House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
In our election manifesto, we committed to building 40 new hospitals by 2030 and upgrading another 20 hospitals. We are delivering on that commitment and now have plans to build 48 new hospitals this decade. We will open a competition for the eight further new hospitals shortly.
Holly Mumby-Croft
I thank my right hon. Friend for the investment that we have seen in Scunthorpe General Hospital over the last year. Residents are seeing those changes and it will certainly help us in the medium term. Looking to the future, will he continue to work with me on the plans for a new hospital for Scunthorpe?
Matt Hancock
I thank everybody who is working at Scunthorpe General Hospital for their incredible effort over the last year. My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner for Scunthorpe hospital and the upgrades that we have already been able to put money into, and now there are eight slots for further new hospitals. Forty have been announced and we will build eight more over this decade. We will shortly announce how we are going to make that decision. There will be an open process and I look forward to working with her, her colleagues and colleagues across the NHS in Lincolnshire to make sure that they can put together the best possible application.
Jack Brereton
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for investing in mental health facilities at Heartlands Hospital and acute facilities at the Royal Stoke University Hospital. Together, this will see over £32 million being invested in our local NHS, so would my right hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever, as our NHS starts to recover from the pandemic, that we provide the best possible health facilities?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I would. The NHS has clearly played such a critical part in the response to the pandemic in the last just over a year. I thank all those working in and around Stoke, including at the Royal Stoke, which is a great hospital. We have put £32 million into the local NHS, and we protected the NHS even through the worst challenges of this pandemic. Of course, I will be open to further investment to make sure that the NHS across Stoke gets the support that it needs so that we can build back better. Today, we are all able to see the improvements that are being made in the response to the covid pandemic, with the opening yesterday of step 2 —I am delighted, Mr Speaker, to see that you have had a haircut. So many of us have been looking forward to being able to get life back to normal, and thanks to the work of people across Stoke and across the nation, we are able to take these steps.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Congratulations to Mrs Hoyle on a job well done.
New investment is welcome, but it is no consolation to those patients missing out because the rest of the NHS estate is being starved of investment. We have seen a 23% increase in treatments being delayed or cancelled in the last year because of infrastructure failures, and the maintenance backlog went up by another 50% last year. We are not going to see those record waiting lists drop if operations are cancelled because basic repairs are not done, so will the Secretary of State tell us by what date we will see no more delays to treatment because of crumbling buildings?
Matt Hancock
We are putting a record amount of investment into the infrastructure of the NHS. That is evidenced by the questions that we have had already, with the improvements in Stoke, Scunthorpe and across the rest of the country. It is about not just the physical investment, but making sure that we support staff to be able to deliver and making sure that the NHS gets the support that it needs to tackle this backlog. We have a very significant backlog because of the pandemic and we are working incredibly hard to tackle it.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
First, I would like to pay tribute to our fantastic NHS and all the frontline vaccinators, our volunteers, armed forces and local authorities and all those working on the vaccine deployment programme. I am very grateful for their tireless efforts in vaccinating those most at risk across the country.
I am absolutely delighted, Mr Speaker—no haircut puns at all here—that another significant milestone has been reached, as we have met our target of offering a vaccine to those in cohorts 1 to 9 ahead of schedule. Over 32 million people have had their first dose and more than 7.6 million have had their second dose. We are making phenomenal progress, but we remain focused on ensuring that no one gets left behind.
Tom Randall
Last week I became one of those people who had their first jab, at Boots the chemist in Nottingham. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all those in places such as Boots and all those involved in the roll-out of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines? Does he agree that the best way out of this situation is to get that jab, and that when the time comes and people get the call, they should take that opportunity as soon as they can?
Nadhim Zahawi
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank Boots the chemist not only for its frontline capability but for its distribution arm, which has helped us to distribute Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca and, now, Moderna. I agree that when people get the call, they should come forward and have their jab.
Elliot Colburn [V]
I welcome today’s news that the over-45s are being invited to receive their first dose of the vaccine, and I thank everyone in Carshalton and Wallington who is involved in the roll-out. I recently held a vaccine roundtable with NHS leaders in Carshalton and Wallington to encourage everyone, including ethnic minority groups, to come forward and get the vaccine when their time comes. Could my hon. Friend update the House on what steps the Government are taking to work with community leaders and others to ensure that every part of our community comes forward and gets the vaccine?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I echo his comments about the incredible work that is happening across the London borough of Sutton. I thank him for his work in promoting the vaccine, and according to the latest NHS figures almost 90,000 individuals have had their first dose of covid-19 vaccine in Sutton. To this end we are working closely with faith and community leaders to help to spread information about vaccines through trusted, familiar voices and in a range of different languages and settings. That also means leveraging the influence of celebrity figures such as Sir Lenny Henry and the powerful and incredibly moving “call to action” letter and video to black and Afro-Caribbean communities. This is really important. We are also working to support the vaccine programme over important religious observances such as Ramadan, which begins today. We are working with the Muslim community and reiterating the verdict of Islamic scholars and key Muslim figures within the NHS that the vaccine does not break the fast and is permissible, so come and get your vaccine.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
In October 2020, I commissioned the Care Quality Commission to review how do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions were taken throughout the covid-19 pandemic and whether they had been inappropriately applied. We welcome the CQC report, which was published on 18 March, and we are committed to driving forward delivery of the recommendations through a ministerial oversight group, which I will chair, to ultimately ensure that everyone experiences the compassionate care that they deserve.
Karin Smyth [V]
I welcome the Minister’s comments. It is over a decade since I worked with clinicians on how to communicate end-of-life care, so I was shocked by some of the reports and by reading the CQC and Compassion in Dying reports. The lessons learned from coronavirus can and should be seen as a catalyst to having more open and honest conversations about this decision making and advanced care planning. Will the Minister commit to a public awareness campaign, including groups such as Compassion in Dying, Marie Curie and Hospice UK, to ensure that patients are fully aware and at the heart of these decisions?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. That is exactly what we are trying to do at the moment. We have posted a public-facing message on the nhs.uk website, which informs the public about how DNACPR decisions should be taken and the process involved. There should be no blanket application of DNACPR notices. Every patient should be involved in the decision when a notice is applied, as well as the family, relatives and care workers, and where possible it should be signed by a clinician. This engagement with the NHS, the wider public and the voluntary and care sectors is ongoing, and we continue to monitor it.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
We want health and social care to be joined up effectively, with the different parts of our system working together to meet people’s needs. The health and care White Paper sets out our plans for integrated care systems, which will not only join up local NHS organisations but strengthen collaboration among the health service, local authorities and others involved in social care.
Antony Higginbotham
One thing that will really help the integration of health and social care is the better use of technology and innovation, but one of the barriers we face is the sharing of information among different clinicians, general practitioners, hospitals and social care settings, so will my hon. Friend confirm that as part of the plans for better integration we are looking at how data and information can be shared much more effectively?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: interoperability is essential to harness the potential benefits of health and care data for individuals and to create a health and care system that is fit for the future. We are going to legislate to ensure more effective data sharing across the health and care system and will outline our plans in the upcoming data strategy for health and social care.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Despite the incredible challenges of the past year, neither the Government’s White Paper nor the Budget even mentioned social care. Health and care integration has been progressing in Scotland since 2014, and the Scottish Government have committed to developing a national care service and ensure equity throughout Scotland; will the Minister make such a commitment for England?
Helen Whately
Actually, I have to disagree with the hon. Member: the White Paper does mention social care and includes several steps on the path to the reform of social care. We will bring forward further information about social care reforms later this year.
Martyn Day
Integration and service improvement cannot be delivered without sufficient social care staff. The Scottish Government already fund the real living wage for social care staff in Scotland, have included them in the £500 thank-you bonus, and plan to standardise pay and training. Does the Minister not recognise that the only way to attract people to build a career in social care is by valuing care staff?
Helen Whately
I agree with the hon. Member that it is essential that we value social care staff. Just as we have valued NHS staff during the pandemic, so we have rightly recognised the vital contribution of the social care workforce. We must continue to value our social care workforce, for which we plan to bring forward proposals as part of our social care reforms.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
The Government are committed to putting patients at the centre of our health service. Patients are consulted on their local health services in a wide variety of contexts, including through Healthwatch England, the independent national champion for patients. When a major or substantial reconfiguration or change to services is proposed, the local clinical commissioning group is legally required to hold a consultation with local people.
Steve McCabe [V]
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about this issue a month ago. Last December, amid the pandemic, Birmingham and Solihull clinical commissioning group decided to close Goodrest Croft GP surgery—which has more than 6,000 patients—in my constituency. The CCG did not consult anyone because apparently it is not required to do so. Does the Minister find that acceptable?
Edward Argar
Although I am not familiar with the detail of the specific local case the hon. Gentleman raises, I am happy to meet him to discuss it if that is helpful to him.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
The National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service works closely with hospital trusts to determine sources of data that can be used to complete the cancer outcomes and services dataset. It also works with the software suppliers of cancer-management systems to ensure that data items can be recorded. Compliance with data standards is monitored by local CCGs, but I recognise that that is not enough, as data is incomplete after some eight years.
Rosie Cooper [V]
Currently, women with metastatic breast cancer are counted only when they die. That is despite the fact that, since 2013, it has been mandatory for trusts to collect data such as the number of women involved, how long they have survived and whether there are any health inequalities. It cannot be acceptable to count only the dead, not the living. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the 2013 mandatory requirement to collect data on women with metastatic breast cancer is enforced?
Jo Churchill
Yes. As I explained in my earlier answer, one of the challenges is that there is not a consistent way of capturing the data. We need to sort that out: we need to make it simple; we need to make people understand what data we are collecting; and we need to make sure that, for both breast cancer patients and all metastatic cancer patients, we know where they are and that we are helping them with this disease as effectively as we can.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
The Government recognise that the effects of covid-19 have increased the demand for bereavement services and highlighted the complexity of grief that these services support. In response, since March 2020, we have given more than £10.2 million to support mental health charities, including bereavement services, to support adults and children struggling with mental wellbeing due to the impact of covid-19.
Seema Malhotra
Last year, along with the Co-operative party, I called for a proper plan for bereavement to ensure that everyone who has experienced loss during this difficult period has the support that they need. Awareness of the services available is vital if people are to get this help. The Good Grief Trust, with which I have been in contact, has said that too many people simply do not know where to turn. What steps is the Minister taking to help signpost families to bereavement charities and support and to increase awareness of the support available to families in need, which also includes support that can be signposted from hospitals when loved ones die?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her important question. The mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan published on 27 March this year aims to respond to the impact of the pandemic on people’s mental health, specifically targeting groups that have been most impacted. She mentioned the Good Grief Trust, and I mentioned the £10.2 million of funding that we have allocated recently. That is on top of the £2.3 billion a year for general mental health, which includes bereavement counselling, and the £500 million additional spending that we received in the spending review. Some of that money did go to the Good Grief Trust, which has done a fantastic job. It has been signposting services by putting cards in doctors’ surgeries and in A&E departments in hospitals so that people have immediate access to a line, but there are 700 other charities across the UK that are providing bereavement and grief counselling services to many members of the public. We recognise that the demand is high, but the services are there and available.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will pay a tribute to my father, Mohammad Aslam Khan, who passed away a few days ago. Not only was he a keen cricketer and an amazing dancer, he was also a champion of equality. He was incredibly strong and brave until his very last breath and he shall be missed beyond measure. I extend a huge thank you to all the team at St George’s, especially the marvellous team on Dalby ward, also to Victor and the incredible staff and carers at Ronald Gibson House and to a wonderful nurse called Anne Wheeler. My brother and I saw at first hand that not all angels have wings.
Covid-19 has stripped the humanity out of grieving, with millions being unable to attend funerals, say final goodbyes, or be with loved ones following a death. Last year, the Government provided £10.2 million to mental health organisations to ensure that services could continue during the pandemic. Many people have been relying on the support of dedicated bereavement organisations to help them cope, yet the extra financial support ended on 1 April. Will the Minister please consider reviewing this vital funding immediately to ensure that no one has to go through bereavement alone?
Ms Dorries
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her brave words about her much missed father. Politics divides us, but grief, for many reasons, unites us across this House. I have personally declared to my hon. Friend that I am here should she need me. I pay tribute to her for her bravery, being here today so soon after the loss of her wonderful father. I hear her request; it is constantly under review. Bereavement services are incredibly important to me personally and to many of us. She mentioned the £10.2 million. There are 700 bereavement charities, including the Good Grief Trust. We monitor carefully how people access bereavement services. We know that there is an increased need at the moment and that is being watched very carefully. My hon. Friend is incredibly brave.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
We are continuing to work with the NHS and the wider scientific community to understand better the long-lasting effects of covid-19 infection and the potential treatments. We are committed to supporting patients suffering from long covid. Specialist NHS assessment services have opened across England, and the “Your COVID Recovery” website contains support and provides a personalised programme for people recovering from covid-19, following a clinical consultation. More than £30 million of funding has already been committed to research projects and a further £20 million was made available on 25 March.
Paul Holmes [V]
I pay tribute to all NHS and military staff who are administering vaccines across the UK, including to my mum and dad last week. The Minister knows of the debilitating and lasting effects of long covid. She has just outlined the funding elements that she proposes to put forward. Will she tell us whether she might set up a specific taskforce to look at more research into the damage that long covid causes and the effects that it has on so many people?
Jo Churchill
We are already taking strong action in this area; we have already worked hard and are taking long covid seriously. We are listening to patients, taking a patient-first approach, working with the NHS and the wider scientific community, and engaging with the Royal College of General Practitioners to better understand the disease, which is physiological and neurological. It is different for different people, and therefore treatments need to be different for different people. We are working on ensuring that we have the best post-covid assessment care and the best pathways.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The covid-19 vaccination programme has been the biggest in the history of the United Kingdom. The UK Government have ensured that the excellent work done by the vaccines taskforce to procure vaccines for the whole country has been rolled out to protect people across the UK. To support the roll-out in Scotland, I recently announced an additional £660 million of UK Government funding for Scotland. That is of course on top of the £3.6 billion that Scotland is already receiving over the next financial year through the Barnett formula.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that this is proof of the irrefutable truth that we achieve much more together than we ever could apart and that we should be focusing on the vaccination roll-out and recovery—not a damaging and divisive second referendum on Scottish independence, which would be the case if the Scottish National party won the Scottish election on 6 May?
Matt Hancock
I entirely agree that the vaccination programme has clearly been a huge UK success story and that is because of the UK working together: the NHS across the whole UK; the military working in support across the UK; and, of course, the UK Government working with the devolved authorities and local councils. It is a big team effort. To split and separate out this team effort for no good reason would, in my view, be counterproductive to improving the lives of people across the whole country. We should be working together, not pursuing separation.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
We have made clear our intention to end the advertising of high fat, salt and sugar products on television before 9 pm. We recently held a short consultation on how to introduce advertising restrictions for online and we will publish our response soon. A level playing field, however, is important. I want to make it easy for everyone to be healthy.
Andrew Selous [V]
Does the Minister agree that ending junk food marketing online is hardly an outrageous assault on our freedoms, would remove 12.5 billion calories a year from children’s diets, and would allow advertisers and food companies to make plenty of money from producing and marketing healthy food?
Jo Churchill
Indeed I do. We are not banning food. It is very important that we make the environment right to ensure that people can make the healthy choice as a default option and enjoy a healthy balanced diet where they have the full knowledge and understanding of what they are purchasing. I think this is actually a great opportunity for companies.
Craig Whittaker [V]
May I send my deepest condolences, thoughts and prayers to the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and her family?
It is good to hear the Minister say that there will be a level playing field in this area, but it has been reported on national media over the past few weeks that the Government seem to be dropping plans to ban ads online for foods high in fat, sugar and salt. On that basis, surely she will agree that when half of 10-year-olds and 83% of 12 to 15-year-olds own a smartphone, with 86% of those children using video on demand, it would be absolute nonsense to ban advertising on mainstream broadcast TV where children watch very little.
Jo Churchill
I agree that making sure that there is a level playing field is the right thing to do. If we were currently doing so well, we would not have the number of children and young people overweight or living with obesity, so we must work on making sure that we do everything we can so that every child can be a healthy weight. But my hon. Friend will not get me to pre-empt the consultation that we will be reporting on shortly.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
We recognise the extraordinary commitment and compassion of social care staff, especially during the pandemic. While the Government do not have direct responsibility for pay in adult social care in England, we want care providers to reward and support their staff appropriately for the vital work they do. During the pandemic we have asked care providers to pay staff full pay when they need to self-isolate and provided over £1.4 billion of extra funding to support the cost of this and other infection control measures.
Jon Trickett
First, I imagine the whole House will join me in mourning the 364 care workers who have died in public service since covid began. Many care workers have told me that they feel undervalued by the fact that their average salary is only £17,200. I am sure there are very few Ministers who could live on that kind of salary. They particularly feel devalued when they discover that the Government are paying nine times that salary equivalent to Test and Trace consultants. It is an outrage. Will the Minister now say how she will show that these people are valued by doing three things: first, end privatisation; secondly, insist on a proper salary rise; and thirdly, ensure that a professional career structure is instituted which recognises and rewards the professionalism, talent and commitment of these essential workers?
Helen Whately
I share the hon. Gentleman’s sorrow for the lives that have been lost among the health and social care workforce during the pandemic. I am determined that we will support and continue to support our health and social care workforce through these difficult times. One of the things that I want to achieve for our social care workforce, for whom I am truly ambitious, is that rather than doing something one-off for the pandemic, we should come up with a workforce strategy that will improve the opportunities for those working in social care to develop their careers, with a real career progression in working in that sector. That will be part of our social care reform proposals.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Despite repeated promises, the truth is that someone would be better off stacking shelves at Morrisons than caring for older or disabled people, and that is simply not good enough for our country. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s covid infection control fund had to be used to improve pay so that staff did not have to work for more than one care home and could actually afford to self-isolate? If that is the case, will she commit to permanently enshrining these improvements across the sector to keep all care users and all care workers safe?
Helen Whately
In response to the hon. Lady’s question about the use of the infection control fund, it was available to providers to use in a range of ways to keep their residents safe from covid, including, for instance, reducing the movement of staff between one care home and another, which is often part of the service model of how care is provided, and also, as I mentioned earlier, funding full sick pay for staff who needed to self-isolate because of covid. I am determined that as part of our social care reforms that we will be bringing forward, we will look at how best we can support the workforce.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
A written ministerial statement was published on 11 January 2021, updating Parliament on the Government’s current progress on each of the nine recommendations. The Government will respond in full to the report later this year. It took more than two years to produce the report and we therefore consider it vital, for the sake of patients and especially those who have suffered greatly, to give this independent report the full consideration it deserves.
Christian Wakeford
Baroness Cumberlege’s respected report makes it clear that those harmed by sodium valproate have suffered great and irreparable harm for many decades and that redress is needed. The patient reference group adds more delay for people who have waited long enough already. Will my hon. Friend commit to doing the right thing today and take up this issue of redress and give those harmed the support they have waited so long for?
Ms Dorries
I would like first to convey my most sincere sympathies to anyone who has suffered as a consequence of taking sodium valproate during pregnancy. It remains still the only drug that some women who suffer from epilepsy can take to control their epilepsy. As set out in the recent written ministerial statement, the Government will carefully consider the recommendations and make a full response to the whole report later this year.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
NHS nurses have gone above and beyond throughout the pandemic. We are committed to increasing the number of nurses in the NHS by 50,000 over this Parliament through improving retention and increasing domestic supply and international recruitment, and we are on track to do that. The number of nurses in the NHS is at an all-time high of 301,491 full-time equivalent nurses employed in NHS trusts and CCGs.
Claire Coutinho [V]
We all know how hard our NHS nurses have had to work in the past year, many without a break and, for those with international origins, without seeing their families either. As public focus inevitably turns towards the NHS backlog, can Ministers assure me that they will work with NHS England to protect staff holidays and enable and encourage NHS staff to get the rest and recuperation they need?
Helen Whately
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that staff must be allowed and supported to recover from the pandemic. We have advised NHS Employers to make sure that staff can carry over annual leave. We are determined that the pace of NHS recovery must also allow staff the rest and recuperation they need.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The UK is one of the best places in the world to locate a life sciences business. We are making vaccines in Livingston, Wrexham, Oxford and Hartlepool. We are making cell and gene therapies in Stevenage, surgical robots in Cambridge, cancer medicines in Macclesfield, hip replacements in Leeds and care products in Hull. Last week, we announced another £20 million fund to incentivise companies to put medicines and diagnostics manufacturing investments here in the UK.
Ian Lavery [V]
Some people have very short memories, I must say. The UK was found desperately wanting when this horrid covid-19 pandemic swept through the cities, towns and villages of this country. The nation’s silverware was sold off and the stock cupboards laid bare. There was a deliberate policy of under-investment in the NHS, with a view to buying everything on the cheap from elsewhere. This was an ideological crime. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that we are never again left without the capacity to produce essential health and safety equipment, and how might a real industrial strategy aid the need to produce personal protective equipment, to bring good, well-paid jobs to long held back communities like Wansbeck here in the north-east?
Matt Hancock
There might be a meeting of minds between the hon. Gentleman and me. Over the last year, we have developed the capacity to produce 70% of the country’s PPE needs here in the UK. We set that target last summer. We met it at Christmas for all different types of PPE, with the exception of gloves, but we keep working on bringing glove manufacturing onshore. As I said in my response, we have built a huge amount of pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity here in the UK, and there is a lot more to come.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is essential that we increase the amount of research to treat brain tumours, which is why in 2018, through the NIHR, the Government announced £40 million over five years for brain tumour research as part of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission to increase the number of applications and grants allocated. The NIHR released a highlight notice that encourages collaborative applications to build on recent initiatives and investment already made in this area, as well as working with the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission to fund workshops for previously unsuccessful researchers in order to support them in submitting higher-quality applications.
Ruth Cadbury
Like many across the country, my constituent Greg has a family member with a brain tumour; in his case, it is his young nephew. The £40 million of funding is certainly welcome, but only £6 million of it has been delivered, and there are still difficulties for those trying to get grants for this urgently needed research. Will the Minister commit to taking a more proactive approach to this—for example, by ensuring that brain tumour experts sit on the grant panels for research bids?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Lady and would like to extend my good wishes to Greg for this treatment. There has been £8.8 million committed so far based on the NIHR programme and academy spend. The important thing is the quality of the applications. Brain tumours are invidious, and we need to do more and we need to go faster. I will look at her suggestion, but I am aware that there are already experts sitting on the panel.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Helping people to achieve and maintain a healthy weight is one of the most important things we can do to improve our nation’s health. That is why we published our healthy weight strategy last summer. We are taking forward actions from previous chapters of the childhood obesity plan, as well as further measures to get the nation fit and healthy, protect against covid-19 and protect the NHS. Question 25 on the call list is grouped with Question 26.
Mr Speaker
Yes, but unfortunately Jonathan Gullis is not here. You managed to jump in before James Daly could speak. Not to worry. We will go to James Daly.
James Daly
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Encouraging an active lifestyle is a crucial part of tackling the obesity challenge that our country faces. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities, working with partner agencies, should invest in iconic community venues such as Gigg Lane in my constituency to house a wide range of public health services and provide inspirational settings for young people to take part in sport, no matter what their background or personal circumstances?
Jo Churchill
I agree wholeheartedly that we should encourage all children to make sure that they can take part in sports and enjoy the outdoors. Regular physical exercise is important for the health and wellbeing of young people, and the local community has an important role to play in developing facilities. That is why the Government launched a £150 million community ownership fund, to ensure that communities across the UK can benefit from the local facilities and amenities that are most important to them. That includes community-owned sports clubs and sporting and leisure facilities that are at risk of being lost without community intervention, and I urge my hon. Friend to work with his community to ensure that he has those facilities locally.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
Cancer diagnosis and treatment is a priority for this Government. I am working with the Minister for prevention and public health—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—to ensure that we have the necessary workforce to deliver improved cancer care. Overall, we are increasing the number of nurses in the NHS, with over 10,000 more nurses in the NHS this January than a year ago. We are training 250 more cancer nurses and 100 more specialist chemotherapy nurses.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for that encouraging response, but will she outline what steps have been taken to ensure that Northern Ireland students educated in UK mainland nursing schemes can easily transition to fill the needs in our cancer wards both in the UK mainland and in Northern Ireland?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and if he will allow me, I will look into that and write to him.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Prior to the pandemic, cancer services were understaffed and not meeting their targets. During the pandemic, our staff have made incredible efforts, but a cancer backlog has built up. The Government are now asking the same understaffed cohort to run their normal services and to deal with the backlog at the same time. This is unfair, will lead to burn out and will not work. Will the Government commit today to extra resources specifically targeted at cancer to give those staff a fighting chance?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Member for his question. The Government have already committed significant additional resources to support the NHS in recovering from the impact of the pandemic, and that will include cancer services as well as other areas of treatment.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, across the UK, we have met our target to offer a vaccine to everyone in the top nine priority groups ahead of the deadline on 15 April. We have now delivered a first dose to more than 32 million people, and are on track to offer a vaccine to all adults by the end of July. This weekend, we also saw a record number of second doses. Overall, as of midnight last night, we have now delivered more than 40 million doses of vaccines right across the UK. It is a remarkable achievement.
Today, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has published its final advice on an age-based prioritisation, which we accept in full. So I can announce formally that, from today, we have opened up invitations to get a vaccine to all aged over 45, and then we will proceed to everyone aged over 40, in line with supplies.
Finally, following a successful start last week in Wales, the Moderna vaccine will be rolled out in England from today. I am very grateful to everybody involved in this vaccination programme, which allows us to lift restrictions across the country, and already has saved over 10,000 lives, with more to come.
Mr Sharma [V]
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I wish all Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and other communities celebrating their religious and cultural events in the coming days and weeks a happy, peaceful and prosperous time?
The Secretary of State is clear about the importance of vaccination, but how is his Department working to ensure that all adults without English language knowledge, with very low levels of health literacy and in pockets traditionally untouched by health campaigns, choose to be vaccinated, rather than being coerced—not just regarding covid-19 vaccines but other vaccines?
Matt Hancock
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am very proud of how, across this House, people have united to support the vaccination effort and to get those messages out there as he says so clearly. It is very important that we have trusted confidants working in and with communities to explain the benefits of vaccination to those who may be hesitant. For instance, in Leicester we have ensured that within the Somali community, Somali clinicians are administering the vaccine. Having a vaccination centre that is staffed by the Somali community near where they live, even though there is another vaccination centre round the corner, has proved successful in driving up vaccination rates in that community. I pick on that as one excellent example of the national and local systems working together, listening to the data, and working with local communities. and I very much look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to make that happen.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
At the Liaison Committee three weeks ago, the Prime Minister confirmed that there would be a 10-year plan for the social care sector, like that of the NHS, to fix the crisis in social care. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he thinks that 10-year plan needs to contain, and whether external organisations such as Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, Care England, and the Health and Social Care Committee, will be able to contribute to the Government’s thinking on that plan? Will they be able to do so before the plan is published later this year?
Matt Hancock
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm and support for that project, which the Prime Minister set out at a high level to the Liaison Committee. We are working hard, including with stakeholders, and the Minister for Care has held a number of roundtables on the subject. We want this to be an open and broad programme, to ensure that we get the right answers to these long-standing questions.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State explain why, following a private drink he had with Lex Greensill and David Cameron, Greensill was handed an NHS payroll financing contract that sought to convert income from NHS staff pay packets into bonds to sell internationally, and effectively to make money on the back of NHS staff in a pandemic? Why was that contract given without tender? Why was that meeting not declared? What pressure did the Secretary of State put on officials to hand that contract to Greensill?
Matt Hancock
Ministers were not involved in the decision by NHS Shared Business Services to facilitate the provision of salary advances in pilot schemes. I attended a social meeting organised by the former Prime Minister, and given that departmental business came up, I reported to officials in the normal way.
Jonathan Ashworth
This is part of a wider pattern of behaviour. We see PPE contracts going to Tory donors, and a pub landlord WhatsApping the Secretary of State and receiving a testing contract. We see a US insurance firm taking over GP contracts, and one of its bosses gets a job in Downing Street. It is cronyism and it stinks. If the Secretary of State thinks he has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, will he publish all the minutes, emails, correspondence and directions that he gave to civil servants, and all his text messages with David Cameron, so that we can see exactly what went on with the awarding of this contract?
Matt Hancock
Yesterday the Government announced a review into this matter, and I will of course participate in that in full. It is important that Governments engage with external stakeholders and businesses and, as was raised in the previous question, it is important that that happens, and happens in an appropriate way within the rules, which is what happened in this case.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Yes. I think that through the pandemic we have seen an improvement in our ability to see what is happening in the NHS right across the UK, and that helps us all work together better to deliver for patients. One example of that is the vaccine programme. That is a UK-wide programme with UK-wide metrics but it is delivered, of course, by the local NHS wherever people are in the UK. There are lessons we can learn from that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Matt Hancock
We are putting record resources in. Of the increase in the NHS budget, the fastest increase in the long-term plan settlement is for mental health services, and within that, for children’s mental health services. We have also increased support through the pandemic. There is an awful lot that we continue to need to do, and there is a very significant plan, as part of the long-term plan, for improving access to these vital services.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Scotland gets her fair share of vaccines allocated, and then we publish the amount of vaccines that are delivered. That is slightly lower in Scotland as a proportion of the population compared with the UK as a whole, but we are working very closely with the NHS across Scotland, with the armed services and, of course, with the Scottish Government to try to make sure that they can catch up.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
The definition of “outdoors” used in these regulations is the one set out by the Labour Government in the ban on indoor smoking.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for raising this vital question of local public health in the House, and I am absolutely determined that the authorities—both the local authority, with its responsibilities, and the national authorities, including Public Health England—play their role in tackling this problem.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
Matt Hancock
I am very glad to say that the numbers that the hon. Lady uses are out of date. We have seen a very significant increase in the number of nurses and other staff in the NHS. In fact, we have a record number of nurses in the NHS. For the very first time, we have more than 300,000 nurses in the NHS. We have seen over 10,000 more nurses over the last year alone. Of course, the mission to work caring for others and looking after the health of the nation in the NHS has never been more important, and I am delighted that so many people are rising to that, because we have record numbers of people in training too.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Matt Hancock
There is a huge amount that we can learn from the early response to the pandemic, and it is very important that we adopt the scientific understanding and learnings as quickly as is rigorously possible. We need the time for the rigour, but we need to adopt the policies. We have seen in the vaccine roll-out a huge amount of these lessons adopted, and the speed at which the scientific advice takes into account what we are learning on the ground in the vaccine roll-out is impressive. So we should keep going down this route—always open-minded, always asking the scientific questions and always then asking how quickly we can rigorously put those understandings into practice.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I regret to have to report to the House the death of the right honourable Cheryl Gillan, the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I know hon. Members in all parts of the House, including the Deputy Speakers, are, like myself, in shock. They were great friends of Dame Cheryl. I know the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the right honourable Member’s family and friends.
Cheryl was a Member of this House for nearly 30 years. In that time she made an outstanding contribution from both the Back Benches and the Front Benches, and as the first woman to be appointed as Secretary of State for Wales. She was a doughty defender of her constituents’ interests, most notably in her long campaign against the High Speed 2 rail line, and she was the champion of the private Member’s Bill that led to the Autism Act 2009. Above all, she will be remembered as a friend and mentor to many Members—especially new Members—on all sides of the House.
I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to five former Members who passed away while the House was in recess: Peter Ainsworth, Ian Gibson, Robert Howarth, Paul Marland and Baroness Williams of Crosby. Our thoughts are with their families.
