stay in the Army and other armed forces to leave. I do not think it is such an onerous straitjacket as has it been described by some individuals.
I understand where the hon. Member for Glasgow North West is coming from, and I accept that there is a difference of opinion, but overall, my experience is that service in the armed forces gives great opportunities to many young people who would not get them if we did not recruit under-18s. The important thing to say is that many people who join at that age go on to have very good and fulfilling careers in the armed forces, and they also gain life skills and technical skills that they use when they leave the Army and move into civilian life. That is why I do not support the new clauses.
Mr Holden
I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have had constituency cases of young people who have really benefited from going to Harrogate at age 16, who are thoroughly enjoying and making the most of their time in the armed forces, and who have been joining up with our local regiment, the Rifles, as part of that. I urge hon. Members to think properly about the new clauses and the impact that they will have on some young people who have found a real path in the Army, with the extra training and support that it can provide both educationally and more broadly.
Johnny Mercer
The new clauses seek to raise the age of recruitment to the armed forces to 18, and to ensure that recruits under 18 serve the same period of time as those who enlisted at the age of 18. We remain clear that junior entry offers a range of benefits to the individual, the armed forces and society, providing a highly valuable vocational training opportunity for those wishing to follow a career in the armed forces.
We take our duty of care to entrants aged under 18 extremely seriously. Close attention has been given to this subject in recent years, especially after the tragic deaths at Deepcut. We have robust, effective and independently verified safeguards in place to ensure that under-18s are cared for properly. The provision of education and training for 16-year-old school leavers provides a route into the armed forces that complies with Government policy on education while also providing a significant foundation for emotional, physical and educational development throughout an individual’s career.
There is no compulsory recruitment into the armed forces. Our recruiting policy is absolutely clear: no one under the age of 18 can join the armed forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process. Additionally, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to engage with the recruiting staff during the process. Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on hostile operations outside the UK, or indeed on operations where they may be exposed to hostilities.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West is concerned that people who join the armed forces before their 18th birthday serve longer than those who join after their 18th birthday. However, this is not a matter of length of service, but a matter of discharge. The rules on statutory discharge as of right—DAOR—allow all new recruits, regardless of age, to discharge within their first three to six months of service if they decide that the armed forces is not a career for them. Additionally, service personnel have a statutory right to claim discharge up to their 18th birthday, subject to a maximum three-month cooling-off period. These rights are made clear to all on enlistment.
Ultimately, service personnel under the age of 18 have a statutory right to leave the armed forces up until their 18th birthday and without the liability to serve in the reserve, as an adult would. However, the benefits of an armed forces career, including for under-18s, are very clear. The armed forces remain one of the UK’s largest apprenticeship providers, equipping young people with valuable transferrable skills for life. Irrespective of age, all recruits who need it receive education in the key skills of literacy and numeracy; and, also irrespective of age, over 80% of all recruits enrol in an apprenticeship programme, equipping them with the skills that they need to succeed and which they will continue to build on throughout their careers, serving them well when they leave.
The armed forces offer apprenticeships across a broad range of specialisations, including the engineering disciplines, digital and communication technologies, construction, catering, human resources and administration. Ofsted regularly inspects our initial training establishment, and we are very proud of the standards that we achieve. Indeed, over the last 10 years, Ofsted has documented significant improvements in, among other things, support with English and maths, under-18s and care leavers, injury reduction, retention rates, communication with parents and staff selection, training and development.
Despite that record, we guard against complacency and recognise that there is always more that we can do. One example is the new inspection framework that we have agreed with Ofsted to align more closely with the unique challenges of initial military training.
Mr Holden
I recognise what the Minister says about Ofsted, but I want to highlight a concern of a family in my constituency, whose son, Dan Bravington, was at Harrogate and has gone through basic training. As part of parental buy-in, one of the great things that they like to see is the passing-out parades at the end. When will those parades restart? They are an important way of binding families, especially those of young people, into the broader military family.
Johnny Mercer
My hon. Friend is right that passing-out parades are a huge part of the journey of our forces’ families through the system. He will be aware, though, that generally we align with Public Health England’s advice and the Government’s direction. We are looking to get those parades going as soon as possible, and I am acutely aware of the effect on families of not attending them. Guidance will be issued in due course in line with the Government’s expectations on a relaxation of restrictions.
We welcome the independent scrutiny of Ofsted and the confirmation that it provides that we treat our young recruits well. Our armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people, as well as fulfilling and rewarding careers. Following those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West will agree to withdraw the amendment, but I thank her for her careful consideration. I know that her husband is a veteran, and I am extremely grateful for the thoughtful way in which she applies herself to these subjects. I look forward to engaging with her further on these important issues down the road.
Carol Monaghan
It is interesting to hear Members talking about the positive experiences of young people. Many Members will know that I am a teacher by profession. A number of the young pupils I taught went on to join the Army at age 16. Some of them had an extremely positive experience, as I highlighted in my comments; however, we need to look at the 30% who are dropping out. Why is there such a high drop-out rate?
For that 30% of 16 to 17-year-olds, some of whom do not have the strongest educational or family backgrounds, all they have from joining the Army is another failure under their belt. They have missed out on educational opportunities in the period they have been in the Army, and it is difficult to rejoin the education system after having dropped out of the Army. Also, there are under-18s who are on active service. They might not be on the frontline, but they serve in the Royal Navy on submarines.
On new clause 2, the Minister said that up to the age of 18, people can drop out. We understand that, but the problem is that once they turn 18 the clock starts again, and it is then four years beyond that before they can drop out. That is what they are signing up to. Their entire service is a six-year commitment, essentially, rather than a four-year one. If we were to equalise the opportunity for the youngsters who are joining up in comparison to adults who join aged 18, they should be able to leave sooner. They should simply be committing to another two years, not another four.
Mr Holden
I understand the spirit and the background that the hon. Member brings to this. I think everyone knows that because of the unique circumstances of someone who joins at 16, where they can drop out at any point until they are 18, it is very different from the situation of someone who formally joins at 18 for another four years. Those things are slightly conflated in the new clause.
Carol Monaghan
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the case in the Navy and the RAF, so there is already a disparity.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Mental health report—
“(1) No later than 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report which must include—
(a) a definition of what constitutes ‘priority care’ as set out in Armed Forces Covenant and how the Secretary of State is working to ensure that it is being provided, and
(b) a review of waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans accessing mental health support.
(2) The first report published under this section must also include a resource plan to meet current Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service waiting time targets for the offer of an appointment in England and set new targets for mental health recovery through the veterans mental health pathway.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a definition of ‘priority care’ to help primary care clinicians deliver the commitments in the Armed Forces Covenant, conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, and produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets.
Carol Monaghan
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to use the annual armed forces covenant report to assess the health and educational outcomes of personnel under the age of 18 and the service of personnel under the age of 18 in relation to article 3 of the convention on the rights of the child.
The time in a young person’s life from the ages of 16 to 18 is significant, and this transition to adulthood is typified by expanding opportunities and capabilities. These years also bring substantial risks and vulnerabilities. Research undertaken by UNICEF has shown that adolescents are more vulnerable to external pressure, influence and risk taking than adults are because of the processes of neurocognitive and psychological development. To ensure the transition between adolescence and adulthood as a time for healthy development and resilience building, 16 and 17-year olds must be in an environment that facilitates sustained learning, skills development, respect for individuality, social support and strong relationships. The UN convention on the rights of the child recognises the needs and vulnerabilities of adolescents and it consequently defines every person below the age of 18 as a child. This convention obliges all public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies to always consider the best interests of the child in any matter which concerns them.
I do not consider 16 and 17-year olds to be children; I would consider them as young people. However, the same applies here. For the reasons I have stated, we have a moral and legal duty to pay particular attention to the experiences and outcomes of those who join the armed forces before they turn 18. Those under 18 in the military take on risks and obligations just like their adult colleagues, which may put them at a disadvantage relative to their civilian peers in areas such as health and education.
While Army recruits are not sent to the frontline until they turn 18, the impact of military employment at such a young age, particularly on recruits from a stressful childhood background, has raised numerous human rights and public health concerns. Among those who have raised concerns have been the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Children’s Commissioners for the four jurisdictions of the UK, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Ministry of Defence does not collect information about the socioeconomic profile of armed forces personnel. However, other research has found that Army recruits under the age of 18 generally come from England’s poorest constituencies, with recruitment concentrated in urban fringe areas in the north of England.
Official data from the MOD shows that the youngest recruits tend to have underdeveloped literacy. Education for the youngest Army recruits is largely restricted to basic literacy, numeracy and IT. As I have already mentioned, with 30% of 16 and 17-year-old recruits leaving before finishing phase two training, that presents an immediate risk to their employment, education, training and social mobility prospects, and it certainly puts them at a disadvantage compared with their civilian peers.
As for health, those recruited under the age of 18 are more likely to die or be injured in action over the course of their military career, and they are at greater risk of mental health-related problems, such as alcohol abuse and self-harm. The additional rights and protections of 16 and 17-year-olds under the law and the need to ensure positive health and educational outcomes for this age group is a clear justification for the MOD to consider the impact of military service on personnel aged under 18.
As such, new clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to use the annual armed forces covenant report to assess the health and educational outcomes of personnel under the age of 18 and to consider whether service is in their best interest. Such annual reporting carries no risk to the effectiveness of the armed forces, rather it would solely ensure that those entering the armed forces under the age of 18 are given the consideration they require.
When we are considering the issue of no disadvantage in health and education, this should include proper consideration of the disadvantage that young recruits may experience compared with other 16 and 17-year olds. As these years are crucial in shaping life outcomes, it is important that the Ministry of Defence treats the welfare of service personnel under the age of 18 with the highest priority and comes forward freely to report on their outcomes.
Mrs Hodgson
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. New clause 12 would require the Government to do three things: first, to produce a definition of “priority care” to help primary care clinicians to deliver on the commitments in the armed forces covenant; secondly, to conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans; and, finally, to produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets. I shall address each in turn.
“The Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2020” acknowledges the confusion about what priority care means. It says that
“in practice this remains inconsistent, and there is a lack of clarity about the interpretation of the policy by government, clinicians, and the NHS.”
During oral evidence to this Committee, Ray Lock, from the Forces in Mind Trust, said that
“anything you can do to provide greater certainty would be helpful.”
The first part of this new clause therefore seeks to do just that and provide a definition as to what the Government really mean when they talk about priority care and treatment.
Moving to the second part of the new clause, on a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, I have already written to the Minister regarding waiting times under TILS—the veterans’ mental health transition, intervention and liaison service—which have not been met. The average waiting time to be offered a face-to-face appointment for TILS in 2019-20 was 37 days, which misses the target of 14 days. Conducting a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans would establish why they are not being met and—to move to the final part of the new clause—what action needs to be taken to address that gap.
I know that the Minister is proud of the launch of Operation Courage, but I urge him to continue to seize this moment to make real and measurable change to the mental health services for serving personnel and veterans. This new clause would bring much-needed clarity to the priority care promised through the covenant and is designed to address the issue of waiting times not being met. I know that the Minister will want to resolve those issues and I therefore hope that he takes the opportunity offered by the new clause.
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West and her dogged support for these issues. The problem that the Government have with new clause 12 is the fact that this stuff is already covered in the annual covenant report, as required by the Armed Forces Act 2006. On the issue of waiting time targets and resource plans, I refer hon. Members to the armed forces covenant report, which contains that suite of metrics concerning physical and mental health service provision.
I recognise that the hon. Lady has written to me, and I am investigating the figures that were presented in the House. I have a dashboard that shows me waiting times in TILS, the CTS, which is the complex treatment service, and HIS, the high intensity service, across the country. If it is wrong, I will write to her and correct the record, but above that, I will do everything I possibly can to drive down those waiting times.
The metrics assessing health service performance are kept under constant review to ensure that they continue to usefully measure the state of health service provision in England. Separate reporting in this case would be disproportionate. Although I appreciate the desire to pin down in general terms the definition of “priority care”, we must be circumspect in doing so or risk the possibility of unduly binding those public bodies that are in scope to a model that would not necessarily meet the needs of the local population. It is for that reason that we designed the legislation around a duty to have due regard. That ensures that service deliverers have the flexibility to cater for local requirements, while ensuring an increased awareness and understanding of the armed forces covenant.
The Department will be developing guidance with a wide range of stakeholders over the next year. It will include an explanation of the unique features of service life and the sacrifices made by the armed forces community. It will explain how these obligations and sacrifices can cause disadvantage for the armed forces community in respect of their ability to access goods and services.
Carol Monaghan
For the reasons I have already stated, we have a moral and legal duty to pay particular attention to the experiences and outcomes of those who join the armed forces before they turn 18—both for those who remain in service and those who choose to leave early. While the Minister highlighted some of the work that has been done in this area with Ofsted and the MOD, surely it would not be difficult to make a specific report on the outcomes of the 16 and 17-year-old recruits? They have very specific needs and requirements. I cannot see any reason why there cannot be a statement on the health and educational outcomes of these personnel in the annual report. At the moment, however, I am happy to withdraw the new clause. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I hope he will consider my contribution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
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
Backbench Business
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
Immigration and Nationality Application Fees
(3 years 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
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I am required to remind hon. Members of some changes to normal practice 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 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 Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered immigration and nationality application fees.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I have an important issue to highlight today about an injustice that has long been a concern of mine in my constituency. I am pleased to see so many Members in attendance. Many more offered support for the debate, which I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting.
This issue has a big impact on a relatively small number of people. There is a wider issue about the fees for immigration and citizenship, but I will focus on particular on young people who were not born in the UK but arrived as children and for whom this is their only home. I am aware of the interest in the debate and know that cross-party colleagues from around the House will have more specific issues to raise, so I will not take too much of their time.
We have seen a pattern in the increase in fees and the route to citizenship that is having a detrimental effect on many of my constituents. It affects adults and young people who arrive in the UK and seek to become citizens. Whatever our politics or our party, I think we all agree that we should be proud that people want to become citizens of the United Kingdom and seek to get a British passport, but for young people in particular the route to citizenship is having a big impact and depriving them of fulfilling their full role in British society.
Let me give a bit of history. I have been the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for nearly 16 years, and when I was first elected somebody could apply for one leave to remain application that would last for five years, and after five years they could apply for citizenship, so they would pay two fees. It moved to applying for three years at a time, so two applications were needed to get to the five years. Now, people have to apply at least three times: that would get them to five years, but those on the 10-year route to citizenship must apply multiple times.
The fees have also gone up individually. For a registration of a child as a British citizen, in April 2011—six years after I was elected—it was £540 and this year it is expected to be £1,012. For indefinite leave to remain for main applicants and children, in 2011 it was £972 for the main applicant—typically the head of the household—and in 2021 it is £2,389 for the main applicant and for dependents, too. Dependents used to be about half the price of a main applicant. When we look at the combined impact of the fees, we see it is incredibly expensive. It adds up typically to more than £10,000 for somebody to apply.
It is important to touch on the implications for the Government vision for a global Britain as part of an international community where we attract talent. We know in the past we have had challenges attracting people to universities in this country. English-speaking countries such as Canada and Australia advertised in other countries’ newspapers for people to apply to them, saying that their fees are cheaper. So there is a direct impact on the Government’s own policies.
It is impossible to compare fees completely across countries, but I will give a couple of examples. In Ireland, the naturalisation fees for adults or children is €175, or roughly £150. Denmark has a standard naturalisation fee of 3,800 krone, or roughly £438—forgive me if my exchange rates are a few days out. In Canada, the fee for adult citizenship applications is roughly £306. We are looking at a very different scale, and that is alongside the hoops that people have to go through.
Let me just do a little bit of maths for the Minister and add up some of the costs. Let us not forget that we have to add the immigration surcharge, now £400 per person per year. For an application for two and a half years’ leave to remain, that adds £1,000 on top. That increased in October last year to £624 per person per year, or £470 for applicants under 18. That is £1,560 for an adult applying for two and a half years’ leave to remain. We have to remember that two and a half years’ leave to remain gets someone just two and a half years’ leave to remain. Before that ends, they have to be putting in the fees and the application for the next process. Barely has a household got over the cost of paying these fees than it has to start saving up for the next application.
Over a 10-year period of qualifying residence, if the fees do not change, the overall cost would be, for a single adult, £10,372 and for a family of four, £38,408. I highlight the family of four figure, because I am talking particularly of people in my constituency who are affected, who arrived here as children and for whom this is the country they know, the country in which they have been to school and the country that they love.
The Greater London Authority estimates that around 330,000 children and young people have precarious citizenship status. That does not mean that they are all on the route to citizenship. Relative to the Minister’s overall workload, only a small number of people are affected, if we look at just young people—because it will be a subset of that group—but it is a very significant group in terms of what they could deliver to the UK.
We have had some recent announcements on the Government’s proposals on entrepreneurial visas. I represent Shoreditch, so I know all about the tech visas and the entrepreneurial visas. For the global talent visa, for example, the application fee is £152 for the main applicant, though it can rise to £456 in certain circumstances. Even an extension of that is only £608. An innovator visa is just over £1,000 and a 10-year private family grounds visa is £1,033 per person for the main applicant or a dependant.
The difference is extraordinary; it is tenfold. That makes it very unfair, because the people I am talking about have grown up in the UK, they have been educated in the UK and they want to stay in the UK. They have no other country that is home. They may have parents who come from another country and they may have been born in another country, but that is not their home. They feel part of British society. We are making them a second-class part of British society by putting these fee barriers in their path.
For many families, if they have the choice between having the main breadwinner become a citizen, or the rest of the family, the choice will be straightforward. They make just one member of the family a citizen and the others do not qualify for it without paying the fees. For the young people I am talking about, they often do not realise until they are 18 and they would like to go to university—I pay tribute to We Belong, an organisation that is partly the brainchild of my constituent, Chrisann Jarrett. Suddenly, on top of those fees that they have not been able to pay, they are faced with international student fees. They want to be full, contributing members of British society; in fact, they want to be British citizens, but they are priced out. At the same time as we are encouraging entrepreneurs and innovators to come in on cheaper visas to contribute to the wealth of our country, we have a wealth of talent already here that is keen, willing and able to contribute. For these children and young people, the UK is home. They are not going to go anywhere else and they want to contribute.
As the Children’s Society recognises, about half of children with foreign-born parents live in poverty. These are not wealthy families necessarily; I will say clearly, though, that in my experience there is no poverty of ambition. These are working households, but the fees are out of reach of anyone on a low, average or even rather good wage, so I think it is time that the Home Office looked at this.
The Government have made great play of leaving the European Union. They have made announcements recently about Britain’s place in the world and global Britain. They need now to follow up with actions and support these young world citizens who want to become British citizens; they are living in our communities now and are keen to contribute. I hope that the Minister will give us a full answer on the justification for these citizenship fees, and a hint that the Government are considering a change of direction.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
To accommodate everyone on the call list, I am imposing a four-and-a-half-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I had no notice whatever of having to trim my speech down to four and a half minutes, but thank you all the same.
I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for initiating this debate on such an important and timely topic, and one that is close to my heart—I declare as an interest that my partner is from the Philippines and is intrinsically involved in the situation that we are debating today.
I am interested in looking at the situation from a very specific point of view. Typically in this country, we use the word “hero” far too casually. It is often lavished on our celebrities and sports stars, and although I am sure that they are very deserving, I think that this pandemic has shown us who the true heroes are in this country—the workers in our NHS. The entire NHS has played a vital role, but our thanks and gratitude go, in particular, to those NHS workers who have come from other countries—individuals who have travelled huge distances to be here and often separated themselves from their families, who have been putting their own lives at risk to help and save our lives, the lives of citizens from a different country to their own. But regardless of their or our citizenship, their duty and responsibility to care for and contribute to the wellbeing of others comes first for those people. That is absolutely amazing and should be highly commended.
I welcome the many steps that the Government have taken for foreign NHS workers, but we need to go further. As the hon. Lady has already been through the fees and costs, I will not expatiate on those at this time, but I would like to set out the real-life case of Carrie. I am using a different name for her, but it is a real-life case all the same.
In 2016, Carrie moved to the UK, leaving her husband and four-year-old child back at home in south Asia. It took another year for her to be able to bring her husband and daughter here, because of the cost involved in getting a dependant’s visa. They could be together as a family again only by taking out a loan, which she had to pay for over three years. Three years after she arrived and so with one more year of loan payments still to go, she had to get another loan and compound her obvious cash-flow problems, because she was due for her visa renewal and so had a load more fees on top of the ones that she had already paid.
This year, in 2021, Carrie is entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain—five years in—with loans still ongoing from previous renewals, and the ILR more expensive again. So what does she do? What options are available to Carrie? Her only choice is to apply for another loan, even bigger than before, to have the right to occupy a space in the UK and call it home. She pays her taxes every month and has done for years. Oh and by the way, she works in an intensive care unit—she has spent the past five years saving lives, especially in the past 12 months. She should not be in debt; we are indebted to her.
It is our duty to create a new route to citizenship for NHS workers—one that will not leave workers in debt, poverty and constant worry about funding their next application a few years down the line—by reducing by at least half and, in time, abolishing completely the costs associated with applying for indefinite leave to remain and citizenship for our NHS workers. I am proud that our amazing NHS attracts such global talent and recruits from around the world. Frankly, we would not be able to run it without them. As of last year, more than 160,000 NHS staff stated that they were of a non-British nationality; they were from more than 200 different countries. That is nearly 15% of all staff for whom a nationality is known. But the current fees and processes are a huge barrier to both future NHS workers, who are putting off coming to the UK to fill our many vacancies, and to current NHS workers, who cannot afford the final step and have the permanent residency that they have earned through their service to our country.
Citizenship is not about cost. It should be about contribution and inclusion in our communities. NHS workers have perhaps given the biggest contribution of all: saving our lives and keeping us safe. Despite being valued members of the communities in which they live and work, without being citizens they cannot be fully part of them. Without indefinite leave to remain, there are barriers to home ownership, to the jobs market and in higher education.
Research shows that newly naturalised immigrants not only benefit our society, but it benefits them too, with citizens seeing rising wages and better employment opportunities as well as becoming more likely to engage in civil and political activities. Let us treat these people better so that they can finally feel like they belong and are welcomed with open arms.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
In 2019, the High Court found that the Home Office’s fee of £1,012 for registering child citizenship is unlawful. I believe this fee is still in place and is being charged for children who are already entitled to citizenship. I agree with Amnesty International that this is an example of shameless profiteering by the Home Office.
This demonstrates the general unaffordability of immigration and nationality application fees charged by the Home Office. For example, the fee for a leave to remain visa stands at over £1,000. An application for indefinite leave to remain is £2,389. Add to that the cost of processing the applications, paperwork and biometrics, all outsourced to private companies, and the cost of an indefinite leave to remain visa is easily over £3,000. That is not considering the immigration health surcharge that applicants must also pay, even if they have been paying taxes and national insurance in the UK already.
Naturalisation costs are also extremely onerous, costing over £1,300. Nationality registration for an adult costs over £1,200. To make matters worse, these application fees are non-refundable, meaning that if an application is unsuccessful for whatever reason, that applicant stands to lose a significant amount of money. Readmission means making the same payment again.
It is clear to anyone that such an expensive and complex fee structure for visas is part of the Government’s continued operation of a hostile environment for immigrants. The fees make applications unaffordable for many people, essentially deterring them from making applications. In my view, they are not only an example of shameless profiteering by the Home Office, but also a crude attempt to suppress applications to reduce immigration to the UK.
It is about time that the Home Office takes the matter seriously and considers its fee structure for immigration and nationality fees. A good place to start would be to recognise the High Court’s ruling on the unlawfulness of registration fees for child nationality and immediately establish a refund policy for those fees. This should be the beginning of a root-and-branch reform of the visa and nationality application fee structure, with the aim of making visa applications more affordable for all migrants and citizens of this country.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) made some very insightful comments in describing the impact that fees can have on individuals as they make their journey through the immigration system from newly arriving in our country to becoming full citizens. I am pleased to be able to highlight a couple of aspects of that, because it is important that, in the context of global Britain and a different approach to managing immigration, we consider the measures and steps that we need in both our border process and the way we manage citizenship in order to make it a better experience for all.
We should start by recognising that what is often referred to today as the “hostile environment” has developed under parties of all colours in Government, starting in the early 2000s, when people who were seeking asylum began to lose their entitlements to certain benefits. As the Home Office begins to move away from seeking to enforce caps on numbers, and towards a system that is designed to incentivise the right people who want to contribute to our economy to become citizens of the United Kingdom by taking up the offer of citizenship, we would expect to see a range of changes.
Charges for people to gain their citizenship are by no means unusual. In fact, if people wish to get into many other countries and receive a work permit—Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and indeed many European countries—such countries apply a similar system whereby they expect people to pay a contribution towards the costs. Certainly in my time in local government, when I used to see people coming to the town hall for the citizenship ceremony and to swear their oath, it was very clear that they saw this as something incredibly precious that they felt it was worth saving towards and that marked a landmark moment in their lives.
However, there are those for whom the costs are a significant barrier, and I particularly highlight the impact on children and the risk in respect of children who are in the care system, where clearly there is a possibility that this simply becomes a cost that is shoved on to the budgets of local authorities. Certainly in my experience as a councillor in a local authority with very large numbers of refugee children, it would almost invariably be in the best interests of those children to seek to gain citizenship for them. That was often challenging for bureaucratic reasons, especially when there was no documentation available to demonstrate who those individuals were in order to regularise their position, but it was made even more challenging if a local authority was expected to pay significant citizenship charges to achieve that status for them, which was an expectation laid down as a result of the laws of the United Kingdom. I would like to hear from the Home Office that, as we review the way we support refugee children in this country, given that the numbers arriving into the UK have on average doubled since 2015—we are talking about significant numbers of young people in the care of a very large number of local authorities—we will ensure that we do not impose additional costs on local authorities that are simply seeking to do the right thing by those young people.
Both the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn spelt out very clearly what the impact can be on families when a significant number of individuals all need to pay the fee. Similarly, when we consider the impact on children in that situation—mum or dad feel that it is simply too expensive and too difficult to save the money for the fee—we should think about how that might deter people who would make fantastic British citizens from doing it. Again, it would be good to hear that, as part of the consideration of what the future will be for our borders policy, we may have a system that recognises the value that families add, that supports them on their journey through the system and that ensures that the fees, although they are rightly high for something that is incredibly precious and costs a good deal of money to administer, are not a barrier to making sure that the full range of people who want to come to contribute to our life in the United Kingdom are able to do so.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you for calling me to speak, McCabe; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing this important debate.
Over the last decade, immigration fees have continued to increase to eye-watering amounts, preventing many people from pursuing permanent settlement or even their right to citizenship. Meanwhile, many of those who manage to pay the fees find that they have been pushed into unsustainable amounts of debt. That needs to change urgently. The Government appear to have never considered the socioeconomic or welfare impact of high fees on those who are forced to pay them, but that impact is often severe.
I would like to take this opportunity to share the dilemma faced by families in my constituency. My constituent Ajid has worked hard to support his two children but has been forced into unsustainable credit card debt after having to pay over £9,000 in UK visa renewal fees. He has a right to work and live in this country but the Government have pushed him to the brink of destitution simply because he attempted to exercise that right. My constituent Patricia is a single mother with three children and is in thousands of pounds-worth of debt, because of the cost of application fees and paying a solicitor to help her to navigate the complicated and demeaning fee waiver application process. Incidentally, her fee waiver application was ultimately unsuccessful.
I hope that the Minister will take my constituents’ experiences into consideration and will agree with me that immigration fees that push those who pay them into destitution are no longer sustainable, and that there is an urgent need to review them. I ask him not to say that the offer of a discretionary fee waiver is the answer, because my constituent was unsuccessful. The process is complicated and requires expensive legal assistance. I hope that the Minister will listen to everything that is said today and review the system. As it stands it is pushing many of our constituents into destitution.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, Mr McCabe. Bradford is a proud city of sanctuary that has for generations welcomed people of all backgrounds from all over the world with open arms, whatever their circumstances, and as the Member representing it I will continue to speak out on the issue until we have a system that treats people with fairness and compassion. However, under the present Government we sadly do not see a shred of fairness or compassion. It is sincerely lacking in almost every policy that comes from the Home Office.
As I set out last year in a debate on the Immigration Act 2020, the complex rules that force applicants to jump through countless hoops, the requirement for incomes above the national average, in some parts of the country, and the fees that mean that applicants must have thousands of pounds stored away, all show us exactly what the Government think about a caring, compassionate immigration system—and about migrants. They think that just because people are in the wrong circumstances, in low-paid roles or with few savings, they do not deserve to be with the ones they love. Their failure even to address those points in the last year and longer, which deeply pains me and many of my constituents, proves that.
As to fees in particular, a partner wishing to bring their spouse and children to the UK faces paying thousands of pounds in visa fees, immigration health surcharges and biometrics appointments. All the fees are beyond what it takes to administer those things. That means that someone somewhere makes a tidy profit from human misery and from reuniting families. Of more concern in relation to the Government’s human rights record, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) said, the Home Office has failed to take action following a decision by the High Court in December 2019, well over a year ago, that declared that the £1,000-plus fee for children to be registered as British citizens is unlawful. The fee is still being charged and we still do not know when the Government will put an end to it and whether they will compensate the families who have been charged that unlawful fee in the past.
On top of that, we have the bizarre situation in which it costs a British national more to bring their foreign national spouse to the UK than it costs a foreign national in the UK to do the same. I ask the Minister: how does that make any sense? Yet not only does a family face excessive fees stretching to thousands of pounds—which are not a one-off payment but must be paid again and again on renewal—but the level of service to applicants does not match the amount they must pay. They struggle to get appointments for biometric cards. They, or their legal representatives, cannot get hold of decision makers or others in the Home Office, forcing them to rely on MPs’ offices, and there are significant delays between applications, processing and the delivery of visas. As a result, we are very, very far from seeing anything that even resembles value for money in the Home Office’s practices.
During the coronavirus crisis, people have recognised just how agonising the forced separation of families truly is. Although the crisis will come to an end for many of us as coronavirus rules and restrictions are relaxed, it will not end for the families that the Government’s rules and fees keep apart. Instead, their heartbreak continues. So, too, does the hostile environment that the Government have created for people who want to come to this country to make a better life for their family, and who, let us not forget, already live and work here.
Finally, I urge the Minister to listen to the thousands of families up and down the country who want nothing more than to be one whole family living together.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for securing this hugely important debate today.
The current system of nationality application fees is deeply unjust. The 10-year route to leave to remain costs £12,771 per person and requires five separate applications over that time. The cost of leave to remain fees over the past six years has increased by 331%. It is a shame that our NHS staff pay rises are not set on that ratio by the Home Office.
As is clear from the Library’s briefing and We Belong’s report, the administrative cost to the Home Office of processing each application is a fraction of what it charges in fees. As much as 86% in profit is made by the Minister’s Department from every single application, from a process that, as many in this debate today have described, has a devastating impact on the wellbeing and livelihoods of those faced with the costs, and which also creates barriers to work, healthcare, renting a home, opening a bank account or going to university.
As Members have mentioned in their speeches, those affected include young people who have also been disproportionately hit in the pandemic. Youth unemployment has risen by more than 100% in my constituency of Liverpool, West Derby, so these fees are becoming even more devastating. Added to that is the Department’s complex waiver system, which rejects a high proportion of applications and leaves some individuals needing to pay for legal representation. With the shutting down of many law centres and advice centres in our communities, the ability to access justice in some areas is near impossible. As We Belong highlights, many young people will undoubtedly be driven into poverty or will lose their lawful status as a result of those high costs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) set out in her question to the Prime Minister last month, hundreds of thousands of children who were born or raised in the UK are priced out by the fees. A recent report from the Children’s Society found that almost half of the children with foreign-born parents live in poverty, with parents reporting that they are unable to meet even their children’s most basic needs.
The impact of the costs concurs with the evidence that I have heard from across the country as I have collected evidence for the Right to Food campaign that I am spearheading in Parliament. I, and many across our communities, see the system of fees as morally bankrupt. It plunges many into abject misery, as outlined today.
In response to a petition to Parliament on this subject, the Government acknowledged that they are overcharging. Their response stated:
“The principle of charging at above cost has been in place for over a decade”.
Will the Minister commit today to at the very least ending that shameful practice?
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for securing this debate. I know that she shares my sincere admiration for the tireless dedication shown by our frontline doctors, nurses and carers over the last year. Our treasured NHS truly is the pride of our nation.
I was shaken to hear St Helier hospital staff on “Channel Four News” in January comparing their wards with war zones. A critical incident over Christmas had resulted in the hospital diverting patients to Kingston Hospital and St George’s Hospital, because they were using more oxygen than the vaporiser could deliver. The staff at St Helier hospital are doing a remarkable job, but they face the most testing of circumstances.
So earlier this month I joined nurses from the Royal College of Nursing on a call to hear about their experience. I met Kathryn and today I will tell her story. Kathryn is an NHS nurse from the Philippines. Staff from her NHS trust flew out to her country six years ago to recruit dozens of nurses, sponsoring their initial three-year working visas. For Kathryn, moving almost 7,000 miles away from her family meant the opportunity to support her family. We invited her here to do an essential job that puts her at risk of losing her life, but Minister, we then charge her excessively for that privilege.
Every three years, Kathryn faces a new £1,000 visa fee. She was one of the lucky ones whose employers covered her health surcharge, a cost that has soared to hundreds of pounds for her peers. Receiving just an entry-level salary, Kathryn sends as much money back home as she can afford, and supporting her family became even more important when her mum was hospitalised earlier this year.
After almost six years in the UK, Kathryn is now able to apply for indefinite leave to remain, but the clock is ticking and she needs to save the £2,500 required before her visa renewal is due this winter. If she cannot save enough money in time, she pays a fresh cost of £1,000 to renew her visa and she will have to start saving again from scratch. But how can she save when she earns so little? Every penny is vital and Kathryn resorted to withdrawing from the NHS pension scheme before the pandemic. Maybe the Minister can see why the 1% pay rise is a bit of a kick in the teeth.
Then along came covid. Kathryn was redeployed to the accident and emergency department, facing intolerable pressure, but so many of us owe our lives to A&E staff. One of her colleagues lost his life. He was just 33 and the breadwinner for his parents back home. He had worked to ensure that they could afford to send his siblings to school. In his memory and without using his own funds, his colleagues had to collect enough money to be able to send his ashes home. With no NHS pension scheme and consequently no death in service benefit, Kathryn came to work every day worrying how she would be buried if she were to die.
Asking people from poorer countries to help run our NHS is not new, but charging them large amounts of money for the privilege is. So I say to the Minister: Kathryn risks her life at our invitation and is charged exploitative costs to do so. Does he really think that is right or fair? Why should her sacrifice cost her so much?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing this important debate.
It is a feature of this Government’s hostile environment policy on immigration that it treats everyone in the immigration system with equal bad faith. We see that in the appalling state of initial accommodation for asylum seekers, which treats desperate people fleeing horrific violence, persecution and other horrors as if they were criminals; we see it in the lack of safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, and in the cancellation of the Dubs scheme for family reunification; and we see it in the appalling level of service that applicants receive from the Home Office, with mistakes and inaccurate decisions frequently being made, and in the absence of any service standard at all within the Home Office for determining applications brought under article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The system often keeps people waiting indefinitely, in extreme financial hardship, for the decision that they need to resolve their status and to be able to provide for their families. At every turn, this Government go out of their way to say to people who have come to the UK from overseas that they are not really welcome here.
The schedule of application fees is another example. High fees are a cost barrier that stop people claiming their rightful status as UK citizens. I have spoken to many constituents who cannot afford to make applications for their children. Some end up in debt to family and friends in order to fund applications, and others delay making applications on behalf of their children, storing up problems for them later in life when they come to apply for student finance or employment. Many victims of the Windrush scandal came to the UK as children and encountered problems because the adults who were responsible for them at that time had never regularised their status. The current policy of placing immigration fees out of the reach of parents risks sowing the seeds of a future Windrush scandal.
My constituent, A, arrived in the UK as a child and legally resided here for more than a decade. His parents and sibling gained indefinite leave to remain under the highly skilled migrants programme. However, the cost of the application meant that A’s parents were unable to secure ILR for him at the same time. Instead, he was granted 30 months’ leave to remain in 2014, which expired in 2016. At that time, there was an administrative delay and his family were poorly advised by their solicitor, resulting in a short interruption in A’s immigration status. A did very well at school and secured a place at university to study architecture, but because of the interruption in his status—no fault of his family’s—he has been refused student finance. I mention that example because it shows how this policy is causing further material consequences that have devastating impacts on young lives. Had the fees been more affordable, A would never have been in this situation. He would have been granted ILR at the same time as the rest of his family.
The policy also affects many of the key workers on whom we have relied throughout the pandemic. High immigration fees affect NHS workers, social care workers, transport and retail workers—people on whom we all rely and to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude, particularly over this past year. This policy is an insult to them and, in addition to the financial burden, has added further stress and anxiety at an impossibly difficult time.
Immigration benefits the UK economically, socially and culturally. This country is enriched by those who have chosen to come here from overseas. Yet the UK Government persist in this hostile environment, of which high application fees are a key component. I call on the Government to undertake a comprehensive review of fees within the immigration system to stop the many hidden injustices that the policy is causing.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
I am glad to be able to raise some of my constituents’ concerns in this debate. The Home Office’s route to citizenship really does treat people as cash cows. It is blatant profiteering off the backs of people who have come to this country to help and to contribute, and it has a negative impact on families’ health and wellbeing, pushing them into debt. The 10-year path to application for ILR, as people have pointed out, means fees every 30 months, the immigration health surcharge, and the ILR application itself after all that. As the House of Commons Library points out, that totals £10,372 in fees and an additional £2,389 for ILR.
Of course, that amount assumes that everything is simple and straightforward, which we know often is not. For example, it does not include lawyers’ fees which, although perhaps necessary, can be absolutely eye-watering for families. I know from people in my constituency that the costs mount up, particularly for families with more than one child. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) rightly pointed out, this means that families prioritise those who are working and leave children to a later stage. Other families who cannot make those choices end up in a huge amount of debt, sometimes even putting these fees on credit cards, leading to significant financial problems for many.
They cannot live the life that the rest of us can enjoy. Many children cannot then participate in school trips, for example, because they do not have the right to travel due to not having citizenship or the relevant passport to do so. They lose out because their families are putting so much into the immigration system that they cannot afford the basics that many other families enjoy. The fee waiver, as others have pointed out and which the Minister may fall back on, is incredibly difficult to get. I have tried to support constituents to get a fee waiver, but it often proves almost impossible unless the family were absolutely destitute. That should not be something that a family has to prove just for the privilege of living in and being a citizen of this country.
As other Members have pointed out, the system itself is incredibly poor. Many cases are lengthy and the processes are inefficient. Many of my constituents have waited years and years to be processed due to issues that the Home Office deems “complex” while often being unwilling or unable to discuss with me as the MP. I could speak at length as well about the visitor visa process, which is absolutely appalling. It just takes money from people, only to refuse their application and then grant it later down the line despite nothing much having changed.
To move to the highly-skilled migrants, I was aghast and shocked to find the Chancellor bigging up the chances of bringing in highly-skilled migrants to this country in his Budget, because I have dealt with many of the highly-skilled migrants affected by the 322(5) case and who found themselves suddenly losing out. Many of them, who were at the end of the 10-year route to ILR and had paid their fees and taxes over the years, lost out because they had made legitimate changes that anyone could make to their tax returns. That meant that their route to citizenship was torn away from them completely unjustifiably by the Home Office, and many people are still in this situation waiting for justice.
Many of these people have been here contributing for a decade or more, but the Home Office then treats them like criminals in the country they have made their home. To use the phrase from 322(5) in the immigration rules, they were deemed
“a threat to national security”
and all for making a legitimate change to their tax return. It is absolutely shocking and unacceptable, and before a single further person is given a highly-skilled migrant visa, I ask the Chancellor and the Home Office to sort out this injustice once and for all. It cannot be that those who are already here and have already contributed are treated so abysmally while the Chancellor tries with the other hand to bring people into this country.
I could speak at length about the many cases I have seen over the past six years showing how incompetent, expensive, inefficient and cruel the Home Office is, but I ask the Minister to reflect on these issues that I have raised and make it fairer for families who just want to live their lives, get on with things and have their children grow up in this country. We should owe them a great debt of thanks, not put a great debt on their shoulders.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing this debate. She gave a comprehensive exposition of the issues, as have others over the course of the debate, and I do not intend to repeat them.
I observe in passing, though, that I have noticed among my own constituency casework a significant increase in the number of people, previously here as EU citizens under the right to remain from the treaties, who are now looking to take on citizenship. They feel that it gives them greater certainty than would be the case if they were to go down the route of the other schemes that are available. I suspect that, in relation to citizenship and nationality, this situation is only going to become more acute.
The point that I want to put before the House and, in particular, the Minister is that the fees for immigration and nationality applications are not the only costs that are faced by people in my constituency. The Home Office has refused from day one to offer the biometric enrolment process in Lerwick or in Kirkwall, because it says that there are not enough people there to justify the provision of the service. I understand that the numbers are not high, but the consequences for my constituents are severe.
My constituents are required to go to Aberdeen or, on one occasion where the machine in Aberdeen was not working, to travel on to Dundee to enrol their biometric information. Over and above the cost of the fee for enrolling biometrics, if someone lives in Shetland, they would have to get the 5 o’clock overnight ferry to Aberdeen, which will get them in to Aberdeen at 7.30 am. They have their appointment and enrol their biometrics, and are back at the ferry terminal in Aberdeen at the end of the day to get the overnight ferry back. They leave at 5 pm on a Monday, and they are not back home until 7 am on the Wednesday. That is the actual commitment that is required. They could take a day trip on a plane. I have just checked the service on Loganair’s website, and they can get out at 8.30 am in the morning and come back at 10 past 3 in the afternoon, so it is just about doable, because enrolling biometrics is not a long process. The cost of that is £492. That is the extra charge that we pay over and above all the fees about which every other person in this debate has rightly complained.
To put it in terms that the Minister might understand, he asks of my constituents the same as he would be asking of his own if he were to say to them that they should go from Torbay to Stoke-on-Tent to enrol their biometrics. I suspect that his constituents would not be keen on that, never mind the possibility that the machine in Stoke-on-Trent might be broken so they might have to carry on and enrol their biometrics in Manchester. He would not accept that for his constituents, so why do he and his predecessors seem to think that I should accept it for mine? I will leave him the extra 45 seconds to give that answer in his reply.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. Thank you for calling me. I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for securing this important debate and for her opening speech, which set the scene brilliantly.
Members have eloquently and powerfully raised some strong examples of fees applied by the Home Office that are unreasonable, unfair and sometimes frankly utterly extortionate. We have heard about citizenship fees right across the board. Some have mentioned the immigration health surcharge, which my party opposes outright. Members also spoke powerfully about NHS and other frontline workers, to whom we owe so much.
We have heard a lot about fees for children, including those in the care system, and several hon. Members raised the fees that families face. Many family members are forced apart by them, and others have to make awful calls, such as which child they can afford to put forward for citizenship and which they have to leave behind—what an awful choice to have to make.
We have just heard about some of the other associated costs of applications, from legal fees to biometrics and the travel that is involved for some. Other hon. Members raised the quality of service provided in response to payment of those fees. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) rightly continues to champion the case of highly skilled migrants.
There are many other causes that we could have mentioned today. One is the fees faced by former members of the armed forces who want to settle in the United Kingdom. I support all those complaints, but in the time available I will focus on two issues that impact on children in particular, as others have done. I will close by suggesting that all these various complaints mean that it is time that we rethink the statutory scheme that guides the Home Office when it is setting fees.
As it stands, the Home Office is entitled to think about only the following factors when setting fees: processing costs, the benefits that will accrue to the applicant and others, the cost of other immigration and nationality functions, economic growth, international comparisons and international agreements. There are problems with that framework and how the Home Office is currently applying it.
I will start with the fees that are charged to children who are registering their right to British citizenship. These are kids who are born here but are not automatically British and are subsequently entitled to register as such, either because their parents become settled or become citizens or because they are here for the first 10 years of their lives. Those rights were set out by Parliament in 1981 when it repealed automatic citizenship by birth alone in the United Kingdom. Those rights are there to protect kids for whom the reality is that the UK is their home and, de facto, their country of nationality. Unlike those of us who are British at birth automatically and pay no fee for the privilege, those kids, as we have heard, are required to pay just over £1,000. The cost to the Home Office of processing the application is approximately one third of that.
In essence, what we have here is a horrendous, great big poll tax on the British citizenship of certain children—one that brooks no waivers or exceptions, and one that Home Office lawyers have acknowledged in court has
“a serious adverse impact on the ability of a significant number of children to apply successfully for registration”
as British citizens.
I know that the Minister knows the arguments well; he has met with the fantastic campaign group We Belong, previously known as Let Us Learn, and I appreciate that he did that.
That said, his predecessor met with the equally brilliant Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and, in the absence of any action or response, PRCBC successfully persuaded the Court of Appeal that these fees breach the statutory duties of the Home Office regarding the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court will, if required, go on to determine whether the fees are also illegal on the grounds that they render the statutory rights impossible for so many.
I appreciate that the litigation may mean the Minister cannot say too much today, but the fact that these fees need to be looked at again means it is all the more important that, as cross-party MPs, we re-emphasise the opposition to them—and there is cross-party opposition. This is a grave injustice. As Members on both sides have said, citizenship is not just a matter of the colour of one’s passport; it has profound implications on a sense of identity, belonging, community integration, and so on.
If litigation forces a different approach, that would be brilliant, but it would be so much better if the Home Office and Treasury just listen to the arguments and made the change themselves. These kids are entitled to British citizenship, and fees should not stop them from accessing it.
The other distinct issue that I want to raise is one that others have touched on: the long route to settlement. This is a 10-year process that people with strong ties of family or private life are put through by the Home Office. The whole design of this route, not just its fee, is cruel, but the expense is especially outrageous.
As we have heard, including the final indefinite leave to remain application, this route requires five applications, currently costing a total of over £12,500 in fees and health surcharges for each individual before they will ever have secure, permanent status. A family of four must pay around £10,000 in fees every two and a half years, and only a little over 10% of that covers the actual cost of the Home Office processing these applications.
In normal times, three quarters, or more, of fee waiver applications are refused by the Home Office, and that then means that applicants have only 10 days to stump up the cash before the whole application is rejected. That puts many back to square one. Indefinite leave applications do not attract a fee waiver at all, leaving many stranded on precarious short-term leave for a long, long, time, so slashing these fees is absolutely essential. Colleagues have spoken powerfully about the impact they are having on the lives of families and children in their constituencies. The immigration health surcharge should be removed from this route. These are people for whom the reality is that the UK is their home, and it will continue to be; the Government should acknowledge that.
In conclusion, Mr McCabe, I want to touch upon the issue of whether or not we need to rethink the overall framework, and I think that we do. I will make two quick points, although I could make many more.
One fundamental problem is that the framework treats all types of application as if they are of the same nature, and that the same considerations should apply. However, issues around citizenship have a profoundly different nature to visit visas, student visas or other types of work visa. Even within citizenship, the right to a nationality in one’s de facto home country is a completely different issue to naturalisation fees for adults who have made a proactive choice to come here and to take up that nationality.
Economic growth or subsidising other parts of the border system might be relevant to certain work visas, but it is absolutely not appropriate or fair to apply those considerations to applications by children for citizenship in their home country. That is why we need to rethink the framework.
Secondly, when considering the benefit that will accrue to the applicant, which is required by statute, it seems to me that the Home Office approach is always “the greater the benefit to the applicant, the more that we should charge them”, but it should not be. Citizenship confers the most profound benefit of any of the applications that the Home Office deals with. We should want the children who have that right to be able to access it. The consequences of them not being able to are really quite troubling, so, in fact, the benefit that will accrue to them is a reason for lowering the fee, rather than trying to squeeze every last penny from it.
There is so much more that could be said in this, but I hope that the Minister will listen, both to the complaints made about specific fees and to the suggestion that we need to look more broadly at the framework that surrounds the process for setting them. Once again, thanks to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for securing such a crucial debate, and to Members for engaging in it.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing this important debate and opening the contributions.
My hon. Friend did an excellent job in setting out the different fees, their cumulative effect and how they make us one of the least competitive countries in the world if we want to attract the brightest and the best, even through options like the global talent visa. She has enjoyed a great deal of cross-party support this afternoon.
I begin by reflecting on how immigration and nationality fees have increased over the past 10 years. Others have paid tribute to the wonderful organisation We Belong, which is led by young people who have made the UK their home. They are right to say that the cost of leave to remain for those who came to UK, which was a focus of my hon. Friend’s opening speech, has increased by 331% in the past six years alone. Just imagine if the same could be said about nurses’ pay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) said.
The 10-year route to permanent settlement through leave to remain requires five applications totalling £12,771 per person. That statistic is made even more staggering when we consider that it costs the Government just £142 to process those applications. The fact that the Government seek to make a profit from people who grew up in this country and who simply want to establish a future here in the UK is unacceptable. It denies them the security and certainty that they deserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) is quite right when he says that the fees paid are not reflected in the experience that people have in their service from the Home Office.
As my hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) and for Bradford East, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), have already said, the Court of Appeal found that the requirement for children who are entitled to be registered as British citizens to pay a fee of £1,012 fails to take into consideration the children’s best interests. The Government have yet to respond to this decision, and therefore I call on the Minister urgently to reconsider this issue when they respond to those concerns. Once again, it is disappointing that it has fallen to the courts to pull up the Government with a judgment that said the fee would leave children feeling “alienated, excluded, isolated” and “second-best,” when instead some compassion and common sense would go a long way.
Others have raised the challenges facing this country as a consequence of the pandemic. Immigration fees are a significant barrier to many migrant and overseas healthcare workers, as has been highlighted during the last year. I found myself unexpectedly cheering the contribution from the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) when he said that NHS workers should not be in debt to pay their fees and that we are the ones who should be indebted to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) gave a heartbreaking speech about the contribution of her local migrant healthcare workers, which reflects the fact that 169,000 or 13.8% of NHS staff reported a non-British nationality in January last year. Migrant workers currently make up 16% of our social care workforce. Many of those workers face the psychological and financial burden of immigration application fees. I believe the pandemic has made us all recognise beyond any doubt that we absolutely need these people—there’s no two ways about it.
We welcome the decision to extend the visas of doctors, nurses and paramedics that were due to expire before October and then March, even though that second extension came late in the day. It has been a battle to ensure that those extensions recognise all those that they should. We were also delighted that the Government listened to our calls to offer an exemption from the immigration health surcharge to those working in healthcare, even though the delivery of that has been far from as simple as it could have been, with many still waiting for refunds. As the Minister will remember, we were keen to stress during the passing of the Bill that became the Immigration Act 2020 that it is not that we are doing those workers a favour by extending their visas; they are doing us a massive favour, by staying and working on our frontline.
How else can we recognise that contribution? In addition to the fees paid by individuals, the Minister will also remember that we called on the Government to rethink the immigration skills charge for NHS trusts, which is a fee paid by hospitals back to the Government; they often face no choice other than to recruit from overseas for specialist clinical skills, because we have failed to train staff domestically. My local hospital trust, which runs Calderdale Royal Hospital and Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, paid nearly £163,000 back to Government in the 2019-20 financial year alone. That money could have been better spent on services and improving health outcomes. We are aware of at least three trusts that have paid out over £1 million since 2017, with Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust paying £2.7 million since 2017. I urge the Minister to reflect on that, as it surely does not make any sense.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs has repeatedly pushed for the free visa extension to be applied to care workers and low-paid NHS staff in non-medical roles, which we fully support, and it has recommended British citizenship or permanent residency be granted to health and social care workers with short-term visas. We have an obligation to acknowledge the sacrifices that migrant workers have made during the pandemic, and removing the fees would be a great start. Research undertaken by the liberal conservative think-tank Bright Blue suggests that 60% of the public think it is important for immigrants living permanently in the UK to become citizens, and 75% think it would be cheaper for certain migrant groups to become citizens. We know there is a broad appetite among the general public to make citizenship more accessible, and fees are certainly one of the biggest barriers.
My constituents in Halifax know from personal experience that the measures introduced by the Government are falling drastically short. My office and I have been supporting a young woman who is a single parent and who works in social care, caring for adults with learning disabilities. She paid to extend her visa in September 2020 and had to pay over £1,000 for the immigration health surcharge. As a direct result of that payment, she is struggling financially, to the extent that we had to refer her to local food banks. We contacted the Home Office to seek clarification as to when she could expect a refund. However, I am afraid to say it has been utterly non-committal. We still have no information as to when she will receive that back. Given the pressures that my constituent has faced over the last year during this pandemic, it is deeply distressing to hear how our immigration fees threaten to leave her without even the most basic essentials. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) shared similarly powerful stories from her constituency, about how she feels that both the fees and the solicitor fees are pushing constituents into poverty and destitution.
The Doctors’ Association UK has pointed out:
“We entered this pandemic severely short-staffed, with over 10,000 vacancies for doctors, and 100,000 for nurses.”
An immigration policy that acknowledges that reality, and seeks to fix it with an accessible and affordable process that is fit for purpose, is now required from the Government.
Hon. Members will recognise from their casework that the examples I have mentioned are not uncommon, but I want to turn to the really worrying contrast reported in both The Guardian and the Financial Times recently, which relates to the investigation into the conduct of a Home Office official dating back to 2016. I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), about this issue, but sources have claimed, and the Home Office has confirmed, that a senior caseworker who works on nationality applications at the Home Office was investigated by the Department’s anti-corruption unit for allegedly being paid to offer external advice to one of the UK’s largest law firms, Mishcon de Reya. Allegations also include the release of unauthorised information regarding citizenship applications. The official was taken to dinner, and gifts, including champagne, were sent to him and at least one other colleague.
I have asked for that investigation to be published, but the Minister for Crime and Policing said this week that that would not be possible. In his answer to my written question, the Minister present today also confirmed to me this week that:
“Per the Civil Service Code, Civil Servants must not accept gifts or hospitality or receive other benefits from anyone which might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity.”
In its response to The Guardian newspaper, Mishcon de Reya said:
“There is nothing unusual or inappropriate about this common industry practice.”
Mishcon de Reya was aware that other law firms had similar professional relationships with the official in question. Given that we know gifts were sent to other Home Office officials, I would welcome some clear answers from the Minister. Do we know who else received gifts, and were these returned? How would he respond to the suggestion that such conduct is common industry practice? Those are questions that must be answered, and some transparency is absolutely essential.
Frankly, the news of this scandal comes as an insult to my constituents who cannot afford that level of access to officials via their lawyers, and who are struggling to make ends meet in paying the fees required. We need assurances from the Home Office that the UK immigration system is not one that works only for those who can afford to make it work for them. Over the last decade immigration and nationality application fees have risen beyond what is reasonable, often trapping people into paying fees that are beyond their means for years, just to have the security of staying where they are. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) made very clear the consequences for children, in particular, as they grow up in this country.
I know the Minister will recognise the deeply unfair contrast I have set out between those who can afford top lawyers and what would appear to be the enhanced access that comes with that, and those who cannot. We need a fairer system that recognises the contributions made by migrant workers, many of whom work in our local healthcare and who are a precious resource that we just cannot afford to be without.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I was just checking that that was an ending and not a break in the transmission. My apologies. I call the Minister, Kevin Foster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for securing this debate on immigration and nationality application fees. I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion today. I welcome any opportunity to hear the views of the House on this subject, even if we come from differing points of view.
It has been an interesting debate. I am in no doubt from the contributions made about the strength of feeling. While I will respond to the points raised today, before I do, it might be helpful to set out the current landscape for the fees we charge for visa, immigration and nationality services.
As was touched on by my SNP shadow, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), the Immigration Act 2014 was approved by Parliament under the coalition, during the time when the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was in the Cabinet. It sets out the governing factors that must be given regard to and are the only matters that can be taken into account when setting fee levels. These are: the costs of administering the service; benefits that are likely to accrue to the applicant on a successful outcome; the cost of operating other parts of the immigration system; the promotion of economic growth; fees charged by or on behalf of Governments of other countries for comparable functions; and any international agreement.
In setting fees, it is important to emphasise the Home Office cannot set or amend fees without obtaining the approval of Parliament. That ensures there are checks and balances in place and that there is full parliamentary oversight of the fees regime, in addition to debates such as that we are having today. Immigration and nationality fees are set within the limits specified by the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which includes the maximum fee levels that can be charged on each application type or service. That is laid in Parliament and is subject to affirmative resolution procedures.
Individual fee levels are calculated in line with managing public money principles and the powers provided by the Immigration Act 2014. Specific fees are set out in regulations, which are then presented to Parliament and are subject to the negative procedure. The powers agreed by Parliament in 2014 bring benefits to the broader immigration and citizenship system and to the UK in the form of effective and secure border and immigration functions, reduced funding from general taxation and promotion of economic growth.
I turn to the issue that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch started with—the simplification and the linked parts of the settlement requirements. As she may be aware, I have recently written to the Home Affairs Committee following a meeting with We Belong, which was a useful opportunity to explore with them their experiences of the current system.
Following the Law Commission report on simplification of the immigration rules in 2020, the Home Office is in the process of looking to simplify the immigration rules. As part of that, we are looking at reviewing the rules on settlement and when people qualify for it. We are examining how we could improve the path to settlement for this particular group of young people. Having met them, I recognise the concerns and the wider impact of being placed on what is effectively an 11-year path to citizenship, allowing 10 years to get to permanent settlement—indefinite leave to remain—and then a year free of immigration restrictions to apply for British citizenship, having received indefinite leave to remain. From what we are hearing, and from looking at the process, we believe that too many are ending up on the 10-year route and that is something we want to look at as part of a process of simplifying the rules and requirements.
We are also clear that there are areas where we should simplify the rules to ensure that there are fewer instances where a lawyer needs to be paid for support in the process, which is a cost that we know people face. I know there are some strong views across the House on this issue, and that has been shown today. I look forward to discussing them further when we look to bring forward our proposals.
It is not just in the settlement group specifically that we are looking to simplify the impact people face. Those who have been following the changes to the rules over the last year may have seen things such as the following. On the student route, if those reapplying have been supporting themselves financially without recourse to public funds for 12 months or more, we do not now ask them to prove it as part of their next application. They can do that, having done it visibly. We have changed the English language qualifications, ending a position that was rather bizarre. Someone who went to a state school and had achieved, say, an A grade at GCSE English language or even an A in A-Level English literature was then asked to pass a secure English language test. We are starting to reform some of our rules to look at the wider impacts.
A particularly interesting one, which I am quite keen on, is looking towards the reuse of biometrics and how we capture biometrics. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set out quite well exactly what a biometrics appointment can mean, and not just for those looking to make a reapplication for leave to remain here in the UK, but sometimes for those looking to get secure entry clearance. An example highlighted to me was of a couple of cultural performers who were Aboriginal Australians. Thankfully, they came within our generous visitor route provisions for the performance they were going to make. Had they been coming for slightly longer, the most expensive part of their visa application would have been the trip from the outback to their nearest visa application centre to give us their fingerprints and facial biometrics.
To reassure Members, we are looking to make a change. The first step is to look at increasing the amount of biometric reuse in our system. That means people can reapply using the fingerprints and facial images they gave in a previous application. The second part is looking at how we can remotely capture biometrics from those who are making applications for the first time. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland may wish to know that, for example, the vast majority of EEA nationals applying to our skilled worker route will be able to supply the biometrics using an app on their smartphone to check the chip on their passport without visiting a visa application centre.
As some may have picked up, last month we launched an enhancement to the settlement route for British nationals overseas and their households ordinarily resident in Hong Kong by allowing a fully digital application route. This is the first time we have done that for non-EEA nationals, and it allows many Hong Kong special administrative region and, we believe, virtually all British national overseas passport holders the ability to apply from home if they qualify for that route.
Mr Carmichael
I am enormously encouraged to hear what the Minister says, and it does sound like common sense. But it does all sound distant. In the meantime, can we not just get machines for enrolment and biometrics in Kirkwall and Lerwick?
Kevin Foster
It is not that far distant. We are already allowing people to reuse biometrics, and we are looking to lay some regulations fairly soon. In fact, we had a briefing the other day. I would be very happy to arrange a briefing for the right hon. Member on where we are taking this work. I would say that it builds on the EU settlement scheme, to which, as he will be aware, the vast majority have applied from the comfort of their own home, using a smartphone for about 15 to 20 minutes. We are building on that. It is already with us today and it will be being expanded. We are hoping, for example, all EEA nationals applying into economic migration and study routes will soon be doing so, if they need to, from home. Again, this builds on what we have done with the EU settlement scheme. It is happening.
I appreciate that there is inconvenience for those having to still use the existing system, but it is one that we are looking to quite rapidly roll out over the coming years, ahead of making all status digital by the end of 2024. This is something that, hopefully, the right hon. Member’s constituents will start seeing the benefit of, particularly because biometric readers do not present some of the challenges that he will appreciate come with capturing biometrics for the first time in a global context.
Let me move onto the issue of child citizenship, which I am conscious that a number of Members raised today. I am aware of the great strength of feeling on this issue across the House. As some Members referenced, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment that the Home Office had not demonstrated compliance with its duties under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 in setting the child registration fee—although, to be clear, the court did not strike down the regulations. We are currently carrying out a section 55 assessment to inform a review of the fee. While it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on or predict the outcome of that assessment, including whether the fee currently charged will change, we are taking prompt steps in the light of that judgment to complete the assessment.
It is important to emphasise that becoming a UK citizen is not a specific requirement to enable individuals to live, study and work in the UK and to benefit from many of the public services appropriate to a child or a young adult, most of which come with indefinite leave to remain.
The Home Office ensures that an application can be made for the fee to be waived for certain human rights-based claims for leave to remain, including where the fee is unaffordable or where an individual or family could be rendered destitute on paying the fee. That ensures that the appropriate status can be secured to access any public services required.
Meg Hillier
The Minister talked about prompt steps on the section 55 assessment, but what is his definition of “prompt” and when might we expect a result? Waivers are still very complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) highlighted, and the process needs a lot of legal support. Many people do not want to go through that regime for fear of failure and in case it jeopardises their wider applications. Is the Minister also looking at the whole approach to fee waivers?
Kevin Foster
I appreciate that, as a former Home Office Minister, the hon. Lady might think that “soon”, “nearly” and “shortly” can have different meanings—I can see you smiling as well, Mr McCabe. We are concerned about this, and the hon. Lady will appreciate that we need to make sure we do it correctly and properly, so we will not simply chuck out a timetable from the Dispatch Box today. However, as I say, we are progressing and looking to promptly respond to the court judgment.
It might be helpful if I come on to fees and exceptions, the process of which was raised by numerous hon. Members. To be clear, the Home Office has always provided for exceptions to the need to pay application fees for leave to remain in specific circumstances. The exceptions ensure that the Home Office’s immigration and nationality fees structure complies with our international obligations, such as in relation to refugees, and wider Government policy, such as the protection of spouses from domestic abuse and the protection of vulnerable children.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch asked whether we have looked at fee waivers in recent times, and we have. We recently broadened the fee waiver policy to ensure that considerations of affordability and prospect of destitution are taken into account when assessing applications. The overseas fee waiver policy is also being revised to include an assessment of the criterion of affordability for specified applications under the article 8/human rights route. The revised policy is expected to be in place from August this year. In the meantime, we will consider urgent applications for an overseas fee waiver, although I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate that with the strong limits on international travel at the moment, the number of people potentially travelling is much lower, for reasons beyond immigration.
In addition, we have also introduced a waiver that will allow for fees to be waived in exceptional circumstances, providing the Department with more flexibility in circumstances where a number of individuals have been significantly impacted by circumstances beyond their control, rather than having to assess each case individually for the fee waiver where there is a group that needs to be accommodated.
Various Members raised the immigration health surcharge. We were clear in our manifesto that it is right that all who may benefit from NHS healthcare have made a contribution to it in line with their immigration status. We recognise that although some who migrate to the UK will pay tax and national insurance contributions from arrival, they will not on average have made the same contribution to the NHS that most UK nationals and permanent residents have made or will make over their working lives. It is therefore fair to require them to make an up-front and proportionate contribution to the NHS, the cost of which compares quite favourably with the type of medical insurance or healthcare charges that those migrating to other countries may face.
The hon. Lady rightly said it is hard to make a direct comparison. For example, many countries, including in Europe, do not provide the comprehensive level of free-at-the-point-of-need healthcare that the national health service here in the UK provides, including to those who have what we deem as a temporary migration status.
We can make a quick comparison. For example, New Zealand requires international students to take out a form of health insurance. Ireland charges for visits to A&E where attendance is without a referral letter from a doctor—of course, there are no charges for urgent and emergency care here in the UK—or charges to see a family doctor and has some hospital charges. Non-EU international students in Ireland are not covered for free medical attention off campus and must have their own private health insurance. And that is to leave aside examples such as the United States of America, where, as all of us recognise, the cost of health insurance to obtain provision that is not even close to what the NHS provides is extreme.
Again, we believe that it is appropriate that this system is in place, although we of course have, with the introduction of the health and care visa and the refunds policy, looked to exempt those who work on the frontline of health and social care, in recognition that their contribution is made through working in such roles.
The Government remain committed to maintaining support for the vulnerable who come into contact with the immigration system and ensuring that they are treated fairly and humanely. By setting fees at the level at which we do and by putting the onus to pay on those who benefit from our services, we reduce the burden on the Exchequer and the wider taxpayers of this country. To be clear, the Home Office does not make a profit from application fees. Fees account for about 70% of the cost of operating the border, immigration and citizenship system, with funding still required from the taxpayer more widely to support the system. Decisions on how the system is funded are complex and require several factors to be carefully balanced to ensure that we can maintain an effective immigration system. In making those decisions, we must also, of course, be mindful of the lessons learned from the Windrush scandal.
Immigration fees have, in the main, remained static now for some time; the last increases were in April 2019. In addition, the Government have introduced comprehensive measures to support people and businesses, including wide-ranging financial support, throughout the global pandemic. Many were available to people working in the country, even with their migration status, given that they were not classed as public funds. For example, the furlough scheme could be used to support someone working on, for example, a skilled worker visa.
As we go forward, the Home Office is committed to playing its part as the world recovers from the devastation of the global coronavirus pandemic. As I touched on earlier, we have introduced the health and care visa. We have also introduced changes to the minimum income and adequate maintenance requirement for those applying to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life, so they are not disadvantaged if their income has been affected by the impact of the coronavirus. For example, with those on furlough, we consider them, for immigration assessment purposes, as if they were on 100% of their salary, even if they are receiving only 80% under the furlough scheme. In addition, we have introduced a new points-based system, which we believe is firmer, fairer and works in the interests of the UK, alongside the benefits that simplification of the rules can bring, as I outlined earlier.
We recognise that immigration fees will always be a subject for debate, but they play a vital role in ensuring that we have an effective border and immigration system. We are committed to keeping fees for visa, immigration and nationality services under review, including by taking account of the issues raised in this and previous debates on this matter.
Meg Hillier
I thank you, Mr McCabe, for chairing the debate today and all hon. Members who have highlighted how key workers, NHS staff and young people in this country are caught in a trap not of their own making. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who raised the issue of the fee waiver application cost and its complications, with people being pushed into debt; my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); and the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who highlighted issues in the context of Britain’s position in the world—global Britain—which is where the Government should be and where they say they are coming from.
The fees are too high and the process is overly complex, but I take some comfort from the tone of the Minister and the fact that he is engaging with those in We Belong, who are the best advocates, particularly for young people, about looking at simplification of the process, looking at how to deal with this, change the rules of settlement and try to do away with the need for the repeated involvement of lawyers, which we have not even discussed today, in terms of fees, because that adds a lot as well.
I will just say, though, that the Minister let the cat out of the bag, rather, when he talked about the rationale behind the fees being the benefits likely to accrue to the applicant. I would say we should also think about the benefit of the applicant to the UK, which has been ably highlighted by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). The Minister also talked about paying for the costs of other parts of the immigration system, so this does cross-subsidise, and I think we need to look very carefully at that principle.
However, I appreciate the Minister’s tone. He has a ginger group of MPs here who would welcome working with him to change policy and practice to ensure that we can welcome people who wish to contribute and to become full citizens and that it is affordable for them to do so and they are not saddled with the debt that the current system leaves upon them.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Government Support for NGOs and Churches in Developing Nations: Covid-19
(3 years 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
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. The 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 a debate 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 another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for non-governmental organisations and churches in developing nations during the covid-19 pandemic.
I sincerely thank you, Mr Efford, and the Chair and members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me the opportunity to raise this vital issue today. I have been asking for this debate for some time. It is one of the ones that I was very keen to bring through. Covid-19, of course, has exacerbated the issues for non-governmental organisations in particular. I will be giving a number of examples, and I know that others will too.
I have long been a supporter of the 0.7% of GDP international aid commitment, as I have witnessed the need in developing countries. Although I understand that our first priority is always the needs of our own communities—that is correct—I believe that we have a moral obligation that can be carried out in tandem. It should not be impossible to do both. The motivation for this debate is that I have been made aware of the dire circumstances that individuals find themselves in. Although we have been able to provide furlough for our workers at home, those in developing nations have no such help and lockdown has meant devastation. The figures that I will mention later show that up to 50% of those employed by NGOs, who are doing marvellous work, have either lost their jobs or may lose them.
Every church in my constituency of Strangford has been involved in missionary and charity work in countries across the world, whether it be through WaterAid or education or health projects—all paid for voluntarily. All Churches—Church of Ireland, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Reformed Presbyterian, Congregational, small assemblies and my own Baptist Church—are involved in aid projects and missions across the world in many continents.
In particular, I remember one gentleman from my church, John Robinson, who is no longer in this world—he died a few years ago—who was actively engaged in some of those projects. He was not a builder—indeed, he was a salesman and did other things—but he went out to those projects in central Africa, along with others who were perhaps not experts, as they had not done their apprenticeships and so on, but were able to help manually. Those who were experts—builders, carpenters, plasterers, electricians and plumbers—were able to do the work when it came to building schools and hospitals, and project work. That was incredibly important.
To start with, I want to mention two projects in Eswatini and Malawi, which are supported through a local church in Newtownards—the Ards Elim church. It has done some incredible work with education and health, but it is not just about that; it is also about jobs and farming. It is about helping people to be self-sufficient and able to provide for themselves, with food and clothing. There are many things that those church projects are able to do. I have heard from them of entire families going for days at a time without a mouthful of food. Mr Chairman, it would make your heart ache to hear that; my heart aches for them.
In normal circumstances, churches will rally the troops—so to speak—and organise fêtes, cinema nights or meals to raise funds; I have personally attended such events. However, all of that activity is out of the question now due to the covid-19 pandemic.
I will mention one group that does incredible work, which is Samaritan’s Purse UK. I am not sure whether any other Members are aware of it—I hope that they are—but it makes a shoebox appeal every year. It did so before lockdown and it has done so during lockdown. During lockdown in particular, they have been able to provide computers and other IT equipment for vulnerable and poor families both at home and across the world. There are many such groups in my constituency and I know that there are many others in other hon. Members’ constituencies that have also done incredible work. We appreciate that work very much; they are really making things happen and we thank them for it.
As has become abundantly clear in our country during this pandemic, churches are bodies of people, not simply structures of stone, concrete, brick, wood and plaster, and as such, they have continued to persevere in the face of covid-19, continuing to serve the communities in which they are based, not only at home but overseas, through the NGOs and the work that they do.
To give one example among many, Challenge Ministries is responsible for feeding 400 orphans in Swaziland. I mentioned earlier the work that is done in education and health. However, it also feeds 400 orphaned children in Swaziland who nobody else has looked out for. Although its normal fundraising practices have stopped, it still has to provide for those children, who are reliant on Challenge Ministries, which also supports a women’s refuge centre. So Challenge Ministries has organised an online concert tomorrow—Friday 26 March—at 6.30 pm, and the links to it are on my Facebook page. It has had to raise funds in a different way, doing all it can to remind people that there is still great need and that every £5 or £10 will make a difference. It is thinking outside the box, staying within covid rules but using the wonders of technology to bring together local people, who are performing, and the people who we have pledged to support.
When I think of Challenge Ministries, in particular I think of all those orphans. As we know, Swaziland has been ravaged by HIV and AIDS. Many of the young people there, as well as many of the adults there, have AIDS and many people have died; indeed, that is why lots of those 400 children were orphaned. Every year—at least every year pre-covid—Challenge Ministries sent a choir to my constituency to raise funds, and to introduce its mission and the work that it does. I well recall the contributions of those children at different events that I attended; it really did my heart good to hear what Challenge Ministries was doing and what it was committed to. I believe that we must look at the programmes of help for adults and children, including those children who came to Northern Ireland as a children’s choir, so that we can then tell people about what happens to them afterwards.
When I see local people doing what they can to be safe but still helping other people who are dying of starvation, my concern is this: are we in this place—the House of Commons, including the Government and indeed the Minister who is here today—doing the same? I believe that we should all be doing the same. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place and I look forward to hearing what he has to say in response to the debate. I look upon him not just as a Minister but as an hon. Friend.
The fact is that NGOs with commitments are struggling and we in this place—especially the Government and the Minister—have the ability to step in and step up. I admire Oxfam, Trócaire, Compassion and so many other organisations for staying the course, but they simply cannot do enough; they cannot fill the gap that has developed with religious resources. That is why the charities and the NGOs are under pressure, and why the Churches back home, which are already giving heavily, find themselves under intense pressure as well.
In developing countries, local churches have provided a lifeline to families in need—both those who were already living in poverty and those newly thrust into poverty by sickness or unemployment, or because of any number of opportunities that have been lost to this pandemic.
To give just one example, I recently met representatives of Compassion, a Christian international development charity that is a wonderful body that does incredible work. Compassion’s operating model is to partner with churches based in poor communities in the global south. In practice, that is 7,912 churches across 25 developing countries. That is almost 8,000 churches with all the congregations and friends. During the pandemic, Compassion has supported churches in delivering 10,614,700 food parcels and 7,128,700 hygiene kits to those most in need. Wow—that is some figure.
That support has been directed and delivered by church staff and volunteers who know their communities because they are an active part of them. They know local people by name, understand local issues and can speak to highly specific needs. The NGOs cover some highly specific and important needs, such as education, health projects and the provision of jobs, food and clothing.
At a time when the world has been ravaged by a pandemic, vulnerable communities have continued to receive support from the storm-proof structure of the local and global Church. We are reminded of the call on Christians to be His body—I say this as a Christian who reads his Bible—to give, to serve, to sacrifice, to show love as Christ, as outlined in Matthew 25:35-40: “I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me water, naked and you clothed me, in as much as you have done to the least of one of these you have done to me.” It is in times like this that the call has never been so clear, to be His hands and feet. The Church, made up of everyday individuals who are struggling in their own way, in their own lives, in this pandemic, are juggling things around being faithful and giving, and that has to be acknowledged and commended. I thank all the churches everywhere, which give so much of their time and moneys. I know that Christians tithe their money across all the Church structures in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
As the Government prepare their proposals for international development policy moving forward, I very much look forward to seeing them. I hope they will give due consideration to supporting NGOs who work with churches. I have asked that on a number of occasions, and I ask again. If we see a group of churches and people and individuals working hard and doing good work, that is motivated by a wish to help others. They do so by partnering with existing church networks that stand alongside communities to deliver aid, empowering local people to determine the shape and direction of that support for themselves. How can the Government best help those churches who are supporting NGOs across many continents?
The UK has been committed to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development assistance. Due to the economic impact of covid-19 on GNI, the UK’s 0.7% contribution to ODA was already reduced by £2.9 billion. It is now expected to drop to 0.5% of GNI. The double crisis of a drastic drop in income and severe Government cuts means that charities working internationally face significant challenges in funding their programmes and keeping their organisations afloat. It would be a tragedy for these NGOs to not be able to continue the excellent work that they do on a voluntary basis.
There is a real need for this support. Some 39% of those who receive Government grants said that their funding has been seriously or very seriously affected by the 2020 cuts. Similarly, 42% of those who received Government contracts had their funding seriously or very seriously impacted. NGOs are worried that the cuts will impact those most in need. It is clear to me what the impact will be on those groups—those thousands of people. Just as an example, Challenge Ministries in Newtownards in my constituency is involved with 400 orphans. If we do not or cannot help them, or reach out and run a project that will take them on board, we have a real issue.
Despite the cuts in funding for UK NGOs, organisations have seen increased need for their services—their programmes of healthcare, water, sanitation, food and humanitarian relief. A few years ago I obtained a Westminster Hall debate on WaterAid, because I recognised at that time that the Government were doing some fantastic work with it. Some of the churches, such as Challenge Ministries, do incredible work with WaterAid too, in providing water—which is something we take for granted in the Province where I come from, where it is there most days of the week. Many people across the world do not have that. Sixty-three per cent. of organisations expect demand for their services to increase in 2021-22. NGOs must do more with less, while worrying about their own sustainability and the staff they employ, and their ability to support the communities they work in. So NGO money is down, but the demand for their work has increased.
I have four requests, which I believe are well thought out, and I would appreciate the Minister’s response to them. The international charity Bond has made four calls that I fully support. They give us another option for somewhere to focus our attention, or the direction in which the FCDO could go. First, there should be focus on support for vulnerable populations, areas and countries that may have the least capacity to access support. New funds should be allocated on a “no regrets” basis, and the FCDO should ensure that new funding does not divert aid away from other necessary work, such as conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
My second request is to ensure the transparency of covid-19 funding. The UK Government need to be transparent in their covid-19 funding that goes through multilaterals and FCDO country offices, so that civil society organisations working with communities have quick and easy access to sufficient levels of funding.
Thirdly, we should set up an access fund for small NGOs. Smaller ones do incredible work. I believe that there is a possibility to do something in that way, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Small NGOs provide niche development expertise but are struggling to find funding for their much-needed work. Voluntary work, after all, provides incredible opportunities for the future. Will the Minister seriously consider a fund for small NGOs, which do great work, so that they can continue to support their local partners and the communities that they operate in? That small investment can bring great dividends. Fourthly, funding that reaches the most marginalised should be prioritised.
I will offer one more thought about those four requests. I visited Pakistan in September 2018, with Lord Alton, the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), Amro Hussain, Javaid Rehman and Morris Johns. I saw at first hand some of the issues that people must deal with. From the imposition of lockdown on 21 March onwards, many private entities and NGOs started distributing rations and sanitation items among the needy. However, reports of religious discrimination by some organisations emerged on social media.
I have mentioned Bond, the group that put forward the four thoughts I outlined, and the UK charities working on the frontline delivering lifesaving care to people in the UK and the poorest parts of the world—but current programmes are being eroded because of income being reduced. It is worrying for the future, and the most worrying thing is that even worse cuts may happen in 2021 and 2022.
To refer back to Pakistan, a report by a local YouTube news channel in Karachi, JD News, went viral on social media when the representatives of Saylani Welfare, a well-reputed welfare organisation, were reported to be refusing to distribute rations among minorities. So we are very concerned about those things. To back that up, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said that this is
“a human crisis that is fast becoming a human rights crisis.”
Covid-19 has aggravated the existing disparities. There is a need for radical reform and response.
Refugees and the disabled are especially affected. One video that I am aware of involved a Hindu who was refused food simply because they were a Hindu. In the second video, three Christian ladies were refused rations and food because they were Christians, but were told that if they converted to Islam they would get the food. How much does that hurt someone? As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have spoken up on many occasions for all ethnic and religious groups across the whole world. To be told that they cannot get food unless they are a certain religion and that they have to convert to Islam is wrong. It is totally outrageous and not acceptable.
Covid-19 has exacerbated this for the lower levels of society. Christians, Hindus and other ethnic groups are already disadvantaged in health and education, but are now disadvantaged because of covid-19. I will use some strong terminology, but there is a religious-blind policy in some of UK Aid. Those are strong words to use, but that is patently obvious on the ground when we see what is happening. I am not aware of any steps that have been taken by UK Aid to safeguard religious minorities and I believe that that must change. I ask the Minister for his direct involvement to prevent the abomination of people not getting food simply because they are Christians or Hindus.
Further examples are street sweepers and those involved in sanitation work, who are usually Christians or Hindus, having to work without personal protective equipment, which is putting real pressure on persecuted Christians, Hindus and other ethnic groups. Again, I believe there must be action to introduce laws against institutional discrimination on the basis of religious belief, and the positive inclusion of religious minorities as beneficiaries and part of the reforming system.
The all-party parliamentary group for Pakistani minorities, of which I am chairman, took notice and wrote to Ministers and to the Charities Trust, as it is based in the UK, to protest. The Charities Trust replied to say that its policies would be reviewed. If the Minister has any knowledge or information about that I would be keen to hear his thoughts. It said it would ensure that it would not happen again, but proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is in the actions. We will see if it happens again. I look to the Minister for his support.
We need to engage to ensure that funding is allocated fairly, reasonably and equally. I ask that consideration is given to the introduction of measures to eliminate the chances of institutional discrimination on the basis of religion or belief within a system. We have to ensure positive inclusion of religious minorities among the beneficiaries, and make inclusion of religious minorities and other marginalised and vulnerable groups a central part of the delivery system. That is why this debate is so vital. Many people across the world are affected. The projects are in Africa, the middle east, Asia, India, Pakistan, and they are in South America—there are projects everywhere.
As I come to the end of my contribution, I want to refer to Iraq, where 1 million Christians have left their homeland since 2003. This is probably the highest proportion of one Christian group having to leave the country that they were born in and brought up in. The Nineveh plain is mentioned in our own Holy Bible and is next to Mosul, which I had the opportunity to visit with Aid to the Church in Need some years ago. That was before Mosul fell to and was then freed of terrorism and Daesh. I saw at first hand the persecution of Christians and the disparities in the way they were treated.
In this area, Christians have been blamed for covid-19. I mention this to bring the issue up to date. It is so untrue and so dishonest that they have been blamed, because they have been affected the very same as other religious groups. Covid-19 does not and did not start with them. We know that, but sometimes others take advantage of the circumstances. Iraq claims to be a pluralistic society, but it has failed miserably to protect and give equal treatment to other minorities already suffering from the Daesh abuses of the past. We also think of the Yazidis in Iraq, who have faced abysmal treatment—violence, murders and abuse. It has been absolutely horrendous.
Access to medical care is already inadequate. Their only source of covid-19 assistance has been through the NGOs and church groups. They have had no Government supplies, showing very obvious, direct discrimination, I wholly believe, against Christians and other ethnic and small minority groups. Many of the qualified medical staff were Christians. Many of them fled to Jordan, Egypt and surrounding countries because of what was happening in Iraq. So there is now a substantial loss and dearth of qualified doctors and nurses in Iraq. Many wish to return but feel that they cannot while danger still exists on the ground.
The role for the Government in Iraq and, I believe, for our Government has to be to work together to deliver security. The needs are great and we cannot meet them alone. But, Minister, look at the tremendous work of the NGOs and the churches and the thousands of their congregations that deliver across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Look at the gifts, the moneys that are set aside and the practical work and developments, be it in education, health, farming, food or clothing. All those things are done by the NGOs and churches, many of them on a voluntary basis. The value per pound is greater for those projects.
I ask the Minister, can we take their lead and do good to all men, to all women, and especially to all children? Can we get aid out now to those who are starving? This is not about education alone or long-term change. It is just about helping people, Minister. It is about making sure that we can reach out and help those who we see are in trouble— those who have problems, families that are under health pressures and even the pressure to put food in their stomachs. I believe that we can play a greater part and that our Government—my Government, my Minister—and the FCDO and, indeed, hon. Members across all political parties in the Chamber have the wish to help those who need help. I believe that society is marked and measured by its help for those who are less well off. Today I am asking for that commitment from the Minister and from my Government for all those people in all those continents—in Asia, in India, in Pakistan, in the middle east, in Africa and in South America. I believe that we have a moral duty to help them as much as we can.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution and for securing the debate, and wish him a very happy birthday. We have known for a long time that the interests of minority religious communities and those seeking to shine a light on human rights abuses around the world have no greater champion in the House than him. He proved that again today, and we thank him for it.
As the hon. Member said in his opening remarks, the covid-19 pandemic is a global economic and health crisis. The virus does not respect international borders, and while one country is at risk all countries are at risk. I add my thanks to all the UK charities, NGOs, faith groups and Churches that have been working on the frontline day in and day out, delivering life-saving care to people living in some of the poorest parts of the world.
The people who have been working throughout the pandemic, supplying aid and assistance to developing countries and countries ravaged by war, or in areas devastated by drought or flood, deserve our most sincere and heartfelt thanks. As so often during the pandemic, it is they who have become the trusted voice in those communities, raising awareness of public health preventative measures, tackling vaccine disinformation and encouraging people to take up the vaccine where it has been available.
As well as being able to deliver effective humanitarian aid and meaningful long-term assistance, they are so often the institutions that people turn to for social and spiritual support. For what they are doing in the most trying and difficult circumstances they deserve our deepest gratitude and support. They do not deserve to have the rug pulled from under them when they are trying to deliver that help to people living in crisis. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened.
In the middle of a global pandemic, at a time when many of the poorest people on the planet are more vulnerable to hunger and disease than ever before, the UK Government—the Government of one of the richest countries in the world—have decided arbitrarily to reduce the help that they give to those poor communities. Not only is the decision to cut foreign aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP a betrayal of those people and of our NGOs and the charity sector, it must also be the final abandonment of what little was left of the UK’s reputation for moral leadership in the world.
What makes that betrayal utterly grotesque is the fact that, having announced that they were taking the money away from those poor communities, the same Government announced that they were preparing to spend billions of pounds to increase their stockpile of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, and that of the Scottish National party and, I believe, of most decent people, to do such a thing is utterly abhorrent and deeply immoral.
Earlier this week, the United Nations published figures showing that around 34 million people are struggling with what it calls “emergency levels” of acute hunger. That means they are just one step away from starvation. At the same time, the UK’s NGOs and charities reported that demands for their services have increased, particularly around healthcare, water and sanitation, food supplies and humanitarian relief. Against that backdrop, whereas every other G7 member responded to the covid pandemic by increasing international aid, the UK alone in that group chose to cut its aid budget for this year.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate and to hearing him explain how the UK thought it appropriate, justifiable or morally acceptable to take money away from starving people and starving children, and from preventing the spread of coronavirus, and instead divert funds into the purchase of even more nuclear weapons. Let us be in no doubt that right now the UK charity sector and our NGOs are in severe financial crisis. Many are at risk of closure because public fundraising has been substantially reduced. The NGO and charity sectors are currently being squeezed from all sides. They are bearing the brunt of Government aid cuts and at the same time having their income from their traditional tried and tested sources of fundraising decimated. High street charity shops, town centre collections and fundraising fetes have all but disappeared because of the pandemic, yet, as the hon. Member for Strangford says, rarely have they been in greater demand.
Bond, the UK network for organisations working in development and humanitarian aid, found that nearly three quarters of the organisations they represent are experiencing financial difficulty. Their income stream has been badly hit, with 81% saying that their public fundraising has been seriously or very seriously affected. The double crisis of a drop in income and a severe cut from Government grant means that these charities face significant challenges in funding their programmes and keeping their organisations afloat. Against that background, the Government cut funding, and almost two thirds of NGOs expect the demand on their services to increase in the next 12 months.
As I have said, this is almost a perfect storm of cuts in aid amid a global pandemic. Those working on the ground are having to do much more, but with much less. I pay tribute, as the hon. Member for Strangford did, to the small church groups and charities that work so hard. He gave a couple of wonderful examples of churches in his constituency that work in Malawi and Swaziland to try to alleviate the worst effects.
My own Argyll and Bute constituency is home to the marvellous and wonderful Mary’s Meals, which uses schools to provide hot meals to 1.5 million of the world’s poorest children every day. It has had to find new ways to feed those children as the pandemic has closed schools and the home has now become the primary place of learning. Thankfully, by working with Governments, community leaders and on-the-ground partners, Mary’s Meals has developed new ways of distribution, and will continue to do so until it is safe, but it is more expensive and more time consuming and will require more money, not less.
Of course, Mary’s Meals is not alone. The financial effect of the pandemic can be felt throughout. In January, I was privileged to join the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on a virtual tour to see the great work being done by Compassion UK in Togo. Compassion UK is a Christian charity dedicated to empowering every child that it can who has been left vulnerable through poverty. It works in 24 developing countries and is living proof of what can be done with just a little money to give life-changing support to mothers and babies in countries where infant mortality and death from pregnancy complications are, sadly, very high. The pandemic is having a major effect on its work and a significant impact on its clients, who are frightened to go to hospital, are worried about going to anti-natal clinics, and are not attending vaccination appointments for their babies.