I will now take brief points of order to allow for tributes to our esteemed colleague.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the family will appreciate your words. As the House knows, Cheryl passed away on 4 April, courageously fighting against the odds with cheerfulness and bravery.
Cheryl, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), now a Deputy Speaker, and I came into the House together 29 years ago and became firm friends. I attended the funeral of her beloved husband Jack in 2019 and I was in touch with her throughout her illness. It is with enormous sadness that I am privileged to pay tribute to such a special person.
After several jobs in the Conservative Opposition years, Cheryl was appointed Secretary of State for Wales and was much respected for singing the Welsh national anthem in the Welsh language. After leaving Cabinet, as you said, Mr Speaker, she stepped up her opposition to HS2. There was not a debate or question in this House on the matter where she did not speak. After the House changed the rules, on 19 January this year, Cheryl was able to make her final speech, fittingly, on consideration of Lords amendments to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill. Despite her advancing illness, she was in her usual feisty form, denigrating the whole HS2 project. I know that the opportunity meant a huge amount to her. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the House to change the rules.
As you said, Cheryl campaigned alongside autistic people and their families for many years and successfully introduced the Autism Act 2009. She was also a champion for people with epilepsy, raising the profile of the condition throughout her parliamentary work. Cheryl rejoined the Public Accounts Committee after the 2019 election and many a permanent secretary feared the force of Cheryl’s direct and well-informed questions, but it was working with Cheryl on the 1922 executive, so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), that I observed her real qualities. Her bright mind always enabled her to calmly put things into perspective and provide quiet, sensible and sound advice. She had a real sense of caring for people, particularly when they were in difficult or sad circumstances. She would always be there, offering them words of comfort.
In saying farewell to Cheryl—her family and friends, her constituents and staff—the whole House has lost one of its hardest working Members. She had an enormously generous heart. She was always prepared to have a kindly word for anyone in trouble. Above all, she was a fierce and effective defender of the interests of her constituents in Chesham and Amersham. People such as Cheryl, who enter politics for the very best of reasons, are rare indeed and she will be sorely missed.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) [V]
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was so, so sad to hear of the death of Cheryl Gillan at the age of only 68. Sometimes politics can feel like a hostile environment, which is why Cheryl was so important as somebody who was just completely warm, non-judgmental, vivacious and outgoing. She called us all “darling” not because she had forgotten our names, but because she wanted to put everybody at their ease.
When she came to the House in 1992 as one of 336 Conservative MPs, she was one of only 20 women, so she was very much a pioneer of women’s presence on the Tory Benches. Over the three decades she served in the House, she very proudly and protectively watched over the growing flock of Tory women MPs.
It was very energising to work with her on her autism campaigns. It was admirable to see her being such a thorn in the side of the Government, fiercely championing her constituents in their opposition to HS2. Above all, I know she will be missed by her family, to whom I extend my deepest, deepest condolences. We really, really will miss her. I can hardly believe that she is not on the green Benches today. She was such a presence in the House, becoming a grandee in the 1922 committee, but never grand.
I would like to just briefly mention the loss of Shirley Williams, who was a Member of our House from 1964 to 1983. I briefly crossed over with her when I came in in 1982. To my young and pregnant self, despite the acrimony and bitterness between the Labour party—I was a Labour MP—and the Social Democratic party, of which she was a member, she warmly welcomed me to the House. She was an extraordinary politician and an extraordinary intellect. She was vilified by the press for her wild hair and overflowing handbag. She, too, was a woman in a man’s world, and a champion of social justice and an instinctive feminist. I extend my sympathies to her family, too.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to pay tribute to a great friend, Dame Cheryl Gillan, and to the former Members who have sadly passed in recent days. I am grateful to colleagues on both sides of the House for the warmth of their remarks about Cheryl both today and in the days since she died, on 4 April.
Mr Speaker, you mentioned Cheryl’s kindness to new Members. I was a beneficiary of that in 1997. As an Education Minister in the previous Parliament, she was very active in making sure that those of us with an interest in and a passion for education got involved in dealing with the first piece of legislation from that Government.
Much has also been made of the great work she did in promoting the interests of women in the House of Commons. I would also want to add that I ended up being perhaps the greatest beneficiary of her sterling qualities in the few years she spent as vice-chairman of the 1922 committee. I certainly benefited from her great unflappable qualities. She was a very smart, very stylish woman and always there to give support. As soon as something happened—we had one or two emergencies in the last few years—a call to Cheryl would immediately settle my nerves and I would know that everything would be done as well as it could possibly be done.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I feel privileged, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, to extend our most sincere condolences to Dame Cheryl’s family, and to all her many friends both across the House and beyond, on the extremely sad news of her death.
I feel very privileged to have served with Dame Cheryl on the Public Accounts Committee over the past year. Despite our engagements being mostly remote during this very extraordinary time, I learned a great deal from listening to her as she held civil servants to account. She was always elegant, always gracious, but woe betide any Department for Transport official who arrived unprepared for her dignified and tenacious grillings on the progress of HS2.
It has been a pleasure to hear the memories of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) with their own experiences and obviously long association with Dame Cheryl. I feel quite acutely the loss of what might have been. Despite her long service in this House—I was surprised to find that she was only 68, not because she looked older but because of how long she had served—she had a great deal more to give. She has been taken from us far too soon. For those of us who are much newer to the House, I feel we have lost the great potential to have benefited from her wisdom, gathered over many years. I would like to take the opportunity once more to extend my sincerest condolences.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I was elected in the same year as Cheryl in 1992 and knew her for over 30 years. As a shadow Minister and then a Minister, she was, like so many women, probably underestimated because she did not employ sharp elbows to get in front of her colleagues. When I was Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee and then the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, she always made well-informed, principled, shrewd and wise contributions to our inquiries as well as, indeed, advice to me. She knew how to get far more out of witnesses than most people because she was also gentle and polite. She became, particularly in later years, one of my most trusted friends.
She was an exemplary employer of her staff, who were devoted to her. She was terrific fun and, as has been said, she was a champion of women in politics. When she lost her beloved husband Jack, she raised a fund in his memory for Women2Win, which has helped promote more women into Parliament, as a mark of how much he had supported her in her political career.
Her failing health and then cancer were particularly bitter for her, because while outside the covid measures the House now allows proxy voting for MPs who are expecting a baby or have just had one—she would call them women, I have to tell you—we still do not give proxies to people who are incapacitated by sickness. Perhaps we should have a campaign to rectify that and call the campaign “Cheryl’s Vote”. We will sorely miss a trusted colleague and a dear friend.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I associate myself in full with the comments of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), save the bit about the 1922 committee, which I have obviously not had the privilege—a dubious privilege, in my case—of serving on. Cheryl was, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and others have said, a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I have to confess, Mr Speaker, that I pursued her to join the Committee, and you would not have realised that she was dealing with this serious illness unless you knew. The amount of work she put in would put many other Members to shame. I really valued her intellect, her robustness and her good fun. We did sometimes disagree, but with Cheryl we always disagreed well. If we can take anything from the way she did things here, we can all learn from that hard work, that intellectual curiosity and that ability to work with people—even with those with whom she disagreed—in a gracious matter in these times.
I will miss her enormously. I cannot really believe that she has passed. It is also extraordinary to realise that only two Conservative women MPs elected prior to me are still serving in this House. Her loss is a loss for women in this place, too. I pass on my condolences to her family, her staff and her many friends.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There are few people in politics you can consider a real friend, but Cheryl Gillan was exactly that: a real friend to so many people in this place, and in so many ways. She shaped and influenced so many of the things that have taken up a lot of our time in recent years. She was a huge friend to this House when a number of us, cross-party, were working on the complaints procedure. Cheryl was a stalwart a member of the 1922 committee who was determined to get it right—to provide the right level of protection for those who felt they had been wronged in these Houses of Parliament, and equally to be fair to those who serve here as elected Members. She was always absolutely determined to do the right thing, and always in a kind way.
Cheryl was a great friend to my constituents in South Northamptonshire as she fought so diligently on their behalf and on behalf of her own constituents and others against HS2—but we will leave that there for now, Mr Speaker. She has been a true friend. Perhaps most of all, she was someone who loved to hug. As the Mother of the House said, Cheryl called everyone “darling”, but she also hugged frequently. We do not do enough of that either.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) that Cheryl was harmed by the fact that she was always so keen to give, yet only lately, when she was very ill, did this House enable her to vote by proxy and take part virtually. We need to think about that. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should call it “Cheryl’s Vote”, and I hope we will make progress on it.
I send my deepest condolences to Cheryl’s family and friends.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Cheryl and I entered the House on the same day in 1992, delighted and a little surprised to find ourselves on the Government side following that election. The Conservative party has lost a loyal, hard-working and mainstream advocate, the likes of whom we see too seldom these days. Parliament has lost a great defender of our values and traditions, someone who worked tirelessly across party lines to make our democracy work better for everyone. We MPs on both sides of the House have lost an almost unnaturally good-natured, kind and generous friend. Her charm could lure Front Benchers into a very false sense of security, which they seldom fell for twice, and her bravery in the face of a long and difficult illness is truly an inspiration to all of us.
If the importance of public service is judged by independence of mind and sound judgment, if the success of public service is measured by the level of respect in which any MP is held by their constituents, and if the value of public service is reflected in the esteem in which any of us is held by our parliamentary peers, with Cheryl’s untimely death we have truly lost a great public servant. She will be enormously missed and even harder to replace.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a new Member of this place, but even in my very brief time in politics, Dame Cheryl had a profound impact on me. I first met her when she came to Aylesbury to help me campaign from her neighbouring constituency. We had HS2 in common. With her was her much loved dog, Jimmy, who brought her so much joy after the loss of her husband.
Cheryl walked the streets with me, she shared a choice comment or two with a heckler in the post office, and then she sat down with me in a pub to tell me what was what. Despite having known me for barely an hour, she offered me space in her office were I to be elected. She was as good as her word: in my first month here, I camped out alongside her, benefiting not just from a desk and some space, but from her wisdom. I vividly remember when she heard me discussing a proposed email in response to a particularly vitriolic correspondent. She came and stood quietly behind me and said, “I think you could just say, ‘I remember meeting you very well.’ He will get the message.” She was, of course, right. I did not hear from him again.
Dame Cheryl gave me and many of the 2019 intake valuable tips that have already stood us in excellent stead. She was always willing to give her time, and even so many years after coming to this place herself, she was willing to share the benefit of her long experience with us. We newbies will miss her too.
Dame Cheryl cared. She cared profoundly for her constituents, she cared for fellow Members of this House, and she cared greatly for her staff, and they cared greatly for her. It is my honour to have been asked to work with them in the coming weeks. Thanks to your kindness, Mr Speaker, three of Dame Cheryl’s staff sit today in the Public Gallery. They are all of course desperately sad at the loss of not just their boss, but a great friend and mentor. They know how much of an impression Dame Cheryl made on everybody with whom she came into contact, and they have expressed to me their gratitude for being able to be here to hear your words and those of other right hon. and hon. Members in tribute to Dame Cheryl’s extraordinary service to Chesham and Amersham, the entire county of Buckinghamshire, her party and her country.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Dame Cheryl was a great constituency MP, as we have heard. There have not been many happy days over the past two years, but in May 2019 I joined Dame Cheryl and her assistant, Mel, for a picnic on the banks of the River Chess with our mutual friend, Paul Jennings. It was a wonderful day. Her eyes sparkled, the mayflies danced, and I just say this: she will be much missed by many in her constituency, and the River Chess Association would like, through me, to pass on its great thanks for all her service to it over the past decade.
Mr Speaker
May I thank the House? We are always at our best when we come together and the House certainly has come together. I say on behalf of myself and the Chairman of Ways and Means that Dame Cheryl will be missed on the Speaker’s Panel.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I am aware that Members are likely to be taking part in campaigning for the forthcoming elections on 6 May. It may therefore be a timely reminder to all right hon. and hon. Members, including Ministers and shadow Ministers, that when a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. Guidance on this can be found in the document called “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”. That guidance also states that
“failing to do so is regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”
Greensill Capital
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the process by which Greensill Capital was approved as a lender for the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Greensill Capital (UK) Ltd was approved by the British Business Bank for the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme last year in accordance with the bank’s published guidance on accreditation. All decisions taken by the bank were made independently and in accordance with the bank’s usual procedure.
The criteria by which the decisions were made were based on those used in the existing enterprise finance guarantee scheme, dating back from 2009, and were set out in the CLBILS request for proposals, which was a publicly available document. These criteria included minimum requirements such as the ability to demonstrate a track record of lending to larger enterprises, provision of evidence-based forecasts, the ability to demonstrate sufficient capital available to meet the lending forecasts, a viable business model, robust operations and systems, that the proposed lending will not have unreasonable lender-levied fees and interest, and that the lender has all the necessary regulations, licences, authorisations and permissions to operate the scheme. All accredited lenders are subject to regular audit by the bank to ensure their compliance with scheme rules.
Following analysis of loan data as part of its standard due diligence, the bank opened an investigation into Greensill Capital’s compliance with the terms of the scheme in October 2020 and informed the Government of this on 9 October. That investigation is continuing and the Government’s obligations as guarantor under the CLBILS guarantee are suspended on a precautionary basis. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the investigation at this time.
Anneliese Dodds
I start by paying tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, who was an extraordinary public servant. My thoughts today are with the Queen and the rest of the royal family as we all mourn his passing. They are also with the friends and family of Cheryl Gillan, and I would like to associate myself with the very moving tributes that we quite rightly heard a few moments ago.
I welcome the Minister’s presence, but it was the Chancellor who needed to come to the House today; the Chancellor who told David Cameron that he would “push” his team to amend emergency loan schemes to suit Cameron’s new employer; the Chancellor whose officials met with Greensill 10 times; the Chancellor who took the credit for Government business loan schemes when they were in the headlines and, indeed, who personally announced those schemes. Yet the Chancellor is frit to put his name to those loan schemes today. He has just spent £600,000 on communications. I would have thought that that would extend to communicating with Parliament. In the Chancellor’s absence, let me ask: what was the alternative that the Chancellor pushed his team to explore after David Cameron texted him? What discussions did the Government have with the British Business Bank about Greensill’s access to CLBILS after it had already been rejected for the covid corporate financing facility? Were the criteria for CLBILS amended so that Greensill could access the scheme? Why was Greensill the only supply chain finance firm accredited for CLBILS, and what due diligence was done?
Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money were put at risk by giving Greensill access to this scheme. With Greensill’s collapse, thousands of jobs—in Rotherham, Hartlepool and right across the country—have been put at risk. Those workers and taxpayers across the country deserve answers. The Chancellor said that he would “level with” the public. Why is he running scared of levelling with them on the Greensill scandal?
Paul Scully
I associate myself with the hon. Member’s words about the Duke of Edinburgh and, of course, our colleague Cheryl Gillan, both of whom will be sorely missed.
The Chancellor wrote to the hon. Member last week with a comprehensive response to her questions regarding engagement between Greensill and HM Treasury. The Prime Minister has asked Nigel Boardman to conduct a review to look into the decisions taken around the development and use of supply chain finance and the associated schemes in Government—especially the role of Lex Greensill and Greensill Capital—and to set out any findings as necessary. The Government recognise the interest in the matter. It is right that we now let that review happen.
In the interests of transparency, the Chancellor has provided all the messages that were sent from him to David Cameron on this matter; they relate exclusively to Greensill’s proposals for the covid corporate financing facility. The Chancellor is right to push officials, as we all have, to explore all ways of capital getting to businesses—large and small. That is what all Members of this House were asking and demanding the Government to do at that particular point. It is important to remember that the Chancellor rejected the idea that he should rewrite the CCFF to include any banks.
The reason the Chancellor is not here is that the question is about the CLBILS. I suggest to the hon. Lady that she asks her question in a different forum or that she asks a different question, because the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, to which this question pertains, is administered by the British Business Bank. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is the sole shareholder in the bank. As such, the responsibility for the delivery of the scheme sits with BEIS. The accreditation process for any of the covid loan schemes is run independently by the British Business Bank; neither BEIS nor HM Treasury had a role or were involved in the CLBILS accreditation decision for Greensill.
There were two other non-bank lenders accredited under the CLBILS, with over 75 accredited for the CBILS. It was an important feature of the covid loan schemes that there was a diversity of lenders to ensure a broad range of choice for borrowers, enabling them to access the finance they needed to survive and recover from the pandemic. Greensill was not accredited to provide supply chain finance through the CLBILS. It was only accredited to provide invoice finance, term loans and revolving credit facilities.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that in all dealings with Greensill, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Chancellor, his Ministers and his officials always followed all appropriate codes of conduct?
Paul Scully
Indeed; all the decisions were taken independently, and that included rejecting Greensill from being able to access the higher level of loan facility, the only request for which came from the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
I express my condolences, on behalf of the Scottish National party, to the family and friends of Cheryl Gillan and Shirley Williams. I also wish my constituents, and everyone celebrating, Ramadan Mubarak and a happy and peaceful Vaisakhi.
This scandal further exposes the depth of cronyism at the heart of this UK Tory Government—and it is not new, because back in November the National Audit Office expressed concerns about a VIP list of suppliers, with those on the list 10 times more likely to get a contract than those who were not. The Financial Times reports today that £19 billion of covid contracts were awarded without rival bids.
There remain serious questions about the role of Greensill while Mr Cameron was Prime Minister and about who exactly is being afforded similar influence in the UK Government today. It is absolutely galling that some have hoovered up so much Government support while millions who do not happen to have ministerial phone numbers get absolutely nothing at all.
Will the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care come before the House to explain their actions? How can we have confidence in the inquiry that has been announced when, from the Home Secretary’s bullying to the race equality report, this UK Government have such a woeful record on marking their own homework?
Paul Scully
A number of the issues the hon. Lady raised were slightly wide of the mark in respect of this urgent question. The review will do its work and Nigel Boardman has had assurance from all parties that they will co-operate and offer any information required. He is due to report back at the end of June.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The furlough scheme, the self-employment income support scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme have been lifelines for many thousands of my constituents in Redcar and Cleveland, and across Teesside almost 500 businesses have benefited from CBILs worth well over £100 million. Will the Minister confirm that all those businesses have gone through the appropriate checks to be approved and that HMRC will take action against any fraudulent abuse of the scheme?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: any business applying for any of the Government schemes—I have talked about the accreditation required to deliver those schemes—has to go through a robust procedure. HMRC and other organisations will indeed make sure that we are hot on fraud, because this is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about. That is why, in the instance that this question is about, it is important to remember that the Chancellor rejected the suggestion that was put forward. The process is doing its job.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
When an urgent question of a similar nature came before the House just before the recess, I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy whether a list of all the organisations that have received loans—whether they were under the bounce back loan scheme, CBILS or any of the other schemes—would be made available, because the Minister has said previously that that will be done “in due course”. When I asked the Secretary of State on that occasion, he said to me that he will “try to see” what can be done to put that list of businesses in the public domain. I hope the Minister agrees that many of these questions are arising because of a lack of transparency in the way that some of the support has been awarded. Will he tell me how the Secretary of State is getting on with publishing that list?
Paul Scully
As the hon. Lady will know, at the time of delivery we were trying to deliver money to businesses as quickly as possible. The fact that businesses have accessed support—especially the larger loans under CLBILS—will appear in their accounts, and will obviously be reported to the European Union should that be required for state aid purposes.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I remind the Minister that one of David Cameron’s last big acts as Prime Minister was to hold a large anti-corruption summit in London, with some hard-hitting findings. Will the Government recommit to delivering on all the promises made in the subsequent anti-corruption strategy? Will the Minister confirm that if any changes need to be made as a result of the inquiry that is just starting, they will be brought to Parliament as soon as they possibly can be?
Paul Scully
I admire my hon. Friend’s work on anti-corruption. It is important to keep raising the issue, but it is also important to keep a sense of perspective and to tackle actual corruption rather than speculate on other issues for political purposes. As I say, it is important to remember that in these circumstances the process has worked well: it was right to push for as much capital as possible to flow to small and large businesses, but it is important to remember that the Chancellor did reject the suggestion put forward by Greensill.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I would like to wish all celebrating the Hindu new year a happy Navratri and the Sikh community a happy Vaisakhi today.
The Bank of England is rightly independent of the Government. Can the Minister confirm whether or not Bank of England officials were requested by the Treasury to make amendments to its covid corporate financing facility to suit Greensill Capital after the former Prime Minister had texted the Chancellor?
Paul Scully
As I have said, the Chancellor rejected any notion that the CCFF scheme should be rewritten.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
If we can put to one side the blatant political opportunism here, there is a scandal behind this. Greensill failed because it overextended itself to GFG Alliance. That was signed off by Grant Thornton, GFG’s auditors, effectively on a business model that included borrowing hundreds of millions of pounds based on the security of a very insecure, possibly non-existent order book. Will my hon. Friend bring forward his intended reforms to the audit regulatory system and make sure that Grant Thornton’s role in this is properly investigated?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend will appreciate the audit reforms that we are consulting on. It is absolutely right that the markets work when they are transparent and open, which is why we are determined to make sure that, in the light of recent failures, we get these audit reforms through, and I look forward to his contribution to that debate.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is incredibly sad and disappointing that, throughout this pandemic, we have seen too little transparency from Government about every aspect of how taxpayers’ money is being spent. The Government keep saying to the House, “Well, it was terribly difficult in those first two months.” We are now a year on, and we are still uncovering more. Is the Minister really satisfied that a six-week inquiry, dragged out as an announcement by the Prime Minister yesterday, is enough to shine sunlight on the millions of taxpayers’ money that has been given to organisations such as Greensill, backed by Government and therefore a loss to the taxpayer when things go wrong? Is six weeks enough, and will he commit to far more transparency, including, if necessary, calling witnesses before this House?
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady talks about two different things. There is a review into supply chain finance and the request from Greensill Capital, but there is also the wider view of how taxpayers’ money was spent when the Government were working about as close to real time as they will ever get to do. Business owners will understand the huge difference between the speed at which business and Government work. We will review how taxpayers’ money has been spent, but we will also make sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) said, we chase people who have used Government grants and support inappropriately.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
Is it not true that the accreditation process that was used allowed a wide diversity of lenders to become accredited under the scheme in order to give more choice to borrowers, and that focus on the choices available to borrowers was crucial?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Chancellor and a number of Ministers reflected the view of the House that we wanted to push to make sure we had that diversity of finance and capital available to businesses of all different types. We should be proud of the support that has been given out, which has allowed companies to get through this incredibly difficult time, and it remains a difficult time.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
In responding to this story, David Cameron said that “important lessons” must be learned—I should certainly think so, given these shady back-door lobbying efforts with Cabinet Ministers. My question is simple: if serving Ministers are found to have breached or been in breach of the ministerial code, will they resign?
Paul Scully
The review will look to see exactly what happened in this situation. Nigel Boardman will do his work, which will report back at the end of June, and all the parties involved have committed to make sure that all the information is available.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Clearly, at the beginning, when the pandemic first struck, it was vital that we as a Government moved very swiftly to ensure the protection of small and medium-sized enterprises. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was right that the Treasury listened and gave consideration to all the potential options to support businesses to survive the pandemic given the extraordinary and unprecedented challenges facing UK SMEs last spring?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme that we are being asked about today for large businesses protects many jobs in those companies, but it is right that we also looked at a diversity of lenders and of approaches to cover small businesses, as they do not always have the resilience and capacity of those larger businesses to survive and respond in these tough times.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
I assumed that “whatever it takes” meant making sure that people got the help and the support that they needed, not deploying Treasury officials to try to mangle the rules in order to protect David Cameron’s shares. Just how many people and how many hours did the Chancellor devote to Mr Cameron’s concerns as opposed to those 3 million excluded self-employed people whom this Government have abandoned?
Paul Scully
The Chancellor and other Ministers have spent many, many hours speaking to lenders and to businesses of all sizes to make sure that we can best reflect on and flex the support that is given to them. The system worked when the Chancellor was asked to change the scheme inappropriately, because, rather than having the banks involved in the CCFF, it was a Government-backed scheme with the Bank of England. That is why he rejected that approach, which meant that the procedure went well.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Businesses in Dudley South want support to go to the businesses that need it as quickly and effectively as possible rather than just falling back on how things have always been done when the times are far from ordinary. Can my hon. Friend assure them that, while processes will be transparent and due diligence will be done with taxpayers’ money, his Department will continue to look at all the options to make sure that the necessary support is getting to where it is needed rather than just going with traditional processes of distributing funds?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other Ministers have done throughout is to make sure that, rather than just reacting to events, we can flex and respond as best we can by speaking to businesses large and small and by speaking to stakeholders to try to smooth out those cliff edges of support. As we get to that road map, as we start to reopen and recover our economy, it is as important as ever to make sure that we have that flexibility within our support.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
It is apparent in the text messages sent in April 2020 between the Chancellor and David Cameron, now published by the Treasury, that the Chancellor pushed the team to explore an alternative with the bank regarding cheap loans for Greensill. Will the Minister explain what those alternative arrangements were and why Greensill was deemed such an important recipient of public funds, even after the Bank of England refused to authorise Greensill’s entry into the covid corporate financing facility scheme?
Paul Scully
The Bank of England refused Greensill’s entry because there were no banks in the scheme. It was a way for the Government and the Bank of England to get money to businesses and of underwriting it rather than its being a separate loan scheme. That is why Greensill was accredited for CLBILS. The only other request to expand Greensill’s reach came from the shadow Front-Bench team, who asked for it to receive the higher level—up to £200 million.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor now washes his hands of the covid public lending schemes that he set up. It is laughable given the fanfare and fuss he made of their launch. I almost feel sorry for the Minister. He has been sent here to defend the actions of senior Ministers who are not even in his Department. Given that the Chancellor is the person who we know received lobbying texts from David Cameron, can the Minister tell the House what he thinks the Chancellor is afraid of?
Paul Scully
The Chancellor has delivered £356 billion-worth of support, I think it is currently, to businesses. He has flexed at every opportunity across Government in devising and designing loan schemes, which are overseen by the British Business Bank, which is overseen, as the single shareholder, by the Secretary of State for BEIS. That is what we should be proud of. The Chancellor is not afraid of anything here. The question is about the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, which is administered by BEIS, and that is why I am here to answer it.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I understand and share my colleagues’ concerns about lobbying, but, like other corporate financial scandals such as Enron, we need to follow the money. We know that it was the German Greensill Bank that made the loans to Sanjeev Gupta and also supported the use of the private jets on which our former Prime Minister made many journeys, and that the bank is now under criminal investigation as many thousands of German people face bankruptcy. What conversations has the Minister had with the German prosecutors about the CLBILS loan scheme, and will they be invited to give evidence to the inquiry?
Paul Scully
As I said in my opening statement, the bank opened an investigation into Greensill Capital’s compliance with the terms of the scheme in October 2020 and informed the Government of that on 9 October. That is continuing. The obligations as guarantor of the CLBILS scheme are suspended on a precautionary basis, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on further investigations at this time as it is ongoing.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As if the billions of pounds of crony covid contracts was not bad enough for hard-working Brits to stomach, we now have a former Tory Prime Minister sending private text messages to the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers lobbying for Government loans for a firm in which he himself is a shareholder and that is now insolvent; we have him going for a private drink with his financier friend Lex Greensill and the Health Secretary; and we have a Chancellor who messaged back to say that he would “push” his team to find a solution, and now has neither the courtesy nor the courage to come to this House to be held accountable for his actions. Does the Minister agree that this just stinks—downright stinks—not just because we are talking about former and current Tory Ministers all in it together, but because it is not merely the Chancellor’s money that has been put at risk but the British taxpayers’ hard-earned money that is at stake?
Paul Scully
May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman, through the Speaker, that if he wants the Chancellor to come to answer a question, he might ask a question that relates to the Treasury rather than one that comes under the British Business Bank, which is a responsibility of BEIS? As for the Chancellor, as I say, the system has worked. The hon. Gentleman may be touting his Opposition day debate tomorrow about wider things, but the Chancellor asked his officials to push for wider capital flows to be able to go through larger and smaller businesses, as we all wanted, and he rejected Greensill’s ask to try to change the CCFF scheme to involve banks including Greensill. That process worked.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
From a former Prime Minister texting Ministers in pursuit of his own financial interests to concerns over Russian state access to the other place, it is little wonder that questions have arisen as to the integrity of decision making in the UK. I acknowledge the Government’s commitment to investigate the Greensill debacle, but will they go further by implementing the Intelligence and Security Committee’s recommendations regarding undue influence in decision making, particularly in the practice of Lords for boards, to safeguard the transparency of our democratic decision making?
Paul Scully
The review specifically looks at supply chain finance and the discussions with Greensill. As I say, Nigel Boardman will do his work and report back at the end of June.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I have written to Ministers on behalf of businesses in Chesterfield—many other MPs have written too—and have waited months for a reply while a business was on the brink, yet Greensill gets 10 meetings in three months with Treasury officials, and the junior Minister has the audacity to stand there and say that this is a system working well. When David Cameron was the Prime Minister, he said corporate lobbying was
“money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest.”
He could not describe this grubby, shabby Government any better, could he?
Paul Scully
Treasury Ministers, like other Ministers, have had a number of meetings with lenders of all sorts, because as we heard earlier it is so important to have a diversity of lenders involved to create an understanding of their model and what support they can give. The accreditation itself was determined independently by the British Business Bank.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The inquiry announced by the Prime Minister seems to focus on the actions of David Cameron, but it is quite clear that the bigger consideration is the actions of Government Ministers and how they interacted to get Greensill what it wanted. It goes along with Government business as usual: crony appointments to the House of Lords and crony appointments to external bodies and regulators. Tory peer Baroness Harding was appointed to roll out the failed track and trace system. Then we have all the dodgy PPE contract awards. Surely it is not a short inquiry that is needed, but a public inquiry into the entire actions and dealings of this Government.
Paul Scully
The review goes beyond the actions of one man in this matter, but it is important to remember that the Chancellor in particular rejected what Greensill actually wanted, so there is no case in that regard, because that was rejected out of hand.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
The public deserve answers. This is not the Prime Minister’s money, the Chancellor’s money or the Conservative party’s money; it is public money. Can the Minister explain why Greensill Capital met Treasury officials 10 times last summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, when the most meetings any other coronavirus business interruption loan scheme lender secured with the Treasury was two? The vast majority of lenders did not even have any meetings with his Department.
Paul Scully
Lenders and businesses have had many, many meetings across Government without favour, to make sure that we can get that information to ensure a diversity of lenders and that we could flex. The various loan schemes were added to and amended along the way to make sure that we could take the temperature of exactly how that lending was or was not working.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I would like to associate myself first with the comments made earlier about Cheryl Gillan from all sides of the House.
Many Members will remember that seven years ago, when David Cameron was putting his lobbying Bill through this place, he point blank refused to adopt any new clauses or amendments that would bring greater transparency to the corporate lobbying industry. I wonder why he did that. All these years later, is it not time to put that right and introduce greater transparency—not to stop corporate lobbying, which is a perfectly legitimate business to engage in, but to introduce greater accountability—so that we and the public know who is being lobbied and by whom?
Paul Scully
I started off by talking about how the market works when there is transparency and openness, and lobbying comes within that. We should always review what is and is not there. The lobbying register should be working, and we need to make sure that that continues to work, but we always should be able to review lobbying activities to make sure that they are, as the hon. Gentleman says, transparent.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Is the central fact not that there was communication between a former Prime Minister and Ministers about his private interests? Will the Minister confirm that that is a breach of the long-standing British value that high office is not a grubby route through to great riches in the afterlife? Will he indicate that he could take immediate action while we wait for this inquiry, which sounds like a whitewash to me, to remove the impression that powerful wealth dominates public institutions? He could stop the revolving door between Ministers and the private sector. He could stop immediately all forms of lobbying within Westminster and Whitehall. Finally, he could stop the process of outsourcing to Tory chums.