Thankfully, Compassion UK has been able to use the years of trust that it has built up in local communities to find networks of support for these mothers and their babies, and provide vital masks and sanitation equipment so that they can protect themselves and their families. I spoke to Compassion UK this morning, and the charity has asked me to extend an invitation to the Minister to join it on a virtual tour to Togo, to see for himself the remarkable, life-changing work that it can do with the tiny amount of UK aid money allocated to it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford will agree that the Minister will be hugely impressed with what he sees, should he choose to accept that invitation.
Mr Efford, those in the sector say that falling income has made it more difficult and more expensive to deliver aid. Yesterday, I spoke to the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which has been delivering humanitarian aid for decades in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the middle east. They have been assisting the Malawian Government in their national response to the covid pandemic, and are supporting 11,000 slum dwellers and migrants in India with food and sanitation kits.
Every charity has a different story to tell, but they are absolutely united in their unequivocal condemnation of this Government’s decision to reduce overseas aid. They are as one in saying that the Government must keep their commitment to the most marginalised communities and revert to the 0.7% target—a commitment that was made in their election manifesto.
Overseas aid has never been more vital, particularly as the impact of covid is in danger of setting back international development for a decade. I would therefore ask the Minister how the UK Government can cut aid to the most vulnerable people in the world at this time, in a year in which they will chair the G7 and take over the presidency of the COP. How can they claim to be a world leader but, at the time of greatest need, deliberately cut off the supply of aid to the poorest and most vulnerable?
I know that the Minister will say that the UK Government are still one of the biggest contributors to humanitarian aid, and he is right, but that is exactly how it should be. As one of the richest countries in the world—and, let us face it, one that became fabulously wealthy at the expense of countries in Africa, Asia and the middle east, who are now in desperate poverty—we have a moral responsibility to look after those people now, in the moment of their greatest need. The reversal of this 0.7% decision must be the first step in doing that.
This pandemic should have been an opportunity for the UK Government to show genuine leadership. Instead, they have used the pandemic to turn their back on the most vulnerable people in the world. In so doing, not only are this Government reneging on a legally binding spending commitment, but they are also breaking one of their manifesto commitments and their promises. Pulling the rug out from under outstanding NGOs, faith groups and Churches, who battle every day against impossible odds to deliver aid to those who need it most, is unforgivable.
I will finish by reminding the Minister of the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, that, when it comes to this pandemic, and the world in which we now live,
“none of us is safe until all of us are safe”.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Efford.
I will begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I wish him a very happy birthday too. He was one of the very first Members to welcome me to this House, and our common Christian faith and commitment to humanitarianism, human rights, and international development mean that we have often found ourselves in the same debates over the years, raising very similar concerns.
He knows that the House has a huge affection for him, and I am always delighted to hear him speak on these crucial issues. Indeed, I endorse many of the points he has made today, not least around the 0.7% commitment and our moral duties as a country. He is absolutely right to have illustrated the crucial role that NGOs, and particularly faith-based NGOs and Churches, play in both international development and humanitarianism, not least in response to this current pandemic.
I thank the SNP spokesperson and commend the critical work of agencies based in the devolved nations as well, such as the Wales for Africa programme, many of the Scottish organisations mentioned today, and those in Northern Ireland to which the hon. Member for Strangford referred. They all play a critical part in this country’s response to the challenges that the world faces and reflect very powerfully on our moral intent as a country —one that is sadly being undermined by the current Government, which I will return to in due course.
Having worked myself for a Christian NGO, World Vision, I have seen first-hand the work that World Vision and other faith-based organisations do in many crises. I often reflect on its work with the HIV/AIDS pandemic that I witnessed in places such as Malawi, which has close links with Scotland and Wales—I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS—and on its work responding to disasters and catastrophes, such as the Boxing day tsunami in 2004. I saw how World Vision worked not only with its own partner organisations and its staff around the world but with other faith-based organisations, including those of the Islamic faith in many of the countries affected, to respond to the devastation that left a quarter of a million people dead.
The very morals and values on which basis such generous and selfless acts are done by both these organisations and their donors are inspired by the same beliefs that drive many people in their faith and, indeed, many Christians. As it says in the ancient prophets—the hon. Member for Strangford quoted the Gospels, but I will quote Isaiah 1:17:
“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
Or we could look at Micah 6:8:
“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
It is no surprise that Church and faith-based organisations have come to play a critical role in empowering the most marginalised and healing the wounds left by war, natural disasters or, indeed, this pandemic.
I think about the work of the Somaliland Muslim community in my own constituency helping to rebuild their country and to encourage its development since the conflicts of the early 1990s; I serve as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Somaliland. I also think about the remarkable generosity of our Sikh, Hindu and Jewish communities, and of their related organisations. Faith, belief and moral duty are incredible motivators and they enable people to do incredible things in some of the most trying circumstances around the world.
Let us reflect on what challenges we face with the covid crisis. Scotland’s International Development Alliance pointed out:
“It has been said that this disease “does not discriminate”—but that’s not true. If you are already a marginalised or vulnerable group, this pandemic will affect you more.”
That is very true. Beyond the immediate death toll and the devastating impact it has had in this country and in so many others, the pandemic has highlighted how those who are often marginalised, other minorities, front-line workers and those on marginal incomes who are already struggling to make ends meet have been disproportionately affected by covid-19 and its indirect impacts.
The crisis has highlighted the gaps in gender equality and made them worse. It has worsened economic inequalities, affected education, and diverted resources from other healthcare and disease challenges. It has allowed repressive regimes to threaten human rights further. It has created the space for extremism to flourish from Mozambique to the Sahel. It has destabilised fragile states and Governments and in some cases, it has tragically taken the lives of both political and faith leaders as well. The impact on those marginal groups, as I said, has been horrendous.
Let us look at health. Even before covid-19, more than half of the world’s population still did not have access to all essential health services and unfortunately that has gotten worse. I have spoken to many people from Sierra Leone to Malawi and from many other contexts over recent months. Until the pandemic hit in 2019, we had actually witnessed a steady decline in maternal and child death rates around the world, including a huge boost in funding for childhood immunisation, which increased by 41% since 2010 according to the UN.
Those accomplishments now risk being in vain as the World Health Organisation has reported that 70% of surveyed countries have seen a decrease in the number of routine immunisations, and major shortfalls in emergency units and facilities. Again, listening to Scottish organisations the other week about the situation facing some of Malawi’s hospitals was absolutely shocking.
Aaron Oxley, executive director of RESULTS UK, has stated that at least 80 million children under the age of one are at risk of missing out on routine vaccines for diseases like measles, polio and diphtheria. He stated that the impacts of covid-19 on TB might add 1.4 million deaths, and that 50 million children in Pakistan and Afghanistan may now not receive a polio vaccine in an area where polio is a real threat. STOPAIDS, with which I work closely, has stated that 11.5 million people have had inconsistent access to the crucial antiretroviral drugs for HIV over the pandemic period, and 75% of the UN’s “Global Fund” HIV/AIDS programme has reported moderate to high levels of disruption to service delivery.
We have seen huge economic impacts: there has been an impact on global growth, and Oxfam has dubbed it a twin crisis of health and economy. Millions more will be pushed into extreme poverty and will lack access to public services. The UN estimates that in in 2020, 1 billion people in low to middle-income countries spent 10% of their entire household budget on healthcare.
Tragically, we can expect huge increases in unemploy-ment. The World Health Organisation has suggested that nearly 1.65 billion could lose their job or money-making activity, increasing the number of people on the most marginal incomes. The UN estimated that 71 million people would fall back into poverty in 2020. Those are extraordinary figures of which the Government are only too well aware.
Despite all those challenges, however, global foreign aid is set to decline for the first time in many years, and tragically, the UK is one of the countries leading those cuts. It is not morally right, makes little economic sense, and stores up future costs for us through the impact on global growth, tackling poverty and inequality, and of course, future instability. The UN estimated that 132 million more people could fall victim to chronic food insecurity in 2020. I was struck by the answer a Minister gave me the other day, pointing out that people are already in famine in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere, and that millions more are at risk. They know that, yet they are cutting aid and support for the programmes at the very time that people are in famine.
Look at the situation in Yemen. The International Rescue Committee has shown that the cost of a food basket has gone up by 35% in the last year in a country that we know has been devastated by war and humanitarian disaster. Human rights have been threatened in so many places around the world. Hunger has forced parents to send children to work or beg. Women and girls have had to resort to selling their bodies for sex simply to eat. World Vision says that 8 million children have been forced into child labour or begging. An estimated 31 million cases of gender-based violence were predicted in 2020 because of covid-19.
Those are shocking statistics for this House to hear as we make crucial decisions about our future aid spending and development policies. Lastly, UNICEF suggests that 9.7 million students could drop out of school because of the effects of covid-19, despite all the fantastic progress—for which there has been cross-party support in this House for many years—made through initiatives such as “Education for All”.
I will return to some of the positive examples of how faith-based organisations and Churches are helping, as exemplified by some of the many examples that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. There are far too many organisations to list, but I will name a few. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is estimated that 84% of the world’s population identifies with a religious group, so faith and religious institutions are crucial in shaping people’s behaviour, in identifying at-risk groups, and in supporting people with services in communities. Many communities rely on religious communities to access knowledge and advice—for example, on issues related to health—because they see those institutions as trustworthy. We have seen where that has gone wrong in the past, but we have also seen where those institutions have played an absolutely critical role in the pandemic by providing advice.
The Catholic Church and its charitable organisations, such as CAFOD and SCIAF, have done work on education, sustainability, disaster relief, peacebuilding, good governance building, fighting misinformation, and working with indigenous people, using the trusted voice of the Church, which people see as a source of advice and support in these critical times. They have been working in some of the most volatile and fragile countries, such as Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. CAFOD has helped to provide food parcels to 30,000 people in rural Guatemala who face food shortages because of the pandemic.
As cases of coronavirus increased in Ethiopia—a country that will later be debated in the main Chamber in the light of the terrible humanitarian situation in Tigray—Catholic hospitals and health centres used their reach to provide hygiene materials and raise awareness among rural populations of how to protect themselves against covid, and have made cash transfers to some of the most at-risk populations in Tigray, who have suffered gravely and now face potential famine. CAFOD Ethiopia was able to raise funds and repurpose existing programmes to reach 1.4 million people through early-stage interventions.
We must not forget that some of these organisations have decades of experience, links and community partnerships, which will be at risk if they are unable to access the funding and support that they need. They will not only cut their programmes in the short term, but we will lose that expertise, those connections and the impact that they can have—often in prevention, in advance of future crises.
The Society of Daughters of Mary Immaculate—an organisation linked to the Catholic Church—did work in South Sudan around covid-19, providing advice on the radio and delivering hygiene projects. I mentioned World Vision, which I used to work for. It works in 100 countries and is now the largest Christian non-governmental organisation in the world. It has put huge effort into fighting covid-19, and has pledged $350 million towards emergency response for 72 million people. Seventy countries have benefited from its support and work on food security and livelihoods, or its work with children and on strengthening health systems and preventive measures. In particular, it is renowned for its work with vulnerable children.
Christian Aid has been working in conflict-affected areas in the Sudan with those who face sexually-based gender violence. As I said, many of those challenges have increased during the pandemic, so that is crucial work. Will those projects be under threat because of the cuts that are coming?
The hon. Member for Strangford referred to the fact that 39% of international charities that receive funding from the Government said that cuts have already affected them seriously or very seriously, and 42% have received very serious or serious hits to their funding. It is quite extraordinary, given the growing threats in regions such as the Sahel, that we heard in the media the other week that the Government will reduce overseas development aid in the Sahel region by 90%. That is extraordinary, given that the region has been hit by covid-19, desertification, climate change, potential famine, and the multiple conflicts that affect people in that region. At the same time, we have British troops stationed in the Sahel, working alongside the French and the United Nations, trying to build stability. It is perverse to be cutting support for our development and humanitarian response while we are responding to the consequences of some of that. Our brave troops are putting themselves on the line to protect civilians, and are working alongside the United Nations and others. The Government seem to be doing two completely contradictory things—one with one hand and one with the other.
As I mentioned, the Government are proposing to cut aid to Yemen from £164 million last year to £87 million this year. They are also proposing to cut aid to Syria, Nigeria and other countries facing conflict and instability, which have been worsened by covid, including Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan and other places. It is an absolutely absurd decision to be making at this time.
The situation in Ethiopia could not be starker. Millions are facing famine, and huge areas are without humanitarian access. There were significant reports of horrendous sexual violence in the media over the weekend. This is exactly the wrong time for us to be cutting back and retreating from some of these crises, which have been exacerbated by covid.
I want to end with some questions to the Minister. He knows that the covid-19 pandemic has had a staggering impact well beyond health, so why cut at this time? Why are the Government going to do that? We have heard about the potential impact on Voluntary Service Overseas —one of our national treasures, which enjoys cross-party support. It ensures human-to-human contact and does work in communities around the world. It is under threat, like the other organisations that we have heard about.
There are deeply disturbing reports today from William Worley on the Devex website that the FCDO is allegedly gagging NGOs from speaking out, even as their budgets are slashed. There are some quite extraordinary reports. They are anonymous, because many of these organisations are frightened to speak out. One NGO executive said:
“FCDO said we should not engage with the press as it could affect fund allocations!...But obviously the more outrageous and sinister the more senior it was, and the more organised and deliberate.”
Another executive from one of the NGOs said that FCDO officials were not being communicative, and
“we haven’t been able to get much out of people because”
the FCDO
“are closing down all communications with everyone because of the cuts.”
Report after report after report is coming out about the way the Department is handling things. The very least it could do is be transparent and open and engage with some of these organisations, which are on the frontline and are responding to the covid pandemic and these threats with the moral purpose that I think is at the heart of being British, and for which we have had cross-party support for decades, particularly when tragedies such as covid and other diseases have hit.
Will the Minister commit to publishing urgently the scale of cuts to NGOs and, specifically, faith-based organisations? What role does he see for them in responding to the primary and secondary impact of the crisis? How can it be justified to make these cuts when his Department is also admitting that famine is occurring in some of these countries, not just that they are at risk?
The Minister is a good person and I know he will have to toe his FCDO line, but he knows that this measure is not supported on his own side. He knows the cross-party concern that there is. He knows the many members of his own party who have spoken out powerfully in recent weeks. Former Ministers and people from all different political persuasions within his party, some of whom I disagree with on many issues, have spoken passionately and powerfully on this one. It is breaking our promises to do our fair share. It breaches the cross-party consensus in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.
The Government need to rethink. We are heading into that crucial G7 summit, where health is key on the agenda. We have the COP summit coming up, where climate change and its impact are so crucial. We are handing over the chair of the Commonwealth to a Commonwealth member we enjoy a close partnership with, Rwanda, later this year. This is an extraordinary backdrop to be heading into those crucial international moments, when the threats are so large, when the impact from covid-19 is so great, when other threats to people around the world are so intense and when we would be letting down those very Churches, faith-based organisations and NGOs that have been at the heart of a moral, humanitarian, human rights-based British response over so many decades. I urge the Government to think again.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship here this afternoon, Mr Efford. The Minister for Civil Society would love to have replied to this debate, but she is travelling on FCDO business, so I am afraid hon. Members will have to put up with me in her place. I will do my best to fill her considerable boots.
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. It is always a pleasure to listen to him speak and to hear his wisdom on these matters. He speaks with great authority. May I also add my birthday congratulations? It is a real shame that he is not here today, because I brought a card for him. I will pop it in the internal post for my hon. Friend—indeed, my friend.
I commend his ongoing work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on freedom of religion or belief. It continues to raise the profile of this human right to parliamentarians and, importantly, to the public. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the Opposition spokesman, brings with him a depth of knowledge, having worked in the sector. We are incredibly grateful for the commitment to the causes and the ongoing work that he does.
The integrated review, which was published last week, sets out our renewed commitment to the UK as a force for good in the world. It is our goal to defend open societies, democracy and human rights. For open societies to develop and thrive, they need an inclusive civic space and a vibrant civil society, and for that reason, NGOs and faith-based groups are essential partners. These partnerships can open a dialogue with and provide support for the world’s most marginalised people. This is particularly true, as we have heard this afternoon from hon. Members, during the pandemic. As covid-19 continues to affect communities around the world, we continue to take a leading role in this response.
We have committed up to £1.3 billion of ODA to counter the seismic impact of the pandemic. Nearly £70 million is going directly to international and UK-based charities to support vulnerable communities to recover and to rebuild. There is a great deal of work going on, but, as we have heard in the informed speeches this afternoon, the challenges of the pandemic run deep.
As hon. Members have said, we have had to take an incredibly tough but temporary decision to reduce our spending on overseas development. In real terms, as hon. Members will know, we will still be spending more than £10 billion to fight poverty and climate change. That money is to help improve global health and achieve the UN sustainable development goals. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth wants more detail about potential reductions in funding in this regard. At this time, I cannot confirm such details, but hopefully clarity will be given in the coming weeks. So we understand the challenges for the sector and the need for clarity—that is absolutely clear—and although this is a complex process, the Government commit to sharing details, as I have said, as soon as is practically possible.
Together with NGOs, faith-based groups and religious leaders, we are continuing to deliver for those most in need, in order to keep essential services going at this time. Through our partnership with Unilever—the Hygiene & Behaviour Change Coalition—the UK Government are providing up to £50 million to mount a rapid response to covid-19 in 37 low and middle-income countries. Through this programme, charities including World Vision, which the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth once worked for, WaterAid and ActionAid are delivering evidence-based hygiene messages to vulnerable communities. This type of support plays a vital role in stopping the spread of the disease in the developing world and will also potentially limit its further spread in the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford asked about the humanitarian response to covid-19. Through our rapid response facility, we have allocated £80 million to support UK and international humanitarian charities, including Christian Aid, to meet the basic needs of some of the world’s most vulnerable people. That includes those suffering from multiple crises in Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia.
Last summer, the British public generously donated more than £10 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for covid-19, and the UK Government have provided match funding to double that amount. The appeal is funding the work of the British Red Cross and CARE International UK, among others. These charities are tackling the impacts of the pandemic on displaced people, including those in the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. They are providing frontline doctors with equipment and supplies to care for the sick, and giving families clean water and soap to stay healthy.
We are committed to delivering our aid according to internationally recognised humanitarian principles. Those principles ensure that aid gets to those who are most vulnerable and most urgently in need of help, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity. This issue was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford, and this group includes minority religious communities, who are assessed by our partners when they are determining those most in need of protection and assistance. And as the hon. Member also mentioned in his excellent speech, churches and other faith groups are providing essential services around the world during the pandemic.
We know that faith-based networks can reach the most remote communities and involve the world’s poorest people in their social, economic and political life. They can reach people who are largely untouched by secular institutions, such as persecuted religious minorities, which is vital, because these groups may experience crises such as covid-19 outbreaks differently from others. Such crises may reinforce their marginalisation, multiply their experience of discrimination, violence and stigma, and further limit their access to essential support and services. We are currently funding more than 200 projects that are managed by 126 different faith-based groups, organisations and churches. Our support totals £130 million annually and spans 39 countries.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth rightly mentioned many of the great projects around the globe, many of them in conflict areas. The majority of our partners are small in-country groups deeply rooted in local communities, such as the Christian Association of Nigeria and the Jamaica Baptist Union. In many countries, the indirect health, humanitarian and economic impacts of the pandemic are being felt very keenly, as they exacerbate pre-existing problems. They are reversing years of development gains in areas such as poverty reduction, gender equality, girls’ education and sexual and reproductive health and rights. With our support, faith-based groups are working to counter that trend.
The hon. Member for Strangford asked that funding be prioritised to reach the most marginalised, and he is correct. The UK is committed to delivering aid according to its internationally-recognised humanitarian principles. Those principles ensure that aid gets to those who are the most vulnerable and most urgently in need, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity. They provide health and education, empower people to hold their Governments to account and strengthen resilience to disaster and conflict. Through our support to Christian Aid, we are enhancing nutrition for women of childbearing age and under-fives in South Sudan, our funding to CAFOD is building community resilience to climate shocks in Eritrea, Zambia and Zimbabwe and we have supported Tearfund to provide secure livelihoods for women in the Central African Republic.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth referred to transparency. We have a world-renowned reputation on transparency. We are committed to aid transparency both legally and publicly, and we are committed to the publication of quality, accessible information on our aid programmes, which is available on the Development Tracker, along with the continued independent scrutiny of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact.
The pandemic has undoubtedly brought out the best in many communities around the world. Nevertheless, there has also been a concerning increase in hate speech and a rise in conspiracy theories, which the hon. Member for Strangford referred to, such as that certain faiths are to blame. I take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s steadfast commitment to championing freedom of religion or belief for all, and to promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. The UK’s recently appointed special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), will continue to advance that important agenda.
My ministerial colleague, Lord Ahmad, also regularly meets civil society and faith-based development organisations to hear about the challenges minority faith communities face, particularly during the pandemic. The UK Government are deeply concerned by the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world, and we will continue to refute those divisive and harmful claims.
We will also continue to put our money where our mouth is on hate speech. The FCDO is funding an Institute of Development Studies project that works with minority religious groups in Africa and Asia, doing vital work in challenging narratives and countering hate speech relating to minorities and the spread of covid-19. We are also working with the University of Oxford and parliamentarians in nine countries to reduce the use of language during elections that intimidates minority religious groups.
I think I heard the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) extending an invitation to me to visit Togo to see the great work that is being done there. I would love to take that up but, unfortunately, I am the Minister for Asia, not the Minister responsible for this particular brief. I will ensure that my colleague hears about it, and I am sure she will be very keen to see the great work that is going on in that regard.
The effects of the pandemic have been far-reaching and will continue to have an impact on our lives for some time. The UK will remain at the forefront of the international response as we recover and rebuild in the wake of covid-19. We will be a force for good in those places most in need and for the most vulnerable communities. Our effectiveness will rely on the expertise of our partners, the NGOs whose brilliant work has been described so well this afternoon and the faith-based organisations. Only with trusted people embedded in those communities most in need can we provide relief, promote recovery and build back the open societies that shape security and prosperity for us all.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I call Jim Shannon to wind up the debate and to wish him a happy birthday.
Jim Shannon [V]
Thank you so much, Mr Efford. I thank all Members for their contributions, particularly the Minister, and for their birthday greetings. As I said beforehand to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and others, I have got to the stage where I do not count birthdays any more, but I appreciate their thoughts.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute referred to hunger, disease, famine, droughts and floods. Pile that upon vulnerable people with covid-19, and we almost have, as he said, a perfect storm. What can we do? He clearly outlined that we need funding for all the NGOs and groups. We have some ideas about that, and I thank him for his contribution.
I thank the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who used the words “What does the Lord require of you?” from Micah. I thought that that was lovely. It is good to remember that. He was also right that, if we do not have the resources for the polio vaccines, unfortunately we probably face the potential for lethal diseases in the future. He referred to HIV/AIDS, and he chairs the APPG so well, and we thank him for it. If people fall back into poverty, they become susceptible to all sorts of diseases. He referred to food being more costly, in some parts by 35%. UNICEF referred to the effect on students. All those things combined lead potentially to the perfect storm that was referred to.
I also thank the Minister for his response. He clearly acknowledged the good work of the NGOs and faith groups, and referred to them as essential partners. That is good to know. All three of us who spoke would probably seek a wee bit more detail on the funding. That will become clear over the next few months, but we need to see where that will be. I am also very interested in the Unilever project. Perhaps he could come back to me in writing, and confirm how some of the NGOs and Church groups can work with Unilever to help some of their projects. I think that something can be done for Church groups, faith groups and the NGOs, so I thank him for that.
The Minister also gave a commitment to continue to champion, which to be fair the Government have, freedom of religious belief for all beliefs and respect for all, while addressing hate crime and hate speech. Those are all good things. We need a wee bit more detail on future funding, but I recognise his comments that NGOs and faith groups can be a force for good in the world. They very clearly can.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I will finish with a biblical quotation: we have been called to be His hands and His feet—to clothe, to feed, to visit and to help. I say to our Government and our Minister that this House will do exactly that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for non-governmental organisations and churches in developing nations during the covid-19 pandemic.
Written Statements
Civil Service Delegated Pay Remit Guidance
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
Today we publish this year’s civil service pay remit guidance. This document provides a framework for setting pay for civil servants throughout the civil service, including Departments, non-ministerial departments and agencies, as well as for public sector workers in non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and other arm’s-length bodies for the 2021-22 pay remit year.
Public sector pay context
In November 2020, the Chancellor announced at the spending review that the public sector workforces, excluding the NHS, would be subject to a pay pause for the 2021-22 pay year. The exception to this policy are organisations in legally binding pay deals, including those in multi-year deals.
This pay pause is necessary in order to help protect public sector jobs and protect investment in public services as well as ensuring fairness between the private and public sectors in this time of crisis. Performance pay, overtime, pay progression where it is in place, and pay rises from promotion will continue. Departments may continue to utilise existing allowances.
To protect the lower paid staff earning below the national median, those on full-time equivalent base pay of under £24,000 pa, excluding overtime and allowances, will receive a consolidated increase of £250. For those who will be receiving an increase to the new national living wage rate of £8.91 an hour, which from April 2021 will be extended to individuals aged 23 years and over, they will receive the national living wage increase or £250, whichever is greater.
Civil servants benefit from a competitive employment offer including access to one of the best pension schemes available and flexible working arrangements in managing work and family life.
In addition to this our ambition is for the civil service to be the most inclusive employer in the country, offering opportunities and a chance to progress in challenging roles delivering vital public services across the country.
Strategy for civil service modernisation
The covid-19 pandemic has posed a huge challenge to the civil service over the last year and to civil servants at all levels both through the work required in response, but also through the significant changes to working practices individuals have faced, as well as the impact on their personal lives. The significant task of tackling the pandemic, as well as EU exit transition, has placed an immediate pressure on resources. The civil service has been increasing its capacity and capability to meet this challenge, bringing on its own talent, investing in specialist skills and sourcing external support where necessary. Frequently this has meant the necessary redeployment of staff across and within Departments, as well as the creation of and recruitment to new posts within Departments at both junior and senior grades.
We intend to learn from the experience of both EU exit transition and the covid-19 pandemic, modernising government to respond to the big challenges facing the country and deliver our ambitious agenda. We will ensure that our people are closer to citizens and have the skills and experience to meet the needs of those we serve. We will put innovation at the core of how we work and seize the power of digital systems and data to improve our services. We will ensure the whole of government works together with a common purpose to deliver outcomes for citizens rigorously and efficiently, improving the delivery of our major projects.
The Government have committed to level up across the UK, including relocating roles to the regions and nations of the UK. The places for growth programme within Cabinet Office is driving the necessary planning within Departments and public bodies, with a commitment to relocating a minimum of 22,000 civil service roles over the next decade, with the majority of these in the regions and nations of the UK.
By 2030, large numbers of civil service roles and public bodies will be moved out of London and south-east England, moving whole organisations, and business units and functions of larger bodies and Departments, with a view to reducing our central London footprint but also to:
Strengthen the Union;
Support levelling up of the regions and nations;
Ensure that the civil service and administration of government is better connected with communities across the UK;
Tackle the recruitment and retention challenges of a London-centric civil service;
Reduce costs overall, especially estate and people costs.
A more regionally dispersed workforce has significant benefits for the UK civil service. Places for growth is working closely with Departments on their plans to relocate a number of civil service roles to the regions and nations, providing opportunities for civil servants to progress and build sustainable career paths.
[HCWS890]
Infected Blood: Victim Support
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
Today I am providing an update on parity of financial support, the commitment to considering a compensation framework, and enhancements to the psychological support for the victims of the infected blood tragedy.
Parity
In July 2019, a UK-wide agreement was reached in principle to resolve disparities in levels of support for people infected and affected. In January 2020 at a meeting with campaigners, the UK Government committed to resolving the disparities in financial support in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland as well as addressing broader issues of disparity, including support for bereaved partners.
I am pleased to confirm that the following changes are planned to the four separate schemes to bring them into broader parity. Increases in annual payments will be backdated to April 2019. Where lump sum payments are being increased, this will apply to all current scheme members. We will work with the four schemes to communicate the changes to beneficiaries. Beneficiaries will continue to receive their current payments until the changes can be made. We hope that the schemes will be able to make additional payments where required by the end of the calendar year, and sooner if possible.
The key elements of change for the England infected blood support scheme are:
annual payments for bereaved partners will be increased to an automatic 100% of their partners annual payment in year 1, and 75% in year 2 and subsequent years, in line with the position in Scotland;
the lump sum bereavement payment will move from a discretionary £10,000 to an automatic £10,000, in line with the position in Wales;
the lump sum payment paid to a beneficiary in the scheme with hepatitis C stage 1 will increase by £30,000 from £20,000 to £50,000, in line with the position in Scotland; and
the lump sum payment paid to a beneficiary in the scheme with HIV will increase from up to £80.5k maximum in England, to an automatic £80.5k.
In addition, the schemes managed by the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be similarly adapted so that across the UK there is broad parity of payments to infected and affected people. These adaptations are in line with the UK-wide agreement reached in July 2019.
In Scotland, the changes are to increase annual payments for infected beneficiaries and bereaved partners, and to introduce £10,000 lump sum bereavement payments for the families of those beneficiaries who have died since the scheme began.
In Wales, the changes are to increase annual payments for infected beneficiaries, increase both the payments and length of payments for the bereaved partners, in line with the position in Scotland, and changes to the lump sums for hepatitis C and HIV.
In Northern Ireland, the changes are to annual payments for non-infected bereaved spouses/partners, lump sum bereavement payments, and a commitment to introduce enhanced financial support for hepatitis C (stage 1), at the same payment levels as in England, as soon as a system can be put into operation.
We have agreed with Health Ministers that any future changes to national schemes would be subject to consultation between the UK Government and devolved Administrations.
Compensation framework
To meet the Government’s commitment to consider a framework for compensation, we can confirm our intention to appoint an independent reviewer to carry out a study, looking at options for a framework for compensation, and to report back to the Paymaster General with recommendations, before the inquiry reports.
The terms of reference of this study will be finalised in consultation between the independent reviewer and those infected and affected. The study will include consideration of the scope and levels of such compensation, and the relationship between a compensation framework and the existing financial support schemes in place.
The study is entirely separate from the public inquiry, which continues to have this Government’s full support; it will not duplicate the work of the inquiry, or cut across the inquiry’s findings. The study shall provide the Paymaster General with advice on potential compensation framework design and solutions which can be ready to implement upon the conclusion of the inquiry, should the inquiry’s findings and recommendations require it.
The name of the independent reviewer will be announced shortly.
Psychological support
Since May 2020, there have been important improvements to how beneficiaries of the England infected blood support scheme can access psychological support. Beneficiaries are now able to receive funding for counselling directly from the scheme without GP approval or the need to access waiting lists. This change has been communicated to beneficiaries.
The Department of Health and Social Care will continue to work with EIBSS and NHS England and Improvement to review if further improvements are necessary to the psychological support which is available for beneficiaries.
Finally I would like to place on record my thanks to the inquiry chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, and his team for the way the inquiry has managed to continue its work throughout the last 12 months despite the challenges presented by covid-19, and for consistently putting the interests of the infected and affected victims at the heart of their decision-making when dealing with significant logistical and planning challenges.
[HCWS895]
Local Government Elections and Referendums: Covid-19 Indemnity
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
On 5 February, the Government confirmed that the council, mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections scheduled for 6 May 2021 will be going ahead as planned, and published a delivery plan outlining how these polls will be delivered in a covid-secure way. Since then, the Government have put in place a number of measures to support statutorily independent returning officers to deliver these elections successfully and with the right precautions in place. I have also today updated Parliament separately on the wider progress being made to support delivery of the local polls on 6 May 2021.
The Government have already, in line with usual practice, provided an indemnity in relation to police and crime commissioner elections. The delivery plan also included a commitment to provide a further indemnity for local elections and referendums1, in respect of covid-19 risks, in order to address any gaps in coverage of existing local authority insurance.
It is necessary to indemnify returning officers and counting officers in England against uninsured claims in this way because, for the purposes of local elections and referendums, returning officers and counting officers are statutorily independent officers and are separate from both central and local government. As such, they are personally liable for the conduct of the local elections and referendums. Existing insurance that covers returning officers and counting officers in discharging their statutory duties at local elections will not, in most cases, cover them against claims in relation to covid-19.
In light of this, I have today laid a minute setting out the Cabinet Office’s intention to indemnify returning officers and counting officers on this very limited basis at local elections and referendums in England taking place between 6 May 2021 and 4 May 2022 inclusively. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle.
The purpose of the indemnity is to ensure that returning officers are financially supported if any covid-19 related claims are brought against them in relation to the local polls. Whilst the indemnity provides for reimbursement of costs incurred once a claim has been concluded, we want to support returning officers wherever possible to deal effectively with claims brought against them. We will look at any such claims on their merits and seek to provide returning officers with any relevant support we are able to give them to effectively and robustly defend such claims. It is right that returning officers can be held to account for the conduct of the polls but it is also right that we support these individuals financially in that process.
The indemnity covers (but is not limited to) a returning officer’s or counting officer’s liabilities to the public, as an employer, or otherwise incurred in his or her professional capacity:
in relation to any claim for personal injury or death where the cause of action relates to the contracting of covid-19 due to participation in the election or referendum process in the context of the returning officer’s or counting officer’s exercise of their functions, or
as a result of a challenge to the conduct of the election or referendum by an election or referendum petition arising from alleged poll irregularities caused by the covid-19 pandemic.
The indemnity only covers losses, liability, damages, costs, claims, proceedings or expenses incurred in relation to the conduct of the local government election or referendum arising from covid-19 related issues. There is no limit on the number of claims which a returning officer may make under this indemnity.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
1 This refers to council tax referendums, neighbourhood planning referendums and governance referendums held in England under the relevant legislation.
[HCWS899]
Prosperity Fund: Change of Ministerial Accountability
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The cross-Government prosperity fund arrangement will end on 31 March and prosperity programming will move to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) as part of a machinery of Government transfer. The transfer will help drive strategic coherence across overseas development assistance (ODA) programmes. This will allow the Foreign Secretary to make decisions on aid to implement the UK Government’s integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy.
The machinery of Government change will take effect on 1 April 2021.
[HCWS889]
Local Elections: May 2021
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am updating Parliament today on the progress being made to support delivery of the local polls on 6 May 2021 and to outline our expectations for the respective verification and count process. I have also today separately laid before Parliament the indemnity the Government are providing to returning officers and counting officers, in relation to covid-19, for the local elections and referendums in England taking place between 6 May 2021 and 4 May 2022 inclusively.
Safe and secure elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. On 5 February, the Government published a delivery plan outlining how these polls will be delivered in a covid-secure way. The Government have been working closely with Public Health England, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), political parties and independents to support the delivery of these polls.
On 26 February, the Government published guidance on covid-secure campaigning for the May polls, supporting a level playing field for candidates and ensuring that voters can make a well-informed choice while continuing to protect the NHS and save lives.
Parliament has made changes to the nomination process to reduce the amount of movement and person-to-person contact that might otherwise be necessary, but ensuring there remains a democratic check and balance for candidates.
Legislation has also been made to change the rules for proxy voting, enabling those who need to self-isolate close to polling day to request an emergency proxy vote at very short notice, right up to 5pm on polling day itself.
Building on these changes to legislation and guidance, the Government are also continuing to provide practical support to returning officers where appropriate, including the sourcing of over 2,000 additional volunteer staff for the polls to date.
This work supports the significant preparations already being undertaken by local authorities and is backed up by Government funding. The Government are directly providing around £95 million for the running of the polls, which includes an additional allocation of around £32 million to specifically cover additional covid-19 related costs.
As outlined in my written statement of 9 March 2021, the Government are also committed to tackling intimidation in public life. Further to this, we are today publishing security guidance for returning officers and candidates to support the May 2021 polls.
Of course, polling day is not the end of the electoral process and I am aware that many returning officers are considering carefully how they can conduct the verification and count, which are often large and complex events, in a covid-secure way. It is vital for free and fair elections that polls are transparent and effectively scrutinised. However, minimising the transmission of covid-19 and protecting public health is a priority during these elections. A strong set of measures will therefore be in place to ensure every aspect of the polls are covid-secure for voters, staff and observers.
It is the responsibility of returning officers to manage the conduct of the count and to ensure that appropriate reasonable measures are taken to comply with covid-19 regulations and to allow fair scrutiny of the count. Returning officers will want to put in place arrangements to allow the effective scrutiny of their counts while ensuring the count is covid-secure for everyone present. To support returning officers with this, the Government have been working with the Electoral Commission to update their guidance on the verification and count process in the context of the pandemic, in line with prevailing covid-19 restrictions. I have also written today to election administrators to provide guidance on there being no public health need to quarantine ballot papers or postal votes.
The announcement of results will, as usual, be made as soon as is practicable after the close of the polls. However, it is important to be clear that counts, like other aspects of these polls, may look and feel different to previous occasions. Due to covid-secure measures, each stage of the count may take longer than in previous years. It is essential that all involved recognise the need to work together to support them taking place effectively and safely.
Democracy should not be cancelled because of covid-19, and the Government have every confidence in the ability of the returning officers and their teams to run these polls in a way that meets the highest standards of both public safety and democratic integrity. The Government are committed to supporting the sector to achieve this. I would like once again to express gratitude for the tireless efforts and exceptional dedication of all those involved.
The associated documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS900]
Myanmar
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The UK condemns the coup in Myanmar and reiterates our deep concern at the violent crackdown on peaceful protestors. We call on the military to hand back power to the democratically elected Government; protect rights and freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest; and to ensure unobstructed humanitarian access.
The UK has been at the forefront of a strong, co-ordinated international response. On 10 March we secured a presidential statement at the UN Security Council that condemned the violence against peaceful protestors and called for respect of Myanmar’s democratic transition and the release of all those detained arbitrarily. This followed further UK-led statements by the UN Security Council on 4 February and G7 Foreign Ministers on 3 February and 23 February.
Working closely with partners in the US, Canada and EU, the UK has already sanctioned nine individuals responsible for serious human rights violations during the coup, including three military cabinet members and all the military members of the State Administration Council. This is in addition to 16 individuals already sanctioned for their role in serious human rights violations against the Rohingya and other minorities.
Today, I am announcing, further measures to target the Myanmar military’s economic interests in conjunction with the US.
The UK will enforce sanctions against Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd (MEHL), the military owned conglomerate supporting the Tatmadaw. We have found credible evidence that MEHL contributed funds to support the Tatmadaw in their campaign on ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya in 2017, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that the funds would or may contribute to the serious human rights violations committed, and that MEHL is associated with the commander-in-chief and deputy commander-in-chief.
Designating MEHL will immediately impose an asset freeze on any assets that MEHL may hold in the UK and a ban on any UK individual or company from providing funds or economic resources to MEHL directly or indirectly. This will also prohibit funds being made available to any subsidiaries “owned or controlled” by MEHL as defined by the global human rights sanctions regime.
These sanctions complement the ongoing strategic review of the UK’s trade and investment approach led by the Department for International Trade. The Government’s position is that UK businesses should not be supporting the military or their businesses.
Along with the UN Security Council and the wider international community, we will continue to make clear that the military must stop killing its own people, release all those who have been detained arbitrarily and respect the democratic wishes of the people of Myanmar.
[HCWS898]
EU Emissions Trading System: Sale of Allowances
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
In April 2019, the Government entered into a commercial agreement with British Steel Ltd in relation to their annual obligations under the EU emissions trading system (ETS). This agreement was needed to support the operator in complying with its 2018 EU ETS obligations, in the absence of receiving its expected 2019 free allowances, due to restrictions placed on the UK’s participation in the EU ETS during negotiations on the withdrawal agreement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) informed the House of this agreement on 1 May 2019—a bridge facility valued at around £120 million under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 at an interest rate of LIBOR plus 7%. Under this commercial agreement, the Government were entitled to recover the next allocation of allowances issued to British Steel Ltd, and sell these back to the ETS market to recover the full cost of the bridge facility.
Following ratification of the withdrawal agreement, restrictions on the UK’s participation in the EU ETS market were lifted in February 2020 and the Government successfully recovered the allowances to which they were entitled. The Government have since successfully sold these allowances back to the EU ETS market, and concluded the contractual obligations with British Steel (in compulsory liquidation), under control of the official receiver.
I am pleased to inform the House that sale proceeds of nearly £140 million have been received. This exceeds the total cost owed to the Government from this bridge facility, delivering value for money for the UK taxpayer.
The Government have also sold a separate 3,191 allowances in their possession. These allowances were transferred to the UK national Government holding account within the EU ETS union registry, over several years, following the closure of several operator and trader accounts, in line with EU ETS registry regulations. The net sale proceeds from this transaction is around £80,000. This transaction is not related to the agreement with British Steel Ltd, and the sale of 3,191 allowances was undertaken separately for administrative reasons to provide value for money to UK taxpayers.
[HCWS887]
Recovery Loan Scheme: Departmental Contingent Liability Notification
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the details of the recovery loan scheme (RLS) announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 March 2021.
RLS will be facilitated by the Government-owned British Business Bank and delivered through its delivery partners. Lenders will offer facilities of up to £10 million to support businesses that are affected by the coronavirus outbreak. There will be no limit on the number and aggregate value of loans that can be made under the scheme.
The scheme is based on the British Business Bank’s existing coronavirus business interruption loan scheme (CBILS) but is open to all businesses regardless of turnover.
The key parameters of the scheme are as follows:
The percentage of the remaining balance of each loan that is guaranteed by the Government is 80%.
The maximum facility size will be £10 million per business, and the minimum facility size will be £25,001 for loans and overdrafts and £1,000 for asset and invoice finance.
Businesses will be required to meet the costs of interest payments and any fees from the outset.
Businesses who have made use of the current coronavirus loan schemes will be able to access the new scheme.
The lender must establish that the borrower has a viable business proposition assessed according to its normal commercial lending criteria. This may, but is not required to, be determined without regard to any concerns over the borrower’s short-to-medium term business performance due to the uncertainty and impact of coronavirus.
The scheme launches on 6 April and is open until 31 December, subject to review. The Government will be subject to an equivalent contingent liability as for CBILS. The maximum contingent liability for assumed initial lending of £12 billion (our central estimate) is £9.6 billion.
I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.
[HCWS903]
Law Commission’s Review of the Land Registration Act 2002: Government Response
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Climate Change and Corporate Responsibility (Lord Callanan) has today made the following statement:
I am grateful to the Law Commission for its review of the Land Registration Act 2002 which it published on 24 July 2018. The Government have today published their full response to the review recommendations.
HM Land Registry is committed to becoming the world’s leading land registry for speed, simplicity and an open approach to data. The land registration regime provides essential trust and confidence to the property and lending markets. It does so by providing efficient access to secure and accurate information needed to transact land and use it as security for borrowing. The regime is underpinned by a state-backed guarantee of title. It is important the regime is examined, from time to time, to ensure that it is working effectively.
The Law Commission made 53 recommendations, most of which are quite technical in nature and narrowly focused. That should give us confidence that the land registration system is generally working well.
The full response sets out the Government’s conclusions in respect of each of the recommendations.
Once again, I thank the Law Commission for the diligence that has gone into its work examining the land registration regime, and for the clarity of its conclusions expressed in its report.
[HCWS888]
Early Years Healthy Development Review and The Best Start for Life: A Vision for the 1,001 Critical
(3 years 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)
In summer 2020 the Prime Minister commissioned the early years healthy development review. Chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), the review looks across the “1,001 critical days” from conception to the age of two, ensuring babies and young children in England can be given the best start in life.
The focus on these 1,001 critical days from pregnancy to the age of two is important. They are a unique period of time, when the foundations for an individual’s cognitive, emotional and physical development are developed and set. It is also a period of time when babies are at their most vulnerable and susceptible to, and influenced by, the environment around them.
It is for these reasons, and many more, that I am pleased to share the first publication from the early years healthy development review entitled: “The Best Start for Life: A Vision for the 1,001 Critical Days”.
This comes at a timely moment for our nation as we reflect on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and begin to turn our focus on building back better. As we do this, we must place our youngest citizens at the centre of our ambition.
Our vision sets out an ambitious programme of work to transform how we support families across England throughout these 1,001 critical days. It sets out six action areas to ensure that families have access to the services they need, when they need them. We want to enable the parts of the system to work even better together to provide this support.
Action area 1: Seamless support for families. Our vision is for seamless support for families, with local areas encouraged to publish a start for life offer. The offer should explain clearly to parents and carers what services they are entitled to and how they can access them.
Action area 2: A welcoming hub for the family. All families need a welcoming space to access services. Our vision is that family hubs are a place for families to access start for life services.
Action area 3: The information families need when they need it. All families need to have access to trustworthy information at the times they most need it. This includes digital, virtual and telephone services designed around the needs of the family.
Action area 4: An empowered start for life workforce. Our vision is that every family will be supported by a range of professionals and volunteers, each of whom brings skills, knowledge and empathy to interactions with families. From their first appointment, every parent and carer must feel that they are heard and that they can ask for help.
Action area 5: Continually improving the start for life offer. We want every parent and carer to have confidence that the services and support in their area will help them give their baby the best start for life. A brilliant start for life offer will continuously improve with better data, evaluation, and proportionate inspection.
Action area 6: Leadership for change. Leadership is critical to the success of the vision. There must be local and national commitment and accountability.
This is just the beginning of our work, and the early years healthy development review will continue with a second phase where we will focus on the implementation and delivery of these six action areas.
[HCWS896]
Temporary Indemnity for Designated Care Home Settings: Contingent Liability
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
Further to the written statement made on 18 January 2021 by the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the undertaking of a contingent liability. This relates to an extension of the designated settings indemnity support (DSIS), which offers targeted and time-limited state-backed indemnity arrangements to care homes registered, or intending to register, as “designated settings”, and which are unable to obtain sufficient insurance cover.
On 18 January 2021, the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment announced in a written ministerial statement, and accompanying departmental minute, provision of these temporary indemnity arrangements under the DSIS. The DSIS includes cover for clinical negligence, employer’s and public liability where a care provider seeking to become a designated setting is unable to secure sufficient commercial insurance, or where an existing provider has been operating without sufficient cover. Employer’s and public liability is covered under the new coronavirus temporary indemnity scheme; clinical negligence is covered by the clinical negligence scheme for trusts. The DSIS is supervised by DHSC and administered by NHS Resolution, and, to date, has proved to be an effective package of support to designated settings.
DSIS initially provided cover for designated settings until the end of March 2021. Following a review of DSIS, it will now be extended until 30 June 2021, in order to maintain the current level of support for these vital settings. This extension will benefit current DSIS participants, as well as any additional settings who may wish to apply for the support and who meet the criteria for inclusion. A review of DSIS will take place in early June.
I regret that in this circumstance, due to the need to ensure that there are no gaps in DSIS cover after the current 31 March end-date, the normal 14 sitting days for consideration has not been possible. A departmental minute will be laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS894]
NHS England and NHS Improvement: Mandate for 2021-22
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
The Prime Minister paid tribute to the extraordinary success of the UK’s covid-19 vaccination programme when setting out on 22 February 2021 his road map for easing lockdown restrictions in England. This vaccination programme would not be possible without the dedication and commitment of many thousands of NHS staff who have already worked tirelessly for many months to support the covid response while doing their utmost to reduce the impact on wider NHS services.
I am today laying before Parliament the Government’s 2021-22 mandate for NHS England and NHS Improvement. It will make clear that covid-19—including further roll-out of the vaccination programme to ensure that every adult in England will be offered a first vaccination by 31 July—remains the NHS’s top priority in 2021-22. At the same time, and taking account of the pandemic’s impact, the NHS will return to implementation of the important transformative ambitions set out in its long-term plan and our 2019 manifesto. These will underpin recovery, and support the NHS’s longer-term resilience and sustainability. There will be a renewed focus on prevention to empower people to live as healthily as possible, and on tackling those health challenges which have been highlighted by the pandemic. The NHS will also work to recover performance of non-covid services that were unavoidably impacted by the pandemic—including elective care.
The new mandate is underpinned by our further funding commitments to the NHS. In addition to the substantial support made available for the pandemic response in 2020-21, and the further £6.3 billion increase in NHS funding already confirmed as part of its funding settlement to 2023-24, we are providing a further £3 billion in 2021-22 to support NHS recovery. This includes £1.5 billion for indirect covid pressures in 2021-22 as well as £1 billion for tackling backlogs in elective activity, and £500 million for mental health and the NHS workforce, for which operational delivery will be agreed in due course. This is in addition to the £6.6 billion announced last week for operationally necessary costs arising from the pandemic in the first half of 2021-22.
As in previous years, I will also today lay a revised 2020-21 mandate. As required by the NHS Act 2006, this revision is to reflect changes to the capital and revenue resource limits included in it that result from in-year funding decisions.
[HCWS893]
Covid-19: Construction Industry and Retail Sector
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As England moves towards step two of the covid-19 response road map out of lockdown, which will take place no earlier than 12 April, the Government want to ensure that planning measures are in place to support businesses to operate safely and drive the economic recovery.
First, the Government recognise that the construction industry will need to continue to operate in a safe and productive way. Temporary extensions to working hours were introduced over the last year on some sites to facilitate safer working and allow tasks to be completed where social distancing can be challenging. These changes have also helped to protect and support jobs in the construction industry and reduced pressures on public transport at peak hours throughout the pandemic.
This written ministerial statement confirms that the approach set out in my previous statement to the House of 13 May 2020, about construction working hours due to covid-19, will remain in place until 30 September 2021. This continued flexibility is necessary due to the continued impact of covid-19 and to support the construction industry to recover and operate safely as we emerge from the pandemic. This date will be kept under review.
Secondly, the Government would like local planning authorities to continue to take a positive and flexible approach to planning enforcement action to support economic recovery and support social distancing while it remains in place. The national planning policy framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.
In particular, to ensure a safe and successful reopening of the non-essential retail sector from step two of the road map, the Government want to see retailers given the opportunity to extend their daily opening hours from Monday to Saturday, notwithstanding local planning restrictions on opening hours, where appropriate. This will help to spread footfall, ease transport pressures and make shopping in a socially distanced way easier by giving shoppers greater flexibility to choose when they shop and avoid peak times.
Accordingly local planning authorities, having regard to their legal obligations, should not seek to undertake planning enforcement action which would result in the unnecessary restriction of retail hours between 7 am to 10 pm Monday to Saturday, from step two of the road map (no earlier than 12 April) until the introduction of step four of the road map (scheduled for no earlier than 21 June 2021).
Where appropriate, local planning authorities should also highlight this temporary relaxation to retailers in their area so that they can take advantage of longer opening hours if they wish to do so.
The Government recognise that longer retail opening hours could have a temporary impact on local residents, but this needs to be balanced by the significant public interest in ensuring there is a safe retail environment when non-essential shops reopen. The 10 pm limitation should also mitigate the impact for local residents. There will be no change in licensing restrictions on retailers.
Finally, I am through this written ministerial statement extending the statement that I made to the House on 13 March 2020 about planning enforcement and the delivery of food and other essential goods to retailers until the introduction of step four of the roadmap (scheduled for no earlier than 21 June 2021). This will help supermarkets and other retailers to continue to continue to provide home deliveries while restrictions are still in place.
[HCWS902]
Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
In March 2017 the Government committed to the Oxfordshire housing and growth deal (the deal), to support ambitious plans to deliver 100,000 homes by 2031. The deal committed to an Oxfordshire-wide joint statutory spatial plan to be adopted by 2021, and to be supported by £215 million of funding to help deliver more affordable housing and infrastructure improvements to support sustainable development across the county.
As part of the deal, to support this strategic approach to supporting housing delivery through joint working, Oxfordshire was granted flexibility from the national planning policy framework policy on maintaining a five-year housing land supply. Since 2018, Oxfordshire has had to provide proof of a three-year land supply for planning purposes. This has worked to support the delivery of the local plans for the area and ensure that the local authorities could focus their efforts on their joint spatial strategy.
This flexibility was laid out by the Secretary of State at the time the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) in a written ministerial statement on 12 September 2018—https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2018-09-12/hcws955.
Since 2018, Oxfordshire has not finalised and adopted its joint statutory spatial plan. Therefore, in the best interests of housing delivery in the region, my Department has extended the time afforded to Oxfordshire for the delivery of this plan to 2023. This extension, however, will not be subject to the original land supply flexibilities. From today, Oxfordshire will need to maintain a five-year housing land supply in accordance with the national planning policy framework.
This statement is a material consideration in planning decisions and applies to those local planning authorities in Oxfordshire with whom the Government agreed the Oxfordshire housing and growth deal, namely Cherwell District Council, Oxford City Council, South Oxfordshire District Council, Vale of White Horse District Council and West Oxfordshire District Council. This statement applies from today.
[HCWS897]
Covid-19: Support for Businesses
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
Covid-19 has presented a significant challenge for businesses in all sectors. The Government response to the pandemic has been unprecedented in scale, with more than £280 billion provided to protect millions of jobs and businesses, and the Budget in March setting out an additional £65 billion of support in 2020-21 and 2021-22.
On business rates specifically, at Budget 2020 the Government announced a 100% business rates relief to all eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, given the acute and direct impact of covid-19 restrictions, non-pharmaceutical interventions, on these sectors. This was worth around £10 billion in 2020-21 and, alongside other business rate reliefs, ensured that over 1 million properties paid no business rates this year. At Budget 2021, the Government announced that it would extend the scheme for the first 3 months of 2021-22 at 100%, followed by a 9-month period of relief at 66%, subject to a cash cap for businesses. Taken together, this amounts to business rates relief worth £16 billion for retail, hospitality and leisure properties.
While support has been needed to support these sectors, our business rates system is designed to provide a stable source of income for local councils and help fund vital local services, such as street lighting and keeping streets safe and clean. It is based on the principle of regular revaluations, with changes in property values reflected at these revaluations. Market wide economic changes affecting property values, such as from covid-19, can only be properly considered at these general revaluations, which is why we have changed the date of the next revaluation to 1 April 2023, based on rental values at 1 April 2021, to ensure it can better reflect the impact of the pandemic.
Between these revaluations rateable values should only change for material change of circumstances, which is a process intended to consider individual cases like roadworks near a property that affect its value. A number of businesses that do not qualify for our existing reliefs have sought to challenge their business rates liability by seeking reductions to their property’s value through this material change of circumstances provision.
Relying on this system to help businesses that need further support from the pandemic is not the right mechanism. These appeals would seek to reduce rate bills, and funding for local councils, based on the estimated impact of covid-19 on the market value of a property, and not on the economic circumstances of the business. This system was not designed to address the challenges we face and would mean significant amounts of taxpayer support going to businesses based in offices—like banks, large online retailers and technology businesses, law firms and consultancy firms—many of whom have been able to operate successfully throughout the pandemic.
The process of resolving these appeals and litigation through the courts could take years and would not provide the support now when it is most needed. It would also expose local authorities to uncertainty about their financial position, including whether they would need to return money spent on their response to covid-19, and how much.
Without action and legislation, there would also be a significant impact on the entire business rates system, as the Valuation Office Agency faced working through these cases, further valuation tribunals, wider separate cases, and preparing for the next revaluation in 2023. This would be at the detriment of other ratepayers who would suffer as a result of the valuation system grinding to a halt.
Nevertheless the Government recognise that businesses outside of the retail, hospitality, and leisure sectors have also been adversely affected by the pandemic, including through limitations on how their property can be used. So we are now going even further than the £16 billion of relief since Budget 2020 and providing £1.5 billion of additional support to businesses that have not already received business rates relief. This is the fastest and fairest way to support businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors who have been adversely affected by the pandemic.
The new relief will ensure a fairer and more proportioned allocation of support, by awarding funding through local authorities, who will able to use their knowledge of their local businesses and the local economy to award dedicated support to those businesses who need it most. Funding will be allocated to councils taking into account the economic impact covid-19 has had on specific sectors. This approach will ensure relief is awarded quicker than would be the case if businesses sought support under the sometimes drawn out process of a rating appeal, which can often last years.
At the same time we will legislate to ensure that the Government response to covid-19, including restrictions on the use of property, is reflected at the next revaluation in 2023, in line with the principle of the business rates system, and not through complicated and protracted property-by-property litigation. We will do this through:
Introducing primary legislation with retrospective effect, when parliamentary time allows, to clarify that covid-19 and the Government response to it is not an appropriate use of material change of circumstance provisions; and
Laying a statutory instrument today with the same effect prospectively and bringing it into force on the same day.
Taken together, this will ensure support for covid-19 continues to be directed to ratepayers through rate reliefs—including the additional £1.5 billion of support—in the fairest and fastest way, and not through valuation appeals made by rating agents. We will work with and support local Government to enable ratepayers to apply as soon as possible this year, once the legislation relating to material change of circumstance provisions has passed and local authorities have set up local relief schemes.
This will give local councils the certainty they have been seeking, and will ensure that support flows to businesses in need across England, rather than primarily to high- value locations and the office market.
[HCWS901]
Troubled Families Programme
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
As required by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, section 3(1), today my Department has published the 2020-21 annual report of the troubled families programme. The report sets out how the programme has been supporting our most disadvantaged families who face multiple and complex problems. We are laying this report today and will place a copy in the Library of the House.
The troubled families programme has been at the heart of our ambition to strengthen families and improve their futures since 2015. In last year’s spending review the Chancellor announced £165 million of new investment to extend the programme until the end of 2021-22.
“Improving families’ lives: annual report of the Troubled Families Programme 2020-2021” includes an update on the programme’s performance and a summary of the latest research findings and policy developments for the programme.
It sets out how the programme has driven a profound shift in the way that local services respond to entrenched problems and support our most disadvantaged families. The programme assigns a single key worker to each family, backed by multi-agency partners and coordinated data. This joined up “wrap-around” support for families has been shown to be successful in tackling the range of issues they face.
Since 2015 the programme has supported 401,719 families to achieve successful outcomes. This includes 32,382 adults who were helped into sustained employment. These families faced multiple and complex problems including a combination of crime, truancy, neglect, anti-social behaviour, domestic abuse, poor mental health, worklessness and financial exclusion. Every successful family outcome represents a family’s life changed for the better—a considerable achievement for the families and the local services supporting them.
The report sets out how local services funded by the programme have responded to the covid-19 pandemic. The programme has been a key part of the local response to covid-19 by supporting families with immediate needs such as food and equipment for home learning. The programme will play an important role in the recovery, supporting families with longer-term impacts of the pandemic such as unemployment and mental ill health.
The report summarises the latest research findings relating to the programme. Staff survey research showed consistent support for the programme from local teams. 95% of troubled families co-ordinators agree the programme is effective at achieving whole family working and 89% agree it is successful at achieving long-term change for families. An independent evaluation of the supporting families against youth crime fund shows that the fund improved the provision of local services addressing youth crime. The fund supported a number of innovative approaches in 21 local areas. Local areas reported that whole family interventions, role model based and mentoring interventions were most successful.
This builds on previous analysis which found that the programme has made a significant impact in reducing the proportion of children who are taken into care. A cost benefit analysis showed that for every £1 spent on the programme it delivers £2.28 of economic benefits (includes economic, social and fiscal benefits) and £1.51 of fiscal benefits (only budgetary impacts on services).
“Improving families’ lives: annual report of the Troubled Families Programme 2020-2021” is accompanied by a range of publications that evaluate the programme’s progress which can be accessed at gov.uk. These are:
Evaluation report: Supporting Families Against Youth Crime
Staff Surveys: Troubled Families Co-ordinators: part five
Staff Surveys: Troubled Families Keyworkers: part five
Staff Surveys: Troubled Families Employment Advisors: part five.
[HCWS904]
Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy 2
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
In 2017 the Government published the first statutory cycling and walking infrastructure strategy (CWIS 1) which covered the period 2016-17 to 2020-21. Since it was produced, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have significantly expanded the ambition and funding of the Government’s cycling and walking programme, launching the Gear Change White Paper in summer 2020 with £2 billion of additional funding over this Parliament for active travel, the largest amount of dedicated spending ever committed to increasing cycling and walking in this country. Significant delivery on the ground has already occurred.
Because of the pandemic, the multi-year spending review planned for autumn 2020 was postponed. Instead, as with most other budgets, a single-year settlement for cycling and walking reflecting the ambitions set out in Gear Change has been set for the year 2021-22. The Government will set out plans for future years, including future funding for cycling and walking beyond 2021-22, at the spending review later this year.
I am today informing Parliament of my intention to publish as soon as possible thereafter a second four-year statutory cycling and walking investment strategy (CWIS 2), reflecting the new policies in Gear Change and the multi-year funding settlement.
The Government will consult on CWIS 2, with relevant stakeholders, ahead of its publication, as required by the legislation.
[HCWS891]
Annual Households Below Average Income and Separated Families Statistics 2019/20
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Department for Work and Pensions has today published annual statistics covering 2019-20 including on households below average income (HBAI) and separated families. HBAI covers a range of information, including household incomes and a range of low-income indicators for 2019-20, derived from the family resources survey of around 20,000 households.
Between 2018-19 and 2019-20, the proportion of people below the absolute low income line fell. Before housing costs, this was a decrease of one percentage point to 14% or 9.2 million people. After housing costs, it was a fall of two percentage points to 18% or 11.7 million people. There were also decreases in absolute low income after housing costs for children, pensioners, working-age people and individuals living in a household where someone is disabled. Compared to 2009-10, there were over 1.3 million fewer people in absolute low income, after housing costs: 260,000 fewer children, 890,000 working age adults and 180,000 pensioners.
In 2019-20, median household incomes grew by 4.5% after inflation, an increase of over £1,000 a year to reach an all-time high, alongside a record high employment rate. This was the strongest annual income growth since 2001-02. Incomes increased across the entire income distribution, with the poorest 20% of households seeing their real incomes increase by over 6% on average after housing costs. This growth in median income reflects the success of Government policies we have taken to help people move into work and keep more of what they earn—for example, raising the national living wage and increasing the personal tax allowance.
The statistics show increases in the proportions of households below the relative low income lines, reflecting the very strong growth in median income in 2019-20. The proportion of households below the relative low income line, before housing costs, increased by one percentage point to 18% or 11.7 million individuals, and, after housing costs, the proportion remained the same at 22% or 14.5 million individuals. There were increases in relative poverty both before and after housing costs for children, pensioners and those living in households where someone is disabled.
Rates of combined low income and material deprivation for children were lower in 2019-20 than in 2010-11 and rates of material deprivation for pensioners remained at a record low of 6%.
Today’s statistics also show that 44% of separated families did not have a child maintenance arrangement in place in 2019-20. We know that child maintenance payments have a significant impact on reducing the number of children living in low income households. For the first time, estimates relating to the income distributions of parents in separated families have been published, showing that 60,000 children move out of absolute low income before housing costs; and 120,000 after housing costs as a result of child maintenance payments from 2017-18 to 2019-20.
We have also published data on household food security from the family resources survey for the first time, to get a better understanding of the lived experience of families. This shows that 8% of households are classed as food insecure, with 4% of households in low food security and 4% in very low household food security.
Overall, these statistics reinforce that the economy entered the pandemic in a strong position, with people seeing rising incomes. The Government have built on this firm financial foundation with an unprecedented package of measures to protect livelihoods and incomes, including the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employment income support scheme and an extra £7.1 billion of welfare support in 2020-21. Our plan for jobs and the support provided through universal credit are helping people to raise their incomes by moving into and progressing in work.
[HCWS892]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Blake of Leeds
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 and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them brief and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Bahrain: Human Rights Abuses
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evidence they have, if any, that the number of human rights abuses in Bahrain has declined in the last two years; and what assessment they have made of the impact of their Integrated Activity Fund on human rights in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, as outlined in the 2020 FCDO Human Rights and Democracy report, the UK recognises the challenges that remain in Bahrain. However, along with many international partners, it is our firm belief that, with a calibrated approach to co-operation, we can influence and support positive reform. Change takes time but recent developments in Bahrain, such as the ratification of the corrective justice law for children and the use of alternative sentencing, demonstrate that progress is being made.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the death sentence retrial of Mohamed Ramadan and Hussain Moosa has been termed “critically flawed” by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, as it relied on a Special Investigations Unit investigation that did not meet international standards. Will the Minister stop the shameful defence of the SIU, which does nothing more than whitewash Bahrain’s existing human rights situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, we—the Minister for the Middle East and I—and the Government are fully aware of the cases that the noble Lord referred to; indeed, we have engaged outside the Chamber on this very issue. As the noble Lord will be aware, the death sentence must be ratified by His Majesty the King of Bahrain. The UK continues to follow this case closely. We have raised the matter repeatedly with the Government of Bahrain and will continue to do so, both in public and privately.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I recently raised with the Minister that Bahrain had detained 13 children, including the seriously ill Sayed Hasan Ameen. In a Written Answer, James Cleverly painted these children as criminals without addressing human rights concerns. BIRD and Human Rights Watch revealed that these children were subjected to physical abuse to coerce their confessions and that Sayed was detained for eight days without vital medication. Despite these findings from credible rights organisations, is the Minister really satisfied with the assurances from Bahrain on their treatment and that medical care was provided?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I assure the noble Lord that we take this case, as well as any other case, very seriously. We raise these issues directly with the Bahrainis. We should also recognise that progress has been made. I mentioned in my earlier Answer the corrective justice law for children, which will ensure special courts for children, alternative sentencing and rehabilitation. I believe that this brings a positive focus on individual cases. I deal directly with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; I raise any cases raised in those meetings directly with the Bahraini authorities.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The noble Baroness is muted and we cannot hear her. We will have to move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, far from what the Minister has said about progress, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN have all concluded that human rights abuses have been getting worse in Bahrain over the past few years. So why do the Government still fund training for organisations in Bahrain that are implicated in human rights abuses, such as the Special Investigations Unit?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, through the technical support that the United Kingdom provides, we have seen real progress on a broad range of human rights issues. I have referred to the reforms on children, the unified family law, alternative punishments for adults and the creation of oversight bodies. Of course, I do not for a moment accept that the job is done. We continue to work constructively, and I believe that this is paying dividends, and will continue to do so.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the recent publication of the second edition of the Human Rights and Democracy report by the embassy of Bahrain is progress. Together with the amazing, life-saving, UK-like vaccine rollout and being a cornerstone and founding member of the Abraham Accords with the UAE and Israel, it is real progress. In acknowledging that there is still much more to be done, does my noble friend agree that it seems clear that Bahrain is travelling on the right road?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, suffice to say that I totally agree with my noble friend. We are seeing progress but there is more to be done, and we are working constructively and engaging with Bahrain on this important agenda.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
At the start of the 2022 Qatar football World Cup campaign last night, Norwegian players protested about workers’ rights in Qatar. Considering that some of the matches may have to be scheduled in Bahrain because of the increasing size of the World Cup finals, have our representatives in Bahrain made an assessment of the situation on workers’ rights in the country yet?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have raised this issue directly and seen real progress. When it comes to migrant workers, for example, Bahrain achieved tier 1 status, according to US State Department reports. Indeed, it convened a cross-government meeting on this very issue—the first such one in the Middle East. On vaccines, as raised by my noble friend Lord Polak, we have seen direct distribution and access to vaccines for migrant workers so, again, progress on this front is being made directly in Bahrain.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Will the Government advise the Bahrain authorities that the best way for them to win friends is to train all their security officers to behave like human beings, and to abolish the barbaric death penalty, as the state of Virginia did yesterday?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
We welcome the death penalty being abolished, and of course that remains the long-standing position of Her Majesty’s Government. We continue to raise this globally with all partners.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can we stop all exports to Bahrain as a way out of this big dilemma?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord talked about stopping exports. I do not believe that that is the correct way forward. Bahrain is an important partner and, as we have seen on this important yet sensitive agenda, there has been progress there. Being a critical and constructive friend is the way forward.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, the human rights violations in Bahrain are worrying, but does the Minister agree that the demands to cancel the Formula 1 race to be held there are not likely to help? Should we not be encouraging sporting activities between countries in trying to influence them to eliminate human rights violations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I agree with my noble friend’s approach and, as the UK Human Rights Minister, that is exactly the approach I adopt.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, following on from the last question, it appears that the Minister took a different approach in 2012, when he signed a letter to the Times that backed calls for Formula 1 not to race in Bahrain due to human rights violations connected to the races there. Now, almost 60 Members of both Houses of Parliament and more than 20 NGOs are calling on Formula 1 to establish an independent commission of inquiry to investigate human rights abuses linked to its races. Will the Minister now agree to support that call?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to a letter from several years ago. It is right that where we have concerns, we should raise them, and I align myself with that. However, we have seen real progress in Bahrain and we should recognise that, while remaining firm and resolute that we will continue to raise human rights concerns as and when they arise, as we do directly with Bahrain both in private and publicly.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I visited Bahrain on numerous occasions as a Defence Minister. Through that persistent engagement, I never hesitated to raise issues such as human rights, as a critical friend. I am pleased that the Gulf Integrated Activity Fund has been used to fund some of the independent human rights organisations in Bahrain, and we have, as my noble friend Lord Polak said, definitely seen progress, although more needs to be done. What has particularly impressed me from the UK perspective is the thoroughness of the OSJA process. Can my noble friend reassure me that the process is refreshed on a regular basis to ensure that our funding is not misused?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I agree with my noble friend. My right honourable friend James Cleverly, who is the Minister for the Middle East, will do exactly that. We look at all funding not only to the Gulf but elsewhere to ensure that the standards we seek to achieve from those areas are met and that human rights remain paramount in our thinking and progress in this respect.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, is still with us and so I can ask her to speak now.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Speaker. There is no doubt that Bahrain still has a mountain to climb on the issue of human rights. Can my noble friend outline what progress has been made specifically in the past few years and what the involvement of the UK has been in specific programmes to assist in bringing about change?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, it takes a great deal to mute my noble friend and I am glad that we have heard from her. As I have already articulated, we have seen the creation of the oversight bodies. The UK has provided technical support. We have seen alternative sentencing, where we have shared experience and insights; the Unified Family Law and the Corrective Justice Law for Children; and the great progress which has been made on migrants’ rights. However, I reiterate that important work remains to be done. I know that this is a concern of many noble Lords and I will continue to engage with your Lordships’ House and the other place to ensure that those concerns are expressed directly to the Government of Bahrain.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked. We move to the next Question.
Child Trust Funds: Children with Learning Disabilities
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards enabling children with learning disabilities to access their Child Trust Funds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, since my noble friend’s last Question on this matter six weeks ago, I have met ministerial colleagues and Members of the other place. I have considered the legal issues that arise. I have also met the acting president and vice-president of the Court of Protection. While court processes are a matter for the judiciary, I have been assured that child trust funds and the application forms will be on the agenda of the next Civil Procedure Rules Committee meeting to be held on 20 April.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his personal commitment to solving this problem, but he will understand my disappointment at his letter of 23 March, which says basically that no progress has been made since I raised this issue in January. Hollie Squire requires 24-hour care. Her mother Tammie is managing on £605 a month that Hollie gets from the DWP. If Tammie can be trusted with this money from the taxpayer, why can she not be trusted with Hollie’s money from her own trust fund without complex and time-consuming court procedures?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises a very good point. I can assure Tammie and Hollie Squire that it is not a question of trust. It is, I am afraid, a question of law. The DWP benefits appointee scheme applies only to benefits from the state and does not extend or apply to an individual’s own assets. That legal position is governed by the Mental Capacity Act. I have to work within the confines of the Act, which is why I am working with the judiciary to make the legal route easier, cheaper and quicker.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as vice-president of Mencap, which has been working with the MoJ on this issue. Can the Minister give the House an update on what progress the advisory group has made to date?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the advisory group has been meeting not only organisations in the third sector such as Mencap but the financial providers. We have looked at a number of legal and regulatory issues. We believe that the way through this is by working with the Court of Protection. Quite properly, judges control the court and that is the way through to resolving this long-standing problem.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I do not envy my noble friend’s position at this point. In the past he has said that the rules need to be appropriate, accessible and proportionate. Given the time it takes to access money that the child might have been waiting for, and that the parents of disabled children have so much to deal with, will my noble friend take back to the department the idea of adopting the change in law that was adopted for families whose children have life-threatening conditions in order to allow access to their own money in these circumstances? The industry itself, commendably, wants to help them with this.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We have looked at the legislative options. Amending primary legislation is not likely to be quick or easy. However, I must emphasise that the rules of the Court of Protection are a matter for the judiciary, not the Government. We therefore have to work with the judiciary, which I know is committed to this issue. Indeed, the Court of Protection has been working hard during the pandemic to ensure that its business is kept up to date.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I chair the National Mental Capacity Forum. The Mental Capacity Act aims to protect against exploitation and support decision-making, but Covid lockdowns have caused delays in the Court of Protection. How is the backlog of these financial cases being mitigated by digital processes to ensure that the welfare of a young person is appropriately safeguarded, in particular if they are in a care home or have other care arrangements?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that fundamentally this is about safeguarding the interests of the young person. On the Court of Protection, staff have been coming into the court throughout the pandemic to make sure that it can continue to function. They are putting in place new digital ways of working to streamline and simplify their processes and will ensure that there is as little administrative and procedural delay as possible.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. The needs of autistic youngsters differ: some lack capacity to make financial decisions, the capacity of others may fluctuate, but the need for parental support is vital. Yet the Mental Capacity Act code of practice says that family members should be appointed as welfare deputies in only the most difficult cases. This adds to the problem that parents of autistic youngsters have in accessing the child trust fund. Mr Justice Hayden in the High Court said that the wording of the guidance should be revisited; when are the Government going to do this?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for referring to Mr Justice Hayden, with whom I have met and who I know is personally committed to resolving this. It is fair to say that our understanding of all sorts of mental capacity is considerably greater now than it was in 2005, when the Act was passed, and in 1995, when the Law Commission reported on this issue. We are therefore looking to address this.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for bringing this to our attention and for his wonderful summary of that letter. If we agree that the money is for the children, and that they are capable of spending money in other situations, why have the Government not used the capacity of this Chamber and the other place to make sure that this happens?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the position is this: in 1995, when the Law Commission reported on this, it recommended a small claims exception to the Mental Capacity Act. Parliament did not do that; it put in a Mental Capacity Act with no exceptions at all. That is the legislative background against which I now have to operate.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, increased legal requirements have made it ever more expensive to gain access to children’s trust funds. The Government justify the extra costs as providing the necessary protection needed for those who lack the mental capacity to act for themselves. More straightforward and less expensive access paths to child trust funds are needed. Does the Minister agree that a more robust approach is now justified in dealing with the Mental Capacity Act?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the short answer is yes. We have put in place mechanisms on fees to ensure that anybody applying to the Court of Protection, in respect of a child trust fund only, does not have to pay any fees. I know that the court is looking at the forms to make sure that they are suitably accessible, so that one can fill them in and make an application without having to pay a solicitor.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister last met The Investing and Savings Alliance some two months ago and, as far as I understand, there are no further dates in the diary. When will the Minister next meet The Investing and Savings Alliance?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am looking to arrange meetings with it, but have been working on the issues that it has raised in any event. In particular, I have looked at whether there is a trust law solution to the problem, but I am afraid that there is not. The route is to make sure that people can get applications through the Court of Protection as quickly and cheaply as possible. That involves the judiciary, which rightly controls the Court of Protection, and I am getting good engagement from the judiciary.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, some providers of child trust funds are allowing parents access to them with other proof, without going through the procedures of the Mental Capacity Act. Can the Minister assure me and the House that those who offer such expedited help to parents or carers will not be subject to any sanctions?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I cannot give that assurance because sanctions are not a matter for the Government; independent bodies are in place. Whether these industry providers are complying with the protections under the Mental Capacity Act is not something on which I can give an opinion. I am sure that they have looked at that issue. Ultimately, the Mental Capacity Act is there to protect vulnerable people.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I declare my interest in the register of interests from working with The Investing and Savings Alliance. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Young for his assiduousness on this and to my noble friend Lord Wolfson for the way that he is gripping this issue. In the absence of a legislative solution, there has to be a practical one. The Government Digital Service has a mantra: “What is the user need?” Simpler forms and no fees—we can get a lot done without legislation.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, with respect, I agree. No fees are in my bailiwick; we have done that. Simpler forms are in the judiciary’s bailiwick; I am working with the judiciary to encourage it to put simpler forms in place. Ultimately, there is a constitutional position here. The courts are run by the judiciary, not by government Ministers, and that is how it should be.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Yemen
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to resolve the famine in Yemen.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we remain deeply concerned by the ongoing conflict and risk of famine in Yemen. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in combating hunger, contributing over £1 billion in aid since the conflict began. To respond to this crisis, in the next financial year, the UK will feed 240,000 of the most vulnerable Yemenis every month and provide one-off cash support for 1.5 million of Yemen’s poorest households. The UK is also providing the Yemeni Government with technical economic support to stabilise the currency, which will help to reduce food prices.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
By 2018, 85,000 children had starved to death in Yemen. Another 18 million people are on the verge of starvation, and yet we are going to cut overseas aid. Is not the least that we can do to help Yemen and other places to restore aid to its previous level?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have debated concerns over the ODA reduction on a number of occasions in this House. I appreciate the sentiments expressed but, notwithstanding the nature of the economic outlook that we face, the United Kingdom continues to support our aid efforts around the world, including in Yemen, as I have already said.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will surely agree that the Houthis, who control 75% to 80% of the population, are critical to finding a political solution to the problem, more so as the Saudis are seeking an exit. Is there any evidence that the Houthis are responding positively to the new UN peace plan? In particular, are they prepared to facilitate humanitarian access to tackle Covid, cholera and widespread starvation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have seen, including in this week, some positive steps from Saudi Arabia, in the nationwide ceasefire that it called for and the opening up of key ports, for both aid and fuel. However, the Houthis’ behaviour in this humanitarian crisis continues to worsen. We therefore call upon them again to cease their activities, so that we can progress a peaceful settlement in the interests of all Yemenis.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Does the Minister properly understand that many Members of this House regard the cut in aid to Yemen as shameful, first, because of the adverse impact it will have on people suffering the worst humanitarian crisis in the world? Equally important is the impact on the morale of the dedicated aid workers, who are trying to stem the tide of misery.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I have already said, I respect the views expressed in your Lordships’ House on this important subject. I recognise that reductions have been made in our support through the cuts in ODA. Nevertheless, we continue to support humanitarian efforts in Yemen and the political efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement to this conflict.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, one of the terrible consequences of the conflict in Yemen is the increase in child marriage. According to CARE International, more than two-thirds of girls are now married by the age of 18, as their families struggle to cope. The UK has long been a global champion and a leading donor in the efforts to end child marriage. Can the Minister tell me what we are doing to help the girls of Yemen, and give me any reassurance that the UK’s vital work to end child marriage will be protected from the cuts to international development spend?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend is right, and the United Kingdom stands firm in its opposition to the abhorrent practice of child marriage. We will continue to defend the rights of children, particularly young girls, who are vulnerable to this. That work will continue not just in Yemen but elsewhere. As I am sure my noble friend recognises, the access situation in Yemen is extremely challenging. Therefore, the political settlement must proceed, and then we can look forward to playing our part to ensure that the rights of every girl in Yemen and elsewhere are protected.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, the khat crop in Yemen is widely cultivated because it yields a greater income than food. If, however, this income falls and food prices increase due to scarcity, the inevitable consequence is widespread starvation. Will the FCDO support a return to pre-cut levels of aid and consider direct injections of cash into the market to stabilise prices and avoid the already very poor and meagre food aid distribution networks?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—food security. In this regard, it is not just a challenge of getting humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable. I assure the noble Baroness that we are also working directly with the Central Bank of Yemen and the Government to prop up the economy and facilitate food imports, and indeed to reduce food prices. That is part of the technical support we extend and will continue to extend.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, a recent UN IPC food security report found that half a million children aged between zero and four are acutely malnourished and 100,000 are severely malnourished. The IRC Yemen country director said that we cannot wait for widespread famine to be declared in the country; by then it would be too late. Let us have another go: can the Minister explain how halving aid spending in a country facing famine supports efforts to protect 20 million people from catastrophic famine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord knows that we have made it very clear that we have been challenged in our budgets through the Covid crisis and domestic challenges. Nevertheless, we are spending £10 billion on ODA. In Yemen specifically, this will mean that 240,000 Yemenis will be directly assisted. We are establishing 400 healthcare centres. We are also working on important and vital sanitation links and water projects. This is all part of our effort with the global community, but what is needed in Yemen most urgently is a peaceful political resolution. As I have said, we are working very much on that priority as well.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, Saudi Arabia was the world’s largest arms importer from 2015 to 2019. The Saudi-led coalition imposed a blockade on Yemen and used the arms for deadly air strikes on civilian targets, leading to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Is it the Government’s view that the US and Italy stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia will help end the conflict? Will we consider joining them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I have said on repeated occasions from the Dispatch Box, we look at our arms exports very carefully and take our responsibilities in this respect very seriously. We assess our export licences in accordance with strict licensing criteria. We also welcome, as I am sure the noble Baroness does, the announcement from Saudi Arabia of a nationwide ceasefire. We hope that all sides of the conflict will now adhere to it.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the humanitarian crisis could be greatly worsened if the oil tanker FSO “Safer”, currently off the Yemeni coast, is allowed to continue to decay. We face the greatest environmental disaster of the century. Can the Minister say whether the Islamist Houthi regime is continuing to stall on allowing UN experts to inspect this ship?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, sadly, the short answer is yes. The UK has already contributed £2.5 million to fund this mission, but it is for the Houthis to facilitate the mission’s access and deployment.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, we know that the only way to avert famine in the long term is to end the conflict and create a peace in which all members of society can prosper. A lasting peace requires justice and accountability for the many crimes committed in Yemen. I welcome the establishment of the International Accountability Platform for Belarus. Does my noble friend agree that such a platform is also needed for Yemen to ensure that justice and accountability become more than just aspirations in that country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—justice and accountability. Like all noble Lords, I hope that, through the political settlement, we will see justice and accountability for the innocent victims of this conflict.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
The suffering in the civil war has been made worse by our selling arms to Saudi Arabia, allowing it to interfere in the conflict for its own ends, with indiscriminate bombing of homes, attacks on fleeing innocents and deliberate attacks on food supplies. Will the Minister agree that the usual response of us having a strict arms sales policy no longer holds water? Making money out of suffering can never be justified and we have a moral duty to provide redress.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that the United Kingdom plays its part in ensuring that the humanitarian suffering is alleviated, notwithstanding our domestic challenges, which are quite impactful on our international support. We are playing our part. We are also lending support to the political settlement. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, we take a very robust approach when it comes to arms exports.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Gypsies, Travellers and Roma: Racism and Discrimination
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woolley of Woodford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to reports of the blacklisting of Irish Travellers by Pontins, what steps they are taking to tackle racism and discrimination against Gypsies, Travellers and Roma.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
No one should be discriminated against because of their race or ethnicity. It is right that the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Pontins investigate and address this. To date, we have funded GATE Herts with £150,000 to tackle the discrimination that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities experience.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest in the register. I have spoken to many Roma, Gypsy and Traveller leaders, such as Zeljko Jovanovic from the Roma Initiatives Office and Yvonne MacNamara from the Traveller Movement. They tell me that it is not just the scandal at Pontins that concerns them but the growing mental health crisis in their communities, which has been exacerbated by Covid-19, not least because many are self-employed and not eligible for furlough, and therefore their incomes have completely dried up. Will the Minister agree to meet with me and representatives of these communities to urgently deal with this crisis?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am very happy to meet with the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted by the answers my noble friend has given, but will he make it clear that, when the police Bill eventually leaves this House, its provisions will fully support the continued flourishing and existence of Gypsy and Traveller communities?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, any measures introduced, including those in the Bill, would be undertaken in compliance with equality and human rights legislation.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the EHRC. As noble Lords will know, we signed a legally binding agreement with Pontins to prevent racial discrimination and will take further enforcement action if needed. The problem is that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups face particular discrimination in housing, with a severe shortage of adequate sites. New police powers in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will reduce the ability of these communities to reside somewhere. What steps are the Government taking with local authorities to increase authorised sites for these groups?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s policies to improve site provision are working. There are now 356 transit pitches provided by local authorities and private registered providers. That is up 41% on January 2010. Local authorities and registered providers, including housing associations, can bid for funding for permanent Traveller sites or transit sites from the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab) [V]
I declare an interest by referring your Lordships to my name. I had wondered why I was never able to book a Pontins holiday, even in the dead of winter, and now I know. Thanks to the EHRC and the whistleblower, the mystery is solved. My question is on education. Children from the Traveller community pre pandemic were the most behind of any group of children, and now they have missed even more education. Please can the Minister take us through the specific education booster plans that the Government are putting in place to bring children in Traveller families up to speed so that they have real choices for work as adults, especially the girls, as this is what levelling- up really looks like?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point to the £400,000 invested by my department in education and training programmes for over 100 Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children and young people to receive extra tuition to catch up on lost learning during the pandemic. This is in addition to the £700 million provided by the Department for Education for the most disadvantaged young people, including Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, to access high-quality tuition. We are working on a cross-Whitehall GRT strategy to further improve the life chances of this community.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as it stands, will have a devastating effect on nomadic Gypsy and Traveller communities. Clause 4 enables the police to seize a family’s home. This is discrimination on a grand scale. Can the Minister say what other section of people living in our country will be targeted in this inhumane way?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The Bill is not the draconian legislation that it is painted as by the noble Baroness. The focus is on people who wilfully break the law, wilfully trespass on property, and wilfully damage public amenities. They are a very small minority. Regarding property, the police will need to consider their obligations around human rights legislation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, my good friend Conor McGinn, the Member of Parliament for St Helens North, was asked by Pontins to make representation to get its sites open last year, only to then discover that, as a McGinn, if he tried to book a holiday, he and his family would not be welcome at any Pontins holiday camp since his name was on the banned list. This is a scandal against Gypsies, Travellers and Roma people. Does the Minister agree, and can he discuss with colleagues in government whether the laws are strong enough to ensure that the people who have perpetuated this disgusting racism are prevented from doing so again, either at Pontins or any other company that they may work for or be associated with in the future?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I join the noble Lord in condemning those actions. I am very glad that his name was not caught up in that ridiculous policy. It is important that a full review of hate crime is carried out. The Law Commission started it last year and will be reporting to Ministers shortly on whether we need to build on the approach taken by the current hate crime action plan.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, following my noble friend’s comments regarding the Law Commission report on hate crime, and the consideration of proposals for reform, which the Government will be bringing forward this year, can he offer assurance that there will be thoroughgoing support and protection for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, which—[Inaudible]—as demonstrated by the race disparity audit that we set up?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance to my noble friend.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, on 15 February, the Minister gave me a helpful reply concerning roadside evictions of people from the Travelling community. What progress has been made in the discussions that he said he would be having with local authorities to ensure that, at least during the pandemic, there would be no further roadside evictions and that there would be access to safe water and safe sanitation? Given that he told the House that a cross-departmental review was taking place, can he confirm that this was announced originally in June 2019? When will it be published?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I wrote to local authorities emphasising the need to take a negotiated, stopping-model approach, which has been taken up by a number of local authorities during the pandemic. I commit that the cross-departmental strategy will be forthcoming. Obviously the focus has been on the Covid-19 pandemic.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
What note are Her Majesty’s Government taking, in respect of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, of the fact that over 75% of police respondents to the Home Office consultation did not support the proposed new criminal offence of trespass with intent to reside?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I note the points around that consultation, but 66% of local authorities that responded to the 2019 consultation were in favour of introducing a new criminal offence for those who reside on unauthorised encampments, and 94% supported one or more of the proposed amendments in the Bill under consideration.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
Research published by the FFT in January 2021 found that there were only 59 permanent and 42 transit pitches available across England. In response to the new police and crime Bill and proposals to allow for greater enforcement against unauthorised encampments, what provisions are being made to provide authorised sites for the GRT community? I am happy for the Minister to write to me if he does not have the figures to hand.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, Part 4 of the Bill essentially seeks to make something that is a civil offence into a criminal offence. It is based on a similar change in law undertaken in the Republic of Ireland some years ago. I will write to the right reverend Prelate with the specific figures, but looking at transit site provision in addition to the 356 transit pitches that exist will be part of the upcoming cross-Whitehall GRT strategy.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the House’s first session of Oral Questions to the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office. There will be three Questions, with 10 minutes allowed for each. We will proceed in the same way as for Oral Questions.