Paul Scully
What I can do is explain the difference between an output and an outcome. An output means that any number of meetings, any number of requests— unless you block the number, any Minister will receive those texts. An outcome is what actually happens as a result, and I was absolutely clear that the Chancellor rejected what was put forward by Greensill and rejected what was put forward by David Cameron.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
This process is just another example of where covid contracts are becoming a genuine source of public concern. The allegations are further undermining public confidence and cultivating among the public a feeling of suspicion about all the activities of this Government. How do the Government propose to rebuild public trust in the wake of the emergence of yet another scandal?
Paul Scully
Having been in opposition at a local level, I know what causes speculation and mistrust among the public, and it is that chipping away, the politicisation of some of these issues. But the Chancellor has been particularly robust in his actions and his outcomes here. There is a review; Nigel Boardman will do his work. People have committed to be open and transparent with him, and the review will report back at the end of June, and will show results for the public to see.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
Was the British Business Bank approached by senior civil servants or Ministers about Greensill’s having access to the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme? Did Greensill exceed its authority and lend more than it was authorised to lend—£400 million to the Gupta group alone, all of which has now been lost?
Paul Scully
I am not aware of any communication between Ministers and the British Business Bank about the accreditation of Greensill, which was made independently of Government. There is an ongoing investigation into Greensill, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Five years ago this week, the former Member for Bolsover was asked to leave the Chamber for using unparliamentary language towards David Cameron regarding his personal finances. Does the Minister now agree that he was, and indeed remains, dodgy?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
When businesses continue to collapse and charities fold in our constituencies because they have not received a penny of support, it now appears that not everything that the former Prime Minister did was for the record, as exchanges took place to procure hundreds of millions of pounds out of the Treasury for a company that he was profiting from. The very loopholes that Labour tried to close in his lobbying legislation left sufficient room for that corruption. So will the Minister stop hiding the detail and now publish a timeline of every meeting, call, text message and conversation between the former Prime Minister and Members of this current Conservative Government and their officials—publish them before this House, so that we can understand the extent of his lobbying?
Paul Scully
The Chancellor has published his text messages and there is a review that, rather than hiding, will go into the detail. As I said, all the parties involved have pledged their commitment to comply with that investigation, which will report back at the end of June.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The simple fact is that, again and again, Members from all parts of the House pleaded with the Chancellor to meet us to hear the plight of millions of people who were excluded from any Government support, and the Chancellor would never find the time for such a meeting; but a few texts from dodgy Dave, and Greensill has got 10 meetings and a ream of correspondence with senior Treasury officials—the type of access that most businesses in this country could only dream of. So I ask the Minister why it was that, in correspondence between Greensill and a senior Treasury official, they put in words:
“Whilst not using this precise phrasing, we have crafted a formulation both in substance and form which provides an even stronger political position.”
Why is a private company advising Treasury officials about political positioning; and does not this show that, despite his protestations, it is ludicrous that the Business Minister is here, not the Chancellor? If the Chancellor had nothing to fear, he would have nothing to hide and he would be here to answer the questions.
Paul Scully
I am afraid that in Government we have to deal with details, and that includes asking the right question in the first place. If a question is asked about a BEIS responsibility, I think it is fair and reasonable that a BEIS Minister should come here and answer it. However, I come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman can come up with all he likes about process, but what businesses want are outcomes, and that means capital flowing through those businesses. The outcome in this situation was that the Chancellor rejected such a proposal, but the detail that the hon. Gentleman talks about will be investigated by Nigel Boardman, and that review will be published by the end of June.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Just three weeks ago, I asked Ministers to back an independent investigation into the actions of crony Cameron. At that time, they refused to answer, so I welcome the U-turn that has again taken place. However, the public expect and want total accountability and transparency, so will the Minister back a wider review into the dishing out of covid contracts to Tory donors and friends?
Paul Scully
I am not sure I recognise the name that the hon. Gentleman calls the former Prime Minister, which I think is inappropriate. There is a review, which is investigating as we speak. With regard to covid, as I say, there are a number of things that we will look at when we are past this pandemic. We will look back at what has happened and at the support that the Government have given—the many hundreds of millions of pounds that the Government have given to small and large businesses.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Chinese Government Sanctions on UK Citizens
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I wish to make it clear that it is in the public interest that Members should be able to speak and act freely in raising issues of concern. They should not be impeded in carrying out their duties—and that includes the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. They are democratically elected representatives and nothing should interfere with the democratic process.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on recent sanctions imposed by the Chinese Government on UK citizens.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The Government stand in complete solidarity with those sanctioned by China. As the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made clear, this action by Beijing is utterly unacceptable and unwarranted.
The House will recall that on 22 March, the UK, alongside the EU, Canada and the United States, imposed asset freezes and travel bans against four senior Chinese Government officials and one entity responsible for the violations that have taken place and persist against the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. In response, China sanctioned nine individuals and four organisations, including Members of this House and the other place, who have criticised its record on human rights. It speaks volumes that while 30 countries are united in sanctioning those responsible for serious and systematic violations of human rights in Xinjiang, China’s response is to retaliate against those who seek to shine a light on those violations. It is fundamental to our parliamentary democracy that Members of both Houses can speak without fear or favour on matters of concern to the British people.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made absolutely clear the Government’s position through their public statements and on 22 March. I also summoned China’s representative in the UK to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to lodge a strong, formal protest at China’s actions. This Government have been quick to offer support to those who have been sanctioned. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary held private meetings with the parliamentarians named in China’s announcement. My noble Friend, the Minister for human rights, Lord Ahmad, met other individuals and the entities that have been targeted. Through this engagement, we have provided guidance and an offer of ongoing support, including a designated FCDO point of contact and specialist briefing from relevant Departments.
Just as this Government will be unbowed by China’s action, I have no doubt that Members across this House will be undeterred in raising their fully justified concerns about the situation in Xinjiang and the human rights situation in China more broadly. I applaud the parliamentarians named by China: my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) and for Wealden (Ms Ghani), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the noble Lord Alton and the noble Baroness Kennedy for the vital role they have played in drawing attention to the plight of the Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang.
This Government have worked with partners to build the international caucus of those willing to speak out against China’s human rights violations and increase the pressure on China to change its behaviour. We have led joint statements at the UN’s human rights bodies, most recently joined by 38 countries at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in October, and we have backed up our international action with robust domestic measures. In addition to the global human rights sanctions announced on 22 March, the Foreign Secretary announced a series of targeted measures in January to help ensure that British businesses are not complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang. The United Kingdom will continue to work alongside its partners to send the clearest possible signal of the international community’s serious concern and our collective willingness to act to hold China to account for its gross human rights violations in the region.
Tim Loughton
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Speaker for granting this urgent question and for his robust support, together with that of the Lord Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister today. I suppose I need to declare an interest as one of the five right hon. and hon. Members of this House who have been placed on the Chinese Government’s sanctions list, apparently for “maliciously” spreading “lies and disinformation”; in the language of the Chinese Communist party, of course, that is a euphemism for speaking the truth. As parliamentarians we have been singled out, together with Lord Alton and Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, presumably for our vociferous calling out of the genocide against the Uyghur people by the Chinese Government, the industrial-scale human rights abuses in Tibet and the suppression of free speech and liberty in Hong Kong. That is what parliamentarians do, without fear or favour, in a democracy. To be sanctioned by a totalitarian regime is, therefore, not only deeply ironic and laughable, but an abuse of parliamentary privilege of this House, by a foreign regime.
What further action are the Government considering against the Chinese Government to emphasise how unacceptable and unfounded their action is? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not be proceeding with any new agreements with the Chinese Government while these sanctions remain in place?
The other individuals named were Newcastle University academic Dr Jo Smith Finley and Uyghur expert lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. Does the Minister agree that this also represents an attack on academic freedom and the independence of the legal profession in the United Kingdom? What support are the Government offering to those two individuals?
Given growing concerns about the malign influence of the Chinese Government in sensitive research projects in our universities, the sinister tentacles of the Confucius institutes on campuses and increasingly in our schools, not to mention the wide-scale buying of influence in UK boardrooms, will the Government commit to a detailed and transparent audit of Chinese influence in our education system, our military capability, our business and our infrastructure projects, and, if found to be acting against British interests, send them packing?
Given the disgraceful recent dressing-down of our ambassador in Beijing for supporting on social media the role of a free press, will the Minister confirm that British diplomats will not be bowed and will be fortified in calling out abuses by the Chinese Government wherever they happen, as we sanctioned parliamentarians have been fortified to call out the abuses of the totalitarian Government in China by their badly-thought-out and counterproductive use of sanctions, which we will wear as a badge of honour? Will the Minister signal, clearly and firmly, that project kowtow is over and that Britain will not flinch from standing up and calling out Chinese Government abuses, which they have got away with for far too long?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and for his bravery in the work that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have done, which led to these extraordinary measures by China.
We have been absolutely clear with China that its sanctioning of UK individuals and entities is unwarranted and unacceptable. My hon. Friend is right to shine a light on these measures. We will not allow this action by China—neither will our diplomats—to distract attention from the gross human rights violations in Xinjiang. We will continue to work alongside our partners to send the clearest possible signal of the international community’s serious concerns and our collective willingness to act.
My hon. Friend mentioned Jo Smith Finley, who is another of the individuals named. Academic freedom and freedom of speech are fundamental UK values and a cornerstone of the world-class UK higher education system. The attempt to silence those highlighting human rights violations in Xinjiang in academia is absolutely unwarranted and unacceptable. We are offering support to Jo Smith Finley, as we will and have for all those impacted by these sanctions.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]
The Labour party stands in solidarity with the nine British citizens, including Members of both Houses, who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government solely for calling out Beijing’s appalling human rights abuses against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. We welcome the Prime Minister’s invitation to those who were sanctioned to meet him, and we hope that the Government are providing those individuals with adequate advice and support. However, we are deeply concerned about the rank hypocrisy and inconsistency in the Government’s actions regarding China.
When Beijing introduced the Hong Kong national security law last summer, the UK withdrew from two UK-China Government investment forums: the joint trade and economic commission and the economic and financial dialogue. However, it is reported that those forums are now reopening. Will the Minister confirm that?
On Hong Kong, does the Minister now agree with the Opposition that British judges who serve in Hong Kong are only lending a veneer of credibility to a broken system and that they should therefore withdraw? Lord Reed’s review was announced in November. When will its conclusions be published? Where are the Magnitsky sanctions against Carrie Lam and the human rights violators in Hong Kong?
In January, the Foreign Secretary said that “we shouldn’t be” doing trade deals with countries committing human rights abuses
“well below the level of genocide”,
yet the Government whipped their MPs against the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill. Will the Minister explain that rank hypocrisy and why the Foreign Secretary says one thing in public and something else altogether in private? The Government claim to be alive to the threat that Chinese state-backed investment poses to Britain’s economic security and prosperity, so why on earth is the Business Secretary weakening our defences by watering down the National Security and Investment Bill? Today, Taiwan suffered the biggest Chinese military incursion into its airspace to date of 25 planes. What conversations is the Minister having with his counterparts about that worrying development?
It is clear that the Government have no strategy on China at home and no strategy on China abroad. Will they now commit to an audit of every aspect of the UK-China relationship so that we can finally call time on the Conservatives’ failed golden era strategy and replace weakness, division and inconsistency with an approach that is instead based on strength, unity and consistency?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The reality is that the UK has always wanted a mature, positive relationship with China. That has to be based on mutual respect and trust. There is still considerable scope for constructive engagement and co-operation, but we will not sacrifice our values or our security. It is worth getting it on the record that China is an authoritarian state with different values from the UK. We continually act on matters on which we do not agree, including human rights and Hong Kong.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Hong Kong. The prosperity and way of life for Hongkongers relies on respect for fundamental freedoms, which includes an independent judiciary and the rule of law. We are fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and rights and freedoms under the joint declaration. On the national security law, the imposition of the new rules including disqualifying elected legislators and changes to election processes, clearly constitutes a serious breach of the joint declaration. We consider Beijing to be in a state of ongoing non-compliance with the Sino-British joint declaration.
On Taiwan, yes, we are clearly concerned by any action that raises tensions in the Taiwan strait and risks destabilising the status quo. We have a long-standing policy that the Taiwan issue needs to be settled peacefully by the people on both sides of the Taiwan strait through constructive dialogue. We continue to work with Taiwan constructively on economic trade, education and cultural ties, and I think our relationship brings huge benefits to both the United Kingdom and Taiwan.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) [V]
I thank Mr Speaker for his opening statement of support, which is absolutely right, and the Minister for his response. Surely the key question is: where do we go with our relationship with China? China has sanctioned, without reason, British politicians, people beyond the political sphere and organisations. It has also sanctioned people in Europe and in America. Surely it is now time for the Government to lead our allies in Europe and the United States in saying to China that there can be no preferential trade, economic or commercial deals done while our citizens are sanctioned. Will the Minister resist any moves by any other part of Government to water down any of the measures in the new National Security and Investment Bill, which is going through Parliament?
Nigel Adams
I commend my right hon. Friend for his continued work on this subject. The Government see China’s increasing international assertiveness at scale as potentially the most significant geopolitical shift in the 2020s, but it is vital that we co-operate with China to tackle the most important challenges facing this generation, not the least of which is climate change. We will do more to adapt to that growing impact and to manage our disagreements. We need to defend our values but co-operate where our interests align. We must pursue a positive economic relationship as well as tackle global challenges. I said in response to a previous question that the House should be in no doubt that China is an authoritarian state, with different values from those of the United Kingdom. We will continue to act on matters on which we do not agree, including human rights and Hong Kong.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
As Members have said, the sanctions fit into a wider pattern of action that Beijing has been taking forward across the European continent and the US, reaching beyond politics and into academia and elsewhere. From the perspective of the Scottish National party, the whole point of democracy is that we can disagree, if not as friends then certainly as colleagues, and I have no hesitation in expressing our total support and total solidarity with the right hon. and hon. Members across the House and those elsewhere who have been sanctioned in this way. I am quite sure it will not silence them; it certainly will not silence SNP politicians in the Scottish Parliament or in this place.
Beijing has taken advantage of mixed signals from the UK Government. Although the Government have not done nothing, they could be tougher. It was a Conservative Government who whipped their own Members against a genocide amendment to the Trade Bill—a matter of great regret—and the UK still does not define the situation in Xinjiang as genocide. Does the Minister not agree that we need to be tougher on this? It is high time that the UK Government follow the lead of others, define what is happening in Xinjiang as genocide and make it clear that the UK will not do business with genocidal regimes anywhere?
Nigel Adams
The amendment to the Trade Bill that was passed is consistent with our long-standing policy that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies, and should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I want to put on the record my thanks to Mr Speaker for his robust support. He fully understands that sanctioning MPs was not only about intimidating us, but about threatening the integrity of this House.
It is absurd for MPs to be sanctioned for producing a Select Committee report that talks about slave labour in Xinjiang. My question to the Minister is this: if we know that the United Nations is broken when it comes to determining genocide, what are we to do now that the Chinese communist party has decided to sanction those Members who dared to speak about it? The Minister spoke about the work the Government are doing with businesses to make sure that modern slavery is not in supply chains, but that is now worthless, because every business doing the right thing that was identified in our report is now being threatened by the Chinese communist party.
Finally, alongside many colleagues, I led on the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill. Although it is good that the Government’s compromise tackled genocide, it is shameful that it excluded the Uyghur. I do not expect a change in the law, but I do expect the Minister to say that the Uyghur people can now come forward in any process in this place that is established to see whether genocide is taking place.
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for her persistent work in this area. She—and other colleagues and entities that have been sanctioned—obviously have the full support of the Foreign Office. I know that her work on the issue of genocide has been long standing, but I do think the Government’s amendment to the Trade Bill is consistent with our policy. Select Committees will be able to come up with a report that the Government have to consider. Depending on the response of the Select Committees, that could very well lead to a meaningful debate on the Floor of the House.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
The Liberal Democrats offer full solidarity with colleagues and organisations who have been sanctioned for daring to speak out against atrocities committed by China. If the purpose of those sanctions was to try to muzzle them, I am sorry to say that all it has done is made all of us even more determined to speak truth to power in this place.
On 8 April, US Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Menendez announced a bipartisan agreement on new comprehensive China legislation. What consideration has the Minister given to seeking cross-party support for a comprehensive and nuanced new foreign policy settlement towards China that protects democracy and human rights? As he will have seen from the strong support for the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, such a settlement would be welcomed across the House.
Nigel Adams
Four months ago, the Foreign Secretary initiated a small, interdepartmental, Minister-led group on China, working on the exact point raised by the hon. Lady. It is absolutely right that we react after seeing China’s increasing international assertiveness in recent years. As I said previously, these are some of the most significant geopolitical shifts that we have seen in the 2020s. We will continue to hold China to account by bringing together the coalition through statements at the UN, and by working with and having alongside us 30 countries regarding the measures that we recently announced that have led to these sanctions. That should give the hon. Lady some comfort that the UK Government are working together with our international partners to shine a light on these gross violations.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if China wishes to rebut claims of human rights violations made by this Government or this House, the easiest thing it can do is to allow free and unfettered access to the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is spot on. That would help to clear up a lot of these issues. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or another independent fact-finding body must be given unfettered access to Xinjiang to check the facts. We have called for this repeatedly in joint statements and national statements at the UN. It is vital that China allows such access without delay. If, as China claims, these allegations are fabrications and falsehoods, how can it object to granting access?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
China sees the UK Government refusal to allow our courts and Parliaments to make judgments about genocide in relation to trade agreements as a sign of weakness, and its sanctions against UK citizens is the latest move to show that it will suppress democracy, abuse human rights and flout the rule of law. Since bullies only respond to strength, will the Government now use their chairing of COP26 and the G7 to bring unity in our trade and financial agreements to strongly support our shared values and our shared environment?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman raises a point about genocide that I have answered on previous questions. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that our trade policy is consistent with our international obligations, and it is absolutely clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. We have a high level of ambition for our trade and investment partnership with China, but it should not come at the expense of human rights.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
Many in Newport West were delighted by the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and I for one was among them. The Minister will know that the American Government have taken action where we have not, so can the Minister be clear? He has already been asked the question, but I was not clear on his answer. Does he intend to bring forward further sanctions on other entities and more senior individuals in relation to the appalling situation in Xinjiang? A simple yes or no will do.
Nigel Adams
We have acted to hold to account senior officials and a senior organisation responsible for the human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang. We have also acted with 30 other countries on an agreed set of designations. We have increased the reach and impact of these measures, and we have sent the clearest possible signal of the international community’s serious concern and collective willingness to act. As I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, it is not particularly wise to speculate on further such designations.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be focusing not only on sanctions, but on the measures that stop businesses in the UK profiting from forced labour in Xinjiang?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is spot-on, and I agree with her. That is why on 12 January we announced a series of measures to help ensure UK businesses and the public sector are not complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang. These measures target in a forensic way those profiting from forced labour or those that would financially support it, whether deliberately or otherwise.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response. I spoke to the Minister beforehand, so he knows my question in advance. Will he further outline what support has been offered to those who have left China and Hong Kong and taken up UK citizenship? They are being called by the Chinese embassy to pick up letters—as my constituents have been over the last few weeks—with no further information about what is in the letters or even the need for them to attend in person to pick up the letters. They have been shaken by this secrecy and what some of them term as the “threat” of these letters. This is happening right here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Member for his point, and up until a few minutes ago I was not aware of the reports to which he refers. He will know the level of support we are offering to those coming from Hong Kong, not least the £30-some million announced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government last week, to help people assimilate within communities. If he were to write to me formally with more detail, I would be more than happy to provide a full response or indeed to meet the hon. Member.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
When it comes to the call to accuse China of genocide in Xinjiang, I am reminded of the work of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who wrote in “The Friends of Voltaire”, as an illustration of Voltaire’s beliefs:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
Therefore all of us, perhaps especially those of us who have had China visas denied in the past for alleged misdemeanours, should show our solidarity with colleagues so sanctioned.
Does the Minister agree with the statement made the other day by the former Foreign Secretary William Hague? He said that
“it’s very important to find a framework of co-operation even with a rival power when there’s so much at stake in the world on climate change, arms control and on the future stability of the financial system.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that this has to be the way forward?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience on China. It is the case that China has different values from the United Kingdom, and as I have said, its increased international assertiveness is the most significant geo-political shift in recent years. A recent publication on international relations highlights that we will do more to adapt to China’s growing impact. We need to manage those disagreements, defend our values, but co-operate where those interests align. That includes pursuing the positives. As the former Foreign Secretary William Hague pointed out, this is a difficult balancing act, but we must pursue a positive economic relationship. That includes tackling all sorts of other challenges, but we have to call out China when it commits human rights violations. In great contrast to the sanctions that China has placed on right hon. and hon. Members, the sanctions that we issued, alongside our international partners, were thought out. They took some time to deliver, but they had a legal basis to them, contrary to the recent sanctions on our colleagues that we have seen from China.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I, too, put on record my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this Urgent Question. The Foreign Secretary described what is happening in Xinjiang as
“barbarism we had hoped was lost to another era”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]
The growing evidence of Uyghur Muslims being repeatedly violated and used as slaves to farm cotton is indeed barbaric. When will the House be presented with Government legislation to firm up section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, so that all companies have a responsibility to prove that their supply chains are free from forced labour, and to reinforce sanctions for non-compliance?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her support of the Government policy that will come forward to the House. Evidence of the scale and severity of the human rights violations being perpetrated in Xinjiang against the Uyghur people is far reaching and, as I am sure she will agree, paints a truly harrowing picture. We are looking forward to hearing about further measures, but hon. Members should be in no doubt that the Government will take action to ensure that slave labour is not used in any United Kingdom supply chains.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should stand in solidarity not just with those Members facing sanctions in this House, but with all those law makers and others who have faced sanctions for speaking out against China in the United States, Canada and the EU? We will not be silenced.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right. We have made it clear that we regard China’s attempts to silence those who highlight and shine a light on human rights violations in Xinjiang as unwarranted and unacceptable, and we stand in solidarity with all those sanctioned by China. We are in close contact with the United States, Canada and our European partners, who have also had citizens or entities sanctioned.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Have we now reached the point where the Minister should confirm that the Government will not countenance any form of trade talks with the People’s Republic of China while it continues to sanction UK citizens?
Nigel Adams
I am not aware of any formal talks towards a formal trade partnership with China currently taking place, but we must be clear eyed about this. We must co-operate with China, but we will not be held back from shining a light on human rights violations.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Freedom of speech is a fundamental part of our British democracy. Can my hon. Friend confirm that he unequivocally supports the right of Members of this House to criticise China over human rights abuses? Does he agree that it is our duty to draw attention to outrages perpetrated by the Chinese Communist party in Xinjiang and elsewhere whenever we learn of them?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fundamental difference between our two countries is that parliamentarians in the United Kingdom have freedom of speech and are allowed to raise issues in this place and outside it without fear or favour—that is the fundamental difference that China does not quite seem to understand. Its attempt to silence those highlighting violations in Xinjiang is not only, frankly, ridiculous; it is unacceptable and unwarranted. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the freedom of parliamentarians to speak out in opposition to human rights violations is fundamental, and that is why this Government stand firmly with all those who have been sanctioned.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Chinese approach to geopolitics is grim to behold. At the United Nations, scores of countries have signed up to China’s distorted view of human rights. What is the UK doing at the United Nations to build an alliance that will take on China when it needs to be taken on?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member raises a good point. As we have heard, this is a big year for the United Kingdom on the multilateral stage. We have built alliances. To be able to get 38 countries supporting our statement last October in the UN and to pull together an international caucus, with a number of countries that has risen from the early 20s to the late 30s, is by no means a small achievement. The ability also to work with international partners—every country in the European Union, the United States and Canada—to deliver the announcement the other week on our global human rights sanctions is a significant achievement.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
May I associate myself with the tributes paid to Cheryl Gillan, the late Member for Chesham and Amersham? She was a dear friend, and we will miss her.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Members who have been sanctioned by the Chinese, be they hon. or right hon. Members, are heroes of this Parliament for speaking up for free speech? Is this not just a thinly veiled attempt to distract the public from the horrific crimes that the Chinese Government are committing against not only the Uyghurs but other minority communities in China?
Nigel Adams
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s remarks about our former colleague Cheryl Gillan. I was her Whip for a time when I first became a Whip. I had not realised that Cheryl had also been a Whip and knew how the game worked, and she very politely reminded me of that. I remember her telling me, “If you need to be bothering me as a former Whip over this particular vote, Nigel, then you really are in trouble as a Government.” She will be sorely missed.
I also wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about whether this is a thinly veiled attempt to distract attention from the horrific crimes. Well, of course it is. I agree 100% that we must not let this action by China distract from the horrific violations taking place in Xinjiang. We will continue to work with our international partners to send the clearest possible signal that the international community has a collective willingness to act.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I shared a room with Dame Cheryl for a period of time, and it just shows the strength of Dame Cheryl that she was able to put up with me for so long. We sat on the Council of Europe together and, Dame Cheryl, we are going to miss you greatly.
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question, which, as the Speaker intimated, hits at the very heart of the democracy in this country. We are now going to suspend for three minutes.
Northern Ireland
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement to update the House on the recent disorder in Northern Ireland.
The main areas of unrest have been specific parts of Belfast, Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus, Ballymena, Cookstown, Coleraine and Londonderry. The 7 and 8 April saw an escalation in the violence at an interface area, commonly referred to as a peace wall, in west Belfast, with missiles being thrown by large numbers of mainly young people over interface gates, and police coming under attack. As a result of the unrest, a total of 88 police officers have been injured, 18 arrests have been made and 15 individuals have been charged. My thoughts and, I am sure, the best wishes of everybody in this House are with those police officers.
On Friday 9 April, the incidents of public disorder were significantly reduced compared with previous evenings. There was, however, localised disorder in north Belfast. The remainder of the weekend and since has been much calmer, with only a few isolated incidents of disorder.
The violence witnessed last week was totally unacceptable. Attacks on police officers are utterly reprehensible. Those engaged in this destruction and disorder do not represent the people of Northern Ireland. It is tragic and deeply concerning that young people have been engaged in, and encouraged into, this violence, and, as a result, will now end up with criminal records.
It can be easy to look for a simplistic explanation for the recent disorder, but it is clear that the factors behind it are, in fact, complex and multi-faceted. People are frustrated after a year in which coronavirus has challenged all of us, and I do recognise how frustrating it has been, especially for young people in Northern Ireland facing the uncertainty around the lifting of lockdown restrictions without having the clear road map in Northern Ireland. There is also a perception that the rules and restrictions have not been enforced equally in Northern Ireland, and we all know that there are strongly held political views within and between communities that can be in tension with each other. I recognise that there are concerns about the implications of the Northern Ireland protocol—concerns that overlap with wider questions about national identity and political allegiance—and this comes at a time of economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic.
Northern Ireland has made huge strides over the past two decades, but it is a post-conflict society and there do remain elements of fragility. Some sections of the community feel that their concerns are not understood. The reconciliation, equality and mutual understanding between the communities and traditions envisioned in the Belfast/ Good Friday agreement are not recognised or experienced by all. There is still work to do.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which was signed 23 years ago, highlighted the importance of progress in areas of social development, such as integrated education. These will be a vital part of Northern Ireland’s future, enabling even more young people to grow up in the reality of a shared society and able to effect positive change in their communities. The answer to all these issues and any others lies in dialogue, engagement and the democratic process, not through violence or disorder. It is incumbent on all of us engaged in political discourse to support Northern Ireland in leaving its divisive past behind and continuing instead to look ahead to all the opportunities of the future.
Policing and justice matters are devolved under strand 1 issues under the Belfast/ Good Friday agreement. Despite this being a devolved matter, though, the Government have an important role to play in supporting the Executive to ensure that calm prevails and in offering the Police Service of Northern Ireland and all those committed to dialogue and democracy our fullest possible support. I have continued to meet with Northern Ireland’s party leaders and the Police Service of Northern Ireland over recent days to discuss the unrest. Our collective priority is to work together to ensure public safety.
I very much welcome the statement from the Northern Ireland Executive on 8 April that set out a common position from all Executive parties against the violence and declares their support for law and order and policing. I want to express my gratitude to them for their efforts and to the PSNI for continuing to work to keep people safe.
I also welcome recent statements from many across the community and beyond condemning the violence and appealing for calm. The Government respect the right to protest, but it must be done in a peaceful manner that fully respects the rule of law. On 10 April, we marked 23 years since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, an achievement of which the people of Northern Ireland are justifiably proud and on which we can continue, and must continue, to work closely with the Irish Government as co-guarantors of that agreement. In that time there has been a transformative change in Northern Ireland. Peace has brought stability and opportunity. It has enabled Northern Ireland to develop into the vibrant, exciting place that it is today.
The Government are resolutely committed to peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. We have invested significantly in a wide range of programmes and initiatives to that end. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement provided the foundation for peace and a framework for prosperity and we are committed to it, as, I think, everyone in this House is. All of us across this House have a duty to support the people of Northern Ireland in shaping a peaceful and prosperous society for the future—a future that they can shape.I have seen at first hand an inclusive, prosperous and hopeful society that continues to build on that hard-won peace.
We must all work together to resolve the tensions that are currently being faced. I know from my ongoing engagement with stakeholders, including the Irish Government, that that is a shared view. The only way to resolve differences is through dialogue, and in that regard we must all lead by example. I commend this statement to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Twenty-three years ago this week, the Belfast Good Friday agreement was signed. The violence in recent days, some of it carried out by children with no memory of the dark days of the past, has been painful to witness. Our thoughts are with those injured, and our deep gratitude belongs with the police, community workers and leaders on the ground who have helped to restore some sense of calm in recent days.
The violence was unjustified and unjustifiable. Those adults cheering on youngsters showed a sickening disregard for their children’s futures. But recent months have shown just how fragile the peace is, and that it requires responsible and careful leadership to safeguard. As the Secretary of State has outlined, there are complex and varied factors behind the causes of the rioting—disrupted paramilitaries lashing out at the police; anger at the way in which the Bobby Storey funeral was handled last year—but there is also a very deep sense of hurt and anger among the Unionist and loyalist communities, which has been building for months and must not be ignored.
The Prime Minister made promises to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no border with Great Britain, knowing full well that his Brexit deal would introduce barriers across the Irish sea. He made those promises because he knew that economic separation would be unacceptable to the Unionist community, and the growing political instability we are seeing has its roots in the loss of trust that that caused. Trust matters. It is what secured and has always sustained the Belfast Good Friday agreement.
In moments of instability, what Sir John Major and Tony Blair, Mo Mowlam and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith)—Labour and Conservative—understood was that trust, leadership and partnership are paramount to finding a way forward in Northern Ireland. As a co-guarantor to the Belfast Good Friday agreement, the Prime Minister owes it to the people of Northern Ireland to restore the trust he has squandered. He is not a casual observer to these events. He must step up and urgently convene talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland and all parties to the protocol to find solutions and political agreement.
Can the Secretary of State outline when the Prime Minister is planning to travel to Belfast to convene talks and show the leadership this moment demands? What is the strategy for addressing the loss of trust among the Unionist and loyalist communities to demonstrate that legitimate grievances are being heard? How are representatives of Northern Ireland being brought into the negotiations on huge decisions affecting their future? And can the Secretary of State detail—I have asked him this many times from this Dispatch Box—what practical solutions the Government are seeking with the EU to reduce checks and requirements between Britain and Northern Ireland? Fundamentally, the people of Northern Ireland must see that politics can work, and that the word of politicians can be trusted again.
Recent weeks have demonstrated starkly that peace is an ongoing process. It is no coincidence that violence has flared in areas of profound deprivation, where educational attainment is too low, paramilitary activity 23 years on from the agreement is still criminally high, and children are educated in segregated schools and grow up in segregated communities. For them, the promise of peace has not arrived. A toxic combination of deprivation and disregard has fuelled deep disillusionment. But we must believe that there is still a deep urge for a future where reconciliation walks hand in hand with social justice. We saw that in the courage of communities along the interface in Belfast this past week. We must now see political leaders match that courage.
This moment must mark the end of an era in which Northern Ireland has been relegated to little more than an afterthought and the promise of peace allowed to stall. It demands a collective renewal of our commitment to the agreement and the principles that secured it. It demands that the vacuum of leadership and strategy in Northern Ireland is now filled. The Prime Minister must face up to the consequences of his own actions and show the leadership that the communities are crying out for.
Brandon Lewis
I welcome the hon. Lady’s condemnation of the violence and her support for the PSNI and others, as well as her words about the social fabric structure issues in Northern Ireland. It sounds like we have a shared view on that, particularly when we think about the failure to see the delivery of integrated education, for example, which was outlined back in 1998. That is one of the areas we need to work on. That is why the Government’s programme of work on levelling up and investing in city and growth deals and other areas is so important: to make sure that people can see the benefits of what is happening and can take the opportunities and move forward in a positive way.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right—I agree with her—in her comments about the Unionist and loyalist communities. It is so important to ensure that our friends and partners in the EU come to fully understand the issue around identity that people feel so passionately about—rightly so—in Northern Ireland in the Unionist community, and the impact that the decision on article 16 has had for people in that community. I welcome the fact that Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič met with civic society and business leaders some weeks ago now. I encourage him to do as he has pledged to and to do more of that work to fully understand.
The hon. Lady referenced the protocol. As I have just noted, issues on that protocol have played a part in tensions in the loyalist and Unionist communities. That is why I and the Prime Minister have been very clear about our determination to deal with those issues and to find a way forward. We all remember that the protocol is there and in place because of the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. We have got to make sure it works in a good, fluid and flexible way, so that it works for the people of Northern Ireland, because ultimately it only works if it is working for everybody across the community. It has to be something that is acceptable to the Unionist and loyalist communities as well.
The hon. Lady mentioned talks. Obviously, I have met leaders in the Executive, as well as party leaders. I do that regularly and will continue to do so. The Prime Minister has met with people from civil society and the business community on the protocol. We support the established bodies that have been set up—the Joint Committee and so on—and there is the work we are doing there to resolve the issues.
I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady wants to see reduced checks. I assume that she supports retrospectively the unilateral action that we took just a few weeks ago and will support the work that the Government are doing to ensure that we reduce the checks so that the protocol works in the pragmatic way that was always envisaged. Ultimately, we come back to being united on the fact that, wherever we agree or disagree, the way forward is always through dialogue, never through violence.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I echo the comments of the shadow Secretary of State. Our thoughts and prayers are with the injured PSNI officers and the vast majority of law-abiding residents who have been caught up in the recent thuggish, criminal behaviour.
Peace and prosperity are, as my right hon. Friend knows, two sides of the Good Friday agreement coin. We know that there can be no prosperity without peace. I urge him to turbo-charge, with the Executive, the prosperity agenda, so to bring back into the fold those who might say, like those fictional Judeans in the film, “What has the GFA ever done for us?” We must focus on prosperity as much as peace.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, makes a very good point. He is absolutely right, not just in his admiration for cinema, but in his recognition that there is work that we need to do. I share his view of cinema in that respect.
One of the things I am looking forward to working through is the delivery of the new deal programme, the £400 million investment we have secured on top of the city and growth deals and the investment through “New Decade, New Approach”. That is looking very specifically at how we help Northern Ireland benefit from and take forward opportunities in the years ahead, as well as working with the Executive through the £15 billion block grant, to make sure that we are creating opportunity. That includes skills for the future. The social fabric is part of that. I passionately feel that integrated education has to be an integral part of that future, to bring people together and make sure that people are getting a really good education and the economy is growing and thriving.
One thing that those of us who spend time in Northern Ireland always see is the entrepreneurial spirit and the ability to see opportunities and drive forward in a positive way, which is great for the economy and creates jobs. As we come out of covid, Northern Ireland’s economy can have a really bright future.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I associate myself with the remarks of both Front Benchers in their condemnation of the violence we have sadly seen. My thoughts are with those injured in the disturbances, and in particular with those in the emergency services who have been working hard to keep their communities safe.
The disorder we have seen in recent days represents, for those of us who grew up with strong memories of the troubles, scenes we thought we had left behind for good. We do not strengthen communities by encouraging criminality and disorder within them. We can all agree how sickening it was to see young children being encouraged in acts of violence by their elders who lived through that cycle of violence themselves.
Moving on from where we are will require a number of things. It will require respect for the law and those who enforce it, whether that is the officers of the PSNI, the leadership of the PSNI or the prosecution service. All must be supported fully in dealing with criminality and maintaining public order in a way that is consistent, fair and proportionate across all sections of Northern Ireland. Above all, it will require leadership, integrity, honesty and respect from politicians. There has, sadly, to date been a dearth of some of those qualities on show in the way that the protocol has been negotiated and implemented. The price being paid for that is sadly all too clear. The protocol was entered into freely by the UK Government and it is here to stay. Surely we can agree that the only route to amending it is through trust and good will on all sides.
The great success of the Good Friday agreement was in ensuring that the symbols of a border in the island of Ireland disappeared. If we can all agree that there is now a trade border, we can surely agree that the symbolism of that matters. One practical step, which I have raised with the Secretary of State before, would be to introduce a realignment of sanitary and phytosanitary checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That would remove some of the more snagging aspects of the current protocol and the difficulties with symbolism that it causes. Will the Secretary of State, in his discussions with all partners in this process, continue discussions on whether that is something we can do to smooth the passage of the protocol? Will he agree to work with other devolved Governments, which that would also impact upon?
Brandon Lewis
I certainly agree with and appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s remarks in the first part of his statement.
The hon. Gentleman spent a fair part of his question referring to the protocol. We have to be very cautious when talking about the intentions, issues and views people have about the Northern Ireland protocol. As valid as they may be, they do not—it should never be argued that they do—in any way legitimise what we saw the other week. As others have said, it is right that we work through any disagreement in a political and democratic way. We also have to be very wary of the simplicity of thinking that what happened the other week was over one particular issue. As I think I outlined, and as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) outlined, it was a multifaceted set of issues.
I recognise the issues that are there from the outworking on the protocol as we have seen it in the first part of this year. We are committed to wanting to deal with that. We are very clear that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK and an integral part of the UK customs territory. The protocol was put in place primarily because the EU has a clear focus on protecting its single market. Our focus is on ensuring that the Belfast Good Friday agreement is respected in all of its strands, and that includes east-west. That is why we are very clear that while we want to ensure that goods moving into the EU through the Republic of Ireland are properly dealt with, goods that are moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain are unfettered, as they are, and goods moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland can do so freely and flexibly in a pragmatic approach.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) [V]
I associate myself with the preceding comments made about the sad passing of our friend and colleague Dame Cheryl Gillan. I also associate myself with the support expressed for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and those affected in the troubles in recent days. In view of the serious events in Northern Ireland and the underlying causes, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need for the European Union, the Republic of Ireland and the UK to be pragmatic and practical in coming to an agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol? Furthermore, does the Secretary of State believe that the European Union fully understood the potential implications and risks, when it invoked article 16 of that protocol?
Brandon Lewis
I hope you will excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I join my right hon. Friend in his comments about the late Cheryl Gillan. This is the first chance I have had at the Dispatch Box to say that she became a very, very good friend to me over a period a short while ago, as I think you know full well, Mr Deputy Speaker, and she will be very, very sorely missed by all.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about this situation, as I said earlier. I am encouraging our friends and colleagues in the European Union, particularly Maroš Šefčovič as vice-president, and his team, to take the opportunity, as restrictions allow—whether it is virtually at the moment or, as restrictions ease, by being present in Northern Ireland—to understand the implications of the outworking of the protocol, including the practical supply line issues that we took action on recently, and also to understand the real issue of identity that the loyalist-Unionist community feel. The outworking of the protocol affects everybody in Northern Ireland. It is not a constitutional issue, in that sense. Whatever part of the community somebody is from, some of the outworkings for consumers and businesses have an impact. The issue of identity for Unionist and loyalist people in Northern Ireland is very real, and there is no doubt that that was intensified after the action the EU took around article 16. While the EU recognises that that was a mistake, it is important that it fully takes the time to understand the long-term implications of it and why it is so important that we work together to find pragmatic, proper solutions.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
We condemn the violence. It is not justified. Attacking police officers in this way is wrong. Our thoughts and prayers are with the police officers who have been injured, and we thank them and their colleagues for their courage and determination in impartially applying the rule of law.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) put her finger on it when she said that the issue is trust. Taking the peace process forward has to be built on trust. That trust was broken in relation to the findings on the Bobby Storey funeral, undermining people’s trust and confidence in policing and justice in Northern Ireland. There is a two-tier policing system in the eyes of some, and that needs to be addressed. Importantly, there was also a breach of trust in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol and creating barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that we were told would not happen and have happened, undermining the sense of identity and the place of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. What is the Secretary of State going to do, with the Northern Ireland political parties, to address the issues around policing and justice, and, crucially, to replace this protocol with something better that restores Northern Ireland’s place fully within the internal market of the United Kingdom?
Brandon Lewis
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we took unilateral action just a few weeks ago to ease some of these issues—issues that would have made matters even more difficult, as I suggested at the time. I think it is now very clear that that was the right action to take and that, through that, people can see that we are determined to deal with some of the problems and the issues in the protocol. My right hon. Friend the noble Lord Frost is working through the correct established bodies—the Joint Committee and so on—with our partners in the EU to come to and work out a proper, long-lasting solution in terms of the challenges around the protocol.
The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right about—as I mentioned in my opening remarks—people perceiving that not everybody has been treated equally in terms of the implications of the rules around coronavirus. The Bobby Storey funeral is a very clear example of that, with the decision that came through just a few days before the violence got to the point that it did. There is a very important role for the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Policing Board in working with communities to restore and build trust. I have been talking to the Chief Constable about that, and to the parties on the Executive, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I think everybody is very alert to the very real fact that, whatever anybody’s view of what happened around the funeral, the decision that was made has had a very substantial impact. There is work that the various agencies and bodies, including the PSNI and the Policing Board, need to do to reconnect with communities to show them that the PSNI is there for the safety and protection of everybody across the entire community of Northern Ireland.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I strongly support all that the Government and the Opposition have said about the violence. As the Northern Ireland protocol stresses the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integrated place in the United Kingdom’s internal market, will the UK Government now ensure the easy and free movement of all goods from GB to Northern Ireland that are not at risk of going to the Republic? Should a good not be able to move as easily from Liverpool to Belfast as from Liverpool to Birmingham, and should that not be under the direct control of the UK authorities?
Brandon Lewis
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on the violence, and he is absolutely right. The position that he has outlined that we need to get to is exactly where we want to get to. Obviously we want to do that in partnership and agreement with our friends and partners in the EU, and that work is what we are doing at this very moment.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
For years, the Government have been warned that peace in Northern Ireland was a delicate and fragile thing that was not to be taken for granted. The fact that we have reached this point illustrates sadly only too well the recklessness of the Prime Minister in particular with regard to the position of Northern Ireland and our departure from the European Union. This is not the first time in the past 23 years that we have found ourselves in peril. On previous occasions, it has taken the Prime Minister of the day to step up to the plate. The symbolism and demonstrating leadership are what is necessary. His predecessors have done it; will he do it now?
Brandon Lewis
For my part, that is absolutely the work that we are doing with the parties, civic society and business leaders in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister and I have been involved in that all the way through. He has had a consistent focus on ensuring that we are delivering for the people of Northern Ireland over the entire period, and not just the past few days, although obviously he has been involved in the past few days and had conversations with the Taoiseach, rather like my conversations with the Irish Foreign Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the Good Friday agreement. We always need to remind ourselves that the Good Friday agreement has three strands, and we must resist the temptation that some people have to see the Good Friday agreement through simply one strand of north-south. The east-west and Northern Ireland strands are hugely important. One of the things we have to do is make sure we are delivering on the east-west part of the Good Friday agreement, so that the agreement is applied and working in all its strands.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
May I add my condolences to those expressed earlier and send them to Cheryl Gillan’s family, following her sad death last week? She was seen on our Benches as the mother of our side of the Chamber. She was a generous lady. She was kind, and we will really miss her.
People will be listening to these exchanges today concerned that this unacceptable violence and disorder could mean yet more delay to the implementation of the laws that we agreed in this place over a year ago on access to abortion and abortion aftercare in Northern Ireland—healthcare that is routinely available in the rest of the UK. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not be distracted from the steps he set out a few weeks ago, and that there will be no more delay in giving women and girls in Northern Ireland the same rights as women and girls throughout the rest of the UK when it comes to access to abortion and abortion aftercare?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, I can give that assurance. I would go a little bit further: even in the conversations I was having in Belfast yesterday with community groups and political leaders, everybody was very determined to continue to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland in the widest sense through the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement. We will not be distracted from delivering on our promises and the actions we took on abortion, as we outlined just a few weeks ago. It comes back to remembering that, with what we saw last week for those few days—hopefully we do not see a recurrence of it—we all have a part to play in encouraging a calm approach to disagreements, but we must not be deterred from the wider work to deliver for Northern Ireland by the actions of criminals, thugs and hooligans.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and particularly his comments on integrated education, but may I press him on strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement, which he has talked about? Has he had discussions with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Irish Government about holding another British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference? Such conferences are so crucial to the relationship across these islands and we have not had one for nearly two years.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. The British-Irish Council has met regularly and continues to do so—it met in November last year and has met regularly, annually. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which did not meet between February 2007 and July 2018, has met three times since then. We will of course look for the appropriate time for the next meeting of the BIIGC, especially in the context of ensuring the strengthening of the bilateral relationship between the UK and Ireland now that we have left the EU—I have spoken to the Irish Foreign Minister about that—but we also need to be clear that policing is a devolved matter so falls outside the remit of the BIIGC.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his continuing commitment to resolving the issues thrown up by the Northern Ireland protocol. Given that one of the many reasons for the recent unacceptable disorder is that one side of the community undoubtedly feels their concerns are not being listened to, not least by those in the European Union, what representations will my right hon. Friend make to those outside Northern Ireland such that they listen more carefully to the concerns of all communities in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Colleagues from all parties are speaking about this issue in the House today and they have influence and relationships throughout the EU, and it is incumbent on us all to make the case widely that it is important that the EU understands the issue of identity and why the tensions that we are seeing in the loyalist and Unionist community are there in respect of some of the things that happened earlier this year, as we have already outlined. As I say, there is a fundamentally multifaceted, complex set of reasons behind what happened last week, and there is work for all of us to do in moving things forward. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we all have a part to play to ensure that people understand the complications, nuances and sensitivities in Northern Ireland.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State deserves the support of the whole House and, indeed, of the people across these two islands for every effort he makes to bring together politicians in Northern Ireland, in Dublin and here in Great Britain, but the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) is right to point out that at the moment the lack of trust is palpable. If the Secretary of State wants to make sure that the European Union understands the situation in Northern Ireland and if he wants to bring people together, it would not be just symbolism for him to tell the Prime Minister that he has to be visible at this time if he is to provide the kind of leadership that we have expected from Prime Ministers in the past. We need brave decisions; it is now up to the Prime Minister to step forward and provide that kind of leadership.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman has a long-held and strong passion for Northern Ireland and has always worked in a collegiate way to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are well supported. He is absolutely right about bringing people together, which is what we have been doing. As I have outlined, it is important that we encourage our friends and partners around the world, including the EU, to do that. The Prime Minister has been integrally involved in Northern Ireland and was actually there just a couple of weeks ago.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but I have to say that I am disappointed by the lack of any acceptance of culpability from his Government in respect of how they have dealt with the Brexit issue from the start and how they have not been honest with the Unionist population in Northern Ireland. Church leaders have asked us to come together to deal with this crisis in our peace process. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, policing may be devolved but peace is not devolved. We all have a responsibility to deal with this situation. Why will the Secretary of State and his Government not convene the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference?
Brandon Lewis
On the hon. Gentleman’s last comment, he might want to have a look through Hansard later and reread my remarks, because that is not what I said. It is actually quite the opposite—I have spoken to the Irish Government—so I suggest he has a look at what I actually said.
It is very misleading to try, as I said earlier, to legitimise or even to simplify—I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not legitimising it, to be fair—what we have seen over the past few weeks and the tensions around Brexit. As many of us know—I know the hon. Gentleman knows this because it was outlined to him and me by the Chief Constable at the end of last week—there is a multifaceted set of issues, not least some of the brilliant work that the PSNI has done to crack down on crime. Some of that has been rehearsed today.
I have faith in the Northern Ireland Executive and Ministers, one of whom is a member of the hon. Gentleman’s party, to do their work to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive came together just a few weeks before covid came upon us all last year. The way in which they have worked through the last year—staying together and working together for the people of Northern Ireland—has been a phenomenal achievement and huge credit goes to all those involved. I have faith in them to do the work that is devolved to them. I will continue to support them in that and to support the PSNI to do the job that it is focused on doing: keeping everybody in Northern Ireland safe.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend said, the reason for the scenes that we have seen over recent weeks are multifaceted and that means that there is not a single solution to the problems; there will have to be a holistic approach. Will he confirm that he is finding ways to bring together all partners—not just the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Executive, but the Irish Government, the European Union and civil society—to come up with a holistic strategy for bringing peace back to the streets of Belfast?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is right about the multifaceted situation. There is work that we have to do. We have touched on integrated education. We also have to ensure that there is a stronger and more connected relationship in some communities with the police and political parties in Northern Ireland—across the communities. That has come through very clearly in the engagement that I have had—not just in the last few days, but over a period of time—with people across various community and civic groups. As I said earlier, we will of course look for an appropriate time for a future meeting of the BIIGC, particularly in the light of the redevelopment and strengthening of the bilateral relationship between ourselves and the Irish Government now that we have left the EU.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
May I say at the outset that my thoughts and prayers are with the officers injured in recent days? Although all right-minded people will condemn any violence or threat of violence in Northern Ireland—now and in the past—does the Secretary of State accept that the anger in the Unionist community goes far beyond those who have taken to the streets in recent days? Will he take any opportunity to point out to his Irish or European colleagues, whose belligerent approach has exacerbated the difficulties, that the rigorous implementation of the protocol is not only inconsistent with the Belfast agreement—it is also, even before it has been implemented in full, causing societal difficulties in Northern Ireland? Will he also confirm that, with or without necessary flexibility being shown by the European Commission, the Government will fulfil the Prime Minister’s assurance in December 2019 that there would be “no checks” on goods going from Northern Ireland to GB or from GB to Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady has strongly and passionately outlined the sense of frustration and tension in Northern Ireland. I have talked to businesses, and whether somebody is nationalist or Unionist, they have seen an impact from the outworkings of the protocol, such as some of the issues that we saw earlier this year. We are working with the business community and civic society across the whole community of Northern Ireland to find sensible solutions.
We would like to work on this with our European partners, but the hon. Lady is right that the actions that we saw, particularly those around article 16, had an acute impact on the sense of frustration, tension and anger across the Unionist community. Thankfully—she is absolutely right about this and we need to be clear about it—the vast majority of people who have that anger are expressing it in the right way: through their politicians, to move things forward in a democratic sense, with dialogue; and through peaceful protests. That is absolutely right. We defend their right to do that and we will continue to engage on that. As she rightly says, that does not at any point ever excuse violence; we need to be very clear about that. We are determined to work through these issues and ensure that the protocol can work for everybody in a sense that is pragmatic and flexible, with free-flowing trade for GB into NI.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I also express my full support for the PSNI, including the Chief Constable. The Secretary of State well knows my views on the importance of a UK-EU veterinary agreement to take the heat out of the protocol. He also directly referred to the need to address deprivation and segregation. In that regard, may I invite him to consider extending his Government’s Fresh Start funding, which is so important for the expansion of integrated education, and to work with his ministerial colleagues to provide urgent clarity on the shared prosperity fund, which is so important for local employability schemes?
Brandon Lewis
I am very happy to do that. In fact, we organised a meeting just recently for Executive Ministers and Ministers and officials from Government, including the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to talk through the schemes—not just the shared prosperity fund but the community renewal fund and others—because there are substantial extra funds available this year for Northern Ireland as we move towards the shared prosperity fund. As I set out earlier, part of the £400 million of new deal money will be focused on work around social fabric and potentially integrated education, and I am really keen to engage to make sure that that money is put into areas where it has the most beneficial impact and is positive for people on the ground in Northern Ireland.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland have a key role to play in ending this violence? Will he therefore urge all the parties not to take the step of suspending the institutions, as we have seen in recent years, and to keep talking to find a solution to take Northern Ireland forward?
Brandon Lewis
The short answer is yes, but I want to stress that the main political parties that form the Executive in Northern Ireland are all in the place that my hon. Friend outlined—working together. That is why it was really good to see them come together last week with a joint statement on this. There are five different political parties in a power-sharing arrangement in a devolved authority. Obviously, they will disagree on things from time to time. What they absolutely agree on is their right to disagree and to do so in a democratic and peaceful way, which they have worked together on very well since the re-formation after the New Decade, New Approach agreement last year, and I hope they will continue to do that. From my engagement with them all at the moment, I am confident that they will, and it is the right thing to do—it is certainly what the people of Northern Ireland want to see.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I associate myself with the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks on the complex situation in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding that, just five weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that the Northern Irish protocol must not place “barriers of any kind” down the Irish sea. Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Prime Minister negotiated an agreement that did exactly that? Does he accept that the gap between what the Prime Minister says on Northern Ireland and what he does has contributed to a serious collapse in trust that now requires urgent prime ministerial attention?
Brandon Lewis
It is interesting that, in talking about a complex and multifaceted situation, the hon. Lady goes straight to talking about Brexit, which again highlights that Labour is so far behind where the general public are on finding a way to move forward to deliver on this. We have been clear from the beginning that the protocol is there because of the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland. It has to work in a way that works for people across the communities in Northern Ireland and for the whole of Northern Ireland—in a flexible, pragmatic way.
The hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister’s involvement. Obviously, he has been involved, not just in the last few days but consistently through this process. He has been very clear about our determination and his determination—this is exactly what Lord Frost is working on at the moment through the Joint Committee and with my Department—to ensure that we deliver an outcome that means that these products flow in a flexible manner, because the protocol is there. As I said earlier, we understand that the EU has that great concern about protecting its single market. We have to make sure that the protocol respects the Good Friday agreement in all three strands, including east-west.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the violence we have seen is utterly unacceptable and that the only way we can make progress on these issues is through peaceful and inclusive dialogue?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Obviously, we need to understand all the issues that have come together to lead people to think that violence is the solution, completely unacceptably, and work through that with the political parties and the community groups in Northern Ireland. She is absolutely right: there is no excuse for what we saw the other week. It was utterly reprehensible. As I have said before and as others have rightly said, our thoughts are with the police, whose focus is on keeping people safe.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The abdication of any responsibility for the scenes that we have seen on the streets of Northern Ireland by this Government and this Secretary of State is shameful. The Prime Minister made consistent promises that there would be no border down the Irish sea. The Prime Minister also persistently threatened to break international law, repeatedly undermining the Good Friday agreement. The nature of politics towards the north of Ireland under this Government as a consequence of Brexit has been, at best, regretful. Does the Secretary of State understand the complexities—I have my concerns—and will he take responsibility for the repeated failures of his party in government?
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Gentleman looks at what I have said this afternoon, I think he will see that I have proven quite the opposite in acknowledging the multifaceted issues that led to the violence we saw the other week, not that that excuses or legitimises in any way the reprehensible behaviour we saw from some and the encouragement of young people, which I find particularly despicable. It is good to see, if I heard his question correctly, that he now fully supports us in ensuring that there are no borders. I therefore look forward to his support if we have to take further action and for any further action we take to deliver on that in the way we promised people in Northern Ireland: with a pragmatic and flexible approach to the Northern Ireland protocol.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement has brought untold benefits to Northern Ireland over the past 23 years and that it is therefore the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that must be the basis for future co-operation and political engagement?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. We now see a vibrant, exciting economy. Whether it is FinTech, renewable energy, cyber, the creative arts or advanced engineering and manufacturing, wherever people go in Northern Ireland, they will see entrepreneurship and opportunity, which is a testament to the phenomenal success of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I want that to continue to live on. I am absolutely passionate about ensuring that we deliver on that for the people of Northern Ireland. We do so by respecting, delivering on and working with everything and every part of the Good Friday agreement.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
May I convey my thoughts for those PSNI officers who have been injured in the last week? They serve our community valiantly and often become the casualty when politics does not work. I also commend the leadership shown by my colleagues in my constituency of Belfast East and community leaders who have ensured that our part of the city has remained calm.
The Secretary of State is right to caution against legitimising violence. It should not happen. Violence is wrong. But when we talk of dialogue, I hope he will agree that the serious issues that have been raised should not be ignored. I hope he will appreciate that there are still too many politicians in Northern Ireland who not only dismiss the concerns but denigrate those in our community who voice them. If we want to see politics work, and I do, and we want to see constitutional politics work, and it should, we need to see the tangible results of all the flexibilities and resolutions for the injurious imposition we are facing in Northern Ireland.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I commend him and his colleagues in the area who have been working closely with their communities and giving the support that the community groups, communities themselves and indeed the PSNI have benefited from. He is also right that we all need to ensure that we are engaging properly across the entire community of Northern Ireland. We should be engaging with anybody looking to find a peaceful solution and to use dialogue to condemn violence, and wanting to be part of taking Northern Ireland forward in a positive way. It is absolutely right that we take the time to have those difficult conversations sometimes, when they are there, even on issues where we disagree, to ensure that we can understand and look at how we can deliver on things in a way that works for everybody. In short, he is absolutely right.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Further to what my hon. Friends have said about the Northern Ireland protocol, does my right hon. Friend agree that the reckless invocation of article 16 by the EU, for however short a period, without thought for the consequences, has contributed to the political tensions we now see in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is correct. To be fair, the EU has recognised the mistake, acknowledged the mistake, apologised for it and stepped back from the brink, but that action definitely had an impact. That is something that representatives from civic society made clear to the vice-president. That is why it is important that our colleagues and friends in the EU take some time to really understand some of the nuances and complexities of the communities in Northern Ireland and in particular the sense of identity of the Unionist and loyalist community and why that action not just had an impact that night but has had a lasting effect on people’s sense of identity.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
Given that the Government are committed to seeking an agreement with the EU on veterinary standards, which has been repeated by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, can the Secretary of State confirm that that is something that Ministers are pursuing in the Joint Committee? Does he support such an agreement, which would reduce checks and red tape and lower tension in the long term?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady is right. The Joint Committee, Lord Frost, my colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other relevant Departments have, across Government, been working on the various issues, to iron out the challenges and some of the problems that we have seen with the outworking of the protocol in the first few months of this year. We must get those things resolved, and our intention, aim and focus is on doing so by agreement, and in agreement with our friends and partners in the EU.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Social media has been used to lure young people to interfaces between communities, inflaming the crisis with provocative messages and fake news. Will the Secretary of State make clear that social media giants such as Facebook and WhatsApp cannot wash their hands of responsibility, and they have a duty to act to prevent their platforms from being used to incite violence?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and it is another example of how, even in an extended discussion such as this one, many more issues have been involved over the past few weeks. She is right to mention social media and people being subject to fake news, bot accounts and so on, and all those things have played a part. The PSNI and, more widely, the Executive and the UK Government are working with social media companies, and people should be cautious and aware of these things. That kind of activity on social media does not help anybody, and the social and digital media companies have a part to play in helping to ensure that such messaging does not spread and risk more violence anywhere on the streets of the United Kingdom.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]
The Secretary of State indicated that there was widespread condemnation of the violence of the past week or so, and he is right. That was not always the case, but thankfully it is now. Two outstanding problems need to be resolved with the utmost urgency. One is the Northern Ireland protocol, which he alluded to, and the other is the position of the Chief Constable. Will the Secretary of State recommit himself to ensuring that those two obstacles to progress can be dealt with in a satisfactory way, so as to take us forward peacefully and democratically?
Brandon Lewis
As I have outlined this afternoon and previously in the House, we have a clear focus on the work to move things forward on the protocol in a pragmatic and flexible way, so that it works and delivers for people in Northern Ireland, without hindrance or problem. The entire focus of the Chief Constable is on the safety and security of people in Northern Ireland, and I support him in that work.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]
I am of the generation that remembers what discord in Ireland meant for people here on the mainland. I remember my mum being scared to go to work in London because of the bombs that were going off. Scared to go to work in London! What would the Secretary of State say today to those like my mum who would not understand how the Government have allowed the current situation to arise?
Brandon Lewis
As the hon. Gentleman will know, sadly and inexcusably we have seen pockets of violence across the UK over the last few months, in London, Bristol and elsewhere. None of that is acceptable, and we should see none of it. We should all be working, wherever we are in the UK, to support the local police and communities to bring an end to such things and return to calm and proper dialogue. I caution the hon. Gentleman against comparing what we saw the other week with what was seen some decades ago. Nobody should return to that, and the people of Northern Ireland deserve better. That is not what we saw last week, and it is not what anybody wants to return to in the future. We all have a job to ensure that the calmness that is there now remains, and that we work together with a proper, democratic dialogue.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
It is a denial, Sir, not to acknowledge the consequences of decisions taken by those on both Front Benches, and imposed on Northern Ireland, which have caused seismic societal, economic and community breakdown. That is the Northern Ireland protocol, and we are witnessing that breakdown today. I condemn the violence, but all the condemnation in the world will not make the violence go away if action is not taken. The cause is not covid-19. Seriously? The cause is not Bobby Storey’s funeral, although that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Secretary of State knows that the protocol lies at the heart of this, because the identity of Ulster is at stake as a result of the protocol. I fear a continuing downward spiral unless the Secretary of State takes action, and the key action he can take is to invoke article 16, take control of the situation, and address—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Sorry Ian, but I think we got the gist of the point you are making.
Brandon Lewis
Yes, I understand the point the hon. Gentleman was making. He referenced a few of the things I outlined in my opening remarks about the challenges, the straw that broke the camel’s back and the issues around the protocol earlier this year. That is why we took unilateral action a few weeks ago, which he supported. We have been clear that we will take the action needed to make sure this works for Northern Ireland. Our focus is on working through the proper channels with our friends and partners in the EU to get an agreeable solution that works for those EU friends and partners we trade with as well as people across the United Kingdom, and enables the GB-NI trade that we all want to take place.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, the protocol is at the heart of this issue. The Secretary of State knows that there were only three options: all-UK alignment with the customs union and the single market, a land border between north and south, or a border in the Irish sea. The Prime Minister chose the sea border, but then he promised that it would not involve the checks that he signed up to in the protocol. I think he either did not understand the agreement he signed, or did not care about telling the truth. Which was it?
Brandon Lewis
Given that this was outlined earlier today, it is interesting that Opposition Members continue to want to talk about nothing else but leaving the EU. I think that highlights their lack of connection with people who want to move forward.