Post Brexit: Economic and Political Opportunities
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) what evidence-based analysis Her Majesty’s Government are using to oversee the cross-government work on maximising the economic and political opportunities flowing from the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s future economic and political opportunities are maximised by the ability we now have to set laws which suit this country’s needs, rather than the lowest common denominator of EU member states. That is true when we review existing legislation and when we set new legislative frameworks for the industries of the future. In doing so, we will draw on economic and analytical support from within government departments and beyond them.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Cabinet. I am surprised that there is no mention of the specific work of anybody. I cite the economic work of Crowley, Exton and Han from Cambridge University, and hope that he will look at it. I want to ask about political opportunities. Does he agree that for 2021, two large opportunities for the independent UK are the G7 and COP 26? Does he further agree that, to maximise these opportunities, it will be more effective to co-operate with the EU as an entity than via bilateral relations with member states?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord that we have great opportunities on the world stage after Brexit. This year the G7 summit and COP 26 meeting are among the most important. Of course, we seek to co-operate with the EU and its member states in whichever way is most appropriate.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the Minister to his first outing at Minister of State’s Questions. There are 24 committees and groups set up under the trade and co-operation agreements. They are, in effect, the instruments and controls in its cockpit, but the Government have said that there will be no meetings of these bodies until the end of the ratification period, which is now considerably extended, so the flight deck is empty. Given that the TCA is fully operational, what plans do the Government have to at least get meetings in the diary?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I have, of course, read the full and thoughtful report produced by the noble Earl’s committee, which was published on Monday, on this question and many others. We think that it is right to establish the Government’s arrangements fully when the treaty is fully in force and ratified on both sides, which we hope will be very soon.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, should concentrate on outcomes, not process, and that he need look no further than the terrific work being done by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade, with 66 trade deals already done and more still to come as evidence of how the Government are delivering opportunities for the UK now that we are out of the EU?
Lord Frost (Con)
I very much agree with the thrust of my noble friend’s question. More than 60 trade treaties were rolled over last year, and a number of others are now under negotiation with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and so on, and we have an aspiration to join the CPTPP. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is doing an excellent job in this area, and I am sure she will continue to do so.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the importance of international access for service industries and the integration of UK and EU services is well evidenced. Some 40% of services trade in the UK’s £116 billion creative sector flows to the EU, and the integrated review reminds us that these services enhance the UK’s soft power and its balance of trade. Will the Minister ensure that this evidence is taken into account in identifying future opportunities for the UK? If the existing evidence is not enough, can he tell us what further evidence is required to convince the Government to prioritise our world-leading, revenue-generating creative industries in future trade negotiations?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the UK is very much a services-based economy and the success of our services industries in all areas is essential for our future prosperity. We are well aware of the particular issues faced by cultural workers and we put forward solutions in the TCA negotiations to try to deal with them but, unfortunately, that was not possible. We are now working energetically with our European friends bilaterally to see whether we can reduce the most difficult barriers and will continue to do so.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, as a Minister and as First Minister of Scotland, I was regularly engaged in developing negotiating positions and in other debates on the UK’s position in discussions with the European Union. What arrangements has the Minister put in place to engage with the devolved Governments as part of these new arrangements with the European Union? Specifically, how will he engage with civic society and business in Scotland to ensure that their views are being heard?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we engaged very closely with the devolved Administrations last year during the TCA negotiations and in the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. At the moment, we are considering the best way of engaging the devolved Administrations most effectively in the new governance arrangements that have been set up, and I expect we will want further discussions on that matter before too long.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, when I asked the Minister last week about the absence of the EU/UK agreement impact assessment, he told me:
“The economic situation last year, the impact of the pandemic and the huge uncertainties made it very difficult to conduct an analysis.”—[Official Report, 18/3/21; col. 447.]
However, that was not the case for the UK/Japan agreement he referred to, on which a 107-page assessment was published at the end of October. The Minister just told the House that the Government are drawing on economic and analytical support within government. Will the British Parliament be able to see any of it?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the Government routinely publish much information and analysis of this country’s economic prospects. They most recently did so around the Budget earlier this month. Many other bodies, such as the OBR and the ONS do likewise. There is a good deal of comment on the prospects for this country after Brexit, economically and otherwise, and we are not convinced that further publications at this point would add to this very rich debate.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Can my noble friend enlighten the House on the progress he is making with the export of shellfish from the UK to the EU? Does he accept that the EU has acted in bad faith in its strict adherence to the rules? Is he contemplating that we might retaliate in kind?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we obviously regret the situation that has arisen with the difficulties in exporting shellfish to the European Union after 1 January. Clearly, nothing changed in the safety of British shellfish or British waters at midnight on 31 December. We are continuing to work with the Commission and member states to see whether we can resolve this situation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, I want to return to an issue we touched on last week when the Minister appeared to dismiss concerns about the January fall in exports, saying:
“A unique combination of facts has made it inevitable”.—[Official Report, 18/3/21; col. 445.]
The Food and Drink Federation does not share his complacency, having seen its members’ exports to the EU collapse by 75% in the past year but by only 11% to the rest of the world. It is clear that the Brexit negotiations, which the Minister was part of, had a hugely significant impact, particularly on small businesses, so I have two questions for him. First, if the fall really was inevitable, why did he not tell businesses beforehand? Secondly, will he urgently convene a meeting, not- withstanding his earlier comments, of the partnership council and the special trade committees to try to save British exports?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the economic situation is clearly hugely influenced by many factors including stock building, the implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the effects of the pandemic, which has dramatically affected markets in Europe, to which many of our smaller companies and food companies export. We are working very closely with all those companies to deal with the difficulties they face, and we will continue to do so in support of our great food and drink industry.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I echo the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to this question. The first set of concrete numbers are now available and starting to speak for themselves. What is the reaction to Santander UK’s recent barometer survey published this week showing that 16% of the businesses surveyed—equating to 1,000 businesses—say that European supply chains are no longer viable and 23% say that the increase in the costs of bureaucracy currently prohibits them trading with existing UK markets? Then there is this morning’s news that Santander UK is closing 111 UK branches with the loss of 5,000 jobs. What plans do the Government have to fix these issues?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the ongoing pandemic is clearly having a significant effect on the economic situation in Europe and in the UK. That cannot be removed from the economic situation we are trying to consider. We are working very closely with goods exporters, services exporters and all companies to enable them to deal with the new processes they face to ensure that they can continue to prosper after Brexit.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second question.
Northern Ireland and Great Britain: Trade
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to and have legislated to ensure unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving to the rest of the UK market as a unilateral UK matter. As to goods’ movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we continue to be committed to working through the joint committee to provide pragmatic and sustainable arrangements for east-west trade, and we are supporting all our businesses in doing so.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Does the Minister now acknowledge that his fiendishly complex barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are throttling local businesses and undermining political stability? Surely the joint and specialised committees that he co-chairs with the EU are fully capable of resolving these problems—or are they simply the direct and inevitable consequence of the Prime Minister’s dogmatic obsession with a hard Brexit? Surely the Minister accepts that unilateral suspensions of, and inflammatory calls to renege upon, the Irish protocol—negotiated by him and agreed by his Government—are also eroding trust with future trading partners, as President Biden has ominously signalled.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the best way of dealing with the issues that are arising on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is for the Northern Ireland protocol to be implemented in a pragmatic and proportionate manner that is consistent with all its aims. That is what we intend to do and we are working with the European Union to that effect.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]
My Lords, by its recent actions the European Union has shown that it respects the Belfast agreement only when it suits it. The actions of the European Union on 29 January surprised and shocked all those who understand the importance of the peace process. How does the Minister propose to act to safeguard the Belfast agreement and the peace process?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, this Government stand fully behind the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is central to our policy on Northern Ireland. The most important thing about the Northern Ireland protocol is that it should guarantee the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the peace process. If it is failing to do that, it is not working well; that is why we think that a pragmatic, proportionate and appropriate implementation of the protocol is the right way forward.
Lord Mandelson (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government are in real danger of blundering around in Northern Ireland on these sensitive trade issues. The unionists feel, understandably, that putting a trade border down the Irish Sea is a betrayal of their community. To mitigate this, will the Government seek a Swiss-style veterinary agreement with the European Union, which would eliminate many—not all, but many—of the trade barriers created when the Government originally entered the withdrawal agreement? Is there any downside, in the Minister’s view, to such a veterinary agreement that is more important than smoother trade and political stability in Northern Ireland?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in the implication of his question: that the protocol must be implemented in a way which protects the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, east-west as well as north-south. On the question of a SPS or veterinary agreement, we proposed in the TCA negotiations last year that there could be an equivalence arrangement between us and the EU. Unfortunately, the EU was not open to that. We continue to be open to such an equivalence arrangement, if the EU is interested in it.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too want to press on the issue of an SPS agreement. It is not only that a lot of the problems of deliveries from Great Britain to Northern Ireland concern foodstuffs and plants; exports of products such as shellfish and Scottish salmon from Great Britain to the EU have been massively hit by Brexit red tape. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, asked the Minister specifically whether there was any downside to an SPS agreement. He did not answer that question, so why are the Government not seeking a veterinary so-called SPS agreement?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the downside to a Swiss-style SPS or veterinary agreement is that it would require our food and drink sector to accept not laws that were made in this country but the laws of the European Union. As far as this Government are concerned, that is quite a considerable downside to such an agreement. It is why we cannot accept one that is based on dynamic alignment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for over 20 years, discussion and dialogue have been at the heart of the Northern Ireland peace process and the protocol should be no exception to this. Will the Minister talk to the European Union through the joint committee, and to the Irish Government through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which was set up by the Good Friday agreement, and, above all, talk to all the political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Executive and their leaders? Only by talking will we ultimately resolve these issues.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree that dialogue is extremely important. I and my team are in constant touch with Vice-President Šefčovič and his teams, and of course my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also has many contacts in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that there will be a specialised committee tomorrow, 26 March, within the joint committee framework to consider all the issues related to implementing the protocol. We continue to pursue dialogue in that framework.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, while the Northern Ireland protocol remains in place, British medicines going from Britain to Northern Ireland will, from 31 December this year, need not only to comply with EU regulation but to be batch-tested inside the EEA. They could therefore be hostage to capricious EU export bans. Will my noble friend assure the people of Northern Ireland that the Government will guarantee them a continuous, reliable supply of medicines, including any necessary vaccine boosters, even if that requires the Government to take unilateral action?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the people of Northern Ireland must of course have access to a wide availability of medicines and pharmaceutical products, just as in any other part of the UK. There is, of course, a grace period in place until the end of this year for the protocol provisions. We have proposed, as is known to the EU, that this should be extended by a further year. We continue to discuss this matter.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, given that the protocol prevents the flow of free trade within the United Kingdom internal market and stops any elected representative, either at Stormont or here at Westminster, having any say or vote on laws which govern a large degree of the economy of Northern Ireland, does my noble friend agree that these matters must be addressed and corrected at the earliest opportunity; that we as a sovereign, independent country must ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are treated in the same way as people elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and that we have to do this to ensure that we have a stable future for devolution and a balanced and proper implementation of the agreements, not a one-sided interpretation and implementation of them?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct to say that the future of the protocol depends on the consent of the elected representatives and the people of Northern Ireland. If that consent is not maintained, it is difficult to see how the protocol can be genuinely durable. All sides must work to sustain it. The EU needs to be aware of the impact its decisions have had on the ground in Northern Ireland in recent months, and continue to work to implement the protocol in a pragmatic and proportionate fashion.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, touring and performing in Europe is crucial to our creative industries in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister take the opportunity to put on record today the reason why HM Government rejected the offer made in the EU draft legal text of March 2020 to exempt musicians and artists from any new visa requirements or restrictions on short-term work on the continent?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the British people voted to end free movement in 2016 and that was a central part of our approach to the negotiations in 2020. The specific proposal made by the European Union would not have dealt with all the difficulties that cultural workers face. The proposal that we made would have, so we regret that agreement on it was not possible, but we continue to discuss this matter bilaterally now with European member states.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Crawley
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) why Her Majesty’s Government unilaterally extended the grace period for checks on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the temporary operational measures announced by the Government earlier this month were taken to avoid disruption to supermarket supplies and parcel deliveries, in accordance with the protocol’s aim to minimise disruption to everyday lives in Northern Ireland. We continue to discuss the implementation of the protocol with the EU within the joint committee framework.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister and welcome him to his new post. Why did the Government not listen to the 29 trade associations that said in December that there were not enough official vets to cope with the new rules requiring export health certificates for trade in animal products crossing the Irish Sea? He tweeted on 12 March:
“overall freight volumes between the UK and the EU have been back to their normal levels for over a month now”.
Is he saying that for the first quarter of 2021 the volume of trade between the EU and UK will be approximately the same as for the first quarter of 2020? If not, what is he saying exactly?
Lord Frost (Con)
In answer to the first part of the question, I say that we work very closely with companies wishing to trade into Northern Ireland and have set up a movement assistance scheme specifically designed for companies exporting food and drink. On the second part, I say what I said in my tweet—freight volumes are back to normal and have been since the beginning of February. We must await official figures for trade value, and those are subject to some of the same considerations discussed earlier.
Lord Caine (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that, under the Belfast agreement, Northern Ireland is not a hybrid state but an integral part of the United Kingdom —ultimate responsibility for which rests with the sovereign United Kingdom Government? Where there is evidence that the protocol is not working as envisaged—as the Prime Minister recently acknowledged —and Northern Ireland is disadvantaged, is it not the duty of Her Majesty’s Government to take whatever action is necessary to remedy that, unilaterally if required?
Lord Frost (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right; Northern Ireland is not subject to some sort of co-governance arrangement with the EU. Northern Ireland is fully part of the United Kingdom, its custom arrangements and internal market. The protocol is extremely clear on this point. However the protocol is implemented, it must be done in a way consistent with these fundamental provisions.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
One of the effects of the Minister’s decision on the grace period is that nobody now knows when the new treaty will be ratified. I take him back to his answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the Government’s February decision that the entire governance structure under the new treaty—all the myriad committees charged with tackling practical problems, tying up loose ends and rebuilding relations—should stay on ice until after ratification. No one knows when ratification will be. The report by the EU Select Committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, saw no justification for allowing matters to drift in this way. The Minister’s answer suggests that he does not agree. If so, what is his justification for this drift and what was the withdrawal agreement legal base for his unilateral decision on the grace periods?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, our expectation is that the trade and co-operation agreement will be ratified by the end of April. We have agreed to that in the partnership council by written process. We look to the European Union to uphold that obligation. The unilateral measures were lawful as part of a progressive and proportionate implementation of the protocol.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, said that a road map to the full implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol was needed. Since the noble Lord has taken office, has he had the chance to meet Mr Coveney? If not, does he have plans to do so at an early date? There are many of us who think that, on the basis of the noble Lord’s distinguished diplomatic record, he might do a better job spending more time on diplomacy and less time issuing ideological declarations.
Lord Frost (Con)
I have of course had a conversation with the Irish Foreign Minister, as I have with many Ministers around Europe. Our intention is to pursue the issues arising from the protocol through dialogue, both with the Commission and with our European friends.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, further to his earlier replies to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, can the Minister confirm that concluding a bespoke EU-UK veterinary agreement will be a key priority during the grace period? Does he feel that progress is already being made in that regard?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the European Union has a number of SPS and veterinary agreements with third countries based on equivalence, not dynamic alignment. We continue to be open to an arrangement based on equivalence. At the moment, our understanding is that the European Union does not wish to negotiate such an arrangement.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Frost, to his distinguished place on the Front Bench; I have many good memories of working together on European issues in the Blair Government. When it comes to making the Northern Ireland protocol work more flexibly, the key question surely is about trust between the Commission and the British Government. Will he seize this golden opportunity today to affirm publicly that the British Government are not seeking to scrap the Northern Ireland protocol or negotiate any changes to the text that the Prime Minister himself agreed?
Lord Frost (Con)
I too have happy memories of working with the noble Lord in a rather different context a few years ago. Our clear position is that the protocol depends on the consent of all the people of Northern Ireland. As long as that consent is not maintained, it is difficult to see how the protocol can be genuinely durable. We are working to sustain the protocol, but in a pragmatic and proportionate fashion.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister. Is he aware that some of us strongly support his unilateral action in extending the grace periods? Without them there would be shortages of food and no medicines in Northern Ireland. Banning British sausages in Belfast hardly strengthens the Good Friday agreement, but a temporary waiver is not a permanent solution to these problems. Is he confident that there is sufficient flexibility and potential easements in the protocol for a permanent solution, or is it going to require action under Article 16?
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his words of support for the operational measures that we took earlier this month. These measures are lawful and consistent with the progressive and good-faith implementation of the protocol. They are intended to avoid disruption to everyday life in Northern Ireland, which we would otherwise have seen. We are working with the Commission to see if we can find solutions to those problems and many others on a more permanent basis, and we continue to pursue that actively.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I give full support to Her Majesty’s Government in taking the action to extend the grace period for trade checks between GB and NI. In the face of the belligerent attitude of the EU at the joint committee, I believe that there was no alternative. However, does the noble Lord agree that the trade border is now on the island of Ireland, at Belfast, Larne and so on? As such, if it can be there, is there any credible reason why it cannot be moved to inside EU territory—specifically, inside the Irish Republic—making the EU responsible for the protection of its internal market?
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her words of support and for acknowledging that we had no choice in the operational measures that we took earlier this month. The protocol depends on cross-community support and the consent of the majority of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As a matter of logic, if that consent were not to be renewed in the future, it would have implications that all sides would need to consider at that point.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. There will now be a brief business statement.
Arrangement of Business
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chief Whip, I thought that this would be a convenient point to confirm the plan for the Whitsun Recess. Subject to the progress of business, as is always the case, we will rise for half term at the conclusion of proceedings on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June. A copy of these dates will be made available in the Royal Gallery.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we will shortly consider Commons amendments to the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. As there is a counterproposition to the Minister’s Motion, any Member in the Chamber may speak in this debate, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Any Member intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members who do not intend to speak should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged, and a Member listed to speak and wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
Leave should be given to withdraw Motions. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if a Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. Noble Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, content or not content, to the collection of voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email; the way to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Thursday 25th March 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 186-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons disagreement and amendments in lieu - (23 Mar 2021)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18A, 18B, 18C, 18D and 18E in lieu.
“(b) in the heading, for “Two” substitute “Five”.”
(i) the words “without being extended under section 5(2)” become sub-paragraph (i);
(ii) at the end of that sub-paragraph insert “, or
(ii) having been extended under section 5(2) on fewer than four occasions,”;
(b) in subsection (7)(b), at the end insert “(and regardless of how many times it has been so extended)”;
(c) in subsection (9)—
(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a);
(ii) after paragraph (b) insert “; and
“(c) is treated as having been extended under section 5(2) on the same number of occasions (if any) as on which the revived notice had been so extended.””
“(3) The replacement TPIM notice is to be treated as having been extended under section 5(2) on the same number of occasions (if any) as on which the overturned notice had been so extended (including any extension that was quashed).””
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A. Commons Amendments 18A to 18E, tabled by Her Majesty’s Government in lieu of your Lordships’ Amendment 18, would set a new upper limit of five years on the duration of a TPIM, in contrast to the four years proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
As I said on Report, the Government are pleased that your Lordships’ House has acknowledged the inadequacies of the current two-year time limit. On more than one occasion, it has resulted in a cliff edge, leaving dangerous individuals in the community without suitable risk management measures in place while a new TPIM was prepared.
We do not share the concerns that were raised in respect of the Bill’s original proposal to enable TPIMs to be renewed for as long as is necessary for public protection, which included lessening the incentive to prosecute subjects or the risk of individuals being warehoused. None the less, we recognise the clear strength of feeling expressed by your Lordships’ House that TPIMs should have a finite limit.
The Government believe that a five-year limit would be more effective than a four-year limit in supporting our operational partners’ efforts to manage the enduring risk that some subjects pose. This reflects our experience of operating the TPIM regime, as well as historical experience from control orders. As I have set out previously, during the lifespan of the control order regime, there were three individuals who were sufficiently dangerous to be subject to an order for between four and five years.
As well as further reducing the prospect of a cliff edge when the measure comes to an end, a five-year limit will also ensure that the other benefits of a TPIM can be maximised, including providing more time to rehabilitate the individual and, if necessary, identify alternative risk-management and disruption options. In cases of charismatic radicalisers, it will also provide additional time to degrade their networks and reduce the wider threat from others who may have been influenced by the subject, were it not for the TPIM measures.
I emphasise that it will not become routine practice for TPIMs to last five years. The Home Secretary will not hesitate to revoke a TPIM notice, to remove measures specified within the notice or to choose not to renew the notice when it is no longer necessary or proportionate. As we have discussed in detail, TPIMs will continue to be subject to regular scrutiny, including through quarterly and annual review meetings, and the judicial oversight that your Lordships have heard about will continue to be in place, providing for another layer of independent scrutiny.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Hamwee
Leave out from first “do” to the end and insert “insist on its Amendment 18 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 18A, 18B, 18C, 18D and 18E in lieu.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
From these Benches, at previous stages of the Bill, we have explained to the House our opposition to the extension of TPIMs through the package of changes to the 2011 Act contained in Part 3 of the Bill. We acknowledge that the Bill is not quite as it arrived originally with us, in that “reasonable grounds for suspicion” has become “reasonable grounds for belief”—that is still a long way from the current balance of probabilities—and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will have a duty to carry out annual reviews for five years. As the Minister confirmed at the last stage, that is what could be done in any event, without that amendment.
We indicated our views by a number of Divisions, as well as in debate, but it was only the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with the authoritative support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that was agreed by your Lordships, reining back indefinite TPIMs to four years. That is the issue with us today.
As I said, Part 3 as it relates to TPIMs is a package. Its main components are the length of the TPIM, residence measures—in other words, detention—where that detention or residence is to be, and the curfew. Without limits on the period referred to at a previous stage by the Government as “enduring detention”, that would have amounted to indefinite house arrest, without trial let alone conviction, and on the basis of the Home Secretary having reasonable grounds for belief that there is or has been terrorism-related activity.
We saw, and still see, no need to extend TPIMs, a view taken by the current independent reviewer, and we have heard from the police that they had been unable to apply TPIMs as they needed. Of course, five years must be better in our view than detention without statutory limit. The Minister called it “more effective”. Obviously, it is a longer period, by definition, and so closer to the Government’s original indefinite proposal. I am a little taken aback by the suggestion that it is better because it allows more time for rehabilitation—this may not be the moment to go into what rehabilitation is made available and was proposed to be made available on an indefinite basis, or whatever basis. In any event, it is five years compared with four years or the original two years, which we debated, and compared with the period that noble Lords asked the Commons to consider.
The Minister said that it would not be routine and, happily, it cannot be routine, because there are some other safeguarding provisions in the original legislation. The Minister—I refer to the Minister in the Commons—said that this
“represents a reasonable compromise between a desire to set a reasonable limit on the maximum duration of TPIMs and protecting our fellow citizens”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 714.]
There are a lot of points to debate within that sentence, but I shall not try your Lordships’ patience by rehearsing them or the arguments that I and other noble Lords, particularly my noble friends, have made during the course of this Bill. Five years sounds less like a compromise than acknowledging that to stick to no limit would cause the Government trouble at a point in the parliamentary Session when they really do not have time for it, coupled with a concern not to lose face, which I suppose is simply human, but there does not seem to have been a lot of intellectual rigour applied to the proposal that we now have.
The views of our Benches are clear: we have not changed our views, but we recognise the parliamentary realities. We do not support what the Government are doing, but we will not seek to divide the House today.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, behind today’s limited and so far rather civilised debate lies perhaps the most divisive and hard-fought civil liberties dispute of this century. In the frenzied weeks after 9/11, we saw the British answer to Guantanamo—a scheme of indefinite detention in Belmarsh prison at the behest of the Executive for foreign nationals who could be neither deported nor put on trial. When that scheme was declared by our highest court to discriminate unlawfully on grounds of nationality, the control order regime of 2005, applicable to British citizens also, was put in its place.
Control orders were replaced by the more liberal TPIMs regime in 2011, after intense debate within the coalition Government. Then the pendulum began to swing back: relocation of subjects was restored in 2015, and this Bill, as it was first presented to your Lordships, would have allowed these uniquely draconian measures, now including the possibility of daytime curfews, to be imposed indefinitely and on the basis of nothing more than a reasonable suspicion of involvement in activity only indirectly related to terrorism.
It is not fashionable to claim that the institutions of our liberal democracy are in good health but, on this occasion, I suggest that they have succeeded in their function of resolving strongly felt differences in public opinion decisively, firmly and in a rights-compliant manner. Let there be no mistake: the measures about to be passed into law are severe and indeed draconian, as public opinion no doubt demands. But it is at least something that a 20-year struggle to reconcile the requirements of security and civil liberties, a struggle in which Belmarsh, control orders and TPIMs have been on the very front line, has been reduced to a dry-sounding choice between Motion A and Motion A1 on the Marshalled List.
In supporting the Government on the compromise that is Motion A, I first acknowledge the consistency and moral force of the Liberal Democrat position. The addition of the fifth year to the maximum duration of a TPIM may have been the straw that broke their back, and, as I indicated to the Minister, it came close to breaking mine. However, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is consoled by the fact that during the passage of this Bill her party has helped to restore two of its earlier vital achievements in government: the time-limiting of TPIMs and the requirement of at least a reasonable belief that a TPIM subject should have been involved in terrorism-related activity.
I further thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for co-signing the relevant amendments, and the Labour Front Bench for their support and votes—not perhaps a foregone conclusion, given that it was Labour which devised the original control orders back in 2005. I thank the Government for the equal flexibility which they displayed when confronted with the mood of this House, for the important assurances given just now by the Minister, in particular for the assurance that five years will not become the new normal, and for the accessibility and courtesy of all Ministers towards me. On one call with the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Wolfson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, I was impressed to see that no less a figure than the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had also been fielded, presumably as a kind of sweeper in the event that any of his freshly capped young ministerial colleagues might be tempted to give away the ball. What drills are performed on the ministerial training ground I cannot know, but I mean it as a compliment to all concerned when I say that no intervention by the noble Earl came close to being needed.
I finish with a reference to the latest report of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, published on Tuesday and not, I think, previously brought to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Of Jonathan Hall QC’s 13 recommendations across the whole field of counter-terrorism law, numbers 9, 10 and 11 relate specifically to TPIMs. He recommended that the possibility of prosecuting TPIM subjects, not for breach of their TPIMs but for terrorism-related activity, be kept under closer review than is currently the case. He recommended that the cumulative period for which TPIM restrictions had already applied be expressly recognised as a factor going to their proportionality. He also recommended that legal funding be swiftly made available to all TPIM subjects for the purpose of participating in Section 9 review hearings, as appears, most unfortunately, not to be the case currently. That is the bare minimum, as he rightly recognised, for ensuring the access to court that can alone render these highly intrusive measures consistent with the rule of law.
Each of the independent reviewer’s concerns, as expressed in those three recommendations, can only be deepened by the extension to the maximum length of TPIMs that will be effected by this Bill. The Minister will, I am sure, tell us that the recommendations of the independent reviewer will receive careful consideration. But the Home Office has already had them for more than four months, and I notified the Minister this morning of my intention to mention them. I invite the Minister to go further this afternoon, by assuring the House that the Government accept these recommendations and will implement them.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, in view of the eloquent and comprehensive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I can confine my remarks to three points. First, it seems to me that the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, must be right as a matter of principle. Both the areas which the House has examined in detail—namely the burden of proof required and the length of time—are essential for ensuring that this is a regime that does not disproportionately affect the fundamental right of liberty.
Secondly, the considerable importance of the current amendment is that we have moved away from the prospect of orders of an indefinite renewal period. Not only would those have been discouraging and demoralising to the individual and made it more difficult to ensure that he could, on removal of the TPIM, return as an ordinary member of society, but, as importantly, they would have been perceived as unfair by the community. The perception of fairness by the community safeguards us to a much more considerable extent than any other matters.
Thirdly, I profoundly welcome the pragmatic approach of the Minister, supported as he has been in this by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart. It is wonderful that a proper compromise has been reached here and I thank them for their considerable part in bringing this about. It may not be perfect, but it gets rid of those areas that would have been most damaging to our civil liberties.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at Second Reading, I made the point that it is very important that we restate the arguments for these draconian measures. I took the opportunity of talking to my son and others of his generation of young people in their early 20s about these measures which we take in our country. We had an interesting discussion about the proportionality of this and the right of a state to protect itself from potential terrorism. It is right that these arguments are revisited, as they are every year. It is a tribute to this House that many of the Peers who have taken part in these debates have a long-standing involvement in these issues—unlike me. It is, nevertheless, important that these arguments are remade, as they have been.
I too thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, for their engagement; it was an interesting process. They also made it possible for me and other noble Lords to meet some of the experts in the Home Office who are dealing with these issues on a day-to-day basis. It was certainly instructive to meet the psychiatrists and psychologists who are involved in the various programmes that take place in prison and look at how TPIMs are managed outside prisons.
I also acknowledge that the Minister has made a concession in time-limiting TPIMs to five years. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put the point well—as she always does—about the principle of having a time limit rather than the issue running on indefinitely. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who was responsible for the introduction of the original control orders in 2005, has changed his view on this, in light of the change in circumstances and the growing learning of how to handle people who are potentially very dangerous. Although the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, proposed four years, we of course accept the Minister’s counterproposal of a five-year limit.
I conclude by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. He has led us on this, in some ways, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who also has tremendous experience in this area. If I were to direct my son to read a speech, it would be the final one from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which is a very good summary of the situation we have arrived at and the considerations we have made in reaching this compromise.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the debate today and, indeed, throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said, we have had some very civilised debates about some very important issues of civil liberties, and we are grateful for the tone in which they have been conducted, as well as for the points that they have covered. Noble Lords asked a few questions which I shall cover briefly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, while this may not be the time to open the debate about rehabilitation, asked about rehabilitative measures. We have seen, under the current two-year time limit, the problem of TPIM subjects riding out their maximum two years without changing their extremist mindset and with an unwillingness to engage with rehabilitative measures. This is an issue that has been reported on by a former independent reviewer. This change will, we think, create a genuine incentive for the subject to demonstrate that they have rehabilitated themselves and that extending the TPIM notice is not necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raised the latest annual report by the current independent reviewer, Jonathan Hall, and some of the points he has recommended. He is right that the response will be considered and published in full in the usual way, but let me address the points he raised. On reviewing the case for prosecution, we welcome Mr Hall’s recommendation that the case for prosecution should be kept under review. The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that prosecution is our preferred option and the best way to manage risk. As has been noted through our debates on the Bill, TPIMs are resource-intensive tools and often an option of last resort. Before a TPIM is imposed, Section 10 of the TPIM Act first requires that confirmation be provided by a senior police officer that there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution and, under Section 11, the Government “must keep under review” the necessity and proportionality of all TPIM notices. A key consideration at all TPIM review group meetings is whether there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution for terrorism-related activity or the breach of a TPIM measure.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, on the Minister’s last point, I am not sure it can be called consensus, but we recognise the realities. He compared the opportunity for rehabilitation under a potentially five-year regime with one of two years. I was comparing it with one of four, but that whole issue is one for another day, and I have no doubt we will come back to this before too long. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We have recognised that the thinking among our Labour colleagues has developed somewhat. I am sorry that we have not been able to meet face-to-face to discuss all this.
The House benefits enormously from the experience and wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I so much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the importance of the attitude of the community that is affected—not in the same way, but nevertheless substantially affected—when a member of the community is made subject to a TPIM. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, as ever, put the situation far better than I can, even though we arrive at different, very slightly different, conclusions. I thank the Minister, all his colleagues and the officials in the Home Office. This is not over as a matter that we will be keeping our eyes on, because the country has to. I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Covid-19: One Year Report
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That, for the purposes of section 99 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, this House takes note of the One year report on the status of the non-devolved provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020, published on 22 March 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, it has been a year since the House passed the Coronavirus Act, and this anniversary gives us a moment to reflect. Despite the remarkable challenges of the past year, the spirit of co-operation and consensus that epitomised the passage of that Bill at that time of national crisis stands firm today. Now, a whole year later, it seems that our legislative approach has stood the test of time.
Our response required using the tools that were already available, such as the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and at the same time rapidly developing new tools such as the Coronavirus Act. This dual approach has enabled us not only to tackle the public health threat but to underpin our public health response with a broader package of civic and financial support.
At the time we looked very closely at the Civil Contingencies Act, and I know many noble Lords feel we missed an opportunity there, not least because it might have meant that we engaged more fully with Parliament, but also because it would have taken us down an all-UK approach that would have perhaps somehow have spared the pressure on the union. However, the truth is that that choice was never possible. The Civil Contingencies Act is a provision of the last resort and its use is subject to very strict triple-lock criteria. A change to the CCA would have been necessary for it to have been usable. Instead, we used the Public Health Act 1984 to enact most of our public health legislative responses to the virus. It is an unloved Act, and many suggest we stretched it beyond its intended purpose. That is not true. We used it for what it was designed to do: to protect the population from communicable diseases of pandemic proportions. Indeed, the Act had been enhanced after the swine flu pandemic in 2008 with amendments specifically to enable a rapid response to a pandemic. Further, we chose to use the 1984 Act because it was and remains preferable to use existing powers. It was and is the right way to respond.
The 1984 Act provided us with many of the tools to respond to the public health risk, but it did not give us everything we needed. We needed to support our people: individuals, businesses and the economy; to shore up the capacity and resilience of our health and care systems; and we needed the continued delivery of essential public services. These are the three reasons we introduced the Coronavirus Act and, one year later, they are the reasons why we still need it. Yes, vaccines are happening at breakneck speed, but we are not out of the woods yet. We all need the continuation of this support and, while it is still required, it is our duty to provide it. The continued need for this dual legislative approach does not mean that we should remain static. A key feature of our response has been our ability to adapt and to respond to a changing set of circumstances, and this is precisely what the road map and today’s legislation are about: taking cautious steps towards ending public health restrictions and getting back to normal.
I will take a moment to reflect on a few of the benefits and achievements of the Act. It enabled the temporary registration of over 15,000 nurses, midwives and nursing associates, as well as over 21,000 temporary paramedics, practitioners, radiographers and other professionals. It has eased the burden on front-line staff by reducing administrative tasks, so that their time can be focused on where they are most needed. It has facilitated innovation, with comprehensive indemnity arrangements that give clinical staff the confidence to treat their patients to the best of their ability. The Act has allowed us to provide key financial support and resilience to individuals and businesses impacted by Covid-19 through schemes such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Bounce Back Loan Scheme and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme.
The Act has preserved access to justice by enabling 750,000 hearings to take place through remote technology. Section 78 of the Act has enabled local authority meetings to take place either remotely or in hybrid form. Death rates are now coming down, but it is worth remembering that we used the Act to guarantee the continuation of death management services, easing the administrative burden at a time when funeral services were struggling and the nation’s morgues were almost overwhelmed. Section 18 of the Act modified death and stillbirth registration; since the provisions came into force, nearly 95% of death registrations in England and Wales have been completed by telephone.
I completely acknowledge that some aspects of the Act cause noble Lords concern. We did not take the measures lightly and we do not use them freely. However, it remains vital to have the ability to take appropriate action for our response to be effective. These key functions that I have just described illustrate why we seek Parliament’s approval today to keep the powers in place.
When we introduced the Coronavirus Act a year ago, we were clear that this was only a temporary measure. We made a promise to Parliament that we would not keep any provision in place for longer than was necessary, and we have made good on that promise. In line with the spirit of the Act, we are dropping every single additional provision possible. Today we are announcing the expiration of 12 provisions, which represent nearly 25% of non-devolved powers. Recommending the expiry of so many provisions is a clear demonstration of our commitment to balancing the ability on the one hand to respond effectively and on the other to ensure that only those provisions deemed necessary and proportionate are kept in place.
We note our thanks to our colleagues in all devolved Administrations for their collaboration in working to expire so many provisions. In addition, we are also suspending a further three provisions; the full one-year status report outlining the outcome of this review was laid before Parliament earlier this week. The temporary modification of mental health and mental capacity legislation is one example of a provision which we had already expired on 10 December 2020. We identified that these provisions were no longer required due to the commitment and resilience of NHS staff—and there is a long list of other provisions we have retired.
Over the course of the pandemic there have been all manner of unexpected twists and turns; just as the virus has evolved over time, our response has had to evolve. We worked hard to get the tiering system right, because we wanted a system that worked for the whole country. The differential approach we took last summer yielded significant results, for instance in Leicester, where the incidence rate decreased from 135 per 100,000 to below 40 by the end of August 2020. However, it also had its downsides: it led to more legislation and some confusion. The tier system was intended to bring consistency, but we have since realised that simplicity and clarity are absolutely paramount. The emergence of the Kent variant showed us the value of a national approach. Our learning from the tiers has also enhanced what we have been able to do in the road map.
I know that lots of noble Lords feel frustrated and like they have not been heard, but I want to reiterate that they have been heard, and we have been listening. We are sensitive to feedback, as demonstrated by some of the adjustments we have made. We have introduced support bubbles to enable people at risk of isolation to access their informal support networks. We have changed the rules on places of worship, keeping churches, mosques, synagogues and other holy places open for communal worship throughout the last lockdown. Today we are making an amendment to the self-isolation regulations to include additional exemptions to allow people to self-isolate to support a pregnant person as a birthing partner. We introduced shielding to protect those most at risk of the virus. We know, however, that shielding has been hard, and we listen to feedback and modify guidance wherever possible.
Noble Lords also asked for local authorities to be brought in, and they have, through the contain framework. Contain works closely with local authorities to understand the challenges they are facing and to help ensure that national responses provide the support local areas need. The challenge provided by parliamentary scrutiny over the past year has enabled us to make our approach more sophisticated, and the road map, with its emphasis on simplicity and clarity, has benefited greatly from these challenges and improvements.
We cannot stop now. There is more to do. That is why I am setting out the eagerly awaited sequence of steps to ease restrictions and lead us towards lifting limits on social contact by 21 June. We could not have reached this point in this journey were it not for the provisions and achievements of the Coronavirus Act, our world-leading vaccination programme and the perseverance and commitment of the British public. There are four clear steps which rely on four clear tests, each of which is underpinned by the scientific evidence. Opening too early or too quickly risks a further lockdown. Therefore, our approach focuses on data, not dates, which I know will be well supported here.
As long as we see no significant regional disparity, the steps for easing restrictions will be taken at the same time across England in a national approach. The first measures of step 1 took place on 8 March, with an amendment to the all-tiers regulation. As promised, we prioritised education, and all school and college pupils have now returned to face-to-face education. Alongside the pre-existing exercise provision, the regulations allow outdoor recreation with your household or one other person and make provision for the gradual reopening of care homes for visits. On 22 March, we laid the steps regulation, which enables us to move forward to the next stage of the road map and puts the remaining steps of the road map into law.
Today marks the start of a new chapter, one of progress and happier times to come, but it is only the start of the journey. We need to be cautious and not put the significant progress we have achieved so far at risk. I thank noble Lords for their continued, constructive challenge and all those who worked so hard on this cross- government, cross-public service movement to fight this horrible disease. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, who have made sure that their challenges have been heard and reflected on. Our approach has been better for it. It is not possible to namecheck everyone, but I single out thanks for all those NHS and social care staff, volunteers, returned healthcare staff, and the Army, who were involved in the deployment of the vaccine. Lastly, I extend an enormous thank you to the general public for continuing to follow the lockdown rules. The attitude of the public remains resolute. These measures are doing the lion’s share of the work in protecting everybody’s families and loved ones. I commend these regulations to the House.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, on Tuesday, we marked the sad milestone of the anniversary of the first lockdown by remembering all those who have died from Covid in the United Kingdom. We know that the shocking number of 126,000 is an underestimate, given that the count is of those who tested positive in the previous 28 days, and there are many who died beyond that period. But even with that, we are top of the world league in deaths per million at 1,859. To every family and friend of those who have died we send our deepest sympathies.
Before I come to why we have tabled this regret Motion, it is important to note the things that have gone well, such as the commitment of so many people in key roles across the country—in the NHS and social care, and our scientists and technicians in laboratories. Especial thanks go to those in our universities and research organisations who have found treatments and, most importantly, vaccines. We thank all those who have ensured that the vaccine pipeline has worked so well so far. Despite bumps on the road, it is impressive.
We also want to thank the teams in the Civil Service, local government and communities which have stepped up to the plate to ensure that core services and voluntary community groups remained working. One year on, they are all exhausted. We thank Ministers too; we understand the pressure that Ministers face every day. Sometimes, we have to hold them to account, and I know that can be hard. We thank them all.
We on these Benches have not tabled this regret Motion lightly, but from a growing frustration that the Government are still behaving as if we were in the early days of this pandemic and have not learned the lessons of what went wrong earlier on. Monday’s BBC “Panorama” programme interviewed the President of South Korea and asked him why the UK had done so badly, despite all the evidence from those countries that had been affected by SARS locking down early. His answer was telling. He said that each country in Europe appeared to have to go through its own crisis to understand the strong, clear actions it should have taken right at the outset, then repeatedly to prevent the virus escalating or re-entering the country. The UK death toll is, sadly, the evidence that the Government have got it wrong.
One year on, this has changed from a public health emergency to a civil liberties emergency, where women at a vigil for a murdered young woman are held to the ground by police with their knees on their backs. One year on, the Coronavirus Act has an unprecedented 100% unlawful prosecution rate. The CPS has identified at least 250 people being wrongfully charged. It is still causing enormous confusion among police and prosecutors, which is not their fault. It is not fit for purpose, but it cannot be amended today because we have a “take it or leave it” take-note Motion.
One year on, all people want are hugs and holidays with their families and friends, but the messages from Government are at odds with their own experts on how we make sure that mixing together and beginning to travel again are safe. Only on Monday, the Government published the annual review of the Coronavirus Act for the debate today. That report typifies much of the frustration we have with the Government’s overall performance.
Last March, my noble friends Lord Newby, Lord Scriven and Lady Barker all pushed Ministers to ensure that there was information publicly available on the government website about powers in SIs being turned on and off. We were concerned that many regulations would be made under the Public Health Act, not the Coronavirus Act, which the Minister has referred to, and this has proved to be true. My noble friend Lord Newby asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe:
“At Second Reading yesterday, my noble friend Lady Barker suggested that the Government should produce a grid to explain which clauses of the Bill have been implemented, and exactly how. That is a very good idea and I hope the Government can accept it, but could they go slightly further by having, as part of that grid, a list of all the other provisions introduced to deal with the coronavirus, but not necessarily under this Bill? I cite, for example, the power to close restaurants and all other places where people congregate, which was introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That would be helpful not only for specialists, as it were, like us, but for those who want to find and then look at the legislative basis for decisions.”—[Official Report, 25/3/20; col. 1765.]
The noble Earl replied to your Lordships’ House:
“The noble Lord, Lord Newby, proposed that the website report should be comprehensive. I believe I can give him that reassurance.”—[Official Report, 25/3/20; col. 1772.]
But that has not happened. Only the SIs in relation to this Act have been covered. It is not fit for purpose.
The Hansard Society’s excellent SI dashboard tells us that last year, more than 400 SIs were published relating to powers in an astonishing 118 Acts of Parliament, five orders and five EU Acts, which are now held in UK law since 31 January.
On accountability, Ministers repeatedly said during the passage of the Bill a year ago that there would be special efforts to remain transparent and accountable to Parliament and the public. Too often, Ministers have not answered questions put to them in Parliament, nor written to answer them afterwards. FoIs are often answered late and without real information. Details of dodgy contracts are not published, nor are the arrangements for the so-called VIP channel that gave fast-track access to many Tory donors and friends. The Liberal Democrats will not give a blank cheque for this cynical bypassing of the long-established and respected transparency and accountability of Ministers and Government to Parliament. It is not fit for purpose.
The Act sets in place the arrangements for furlough, the self-employed, those self-isolating and those shielding if they work in non-Covid safe spaces. But millions of the self-employed have fallen through this safety net. Thousands who needed support to self-isolate found that they were turned down because the rules were too tight, and those shielding will have their benefits turned off from next week but are still told that they must not mix with people in non Covid-safe workplaces. This Act is not fit for purpose.
The SIs in front of us continue to typify some of those contradictory issues. On international travel, there will now be a £5,000 fine for someone going on a package holiday to Greece. But the Prime Minister’s father is allowed to go to Greece to deal with his property there—the Stanley Johnson special treatment clause.