As we have said, we want to make sure that the arrangements work for the people of Northern Ireland. It is clear—it is one of the things the Prime Minister has consistently outlined—that the protocol is there for the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. It is there because it recognises that the EU wants to protect its single market. We respect that position. That is about protecting the EU goods from goods that move through Northern Ireland and into the Republic of Ireland, and therefore the EU. We are determined to deliver on all strands of the Good Friday agreement, not just one of them, and that means recognising, as the protocol itself says, that not only will it not disrupt the everyday lives of people and communities, but respect and recognise the integrity of the market of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is an integral and fixed part of the United Kingdom customs territory. We are determined to ensure that it remains so and to get trade flows moving freely. We recognise the EU’s desire to make sure that goods moving into the EU via the Republic of Ireland are properly dealt with, but that is very different from the challenges we are seeing for all the goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We have been clear that we will fix that.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The wholly unacceptable disorder was in part driven by the non-tariff barriers on exports from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I understand the Government are planning the full implementation of border checks on imports from the European Union from October. Will that include non-tariff barriers on exports from Northern Ireland to Great Britain?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman could look at the legislation we passed last year that ensures that Northern Ireland businesses have unfettered access to markets in the rest of the UK. We legislated for that, we have delivered on that, and we will continue to work to ensure equally flexible and free flow of trade from GB to NI, as I have outlined this afternoon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank and agree with the Secretary of State. We all agree that violence is unjustified and unjustifiable. It will break lives and homes, but it will not fix the problems. Democratic politics is the only solution, and politics must be seen to work. The overwhelming majority of good, law-abiding folks in Northern Ireland will never pick up a stone or throw a petrol bomb. We support the police and the rule of law.
However, the Northern Ireland protocol has disrupted business and has created problems on the streets. People are dismayed, there is anger and the frustration is boiling over. Some of them feel they are—indeed, we probably all feel we are—second-class citizens. At the same time, 2,000 people attended the Bobby Storey funeral; we buried my mother-in-law last October, with 25 at the funeral. Will the Secretary of State join me in rejecting two-tier policing where there is one rule for us, but another rule for Sinn Féin, and will he recognise that the flawed Northern Ireland protocol is disrupting peace, rather than cementing stability?
Brandon Lewis
I agree in large part with what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is why it is important for us to be working to find solutions for the impact of the outworking of the protocol on the ground and—he is absolutely right, and I absolutely understand this—the impact on people’s sense of identity. I welcome his condemnation of the violence we saw the other week.
On policing, it is important that people are clear that the PSNI’s work is to be there to support, keep safe and protect people of all communities on an equal basis. People need to have trust and faith in that, and I know the PSNI is focused on looking at what it can do to make sure it is delivering it. It is simply unacceptable, particularly with such a set of regulations, that any one community should be in a position where it believes it can see there has been a difference in treatment from one part of the community to another, especially with something so sensitive as family funerals over the last year or so. I absolutely understand people’s frustration, and I know the PSNI does as well. It is working to ensure that people are clear and can have confidence and trust that it is there to work for people across the whole community of Northern Ireland—equally, fairly and properly—to keep us all safe.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 31 questions in just over an hour. We are going to suspend now for three minutes for cleaning the Dispatch Boxes, so that after the ten-minute rule Bill we can go straight into the Finance (No.2) Bill.
Road User Charging (Outer London)
Tuesday 13th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Road User Charging (Outer London) Bill 2019-21 View all Road User Charging (Outer London) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the Mayor of London may not impose charges for driving in Outer London; and for connected purposes.
The Mayor of London’s financial stability plan, published in January, proposes a seven-days-a-week charge of £3.50 for all motorists using a vehicle registered outside Greater London, rising to £5.50 for the more polluting vehicles. Sadiq Khan is looking at building a literal financial wall between London and its neighbours. The proposal would divide communities and set Londoners against all others. It is quite literally a border tax. The Mayor of London’s proposal to charge drivers to enter Greater London would have a catastrophic impact on places like Dartford and all the areas surrounding London. It would also have a detrimental impact on outer London boroughs. Businesses located in outer London would suffer from people being reluctant to travel often the short distance across the border to use those businesses. That would have an impact on dry cleaners, pubs, takeaways, shops, hairdressers and more—exactly the businesses who are suffering the most from the coronavirus epidemic.
The Mayor of London claims this is necessary to offset the £500 million of road tax Londoners pay out each year and cannot keep, but no other area gets to keep the road tax that they pay, either—Dartford does not even get to keep the revenue from the Dartford crossing. Although it is true that Highways England does not own a great number of roads in London, it does not have many roads in other areas either; London is not alone in that respect. Londoners do drive on motorways and those motorways have to be paid for.
The Mayor of London claims that Transport for London has not had enough in subsidies. Even if you accept that argument—which I do not—the proposal for a border tax is completely the wrong approach. It is divisive, punitive and aggressive. It is as if the Mayor of London is saying, “Give us more money or look what I can do. I can ruin you. I can hit you financially and make you pay if I don’t get my way.” That is effectively what he is saying. This proposal sends out the clear message that, far from London being open, as the Mayor claims, it will be very much closed for motorists trying to enter the capital.
Every mayor around the country is trying to raise revenue. That is perfectly understandable but it should not be attempted on the back of blackmail that says, “Give me money or I will charge you to visit your loved ones. Give me money or I will charge you for dropping off relatives to the local railway station. I will charge you for using London’s small businesses. I will charge you just for driving out of your road.” That is not commendable; it is an abuse of power.
The Mayor said that the proposed charge will reduce pollution in the capital. This proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with pollution. Pollution in London is at its worst around the airports and in central London. It is not concentrated in outer London, so I do not understand why the Mayor of London seems to hate outer London so much.
The border around London is not neat. It does not run along major routes. Instead, it straddles residential roads. In Dartford, for example, we have residential roads that are based in Kent that people cannot leave without entering the London Borough of Bexley. We have a number of roads just like that, and we have roads where the border literally goes down the middle of them, so people leave the road in Kent and re-enter it in London. Many of my constituents would therefore face having to pay at least £3.50 a day just to drive out of their road. This proposal is for the charge to apply seven days a week, so that hundreds of my constituents and thousands of people around London would pay over £1,200 a year just to be able to drive each day out of the road where they live—£1,200 a year just to get out of their house. For thousands of others, it would mean a £3.50 charge just to visit loved ones, to drop a child off at school, to visit a hospital or to go to work.
So many frontline workers in London live in neighbouring counties. These are the people who keep London functioning. Over half of London’s police officers live outside the capital and the same applies to London firefighters. These people, whom Londoners rely on most, will be hardest hit by this proposal. They will be hit just for going to work.
Possibly the worst aspect of this whole proposal is that the Mayor wants to levy a charge on people to whom he is totally unaccountable. The people who would have to pay the daily charge cannot vote for the London Mayor. They cannot vote to remove Sadiq Khan or do anything to stop this charge; he knows it, and that is why he is targeting them. It is taxation without representation, taxation without accountability, and it needs to be stopped.
Dartford is not part of London. We are proud of our Kentish heritage, yet many people who are now Dartfordians used to live in London. Many Londoners move out to neighbouring counties. Many of us commute into London. There is a good relationship right now between London and the neighbouring counties, yet the Mayor of London wants to change all that. He wants to set London against its neighbours, but in doing so, he damages not just people who live outside London, but people who live inside London. It is no wonder that YouGov recently found that the majority of Londoners oppose this charge.
It is claimed that opposition to the proposal is timed to marry up with the London mayoral elections. Actually, the timing is completely down to the Mayor of London. He decided when to announce the proposal, he is responsible for the timing and he published the document setting it out just three months ago, so it is hardly surprising that we are having this debate at this time.
If the proposal goes ahead, it will have the most profound impact on Dartford and the other constituencies bordering London that we have ever seen. The decision will be taken by somebody over whom Dartfordians have absolutely no control. It is the most divisive issue ever conceived by a London Mayor and it needs to be stopped.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have had no indication that anybody intends to oppose the 10-minute rule motion and I see none, so I intend to pose the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Johnson, Henry Smith, Sir Roger Gale, Gareth Bacon, Bob Blackman, Kelly Tolhurst, Damian Green, Gordon Henderson, Craig Mackinlay, Dean Russell and Felicity Buchan present the Bill.
Gareth Johnson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 283).
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 13th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2021 View all Finance Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 358 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 358 / Noes: 262 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and I will call James Murray to move the reasoned amendment when he comes to speak immediately after the Minister. I now call the Minister, Jesse Norman.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the scrutiny of Finance Bills has lain at the centre of our parliamentary process for many centuries, ever since its origins in the 13th century, and it is a rare honour for me to bring this Bill forward today.
At the beginning of last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined a Budget with three key objectives: first, to protect jobs and livelihoods and provide additional support to get the British people and British businesses through the pandemic; secondly, to be clear about the need to fix the public finances once we are on the way to recovery and to start that work; thirdly, as we emerge from the pandemic, to lay the groundwork for a robust and resilient future economy. This Finance Bill enacts changes to taxation that support all those objectives.
I will come to the Bill itself shortly, but before I do so I want to pay tribute again to the work of the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs over the past year and more. I can testify from personal experience that officials have worked around the clock throughout that period to get the covid schemes up and running, to make sure that they are as effective as possible, to tweak and extend them where they can and, by those means, to support millions of people and hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the United Kingdom in the face of the worst peacetime economic crisis in recorded history. I will not say that this was their finest hour; they will have had many of those, as these are institutions that are arguably nigh on 500 years old. None the less, this has certainly been a time to which future historians will look back when they seek examples of exemplary public service.
It has been a privilege to work alongside officials at both Her Majesty’s Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and to see the great machinery of government working so well. I will, if I may, add one other word of scene-setting about the wider approach that we have taken to tax. It is a measure of the approach taken by the Treasury and HMRC and of our own strategic approach as a Government that, alongside these pandemic measures, we have also accelerated work to create a more effective and resilient tax system. Our goal, in simple terms, is to enhance the stability and effectiveness of the UK tax system, using last year’s announcement of a new 10-year tax administration strategy as the springboard.
We want a tax system that enhances productivity, especially across the long tail of our small and medium-sized businesses. Digitisation of the tax system provides a useful nudge to these firms to upgrade their use of information technology and the skills that it demands. We want a tax system that is more flexible, so that it is better able to adapt quickly to changing circumstances and to provide targeted support for businesses and individuals when needed. We want a tax system that is more resilient—both resilient itself and better equipped to strengthen the core resilience of the UK economy in the face of a future crisis. That transformation of our tax system is already under way, but, as the House will know, we have also taken steps to improve the process of tax policy development, most recently with the tax policies and consultations day we held on 23 March. By giving this wide array of consultations more profile, we hope to make the tax policy process still more collaborative and transparent and improve the quality of tax policy making.
Let me turn to the Bill. The House is well aware of the massive public health and economic shock that this country has experienced. The damage done by coronavirus to our economy and our society has been severe. More than 700,000 people have lost their jobs since March last year. The economy has shrunk by 10%, the largest fall in more than 300 years, and this country’s borrowing is the highest it has ever been outside wartime.
The Government’s response has been comprehensive and sustained, with the total package of support to the economy this year and next now estimated at £407 billion. That response is already showing its value. Thanks to that and to the rapid roll-out of vaccination, the Office for Budget Responsibility and other independent authorities now expect a swifter recovery than previously anticipated, with faster growth, lower unemployment, more investment and higher household incomes. Indeed, the OBR expects the UK economy to recover to its pre-crisis levels six months earlier than it did—in the second rather than the fourth quarter of 2022. In the words of the Resolution Foundation, if realised, this projected rate of unemployment,
“would be by far the lowest unemployment peak in any recent recession, despite this being the deepest downturn for 300 years.”
At the heart of our covid response is precisely that support for jobs, delivered through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as the tax authority, with more than 11 million jobs furloughed between the beginning of the pandemic in March last year and February of this year. As the OBR outlined last month, without the additional measures at Budget, which included the extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme, unemployment would have peaked two quarters earlier and at a higher level. Indeed, it estimates that there would have been an additional 300,000 unemployed people in the fourth quarter of this year without these latest interventions.
The tax measures outlined in the Bill go further now to protect jobs and support the economy. We are extending the 5% reduced VAT rate until 30 September in order to protect 150,000 hard-hit hospitality and tourism businesses, which employ almost 2.5 million people. To help those businesses manage the transition back to the standard rate, VAT will then increase to an interim rate of 12.5% from October until the end of March.
For similar reasons, the Bill puts into legislation the temporary cut in stamp duty land tax with a residential SDLT nil rate band remaining at £500,000 in England and Northern Ireland until the end of June. This, again, will be followed by a phased transition back to the normal rate. From 1 July 2021, it will fall to £250,000 until the end of September, before returning to £125,000 on 1 October.
For any business that took advantage of the original VAT deferral new payments scheme, the Bill ensures that they will be able to pay that deferred VAT in up to 11 equal payments from March 2021, rather than by one larger payment due by 31 March 2021. For those businesses that have been pushed into losses, the trading loss carry-back rule is being extended from the existing one year to three years for losses of up to £2 million, which will deliver a significant cash-flow benefit for businesses.
As well as protecting jobs and livelihoods, the Bill takes important steps to strengthen the public finances. The damage done by coronavirus and the urgent need to respond to the crisis have created huge challenges for the Exchequer. The OBR’s fiscal forecasts show that this year the UK is expected to borrow a record amount: £355 billion. That is 17% of our national income—the highest level of borrowing since world war two. Borrowing is forecast to be £234 billion next year, which is 10.3% of GDP—an amount so large that it has only one rival in recent history, which is the level of borrowing this year.
It is our responsibility as a Government to balance the extraordinary support we are providing to the economy now with the need to start to fix the public finances, and the Bill strikes that balance.
First, the income tax personal allowance rises with the consumer prices index as planned to £12,570 from this month and will then be maintained at this level until April 2026. The House will recall that the UK has the highest basic personal tax allowance of any G20 country. A typical basic rate taxpayer now pays over £1,200 less in tax than in 2010. The higher rate threshold also rises to £50,270 from this month and will then be maintained at this level until April 2026. These changes are fair and progressive. It is important to note that the 20% highest income households will contribute 15 times that of the 20% lowest income households. An average basic rate taxpayer will be less than a pound a week worse off in 2022-23.
Secondly, the inheritance tax thresholds, the pensions lifetime allowance and the annual exempt amount in capital gains tax will also be maintained at their 2020-21 levels until April 2026. Maintaining the pensions lifetime allowance at current levels affects only those with the largest pensions—those worth more than £1 million.
Thirdly, the Government are providing businesses with over £100 billion of support to get through this pandemic, so our judgment has been that it is only fair to ask them to contribute to this overall recovery. The Bill therefore legislates for the rate of corporation tax paid on company profits to increase to 25% from 2023. Since corporation tax is charged only on company profits, businesses that may be struggling will, by definition, be unaffected.
The Government are also protecting small businesses with profits of £50,000 or less by creating a small profits rate, maintained at the current rate of 19%. The effect of this is that 70% of companies, or 1.4 million businesses, will not see an increase in their tax rate. There is also a taper above £50,000 so that only businesses with profits of a quarter of a million pounds or greater will be taxed at the full 25% rate—and that is itself still the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7. The increase is two years away, well after the point when the OBR expects the economy to have recovered, but it is important to legislate for this now in order to give businesses clarity about our future plans.
The next goal of this Budget has been to lay the foundations of our future economy as we emerge from the pandemic. If that economy is to support the creation of new jobs, to spur growth and to drive productivity forward, we need to encourage business investment now, so this Bill contains a highly innovative new super deduction measure, which is expected to lift the net present value of the UK’s plant and machinery allowances from 30th among the countries of the OECD to first.
In most cases, this measure will allow companies to reduce their taxable profits by 130% of the cost of investment they make, equivalent to a tax cut of up to 25p for every pound they invest. The super deduction is expected to be worth £25 billion during the two years it is in place, which would make it the biggest business tax cut in modern British history. The OBR has said that, at its peak in the financial year 2022-23, the super deduction is expected to bring forward an additional 10% of business investment, with a value of £20 billion.
Alongside a programme of national recovery, we also want to stimulate regional recovery. That is why this Bill also enables the Government to designate tax sites for freeports in Great Britain. Once approved, eligible businesses will be able to benefit from a number of tax reliefs, including an enhanced 10% rate of structures and buildings allowance, an enhanced capital allowance of 100% for companies investing in plant and machinery, and full relief from stamp duty land tax on the purchase of land or property—and to help them to invest and grow, the Bill maintains the annual investment allowance at the higher level of £1 million until the end of this year.
The House will also recall that these measures are supplemented by the Budget’s new Help to Grow: Digital scheme, which will assist smaller businesses in developing their digital skills by giving them free expert training and a 50% discount on new productivity-enhancing software. This is all part of a package that the Institute of Directors has called
“a big win for SMEs.”
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is significant that no freeport sites have been allocated in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister clarify whether all the measures that will be included in freeport status will be exempt from the state aid rules, which will still apply in Northern Ireland because of our association with the EU single market rules?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know that it is absolutely the Government’s intention to have a freeport in Northern Ireland, and that they are in discussion with officials and members of the Northern Ireland Executive to discuss precisely how it will work. I am not in a position to comment on how it will work, but certainly the expectation is that this should be a functioning, highly successful and effective freeport. It should enjoy a very attractive set of benefits that will benefit the companies involved and be comparable to the ones we will see elsewhere, although it is important to note that freeports are themselves a mixed bag. We have had a variety of different bids of different kinds to the competition that has been run.
All the measures we have taken in relation to business growth and investment are part of a package, which the Institute of Directors has called
“a big win for SMEs.”
I was also pleased to see that the Resolution Foundation said that the Budget
“rightly sought to boost the recovery before turning to fixing the public finances”.
That is an important point.
I have discussed the work we are doing to create a more flexible and resilient tax system, but the Finance Bill also includes important measures to make it fairer and more sustainable. As part of the United Kingdom’s commitment to be a global leader on tax transparency, the Bill allows for the implementation of OECD reporting rules for digital platforms. The rules will help taxpayers in the sharing and gig economies to get their tax right. It will also help HMRC to detect and to tackle non-compliance.
To build on the successful introduction of Making Tax Digital for VAT, the Bill will enable the extension of MTD requirements for smaller VAT businesses from April next year. It also makes widely welcomed reforms to the penalty regime for VAT and income tax self-assessment, so that it is fairer and more consistent as a system, and harmonises interest for VAT and income tax.
The Bill tackles promoters of tax avoidance through strengthening existing anti-avoidance regimes and tightening rules. Importantly, it introduces an exemption from income tax for financial support payments for potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, made by the UK Government and devolved Administrations.
Finally, let me turn briefly to how the Bill helps us to deliver the important commitments the Government have made on the environment and on carbon reduction. The new plastic packaging tax, first announced at Budget 2018, will encourage the use of recycled plastic instead of new plastic in packaging. For plastic packaging that contains less than 30% recycled plastic content, the rate of the tax will be £200 per tonne. This will transform the economics of sustainable packaging.
The last 12 months have delivered a grave shock to this country and its economy, but the Government have met that shock with a determined and sustained response. That work is not done. With this Finance Bill, we are continuing to support the lives and livelihoods of families and businesses up and down the land, while simultaneously setting the terms for an investment-led recovery. The Bill puts in place the foundations for a fairer and more sustainable tax system. It further enshrines commitments on the environment and the work we are doing to tackle climate change, and it begins the work to rebuild the public finances. For those reasons and more, I commend it to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance (No. 2) Bill because it derives from a Budget that failed to guarantee a pay rise for NHS workers after their unparalleled service over the last year; because it undermines the country’s economic recovery, targeting household finances by freezing income tax allowances before increasing the rate of corporation tax; because it does nothing to mitigate the effect on family finances of the sharp council tax rise in April; because it contains measures connected with a cut to social security later in the year; and because it fails to set out the ambitious plan for jobs and growth that is needed to help the country emerge strongly from the worst economic crisis of any major economy.
May I start by extending my deepest sympathies to Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family at this sad time? His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh devoted his life to public service and, crucially, to his role as a supportive husband. My thoughts are particularly with the Queen as she mourns the loss of someone who has been at her side, or just behind her, for 73 years.
As this is my first time physically in the Chamber for well over a year, I would also like to put on record my thanks to Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the Speaker’s Office for doing so much to help all Members, particularly those of us like me with relevant medical circumstances, to take part virtually throughout the pandemic. Now, having recently had my second jab and having spoken to my doctor, I am glad to be here in person to speak today to this important Bill.
Like millions of others in this country, I feel so grateful to be benefiting from the brilliance of our NHS and GP staff, scientists, lab technicians, nurses and volunteers, but we know that the health crisis of covid-19 is very far from over and that the harm to jobs and the economy resulting from the outbreak is even further from being over. On the Chancellor’s watch, our country is enduring the worst economic crisis of any major economy, yet in his and the Government’s plan we lack the ambitious, confident modern approach we need to emerge from this crisis stronger.
The Budget in March and this Finance Bill should have been an opportunity to pull out all the stops to get the economy going. The Chancellor should have focused resolutely on supporting families, securing jobs and backing small businesses. The Government should have used this opportunity to make sure we invest in solutions to the problems that we have struggled with as a country for so long, from social care to the climate emergency and the housing crisis.
There are many missed opportunities in this Bill and the recent Budget to take on some of the big challenges to which our country is begging for a solution. Take high streets, for example. We are all acutely aware of the severe difficulties that high streets are facing because of covid and how well online delivery-based businesses have done during lockdown. We know that for years, high street businesses have struggled with business rates, while tech giants have paid very little tax by comparison, and we know that the outbreak has made that imbalance far worse. Now should have been the time to at the very least level the tax playing field for high street businesses and online firms, yet there was nothing on that in this Budget, no decisions were taken on the Government’s new tax day, and the Finance Bill is silent on this crucially important issue. That is just one example of how the Government have missed opportunities to support and shape our country for the better.
Instead, so much of what the Government have done will make the problems we face worse. This Government have the wrong priorities and the wrong values, and their Ministers are following failed approaches from the past that now lack much, if any, of the wider support they may once have claimed for them.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to level the playing field between high street businesses and online businesses. That is a very tricky thing to do, particularly when talking about business rates. What is his solution to that?
James Murray
I am very glad to have the hon. Gentleman’s support for our push for a solution. As he knows, the Government have been promising for some time to come forward with proposals on business rates, but we have nothing. We had the new tax day, when we were supposed to hear lots of announcements—nothing. We want to see something to help high streets, and we have not had anything. We need the Government to step up and offer a solution to the problem, which has bedevilled high streets for so long.
James Murray
I will make a bit of progress.
High streets are just one example of how the Government have missed those opportunities. Ministers have shown that they simply do not have it within themselves to offer solutions to the challenge we face.
First and most immediately, the Government are taking money from people’s pockets. Families in all their many forms are the target of tax rises from this Government. People will suffer and our economy will stall if families see money taken from them when they need it most. It is unfair and economically illiterate, yet it is exactly what this Government are doing. Half the country will pay more next year, thanks to the provisions in this Bill to freeze income tax personal allowances.
At the same time, the Bill does nothing to stop the sharp council tax rise that the Government are forcing councils to implement right now. It supports the Chancellor’s plan to cut £20 a week from social security this autumn for some of those who need that help most. It tells us everything we need to know about the Government’s priorities: they raise taxes and cut help for families immediately and without a second thought, years before an increase in corporation tax. At the same time, they are letting some of the world’s biggest companies stop paying tax altogether.
If that was not bad enough, the Government are also choosing in this year of all years to take money from the pockets of NHS workers. We now know how hollow those claps on the doorsteps of No. 10 and No. 11 must have echoed around Downing Street. The Government are cutting NHS workers’ pay. Ministers are breaking their promises, and the Conservatives are showing how little they have learned from the awful experience of the last year.
If we add that NHS workers’ pay cut to the personal allowance freeze, the council tax hike and the cut to universal credit, the scale of the impact of the Government’s decisions becomes clear. To give an example, a newly qualified nurse living with their partner and two children in rented accommodation will lose more than £1,100 a year. Rather than supporting families out of this crisis, the Government are prioritising tax breaks for tech giants.
That tax break is being handed to big businesses through the so-called super deduction—the £25 billion tax break for companies that the Chancellor and the Minister say represents
“the biggest two-year business tax cut in modern British history”,
and that forms our second key concern about this Bill. As the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation has made clear, investment incentives have been abused for tax avoidance purposes in the past, yet the Government have failed to say or do anything to address widespread concerns that the super deduction is open to fraud and abuse. Economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that the super deduction will
“create a risk of tax avoidance and even potentially fraud as companies essentially try to find ways to dress things up as plant and machinery investment”,
yet the Chancellor has done nothing to counter suggestions from industry consultants that the deduction could be used for luxury items, including jacuzzis.
The Government have also failed to address environmental concerns. With the deduction giving firms an incentive to buy new rather than existing assets, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury was recently unable to guarantee that the super deduction would be used to support green development. The Chancellor himself has seemed confused about the overall impact of the deduction, recently claiming that, as well as bringing investment forward,
“it will also increase the amount of investment”.—[Official Report, 9 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 641.]
That claim comes despite the Office for Budget Responsibility revealing a week earlier that cumulative business investment over the next five years will be £8 billion lower following the Chancellor’s announcement of his new scheme than had been projected before.
Particularly with a tax cut of this size, it is crucial that we understand who it is helping and what it will achieve. The truth is, as we know, that companies can already benefit from the annual investment allowance, a 100% tax break on investment up to £1 million, which the Bill extends to the end of this year. The Treasury Committee concluded in its report “Tax after coronavirus” that the annual investment allowance
“appears well targeted to promote growth in small and medium-sized enterprises.”
With the existing allowance apparently well targeted at the growth of small and medium-sized businesses, and with such businesses standing to benefit only marginally from the new super deduction, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: the main beneficiaries of the Chancellor’s new scheme will be the big firms that need help least. No wonder TaxWatch has nicknamed this the “Amazon tax cut”—a giveaway from the Chancellor that could wipe out Amazon UK’s tax bill entirely.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about what has been identified as an Amazon tax cut. Has he noticed—and I get the impression from his contribution that he has—that most of the firms that will benefit from this are foreign-owned large tech firms that are not British, and most of the firms that will not benefit are the smaller British firms that will feel the wrong end of the Government’s policies? Does he not find it rather ironic that the Conservatives, who wrap themselves in the flag, are actually being entirely un-British and damaging British interests? They claim to be patriotic, but they are doing exactly the opposite.
James Murray
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and exposes again the hypocrisy in the Government’s approach. The fact is that, rather than helping families get through the tough times ahead, this Government are delivering a tax break for tech giants.
We know that Amazon workers have provided vital deliveries to millions of people across the country during lockdown. They need their rights at work to be protected and strengthened, and we all want that company to pay its fair share of tax. I see no one calling for a tax break for Amazon, yet that is exactly what this Government are providing. The Government would do well to learn from the new Biden Administration’s approach. The US Secretary of State has said that, rather than compete on lowering tax rates for corporations, the United States will focus on its
“ability to produce talented workers, cutting-edge research and state-of-the-art infrastructure”.
The new President has also been leading a drive to put in place a global minimum corporate tax rate. A spokesperson for the Treasury here has indicated that the UK might back those plans. Taken along with the Chancellor’s decision to raise corporation tax to 25%, this seems to be an admission by the Government that the last decade of Conservative corporate tax policy making has been totally wrong-headed. If that is the case, we welcome the Government’s admission, and it is vital that the UK plays a leading role in developing and implementing the proposals that President Biden is backing. We have not yet heard from Ministers on this matter in Parliament, however, so I urge the Exchequer Secretary to use her closing speech today as an opportunity to confirm to the House that she and the Chancellor back plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate and that they will do all they can to make this a reality.
While the initiative on international tax is being led by those overseas, closer to home the offer from this Chancellor of such a large tax break to companies will, of course, make people wonder what processes will be in place to prevent Ministers from intervening improperly on behalf of commercial interests in how decisions are made. The Chancellor is still refusing to properly account for his role in the Greensill scandal. To ensure public confidence in who will benefit from this £25 billion tax break, we strongly urge the Exchequer Secretary to today set out what new safeguards will be put in place to make sure that public money is not misused.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Before the debate, I spoke to the shadow Minister about insurance companies. It has come to my attention that some insurance companies are unfairly using business interruption insurance premiums to punish businesses that had the foresight to take out said insurance before the pandemic. Insurance premiums are being increased dramatically. Does the shadow Minister agree that when it comes to supporting small and medium-sized businesses, we need to close the loopholes that insurance companies are notorious for using and ensure that the spirit is legislated for? Perhaps—just perhaps—this Bill might be the way to do that.
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the Bill does everything for the big businesses that need the help most but does not do what is necessary to protect small and medium-sized businesses. I am sure that the Ministers present heard his points, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will respond to them in her closing speech.
Aside from all the concerns about the super deduction—from its potential for fraud, abuse and misuse to the fact that it offers to wipe out Amazon’s UK tax bill—the fact that the Government’s only national policy for growth and investment relies almost entirely on this tax break brings us to our third key concern about the Bill and the profound lack of ambition in the Government’s approach. There is simply no plan from the Government to make sure that we invest in what is needed for the future. The Bill follows a Budget of cuts. The OBR has confirmed that the Government will cut departmental resource spending plans by £15 billion a year from 2022-23 onward, and rather than bringing forward capital spending to invest in the green recovery that we need now, the Government have cut capital plans for this year by half a billion pounds.
Far from charting a course for the future, the Bill lacks any mention of a plan to tackle the big problems that we have faced in this country for a decade or more and that have in so many cases been brought into sharp focus by the covid outbreak. It is clear that over the past decade under this Government, our country’s social care system has been underfunded, with its workers chronically underpaid. Our country’s response to climate change has stubbornly lacked the urgency, ambition and scale that it needs. Our country’s answer to the housing crisis has been left to developers and speculators, leaving an entire generation let down and left behind. Investing in better social care, new green infrastructure and the council housing that we need would create jobs, improve lives and finally start to tackle the problems that our country needs to resolve.
The Conservatives have had more than 10 years to stand up to the challenges I have outlined, yet they have failed to do so. With the recent Budget and this Bill, they have proved themselves again unable or unwilling to do so. The Government’s whole approach is being exposed as one of failure rooted in the past and an inability to rise to the future. In fact, Conservative Ministers are continuing on the course that began in 2010—one that brought us a decade in which UK growth was below the average of all major economies and business investment fell to the lowest rate in the G7.
Our country’s economy will be £300 billion smaller in 2026 than was forecast at the start of the previous decade. At times during that decade, Ministers may have benefited from some international cover for their misguided and harmful choice of cuts rather than investing in growth in response to the financial crisis, but no more: a new international consensus has rapidly been gaining strength. As the International Monetary Fund’s head of fiscal policy said, our Government and others should use fiscal policy to beat covid and to stimulate our economies by reducing unemployment and restoring economic growth. That focus on growth, investment and jobs is at the heart of the approach set out by the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). Our framework will meet the challenges of our times—it is a responsible approach in which a balanced current budget over the economic cycle would never prevent us from protecting people and businesses during a crisis or making critical investments in our future.
As the Bill progresses through the House, we will look at the detail in respect of the points I have outlined so far, as well as on other measures in the Bill such as those relating to freeports. We want to see good jobs and economic growth in every part of the country, irrespective of whether an area has a freeport. We need long-term, locally led investment in every region and nation, and freeports will in no way compensate for Ministers’ inexplicable decision to scrap their industrial strategy and disband their industrial council just when we need a long-term plan to support our critical industries. Furthermore, with freeports elsewhere in the world having become magnets for organised crime, tax evasion and smuggling, we fear that at a time when HMRC is already overstretched Britain is not well placed to manage such risks.
In Committee, we will challenge the Government over their approach to tax avoidance and tax evasion more widely, following up our long-standing concerns that Treasury Ministers continue to drag their feet on tackling these problems. Although the Bill contains measures to tackle the promoters of tax avoidance and change the system of penalties, there is a clear sense that those measures are extremely limited in scope, rather than the comprehensive action that we need. Indeed, those changes are not even included in the Budget report costings, suggesting that their financial impact must be minimal.
We will use the next stage of consideration of the Bill to go through the detail of the measures it contains that seek to address the problem of plastic pollution and to increase the use of recycled content. The principle of a plastic packaging tax is one that we support, and because we want it to be as effective as possible we will ask Ministers to consider the detail of its operation in Committee. Overall, however, we cannot support this Finance Bill. The Bill, and the Budget that it follows, should have seized the opportunity to help people who are struggling now; to invest in good new jobs in every part of the country; and to be ambitious in finally getting to grips with social care, housing and other challenges that our country has faced for so long without solving. In fact, rather than supporting families out of this crisis and setting an ambitious plan for the future, the Government are prioritising tax breaks for tech giants.
If this Bill had been presented by Conservative Ministers 10 years ago, it would have been the wrong solution then; a decade later, their approach has not changed but the rest of the world has moved on. No longer will they find allies for their approach in international institutions, and the politics of the United States shows that the consensus around the world is shifting. The Government are out of step with economic reality. They are taking decisions that will push up taxes for people across our country while helping Amazon to reduce its tax bill. They are choosing to cut NHS workers’ pay while failing to fix our system of social care, and they are deciding to continue a decade of cuts to public services when we urgently need to invest in the future.
James Murray
I have only a few moments. The hon. Gentleman may speak later.
We will vote for our amendment and against the Bill, to make it clear to people in our country that we understand that people need to be spared the Bill’s tax rises; that Amazon does not need any favours; that NHS workers deserve our support, that we need good new jobs in every region in the nation; that the economy will grow only through responsible investment; and that we need to fix social care, the climate emergency and the housing crisis. Above all, people in our country need a Government who are on their side, and it is absolutely clear from the choices that the Bill and their Budget make, and the problems that they choose to ignore, that this Government fail that test.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
I shall speak in support of Second Reading.
The opening remarks by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were extremely well made. He pointed out the huge challenges that we face as a country due to the economic crisis and the worst drop in GDP for 300 years, but he also rightly spoke of the extraordinary work that the Treasury and HMRC have carried out over the past 12 months to ensure that, at pace, we have had bold initiatives that have supported the economy, not least the labour force. I know, having held his position for about the same time as he has held his position, just how high-quality those people are and how hard and imaginatively they will have worked over the previous months.
My right hon. Friend was right also to draw the attention of the House to the improved outlook across the various forecasts. I think he mentioned the OBR, but he could equally have mentioned the IMF, whose recent forecasts for the UK economy point to a lower peak in unemployment than was feared at the start of the crisis. All of that is due, not just to the work that has been done to roll out the vaccine, but to the support packages that the Government have provided. I am not saying that everything has been perfect, but overall I think the effort has been pretty impressive.
The Bill is one step in an important journey to restore the health of the public finances. My right hon. Friend did not tell the House, because it is not his role to frighten the horses, what the consequence would be if we did not signal clearly to the markets that we are serious about getting on top of both our debt and the deficit. That would be an increase in interest rates, and we know from the forecasters that, roughly, a 1% increase in interest rates would lead to a £25 billion additional black hole in the public finances. To put that in some perspective, it would be equivalent to all the money that has been raised through the increases in corporation tax and the income tax threshold freezes. It is therefore essential that this Bill goes through the House to demonstrate that the Government are serious about getting on top of the public finances.
I would like to focus on some of the measures in the Bill. I turn first to income tax. I think that was the right place to go—a broad-based, important, very high-yielding tax—in order to raise the kinds of amounts that are required. The fact that the Chancellor has chosen to freeze thresholds rather than increase rates allows him, of course, to maintain the triple lock commitment in the Conservative manifesto. Incidentally, I have always argued that, depending on how things pan out, the public might perhaps—under the circumstances—forgive the Government were they to decide to breach the manifesto in one or two areas, given the extraordinary times in which we live, but it is good that the Chancellor has managed to avoid doing so, at least on this occasion.
We need a progressive tax system. Of course, with income tax—the wealthiest 1% paying some 28% of income tax—that is exactly what we have; but we also need an income tax system that does not undermine the link between those who pay tax and public spending. Through freezing the personal allowance, as well as raising more money, there is some benefit in ensuring that those who benefit from public services do, at least to some degree—albeit that we want a very progressive system—also pay tax to support those services.
Corporation tax also provides a large amount of money to the Exchequer. The Bill provides for quite a large increase in corporation tax, from 19% to 25%. The critical point is that we remain internationally competitive. The shadow Minister mentioned on a number of occasions President Biden and his tax policy. Well, his policy is to increase corporation or federal taxes from 21% to 28%. If we add on state taxes, that still leaves us very competitive—even at 25%—and certainly among members of the G7.
I was pleased to see in the Bill the small business rate relief. It will be important to support particularly our small and medium-sized enterprises as we come through this crisis. There are many reasons, which I will not go into in huge detail now, why that particular sector of the economy may be especially vulnerable as we come through the crisis. In the event that large swathes of SMEs go out of business, we could well see increases in market concentration and a contingent decrease in competitiveness across the economy, so it is important that we are careful and that the Treasury is mindful of the fact that those small and medium-sized enterprises will need ongoing support.
I want to say just one thing about the Laffer effect. In the context of corporation tax, it is often argued that—because corporation tax fell from 28% to 19% between 2010 and the present day, and at the same time the yield from corporation tax rose by 50%— there is some kind of causation, rather than correlation. I would argue quite strongly against that. I think that the improved yield from corporation tax was as much to do with improvements in the economy across that period, the bank levy, the bank surcharge and various anti-avoidance measures such as the corporate interest restriction. We should not fool ourselves into believing that raising taxes on companies will necessarily yield less in the medium to longer term—albeit that in the longer term we of course want to see those taxes as low as possible.
Incidentally, if my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury were looking for areas where there might be a Laffer effect, I would point him to three taxes: the higher rate of capital gains tax; the stamp duty land tax on high-value properties; and duty on cigarettes. There is scope for reducing rates and getting a higher yield in all three of those areas.
I very much welcome the super deduction. I guess that there was an inevitability to it; if we signal that corporation tax rates will go up in future, we tend to find that companies delay investment such that they can gain the offset from those investments against a higher corporation tax rate. It is therefore important that the super deduction came in—in a sense, to stop that forestalling. What happens after that two-year period of the super deduction will be critical.
I urge the Treasury to look carefully at the way in which companies are undertaking investment expenditure. We know there have historically been weaknesses, quite outside the crisis. Measures such the R&D tax credits will be important in that respect. I notice that clause 19 provides a cap on those for SMEs, which, if I understand the clause correctly, is about ensuring that there is no double counting or double relief between a principal company and a subcontractor. When the Bill goes into Committee, that provision should be given careful scrutiny. I welcome clause 15, on the extension of the annual investment allowance at the £1 million level, albeit that that is temporary.
Turning briefly to the diverted profits tax, I will pick up on one or two remarks made by the shadow Minister, who seemed to imply that the Government’s record on clamping down on avoidance and evasion was rather wanting. My recollection of my time as Financial Secretary to the Treasury is quite the opposite. I direct the hon. Gentleman to HMRC’s annual report on the tax gap—the amount of money not collected that could be collected—which I think in recent years has been at historic lows, and has certainly been among the best of the figures available across tax authorities around the world.
Remarks were made about tax breaks for tech giants. It is for the Government to decide whether their corporation tax policy is to go in lock step with President Biden’s idea of minimum corporation tax rates across the world. That could be one solution to profit shifting. We must not forget, however, that this country has been in the vanguard, unilaterally rolling out the digital services tax to make sure that companies including Amazon, Google and eBay pay the appropriate level of tax. It is for the Americans to join us in a multilateral endeavour to make sure that such taxes actually work. I am quietly optimistic that the new American Administration is at least leaning in the right direction. I would be interested to hear the Exchequer Secretary explain why the diverted profits tax increase just maintains the punitive margin between the level of that tax and the increased corporation tax in the years ahead, rather than the decision being made to widen the margin, given how successful the diverted profits tax has been in preventing profit shifting.
Free ports feature prominently in the Bill. The Chancellor is, of course, enthusiastic about these, and they have exciting potential, particularly in terms of the levelling-up agenda, but I point to two areas where caution is needed. One is the possibility of fraud in free port areas. Careful scrutiny is needed of the tax incentives, albeit it that SDLT structures and building allowances and enhanced allowances for plant and machinery seem to be tax breaks that are difficult to game, because they relate to fixed assets in a specific geographical location. The second issue is possible displacement of economic activity. We do not want activity that would have occurred anyway, perhaps nearby, occurring in a particular location simply because there are advantageous economic and tax arrangements in place. The scrutiny Committee will certainly be interested in the operation of free ports.
One element of the Bill that I was especially pleased to see that has not been mentioned so far and probably will not be mentioned again in this debate is the change that ensures that where an employee receives a covid test provided by an employer in their place of work, it does not count as a taxable benefit in kind. Were it to do so, millions of workers up and down the country would find that they were liable for tax in relation to those tests. I raise the matter because there is a small but important lesson in scrutiny here. Tony Verran, who is a member of the Treasury Committee secretariat, having joined us on secondment from HMRC, spotted this anomaly in HMRC guidance. Within about 24 hours, I was able to raise it with the Chancellor on the Floor of the House in Treasury Questions, and within 24 hours of that, to his great credit, he changed the guidance, and now we see the provision in the Bill. That is how Parliament should work, so I am grateful to Tony and others who were able to point me to that issue.
In conclusion, I very much welcome the Bill. There are areas that will need considerable scrutiny. When I had my time as Financial Secretary to the Treasury I think I took through three Finance Bills with more than 1,000 pages of legislation, and I know the extraordinary amount of work involved in that, and the extraordinary amount of detail that my right hon. Friend will be going through over the coming days and weeks. I wish him well. The Treasury Committee will, of course, closely scrutinise the Bill, and will no doubt have much to say about it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Treasury Committee. As the SNP reasoned amendment sets out, the Bill falls short in a number of respects. My colleagues and I approach the Budget and the Finance Bill that follows with a sense of frustration, given the limited powers that the Scottish Parliament has over many matters in the Bill, and the imperviousness of the UK Tory Government to suggestions of improvements to their legislation. The most minor suggestions for how they might do things better are dismissed, whether they come from us as Members of the House, or from expert organisations.
That is a symptom of how this Parliament does its work, with no real incentive for compromise. There are aspects of the Bill in clauses 36 to 38 where Ministers are coming back to fix measures from the 2017 Finance Bill to make them work as intended. Expert organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Association of Taxation Technicians, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group have all pointed out sensible tweaks to the Bill the Government could easily make. I urge Ministers to listen carefully to that expertise and to act.
I ask again for evidence sessions ahead of the Finance Bill. All other Government Bills—even, on occasion, private Members’ Bills—schedule evidence sessions, but not this major piece of legislation, which will impact everyone in these islands. The recent Financial Services Bill had useful evidence sessions where the Economic Secretary to the Treasury asked useful questions of our witnesses. I see no reason why the Government would not make time for that. Indeed, they might make better, more considered financial legislation if the evidence to support it was better examined.
Over the past year, the UK Government, like all Governments around the world, have taken a range of steps to support people and businesses. The Bill gives us an opportunity again to assess those measures, commend those that have worked, and examine which could usefully be extended and enhanced. It also allows us the chance to reflect on how we got here. The overriding context for the situation in which we find ourselves today has been a decade of austerity. The British Medical Association, in an article last October, referred to austerity as “covid’s little helper”, reflecting on how public health services in England have been cut back and undermined, resulting in a stalling of life expectancy in England. That came through the political choices—the budgetary and taxation choices—of this UK Tory Government. The tax breaks and the loopholes of this and previous Finance Bills, and the decisions of the Chancellor, have caused significant damage to public services across the UK, including in Scotland, where people did not vote for this austerity but have been forced to mitigate its impact.
We know that austerity is far from over; a second wave of Tory austerity is rushing towards us. The IFS has said that under current plans
“many public services are due a second, sharp dose of austerity”
and that for non-protected Departments the
“Chancellor’s spending plans are even tighter than they first appeared.”
Departments such as the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government, and the Department for Work and Pensions, will suffer cuts of 3% in 2022-23, which represents an 8% cut relative to pre-coronavirus plans in March 2020. When the Barnett formula is taken into account, that represents a cut of around £4 billion. It is a cut we cannot afford, on the back of so many that have come before. I am sure the Tories will argue that the Scottish Government should simply put up taxes, but they continually fail to recognise that we already pay in to the UK coffers, but we do not have control over what the Chancellor chooses to waste on dangerous vanity projects such as Trident, or on crony contracts to his Tory pals.
The measures in this Finance Bill regarding the coronavirus job support scheme and the self-employment income support scheme show the degree of complexity that we are now left with as a result of schemes being brought in necessarily in haste and extended for longer than the UK Government had anticipated. While the vaccine roll-out is progressing well, we are not yet out of this pandemic, and the scenes of young people out celebrating the end of lockdown last night should give us all a wee bit of pause for thought, along with the new variants that could evade vaccination in the future.
The UK Government have never been able to guarantee, regardless of their rhetoric, that life will be back to normal any time soon, so they should ensure that the support schemes reflect the course of the virus and extend them for as long as is necessary. They must now fill in the gaps in the support schemes and finally give some certainty to the millions of excluded people who have been left with not one penny piece from the UK Government for over a year.
I received some mail this morning with a book called “£xcluded Voices” from Stephen Liddell. It includes 151 stories of those excluded from support, and I hope very much that his book reaches the Chancellor’s desk. Stephen is a tour guide whom I had the pleasure to meet during a demonstration last year, and 95% of his income comes from overseas tourists. It is a sector of the economy that is highly unlikely to get going even when sectors start to reopen, and that will be two summer tourist seasons lost. He is among so many who have been left behind, completely without hope—and entirely without justification.
UKHospitality has highlighted that, with over 1 million employees in the hospitality sector still on furlough, it was critical the schemes were maintained, and it did welcome that, as do we. Yet moving to business contributions from July could prove difficult for some businesses that are not yet trading or that are off-season, and could yet result in further job losses. The stop-start, on-off furlough dither last autumn caused job losses from employers unable to bear the costs and the uncertainty, and the UK Government must not repeat that mistake.
It almost goes without saying that the SNP wants the £20 universal credit and tax credits uplift to be made permanent, but I have a wee query on the specifics in clause 31 about making the working tax credit uplift match the temporary £20 increase to UC by means of a one-off £500 payment. There are real concerns about the rough edges of this policy from experts such as the low incomes tax reform group. My understanding is that this £500 will be paid automatically, but there will be a charge to income tax where someone receives this in error—an error that would be HMRC’s error, not the recipient’s. There is a lack of certainty about what will happen if people get money they are not entitled to through HMRC’s own error, and what those receiving support are expected to do if they are unsure, especially as there is only a 90-day period in which to notify that error. I ask the Minister to give us some further detail on how exactly he envisages that this will work and what information people will receive.
We will certainly get into further detail next week, but I wish to run through some of the concerns that we and experts have with the measures put forward in this Finance Bill, in the doubtless vain hope that Ministers will start to get moving on improvements to it.
Beginning with the income tax personal allowance uplift and freeze, this would appear to be contrary to the Government’s stated policy on low-income taxpayers. National insurance thresholds will continue to move, and those under the personal allowance threshold, including those on universal credit, will not really see any benefits from this move. As always with the UK Government, there are problems in the detail. I would note that Ministers are also not taking the opportunity to amend the high income child benefit charge, which has proved so problematic for so many people.
We welcome the UK Government’s move on corporation tax, but would push them to work alongside President Biden on his call for global action on corporation tax. This is a golden opportunity for a concerted effort to move away from a race to the bottom.
On the super deduction, I must at least give the UK Government credit for a snazzy slogan, if for nothing else, but we have some queries about how it will work in practice, whether the benefits of the scheme will make a real difference to the wider economy and, as some have said already, whether this will give rise to tax dodges. The SNP has raised concerns for years about the UK’s low productivity, and the UK Government might want to act further to encourage businesses to invest more in staff, skills and technology. A real living wage, rather than their pretendy living wage, might be a better place to start.
We believe there should be a greater focus on pushing investment to meet net zero. The UK Government must ensure that this investment is one for future generations, and I ask how exactly Ministers intend to monitor the effectiveness of this super deduction. There should be safeguards against what Tax Justice has called egregious investments such as Jacuzzis. I note also that the purchase of flags might be on the list of things people could buy through their companies, which will no doubt please all the Tories on Zoom.
The Association of Taxation Technicians has some concerns about interaction with the introduction from 1 April 2023 of the small profits rate. I appreciate that the UK Government may believe they have good grounds for excluding leased or second-hand machinery, but the ICAEW has pointed out that industries that lease plant and machinery rather than acquire it outright make a significant contribution to the UK economy. The Construction Plant-hire Association estimates that the UK’s plant hire industry is worth £4 billion per annum, and the Construction Equipment Association estimates that 60% to 65% of all construction equipment sold in the UK goes into plant hire. This sounds to me to be quite significant, and I would ask Ministers to set out their reasoning in greater detail.
Moving on to clause 15, the annual investment allowance has jumped about over recent years with permanent and temporary limits, so it would be good to get more certainty on that. In the “Tax after coronavirus” report, the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, commented:
“The Annual Investment Allowance is valued by business and it appears well targeted to promote growth in small and medium-sized enterprises. As with all tax reliefs there is likely to be some deadweight cost; but we urge the Government to look favourably on further extension and possibly permanency at the existing level, which would provide welcome certainty to small and medium-sized enterprises.”
The ATT agrees that such extension or permanency would be welcome for many businesses in providing certainty, although for smaller businesses an opt-out provision might be a useful solution.
Part 2, on plastic packaging tax, takes up a substantial chunk of the Bill and is a particular area where I would like to see more evidence and scrutiny of the UK Government’s proposals from experts in the sector. There is certainly a lot in here for businesses to get their heads around. The Green Alliance sent a helpful briefing to Members, which I hope Ministers have also seen. It suggests: differentiated obligations; an escalator for the percentage of recycled material and the level of tax; a price-stabilising mechanism to de-risk investments in reprocessing and ensure that recycled content, as the more sustainable option, is always cheaper than virgin material; removing the exemption from packaging made of multiple materials, which can be difficult to recycle; and, finally, ensuring that a verification mechanism is in place. Those are all worthy of further consideration, and I am sure that as the Bill progresses we will hear from more organisations out there with their views. We have an opportunity to make legislation useful not only for the here and now, but for the future.
Clauses 92 and 93 are on VAT on tourism and hospitality, which is an area long overdue for reform. The UK has had one of the highest VAT rates on hospitality in Europe. It is welcome that the UK Government heeded the calls from industry and from the SNP for a cut in VAT for tourism and for hospitality. With people unlikely to be able to travel for their holidays this year, it is more important than ever to build the local tourism sector up and encourage people to take up the wonderful tourism opportunities on our doorstep. Scotland has done its part in giving 100% business rates relief for hospitality, and the UK Government must now do their part, too.
It is deeply disappointing that the UK Government will extend the 5% rate only until the end of September, as due to the lockdowns people have not been able to take full advantage of the reductions. Increasing the rate to 12.5% until March next year—then presumably it will revert to 20%—will mean that the tourism and hospitality sector will not see the benefit over the October holidays or the Christmas period, and then it will take a further hit next Easter. As I understand it, the reduction also applied to live music, funfairs, shows and events, so it makes even more sense to extend the reduction to a sector that has been unable to open its doors at all for the best part of a year. I urge the UK Government to consider that fully. There are also some practical difficulties for firms in moving the rates and dates, as that may cause confusion. A wider review of VAT more generally would seem sensible. I ask Ministers where that features in their plans.
On clause 113 and schedule 25, on penalties for failure to pay tax, there is no doubt that I support people paying the taxes they should in full and on time and that there should be a penalty for not doing so. That said, the ATT and the ICAEW have concerns that the proposed late payment penalty regime is overly complex and, as a result, will not be understood by taxpayers and not act as an effective deterrent. The ATT in particular feels that allowing HMRC up to 48 weeks in some circumstances to notify a person of the award of a penalty point, and up to two years to assess a penalty liability, is quite excessive. The periods should be further reduced and/or assurances should be given by Ministers that they will be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.
I turn to freeports. We on the Opposition side continue to have concerns about their effectiveness and the potential for tax dodging. The point by the Chair of the Select Committee about displacement was also well made. Their use around Europe and around the world has left many scratching their heads about what the UK Government aim to achieve. Scotland has set out a differentiated approach, engaging in good faith but adapting and improving the UK’s model to address the climate emergency in our green port approach. The Scottish Government stated:
“Operators and beneficiaries will be required to commit to adopting Fair Work First criteria and contribute to Scotland’s just transition to net zero”.
Trade Minister Ivan McKee recently raised concerns about the UK Government’s lack of willingness to engage on that while pushing forward with their own plans. If devolution means anything at all to the UK Tory Government, they must allow Scotland to pursue a model that fits the policies and ambitions of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. They must step back from using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 as a battering ram, driving through policies that Scotland did not vote for.
Where this Finance Bill really does not go far enough is on tax evasion and tax avoidance. Yes, there are some measures here, but there are also some massive gaps. Despite raising it in every Finance Bill, Scottish limited partnerships continue to exist as a means of shifting dirty money around the world. Just last month, the investigative journalist, David Leask, wrote about NovoLine Resources, a shell company with an address in Edinburgh, which was blacklisted by the World Bank following an investigation into the contracts that it won to supply equipment to Uzbekistan’s Health Ministry. If the World Bank can see that this company is up to no good, it baffles me why the UK Government will not act to shut it down. Ministers must get serious about the financial crime that their lack of attention is facilitating.
There are also gaps around trusts, and we are still waiting for the much-delayed Registration of Overseas Entities Bill. I really do have to question whose interests this serves: it is now three years since I implored the Government to stop fannying about on this matter during the consideration of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and very little has happened since.
This is another great big chunk of a Finance Bill, but there is so much still that is missing. It is a point of some frustration that the Scottish Parliament, with its ambitious agenda for fairness, sustainable growth and a green recovery, does not have access to the levers and the powers that it needs and that, in so many instances, the UK Government, who do, do not even want to make use of them. We will do our best in diligently trying to improve this Bill. We will engage with experts and we will move our amendments, which the UK Government will almost certainly choose to reject. I look forward to the day when these financial powers are vested much closer to the people of Scotland, in our own Parliament, where we can make much better use of them.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), principally because I can say how wonderful it is that the Scottish people have enjoyed the benefits of this great British vaccine success. It has been enjoyed by the entire United Kingdom, and funded by our deep commitment to UK life science, which comes from the United Kingdom Government. The great Scottish cluster benefits from that hugely. I was surprised not to hear the hon. Lady accept and regret the fact that, had the Scottish Nationalist party succeeded in persuading the people of Scotland to leave, they would not now be enjoying the vaccine security that they currently are. It is a wonderful thing. We are stronger together in health as we are in economics.
As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary put it so eloquently at the start of this debate, covid has been not just a health catastrophe, a global pandemic on a scale that none of us in this generation has seen before, but an economic catastrophe. It has been an economic shock to this country and to the global growth engine, which is not yet over. It is a sign of the generosity of the Treasury’s support that it will be only when the furlough programme, which has been rightly extended, ends in the autumn that the beginnings of the full reveal of the economic damage will strike us all. It is for that reason that the measures in the Finance Bill and in the wider relief that the Government have put in place are to be so welcomed and are so important.
I will, if I may, start by echoing the comments of others and by thanking the Chancellor and his teams—both his ministerial and official teams. It is not that common to praise Her Majesty’s Treasury in this Chamber, and particularly not for moving with speed, compassion and an instinctive desire to spend money on behalf of the health of the British people. This happened both in the economic crisis in the crash, when the Treasury moved at pace over one weekend to put in place a phenomenal package to prevent the meltdown of the City of London, and in this crisis. Indeed, it is barely possible to think that, a year ago, the Chancellor stood here and took the nation by surprise with the pace, compassion and speed with which he announced his package. The fact that more than 1 million jobs have been furloughed and protected and £800 billion has been spent in immediate relief is an absolute cornerstone of the fact that the economic recovery that we are now beginning to see is so strong.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes a comparison between the Treasury’s response to the covid crisis and the Treasury’s response to the last financial crisis. I wonder, therefore, whether we ought to be blaming the enormous deficit and debt now on Conservative profligacy or whether we will finally accept that, in 2007-08, as now, the Treasury did exactly the right thing to prevent the economic situation being even worse than it would otherwise have been.
George Freeman
The hon. Member makes an interesting point that I relish responding to. My praise was for the Treasury in moving at pace to solve and sort a crisis incubated by the last Labour Government in leaving this country deeply vulnerable as a result of a whole series of measures put in place during the Blair and Brown years, not least the smash-and-grab raid on our pensions and the foolish and reckless deregulation. The Treasury moved quickly to solve a crisis, but I am not claiming, at the same time, that the Government of the day were not responsible for incubating that crisis. They are different points.
Jesse Norman
May I remind my hon. Friend of a fact that he will know well? The leverage ratio of the British banking system was 20 times equity for 40 years until the year 2000, after which it went up from 20 times to 50 times in seven years under a Labour Government.
George Freeman
I thank the Financial Secretary for pointing that out. I am tempted to remind everyone that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and then Prime Minister sold the gold at a record low and various other things, but I shall not be distracted—I simply record that—and focus on this Budget. I will not list all the measures in it, but I want to highlight one or two that the people of Mid Norfolk and I particularly welcome and then highlight three points that we need to think about as we seek to drive a powerful recovery.
I particularly welcome the measures in the Budget for the self-employed, who, in the first part of covid last year, were hit hard. Many of them were living at risk, hand to mouth and on each month’s proceeds, without the stability of a company behind them.
There is also the support for apprenticeships and traineeships. In Norfolk, when the furlough ends, we are expecting to see between 30,000 and 50,000 unemployed. The Government have rightly moved quickly to make sure that a very powerful skills and training pathway package is in place, so that people who have left old jobs that have not survived this accelerated crisis—it has accelerated much of the challenge on the high street—can quickly find jobs in the new economy that we are creating.
I want to highlight the £700 million package for the arts, culture and sport. In particular, we need to support the artists and creative people at the heart of those industries, not just the buildings. It is that genius—that creativity—which is so key to the British instinctive creative spirit, that we need to support. Rather too many of our great artists are working in all sorts of jobs and seeing their artistic careers disappear. We need to make sure that we keep them busy and get them back to work.
On levelling up, I highlight the Government’s phenomenal package of support, rightly making the crisis not just a moment to prop up the pre-covid economy but to drive growth out. The 45 town deals and the eight freeports are genuinely transformational for places such as Teesside that have been left behind by successive Labour Governments, who ought to have been representing them better. There is the move of the UK infrastructure bank to Leeds, the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund, the Help to Grow for SMEs, the future fund and the substantial commitment to net zero and the green infrastructure that we need for a proper recovery. This was a Budget not just to repair the damage of covid, but to lay the foundations for a more sustainable and sustained economic recovery, creating jobs and opportunities for generations to come. I welcome it particularly for that reason.
That financial package is allied with the extraordinary success of the UK life sciences community, and perhaps at this point I could, as a former life sciences Minister, pay tribute to its extraordinary work. In particular, there are the scientists at Oxford and AstraZeneca, to whom we owe so much, and in Norfolk, there is the work of the Norwich Research Park and the Quadram Institute, which has done pioneering work in some of the genetic sequencing. At the same time, I welcome the work of the vaccine taskforce, led by the redoubtable Kate Bingham, with whom I know the Financial Secretary has a strong working relationship. I am tempted to channel my inner William Hague and remember the time when he commended Yorkshire for having more gold medals in the 2012 Olympics than France. In fact, he went further, saying that Mrs Brownlee had won more gold medals than France in those Olympics, and I do not think any couple has done more for the UK health economy than the Financial Secretary and the head of the vaccine taskforce.
I genuinely believe that this package is responsible, responsive and lays the foundations for a resilient set of public finances. The challenge now is to get the growth that we need from the private sector to build a really sustainable recovery, and I want to turn to that and make three key points. First, if we are really to escape debt—the debt legacy from the crash in 2007-08 and the debt legacy from covid—and to build a clean, green, smart economy, we need not just to get back to ticking over with 2% to 3% growth; to get to 4%, 5% or 6% growth, we will have to be able to host, or incubate, economies growing at 100% a year. That is the key to growth in this economy. We cannot escape debt by building over the whole of the south of England or building over any last rural area around Cambridge. To support growth, we have to make sure that we grow the economies that will grow our economy, building back better one local economy at a time and one sectoral economy at a time. To avoid the boom and bust of the City, housing and retail cycles that have left us in this state, the Treasury is absolutely right to commit to the deep infrastructure investment for tomorrow’s growth sectors. I am delighted that after my short period in the wilderness, the Prime Minister has asked me back to lead his taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform to look at where, as we come out of covid and seek to lay the foundations for this recovery, free from the European Union’s regulatory frameworks but still able to trade with its market, we may be able to strike a blow for bold innovation and regulation for innovation.
I want to highlight some sectors that are growing spectacularly and that, if we were to invest strategically, would help to grow our national economy in the same way. The broader bioscience sector includes not just pharmaceuticals but the bioeconomy sector of food, medicine and energy, and, in particular, areas where those three support each other. In Norfolk I recently sat in a Lotus built at Hethel Engineering Centre that was powered by a Formula 1 low-carbon biofuel made by genetically modified bugs breaking down agricultural waste. That is what I mean by bioscience and the bioeconomy. In this century, it is biology and bioscience that will drive growth globally, just as physics did in the last century and chemistry in the one before. We are a phenomenal powerhouse in the biosciences, and if we invest in that, support it and commercialise it better, we will grow the industries of tomorrow.
Similarly, in nutraceuticals, where pharmaceuticals meet food and nutrition, there is a whole range of new crops that support growth and crops that are drought resistant and disease resistant, such as crops we export to Africa to help drive sustainable development. In biosecurity, and plant, animal and human health, we share much of the genomic sequence with most of the animals that we rely on in our agricultural system. There are huge opportunities for us to breed out susceptibility to disease and traits that will lead to huge suffering. There is a huge opportunity to harness genomics for the benefit of animal welfare, as well as progressive agriculture, in artificial intelligence, in immunotherapy, in space, in biofuels, in carbon capture and storage, and in biodiversity investment. These are huge sectors that this country is poised to grow into substantial industries, creating jobs and opportunities for tomorrow. If we get the regulatory regime for this right, which Brexit gives us an opportunity to do, and, as the Treasury is doing, we invest in the deep infrastructure and create the right commercial environment, I genuinely think that this is a moment when we could unleash a new cycle of growth, so that we look back at this, yes, as a crisis, but also as an opportunity, such that future generations will thank us for getting us off the boom and bust cycle of over-reliance on short-termism, the City, housing and retail booms, and laying the foundations for serious global growth based on technology transfer.