SAGE advised the Government on 21 January this year that
“No intervention, other than a complete, pre-emptive closure of borders, or the mandatory quarantine of all visitors upon arrival in designated facilities, irrespective of testing history, can get close to fully prevent the importation of cases or new variants.”
We agree with SAGE. Until we take every step to ensure that new variants of coronavirus cannot be brought back into the country, it cannot be allowed to run rife in our communities because we lock down too late. When we will learn from South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand that the only way to save the economy is to fight this virus hard and not create special rules or confusing laws? This Act is not fit for purpose.
I move on briefly to the arrangements for international travel covered in the SI on the steps to unlocking. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there was no need to test haulage drivers as they arrived in the UK, despite the fact that those leaving the UK have to be tested. At the Liaison Committee he was clear on this matter. Everyone accepts that drivers of haulage vehicles must be on the excepted occupation lists; we understand why it is difficult to make them quarantine. The government website lists such drivers and the specific arrangements for each of the excepted occupations. I was shocked to see that, unlike virtually all the other excepted occupations, drivers arriving from non-red countries do not need to take any tests at all, not even on days two and eight, as most others do. We accept the argument for some excepted occupations but a system under which drivers have no testing requirements at all is not fit for purpose.
In recent weeks Public Health England was trying to trace an unknown individual who had brought the Brazil variant into the country. New international travel regulations had already come into force, three weeks before, but it beggared belief that there was no link between testing and people quarantining—or worse, that there was no system to ensure that anyone taking a test could be tracked back to where the tests were sent. That is not fit for purpose.
Today’s new issue is about the use of vaccine passports in England for access to pubs and other venues as lockdown is lifted. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said at the Liaison Committee that he saw a role for domestic vaccine passports. Today, sensible people such as Jonathan Neame of Shepherd Neame pubs explained why that is complex and asked rightly who will police it and make decisions about those who cannot or have not been called for their vaccines. Will it be a young member of bar staff? Surely not.
One year on, there is no recovery plan looking forward, just crisis regulations being created and statements made that are then contradicted or discovered to be only half what was needed to prevent more cases. Where is the plan that will demonstrate that the Government are moving out of crisis mode and are prepared to remove all those regulations that we no longer need, and which put constraints on people’s lives?
Last week, the National Audit Office said that many of the Covid contracts relating to PPE and testing were not value for money and, worse, not transparent. We agree. Last June, Ed Davey MP asked the Prime Minister to agree to an independent public inquiry. He did agree, but there is still no information about what or when. Worse, there was not even an interim review last summer to learn the lessons from lockdown one, which might well have helped reduce the slow lock- down before Christmas that caused many thousands of unnecessary deaths.
I have read with interest the Motion to Regret in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I hope that she and her colleagues can support ours. Her frustration with the Government’s management of the pandemic is evident, too.
In conclusion, we stand at a crossroads. We are no longer in the emergency phase that we were in a year ago. Parts of the legislation are now either out of date or unworkable and that needs to be remedied. The Government must show Parliament that they can put the recovery first. They should follow the advice of their experts, bring a plan to Parliament and the people, and deliver it.
I will be calling for a vote on my Motion in order to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for his speech, and also for his very hard work over the past 12 months, which has been much appreciated. I thought that his speech was noticeable for what it did not say as much as for what he included. Of course he was right to praise the work on vaccines; I salute the brilliance of the scientists, the scale and diversity of the UK vaccine procurement, and the magnificent effort of the NHS in vaccinating so many people. I also pay tribute to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which has taken tough decisions, held its nerve and got it right.
However, in the words of my noble friend Lady Thornton’s Motion to Regret, the Government’s handling of the pandemic has resulted in
“one of the highest death tolls in the world and the worst economic crisis of any major economy”.
This has been compounded by the fact that the most vulnerable in this country have been the hardest hit. We should not overlook the Government’s slow and uncertain response. Their record has been one of delay, indecision and vacillation. The failure to lock down early enough last spring, despite clear evidence of the need to do so, was compounded, as the Resolution Foundation points out, by being repeated in September and then in December. Many Conservative MPs wish to do the same today by opposing the continuation of the provisions in the Act.
On this country’s high death rate, we should never forget the inexcusable 20,000 Covid deaths in English care homes in 2020 or the fact that mortality rates in the most deprived areas have been almost twice those in the least deprived.
The review that accompanies these regulations speaks of the Government’s commitment to protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods. There is much to commend but there have been some real problems too. Many of the self-employed fell through the net. Some 2 million low earners are excluded from receiving sick pay; when they are asked to isolate at home without any protection of their employment, many have felt unable to do so. That contributed to the weakness of the test and trace system, which has been unable to provide an alternative to lockdowns.
An excellent analysis this week by the British Academy points to the many impacts that flowed from lockdowns, including people being unable to see family and friends, travel or take part in leisure activities. These impacts should of course ease quickly as lockdown comes to an end, but there is a set of deeper impacts on health and well-being, on communities and cohesion, and on skills, employment and the economy, that will have profound effects upon the UK for many years to come.
The worsening economic situation has exacerbated existing inequalities. Vulnerable people are more likely to be made redundant; women are more likely to bear economic and caring burdens; and private renters are more likely to have lost income than homeowners. There is a significant risk that an ongoing economic crisis could further exacerbate existing racial inequalities and deepen long-term scarring for younger people. If levelling up is to mean anything, it must lead to a determination to mitigate those significant impacts on generational inequalities, as the ripple effects are seen in housing, security, health, employment, social opportunities and relationships.
I ask the Minister: when do the Government intend to set up an inquiry into the handling of the pandemic? I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, had to say on that. It should be soon. Earlier this week, the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, wrote, in relation to the huge scale of deaths in the UK, that some very big questions needed to be asked. Were we adequately prepared? Did the lockdowns come soon enough? Why was the handling of care homes so seriously misjudged? Could more have been done to protect those from BAME backgrounds? We also need an inquiry, because we must be better prepared for next time. Unfortunately, it may be all too likely that there is a next time.
I conclude by saluting all those who have made such a success of our vaccination programme and all the other work that has been done in the past year. But the repeated failure to act speedily to prevent the spread of the virus has not only cost thousands of lives but served as a warning that we can never be complacent. Never should we lower our guard and we should, without question, ensure that the essential provisions in the Act are retained.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, Covid-19 was an unpredictable and unprecedented crisis—a health crisis, an economic crisis, a supply shock, a demand shock—reverberating across the globe. It came out of the blue. How you deal with, respond to and adapt to crises is what matters. The Covid-19 crisis has brought huge emotional tragedy, with sad deaths and a social and economic toll. It has forced us to reckon with the things that mattered most to us as a society and instilled a deep-rooted desire to build back better, looking ahead.
Also, the crisis has seen the best of what business can do in the service of the nation. I declare my interest as president of the CBI. Our UK economy has so many strengths. We have just 1% of the world’s population but six of the world’s 30 best universities, 12% of Nobel Prizes, and 16% of the highest-rated research papers. We are recognised globally as a magnet for international students, start-ups, and entrepreneurs and inward investment. The World Bank consistently rates us as one of the best places in the world to do business Now we need to harness that expertise and ambition as we build back from the crisis, creating jobs, opportunities and shared prosperity across the UK. This year, 2021, is a golden opportunity for the UK to redefine its position in the world.
Right now, businesses are focused on Covid and keeping employees, customers and communities safe. We need to look ahead to the next quarter, the next year, the next decade. At the CBI, we have worked closely with the Government and are grateful for the huge rescue packages, including the furlough scheme, which have saved millions of jobs and businesses. The Budget was a seminal moment and, overall, it succeeded strongly in protecting the economy now and helping to kick-start recovery. The Chancellor has spent more than £400 billion. He has also set out a longer-term economic vision and a further boost to investment. We at the CBI will soon come out with our economic vision for Britain over the next decade to 2030.
To improve business confidence, companies would welcome greater clarity about the evidence base for why the working from home message is not evolving with restrictions, alongside guidance about what companies can and cannot instruct their employees to do in certain situations. The potential availability of home testing is increasingly seen as a crucial enabler for employers. We welcome long-term clarity about workplace testing because businesses see the vital role that testing can play in combating Covid-19 and reopening the economy. Through workplace testing, many have noted the benefits of being able to detect asymptomatic cases that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.
The CBI has also submitted evidence to the Global Travel Taskforce, calling for
“A risk-based roadmap for re-opening … A platform for UK leadership in reopening global traffic, supporting, amongst others, the country’s world-leading aerospace, international high-speed rail and maritime sectors.”
Full credit needs to go to Kate Bingham, who headed the Vaccine Taskforce. She was appointed on 18 May last year. Less than seven months later, on 8 December—V-day—we saw the first inoculation. An amazing three and a half months later, almost 30 million people have been inoculated. Full credit also to Nadhim Zahawi, our Vaccinations Minister. I predicted that we would be able to do 1 million vaccines a day; we did more than 800,000 and, if the supplies are there, we should be able to.
However, we should note what one leading vaccine manufacturer said:
“Our vaccine contains 280 different components that are manufactured in 86 different sites across 19 different countries.”
Any disruption to this supply chain would affect supply. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was developed with AstraZeneca headquartered in Cambridge in partnership with the Serum Institute of India, with 1 billion doses contracted. Wow—it is phenomenal. We have 400 million doses, three approved vaccines and two more coming down the line. The Prime Minister has already said that we will share our surplus vaccines with the rest of the world. Vaccines, mass testing, a travel protocol and a reopening road map will help tourism and business travel and the hospitality sector, which suffered so much. Can the Minister confirm that, if the numbers of sad deaths and hospital admissions go down to zero before the dates, including 21 June, the economy can reopen sooner, safely?
Finally, what about therapeutics? We are not talking about them enough. Can the Minister tell us about them? They could be a game-changer. Dexamethasone was one. There is Regeneron in the States. Nature published an article on EIDD-2801. There is Ivermectin, a cheap, off-patent, anti-parasitic drug; Oxford University has already started trials. Israel has invented an inhaler that it claims cures Covid-19 in just five days.
One year on and three lockdowns later, the pandemic has seen uncertainty, ambiguity, tragedy, bravery, resilience and adaptability at speed, with government, universities, businesses and citizens all collaborating and working together in a caring, compassionate and empathetic way, which makes me so proud of our great country.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry; I was carried away by the previous speaker.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
It is some time since I have spoken in a coronavirus debate in your Lordships’ House but my issues with the Government’s policies are fundamentally unchanged. The Government continue to make policy in a coronavirus vacuum as if the only thing that matters is the virus and its impact on the NHS. There are clear non-Covid health harms, which are almost too many to mention. The physical health harms include mistreatment, misdiagnosis and elevated non-Covid deaths. There is a huge backlog of NHS work. Mental health issues include 80% of teenagers suffering a mental health symptom, with a disproportionate impact on those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We will be living with—and dying from—the impact of these health harms for a generation.
Similarly, our economy will pay a heavy price for many years, with public sector net debt over 100% of GDP and the threat of higher taxes to pay for that. Unemployment data are being dampened down by the various financial support schemes, but we will inevitably see further business failures and job losses when that support ceases. It is already having a big impact on younger employees, and those entering the job market face an uncertain future.
In policy terms, getting the balance right is inevitably a highly complex judgment. However, it should not be the preserve of a few in Whitehall. The Government have not had a grown-up conversation with the country about trade-offs and priorities; nor have they put any meaningful data and analysis in the public domain. I have often wondered whether the Government have the analysis and have suppressed it or there is wilful blindness at work. We probably will not know until there is a full inquiry in due course.
The non-Covid health harms and excessive economic damage are bad enough but I have been shocked at the loss of civil liberties, coupled with heavy-handed and insensitive policing. The sad thing is that too many seem to enjoy these new powers over ordinary people. I never thought I would live in a country where a police officer intervenes because two old women are having a cup of socially distanced tea, or because sitting on a park bench to rest was not permitted. Although I completely understand the need to be able to place restrictions on those entering the UK in case they are carrying the virus—especially new variants of it—I completely reject the notion that the Government should stop its citizens leaving the UK and fine them if they try to do so. Whoever thought that up should be sacked. It is just not British. We have travelled too far into totalitarianism.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, have tabled Motions that compete to name the most politically motivated regrets. I will support neither of them. However, I agree on the 252 cases of wrongful prosecution. It is shameful that the Government are not removing Schedule 21 to the Coronavirus Act today; as we have already heard, it has led to a 100% unlawful prosecution rate. It must be a modern-day record for bad legislation.
I regret that the road-map regulations are based on dates, not data, and seem to be immovable by data. They ignore, or largely ignore, the impact of the vaccination programme on those who are the most vulnerable to Covid-19. We should have been completely unshackling the population by now. Instead, the token freedoms offered in April are an insult. I predict that they will be increasingly ignored; I shall not condemn people for doing so.
Today, the Government should not be renewing the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act, as the other place is being asked to do. It would not, as the Government have misleadingly suggested, strike down the coronavirus support schemes, because they do not rely on one of the temporary provisions, nor would it affect the main regulations before us today, which are made under public health legislation. It is time for the Government to get out of how we live our lives. We have to learn to live with the virus, which means that individuals have to be trusted to make their own risk assessments and take responsibility. That is the only route back to the country that I thought I lived in.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, a year ago, when little was known about the virus, the Government, through the legislation whose renewal we are debating today, assumed unto themselves unprecedented powers, with little accountability or scrutiny. One year on, when much more is known about the virus, the Government are at it again in the renewal of this legislation.
A year ago, we on these Benches said three things. First, the way to minimise the impact of this virus would be through local public services, with professionals, such as environmental health officers knowledgeable and skilled at managing public health emergencies, and trading standards officers accustomed to managing premises and businesses from a health point of view. We also pointed out that local authorities’ budgets had been hollowed out by 40%. Since 2012, the public health budget has had £800 million removed from it. We called for the resources to be put into locally led Covid responses, supported by national initiatives, and the Government completely ignored that. They set up centralised systems that were vastly expensive and did not work.
A year on, the Government have finally got the message. I understand that the track-and-trace system will now be turned over to local authorities. I specifically ask the Minister this: of the £37 billion that was allocated to track and trace, how much is left at the moment and how much will be given to people in local government who, for years, will be picking up the pieces from the impact of this on local communities?
The second thing we said was that the Government’s key responsibility in the pandemic was to be open with people about the basis upon which they would legislate to restrict people’s liberty. We said that clear communication would be essential to ensure compliance and trust, as was an understanding that the rules would be applied fairly to everybody. For months, they were not because of two words: Barnard Castle.
The same is being done again with this legislation. As my noble friend Lady Brinton pointed out, it is not legal for somebody to go abroad to tend to a sick or dying relative, but it is legal for them to attend to a holiday home. That is unacceptable, as is the extension of the existing legislation that enables police forces to determine which, if any, protests they will permit and police. That is not the way to maintain the confidence of the public, who have been remarkably forbearing and compliant in this last year. We need people to continue to have faith in the public health messages that they are being given, because this is not over and will not be for several years.
A year ago, we said that the renewal of this legislation should not be on a “take it or leave it” basis. We said that some government forecasts would inevitably be accurate, and some would not. Therefore, we would need to be prepared for what happens. A year ago, we said that having an effective vaccine would be a game-changer and that a lot of the legislation would no longer be necessary. It stands to reason that renewing the draconian powers to detain people is not necessary now.
The country now needs a legislative framework that is based on the lessons that have been learned over the last 12 months, which assumes that there will be localised outbreaks and recurrences of the virus, because that is what the epidemiologists tell us will happen. We need to equip local authorities to manage them to safeguard the health and well-being of communities and businesses, as they come out of this.
Finally, the treatment of care homes and those who live and work in them is the most shameful aspect of this pandemic. At the moment, the Government appear hesitant to say that there should be a requirement for people who either work in or are resident in care homes to be vaccinated. Yesterday, I listened with great care to the spokesperson for Barchester Healthcare, one of the biggest providers of care homes in the country, who basically said that businesses are implementing policies because both their customers and their staff want them to. I suggest to the noble Lord that it should not henceforth be permissible for companies or providers of care home services to require new staff to be vaccinated. The Government should work with providers of residential care, particularly that which is publicly funded, to ensure an increased uptake by staff over the next year, so that we make sure that the people who continue to need care can do so safely.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the regret Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. In response to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we do not always agree but, on this occasion, I agree with her that we need to think about the non-Covid impacts on health and the economic deprivation that has taken place. If we had had improved efficiency and a decent strategy from the Government, they would have helped to put the balance right. I welcome the full inquiry that she is looking forward to, in due course, and hope that she joins us in calling for it.
I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its work on these matters and for drawing them to the attention of the House. Therefore, I ask the Government for more detail on the process by which this legislation will be amended to bring subsequent steps into effect. Secondly, will local hot spots of infection delay the lifting of national restrictions? Thirdly, how frequently will changes between steps be made?
As is mentioned in the Motion, the scientific advisory group said on 21 January that
“targeted travel measures that apply only to countries that have detected specific variants of concern (and their neighbours) are unlikely to be completely successful in stopping new introductions of these variants into the UK”
The travel measures took effect on 15 February, 25 days after the statement by SAGE and with no parliamentary scrutiny. Around 19 out of 20 people entering the UK will not be required to quarantine in a hotel, but in their homes, and only three of every 100 people are checked to ensure that they are complying while in their home quarantine. How can these regulations be described as safety measures? We need a comprehensive policy on hotel quarantines to ensure compliance with regulations, not just bombastic speeches.
I am also curious to hear that, if you have a second home in Europe, you can travel, but not if you are simply going on holiday to a property that you do not own. Does that mean that ownership of a foreign property represents a new form of vaccine and, if so, does it need two doses?
Finally, the Secretary of State for Health has announced the setting up of a new organisation next month. The UK health security agency, led by Jenny Harries, is welcome. Matt Hancock said it would have
“the very best team possible from around the world.”
He went on to say that the
“UKHSA must plan, it must prevent and it must respond. UKHSA must be ready.”
I am deafened by the sound of slamming stable doors. These are the very “must”s that the Government should have carried out in this last, tragic year.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, the National Mental Capacity Forum, which I chair, recently ran its eighth fast-track webinar during the pandemic. We called it “The good, the bad and the ugly”. I will focus on those three categories: good things we want to keep, bad things we should change and ugly things we must never see again.
The speed with which medical and public health research has been approved, instigated and reported shows that past bureaucratic systems can be abandoned. The speed of innovation has been impressive. The rapid return to clinical registers of doctors, nurses and other healthcare staff from retirement was commendable, but many were underutilised. Their knowledge and wisdom should be retained to mitigate shortages in NHS manpower by employing them to what they can do well to provide support to patients through availability for remote consultations and hundreds of other roles.
We should commend those who coped with the very difficult task of the terrible catalogue of deaths. Absolutely nobody wanted to see what we have seen. The bereaved will live with those memories for the rest of their lives. One of the greatest failings has been inappropriate rigidity and inflexibility over visiting when people were dying. We must balance risks and ensure that infection control and emotional support are achieved without compounding the anguish that so many have experienced. The inability to be with the person you love and to say goodbye has been awful. We never want to see it again. Blanket policies failed. The term DNAR, or do not resuscitate, is dangerously imprecise. The Care Quality Commission emphasises respect, open discussion and clarity over CPR.
Many of our simplest public health measures have been far too slow to roll out, compounded by mixed messaging. As a Bevan commissioner in Wales, I supervised the Distance Aware project—a simple prompt now adopted wholesale in Northern Ireland. We need to remain distance aware, probably for years to come, using the protective function of face masks and handwashing as basic infection control. Westminster must work better with the devolved Administrations for recovery.
We must also avoid vaccine complacency, maintain infection control and embrace new ways of working through the rapid rollout of technology, with working, voting, consultations and even mental capacity assessments online. But online living risks promoting loneliness, which has become an enormous problem. Safe meeting places, such as the hospitality sector, sports facilities or the myriad voluntary sector support services, are an important part of our infrastructure. In doing all this we must tackle head-on inappropriate use of alcohol and recognise the associated harms with its links to violence. Nutrition policies need to change to recognise the links between malnutrition, obesity and loss of life years.
We will never go back to where we were. In easing restrictions, consistent UK-wide messages based on evidence are essential. We face difficult decisions. We need to tackle social inequities far better, respect local and devolved services, which know their own communities, and build resilience for the next generation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his introduction to the debate. I hope he will forgive me if I do not look back at all. I want to look forward. There will be occasions to look back and review what has happened, but what is more important at the moment is to look forward constructively at how we take things from here.
Therefore, I will focus on the road map. I would be very surprised if this is not the experience of noble Lords across the House and those in the other place: we are constantly being asked by people what the rules are and what it is they are supposed not to do, or are allowed to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, just illustrated the point. One can see the point about homes overseas on page 70 of the steps regulations. If one owns properties abroad, one is able to go there for the purpose of buying it, selling it, letting it and enabling people to move in; one is not allowed to go there to have a holiday in it. That may or may not be the right decision, but that is what the rules say. It is absolutely illustrative of the general problem. The public are becoming very confused about whether we are going back to tiers. What is a “step”? What are the four steps relative to the tiers? What are the four tests that we have to apply?
However, I think the public have in their minds, correctly, that there has been a first modest relaxation, there will be a second on 12 April, a third on 17 May and a final one on 21 June. These instruments will then expire on 30 June. I urge my noble friend the Minister and the Government not to shift those dates. Although I would not go all the way with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s argument, she was quite correct to say that the down sides associated with maintaining a lockdown are now substantial. We have suffered a tragic loss of life and a deeply depressing loss of livelihood, but we are now getting on top of the virus in this country.
My point is that, of those tests, the vaccine rollout is doing better, the reduction in hospitalisations is going faster and the reduction of pressure on the NHS is going better than any of us dared to hope. The only other is variants of concern, which are clearly being managed well by test and trace and the approaches we are taking in this country, but less well in other countries. The issue is not about sustaining large-scale lockdown in this country but about focusing on the borders. Let us look at the circumstances in which people enter this country. I am with my noble friend Lady Noakes: I do not think we are in the business of stopping people leaving the country, but we have to be very careful about the circumstances in which they return and what then happens. That does not mean hotel quarantines for the population generally, but obligations to self-isolate and to undergo testing.
I strongly urge on my noble friend Minister that we focus on that, and insist that we want to maintain this road map and those dates, and that we want to end the lockdown. We do not want further mental health problems, isolation for the elderly and loss of livelihood for many industries. We therefore need to co-operate collectively very strongly on making sure that if any of these variants—Brazilian, South African or any others that may come along—emerge here, we get test and trace to hit them very hard. The arguments about test and trace have always been misplaced. When the virus is widespread in the community, test and trace can barely do its job, but with the variants of concern, where there are relatively few, test and trace is—and has shown that it can be—a very effective instrument. I urge that that is where we put our effort and that we focus on our borders.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, one year on, when the situation has changed, so should the response and the laws required to deal with the next phase of the pandemic. With over 126,000 people dead and many families missing loved ones this Easter, it should have been a time for the Government to seriously reflect on the approach required for the next stage of dealing with this public health challenge.
Despite some powers being dropped, the number of powers within the Act that have never been used or have hardly been used that will remain on the statute book, and the number that have been used repeatedly and incorrectly but also stay on the statute book, is telling. If the Government were committed to learning to improve the safety and resilience of the nation, they would have agreed to a public inquiry into the response to the pandemic—an independent assessment of what has gone well and what has not gone so well. That would have informed the changes that are needed in this Act and in future SIs.
The powers relating to “potentially infectious persons” under Section 51 and Schedule 21 of the Act have been used a total of 10 times by public health officers, but never by police or immigration officers, yet such powers are now also in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations, made under the Public Health Act. Why have two powers in two different Acts for the same issue?
As other noble Lords have said, the latest Crown Prosecution Service review of Covid prosecutions this week found that all six prosecutions under the Coronavirus Act in February had been incorrectly charged, bringing the total to 252 incorrectly charged, with not a single prosecution that was correctly brought. These powers are clearly not fit for purpose and are used in ways that unlawfully restrict individuals’ liberties—a good reason why nodding through these powers is not in the best interests of citizens or of improving an effective public health response. These powers within the Act should be dropped.
Talking of keeping people safe, in the last year we had the situation of care and NHS staff having at times to wear binbags rather than PPE. Some of the PPE and communications procurements have a stench of cronyism hanging over them, coming to light only when organisations such as the Good Law Project have taken the Government screaming and kicking to court—donations of over £8 million made to the Conservative Party by some of those who have contracts, and existing and established companies thrown aside in favour of those who had links to the Secretary of State’s WhatsApp messaging service or who were able to have meetings with the Minister in this House, who then had the door to the VIP channel opened and subsequently got lucrative deals. Companies with no record in health but who have run local pubs, manufactured pet food, or sold expensive jewellery, carpets and furnishing were given contracts for PPE via the VIP channel—in some cases for equipment that was not fit for purpose and did not meet UK safety standards. All those who had the golden door of the VIP channel open to them were 10 times more likely to get a contract than those established suppliers of PPE who did not get on to that channel, along with the eye-watering fact that up to three times the normal market rate was able to be claimed before serious questioning or auditing of such quotes was done.
I am sure that the Minister, as always, will gloss over this appalling cronyism. If there is nothing to hide, why do the Government still refuse to publish who nominated companies to go via the VIP channel and what recent contact they had had before companies got on the channel? It is telling that the National Audit Office report notes that, in some cases, the appropriate paperwork around those in the VIP channel was not kept. When the public inquiry comes, it will show that, at a time when we required procurement of the highest standards, some were more bothered about greed and used their contacts to pursue that. This review of the Act should have had a clause inserted promoting more open, transparent and ethical procurement.
Back in March 2020, these Benches indicated that the powers in this Act had to be proportionate to the health risk we faced, which required an equal partnership between local and national government to ensure that the response would keep people as safe as possible. On both these issues, the Government did not listen and are still not listening and acting to fully unleash the talents and skills of those in communities up and down the nation to improve the way we tackle public health issues. It is for those reasons that I will support my noble friend Lady Brinton’s regret Motion.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, today we are considering a range of important measures for the immediate future and the gradual and phased aspirational exit strategy from the epidemic. I say to my noble friend Lord Lansley that I believe that it has to be aspirational, because we cannot conceivably predict with accuracy the numbers involved and have to remain flexible in our approach to the road map, however difficult that may be. I remain supportive of the Government’s approach to the pandemic and the success of the vaccine programme, which requires only a brief look over our shoulders to Europe to see just how difficult the planning and implementation of such a programme has been. I also welcome the caution expressed by government in light of the new high levels of infection in many European Union countries.
In my view, the way out of the crisis has always been a race between vaccine and virus. Add to that the challenge of encouraging as close to universal vaccination as possible with the ability of existing vaccines to protect against new variants and you have the key determinants. While we aspire to return to some normality, there will be—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly said—some long-term changes in behavioural patterns that will be welcome, including instinctive social distancing and improved hygiene. But I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government are also planning to deliver a booster jab for the whole population towards the end of the year, similar to the annual flu jab, taking into account any changes to variants and our response to those variants at the time. How advanced are any plans for a Covid booster?
In all our debates looking to the future, I have argued for the need for government to focus on delivering a “build back fitter” programme so we can address the serious challenges with an exceptionally unfit cohort of young people, who are understandably bored, necessarily denied access to team sports and physical education, leading an impoverished lifestyle and suffering from loneliness. As we emerge from lockdown, affordable access for everyone to an active lifestyle—to clubs, fitness centres and dual-use school facilities—and local community engagement with sport and recreation will be essential. The emphasis has to be on affordability and access.
The Minister has responded to this by assigning the DCMS to be the lead department. While I respect his comments, I suggest that it is his department which should take the lead. The well-being and fitness of the population is the strongest deterrent to high-cost calls on the NHS for healthcare provision ranging from widespread obesity to many more related conditions. I hope that the pathway out of this crisis will lead to a more active population than in any year of our lifetimes. That should be our goal, but it requires preparation and engagement now. Government leadership is needed for a national plan for an active lifestyle.
Nowhere is this more important than for disabled people, whose lives have been the hardest hit by Covid-19. For many disabled people the key loss has been their confidence—confidence which, for the visually impaired, has been dented by lack of engagement with society and the habit which comes from commuting and the normal daily lives they once enjoyed. The Activity Alliance’s annual disability and activity survey found that:
“Twice as many disabled people felt that coronavirus greatly reduced their ability to do sport or physical activity compared to non-disabled people”.
The pandemic made disabled people feel that they do not have the opportunity to be as active as they want to be compared to non-disabled people. A fear of contracting the virus, the impact on their health, and a lack of space and support to be able to exercise safely at home have been significant barriers for disabled people, and almost a quarter of disabled people stated that they had not received enough information about how to be active during the pandemic.
Sport England is doing excellent work with its £20 million Tackling Inequalities fund to try to reduce the negative impact of Covid-19 on activity levels among disabled people and underrepresented groups. But the £20 million in the fund needs to be substantially increased—it certainly needs to be doubled.
Priority out of lockdown is now essential for disabled people. I hope my noble friend the Minister will prioritise the requirements of the disabled, providing some sunshine after rain for so many people whose confidence has been knocked, which in turn has added to their substantial existing challenges caused by impairment and disability.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support these regulations but I am also glad to have the opportunity to support the regret Motion in the name of my noble friend. A year ago, we were shocked to hear that 20,000 deaths would be considered a good outcome. What, we asked, would be a bad outcome? Sadly, we know that now: 126,000 deaths, which is a dreadful figure, with so many of those deaths being avoidable. I remember vividly our first meeting with Chris Whitty in early March last year. He told a packed meeting of this House—packed into Committee Room G—that some people would have to go into isolation for three months. A year later, we are counting the costs which had not been identified at that point—in terms of mental health, domestic abuse, jobs, loss of learning and loss of life.
Vaccination is an act of solidarity as well as one of personal protection. The Motion identifies the urgent need to support those groups which are still fearful and will bring further risk to their communities. It would be fatal if Covid were to become a residual disease of poor communities. My first question to the Minister is: can he give us an update on how effective the latest campaigns have been in reaching those who are still reluctant and what other plans does he have in mind?
The Motion also recognises the challenges facing the NHS going forward: increases in waiting times and staggering waiting lists. Can the Minister tell us what the modelling shows about the relationship between bringing waiting times down within the next year and the funding that has been made available? In simple terms, how long will it take someone who has now been waiting for over a year for a hip operation, previously done in three months, to get that done?
Beyond the Motion and the many detailed and specific questions which have already been put to the Minister, I want to raise a few longer-term issues. This is indeed a moment of reflection. As we move into a cautious freedom, the exam questions include: how can we ensure that the progress that has been made is sustained and that we can mobilise quickly against dangerous variants? Here I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Perhaps the Minister can answer the question that the Minister in the other place failed to address at all. Why is it that, according to the Explanatory Memorandum:
“Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern”?
This is particularly perplexing. This morning another scientist, Sir Jeremy Farrar, emphasised that the greatest risk currently is from imported variants. Given our vulnerability to variants, does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that we maintain the agility of our research base so that our amazing scientists and medics can anticipate and respond? This is a global task.
Is the Minister also aware that one of the reasons, in all probability, that we were so unprepared for Covid was because after an initial spike in funding in response to SARS and MERS in 2005 and 2015, research funding, especially in public health, dropped like a stone? I argue that if that funding had been maintained, we might have had a better understanding of Covid-19 and have had a vaccine closer to hand. Does the Minister agree that the planned cuts to the science budget of more than £1 billion—equivalent to the research and innovation budgets for the MRC and the Science and Technology Facilities Council combined —is madness? How will this help the country prepare for the next pandemic? Can he also say how the planned cuts of £120 million to the UKRI ODA funding will help the world fight further pandemics? So much for being a global science superpower and so much for being prepared for the next pandemic.
The Government did not plan for the Covid pandemic because they were too busy with Brexit, so I would like to have some confidence that they will plan for the next. That is precisely why we need a public inquiry as soon as possible, not least to clear up some of the confusions that the Prime Minister in particular seems so gifted at creating.
The Prime Minister has been saying for some time—indeed, as far back as July last year—that one of the reasons the pandemic got out of control was because the one thing nobody knew early on during the pandemic was that the virus was being passed asymptomatically from person to person. This is simply not true. The issue of asymptomatic transfer was known to SAGE in February and mentioned in the Chris Whitty meeting with us in early March. The Prime Minister was challenged on this in July. No retraction was made and he repeated it again this week at his press conference. Will the Minister correct this and put the record right in this House?
It is to expose the truth behind some of these assertions, which seem to be the Government building a case for exoneration, that we need a public inquiry as soon as possible. We need answers about how the Government intend to plan for the health security of this country, not just for the rest of this year but for the next decade at least.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Brinton. As we reflect on the past year and think about life as we start to emerge from lockdown, I want to focus on two issues: the loneliness and social isolation caused by the restrictions and the impact of the lockdown on our national mental health. While the road-map regulations offering the prospect of easing the lockdown will bring hope after such a difficult year full of personal sacrifice, we should be mindful of those who have experienced extreme isolation, in particular people who have been shielding, single parents, older people living alone and care home residents who have been deprived of contact with their loved ones. Many people are also grieving the loss of loved ones. There is much to be done by government, local authorities, the voluntary sector and local communities to support mental well-being and help people to reconnect with their community.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Loneliness published a report yesterday calling on the Prime Minister to commit to helping people to reconnect socially and to plan for England’s recovery from coronavirus. A raft of individual recommendations highlighted the need for public spaces to be more welcoming, and for more public toilets and better street lighting to make it easier for people to meet informally and safely. It also calls for long-term funding for charities which help those who are isolated. Can the Minister say how and when the Government will respond to these important recommendations?
The past year has left an indelible mark on everyone’s mental health. Not being able to travel abroad to see family members and loved ones, including not being able to see new arrivals to the family or attend family funerals, has been particularly tough. While we all look forward to the day when international travel is possible again without endangering public health, we need clarity and, above all, fairness. The current exemptions that allow trips for the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property are, in my view, unlikely to pass the fairness test in most people’s minds.
I know from personal experience how difficult it has been not being able to visit loved ones in care homes and the impact that has had on the well-being of residents. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to make the vaccination of care home staff mandatory, both to help speed up the reopening of contact visiting and to give relatives the reassurance that their loved ones are being protected from harm?
With all the anxiety, grief, loss, loneliness and social isolation of the past year, I am disappointed that the Government’s report has little to say on mental health, barring a brief mention of Section 10 of the Mental Health Act changes, which, thankfully, have never been brought into force and have been scrapped. There was no mention of mental health staff in the section on increasing the available health and social care workforce and no reference to a mental health recovery plan for the nation.
In England, recent Centre for Mental Health well-being modelling has predicted that up to 10 million people— 20% of the population—will need either new or additional mental health support, including for depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorders as a direct result of the crisis. Some 1.5 million of them will be children and young people aged under 18. With some hospital A&E departments reporting that they are now seeing daily cases of children self-harming, and with a senior clinician reporting yesterday in the Health Service Journal that there is “no capacity anywhere” to deal with the unprecedented surge in admissions of children with mental health problems, it is clear that the current system, which was already under strain before the pandemic, simply will not cope.
I end by paying tribute to the NHS workforce. People have been working flat out for a year now. Their dedication, professionalism and personal sacrifice have inspired the whole nation, but vacancies stood at over 100,000 before the pandemic. The NHS is now facing a huge backlog of operations with an exhausted workforce, many of whom are suffering from burnout, and increasing levels of sickness absence.
I recently had the privilege of speaking to two senior nurses working in London intensive care units. They told me that what they wanted more than anything was time off for recovery and additional nurses to provide pre-pandemic levels of patient care, as well as tangible recognition of the value of the work they are doing. With the Scottish Government now offering a 4% pay rise to nurses alongside a £500 thank you payment, can the Minister say what plans the Government have to think again about this issue and ensure that nurses south of the border get the pay rise they so richly deserve?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and to support her tribute to NHS staff and her question about pay.
I begin with a very important question of democracy affecting the operations of your Lordships’ House and the conduct of this debate. I refer to an article published yesterday in the Huffington Post, titled “Consultants Deloitte Paid To Draft Ministers’ Parliamentary Answers On Test And Trace”. It reports on a series of contracts worth £323 million to “support” the Department of Health and Social Care and the national testing programme—contracts held by the consultant Deloitte. The report says that the contracts include
“help provided with PR and communications, with a requirement to ‘draft and respond to parliamentary questions, Freedom of Information requests, media queries and other reactive requests’ and to ‘support lines to take and Q&A’s in anticipation of queries’.”
My question to the Minister is simple: does he consider this appropriate? Should a private contractor be drafting and providing ministerial answers at all? In particular, should a private contractor be drafting ministerial answers on work that it is engaged in, especially when it is marking its own homework—this is Deloitte drafting answers for the Government about the work of Deloitte? Is it achieving results in drafting answers to questions similar to the disastrous outcomes of test and trace? I ask this specifically, given that my honourable friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion is still waiting for an Answer to a Written Question in the other place, numbered 149740, which names Deloitte and which was tabled on 5 February, concerning the work of test and trace in her constituency. Will the Government next be relying on Heathrow Airport to draft answers on aviation, or on the China General Nuclear Power Group to supply answers on energy policy, or on Bayer to give the ministerial view on GMO crops? Today’s debate is not focused on test and trace specifically, but perhaps the Minister could tell how us whether any of the answers that he has in his folder have been drafted by Deloitte consultants.
To be clear, of course I am not saying that civil servants should not consult outside experts. If there is a technical question from your Lordships’ House, a civil servant consulting an expert, including an industry expert, is obviously reasonable. The question is where the direction and guidance are coming from. Has that been privatised, as so much else has? For the information of the Minister, I note that in the other place, this morning, the Minister for Implementation said that she would be looking into the Deloitte contracts, but this is also a specific matter of concern for your Lordships’ House, given that it directly affects our proceedings.
Turning to the Motion to Regret tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I cannot believe that there is a Member of your Lordships’ House who would not support her expression of sorrow for the massive death toll and the swathe that has been cut through communities, particularly more disadvantaged communities. Can anyone really oppose regret for the millions of self-employed people who have been left penniless and scrabbling desperately to survive, or for the continuing, still unresolved failure to provide funds for workers infected with the coronavirus or potentially exposed to it, who are denied the financial support that they need to self-isolate? How can this Motion to Regret not be supported? Were I physically in your Lordships’ House, I would be looking at the Benches around me as I speak.
I note the words in the Motion to Regret that call
“on Her Majesty’s Government to publish a comprehensive plan to manage… the number of cases of Covid-19 and any new variants”.
Compared to the chaotic slew of localised, highly confusing statutory instruments that flooded through your Lordships’ House last autumn, we have got some way towards that at least, finally, with a national road map out of lockdown, rather than a casual “it will all work out” wave of the hand from the Prime Minister. But as the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, indicates, it is still lacking in detail, and is particularly lacking a focus on vital ventilation issues.
I saw in the New York Times a detailed plan for how open windows and fans might be used to manage airflow in a classroom to minimise risk of transmission. I have not seen similar guidance from the Government. Such guidance is urgently needed, now that we know that social distancing, screens and hand washing do not provide a Covid-safe work or social space. Only carefully managed ventilation and air filtration can do that, but I regret that my Written Questions on these issues have received scant answers.
The Green group will be supporting the Motion to Regret in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We are also calling for an immediate inquiry into what has happened thus far. We must understand the many things that have gone wrong, so that we can strengthen resilience and tackle poverty, inequality, overcrowding and poor housing, and set up our society to contain Covid and manage future threats in this age of shocks.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to be participating in this important and timely debate. I am proud and appreciative of the Government’s efforts to save lives and protect our economy. It is true that there were some shortcomings in the beginning. However, we must recognise the enormous challenges faced by the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the scientists and medical pioneers, all working relentlessly to save lives, control our economy and bring some normality to our lives during these difficult times of lockdown, which have brought many other issues to the surface, such as mental illness and domestic violence. We must not forget the tireless work of our front-line workers, doctors and nurses, who are putting their own lives at risk to save others. It is extremely commendable and shows a real sense of community.
At an early stage, the Government invested a large amount of money in developing a vaccine, with the help and expertise of our scientists from the University of Oxford and Imperial College London. The vaccine rollout has been an outstanding achievement so far, and exemplary to other countries. All vulnerable groups have been offered a vaccination. Infections and death rates are low and falling dramatically. The pressure on the NHS has come under control. Therefore, it is now our duty and responsibility to ensure that we do not undo these achievements. We should make mask-wearing part of our normal routine. The appropriate use, storage and disposal of masks is essential to making masks as effective as possible.
It is highly likely that Europe’s third wave will hit the UK, as was claimed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. However, we must do everything possible to avoid it. We should continue to have some restrictions on large social gatherings. We should ban overseas travel for holidays beyond 30 June, until the vaccination programs in other countries have caught up with ours. We must restrict arrivals from outside the UK and ensure that those who must enter are tested and quarantined upon arrival. It is crucial to avoid a third wave of this awful virus. We cannot afford further lockdowns, given the impact that they have on our lives.
I declare an interest. More than 120,000 people have died in the UK as a result of Covid-19. I suspect that more than 50% of those left behind are women who are now Covid widows—they are now lonely, insecure and victims of bereavement grief. I urge the UK Government to set up a Covid-19 widows support group, to provide financial support and practical help for them to overcome their bereavement grief. By setting up a Covid widows support group, the UK Government would be setting an example for other countries to follow.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like other noble Lords, last week I received a letter from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, asking me to support its White Paper, which is designed to restore trust in corporate governance through increased transparency and directors taking more responsibility for the probity of their business and accuracy of their accounts. After the current and recent business failures leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab, who could not support this? But I put it to the Minister that seeking more accountability, integrity and probity applies to the Government as well as to business, particularly regarding the legislation that we are debating today, such as that on placing contracts without proper scrutiny.
Recently, the High Court ruled that in relation to this legislation the Government had acted unlawfully on both transparency and clarity by not publishing contracts on time. When details were published, it turned out that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us, companies given referrals by MPs and Ministers were 10 times more likely to win contracts resulting from this emergency legislation. When challenged, the Government said that these contracts were on the record for everybody to see, but it emerged, again in a recent court order, that 100 contracts are still waiting to be published, one from as far back as March 2020.
Officials have also raised questions about value for money. For instance, contracts worth millions have resulted in unsafe and unusable face masks. The normal practice is to claim clawback payments for faulty goods, but that does not seem to be happening, at great expense to the taxpayer and, I might add, at great personal risk to front-line staff who, in some cases, had to create their own protection equipment out of plastic bags. Indeed, emails revealed in the High Court quoted one civil servant saying that the Government were
“procuring merrily and to hell with the consequences”.
I put it to the Minister that if the Government apply the principles and values of their own White Paper, they should demonstrate transparency by publishing the approximately 100 outstanding contracts. They should claw back the money spent on faulty goods and goods not delivered, and future contracts under this legislation should be awarded using the normal competitive tender procedure with details published within the 30-day limit, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, suggested. This would not only save the taxpayer money but give some comfort to our overstretched NHS staff and would be in keeping with the higher corporate governance standards proposed by the Government in their White Paper.
However, I am not optimistic. Why? It is because only last week the Government proposed legislation that would curtail the power of the courts to review ministerial decision-making. This would put some ministerial decisions beyond questioning, a direction of travel completely opposite to the one called for in the Government’s White Paper, making it yet more difficult to deal with the problems connected to the Government’s coronavirus legislation. I hope the Minister’s response will put our minds to rest over this.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, the legislation we are reviewing today was passed in a genuine emergency. The concern on 19 March 2020 was not whether it was too rushed, but whether it had been delayed too long. That is obviously no longer the case. Today we have all had 12 months’ experience of its operation, and even with the two-monthly reports and the current reassessment it is by no means evident that Ministers have taken full advantage of the lessons that have been learned.
It is the constitutional duty of your Lordships’ House to check, in the light of that experience, whether the Act includes what should be there, excludes what should not be there and manages appropriately what it does include. In the first category, it is abundantly clear, as has just been said, that the regulations for awarding contracts for Covid-related purposes have been woefully inadequate and that their lack of transparency has been outrageous. Each week, there seems to be yet another excuse from the Government to the courts that publication of a contract was delayed because civil servants were distracted by other Covid commitments, but once a contract was signed and sealed what were they, or indeed Ministers, doing with that contract which required even a day’s delay?