Secondly, from the perspective of rural Mid Norfolk—not 40 miles from Cambridge but at times feeling like 100 miles, or 100 years, from it—the small towns are fundamental. That is why I welcome so much the 45 town deals in the Budget. I hugely welcome all of them and the work that is being done. However, it is vital that as the Treasury launches these funds, we also think about how we can make it easier for the places and communities that have often been left behind because they do not have the resources of a metro Mayor or the big capacity to access multiple Government funds. Somewhere in the mix is a role for what I might call local regeneration corporations—small, fleet of foot, locally place-based public-private partnerships with powers to access money for multiple funds and deploy them over a five or 10-year plan to drive transformational local change and to pull in private finance alongside public. They would have the powers to do some compulsory purchase, to move in quickly and regenerate land left fallow after covid, to embrace some of the opportunities of land value capture and tax increment financing, and to raise infrastructure bonds and finance. Many investors around the world would love to contribute to and have a stake in this British recovery. Many places around our country will not be able to access on their own sufficient finance from the Treasury. We need to make it easy for them to drive local engines of growth that will go on in decades to come, in a similar way to the successes of the London Docklands Development Corporation, the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation and the County Durham development corporation in the ’80s and ’90s, which were so transformational.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about regional economies. On engines for growth, does he think that regional mutual banks might be part of the solution? They are very effective in places such as Germany and the US, focusing on regions, making sure that SMEs get lending into the productive parts of our economy. Would he look at that as part of his remit on regulatory reform?
George Freeman
With pleasure, and I can go further. My hon. Friend is typically astute and on the money—absolutely. It is true that in the pension funds of this country, we invest remarkably little in equities, remarkably little in small company finance and remarkably little in our own infrastructure. I am not for a minute suggesting that Norfolk County Council should put all of its money into the Cambridge to Norwich railway, although I think it would be quite a good investment, but it would be an awful lot better than finding it had quite a lot in the Iceland bank during the crash, where we lost a lot of money. There needs to be a reasonable balance. I think a lot of people in this country would quite enjoy having a stake in their own infrastructure.
People have season tickets. What about also having a share in the mutual railway company and a share in infrastructure that they are helping to fund and that they rely on? That is part of the revolution of place-based capitalism—one might even call it stakeholder capitalism, if one were on the Opposition Benches. We can call it what we want, but it is about giving people a stake in their own economic destiny.
The third area that I wanted to highlight is the importance of global markets. If we are really going to become an innovation nation, home to these incredibly exciting technologies that will drive tomorrow’s growth, we need to make sure we are better connected to those emerging markets around the world, which are growing at 10% or 20%. As the Foresight report highlighted, global population growth means that by 2050, we are going to have to double food production globally on the same land area, with half as much water and energy. That is a phenomenal global grand challenge, but it is one that this country is well positioned to respond to, with our historic strengths in agricultural science and technology and the biosciences I have talked about.
The real trick is how to link our leadership and innovation and commercialisation in the City to global markets. I suggest that our liberation through Brexit from the European trading structure, challenging though it is in many ways, does create an opportunity for us to embrace variable tariffs. Imagine if you will for a moment saying to countries in Africa, “Look, we are not going to charge you 40% on food tariffs, like the European Union—that is immoral. We will reduce it to 5% or 10%, but 0% is only for those who are growing and producing at the most responsible and progressive standards—the very highest standards of animal welfare and food quality. We will help you to do that by exporting the technologies that we have developed here using our aid budget.”
With those commitments to growth and local places, and to globalisation, this is an opportunity, given what the Treasury has done, to make this crisis a genuine moment to unlock a new cycle of growth for the benefit of this country and generations to come.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Budgets and their associated Finance Bills give practical meaning to the political aims of Governments. Manifestos and the rhetoric of party-leading Members and eventually the Queen’s Speech are the mechanisms used to describe the society that the governing party aims to construct, but it is its Budgets and its Finance Bills that are the tools by which the foundations of that society are laid. What we can discern from this Finance Bill is that, despite all the rhetoric from the Prime Minister, and all the personalised, personally signed social media promotions by the Chancellor, the society they want to build back to and to return us to is, in essence, the same pre-covid society of insecurity and inequality that left us so vulnerable to the pandemic.
I have heard the Prime Minister and the Chancellor claim that we have only been able to meet the demands of a pandemic because of the so-called strength of the pre-covid economy, so it is worth reminding ourselves what the pre-covid economy was like. Some 4.2 million of our children were living in poverty—30% of children in this country. Rough sleeping had more than doubled. Food banks were handing out 1.5 million food parcels a year. Nearly a million people were working on zero-hours contracts. Going into this pandemic, the NHS had suffered the longest funding squeeze in its history and there were 100,000 vacancies, including 40,000 nurse vacancies. Social care was even worse, with £8 billion taken out of social care budgets since 2010 and, according to Age UK, 1.5 million of our older people not getting the care they needed. The existential threat of climate change was effectively ignored, with the Government hopelessly off target to secure even the modest goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
We cannot stand by and let this Government return us to all that. If this Finance Bill is to have any relevance whatsoever, it must address those issues, but also the impacts and challenges presented by the pandemic, which has exacerbated many of those issues of the pre-covid economy.
Unemployment is forecast to hit 6.5% this year. Introducing the furlough scheme without conditions enabled fire-and-rehire employers to cut wages and conditions of employment. Low wages and inadequate sick pay have resulted in around 750,000 households being behind on their rent or their mortgage, and millions more are behind on basic household bills. With the eviction ban ending on 31 May and, realistically, no action on debt from the Government, we risk a surge in evictions leading to more homelessness.
Public services remain stretched, in many areas to near breaking point, getting through only by the commitment and dedication of often underpaid and still undervalued staff. Half of all care workers earn less than the living wage—the real living wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said from the Front Bench, the Government clapped for our key workers, yet now they are rewarding millions of them with a pay freeze or an insulting 1% rise. Inequality was rising before the pandemic, and the pandemic has only widened it.
The Government’s response, contained in this Finance Bill, has nothing to do with building back better. Some have suggested that, because the Government have been forced by the pandemic into large-scale spending and borrowing and corporation tax rises are now mooted, the Chancellor is implementing the policies advocated by Labour in its 2019 manifesto. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not the rhetoric that is important; it is the substance. Without structural change in our economy that fundamentally shifts the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people, our society will simply replicate the inequality and injustices of the past.
This Finance Bill demonstrates that it is largely the same old Tories and the same old Tory policies taking us back—building back, but not better for the many. If we look at the evidence from the Budget and in this Bill, far from addressing the mounting poverty in our society, the Government are not only cutting universal credit but freezing the tax thresholds of the low paid and doing nothing for those who do not even earn enough to reach the threshold.
On low pay, the Government have already failed to meet George Osborne’s much-heralded target of a minimum wage of £9 an hour by 2020, and they are imposing a pay freeze on many of the very people who have helped to see us through the pandemic. To compound that disregard for people struggling to get by on poverty pay, there is also nothing in the Bill that discourages employers from using brutal fire-and-rehire tactics to force through permanent wage cuts.
The timings of the Bill’s tax proposals betray the reality of the Government’s attitude to inequality. The Bill pushes through a tax threshold freeze for low and middle earners but delays corporation tax increases, which there is already speculation could be dropped in a pre-election giveaway to business at some stage in the future. Plus, the Bill contains no action to fulfil the much-publicised proposals to equalise the rate of capital gains tax with income tax. The Government have talked about levelling up, but Tax Justice UK’s analysis demonstrates that 1,600 of the wealthiest Londoners made more in capital gains than the entire north of England. Instead, the Bill proposes super deductions tax reliefs—a huge giveaway of £25 billion to large corporations.
As we have debated in this Chamber, tax reliefs have a long history of corporate abuse and failure to meet their stated objectives. I remind Members of the cross-party debates we have had on the issues around the entrepreneurs allowance, the patent box and the tonnage tax, to name just a few of the allowances that have failed to deliver and been open to abuse. Unless legislative protections are put in place, there will be huge opportunities for tax abuse and waste, and a level of corporate looting that could make the billions at stake in the crony contracts and the Greensill scandal look like chicken feed in comparison.
Similarly, previous track records demonstrate that the Bill’s proposals for freeports will, unless strictly regulated, open up a vista of tax abuse, wage undercutting and the drainage of investment from surrounding regions. It cannot be right that the Government’s freeports will be in place before the Office for Budget Responsibility has done any assessment of their merits. As Tax Justice UK has pointed out, the Treasury does not even have confirmed costs for this policy, despite the Government already announcing the eight freeport sites.
Also, nothing exposes the vacuity of the Bill more than its real failure to address the existential threat of climate change with firm action. There is nothing in the Bill that dictates this priority and the scale of investment and action needed to address the crisis of climate catastrophe that we now face. If there is one thing that people have maybe begun to learn in recent months, it is that the promises of the Prime Minister and the policies of the Chancellor do not generally coincide either with reality or, as some have alleged, with the truth.
This Finance Bill evidences starkly the level of corporate capture of this Government. This is a Finance Bill for the corporations, not the people. Before the much-heralded corporation tax rises ever happen, corporations will be compensated with huge tax reliefs, including the massive £25 billion tax giveaway to corporations paid for by tax rises on working people. At the same time, £15 billion of cuts each year in departmental budgets will continue the austerity that has undermined our public services over the last decade. So, far from building back better, this Finance Bill lays the foundations for widening inequality and continuing a low-pay, insecure work economy, complemented by huge potential for tax abuse and with crony capitalism virtually embedded in our economy.
The test of the Government’s purpose in the Bill will be their attitude to the amendments that will be inevitably be tabled to protect the lowest paid from the stealth tax increases of threshold freezes; to ensure that tax reliefs are not used as methods of tax abuse; to make unearned wealth taxed at the same rate as income from work, as was proposed by the Government; and to prevent ministerial interference, tackle low pay and exploitation and ensure that responsibilities to tackle climate change are upheld. From their attitude to those amendments, we will see whether this Government are a Government for the people or, as I suspect, a Government for the corporations.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I welcome the Bill. It is worth trying to get under the skin of Budgets, because it is so difficult. There are so many documents, there is a huge build-up, and large parts of it are incomprehensible to anybody other than the Financial Secretary. As Members of Parliament, we have to try to get under the skin of what, fundamentally, is going on here—what are the Government trying to do with the key measures?
In my view, the Chancellor is fundamentally trying to deal with one big thing that has not got enough attention in the House: our productivity problem. He is dealing with some of our deep-seated, deep-rooted economic productivity problems in two principal ways. The flashier one—and there has been some discussion of it today—is the super deduction, but I will not linger on that. In particular, I want to talk about the Help to Grow scheme, which is fundamental, transformative and can make a big difference to businesses across my constituency, Hertfordshire and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom.
On the super deduction, from listening to some of the criticism from Opposition Members, I do not think they really understand the nature of what is going on. One of the biggest economic problems that we have had for a very long time is a lack of private sector investment compared with our neighbours. That private sector investment has been further damaged by the covid pandemic for obvious reasons, as everybody appreciates. The super deduction is an inventive, creative, clever new way of turbocharging and increasing private sector investment and moving it forward so that we can help build back better during this very difficult phase that we are trying to come out of.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) kept going on about tech companies. Well, I am afraid that he obviously has not read the detail. The super deduction is about plant and equipment. Plant and equipment tends to impact manufacturing businesses. I know that the Labour party is going through all sorts of internal difficulty and transformation at the moment, but it is a sad day when the Labour party cannot welcome measures that will benefit manufacturing businesses up and down this country.
Sammy Wilson
Furthermore, had the hon. Member for Ealing North read the detail of the Bill, he would know that the super deduction is on new capital equipment, not on second-hand capital equipment. So even the manufacturing of equipment, provided it is made here in the United Kingdom, will generate jobs and income for firms here in the United Kingdom, which will then, as the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) pointed out, increase productivity in the firms that invest in the machinery.
Bim Afolami
I welcome that intervention. Opposition Members have also been saying, “This is only going to benefit the big companies, and the poor small companies won’t benefit.” First, it does benefit all companies if they qualify. The smaller companies already have the annual investment allowance, which is continuing and has been welcomed by everybody, including by them. And—whisper it—big companies are important for our productivity too! Big companies employ lots of people, so it would be negligent of the Government to say, “We are not going to bring forward a measure that will help our economy because it might benefit big employers that employ thousands of our constituents.”
Kevin Hollinrake
May I add another point to my hon. Friend’s list of positives? Lots of the money spent because of the super deduction will be spent in the supply chain, thereby helping SMEs.
Bim Afolami
Indeed. I am having too much fun on the super deduction—I will talk about the Help to Grow scheme in a moment—so I shall finish on it. The super deduction is not something that the Chancellor just thought up as something that it might be a good idea to try; it is backed by fundamental economic analysis by people as eminent as Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England, who I saw today has been appointed chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts. He is an incredibly able guy who has done a huge amount of work and thinking on this issue and is one of the many economists who have talked about investment being a key problem for our economy.
That brings me to the second key thing that the Budget will do for productivity: the Help to Grow scheme. So much of what we talk about in this place is the big numbers—the massive infrastructure projects, the huge budgets for the public services and all of that, which is all very important—but specific measures for small and medium-sized businesses often do not reach the Floor of the House. They are either hyper-localised in one’s constituency or they appear to be too big and too macro. The Help to Grow scheme could be really important, because it does two things that will directly help small and medium-sized businesses such as the family business that my wife runs, which employs five people, and hundreds of thousands of other companies like that.
First, the Help to Grow scheme helps to deal with our economic difficulty—pointed out by Andy Haldane, among others—which is that in most areas of the economy and of the country, we have an incredibly well-performing top 10% of highly innovative, successful companies, and we have our poorest-performing companies, and the gap between those two groups is greater than it is among all our competitors. That gap is around 80% larger in the United Kingdom compared with France and Germany. That is a significant economic difficulty for us. The question is: why is that the case?
The Bank of England’s analysis points out two key things among lots of different things. The first is technology adoption. In effect, the most successful, innovative companies adopt the newest technology and use it well, and the companies at the bottom end do not. The Government are trying to address that diffusing of knowledge throughout the economy and throughout different regions with the Help to Grow scheme. How? The Government are providing grants and assistance for productivity-enhancing software for companies in every single sector and the ability for them to get online help and advice on what technology to adopt. That could make a huge difference to hundreds of thousands of businesses all around the country and should be welcomed by everybody in this House.
The second aspect of our productivity difficulty is management and our utilisation of human capital—that is, the people who work in businesses up and down the country. How are we dealing with that? The Chancellor has an MBA from one of the best MBA schools—if not the best—in the world, Stamford, and went on to have a very successful career in finance. Not everybody will be able to do that or has the time and ability to do that, but everybody—right down to the small companies in each of our constituencies—can get huge benefit from access to high-quality management training provided by the very good local business schools up and down the country. The Help to Grow scheme gives the individual managers and owners of SMEs the ability to access that sort of knowledge, which is the sort of knowledge that most people running SMEs do not get.
If we combine that improved management capability—by the way, the Bank of England has identified that management capability is poorer in this country than it is in our competitors—with the adoption of technology, we have a ready-made mix of policies directly targeted to improve the most difficult aspects of our productivity problem. I do not know whether Help to Grow will deal with everything—I suspect it will not—but it will make a big difference, and it is a shame that so few Opposition Members have managed to understand and see the depth of seriousness of the Chancellor’s approach in that regard. That really needs to be brought out.
I shall finish—[Interruption.] Yes, I know I should finish. Hanging over us today is not just as an unusually cold April but the spectre of inflation potentially coming back in the next year, two, three or four years. There are many people warning about this from all over the world. If inflation does come back to whatever degree, interest rates may need to go up in future. If interest rates do go up, lest the House forgets, the need for fiscal responsibility will not have gone away. Small rises in interest rates do not just affect households trying to get mortgages or businesses trying to expand or to get debt; they also affect the Government hugely. Underpinning the Chancellor’s approach across everything I have said and lots of other things that have been talked about is a core understanding that fiscal responsibility matters. This Finance Bill helps to keep that in check, reminds the House of that, puts us on the right course and deals with our productivity problems, and I welcome its Second Reading.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]
I support the reasoned amendment in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I hope to make a brief contribution, given the scope of the debate—I do not want to fall foul of your legendary patience and tolerance levels, Madam Deputy Speaker—but it goes to the heart of the concerns on the Opposition Benches that the Government are failing to address the many challenges faced by a whole variety of sectors across the country, especially in the light of covid.
I want to use one example in due course of the lacuna—not addressed substantively in the Bill—that may affect the finances of families and the broader health of the economy, which in turn impact on revenue raising. It is a proxy for the wider malaise that the Bill does not address.
I appreciate that the Bill is about raising revenue and not necessarily the spending of that revenue. In this regard, my call for spending on palliative care—the care that enables people to live life as fully as possible and enjoy precious time with loved ones before the end of life—is vital, but is not necessarily about revenue raising. However, I recognise that the Government have to some degree recognised how important the independent hospice sector is to our health and social care and the benefit it brings to the economy. The Government have recently used revenue from previous Finance Bills or borrowing to support the sector and enabled it to survive. Crucially, that eases the financial pressures on the families of those affected who need palliative care, but that is a proxy for the Government in this Bill not addressing the real needs of the economy.
The economy has been under stress and will continue to be so for a considerable period of time. We all have our experiences of families who are affected in one fashion or another, and palliative care and the support of people in that situation are part of that. It is time for the Government to recognise that they have to look after those in most need and use the benefit of the Finance Bill to raise revenue to support them.
The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) talked about productivity. Yes, we are one of the worst nations in the G7 for productivity. We are about 30% less productive than the Germans, about 20% less productive than the French, about 9% less productive than the Italians, and similarly 30% less productive than the Americans. There is nothing at all in this Bill in substance that deals with productivity issues. As much as the hon. Gentleman likes to say it, the Bill does not deal with that. It does not deal with job insecurity, low pay and low skills. It does not deal with inequality in education, social care and health. It talks about levelling up, but when, where and how? They are just phrases. There is absolutely no action and no route for the action that the Government wish to take over the years.
My example in relation to the health sector, and in particular the palliative care sector, is a proxy to say, “We should be investing our resources in supporting people in need, whether that is on job security or the hospice sector, because if we do not, it impacts on the economy in one fashion or another.”
I do not want to go on too much, so I will finish on this point. I would like to put on record my disappointment that the Government are continuing with the no amendment of the law provision. As the Hansard Society notes, if there is no amendment of the law resolution, then
“no amendment”—
to the Finance Bill—
“may be moved unless the relief proposed is covered by one of the Ways and Means resolutions…Nor may an amendment…exceed any figure prescribed in the relevant resolution.”
In doing this year after year since about 2017, outwith elections, the Government are breaking a 90-year-old protocol. They are freezing Parliament out. Regrettably, this is yet again more chipping away at the powers of the House by the Executive’s sequestration programme, supported by obtuse Members on the Benches opposite. That is all I have to say on that matter.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd).
In considering the provisions in the Budget presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 March and the ensuing Finance Bill, it must be borne in mind that they are being delivered against a backdrop of wholly unprecedented economic circumstances. The global economy has suffered a shock that has not been seen for almost 100 years. Set in that context, my right hon. Friend has generally struck the right balance in supporting people and businesses through the crisis, beginning the task of fixing the public finances and laying the foundation for an investment-led green recovery.
There are some very welcome initiatives: the extension of furlough to the end of September; two further grants for the self-employed, with an additional 600,000 people eligible; the restart grants; extending the VAT cut to 5% for a further six months, before tapering for another six; the extension of the business rates holiday for three months, before tapering for nine; the increase in corporation tax, but with a small profits rate retained at the existing level; the super deduction on capital investment; and the steps to promote pension fund investment in infrastructure.
From a Suffolk and Waveney perspective, the headlines in the Budget and the Bill are the Felixstowe freeport and the Lowestoft towns fund deal. These can be a catalyst for private sector investment. For the latter, where I sit on the place board, it is estimated that the £24.9 million of public funding will leverage in £350 million-worth of private sector investment. Previously, I was doubtful about freeports, concerned that they move business around, displacing projects rather than attracting additional investment. However, taking into account the unprecedented challenges of covid and the opportunities of Brexit, it is necessary to pursue policies that can help to attract footloose global investment, although, as we heard, the provisions of the policy will need to be looked at very closely.
A concern I do have is that the focus on freeports could lead to the abandoning of enterprise zones, introduced very successfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) in 2012. The Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone has worked very well. Its provisions need some changes, so that it is properly aligned with the exciting opportunities emerging in the maritime and port sectors. It is important that that and other enterprise zones continue.
The Finance Bill paves the way for the levelling-up fund and the UK community renewal fund. There are elements in the small print that cause me concern. With the former, the Lowestoft and Waveney area, where there are significant areas of poverty, is in the priority 2 category, while with the latter there are no priority places in Suffolk, yet there are in the surrounding very similar counties of Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire. This appears illogical and not properly thought through. I am writing to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government seeking clarification of the selection criteria.
Covid has hit hard the poorest in society. It was thus right that a year ago the Government moved quickly to introduce the £20 uplift to universal credit and to provide unprecedented levels of funding to local government for welfare support. I welcome the extension of the universal credit uplift to the end of September and the one-off payment of £500 to those receiving working tax credit. However, I am concerned that the impact of covid on the most disadvantaged will extend beyond the end of the summer and could well be heightened at the time that furloughing is scheduled to end.
The Government have put in place some very good initiatives, such as the kickstart scheme, the restart scheme and the lifetime skills guarantee, but there needs to be a strategic approach to providing people with a pathway out of poverty and there is a worry that some important stepping stones are missing. I urge my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to work closely with his Cabinet colleague and my constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), to ensure that we have a welfare support system that is fit for the task ahead. This should incorporate proper long-term funding for local welfare assistance and synchronisation with the implementation of the national food strategy, and it should ensure that those on legacy benefits are not left behind.
In conclusion, the Bill provides the framework for meeting the biggest economic challenge in our lifetime, but there is a need to look more closely at some of the detail, whether the criteria for bidding to economic regeneration funds or the need for a strategic approach to welfare support. I hope that the Government will do that in the weeks ahead.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
This week the shops have opened, many of us have finally had a haircut and some have even had their eyebrows done. Vaccines are being given out and unemployment has started to fall, which we all welcome. We know how hard this year has been for our constituents and the challenge of how to help weighs heavily on the minds of many across the House. Some would say that that challenge is just about the impact of the pandemic and that this week shows that it is slowly being addressed—that it has been a horrific year with the loss of loved ones, and the shutdown of businesses made necessary to prevent transmission, but we are making it through. And let’s be honest, some people have done well in the last year. We have seen them: the ones who have been able to spend time with their families and to work from home okay—wi-fi willing. They are the ones the Chancellor is counting on to spend their savings and make his sums work—the people to whom short-term measures to keep pumping up our housing market and spending on DIY will appeal.
Thanks to the Chancellor’s efforts and legislation such as this, everything is neatly in place for a classic short-lived consumer-led boom. Cheap borrowing costs and the stamp duty holiday mean that the residential property market is red hot. Indeed, last November, this country paid back more than it had borrowed on its credit cards for the first time since July 2013. But to say that we are heading out of the woods and just to keep going is to fail to recognise why we are so vulnerable in the first place, why the UK economy collapsed so badly over the last year and why our communities were so at risk of harm from the virus that our death rate has been so high—the underinvestment and austerity that mean that our productivity rate is so sluggish, our poverty rate is rising and our people are not waving but drowning in their debt. We do a disservice to our communities if we underplay these issues or the scale of the task ahead.
We need a Finance Bill made not for the here and now, but for the long term. We cannot go back to normal when normal means 23% of our population living in destitution; when millions of people are sitting on debts and rely on insecure work in industries that will never be the same when furlough ends; when our health inequalities have worsened so dramatically over the last year.
In addressing those underlying problems in our economy, I can welcome much in the Bill. I recognise that it is right to look at corporation tax, given that those with the broadest shoulders should help the most with repairing our fractured economy. We should be tackling the devastating impact on our environment of plastics; with some amendments, the proposals could drive not only a reduction in use, but new industries. We should be trying to tackle tax avoidance, although I always tell Treasury Ministers that it would be simpler to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) what they should do next.
The truth is that the Bill takes a nut to a sledgehammer. We would do better if we were to start again, rather than continue on with the fantasy that, with a few tweaks here and there, everything can go back to normal—whatever normal is. My worry is that relying on the fantasy the Bill creates will leave millions of families abandoned who may have weathered the shock of the pandemic, but were always going to be sunk by continued austerity. While millions have benefited from working from home and being able to save, millions more are struggling to make ends meet, having lost their job or seen their income fall.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that last year the richest fifth of households swelled their bank balances by over £400 a month, while the poorest were about £170 worse off each month. This is not people spending to entertain themselves during lockdown. Citizens Advice shows that roughly 6 million people have fallen behind on at least one household bill during the pandemic. Most people visiting the citizens advice bureau for debt advice are not coming to ask about credit card debts or rent-to-own purchases; instead, they are in debt to the public sector because of tax credit overpayments, benefits overpayments, council tax arrears or utility bill arrears. The Trussell Trust tells us that over half of food bank users struggle to afford food and clothes because they are repaying universal credit debts. Anyone who questions why that extra £20 matters should look at that information and realise that it needs to become permanent.
In total, £10.3 billion of debt and arrears attributable to covid have built up in the UK, most often by those who were already struggling before the pandemic—people such as renters, young people, single parents and low earners; people who, now that evictions have restarted, have few options when it comes to keeping a roof over their head; and many who were excluded from Government help altogether. I see nothing in the Bill to change those facts. Indeed, instead of helping, the Bill is walloping them with a tax rise. It squeezes family finances by freezing the personal allowance, after many families will have struggled to pay their increased council tax bills as well. The Chancellor might think he is being clever by using the least visible taxes to raise funds, but I tell him this: the public will notice. They notice when nurses get a pay cut, when VAT goes up and when they have even less money left at the end of the month with which to pay their bills. They notice just how segregated this country has become, with the haves and the have-nots not just in income terms, but in the divides between town and city, north and south, because of our failure to invest in the people of this country.
“Freeports!” the Government cry in answer. The Bill suggests that this will somehow generate jobs and growth in communities that were struggling long before anyone had heard of covid-19, but no one can explain why, if regulation is bad for business in the Thames Gateway, it is not bad for businesses in my community in Walthamstow. This is not the levelling-up agenda we need. It does not recognise that we stand alone among OECD economies in the extent to which our productivity problems are regional rather than sectoral, or that a super-deduction scheme will do little to invest in the children of Hartlepool, Harwich or Hendon.
We need not just to build back better, but to build back for all. Andy Haldane has highlighted that around 10 million people in this country are on insecure contracts. Our economy was so hard hit by covid because it was over-reliant on services, which made up as much as 80% of our GDP, whereas just 14% was based in construction and just 6% in manufacturing. The Bill shows that the Government still have not learned the lessons about how we are able as a nation to handle future shocks and diversify; to invest alongside business and academia in new technologies; to learn from the vaccine programme and encourage co-operation and innovation alongside the state and not in spite of it; or, in the run-up to COP26, to provide the incentives to renewable energy manufacturing and production that could futureproof our economy for decades to come.
This Government have no answer to our research and development sector, which is crying out for support while they use this Bill to give a tax break that will go to the biggest corporations and venture capitalists. Our charity sector is on its knees, but it gets nothing from this legislation. Charities cannot claim the super deduction tax for their IT equipment, whatever the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) might suggest.
Other nations are investing in their people and infrastructure, yet our Business Secretary has chosen this moment to abandon the industrial strategy enacted just four years ago and replace it with something that is neither industrious nor strategic. Combined with the approach in the Bill, that will simply confirm what a lot of companies and investors have already suspected for some time—that it is unwise to expect any UK Government to stick to a programme of supply-side reform for more than a couple of years. Frankly, the UK has generally got away with muddling through economic crises in the past, but the scale of the challenges that we approach makes that inadequate at this point in time. And we have not even today even really begun to understand how the B-word—Brexit—interacts with these longer-term challenges, hitting as it does our high-productivity export sectors while covid hurt our employment-rich domestic service sector. But truthfully, nothing in the Bill will help those at the mercy of either factor—unless they happen to have shares in Amazon or Google, or possibly the Chancellor’s private phone number.
Austerity has weakened the very foundations of our economy, but it is a political choice that the Chancellor is making in this legislation to use straw dust, not concrete, to try to repair them. Parliamentary time is valuable, and tax and spending is crucial to get right in such a context, so I propose to the House that we reject the Bill today and instead demand better for all our constituents.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
The Financial Secretary set out very clearly that the post-pandemic context of the Bill is unlike anything that we have faced before. What I see in the Bill is an understanding that it is not Government’s role to create growth and prosperity. Government does not create wealth or growth—consumers and businesses do that. We, like a groundsman, have the crucial job of preparing the pitch for our players. We have the crucial job of ensuring that the players—consumers and businesses—have the right pitch that they can play on to create that growth and prosperity. There is no doubt that we are playing on a really tough wicket at the moment, so we have a really tough job on our hands as that groundsman; but I think the Bill rises to that challenge.
With that in mind, there are two questions that I ask about the Bill today. The first is whether it maintains and secures support for businesses and consumers in my constituency and throughout the UK. In Hertford and Stortford I have spoken to so many businesses—so many pubs and restaurants, and those in hospitality—that will greatly welcome the extension of the VAT cut, the business rate holiday, restart grants and the many other measures of support that the Chancellor is delivering through the Bill. We could combine those with extending the lost carry-back, providing new VAT deferral payment schemes and extending furlough—things that I do not have time to cover. The Government are clearly innovating and continuing to provide packages of flexible support that will maintain protection for those businesses and the jobs that are still subject to restrictions.
The second question is whether the right combination of policies is in place to enable long-term, sustainable economic growth. That is the area most important to the long-term health of our economy, and that is where the Bill contains measures that I particularly welcome, such as the super deduction, freeports, the UK Infrastructure Bank, Help to Grow, the Future Fund breakthrough and refinements of our tax system, which will ensure that investment levels keep pace in this country and grow to support innovation and promote growth in strategically important sectors of the future—I commend the remarks on that subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman).
To keep it brief, I am very happy that with the Bill the Government have risen to the challenges that we face and I wholeheartedly support Second Reading. It gives us the pitch that we need, as the economy’s groundsman, to withstand the bouncers and the strength to knock the ball out of the park—well over the boundary—for the future. I commend the Bill and look forward to seeing its results on the ground, particularly in Hertford and Stortford.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I think everyone recognises that the Chancellor had a very difficult job when bringing forward the Budget and the subsequent Finance Bill. There are many things pulling in different directions. On the one hand, as the Financial Secretary said at the very start, we have to make sure that we have dealt with the impact of the restrictions on the economy and the difficulties that was causing for businesses. Secondly, we have to look at the recovery: how to recover from GDP falling by 10% and unemployment going up by 700,000—indeed, there may be other factors to come—and then, of course, we must look at the long-term sustainability of the economy. At the same time, we did not want to be sending out the signal that we are careless about the debt we have incurred, otherwise the signals to the financial markets may cause us a bit of difficulty. So no one envies the Chancellor the job he had to do.
Before I say anything about the objectives the Chancellor has set out, I want to make some comments about specific Northern Ireland parts of the Finance Bill. As has been discussed time and again in this House, the Northern Ireland protocol has placed considerable burdens on the Northern Ireland economy already. One of the areas affected has been the steel industry, or industries that use steel in Northern Ireland. Because of the quota system and the taxes where steel is consumed out of quota, they faced 25% increases in the cost of steel. My party drew this to the Chancellor’s attention, when others were of course trying to pooh-pooh the impact of the protocol; they supported it, so they did not want to know its bad effects, although now they cannot ignore it.