In the category of matters that were included, but clearly need not have been, the current long list of changes is ample testimony to necessary exclusions. However, we also would have expected Ministers to have corrected much earlier the confusion that the police and public encountered with charges for infringing regulations. The fact that, as at the end of February, every single prosecution under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act seems to have been found to be unlawful displays a woeful failure. That the CPS should have had to overturn 252 unlawful charges since March 2020 is a stain on our judicial system. It is important to reiterate the fact that necessary restrictions on movement, businesses and gatherings do not depend on this legislation. The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 would continue to exercise that control even if the House decided to take more time examining the validity of the very complicated and extensive provisions of this Act.
In the third category, the way in which the Act deals with what is legitimately included, we again have to remind Ministers that they no longer have the excuse of urgency and an unprecedented emergency. The report of our excellent Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published just four days after the Bill was introduced in the Commons, is salutary reading. Ministers will recall that its primary recommendation was as follows:
“Whilst in no way resiling from the appropriateness of this exceptional approach, we nonetheless believe that it is important for us to state clearly that, had the country not been in the midst of a developing national emergency, there are powers in this Bill, including far-reaching Henry VIII powers, about which our commentary would have been far more trenchant and our recommendations far more robust. Given this, we have recommended that the expiry date for the Bill should be set at one year without a power to extend—not two years, with the possibility of extension—thereby enabling the Government to exercise the powers needed in the immediate future while allowing a further bill to be introduced and subject to parliamentary scrutiny in slower time.”
Tragically, Ministers resisted that powerful advice.
The committee noted a host of Henry VIII powers for a number of very significant ministerial actions. In a number of cases, it drew the attention of this House to powers which were in no sense relating only to the coronavirus outbreak. It called for an “ironclad assurance” that they would not be used elsewhere. On what was then Clause 74, the Committee warned:
“A decision to suspend or revive emergency measures might well be politically contentious. We would expect such regulations to be subject to a parliamentary procedure.”
Even when there was a process included, as with the many Henry VIII powers, the Government proposed only the very limited negative procedure.
Nearly two weeks after Royal Assent, the Minister eventually responded to the DPRRC. He blandly dismissed recommendation after recommendation on the grounds of the
“serious and imminent threat to public health.”
He argued that the Committee’s concern over Clause 74, which became Section 88, was met:
“The regular reports to and debates in Parliament provide ample transparency, oversight and potential for challenge to the use of these powers.”
Sadly, the failure of the government business managers to enable the two-monthly reports to be scrutinised effectively has made that promise worthless.
This House took into account the exceptional urgency when it gave its consent to the Bill in March 2020. It did so with the grave constitutional misgivings of the DPRRC duly noted. Unless Ministers are now claiming that they have learned nothing from the past year and that they are as unclear on how to meet the current challenge of the pandemic as they were then, there is no justification for the House to sign another blank cheque. We should insist that the rushed, rough and ready legislation of March 2020 will no longer suffice.
Finally, today I grievously miss the usual Greaves forensic analysis—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that there is a time limit for Back-Bench contributions of five minutes.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
I would like to mention the wearing of face coverings. I have one general question, to which I do not know the answer, and I suspect that the Minister does not, but we need to think about it. At what point do we stop using masks? Will it be when the level of infection is low enough—similar perhaps to the level that we achieve with flu, or whatever? It would be helpful from a medicinal point of view to have some knowledge of when we think it might happen.
My main comments are on the facilitating of elections. The key element in this SI is about voting. Indeed, a few days ago we had a good session on proxy voting, and I welcomed that and commented on it. With this SI we are making provision for the local elections on 6 May and, of course, there is at least one by-election outstanding. Frankly, for once I would just like to say “Well done” to the Minister and his colleagues. The local elections of 6 May are important, and the objectives in Regulation 2(2) are to ensure that voting in polls is held in accordance with the Act and that supporting activities in the weeks preceding the poll, such as campaigning and nomination, take place in a way that minimises transmission risk while still allowing a meaningful campaign. Somebody has thought about that, and I say, “Thank you very much”. There will be hundreds of campaigners out there knowing that, for once, they have a clear steer on what they can and cannot do. Furthermore, someone has had the bright idea that somebody will have forgotten their mask or ignored the fact that they should be wearing one and, as I understand it from the SI, face-covering material will be made available at every polling station.
It is also good to see that candidates and agents will, I assume, be guaranteed access to the counts. That is implied, but I think it needs to be spelled out. Additionally, I am not sure whether my noble friend has done much standing as a candidate—let us assume for a moment that he has not. It is not just the people doing the counting who are important but those who are verifying and checking it from across the table. There is usually a wide span there, so I would have thought that they must be nearly two metres apart. That is very important in marginal seats.
I note also, on the extent of territorial application, that this applies only to England and Wales. All I ask is whether it is similar to what is happening in Scotland and Northern Ireland? I confess that I do not actually know whether they are having local elections there or not—and I should have checked that out, so I apologise.
As a side comment, I am pleased about the clarification for students on their movements between university and home. My noble friend will remember that there was great excitement last year, when it was not at all clear—but it is now quite clear, and that is good. The regulations refer to the facilitation of campaigning in pursuit of electoral success—people being allowed to leave home, and so on. That is good. Again, it will be achieved by allowing people to leave home and gather where necessary to undertake campaigning activities in relation to elections and local referendums. So thank you for that, Minister, and well done to all those who were involved.
I will make a couple of general comments and highlight two issues. I hope that somebody is now preparing a review as we move along of what has gone well and what has not gone well—and care homes did not go well. I took an interest right from the beginning because I always felt, as a Member of Parliament, that they were a key part of my constituency. I used to make sure that I visited them roughly speaking at least three times a year. They were handled pretty shabbily right at the beginning and put at great risk, having to receive patients without testing having been done by the hospitals—and there were other problems. However, to be fair, the Government have listened on that front and action has been taken.
Secondly, the military is a wonderful resource for this nation and for every other nation that has suffered the pandemic. Some nations have recognised—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the advisory time limit for Back-Benchers is five minutes in this debate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his introduction, but I join others in expressing my concern about the way in which Parliament has not been given proper opportunities to scrutinise the provisions to deal with the pandemic, some of which have really major effects and serious implications. I join my own colleagues in expressing real concern at the haphazard way in which this emergency has been dealt with by the Government. I share the view that many lives might have been saved if the plans to deal with the epidemic that were there had been updated and there had been quicker appreciation of the serious danger of the pandemic and the action that needed to be taken by the Government.
We will have an inquiry of some sort, and I hope that it will start soon. I also hope that this inquiry, as well as looking at the detail of how the pandemic has been dealt with, will also consider whether, by declaring a state of emergency, more decisions could have been taken on a UK-wide basis—as the Minister said in his introduction, if we had used the civil contingencies provision instead of the public health provision.
I am a long-standing and very enthusiastic supporter of devolution, and I would have liked more aspects of implementation to have been devolved to local authorities, not just in England but in Scotland and Wales. But there has been confusion resulting from different dates of restrictions and different levels or tiers, as they were called in some places, and above all by different messages in different parts of the United Kingdom, where the media still broadcast principally on a UK-wide basis. In fact, there was little difference in the level of infection or the speed of dealing with it or, most recently, in the mistakes made in different parts of the United Kingdom. There were far too many avoidable deaths in care homes, while there were similar levels of infection and almost the same level of vaccine rollout in each part of the United Kingdom. But it has been regrettable that some have used their power to make political capital out what should have been a united effort to fight the pandemic.
On another matter, I urge the consideration of vaccine passports or certificates to speed up a return to as near normal as possible. But we need to differentiate between passports or certificates for overseas travel and those for access to venues here in the United Kingdom. The issues, both practical and in principle, are different in each case. I hope that the Minister can update the House on progress on consideration of both of these and, again, I hope that they will be implemented on a UK-wide basis.
I express concern and disgust that some wicked people are taking advantage of the epidemic to cheat people, particularly older people. The Action Fraud unit has reported over 6,000 cases, totalling £35 million of losses. What is being done by the police and the cyber- security unit to counter these scams?
Finally, I will ask about pay in the NHS, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. The Minister will have seen that, in Scotland, workers in the health service—not just nurses but all workers—are to receive a 4% pay increase, backdated to the start of the pandemic. Since both the health and financial situations are much the same north and south of the border and since the funds to cover the cost come from the Treasury and ultimately from the same taxpayers, will the United Kingdom Government now think again and agree to give NHS workers in England the same increase? It is totally hypocritical of the Prime Minister and others to stand on their doorsteps and applaud the commitment of the workers in the NHS but not to reward them properly in their pay packets. The Government of the United Kingdom must think again.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the regret Motion from my noble friend Lady Brinton and echo the thanks that she gave. She highlighted how the Government have failed, which is why we should not trust them by giving them a blank cheque on our civil liberties. I also agree with points made in the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
The issue underlying both regret Motions is the incompetence of this Government in their handling of the pandemic. That is why it is the Government themselves who should be amending this Act, since we are unable to do so. There has been a failure to plan and prepare, decisions have been taken at the wrong level, there has been an overreliance on private sector providers at enormous cost and there have been failures of transparency and providing for democratic scrutiny.
It is incompetent for Governments not to plan properly. This involves horizon scanning and putting measures in place to adequately respond to identified risks. The horizon scanning by the national security risk assessment happened and still does, but a recent study by the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk made several criticisms and recommendations. One criticism was that there is no process, body of expertise or oversight mechanism in place to ensure that departments’ risk plans are adequate. That had fatal results in the case of this pandemic.
The study also concluded that the UK’s pandemic influenza strategy, which was fairly detailed, did not make any plans for a lockdown, despite this being one of the dominant response strategies for Covid-19. Can the Minister give the Government’s response to this serious analysis and say how they plan to learn lessons about planning our risk identification and response in future? Simple mistakes were made, such as failing to ensure that stocks of PPE were in date and fit for purpose.
It is incompetent not to provide adequate basic resources for worst-case scenarios. We started this pandemic with 11,000 too few hospital beds, 5,000 too few doctors and 40,000 too few nurses. We had a fraction of the number of ICU beds and ventilators of other European countries, which is probably why our death rate is one of the highest in the world. Do the Government plan to provide the resources to correct this?
It is incompetent not to care for the most vulnerable in society, for whom the consequences are most serious. For example, it is extraordinary that the DHSC did not realise that sending older people back to care homes to clear hospital beds without first testing them for the virus was catastrophically dangerous. Many deaths occurred in the closed environments of care homes at the beginning of the pandemic that have never even been recorded as Covid deaths—people did not have a test, even when they fell ill. The death rate in care homes was double the rate in the wider community. It was incompetent not to provide care homes with PPE at the start and it was not true to say that care homes were safe—they were not.
The so-called NHS app was incompetent from start to finish. The first system did not work and was replaced. The second system did not pass on information about Covid hotspots to the authorities. People were advised by the app to isolate because of contact with a positive case, but they were not entitled to the £500 support at first, unless they also had a call from another authority —people did not know that because of incompetent communication.
Then there is test and trace—an exemplar of the biggest incompetence of all, which is making decisions at the wrong level. The Government relied on central decision-making and provision, aided by expensive management consultants and private companies, instead of devolving responsibility and decision authority to local government, where the skills and experience could do the job better. Indeed, in the end, when they started to get the necessary information, resources and authority, local authorities proved this very decisively. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, mentioned, management consultants have been marking their own homework and are being paid to do tasks that should be undertaken by civil servants as part of their job. We need answers about this. It was incompetent to delay taking action when advised to do so by scientific advisers. That was probably the most fatal incompetence of all.
Finally, it is incompetent not to understand your own Act of Parliament. It is not true that failure to renew this Act would remove good things such as the furlough scheme and measures to keep us safe, as some government spokesmen have suggested. That is not what this is about. It is about a blank cheque to control our civil liberties and reduce democratic scrutiny. We will not give that to anyone, especially not this incompetent Government.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. In this instance, I am supporting the regret Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I thank the Minister for the explanation of the regulations and the note on what has happened in the past year. I pay tribute to all those nurses, doctors, ancillary staff and carers, as well as the scientists who brought us the vaccination programme. Who would have thought it? If any of us could have imagined a year ago that more than 126,000 people in the UK would die with Covid and that there would be 4.3 million cases, we would rightly have been dumbstruck.
This Government have made very serious errors in the intervening period. They have taken too long for lockdown and wasted vast amounts of public money on their failed test and trace scheme and unsuitable PPE equipment. Therefore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and many others that there is a need for a public inquiry into the handling of this pandemic by the Government. A year is a long time in politics and it is a long time with coronavirus for the many people who have lost loved ones, who have suffered from Covid themselves and who have been isolated and marginalised because they have had to shield.
Thankfully, we now have a vaccination programme under way and, by Tuesday of this week, 41% of the population had received a first vaccination. Credit where it is due: that is a very good start. However, do not lose sight of the fact that just 3.3% had received both shots by that date, which makes the row over the supply and use of the AstraZeneca vaccination even worse than it first seems. Concentration on the vital issue of getting people across the globe vaccinated would be a good idea because we are all in this together, right across the world. Therefore, why are we wasting time and effort on a row that could cost lives?
London has laid claim to millions of doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab, produced in a Dutch factory, sparking a fierce battle with the European Commission, which says that they should be used in the EU. I note that, as of last night, there was an indication from both the UK and the EU that they would work together—perhaps, in the wind-up, the Minister could provide us with an update on that. I will not try to go into the details of the opposing sides, but I stress that the Covid virus does not respect borders. France and Germany have had fresh outbreaks and, in spite of regulations, it will inevitably reach these shores. We ignore this at our peril.
If different nations fail to work together, we will all suffer. Fighting over a fair distribution of the different vaccines is humiliating and embarrassing. This is not some blame game of who claimed this or that; this is not just about health in the UK. It is about global health and our global interdependence. Vaccinations will be a part of our lives for some time and we are very thankful for the vaccines, but we need to move away from the notion that protecting people is merely a local, or even national, matter. It is an international matter, because a vaccinated world protects us all.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on 13 March last year, this country had a carefully prepared plan from the Department of Health, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to. It was to be used in the event of a pandemic caused by a serious respiratory disease with a projected death toll of up to 750,000. It involved shielding the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable, but keeping life as near normal for the healthy and the working population. China had imposed a draconian lockdown; Italy, France and Spain followed and got away with doing it. Overnight, our plan was dropped into the wastepaper basket and we followed the others. Was that wrong? With hindsight, I believe that it was. Would I have made the same decision on lockdown then? Possibly, but knowing what we do now I would not.
Those who advised that decision, those who made it and those who subsequently supported it were doing their best as they saw it to protect the population from a highly infectious, deeply unpleasant and sometimes fatal disease. How did they persuade us to comply? How did we so readily and swiftly surrender our freedom? First, we were told that, if we did, we would beat the virus and, in the Prime Minister’s words, put it “back in its box”. Then, this nation’s affection for our National Health Service was employed mercilessly. The fact is that successive Governments have underfunded and mismanaged the NHS, so we have the lowest critical care capacity in Europe.
Fear and guilt were part of the Government’s strategy: Don’t kill your granny”, and the advertisement with the old man pictured in a mask, asking “Can you look him in the eye?” There were swingeing fines for trivial breaches and even a government Minister urging people to report their neighbours for any rule infringements, which was presented as some sort of praiseworthy, patriotic act. All this was set against a background of relentless media coverage of hospital crises and deaths. Of course we all wanted to help to beat this virus, but a great many people were also very frightened, many unnecessarily, and many still are.
The full consequences of that decision are now much clearer. I hope that it reduced the death toll, but ours is still one of the largest in the world. However, as a result of that decision, a health crisis has been supplemented by both an economic and a social one. Massive damage has been done to the education of our children and to our businesses, industry, court system, arts and culture. There is a massive backlog of people who are in urgent need of treatment for serious, often fatal, conditions, some of whom have died or will die for lack of it. Basic human needs and civilised rights were prohibited: the need to be with a dying relative, to hold a mother’s hand in a care home, to hug grandchildren. The toll on mental health is incalculable.
We were told then, and at each successive lockdown, that this would be temporary, until a vaccine came along. I am afraid that that has proved unrealistic. Now we are being told that the virus is endemic and we will have to learn to live with it. The vaccine has been brilliantly created in record time and is being superbly administered through the NHS. It may protect the vaccinated against the worst aspects. More and better treatments will also, hopefully, be found, but this virus is going to continue indefinitely.
Against that background, we must surely resolve never again to use lockdown in this way in a health emergency such as this. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was right. Parliament, too, must not allow itself to be sidelined again. We have had legislation with virtually no debate; we have had ex post facto debate on legislation already in force. We have had guidelines that have been accorded the status of law, with constant changes and uncertainty, so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the public, police and even parliamentarians find it impossible to keep track of the latest rules and timetables.
The police, too, have been put in an impossible position, not just in policing lawful, dignified, peaceful protests but in trying to enforce legislation, some of it so petty in its application as to be laughable. I cannot forget the image of the elderly couple with their sticks, sitting together alone on a park bench, resting briefly during their one hour of permitted exercise, being made to move on by police. It is still going on: last week, an 83 year-old woman in Cheltenham was visited by two policemen at night, having been reported for having a cup of tea with two friends in the garden of her sheltered home. She was told that she would be fined if she did it again. If you enact bad law, people lose respect for it. Look out on the streets on any fine day, or at the beaches when it is hot, and you can see it. People are making their own decisions about the level of risk that they are prepared to take for themselves, their families and their friends. If those who have never broken any rule since March were asked to put their hands up, I do not believe that there would be many in the air.
Here we are again today, doing it all again, taking a few regulations away, adding more and changing the ever-moving goalposts. These provisions go through because there are not enough people in Parliament—too few like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—who will stand up and say, “Enough is enough”.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of the advisory time limit for Back-Benchers.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of H&O Communications. I remember thinking, immediately before speaking on the debate on the Coronavirus Bill last year, that for the first time since the end of the coalition in 2015 I was heartily glad that I was not in government any more. The scale of the challenges that the Government faced were almost overwhelming. They had to tackle not only a public health emergency unprecedented in our lifetime but a national and international economic crisis as well. Inevitably, the Government made mistakes—any Government would have done—but they also got some things right, most notably the vaccine programme and the rapid deployment of fiscal firepower into the economy to protect employment and businesses. There were some significant gaps, which I will come to later, but overall the Chancellor acted boldly and decisively at a crucial moment and he should be commended for that.
In other areas, the Government’s performance proved to be less impressive. My principal complaint is not about the mistakes that were initially made—as I said, any Government would have made mistakes, even if they were different ones—but about their failure to learn from them. In the debate on the Bill last year, along with other Peers, I raised the position of the self-employed who were facing severe financial hardship. I welcome the fact that the Government subsequently created the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, but it excluded huge numbers of people, as my noble friend Lady Brinton underlined. Most notably, it excluded all self-employed people who trade through a limited company, any who had not traded through two tax years, which particularly impacted young people, and any who had had profits of over £50,000 in one of those previous tax years, even if their business could no longer be carried on at all because of coronavirus restrictions. Despite repeated appeals, the Government refused to listen and provide relief, leaving without support millions who had operated absolutely properly under all the tax and company law rules that exist. If the Government think that those rules are not right, they should change them. They should not penalise the people who followed them.
Another area where the Government refused to listen was protecting people who were required to isolate under the coronavirus rules from loss of earnings. This was not only damaging to the people impacted, particularly the self-employed; it fatally undermined public health. In the absence of proper provision, many inevitably went out to work, despite a positive test, or avoided being tested at all. There can have been few more penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions taken by the Government, because the impact of the virus spreading was further catastrophic damage to the economy. More importantly even than that, an unquantifiable number of people almost certainly and unnecessarily lost their lives as a result.
As I said at the outset, my criticism is not that mistakes were made. It is that the huge amount of good will and cross-party support that existed for the Government at the start of the pandemic was squandered. Hubris rather than humility became the dominant theme, and, in that hubris, the Government failed to listen to others. As a result, instead of correcting initial and understandable mistakes, they persisted in repeating them.
Last year, we granted the Government extraordinary powers, which we would not have dreamed of doing in any other circumstance. In return, we expected them to be used with great care and in the spirit of cross-party unity in which they were granted. That did not prove the case. Instead, advice went unheeded, cronies were rewarded, and the Government’s public health messaging was fatally undermined at Barnard Castle and buried in the Downing Street garden by a special adviser consumed with self-regard and dripping with “The rules are not for me” arrogance.
A Government who respected the spirit of unity, which the Minister referred to in his opening remarks and which allowed the Bill to pass so rapidly into law last year, would have returned this year with a replacement. It would have been proportionate to the situation we currently face, compared to the emergency we encountered last year, and it would have removed the obnoxious powers that have so damaged civil liberties. This time last year I swallowed hard, put my trust in government and voted for draconian legislation in the face of the emergency. That we are back here a year later with a contemptuous take-note Motion, which prevents us making any of the many necessary amendments to the legislation, underlines the extent to which the Government have betrayed that trust. They will not have it again.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, one year ago Parliament passed the most incredible legislation, all in one day, with the biggest infringements to our rights and civil liberties that this country has ever witnessed. We did that in good heart, and with good intent, because of the immediate and urgent health threat that was facing us all. We were promised that there would be meaningful reviews of the provisions and that the Government would repeal anything that was not absolutely necessary and proportionate.
A couple of days later, the Government published the real rules in the lockdown regulations, which imposed even tighter restrictions than were ever anticipated in the Coronavirus Act. Because they used the public health Act from 1984—coincidentally quite a resonant year—this Parliament did not do its usual scrutiny. On the one hand, excessive restrictions on things such as the right to protest and how far we are allowed to go to exercise have been part of the chaotic mess of legislation, government guidance and ministerial diktats. On the other hand, we have seen lockdowns imposed too late and opened up again too fast, and the doomed “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme, which reseeded the virus and created the breeding ground for our very own UK variant, which is now running rampant across Europe.
I will be very interested to hear the Government’s response to Liberty and 19 other organisations on their document about a “Protect Everyone” Bill. I would like to hear from the Minister about this. Could he please make a note? I should also like him to promise that the Government will give a line-by-line response to those proposals, which aim to remove the most coercive and arbitrary parts of the Coronavirus Act. The Minister himself called it an unloved Act, and it absolutely is.
We should replace the coercive and arbitrary parts of the Coronavirus Act with a public health-focused system which supports people to comply with the health guidelines. Most important, to my mind, would be the repeal of Section 51 of and Schedule 21 to the Act, which have resulted in an unprecedented 100% unlawful prosecution rate. The Minister must surely feel embarrassed to have overseen the passage of such a provision and the decision that, even as dozens of other provisions are being repealed, this one is still being retained. The Government’s promise that only necessary and proportionate measures would prevail is shot to shreds by the continuation of this disastrous legislation. It is not a piece of law; it is a piece of unlaw, and how it got past the Government’s lawyers I have no idea. We have our own lawyers here in the House and I hope that they will speak on this as well.
The next issue is the protection of the right to protest. We have all known this was a problem, but it really came to a climax point with the extremely poor policing decisions at the Sarah Everard vigil. It seems that many times in the past the police have made terrible decisions, not because they were incompetent but because the Government did not give them clear instructions. Going forward, I very much hope the Government will do that. Having conceded in the High Court that a total ban on the right to protest would have been unlawful for the vigil, the Met continued to impose a total ban on protest. The images of women being manhandled by male police officers, in already very sad circumstances, were absolutely chilling. They mark a particularly dark moment in an already horrible year.
The Government and the police must get to grips with how we can facilitate safe and lawful protest. That should be easy enough to do. We already know that the Government are keen to get people back to pub gardens and outdoor dining, but socially distanced protest has always been possible and part of our democratic process. There has been no excuse for the blanket ban, without any attempt to work constructively with the organisers of protests.
Coming back to the Coronavirus Act as a whole, I would have been worried about voting it down as that would have been tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But as the Government’s own review shows, they have already drained most of the bathwater from this Act. The unlawful, coercive and nasty parts of the Act must be repealed and a public inquiry launched.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for presenting the regulations before us. I declare my interest in working for the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. The importance of these regulations is the consistency and clarity of the message, so that the public and others can fully understand what we are being required to do.
I turn first to the regulation requiring the wearing of face coverings, the Explanatory Memorandum for which tells us what the road map outlining the four steps will be. They are:
“The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully; Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated; Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS”
and
“Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern.”
The problem I have is that we have been told to expect a third wave and that we will have to adapt to any serious mutations and variations. We have now seen such a third wave in many continental countries, along with what they call the British variant, which I rather take offence to—I think we call it the Kent or the South African variation here. What are the plans to deal with a third wave, and with more serious variations and mutations? Should these not have been put into the regulations? I am not convinced that we have that information before us today.
I also support the conclusions of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In particular, it highlights that subsequent steps may not be brought into effect if
“local hotspots of infection … delay the lifting of national restrictions.”
I shall press my noble friend the Minister on this. What will the circumstances be under which those restrictions would not proceed?
In its report, the committee also talks about the fact that
“these Regulations impose a ban on all travel from England to a destination outside the UK”,
in which I have an interest because I have family in Denmark. To be honest, I would rather see them while they are alive than have to attend a funeral, which would be too late an event.
We are then told by the scrutiny committee that:
“A fine of £5,000 is imposed on anyone leaving England or being present at an embarkation point for the purpose of travelling outside the UK, without a reasonable excuse or an exemption”
and that
“Changes to these provisions are separate from the Steps and will be linked to reviews by the Global Travel Taskforce which will first report on 12 April”.
Are we going to have further regulations after that review? Since many of these things, as my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out, are dealt with in the schedules to the steps regulations before us, it would be helpful to know that while we debate them today.
I pay tribute to all those involved in the success of the vaccination programme and congratulate my noble friend for being with us and appearing before us on so many occasions to facilitate our greater understanding of the regulations as they have been rolled out.
I would like to pause for a moment to look at the rural aspect not just of this but of so many parts of health policy and ask whether we can learn from recent experience. I hope that my noble friend will agree that vaccination delivery in rural areas has outstripped that in urban areas, and I think that the main reason for that is because primary care has taken the lead—they have outperformed and we should recognise that. The large, urban vaccination centres, which often cannot be accessed by those most in need, the vulnerable and the elderly, have not been as successful, and I understand that they have had many vaccinations left over at the end of the day.
That leads me to my general final point, which recurs in every aspect of policy but particularly in health policy. We are told that all health policy is rural-proofed, but we have it on record from the Department of Health that, in its view, Defra is responsible for rural-proofing. I ask my noble friend: have the regulations before us been submitted to Defra, or have they been rural-proofed by the department officials themselves? It is extremely important that vaccinations and testing take place as close as possible to where the patients live to enable us to drum down on any further outbreaks or mutations.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a while since I was last here, but I am very pleased to come in today to support my noble friend Lady Thornton. I am sorry that the Minister is not here, because I wish to thank him for the hard work he has consistently put in for so long in such difficult circumstances.
We have to recognise that no Government in the world have got this right—we have all been in an unknown area and, yes, mistakes have been made—and we need to review it. If the Minister were here, I would ask him about the width of the review, which I think is going to be very important for us. One of our big problems in this country, compared to other European countries, is that we are fatter than most of the others. That has been a big factor in the number of deaths, and it cannot be ignored. Who is responsible for that? Another factor that has emerged is that we are very short of data, and we are now finding out how important it is to have that data. Had the coalition Government—the Lib Dems and Conservatives—not abolished the work of the Labour Government on an identity being produced for each individual, we would have been in quite a different position now to cope with this disease in a better way than we have been, rather than just finding our way. Are they going to look at that and see the failings in framework, where previous policies have been abandoned by previous Governments? I hope it is going to be a wide-ranging review and that we are serious about it and not just making excuses.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I like to look to the future rather than the past. The one thing that has changed is that, being away from here, I feel more like an ordinary citizen. I get the sense and the feeling they have—in that so much of what we talk and argue about is irrelevant to them. They are not interested. The questions I am being asked are: “Why is America now going to one-metre social distancing? It’s such a big country; is it the wisest thing to do? Are we looking at the evidence on that? Will we be following it? If so, when can we expect to move down to one-metre distancing only?”
Secondly, on face masks, there have been a variety of views held on them over the time since Covid appeared. At the start, the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, “You don’t need them”, and then they changed their minds. Now there is further evidence coming out in other quarters that we may not necessarily need to use face masks as widely as people have been led to believe. I would like to hear from the Government on what the latest position is. There is concern and confusion about where face masks should and should not be worn. They can cause trouble between citizens, where one is taking another to task and so on. It is important that we get the rules very clear and we get some clarity for the foreseeable future, where we may be looking to relax mask wearing in certain circumstances yet continuing to require their use in others.
Thirdly, I congratulate the Government on the work they have done on vaccination. We can all come together on that and say that there have been problems in other areas, but at least in this one we have made good progress. Thank God we are not in the EU queue, waiting for our turn for vaccines to be doled out in accordance with what Brussels has decided. Some of us might have voted to put ourselves in a position where we would have been in that queue. We have to learn the lessons of what has happened.
Making sure that everybody is fully protected is very important. That leads me to illegal immigrants, of which we have a substantial number in the country according to LSE research and other organisations. Again, because we do not have very good data, we do not know the numbers, but the figures bandied around range from 400,000 to over 1 million. If these people are not vaccinated, that is a very big hole in the dam wall and a risk for others who have been vaccinated or not fully vaccinated. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government will be doing about the people below the radar who are not lined up to be vaccinated, who are not within the system for tax or registered with GPs. This is an important number, and we need to know that steps are being taken to ensure they are brought in. We could have an amnesty for them. This could be an opportunity to do that, so we can get some real data on what is happening in the country.
I have posed three questions there for the Minister. I will conclude on a positive note: I think we will have a good summer and we should make the best of it, but we may have troubles in the autumn and should learn all the lessons we can. When climate change comes, this will be seen as a dress rehearsal compared to the problems that will bring.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Brooke back in his place and I agree with his sentiment on face masks. The Government must make it absolutely clear what the requirements are. I think they should be mandatory outside.
I begin by expressing my heartfelt condolences to all those who have lost a loved one. Having lost so many people I have known and some I have loved, I share their grief and loss. I salute all the front-line workers who thought little of themselves and kept the country operating. I congratulate the Government on the excellent manner of the vaccine rollout. I acknowledge the challenges that remain, and I wish to note my gratitude to the Minister, who has been relentless—though, on many occasions, in defence of the indefensible.
Among the horrific numbers of the over 125,000 people who perished were the 20,000 of our precious older people, and that 59% of deaths over a six-month period were of disabled people. As a mother of a 42 year-old with autism and having a niece with profound disabilities, my heart jumped each time I heard from a family. I need say no more. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who so eloquently pointed out the measures the Government must consider and support as we emerge from the lockdown.
I also note Professor Fenton’s report, which highlights what we have known for decades about social disparities in health and about structural discrimination which, according to NHS staff themselves, has been and is endemic within our major institutions, including our beloved NHS. This is evidenced by the first losses of nurses and doctors being of minority ethnic heritage. These numbers spiralled, with disproportionate loss among black and minority staff, and externally within the communities. Despite these regrettable facts, we see our Government resistant to placing an equality impact assessment, as a central tool for assessment, at the heart of government policy and programmes.
I do not agree that the emergency legislation and powers should remain a day longer. It goes against the grain of our values and civil liberties, so long shouted about. It has given institutions powers to place a shadow over many unacceptable and punitive measures in the name of protecting our NHS. I remain deeply alarmed about the structural deficit which is emboldened by emergency powers, an inconsistency which will profoundly affect government approaches to post-Covid recovery. Disadvantaged communities, poorly paid women and people with disabilities remain utterly desolated at the edges of our society and require the Government’s immediate and urgent attention and remedies.
I will be supporting the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and possibly also the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The Covid crisis demonstrated that money is never the principal barrier; it is government leadership, intention and policy direction, and perhaps even a bit more “compassionate conservatism”, which has been so glibly uttered for so long without any indication of its fair and equal application. If I had time, I would copy every word of wisdom stated by my noble friend Lady Jones, as I so often agree with so much of what she has to say. However, for now, I just say “ditto”. I ask the Government and all Ministers to reach out across the political divide and prove those compassionate words by accountable actions.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall concentrate on a couple of issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and which affect everybody who uses public transport as we move out of lockdown. I ask the Minister, or whoever is taking notes on his behalf, to give us a definite answer. Are face masks likely to be with us for a long time? If the answer is yes, will the Government consider the recognition of a kitemark to be given to those masks that give the best and most effective protection? If passengers on buses and trains are wearing a face mask, can we immediately review the social distancing rules, so that buses and trains can carry economically viable levels of passengers, which is not possible at present? The industry and I need the answers to these questions very urgently.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, this moment in time is deeply significant and goes far beyond the immediate legislation we are debating today. Many of the actions taken by the Government and the provisions in this Coronavirus Act are welcome. The financial support for the furlough scheme, the protections against no-fault evictions during the pandemic and the rapid mobilisation of medical professionals, to name but a few, have actively protected vulnerable people. But this debate also marks one year since the Government first used the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to enforce the first official lockdown and stay-at-home orders. As we gather here today, a year later, still living under those same restrictions, this moment acts as a milestone, a moment in time to pause and reflect on the approach we have taken.
The Government have found themselves at the helm during a rapidly evolving pandemic, bearing the responsibility of co-ordinating the nation’s response, requiring agility and dynamism to adapt to its spread, and I thank them for all their hard work and dedication. This pandemic was unprecedented in Britain’s recent history; we did not have the model of best practice in place to adopt and we knew little of this disease. My concern is not so much that we have needed to take action to find a way through this difficult time but over some of the tools that we have used to achieve the goal of public co-operation, and that the approach we have adopted over the last year could become the precedent for how we will respond to similar health crises in the future.
Rather than rely on the values that we know to be true, which define the success and prosperity of this great nation, of personal responsibility and trust, keeping calm and respect, we rather chose to follow the path of a more authoritarian regime, legislating for restrictions on our liberties and an unrelenting campaign of fear to engender compliance. At many points where we could have appealed to the British people to work with us and make responsible decisions on the basis of a health response, we chose a legislative response, and at many moments when we could have asked for responsible decision-making we drove behaviour change with fear. We are still doing it now.
When at the start of the pandemic SAGE’s SPI group on behaviours recommended the Government deliberately use psychological operations techniques to change behaviour, the use of the media and advertising was advised to “increase sense of personal threat”. SAGE thought this would be highly effective, although it warned there “could be negative” spill-over effects. Leading charities such as MIND were quick to warn the Government of the mental health pandemic that would ensue if they continued to pursue such a course of action. Experts have warned that
“the use of fear to control behaviour is dangerous and unethical, especially when combined with curbs of freedom of speech”.
There was even Ofcom guidance which cautioned its licensees against broadcasting
“statements that seek to question or undermine the advice of public health bodies on the Coronavirus, or otherwise undermine people’s trust in the advice of mainstream sources of information about the disease”,
which led to an absence of discussion and a daily broadcast diet of terrifying stories to achieve public compliance. But the public is all too aware of when there is a real threat, and they take the steps that are necessary to change their behaviour. You can see this from the mobility data, which changes as the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths gradually mount.
However, how we go through a crisis is as important as getting to the other side of a crisis. The best way to protect the public from harm is to allow scientists, experts, journalists and others to vigorously challenge the Government and public authorities, without the threat of broadcasters being sanctioned by the state regulator if those views happen not to accord with the current government position. The public are sensible.
The torrent of fear with which we have hosed the British people has been devastating for mental health, but I am most concerned about our children. The statistics here are heartbreaking. Google searches for “panic attack” in the UK have reached record highs. The NHS’s own data suggests that lockdown has led to a 50% rise in children with mental health problems—the Times reports that there has been a surge in tics and Tourette’s amongst teenage girls. Domestic violence against children has doubled, and has surged among adults.
This strategy of fear and legislative control cannot continue. Fear damages the nation’s health, and legislative control is making rule-breakers of us all. You have only to go for a walk in the park on a Sunday afternoon to see that. We must respect the British people and empower our citizens, not terrify them. As the vaccine continues its remarkably successful trajectory, we need to transition from a legislative response to a public health response as quickly as possible based on the principles of honesty and personal responsibility. If we do not do this quickly, we will find that we have eroded the bonds of trust and responsiveness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, there is a five-minute time limit.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, after hearing all the previous speeches, I do not wish to repeat them. My question for the Minister is: who is to be held responsible for all the deaths caused by the Government’s inability to plan properly? Will there be any compensation for the grieving families who have suffered so much because of the Government’s inability to deal with the issue properly?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I did not expect to be on my feet quite so soon, but I begin by paying a genuine tribute to my noble friend. I can say no more to him than that his father, who was a deeply admired Member of your Lordships’ House, would have been extremely proud of him.
There is so much one could say. I am greatly concerned about care homes and the fact that those who work in them are not obliged to be vaccinated. My noble friend has been helpful on that. I am very disturbed that next week, Holy Week—the most important week in the Christian year—we will not be able to have both a choir and a congregation in Lincoln Cathedral, which is enormous and could easily accommodate them suitably distanced.
I want to concentrate in my brief speech on the marginalisation of Parliament, which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. It is a serious matter. I divide it into two. First is the way legislation has been taken: retrospectively, more often than not; draconian, more often than not; an hour and a half allowed, with speeches limited to two minutes, more often than not. All of this marginalises Parliament.
Of course, that has been compounded by the fact that we have had a wholly inadequate, one-dimensional Parliament. I hope that by 21 June at the latest we will be back as a proper Parliament, able to hold Ministers properly to account. It is no fault of my noble friend, and my tribute was genuine, but the fact is that he is not really sufficiently accountable to us. The rules do not allow us to intervene on a ministerial speech or to say, “Before my noble friend sits down”. The spontaneity has gone out of Parliament. For every Question Time, we have a list of preordained questioners.
I am not complaining totally, because I have enormous admiration for those who have been responsible for making the virtual Parliament possible. I owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude, as we all do, but what they have created, clever as it truly is, is a poor imitation of the Parliament that we know—the cut and thrust of debate, the ability properly to hold Ministers to account and to be in the House when we vote. I know that people have sometimes been in their beds when they vote—not that I have actually been in mine at the time, but I know that many have. As a parliamentarian, which is all I have ever aspired to be, this is the place where the Government are and must be held to account. The Government are and must be answerable to Parliament. The Government have had it far too much all their own way over this past year.
That is no fault of the Minister, who will reply; it is no fault of any individual, but we should not really have allowed this to happen and we must get back to a proper, vigorous Parliament. We in this House must get back to a Parliament that is self-regulating and able to have not only spontaneous but vigorous Question Times, where the expertise, of which there is so much in this House, can be brought into effect and take part.
We have to go through this today. I accept that. I would not dream of voting against the orders before us. But we are drifting down a dangerous river, and we must not continue. It is essential that we get back to a full parliamentary democracy with vigorous debate and proper answerability. We must achieve that, I would suggest, by that date of 21 June.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the chance to pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard and devotedly to care for and serve the citizens of our country over the past 12 months. This obviously includes all NHS staff, but also those working in care homes, in other public services and indeed in our local essential shops and supermarkets. I also pay tribute to the many volunteers who have helped out, particularly in vaccination centres. Having had my second jab this morning, I was so impressed by the way cheery and positive volunteers were supporting our local health services.
I welcome, too, as others have done, the success in rolling out the vaccination programme. I share, however, the concerns about how late we were initially in going into lockdown and about the failure to adequately protect people in care homes. I lost two friends for whom I had the greatest admiration and love in the distressing circumstances affecting care homes, and I know how, behind the numbers, there are terrible individual and family tragedies. I very much support the regret Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton.
I want to make two points. One is a plea to the Government, and the other is to ask the Government a specific question that I do not think has been raised so far. The plea is on behalf of borderers. I live near the Scottish borders and know how much it would help if there were better co-ordination across the UK’s devolved authorities to avoid confusion or creating unnecessary barriers. I say this fully respecting our system of devolution but simply wanting co-operation and joint decision-making to work better.
For example, at one point, with the differences between Scotland and England, I could in theory have driven more than 500 miles to Cornwall but not a few miles up the road to the Scottish borders, although the level of infection in the areas on both sides of the border was similar. Another example is the recent statement about the international travel ban. The description of what this meant, both online and in news bulletins, was far from clear as to whether it referred to England only or to the UK, yet this affects us in border areas. If you live in the far north-east of England, for example, the nearest airport for direct flights to particular destinations is often Edinburgh. Therefore, we needed to know for sure whether flights from Scotland were included, and if they were not, whether we were permitted to cross the nearby border to travel on such flights. Perhaps it is asking a bit too much to expect First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Prime Minister Johnson to work together, but, particularly as scientific advice is shared across the UK, it should be possible to avoid such perplexing and confusing discrepancies.
Treating England as one unit, as the Minister today said, is often problematic, too, given the widely differing levels of infection and the sheer size of England’s population. For this reason, co-ordination and consultation should work at a regional level within England as well as across the UK. I salute the efforts of local authorities and their effectiveness during the pandemic and urge the Government to make even better use of them and involve them more in their vital role of delivering services on the ground.
Finally, I have a question for the Minister which I would be happy to have a reply in writing to if a response is not immediately available. I understand that the legal power of local authorities to hold virtual or hybrid meetings is to expire in May and that, in theory, meetings afterwards should therefore be fully physical. Many local authority staff are concerned about this, as it will be difficult to find venues for all meetings in rooms where social distance requirements can be met, and there may, in any case, be a need for continuing hybrid meetings for those with particular health conditions.
I should say that not only are council meetings but those bodies with local authority representation affected, which means that the issue that I am raising has wide ramifications and needs to be resolved quickly and sensitively. If new legislation is needed, it should be introduced quickly, or else existing legislation should be extended until social distancing is no longer necessary. Of course, that is something we will all be looking forward to after this difficult and extraordinary year.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to look at the money side because although the Government have spent massively on the pandemic, it could have been done better.
Economic support has been generous and it is welcome that furlough is now a permanent tool for the Treasury. But the good is marred by the Treasury’s deliberate refusal to extend other key programmes to many businesses hurt by Covid. Some 3.8 million freelancers and contractors—hairdressers, builders and workers in the creative industries—have been excluded from self-employment income support. A million sole traders who are directors of limited companies have been excluded quite deliberately because the Government do not like how they draw profits from their business. However, those traders are not the big tax cheats, and the Treasury has made a spiteful example of them despite repeatedly shunning possible remedy in the law on dividends.
Ministers claim that the excluded are not without help because they can get bounce-back loans, which might not be sensible financial advice. To get bounce-back loans deployed quickly, the Government suspended application of the Consumer Credit Act. All that was really needed was a variation relating to information and the affordability test but the Government ploughed ahead, removing all safeguards and advertising loans with government underwriting, although the underwriting is actually for the banks and not the individual.
Right from the start, concern about future heavy-handed tactics for repayment were raised. Ministers made assurances that they were in discussions with the banks and forbearance would very much apply but, as time goes on, we find that it is the Government who are the hawks, with banks now worried that they will be forced by the Treasury to take tough action, without promises of forbearance being adhered to.
When it comes to the vast sums spent on procurement, the back story is one of lack of value, low transparency and suspension of due diligence to the extent that it looks like suspension of common sense or, worse, deliberate turning of a blind eye. Some £18 billion of procurement was covered in the NAO’s November report, much of it for PPE, for which emergency procurement started two months after that of the EU, by which time global markets had tightened. That was always going to be difficult but it should not have led to the ditching of all accountability and corruption awareness.
A high-priority lane was given to leads referred by government officials, Ministers, MPs and noble Lords. Those leads were considered more credible and treated with more urgency than suppliers that came through normal channels. One in 10 of those in the high-priority lane got contracts and fewer than one in 100 through the ordinary channel. Why was that choice made when legitimate suppliers used the ordinary channel and, as we have heard, ended up being overlooked? Sources in the high-priority lane were not always documented, nor were key decisions, consideration of risks or how conflicts of interest had been identified and managed; nor were contracts published in a timely manner. Then there is what the Public Accounts Committee called the “unimaginable” £37 billion allocated to test and trace, although that was temporarily trumped by the leaked £100 billion plan for Operation Moonshot and its private business contacts.
The NAO said in December that test and trace should make better use of the expertise and knowledge of local authorities. Meanwhile, consultant numbers are still around 2,500, averaging £250,000 a year each and some clocking up nearly £7,000 a day. We must find out how money has really been spent, but the Government have been taken for a ride, paying too many consultants far too much for far too long. Perhaps they were friends too. I hope that, when it comes to a public inquiry, we find out who the profiteers are and who helped themselves ahead of helping their country.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I think the Prime Minister is quite right: greed is good, and capitalism works. I disagree with most people who say that the Government have made mistakes and that things have gone wrong. This is precisely how it is meant to work. This is how 18 years of Thatcher government worked. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, had a marvellous time in the coalition, but I remind him that, in the coalition, when we were all supposed to be in it together, the way to cut budgets was to cut corporation tax, because that was important. Of course, you also had to cut welfare spending, but that is not unusual.
In this system, which works, the few gain and the many suffer. That is what we have been living under for a long time and it is not going away. People say that the pandemic changed everything and brought us all together. It did not. Ultimately, NHS nurses ended up working overtime and now are being told that they will not be paid any more. That is the way the world works. Why are we surprised?
Basically, the sequence of a late lockdown and an early end to the first lockdown is simply explained: some people in the Government, especially the Back-Benchers, were impatient to go to the pub, which is every Englishman’s right. The Chancellor wanted the economy to resume, so there he was carrying a tray of beer or whatever it was, with his mask on. He just could not wait. The lockdown had to be ended early, because there were profits to be made by people. How could we stop it? Very reluctantly, the Prime Minister reimposed the lockdown. We know how eager he is to lift it, because he cares for liberty. It is basically so that a few are free to go to restaurants or their foreign homes. Who is going to tell Stanley not to go?
We should not have been surprised at all. In every crisis, the poor suffer. There may be no restaurants open, but the food banks have to open, because people cannot go anywhere else except food banks. Black and ethnic minorities invariably suffer. The postcode lottery always works against us. Women suffer, especially elderly women. Children suffer. We know all this. It takes Marcus Rashford to tell the Prime Minister that, if you do not have free lunches available in the holidays, children will starve—in the fourth-richest country in the world. We know all this; none of it is rocket science, but it is precisely how the system works. It is not too much to say that there is not much hope.
When identity cards were going to be introduced, as my noble friend Lord Brooke said, the objection of the coalition Government was about privacy. I remember that the Deputy Prime Minister was a champion of privacy. I am very glad that he needed a huge bribe to give up his principles and join Facebook. I admire that; it is how capitalism works. It is quite impressive.
We economists, naive as we are, believe in learning by doing. Here, we know that there is no learning by doing. We are going to make the same mistakes again and again because we sort of half trust science but we trust the profit motive more. Lives and livelihoods may be important but not everybody’s livelihood is that important.
I want to add one more thing. Everybody wants an inquiry—fantastic. I want a long inquiry. They are all long; who remembers Chilcot? It will take ages. Can I please be a member of that inquiry? I too want five years in the QEII Centre, then I will produce a fantastic, 22-volume report, guaranteed to answer all the questions —by which time, I hope, there will be another Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the 40th speaker, I know that many matters and different views have already been covered.
The last 12 months have been a whirlwind not just in the UK but across the globe. The inconceivable has become the reality. The One Year Report summarises many of the challenges and the steps taken in response. Some of them were a success; others were reached through trial and error. The vaccinations have been a great success. Those receiving them are grateful for the efforts put in by the national health workers giving them.
We were, and still are, in unprecedented times. It is right that we continue to look forward and respond to the challenges ahead and, where possible, allow more freedom for families to meet up. I welcome the fact that the elections are going ahead this year. The measures being approved will allow voting in person. They will also make masks available at polling stations for those who do not come with one, to allow people to vote in person and not be disfranchised at the polls.
I am also aware that, last week, the House approved special proxy provisions for people who have to self-isolate, or whose proxy suddenly has to self-isolate, on election day. However, even these provisions may not be enough for some to feel comfortable about voting. What more can be done, both nationally and locally, to publicise how to apply for a postal vote? As election day gets nearer, how can people be reminded to complete their postal votes? The administrative steps of how to do so should also be considered.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I take this opportunity to register my concern at the many government failings in dealing with the pandemic. This is against not just the number of deaths we have experienced but the long-term effects we will suffer, including both the effects of the illness itself and the collateral damage that it has inflicted on so many families and other human relationships more generally. My sympathy goes to those who have been directly affected; they make it all the more imperative that we recognise what has gone wrong on this Government’s watch.
I make my remarks with slightly mixed emotions because I am happy to report that, earlier today, I booked my second vaccine shot, due to the efficiency of the NHS and an excellent local GP practice. To them I say thank you.
In expressing my concern, I make it clear that I in no way wish to give comfort to the anti-lockdown libertarians, who prioritise profit over people and, especially, the care of our elderly. There has to be a public inquiry, sooner rather than later after our next crisis, but that is no substitute for speaking out now.
At this stage of the debate, many points have been made and many concerns expressed about how the pandemic has unfolded. I shall highlight five of them. The first is the inadequate financial support for millions of people, particularly the poorest-paid, including the most vulnerable in our society. That has led to tragedy, not only for the individuals concerned but for society more generally as many simply could not afford to take the steps necessary to protect the rest of us.
Secondly, there is the asymmetry in the legislation, with little or no enforcement aimed at unsafe workplaces. The case of meat processing plants is one particularly salient example, but it is not unique. As far as I am aware, there have been no prosecutions in relation to an unsafe building site, warehouse or call centre where people have been required to attend by unscrupulous employers, some of whom have multiplied their wealth to obscene levels as a direct result of the pandemic.
Thirdly, there have been problems in schools that have particularly affected those families on the lowest incomes, who could not afford the internet connections, the computers or even the pens and paper, not to mention the basic nutrition, needed to gain from at-home, and in some cases in-school, education.
The fourth issue that I want to highlight is the provisions relating to detention and dispersal. These powers are particularly egregious for a state to hold, and it is interesting that they have been retained even though, as I understand it, no declaration has been made in England.
Fifthly, it is clearly not necessary or proportionate to have emergency legislation on the statute book when we have had a year to regularise the position. We must not regularly have emergency legislation lasting for extended periods. We could have had more considered legislation rather than the somewhat rushed legislation that we got. That was understandable in the circumstances at the time but there has been time since to replace it with more considered and detailed legislation to deal with this difficult situation.
We now know that the powers have proved seriously disproportionate and we know about the enormous gaps in support for ordinary people who have lost so much in terms of liberties, livelihoods and even their loved ones during this time.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I shall concentrate on what I see as the danger that practices and habits developed during the crisis may turn into long-term changes to our democracy. In no way do I underestimate the seriousness of the pandemic threat or the need for decisive government action to lead our response to it, but there have been serious mistakes and there are serious dangers.
First, it has become a habit of government to bypass even the very limited processes for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation with a statement asserting that
“by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
That is true of one of the statutory instruments that we are debating today. The Government did that even when the changes involved had been announced days or even weeks in advance of the instrument being laid. Emergency and urgency are not the same thing.
The Government are assisted in that habit by the decision not to use the Coronavirus Act for the main provisions that restrict individual liberties but to rely instead on the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as amended in 2008. One of the results of that was that hundreds of people were wrongly given fixed penalties, charged or even convicted because the police did not understand the new laws, and in some cases the Crown Prosecution Service appeared not to either. If Parliament had been told during the passage of the Coronavirus Act that different, earlier legislation was going to be used—I do not remember that being mentioned at all during the discussions on the Bill—some of those problems would have been anticipated and avoided. That is one of the benefits of parliamentary scrutiny.
Secondly, the police were left confused and misdirected on both the extent of the law and how to enforce it. That is compounded by the multiple, overlapping and sometimes erroneous legislation they are expected to digest and enforce. The problem is made even worse by a repeated, and probably deliberate, blurring of the line between law and guidance. The term “rules”, which is widely used by Ministers, is one recent example of that, where it was unclear whether he was talking about things which were law or things he was recommending as guidance. The Prime Minister at one point said, “I am instructing you to stay at home”. Prime Ministers do not have a power of instruction.
I have no problem with Governments in a situation like this issuing very strong advice, calling on people to behave responsibly and setting out the dangers to all of us of not doing so. But we will have a problem if the police treat ministerial advice and guidance as if it has the force of law. That is government by decree and government by press conference, and we saw where it can lead at the Clapham vigil.
The problem is made even more serious by legislating that it is an offence for an English citizen to be outwith his or her home in their own country unless covered by specific exemptions, which an officer of the state has to interpret if there is a challenge. That is very different from, for example, a requirement to wear a face mask, a ban on gatherings or a restriction on business premises where there is considered to be a high risk. It is a national curfew, a system of house arrest, which changes the relationship between the state and the citizen. That part of the legal framework expires at the end of this month, and I hope never to see it again.
Returning to the issue of the Clapham vigil and those disgraceful scenes which were witnessed across the world, it is clear that the Government should never have removed from the regulations the right to democratic protest and demonstration, subject to police guidance and existing law. It is far better to facilitate a regulated demonstration with social distancing and control of numbers, with action under existing law to deal with those who subvert peaceful protest by violence, as happened so disgracefully at Bristol.
A further, less well-known feature of the pandemic legislation is that it allowed the Scottish Government to close the border between England and Scotland, effectively achieving a partial reversal of the Act of Union and breaking up the common travel area. There has not been much enforcement because the police do not have the resources to do that. It may be argued that there was an overriding public health need to impose such a restriction, but I find it curious that neither England, nor the United Kingdom Government and Parliament, had any say in the matter at all.
I return to my central question: what are we doing to rebuild the structure and principles of good governance? We need updated legislation to deal with emergencies, which must be given thorough parliamentary scrutiny and have scrutiny built into its operation. Parliament in both Houses must assert its right to scrutinise secondary legislation without being habitually bypassed by the urgency provision. We must end the confusing language which has the effect of extending law enforcement into advice enforcement and rule by decree. Citizens are entitled to know, and to be correctly advised on, what is legally required of them and what, in the Government’s view, it is socially responsible for them to do. They are not the same thing.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate all those who have got us to a situation in which infections, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths have tumbled, with so many millions of the vulnerable and ever-younger cohorts being vaccinated. It is an amazing achievement, but what does it mean? It effectively renders the virus endemic. It will join the range of respiratory viruses that circulate each winter and do not disrupt our lives—how brilliant. We should be celebrating today that the emergency is over—the data proves it. But the Government, bizarrely, will not admit it. I took the Prime Minister at his word when he claimed that he would follow the data not the dates, but as the data has improved, rather than a review of the road map, those dates seem fixed in aspic.
Some will say that, with only weeks or months before restrictions are lifted, it is churlish to complain about this element. But I remind noble Lords that, outside of here, each hour, each day and each week means more livelihoods destroyed, more industries being trashed and more self-employed made unemployed. It means the horrors of social isolation taking their toll on young and old, and the sheer humiliation for millions of citizens of being deprived of control over their own lives and of being condescended to with the slow drip, drip of their own freedoms dispensed from on high, for which they are expected to be grateful.
If the data shows that we have moved beyond an emergency, what possible moral or political justification can there be for prolonging draconian powers for a minute more than necessary? The Minister assured us—and it is reassuring—that the coronavirus legislation before us has retired unnecessary provisions. Good—but what is a bit worrying is that it contains some of the most extreme detention and disposal powers in British legal history even as we speak, such as the egregious Sections 21 and 22, yet this Government still think they are necessary. Does the Minister?
I am shocked and disappointed. I would have expected all politicians in a free society to be full of revulsion at the state’s acquisition of huge swathes of punitive powers. Even if you believed that over the past year they were necessary, would you not want to dump them as soon as possible? I find it cringe-worthy to hear the contortions that some are prepared to go through to excuse the extension of illiberalism well past its sell-by date.
The problem is that instead of these laws being reviled, too many seem content to normalise them as an appropriate long-term strategy to manage any ongoing public health challenges, even when there is no emergency. We have heard some brilliant speeches illustrating the dangers of that. When Dr Mary Ramsay from Public Health England said on the BBC at the weekend that we can expect restrictions on travel, laws forcing people to wear masks and social distancing to last for years, where was Matt Hancock with his “Cry freedom”?
Do noble Lords know how demoralising it is that the Government allow this dystopian future to be peddled out without contradiction? Do they realise that it leads people to ask what the point of the vaccine is? When there are knee-jerk statements and then careless talk of “jabs for jobs” or Covid certificates for pubs and pints, which are so divisive and potentially discriminatory, it all fuels fear and uncertainty about the future, as though freedom will never be restored.
What we need to do at the moment is to encourage people to be brave and resilient, so that we can energetically reopen society and reactivate the economy. Surely, if anything, it undermines the Government’s claim that the rapid rollout of the vaccine is working—and the Government told us it was the key to liberty and normal life if we roll it out successfully—if they then do not give back liberty or normal life. Will that not fuel anti-vax feeling? I worry that this refusal to repeal coronavirus legislation and to cling on to the rules dampens the mood of confidence and inadvertently fuels cynicism, because freedom is so elusive. Many people will say, “What is the point of being vaccinated?”.
Finally, many noble Lords have rightly complained about the paucity of debate and scrutiny of laws in the other place and here, but it is worse than that. Effectively, the Government suspended the public square, decommissioned the public and closed down debate. Shut down at home, the public were told to shut up and follow instructions. What a tragedy for democracy that, rather than galvanising the public and treating them as equal adults who can be trusted to take far more personal risk-based decisions, politicians on all sides agreed to use the law to change behaviour. Rather than encouraging a society-wide debate about how to balance risks and harms, or deploying creative bottom-up solutions to everything from the crisis in care homes to what is happening in schools, anyone asking questions not state-approved or rubber-stamped by SAGE was treated as a dodgy denier.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.
Lord Farmer (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Coronavirus Act one-year report, published earlier this week, states:
“Since the start of the pandemic, we have dramatically improved our understanding of the virus: the physiological impact it causes, how it transmits, and most importantly, the measures we can take to reduce infection.”
What it tellingly neglects to say is that we have also, dramatically and painfully, improved our understanding of the mental and physical health impacts of those measures—tellingly, because our draconian restrictions have produced a new social order that has infection reduction as the one overriding priority, regardless of how low infections are.
A public health-determined yardstick of risk is firmly in the ascendant and seems likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Polling showing public support for restrictions cannot be the sole occupant of the driving seat in this House. We are here to scrutinise the likely effects of legislation. We know enough about the effects of lockdowns to give us pause before we renew the regulations being debated.
For the sake of time, I will focus on brain and mind. The monotony of lockdown depletes our memories and makes us sluggish, and screen overload cramps our ability to concentrate. Isolation causes brains to shrink. Lonely people’s brain volumes reduce in the region affecting decision-making and social behaviour. Prolonged isolation affects regions associated with learning, memory and the processing of emotion. Basically, the processing capacity of a brain not constantly challenged through social interaction begins to decline. Loneliness releases stress hormones affecting neuro- transmitters such as dopamine, serotonin and adrenaline, which profoundly influence brain function and mood. It also sharply increases the rate of Alzheimer’s disease among the elderly.
Finally, uncertainty drowns creativity—the elixir of progress and the main natural resource for our island race. We were told that the road map would bring certainty, but instead its rate-determining steps inherently mean constantly changing goalposts. For example, if risk assessment is fundamentally changed by new variants of concern, does that mean, as some fear, that our borders will remain indefinitely closed?
Fear is an important factor, which the Government and their spokespeople in the scientific community seem to have no interest in dissipating, possibly because they see it as a vital tool of social control to force people to abide by our particularly extreme restrictions. Their effect has been to penalise the many, due to fear of the misbehaviour of the few. Holidays always seem one more unattainable metric away.
Many parallels have been drawn with the Second World War and the need to keep morale high over that long campaign. I am not a historian of that period, but I seem to recall that the population were regularly inspired to keep going. The diet of public pronouncements we have been living on cannot be so described. Deaths—key to another of the four criteria—are now even lower than in non-Covid times, but this is hardly mentioned. Fear can now be retired and inspiration can take its place.
Finally, if SAGE meeting attendance is determined by the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer, surely the likely emphasis will be the low level of risk acceptable to public health, leaving little oxygen for mental health and other considerations, such as the need to boost morale, resuscitate the economy and get those who have been laid off working again. My question for the Minister is: at what daily rate of infections, hospitalisations and deaths will we unlock?
At the risk of sounding dramatic, many are concluding that a world run according to a level of risk acceptable to public health is one that might be hardly worth living in. It is absolutely clear that, when the day of reckoning comes as to their handling of the pandemic, the Government will be held to account not just for how well they held down infections but for how they balanced this against these other harms that have emerged over this torrid year.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too support the regret Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Brinton, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, speaks for many of us.
Many of my noble friends have covered the legislative points that I would have made. Trusting in their liberalism, I will look at this from a practical viewpoint. As things stand, overseas travel for pleasure is illegal. From 15 February, all arrivals at English, Scottish and Welsh airports and seaports are required to undertake two mandatory Covid-19 tests: one on day 2 and another on day 8 of their 10-day quarantine. All passengers, no matter which country they have travelled from, are already required to provide proof of a negative Covid-19 test, taken no more than three days before departure, and must self-isolate on arrival. A passenger locator form must also be completed, with fines ranging from £5,000 to £10,000 for failing to quarantine in a government-approved hotel or at home. Can the Minister tell us whether local government are leading on this work? How many quarantining arrivals slip the net? How many people are required to pay those eye-watering fines?
This system is not peculiar to travellers arriving in the UK. My son, who holds dual British and Australian nationality, has just quarantined in a Sydney hotel, at his own expense, prior to starting a job. After leaving the plane, he and all the other passengers were marched to a bus and delivered to the hotel. I understand that the plane was nearly empty of passengers. Can the Minister tell us what overseas examples were examined when our quarantine and test and trace systems were being set up? There are plenty of examples to look at, yet we ended up with a botched app which failed to work. Not once was I sent a warning notification via the app, yet I cannot believe that I never came close to a Covid risk.
We did not need to start from square one with this. There were plenty of good examples from across Europe and beyond, and I am sure that many noble Lords saw the “Panorama” programme broadcast last Monday. Several south Asian countries are acknowledged as good examples in dealing with Covid. The state of Kerala in India gave local, non-clinical community support to those extended families who were self-isolating, and the population at large were given out umbrellas that doubled as parasols but which, more importantly, were also automatic self-distancing devices.
The approach by South Korea was impressive. President Moon Jae-in spoke of the need for trust and calm. I am not sure how much trust and calm were around in the Department of Health and Social Care during the last year. The South Korean approach to Covid-19 was helped by experience in 2015 of MERS, another coronavirus, which claimed 38 lives. There was no lockdown, no businesses closed, and no hospitals were overwhelmed. Their track and trace systems were ready to go, but so were the regulations introduced for small and medium pharmaceutical companies to produce test kits very quickly. This measure meant that 120,000 tests could be carried out daily almost straight away, whereas the UK struggled to hit its initial target of 10,000.
Countries that have implemented successful test, trace and isolate systems have seen fewer cases and far fewer deaths and have built the trust needed to encourage a culture of voluntary compliance with the rules. It might be worth looking at this as, despite their best efforts, many think that a third wave is inevitable. An isolation policy will only work with an effective long-term local test and trace system, which will need to be in place to handle any outbreaks, whether small or large.
I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, in congratulating the hundreds of volunteers who have delivered vaccines on their days off to countless older and vulnerable people. Those of us who have received our first vaccine know the sense of relief, which was almost instant; it is the first real step out of this bad dream. In light of the new truce, is the Minister confident that we can get our second AstraZeneca jab in early May? There is much concern in the community of older people. What is the department’s plan B? I hope that we will be back to business as usual next year, but I would not place a bet on it.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I first pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for his resilience in surviving a very tough and demanding year. He has faced lots of questions from us and answered them in a fairly straightforward and direct way. I suspect that he will not agree with much of the rest of what I will say.
I particularly endorse the critique made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, of the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny. As he said, we are on a slippery slope, I fear, to a model of elected executive populism at the expense of what we understand to be parliamentary democracy. I support these regulations, though somewhat reluctantly. What the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said in his extremely thoughtful speech should be taken to heart.
The Government are right to feel satisfaction about the vaccine programme, the success of which is a stellar example of the kind of industrial strategy that Governments should have been pursuing for a long time: public investment in a ground-breaking search and imaginative use of public procurement to see development through from the discovery of the science to manufacturing and production based in the UK. It is deeply regrettable that Kwasi Kwarteng this week or last week abandoned the industrial strategy that Greg Clark put in place—we now do not know what environment we are operating in.
However, the success of the vaccine cannot hide the multiple failures of the last 12 months: one of the worst death rates of nations in the developed world; the lack of preparation for the probability of a pandemic, despite the Government having previously identified this as a real risk; the consequent scramble for PPE, causing massive waste, incurring massive costs and using questionable methods of procurement; the lack of testing capacity properly in place; and, for all the billions spent, the failure of the tracing system last autumn, when it was most needed to try to curb the rising infections locally.
Of course, as a Cumbria county councillor, I feel the neglect of local government to be very serious. We have had pathetic sums to help us to provide effective local tracing, despite the fact that we have shown that that is more effective than the national system. Wrong political decisions have been made, such as the Chancellor’s Eat Out to Help Out policy—remember that? Was that a Covid-secure thing to do? What about Boris Johnson’s refusal last autumn to act quickly to introduce a circuit-breaker when cases were clearly rising far too fast?
As such, we need an investigation into what went wrong, but we also need to examine what Covid tells us about our own social fabric in this country: an NHS stretched beyond reasonable limits, a social care system at breaking point, and a welfare safety net set at levels where families cannot afford to feed their children and that has numerous holes in it, meaning that there are people with insecure jobs and low pay who cannot afford to isolate and too many people falling through the net.
We need to learn the lessons with an inquiry into what went wrong. I also hope that we will take the opportunity to think about what a new Beveridge in the 2020s would be for the United Kingdom. It should be something that all of us in politics could support, just as the consensus was established in the 1940s. This has been a crisis of the state and we have not managed it well.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate that has highlighted the price we have all paid for this year of Covid. I will speak to the Motion in my name on the Order Paper, which is the same as the amendment being moved in the Commons by my right honourable friend Jonathan Ashworth. I will also address the statutory instruments.
I have recorded many times from these Benches our huge gratitude to all those who have kept us going throughout this year. I attended the reflection ceremony at the Whittington Hospital on Tuesday where I am a non-executive director. It was held outdoors in the grounds and was attended by many of the individuals in that excellent hospital, particularly the ITU staff who had nursed, saved and been at the side of many local people with Covid. One of those staff is a nephew of mine, who is a junior doctor there. The midwives and nurses were there who had ensured that babies were born safely, with every mother having the birth companion of her choice with her throughout. The children’s accident and emergency and ward staff were also there. They have been safely working with parents and children to make sure that they were still being treated for the serious, and sometimes not so serious, illnesses and accidents that children can have. The porters and the cleaners were there. They do the unseen but vital work. The volunteers and the donors of food and treats were there to demonstrate how much we all appreciate the work, as were the leaders of Whittington Hospital, who have worked tirelessly to organise, deliver and support all of their community so they could do the job they needed to do. They are now exhausted and they definitely deserve a better pay offer. They symbolise for me the way that society at its best has coped throughout this awful year.
I am sure that the Minister has, like me, been looking at the record of our debates on this day a year ago as we ploughed a somewhat lonely furrow here in Chamber with a few of us remaining after the country had gone into lockdown two days before, so that the emergency legislation might be put on to the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, went down with the virus the day after we rose, and I am happy to say he made a complete recovery. However, those of us who had been around with him for those few days did wonder for a week or so whether we would go down with it too. We kept texting each other asking, “Are you all right?”, but we all seemed to escape it at that point.
At the time, the Prime Minister said that it would last for 12 weeks, and here in the Lords a year ago the Minister claimed that
“Fundamentally, this Bill is about buying time.”—[Official Report, 24/3/20; col. 1649.]
Indeed, the whole country united in supporting that and in delivering the lockdown, providing essential public services and ensuring the protection of our NHS and social care services.
I hope the Minister is not going to say again that the renewal of this legislation is about buying time. The Government have had time, and the sacrifice of the people of the UK has now demonstrated that their sacrifice was worth while through the recovery, and we have to rebuild better. We already know that the number of deaths was more than was necessary and that this was almost certainly due to the delays in decision-making. Each delay cost lives. When we eventually have a proper inquiry, it will spell out the cost of the dithering and delay, and we owe it to the grieving families of those who have lost their lives to get on with it. We also know that the years of cuts to vital services such as public health meant that we were ill-prepared at this time last year. The years of austerity made for a population that was less healthy and resilient when the virus struck. Cuts have consequences and those lessons need to be learned again. The inequalities which have resulted from that were described eloquently by my noble friend Lord Davies just now.
What we need to hear from the Minister today is that the Government have learned the lessons of their handling of the pandemic in the last year. I have much sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that the Government have squandered cross-party unity sometimes during the pandemic, which was apparent this time last year and has not been built on by this Government during the course of this year.
We know that the Government will have to account for taxpayers’ money that has been spent, misspent or wasted in the last year. That reckoning is to come. We know that the billions spent on test and trace will have to be accounted for, and lessons will have to be learned, so graphically described by my noble friend Lord Haskel in his remarks. The news today does not bode well, when we learn from HuffPost:
“Private firm Deloitte is receiving taxpayer cash to help ministers to draft parliamentary answers and media ‘lines to take’ to defend the Test and Trace”.
That raises two questions. I always thought that it was at the heart of an official’s job to help Ministers to be accountable to Parliament in a truthful manner. Is it not like marking your own homework if Deloitte is receiving taxpayers’ money to answer those questions? The truth about value for money will emerge through the diligence of the NAO, the PAC and the Select Committees, including those in your Lordships’ House—and I pay tribute to the organs that we already have—and, in time, the Covid inquiry.
At Second Reading a year ago, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said:
“Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition support this Bill. In normal times, it would be utterly unacceptable, but these are not normal times. As long as the emergency lasts and these powers are necessary, they should be available to the Government”.—[Official Report, 24/3/20; col. 1653.]
He was followed by almost every speaker across the House a year ago saying that this legislation was inconceivable except at a time of national emergency. Speaker after speaker expressed anxiety that the powers which Parliament was ceding to the Government were huge and accountability for their use must be assured.
So, what happened? As my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Liddle, and other noble Lords have said, Parliament has been marginalised. In this coming year and in future we have to go back to having proper accountability. I decided that, if we were grading the Government on accountability to Parliament, I might be generous and say C plus—the plus being recognition that the Minister has been present on an almost daily basis to account to the House, to answer questions, to take statements and to deal with dozens of statutory instruments, for which we are all grateful. But he has also had to apologise to the House on several occasions for the lack of prior accountability for regulations that should have been debated before they were enacted, and for the number of times we have debated restrictions on our fellow citizens weeks after they have come into play. This is not accountability, and it is not the accountability that the Minister promised a year ago. So perhaps the end of term report might also say “Must do better”—which is what our regret Motion seeks to achieve.
We supported the Coronavirus Act in 2020, and again at the renewal of the Act six months later, and we will support another six months’ renewal of these powers, but we have to say that the Government are absolutely on notice that this is not acceptable any longer. We have to go back to proper accountability. The Act gave Ministers sweeping powers, many of which have yet to be used. We have strongly argued that certain provisions in the Act should be turned off when no longer needed. We accept that some parts of the Act may still be needed; in practice, the health protection regulations contain many of the legal rules around restrictions and mass gatherings, so turning off sections of the Act that are not needed is a most appropriate step and is welcome. Many noble Lords have raised the question of whether it is time for a different kind of legislation. These questions were asked a year ago—the legislation already exists to take emergency powers, so do we not need to go back to using just that?
We will not be standing in the way of legislation, however, that extends the ban on people being evicted and puts statutory sick pay from day one into law. Nobody wants these regulations in place any longer than they are needed, but we must make sure that this is the last lockdown, and that means being cautious.
I turn to the regulations. I understand that the Government intend to continue the provisions in the Act in respect of the power to amend the requirements of the Children and Families Act 2014 relating to education, health and care. According to status reports, these easements have not been officially used by the authorities since July 2020, so will the Minister explain why these provisions have not been removed so that disabled children and young people are able to access the support they need for their education? That is the main point of those. We will support the renewal of the Act today.
On the statutory instruments and the 29 March changes by which six people in two households can meet, can the Minister explain why these regulations expressly exempt protest, picketing and gatherings organised by charities and political groups? This provision is most welcome, but the Minister is aware of the deeply disturbing police response to the vigil for Sarah Everard in Clapham. The Minister needs to explain what the regulations mean by
“any guidance issued by the government which is relevant to the gathering.”
Why was it not possible to make that a Covid-secure gathering at the time? The noble Lord knows that there is great disquiet about this.
Other noble Lords have raised the issue about travel. I think the Minister needs to explain what has become known as the “Stanley Johnson exemption” for travel. I think also, in terms of pubs and beer gardens, the Minister needs to clarify the Prime Minister’s intention on whether people will need vaccine passports to go to their local pub, or even to work in their local pub. This is a good example of ambiguity, and ambiguity feeds the pandemic, as we already know.
In conclusion, we on these Benches continue to support, with a heavy heart, the Government’s effort to deal with the pandemic, as we did a year ago. We are disappointed about many of the issues that were raised in this debate and we want the Government to do better, be more accountable and work towards lifting lockdown, restoring our economy and moving forwards, not backwards. We do not want to go back to business as usual. We need to look forward to building a more equal society. That is our aspiration and our objective. We will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on every occasion. I will not be moving our regret Motion, partly because I think the Government absolutely understand the concerns of these Benches and of the House, and what needs to happen. If the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, chooses to move the Motion in her name, I will be abstaining and asking my colleagues and the House to do the same.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I very much thank noble Lords for an incredibly broad and wide-ranging debate. It has been a really honourable birthday party for the Coronavirus Act, and I hope that the Act is grateful for the tributes it has had. I confess that I am proud of the Act, and proud of the collaborative spirit in which it was drafted and passed. I am proud of the measures it supported to make the lives of the people of Britain a lot better during this awful pandemic and I am enormously grateful for the wide-ranging support here in this House during the last year. There has been scrutiny and challenge, but I am grateful to noble Lords for the general tone of support offered to the Government, and to myself in particular.
In terms of the regulations, I think the noble Baroness put it very well: the regulations we are debating today are tough but they are necessary, and I cannot think of a better way of putting it than that. On the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on gatherings, I would be glad to write to her with an answer. On the questions that many noble Lords had on the road map, I am not in a position to do a road map pub quiz from the Dispatch Box right now. The Prime Minister has laid out a really clear schedule and there are update sessions already built into that schedule. Noble Lords will need to wait, I fear, for updates from Downing Street on that.
Instead, I should like to pick out two or three of the major themes that noble Lords raised in this broad debate. One of the most powerful came at the beginning with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reinforced by many other noble Lords, on the issue of health and the question of levelling up. I recognise the deep concerns, which I share, about the spotlight that the pandemic has put on the health of the nation. Without doubt, one of the reasons why we have been hit hard by the pandemic is that large parts of our population are simply not in great shape at the moment. They have either poor health, poor living conditions or poor circumstances. The noble Lord’s comments were absolutely spot on.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan put an emphasis particularly on BMI, weight and fitness in the country. They are clearly not good enough and there is widespread acknowledgement of that. That is in no way to shame any individual or section of society. It is a simple fact of life that we do not compare well to other countries. The Prime Minister has spoken movingly about his personal experience and the issue is something that the nation has to have a conversation about. The obesity strategy is a framework for that, but it is not the only thing that we will be doing in this area.
Our reach-in as government—not just as national government but in local government, agencies of government and the NHS—to some parts of society is just not good enough. This is not a BAME issue, although that is part of it; I am talking about everywhere from the sweatshops of Leicester to the apple orchards of Herefordshire. There are too many communities where we simply do not get our message across or have a dialogue, and where our services are not provided in a way that people find accessible. We have to ask ourselves tough questions about how we can do better. That is because we are only as good as a nation as the health of the most vulnerable people in our society. That includes everyone from working-class white communities in South Wales all the way through to those in the mill towns of northern England. We have to work with faith groups, on our languages and on the services that we offer in a great many ways.
We have to join up our healthcare services. That is something for which the healthcare system has been calling for a long time, which was apparent during our engagement exercise two years ago. It is well built into the NHS Bill that will be coming our way very shortly. We have to join up primary, secondary and public health across the piece. Only in that way can we address the population health issues that have bedevilled the country in the past year.
Lastly, we have to embrace technology. We have done a huge amount of good work in the past year with data, med tech and a more 21st-century approach to healthcare. There is still a huge amount that we need to do. We need to encourage people to engage with their own patient records and data and help them to understand that they can take greater responsibility for personalised medicine if they engage with their patient records and systems. I am optimistic that we can make progress in that area.
My noble friend Lady Noakes and a great number of others remarked on the impact of the pandemic, not just on those who have been ill from Covid but on all the others who have not had either elective surgery or treatment, or missed out on diagnostics and testing—those secondary impacts on the healthcare system. That does not come as a surprise. It is neither a secret nor a conspiracy. It is exactly how epidemics hit healthcare systems. It happens time and again.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s speech but those participating remotely cannot hear it. Therefore, the House will adjourn while we try to resolve the technical issues.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the technical problem is not yet resolved. The House will therefore adjourn until a convenient moment after 6.45 pm.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the debate will now continue. My apologies for the system going down. I call the Minister to continue his speech.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, to pick up from where I left off: as my noble friend Lady Noakes quite rightly pointed out, the effect of the virus is not limited to those who catch the disease; it has a profound effect on the entire healthcare system. We are going to work extremely hard to catch up; £1 billion of funding has already been committed, with £325 million on diagnostics. These are massive commitments, and we want to use the catch-up as a forcing agent for important improvements to our healthcare system. It will make it more efficient and deliver a better patient outcome.
I know many noble Lords have been focused on social care. The pandemic has certainly hit the social care of both adults and children extremely hard. Any pandemic is going to hit the most vulnerable. But we have moved emphatically to meet the challenge of the pandemic. We have done everything we could to keep the infection rate down, with a huge cost to the Treasury. We have put special measures in for PPE, for care workers and for diagnostics, and we have put in a strict vaccine prioritisation scheme which saw those living in social care at the front of the queue.
On illegal immigrants, I reassure all noble Lords that anyone who is in the UK, whether they have a passport, NHS registration number or any other administrative practicalities, can have the vaccine under any circumstance. They do not need to be plugged into the formal structures of the NHS. It is, however, a terrific opportunity for the NHS to upgrade its patient records and its systems, and the NHS is grabbing that opportunity with both hands. It is also an opportunity for patients to engage with their own patient records, as I discussed earlier.
There are many reasons the pandemic has hit the healthcare system so hard. But there are also many reasons for us to use this immense disruption as an inflection point for improving the healthcare system we have got. The launch of the UKHSA, which was announced yesterday, will combine test and trace, PHE and the JBC in a new pandemic protection agency, with a huge impact in resources. The NHS Bill will, as I said earlier, bring together a new collaborative approach between the different arms of the healthcare system. There will be an overall pivot from late-stage acute medicine to early-stage preventive medicine, which was already outlined in the NHS long-term plan. The vaccine itself is the ultimate icon and metaphor for the preventive approach. We are going to be working extremely hard on that agenda.
There are also terrific behavioural changes in the public, who are embracing new technologies such as telemedicine, have appreciated the value of tests such as the Covid test and will, we hope, take a more positive approach to vaccines such as the flu vaccine. We are preparing for a very large flu vaccine season in the autumn and winter.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of private enterprise and the accusation of corruption. I completely and utterly, once again, reject the baseless accusations the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and others have made of corruption and cronyism. Yes, we made a national call to action for everyone to step forward to help us out. Yes, thousands replied, including hundreds from this House. Yes, the quality was variable, to put it politely. Yes, we triaged that list. But that was not fishy; that was efficient. His accusations are without evidence; they are corrosive, and they are demeaning to those who have served this country so well.
To the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Bowles, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others who have alluded to the role of private enterprise in this pandemic, let me say this: it is completely dreamy to think that we could have dealt with this pandemic without the enormous support of private enterprise. The vaccine was provided by AstraZeneca. It was only because of its innovation, manufacturing skills, reach and expertise that we are where we are today. Manufacturing is done by a large number of private firms, including for diagnostics and PPE. The surge capacity of major outsourcing companies is absolutely essential when stepping up to a pandemic of this kind. I do not need to remind noble Lords in this Chamber that the services of GPs, dentists, radiographers and a large amount of the NHS’s capacity are provided by those who own their own companies. Many of the contractors who build and clean our hospitals and care for the people we love are from private enterprise. Those who denigrate the contribution of private enterprise do those who care for us no service at all. Rather than demonising the private sector and those who work in it—
Lord Bethell (Con)
Yes, they have. Order!
Rather than demonising the private sector and those who work in it, we should be celebrating the invaluable contributions of those who have given so much. I single out the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who did exactly that.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, have expressed concern about the transparency of the Government’s approach. I assure both of them that transparency absolutely has been our watchword. We have published SAGE minutes, SPI-M minutes and SPI-B minutes. We have published an enormous amount of epidemiological information from the ONS, from REACT and from public and local authorities. No. 10 has given regular briefings on an almost daily basis. We have published the major contracts of those suppliers who have supplied us. We really could not have done more to share the intellectual property, analysis and commercial details of our response to this pandemic.
To those noble Lords with concerns about the workings of the virtual House under the circumstances of the pandemic, let me say this: I completely understand and share the frustrations of those who feel that the current circumstances are not a full-blooded version of Parliament in normal times. I agree that it is not the same. I think that Ministers get the scrutiny they deserve —they are under an enormous amount of pressure—but I acknowledge the points made by my noble friend Lord Cormack and others who yearn for a return to normal service.
The House has been heard in the debates that I have been in. The House has been heard when it has called for a great number of reforms. In different debates, I have run through lists of where we have moved on issues that the House has raised in particular. I have been here. I have appeared at the Dispatch Box 248 times. There have been 1,959 individual speaking events. There have been 25 Oral Statements, eight general debates, 28 OPQs, 17 TPQs and 1,229 FoIs. The idea that we have not been accountable is not quite right. I want to take a moment to thank the Lord Speaker, the usual channels and the staff of the Houses of Parliament for the amazing job they have done to keep the House open. I know that I speak on behalf of all those in the Chamber when I say that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that she is concerned about the impact assessments and economic analysis. This has been a recurring theme in many of our debates. As Health Minister, I have some sympathy for her points, but I would point her to Analysis of the Health, Economic and Social Effects of COVID-19. It is an utterly emphatic document that answers many of the points she alluded to. While she may not like the findings, the report does make it clear that the colossal and massive effects of the pandemic are so huge that there is no way of avoiding them other than getting rid of the pandemic itself.
I was greatly moved by the words of my noble friend Lady Stroud and her concerns about a torrent of fear, but I will be honest: I do not recognise the situation that she described. The idea that the press has somehow been cowed into submission and some kind of blind compliance by politicians or regulators is simply not my experience. The idea that scientists have been pressurised by the Government is not the view of the scientists themselves, nor does the evidence suggest that the great British public have been intimidated by government excess. In fact, it is the opposite: as noble Lords have heard from me before, the evidence suggests that the British public support enormously the NPIs, lockdowns and infection controls that we have put in place. That support for lockdown measures remains extremely high.
We are here to make laws. My experience of making laws over the past year is that they are being put in place not to lead to prosecutions or in any way intimidate the public but to be clear. The public deserve and expect Governments to be crystal clear about the behaviours that they hope for from the public. We respect the good sense of the British public, who, for their part, have a need, interest and requirement to know what is expected of them. That is why we reach for the law book when we are applying lockdown and NPI measures. I was hugely moved by the words of my noble friend Lady Stroud on the mental health of young people, but suggest that the connection between this and government lawmaking is not as strong as she suggests.
A number of noble Lords spoke of a dystopian legacy from the pandemic. My noble friends Lord Farmer and Lady Noakes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke in moving terms about the loss of liberty, coercion, mandation and a perpetual cycle of locking down, and remarked, quite rightly, that these are un-British values. As I have said before, I never expected to be standing at the Dispatch Box bringing in these kinds of regulations. But I think that my noble friend Lord Farmer overreaches when he says that we are creating a world that is hardly worth living in. We are protecting those who are vulnerable and those who are elderly.
While the challenge of the pandemic is enormous—the effects on health, education and the economy are profound—my outlook is much more optimistic than that of my noble friends. There is an opportunity for a positive legacy from this pandemic. It takes the form, for instance, of the reboot to our health system that I described earlier. There is an opportunity for a degree of civic renewal, evidenced, for instance, by the massive volunteering that we saw in both the return of healthcare professionals and those who sought to help their neighbours and those in need. There is great evidence that the British people want to be involved in supporting their neighbours and loved ones, and that is an opportunity that we should grab.
There has been a massive reboot in our attitudes to the old and the vulnerable. For those who saw them, the Shipman documentaries on the BBC raised the question of whether we have respected, cared for and loved the old. In this pandemic, we have seen how the lives and final years of the vulnerable are valued. The whole of British society has made an enormous sacrifice to demonstrate its love for the elderly and the vulnerable. We should hold on to that.
There is a new confidence around science, particularly around the vaccine, the ability of science to solve problems and Britain’s commitment to scientific discipline. And there is a new confidence about Britain’s role in the world. Those are British values that we should be proud of and can hold on to. If we make the right decisions, we have a chance to make sure that there is a benign legacy from this awful pandemic. We need to take the right steps to do that, and that it what lies before us in the year ahead.
In the spirit of that optimism, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to stand down from her Motion to Regret. Nothing is perfect. Much of what happened during the pandemic is admirable, but we are in a much better place today than we were, and I very much hope that she sees fit to withdraw her Motion.
Covid-19 Pandemic and the Coronavirus Act 2020
19:01 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness Brinton’s Motion - Ayes: 119 / Noes: 279 - Baroness Brinton’s Motion disagreed.
Baroness Brinton
That this House expresses its sorrow at the 126,000 deaths in the UK caused by the Covid-19 pandemic; regrets that Her Majesty’s Government failed to learn the lessons from the earlier stages of the pandemic in order to prepare for the winter of 2020-21 and is therefore continuing to treat each development as a new public health emergency; further regrets that some of the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 have caused confusion amongst police and prosecutors, leading to more than 252 people being wrongfully charged; further regrets that despite provision for payments to the self-employed and those self-isolating, too many have been unable to claim payments due to the rules; regrets that the one year status report was presented to Parliament only three days before debate, along with substantial Regulations for the House to consider at the same time; and therefore calls on Her Majesty’s Government to publish a comprehensive plan to manage surges in cases through quarantine, test, trace and isolate to prevent the importation and increase in the number of cases of Covid-19 and any new variants.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by thanking the experts in the broadcasting unit for getting us up and running again after that technical problem. They do a wonderful, but invisible, job and I am always grateful for their patience. I thank the Minister for his careful and considered response, but it did not actually address the key issues that I was raising. I also thank all today’s speakers. From every part of your Lordships’ House, Members have told the Government very bluntly of their many and serious concerns. Their message is clear: the Government, having taken powers to themselves, should immediately both deal with the legislation that needs to be amended or repealed and learn the lesson of what has gone so badly wrong over the past year, to prevent repeats in the future.
I hope that noble Lords will also join me in supporting my Motion to Regret, which will send a message to the heart of government to take that action now. I beg to move and wish to test the opinion of the House.
Covid-19 Pandemic and the Coronavirus Act 2020
Baroness Thornton
To move that this House regrets that the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic by Her Majesty’s Government has resulted in one of the highest death tolls in the world and the worst economic crisis of any major economy; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government (1) not to end economic support related to the pandemic before restrictions are lifted, enabling the safe reopening of society and the protection of jobs, (2) to support the NHS in facing the unprecedented challenges of Covid-19 and in driving up vaccination rates in hard to reach areas, and to ensure that all those who are required to self-isolate are able to do so, (3) to ensure that all the powers used in the Coronavirus Act 2020 are transparent and proportionate for all citizens, (4) to give consideration to reviewing the Act in three months’ time, (5) to lay before each House of Parliament no later than 16 April a report on prosecutions that have been made under section 21 of the Act, including an assessment of the proportionality of such prosecutions, and an equality impact assessment thereof, and (6) to lay before each House of Parliament no later than 16 April and each month thereafter a report on any disproportionate impact of the Coronavirus Act 2020 on individuals or groups.
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and Restrictions: All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 March be approved.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 22 March be approved.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.