As the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), has said, when the issue was drawn to the Government’s attention, it was dealt with, and I welcome clause 97, which tackles it. It ensures that engineering firms in Northern Ireland, which do have considerable global markets, but would have found those global markets affected by the 25% tariff, are now exempted from that. I would just point out to Members that one of the major landmarks in London is the Shard, and the steel for the Shard was cut, packaged and sent in sections from Fermanagh in Northern Ireland and is now part of one of the iconic buildings here in GB. Many engineering firms of course export heavy machinery, and the steel tariff would have been extremely onerous on them.
I am disappointed, however, about other issues that we were told would be dealt with in the Finance Bill, such as the customs regime that has caused huge costs in Northern Ireland. Customs declarations for even the simplest thing now have to be made for goods coming from this part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland, which has added considerably to costs. I was speaking to a firm today, and on average—and it does not even matter what the size of the order is—the cost of customs declarations, supplementary declarations, frontier declarations and the guarantee management system arrangements adds £20 to an order. When the firm ordered a specialist screw that cost 35p, there was a £20 surcharge on it because of the arrangements under the protocol. I was hoping the Finance Bill would deal with some of those issues, but it has not, and I think the Government will have to come back to them.
Let me come to the issues the Chancellor had to deal with. I do not think anyone can deny that the Government took the right course of action. They had no option in my view. When they decided that they were going to close down the economy, they could not abandon workers, firms, businesses and so on, so huge amounts of money—over £400 billion—have been spent on support. As a Unionist, I keep on reminding people in Northern Ireland that the support that businesses have had, as well as furlough payments that workers are still getting, self-employed payments and so on, are owed to the fact that we are part of the fifth biggest nation in the world and, without the support of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom, we would not have been able to find a way through. Of course, the health service has also benefited from the vaccine programme. On that aspect, the Government have made the right choices and those clamouring for independence, even if they have no emotional ties to the United Kingdom, ought to remember the economic benefits of being part of the United Kingdom.
At the other end of the scale, looking to the future and having a sustainable economy, the Finance Bill deals with many of those issues. We have already had a discussion today on the tax allowances, which have been maligned by the Labour party, but they are designed to ensure that businesses across the United Kingdom have an incentive to use their profits to invest to increase productivity and competitiveness and to benefit from the opportunities that Brexit will bring us in doing deals across the world. Spending on apprenticeships and training will increase the skills of our workforce and prepare those who need to move into new industries with the skills they will need, again increasing productivity and competitiveness.
There has been some debate about the value of freeports, but they, too, will help to deal with the long-term sustainability of the economy. My main concerns are on the aspect that concerns most people in the immediate period: does the Finance Bill deal with the issues that must be addressed to get us back from where we are at present and help us to start growing the economy? I will look at the figures given in four areas. Let us take the income tax proposals and the freezing of allowances. I understand that the Government have not increased tax rates, but the freezing of allowances will increase the tax burden. If we are relying on consumer spending to aid our recovery—do not forget that 80% of our GDP is consumer spending—even though there may be some pent-up unspent money and demand, when we nevertheless consider that as a result of the proposals over the next five years we will take 25% more in income tax from people in the economy, and 10% more in the next year, we must ask: will that dampen the immediate increase in GDP and the immediate demand we require to get businesses going again?
Let us look at VAT. Yes, I welcome the rate for the hospitality industry being held until September, and then there will be a reduced rate until March 2022, but I speak to businesses in the hospitality industry who have already expended considerable amounts of money converting their premises to make them safe and, even though they have had support over the last year, many have still had to dip into their reserves because not all their costs were covered. One hotelier in my area told me that in the last year he has spent £3 million of his own money paying those bills that still come in and for which he was not given any support, and no support was available. Businesses will therefore find themselves in a perilous position and we do not know how quickly they will be able to operate fully. When will restaurants be able to have people sitting inside? When will pubs have people sitting inside? While still social distancing many will be operating with lessened capacity, and if they cannot do that, their profitability will be affected. Yet even before all the restrictions are lifted—they will be lifted at different rates in different parts of the country, and in Northern Ireland we do not even have a date for restaurants and pubs being allowed to open—we find that some of that support will be removed.
My third point is about business rates. Again, if we look at the impact of business rates over the next five years, the impact of the Budget means that in money terms, the business rates take across the economy will go up by 50%. In the next year it will go up by 20%. That is a considerable burden on businesses that are coming out of a difficult period, that have not built up cash reserves, and that still do not know exactly how the economy and the demand for their services will increase.
Corporation tax has been mentioned, and on one hand—I have some sympathy for this—those companies that invest will get the super allowances. However, because of the increase in corporation tax and so on, over the next five years covered by this Budget, corporation tax take will go up by 112%, or 20% over the next year. If we are looking at how to stimulate recovery, we must ask whether taking that amount of money from consumers, businesses, and the hospitality industry will reduce the impact of the Budget and make it more difficult for the economy to recover.
My final point is about air passenger duty. Air passenger duty is going up, and over the next year, the take from that duty will increase by 50%. According to Red Book figures, over the five years of this Budget it will go up by 300%. This industry is currently in the doldrums. It has no prospects, because we do not know when international travel will be allowed again. It has already had a considerable drain on it, and there has been no specific strategy for it as there was for the hospitality industry. In many areas of the United Kingdom, especially areas such as Northern Ireland where we rely almost totally on air connectivity, there has been an impact from the reduction in flights. I came here yesterday. There was one flight from Belfast City airport. That is putting airports under severe strain, yet when we consider the proposals in the Finance Bill, we find that rather than there being any help for this industry, which has been particularly badly hit, the proposals in the Bill represent a huge cash take from that industry in the next year and over the next five years.
For those reasons, although I commend what the Government have done regarding the particular problems caused by the economic decisions made to deal with covid, and I commend their long-term strategy in considering how to make the economy more sustainable in future, there is a big gap regarding what impact the Bill will have on the immediate recovery. We are going to have a difficult period. Once furlough finishes, we do not know what the impact on the economy will be, what the redundancies will be like, and what that does. The proposals in this Finance Bill, I am afraid, do not give me any optimism that the right decisions are being made. Some support did need to continue to be given. In their desire to reduce the debt and bring in more revenue, the Government may well have made the wrong decisions that will stymie our recovery and have impacts on many areas, especially those that are most vulnerable to downturns in the economy, including regions such as Northern Ireland.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I strongly support those MPs from Northern Ireland who are urging the Government to move on and make sure that we can restore the important trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It has been damaged. The EU is being too intrusive. The Northern Ireland protocol clearly sets out that the United Kingdom is a whole and has its own internal market. It states that Northern Ireland should be fully part of that market, and that is not true today, so I urge the Government to take control over all trade that is internal—trade from GB to Northern Ireland and not going on to the Republic of Ireland, therefore not of concern to the European Union—and to ensure that it runs smoothly.
That is just one part of a much bigger picture that we need to fuel a strong recovery. Of course I agree with the Government that the current level of deficit is unacceptably high and we cannot go on with deficits on that scale indefinitely. I also agree with the Government that it must be a one-off, and the Government did need to be very generous, given all the damage being done to individual livelihoods and businesses by the health measures being taken to combat the pandemic. But all the time that restrictions and adverse measures are in place for health reasons, the Government should continue to be generous. People and business need support. We want people to be available to go to work and businesses to be available to produce goods and services as soon as they are legally allowed to do so.
It is a big cost, but it is manageable. We are seeing around the world that many Governments are having to do the same thing, interest rates have stayed very low and, so far, the debt has remained affordable. I encourage the Government to understand that the deficit will collapse very rapidly as soon as the controls are off and all those policies in place to promote a fast economic recovery take effect. We are going to have a much faster recovery than normal once the controls are off, because we had a much bigger fall thanks to the controls themselves, which, in an unprecedented way, stopped people working and stopped businesses trading.
The Government should take some encouragement from the United States’ example. The United States’ monetary stimulus and fiscal stimulus are huge. If we adjust for the size of the economies, the stimulus under the Federal Reserve Board’s actions and President Trump and now President Biden is about twice the scale of the UK stimulus in monetary terms and is considerably higher in fiscal terms. Perhaps the US is taking more risks with inflation than we would like. I am not suggesting that we need to match the American numbers, but I am saying to the Government that we are nowhere near the American numbers, so worry not. This is the time for stimulus—this is the time to make sure that the economy is properly supported and people can get back to work.
With that in mind, I urge the Government to look again at the idea that we need tax rises in the years ahead. If we threaten too many tax rises, it will damage confidence. We will put people off investing here and make people nervous about spending and make them want to save more. This is the time when we need people to spend, to recreate those jobs and get businesses going again. This is the time when we really need businesses to want to come to the United Kingdom or to stay and grow in the United Kingdom, because we need that massive investment. We are short of capacity in all sorts of areas. We have had too much deindustrialisation over the last few decades, and now is a great opportunity to promote it. The Government recognise that with their short-term measures to boost investment, but they may need to show that we are going to have a very benign climate on business tax after the initial impetus and stimulus is offered. If people think that we are going to gravitate to the average or to a higher tax regime, it will put them off.
I pray in aid our neighbour the Republic of Ireland, which has been extraordinarily successful by having an extremely low corporation tax rate. It is 12.5%—a knockout low rate—and what has happened? First, the Republic of Ireland collects far more as a proportion of its total tax revenues from business than us or other European Union countries, because so many great companies have gone there and book a lot of profit there, since the rate is obviously agreeable and favourable.
The Republic of Ireland also has a much higher GDP per head. It is more than twice the EU average, and it is considerably higher than the United Kingdom’s. That is entirely because the Republic of Ireland has this extremely attractive tax policy, which has been so successful in attracting a lot of inward investment, a lot of jobs based on that, and a lot of turnover and profit booking, particularly from great American corporations.
I do not know how that will work out now that President Biden is encouraging a minimum rate, which would mean almost doubling the Irish rate; we will have to see. However, in the meantime, if anyone doubts the power of lower rates to generate prosperity, greater GDP per head and, above all, greater tax revenue, they should look at the Irish example, which is very vivid.
I would like to see the Government speed up with their freeports and be very generous with both the number of freeports and the areas they cover. I also urge the Government to be as friendly as possible to business on taxation and on permits over what to do with the land and how to create all those extra jobs we wish to see. It is an interesting initiative, and the sooner it is rolled out the better. Surely, this is the time we need it—when we need to promote recovery.
I also say to the Government that we need our small business community to get back on its feet and to be able to trade again successfully. Small businesses have had a lot hurled at them, and some of them did not manage to benefit from all the schemes that the Government put forward, so they have been particularly hard hit by up to a year of lockdown or impediments to their trading and their normal work.
I do not think this is the time to be looking at new taxes on small businesses and the self-employed. I do not think the IR35 idea is a particularly good one. It would be good if there were more forthcoming to promote small businesses, which we are going to need. They will have flexibility and the ability to respond. If every self-employed person were able to take on an extra employee, it would transform the employment position, but that requires patient work on ensuring that it is affordable and that the administrative burden is not too great, obviously without undermining important protections for individuals as employees, which we rightly value.
We need flexibility and support from the Treasury and the rest of the Government to understand how important small businesses and the self-employed will be to trigger this revival and to build back in a different way—to build back better, as they are saying on both sides of the Atlantic and as this Government are saying. That implies doing different things, and it requires the innovation and the productivity-driving measures that can come from small companies and the self-employed, who need to be flexible.
There is a huge amount to be done, but the Government should be of good cheer. There can be a very rapid recovery. They have not done too much on the deficit or the monetary stimulus and have fallen quite a long way behind America in the size of the stimulus. They should be ready to do more, be generous if the controls have to go on longer than we would like, and work with the small business community and the big business community on what is a sensible tax regime. There are issues still to be solved on business rates and VAT. The whole purpose of the reviews should be to promote a strong recovery—better jobs, more better-paid jobs, more small business—and then the revenue will flow. Think of the jobs, the incomes and the prosperity, and the revenue follows. Thinking too much about the revenue first, in the mood of putting everybody’s taxes up, will be a great dampener on the recovery we need.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). My comments relate to the small and medium-sized enterprises that he was talking about so passionately. The sage of Omaha, the great Warren Buffett, once said that what we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. I particularly want to look at what happened to the SMEs after the last recession—the global financial crisis. It was the five years following 2008 that were so destructive for SMEs, and I am very keen to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I was interested in the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray). On tax avoidance, he must never have heard about the diverted profits tax or the digital services tax; they are very key measures. One thing about the DST that should be looked at—perhaps he will join the calls for this to be looked at as well—is that direct sales of Amazon are not covered by the digital services tax. That gives Amazon a competitive advantage over the other sellers on its platform, which cannot be right.
The Government are consulting on business rates reform and have three ideas: a land value tax; an online sales tax; or VAT. I strongly urge the Minister to consider VAT as a replacement for business rates, which I advocated in my ten-minute rule Bill.
The shadow Minister talked about social care a lot. He mentioned many problems, but did not come up with any solutions. One solution that I have advocated long and hard in this place is a German-style social care premium, which, hopefully, will feature in the Green or White Paper that is due to come forward shortly.
The Government have included many things in this Bill for SMEs. A typical SME is very grateful for the support that it has received from the Treasury, which has done a tremendous job in concert with its various agencies, introducing the job retention scheme, VAT discounts, and rates grants, particularly rates discount.
The Government have also introduced some very good loan schemes. I speak as co-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking. A very wise commentator said at the start of those loan schemes that the Government would not lend £1 billion using those loan schemes; some £75 billion later, we can see the success of those schemes. That, of course, has led to an unprecedented level of debt among SMEs in this country, which is what I am particularly worried about. On top of that are the new loan schemes coming from the recovery loans, which will be more difficult for SMEs to access. Unlike the other schemes, there is a forward-looking viability test, which will be challenging. Either way, it will mean that many SMEs are carrying lots of debt, which they will struggle to service over the next few months and years.
Furthermore, what will happen when the Government pull those schemes and let the banks go on their own in terms of lending? After the last crisis, banks were not very good at lending to the SME community from their own resources—bank lending to SMEs reduced by 25% between 2008 and 2013, just at a time when SMEs needed it. In Germany, where there is a high proliferation of regional mutual banks, which take a much more patient approach to SMEs, lending went up by 20% from those bodies. A policy that we should really push in this country is decentralising our business banking system, so that, rather than 80% of lending coming from large banks, we move towards a more regional, mutual, not-for profit system of banking, which would have a transformative effect in terms of lending to the productive economy.
The key thing in terms of making sure that SMEs are treated fairly is in the forbearance process. When businesses hit trouble, they need to be treated fairly and consistently. The Government did absolutely the right thing with bounce back loans. They set up a framework for how it would work, which lets SMEs take 12 months interest free, or payment free. They can take another six months of no payments whatsoever, and then another 18 months of interest only. They can also extend the loan to 10 years from the standard six years, which more than halves the payments on bounce back loans, which is great, without getting into any credit problem with their bank.
Similar measures do not apply to coronavirus business interruption loans or the larger scheme, CLBILS. That leaves businesses on their own. I urge the Government to work with the banking system to ensure that businesses of all shapes and sizes that have accessed these loans to help them through the crisis have these forbearance measures at their disposal without them having to go cap in hand to the bank. We know that banks are not very good in these situations when their money is at risk. Their shareholders need returns. We need support for SMEs.
Personal guarantees are also an issue, which will come as a surprise to many. I have put personal guarantees up for my business lending most of my life. If someone puts up a personal guarantee, most people think the bank will go to the business first, look at the business assets and realise those before it goes to personal assets. That is not the case—it does not have to do that. It can go straight to personal assets. The Lending Standards Board put in place a policy that banks should look at business assets first before going to personal assets, which has now been dropped from its regulations or guidance. I would very much like to see that brought back in, particularly at this time.
Thankfully, there is now dispute resolution in the form of the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Business Banking Resolution Service. All businesses with a turnover of up to £10 million will get access to free dispute resolution, which should mitigate some issues, but there are concerns nevertheless. I urge the Treasury to look at this point and make sure that businesses are treated fairly over the next few years in the fallout of this crisis.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I, too, pay tribute to Prince Philip; in tribute to him, I am wearing my father’s tie. Like Prince Philip, he served in the Royal Navy in the second world war. He lost his own father at the age of 12; Philip was, of course, estranged from his father at 13. Both fought the Nazis.
I mention this partly because the main conflict there was the battle of the Atlantic, which was the attempt by the Germans to starve Britain. In 1939, half our meat, 80% of our fruit and 70% of our cereals were imported. Last year, 80% of our food was imported. Thanks to the botched Brexit deal—there was no mention at all of this in the Budget—we now have the prospect of self-imposed food shortages. In January our exports to the EU, our largest market, were down more than 40%. Imports were down by 29%. They will go down more when we introduce non-tariff barriers. The reality is that in Britain today, a carrot pulled up in Spain on Monday could be on our shelves by Thursday. That will no longer be the case. We face the prospect of food shortages and food inflation.
The Office for Budget Responsibility found that the botched Brexit deal would cost the economy 4% within 15 years, and something like 1.4 million jobs and £1,300 each. The reason we are seeing tax increases, taking us to a share of taxes not seen since the 1960s, is not the pandemic, which is a one-off hit that will be recovered, but the ongoing problems of the botched Brexit. We need to remember that. We need to look towards better realignment and better trade with our closest marketplace.
The other thing to bear in mind is that last year something like 1 million people from the EU left this country to go back to Europe. Many will not come back, partly because of the hostile environment here, and that creates an issue about the size and quality of our labour market when it comes to productivity and production. The EU is already questioning the legality of our breaches of the Northern Ireland protocol and there is a question mark over divergence of standards and protections in the future that might lead to tariffs. If we manage this badly, we may be hit even harder.
For those on the Government Benches who say, “Oh, don’t worry—we’re opening up loads of other markets,” it is worth remembering that, the Japan deal, for example, is worth £1.5 billion to GDP, but if it had been done through the EU, it would have been worth £2.6 billion, because it can negotiate a better deal because it is bigger.
The truth is that while the Government are spending enormous amounts of money on covid, that is not really the explanation for the massive personal tax increases that Britain will suffer.
The other thing to mention about productivity, other than the loss of young workers to the EU, is that not only have we had the highest rate of death in the world from coronavirus, but there is clearly a move, once we have got people over 50 vaccinated, to be reckless again. The issue is the fall in productivity of younger people with long covid. We all know anecdotal examples, but we do not know the full impact of that. I have knowledge of music students, for instance, who have had a shake—a violinist—or who cannot blow the trumpet as well because they have lost lung capacity. These issues are significant for the overall productivity of our economy in the future.
On the workforce being fit and ready to work for our recovery, we should also think about the fact that in today’s Britain, 7.6 million people are living in hunger, 1.7 million of whom are children—it is an absolute disgrace. They are left in food insecurity, as the UN calls it and as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently reported. In essence, that means that they do not have sufficient nutritious food on a daily basis. That is deplorable.
Interestingly enough, in 1952, when the Queen came to the throne and Philip was 35, rationing was still in place for sugar, butter, meat, cooking fat, cheese and so on. In that year, Aneurin Bevan, the founder of the national health service, famously wrote “In Place Of Fear”, in which he warned that while we had to confront poverty and that it was difficult to define, the basic requirement was to ensure that there was no hunger. He warned that if millions were left in hunger, our civilisation would be at risk. It is certainly the case that we now face a depleted, physically weakened and hungry workforce. That surely is not the recipe for the productive economy that we need for the future. On top of that, our youngsters have lost a year in education—[Interruption.] I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Government say that they have spent a lot on coronavirus and of course they have, but we have read in the newspapers and elsewhere that, in many cases, the money has not been well spent—personal protective equipment, track and trace and food parcels that have been done through Tory party dealers. We have also heard about David Cameron being involved with Greensill. There are question marks about how well this Government are treating taxpayers’ money.
When it comes to the Chancellor, of course we know that he was a founding partner of the hedge fund, Theleme, which presumably had a partner stake. We do not know about that because those tax returns and details are in the Cayman Islands, but we do know that that particular hedge fund appreciated in value from something like £7 billion to £39 billion shortly after we heard news that the Health Secretary had ordered 5 million doses of the Moderna vaccine, in which the hedge fund had invested. We do need to get to the bottom of these things and find out what happened. If it was the case, for example, that the Chancellor had, say, 15% of that hedge fund, his share of that increase—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I do think it is quite important that we address some of the issues in the Finance Bill, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be doing that.
Geraint Davies
Thank you very much for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just going to turn to the nurses’ pay increase. Had the nurses been granted a 5% increase in pay in this Budget, that would have cost £1.7 billion gross, but in fact, after looking at the recovery of taxes from both income tax and sales tax—consumer tax—we see that it would have cost just £330 million a year. On my calculation, that is about a 10th of the value of the appreciation in the hedge fund that I was mentioning—the 15%—that would have been privately earned by the Chancellor. Obviously, we need to have these figures disclosed. I am trying to put in context the fact that we can afford to pay the nurses a decent wage. There are tremendous amounts of money moving around at the moment and we do not really have a proper tie on it.
We should contrast that with what is happening in Wales, where we have a more effective system of track and trace, PPE is bought more effectively, food parcels are not bought privately but down to local authorities, and the sickness rate and death rate from coronavirus are much lower. We should contrast it with the way that money has been invested to help business. The Chancellor has put money into cutting stamp duty, and lots of that has been spent on second homes—but not in Wales—because that money is not well targeted where it is needed. Money has been given to large businesses with large properties, but again not in Wales, where the larger supermarket stores with big properties will not get the council tax relief because they are making extra-normal profits during coronavirus. The issue is investing money where it is most needed.
Turning back to the nurses, in Wales we have the highest proportion of single earner households in the country and the lowest average wage, which is 70% of gross value added in terms of the UK average. These people might include a nurse as the only earner in a poor household who has faced nearly 10 years of pay freezes and now another pay cut. It is no surprise that nurses are going to food banks. These things are not necessary; they are political choices. I am just drawing the contrast between those who have so much and those who have not enough.
Mention has been made of Amazon and the fact that it and others have basically decimated our physical retail side. There are questions about what should be done about that. In my view, local authorities should be empowered to provide digital marketplaces to support local businesses to sell to local people with overnight delivery so that people would have a choice between sending their money offshore to some huge American organisation that does not pay tax, is destroying local jobs and undermining workers and supporting local businesses through a collective approach with a modernised online service.
We have of course elections coming up, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and people are making these financial choices and comparisons—including, in Wales, those aged 16 to 18. In this Budget, prescription charges in England are now going up to £9.35, whereas in Wales people do not pay for prescriptions. In Wales, we have ensured greater safety by giving advice that people do not travel more than four or five miles, whereas in England people could go wherever they liked. In Wales, a two-metre rule was put into legislation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. May I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman again and say that we really need to address the Finance Bill? I think the feeling is that perhaps he might be bringing his remarks to a close fairly shortly.
Geraint Davies
Yes, that is my feeling as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply making the case that owing to a more cautious approach in terms of coronavirus, we have got to a situation where productivity is better supported.
I will bring my remarks to a close as you suggest, only finally to say that we need to do more on the issue of climate change and the environment, because 64,000 people a year are dying from air pollution, while nothing has been done about diesel or accelerating towards electrification. We need to look at a different approach whereby we can generate growth and opportunity for the future.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). Before I begin my short remarks on the Finance Bill, I would like to put on record—because I was not able to be here yesterday—my condolences and those of my constituents to Her Majesty the Queen on the death of the Duke of Edinburgh.
This Finance Bill follows a year of unprecedented economic disruption unknown in the modern era, as well as a year of unprecedented support from the Government to business and individuals, ensuring not only their jobs but their lives and livelihoods. That has been true for millions of citizens, including those in my constituency of Wimbledon. This Finance Bill therefore needs to enact measures that ensure not only that our economy is in a place from which to recover and bounce back, but in one from which we can also see sustainable future growth—growth that is clean and green.
We all know the OBR forecasts that were set out in March; I will not reiterate them now. What is clear to me from reading economic commentators since then is that people are now expecting the economy to grow more quickly and more strongly, and for that recovery to be more sustained. That must be in large part due to measures in the Finance Bill that build the necessary confidence and give people necessary security for the future, including the extension of the universal credit uplift; the one-off £500 to those on working tax credit; the job retention scheme; and the self-employment income support scheme. All those measures are combined with the restart grants of up to £6,000 for non-essential retail and £18,000 for hospitality businesses. Those provisions are now extended to my constituency; initially the £51,000 threshold was not in place. I have to say to the Treasury Bench that I am extremely grateful on behalf of the hospitality industry in Wimbledon.
My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury will not be surprised that I wish to make two very quick points about the people who have been left out. First, I make the plea yet again on behalf of the English language teaching sector. Those schools received no support and are hugely important to constituencies across the country. Secondly, I know that my hon. Friend will have read clause 117 and schedule 29 on the prevention of tax avoidance and promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The explanatory notes state:
“This clause and Schedule have also been introduced in order to see the responsibility for the obligations within POTAS, and for any failure to comply with them to be placed on the people and entities behind the schemes.”
I have to say to my hon. Friend that a number of us have stood up for what we believe to be hard-working small businesspeople who have been in those schemes and recommended those schemes, and we feel that if that clause had already been in place, many of those people may not be suffering from the problems of the loan charge now. Even at this late stage, if she has the chance to talk to colleagues about this issue, we would be very grateful.
It is clear that we need a Finance Bill that looks at investment and improving infrastructure, so that we see improvement in productivity. I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who set out the clear economic rationale for the super deduction. It is a vital measure to encourage business to invest now. Historically, the UK has underperformed; we have failed to invest at similar levels to our economic peers. It is investment that drives some of the factors that I mentioned a moment go when it comes to improving productivity. Therefore, supercharging investment through a super deduction means that we are likely not only to strengthen, but to lengthen the economic recovery. That seems an entirely sensible, welcome and rational economic measure.
It is also likely that we want to see measures that improve not only physical infrastructure and capital formation, but human formation. I particularly welcome the support for new apprentice hires in the Bill. I encourage the Government to think a bit more about this, as it is the way of the future. Could we not link the new apprentice scheme to, for instance, the length of the super deduction? The super deduction is in place for two years, while the new apprentice scheme is in place for six months; I encourage the Government to think about linking the two. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that human capital formation and investment in skills are as important as physical formation.
Like many colleagues, I was fascinated to hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who spoke at length about driving growth through innovation and the adoption of new technologies. Of course he is right. When one talks to a number of the people at whom the super deduction is aimed, one learns that it will be commonplace—it almost is now—that they will be investing in things such as AI, 3D printing and big data. Alongside that, we will need a workforce that has in-demand skills, so I particularly welcome the investment in digital skills and the lifetime skills allowance that the Bill will introduce.
Many Members have referred to the freeports policy, which clearly brings the opportunity to boost jobs in regions and to boost economies through the use of differing tariff regimes for different sectors. My hon. Friend the Minister will know the principal criticisms of freeports—that they merely redirect economic activity and investment.
May I talk about next year’s Finance Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, just for a very brief moment?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
This is a debate on this year’s Finance Bill.
Stephen Hammond
I urge the Government to think about learning the lessons of economic history in respect of the power of putting wider economic development zones and the encouragement that they bring alongside freeports. We all recognise that such zones need seedcorn grants from the Government; that could give the Government the opportunity to consider local recovery bonds. We have already seen the prospect of the green infrastructure bond; why do we not see some local recovery bonds to sit alongside that work and boost economic development zones? That would seem to me to be a perfectly sensible development.
The Chancellor is absolutely right to focus on infrastructure spending and investment. Infrastructure is not an end in itself—it is the driver of growth and productivity—so the policies coming through and the measures in the Bill to allow the increase in transport spending and in departmental spending limits are welcome. I also welcome the establishment of the UK infrastructure bank. It is the private sector that will drive the investment that is necessary.
As I said a moment ago, the green gilt is welcome, but just as I urge the Government to think about local recovery bonds, I urge them to think about an infrastructure bond. As many will know, there is a consultation on the capital cap for pension funds; if that change is combined with an infrastructure bond, we could see a wealth of pension funds looking to invest in the UK’s economic recovery.
Finally, the jewel in our crown is undoubtedly financial services. A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked about the need for mutual banking and to encourage small banks. I urge the Government to think about a review of the regulation of financial services and banking to ensure that the regulation with regard to conduct and capital is competitive and appropriate. That will drive not only those sectors but the investment that will sustain the economic recovery that everyone in this House seeks.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
This Bill is a catalogue of hard choices unconfronted, challenges ducked and emergency measures to deal with the pandemic used as a fig leaf for the failure to face up to long-term challenges.
We have heard a great deal in recent months about the Government’s approach to public procurement—how personal friends of Ministers get to jump the queue when contracts are being handed out. We have heard a great deal in the past few days about how friends of the former Prime Minister get preferential access to Treasury officials to make the case for financial support.
In keeping with that theme, the Chancellor presented a Budget for selected beneficiaries. Carefully handpicked groups are going to do well, but it was clearly not a Budget for the nation as a whole. We could have had, for example, a bold move on business rates. Real reform in this area to level the playing field between high street and digital retail has been long overdue. I was delighted to see retail and hospitality reopen across my constituency yesterday and I hope that predictions of a retail boom, funded by savings built up during the pandemic, will materialise to the benefit of our small businesses, but consumer behaviour is changing and that change has been accelerated by the pandemic. What is the long-term future for our town centres? How will our communities thrive without the retail businesses that traditionally provide the heart of our towns?
We need to lower the barriers to entry to retail and other town centre businesses, and invite new entrepreneurs to try new ideas. However, instead of business rates reform or devolution of power to local authorities, which could have allowed for real change across the whole country, a select few high streets, mostly in Tory-supporting constituencies, get a cash bung. What is the long-term plan for the retail sector and for small businesses in our high streets? These businesses support our communities, providing flexible and well-paid jobs. They support entrepreneurship at all levels and in particular provide opportunities for women.
Small businesses of all kinds will have breathed a sigh of relief at the Government’s announcement that they plan to continue furlough and business rates holidays until the end of September, but what will happen then? I worry that there will be a huge spike in unemployment when furlough ends and I see nothing in the Budget that will address that. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to cut national insurance contributions for small businesses in order to boost employment in this sector.
We have also seen very little action for those groups that have been excluded from financial support during the pandemic. What frustrates me is that so many of the sectors that have been hardest hit are the very same that we should be investing in as key strategic industries that can provide future growth for the economy as we move out of the pandemic. In particular, the cultural sector, the travel sector and the live events and exhibitions sector have been left scrabbling for support, with many of their contractors and freelancers excluded from help. The continuing failure of the Government to help those individuals is completely baffling. When the cultural sector is reopened, it will struggle to find skilled staff as so many will have been forced out of the sector by financial necessity and will find it extremely difficult to come back.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention again that many people who were excluded from help were contractors moving between pay-as-you-earn contracts, which they were forced to take on because of the IR35 regulations that the Government are still insisting on introducing. Had they been able to continue as self-employed, they might have qualified for help.
The biggest opportunity missed, however, is the fight against climate change. We have heard many warm words on global warming from this Government. They appear to have grasped the magnitude and immediacy of the crisis we face, yet they have no plans for action. The 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, released before Christmas, announced a wide range of aspirations, but no concrete policies or spending commitments. The Budget continues that trend. Liberal Democrats welcome the new direction to the Bank of England to take account of climate change, but that is a small drop in an ever-deepening ocean of what needs to happen if we are to take the necessary action.
The Government have shown with this Budget and Finance Bill that they are not serious about achieving net zero and creating a green recovery. They have gone as far as scrapping the industrial strategy, leaving businesses in the dark about how the UK will tackle climate change and achieve green growth in the years to come. The Budget promised to re-establish a new infrastructure bank, which merely replaces the green investment bank established by the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and sold off by the Tories in 2016. There was nothing on extending the green homes grant scheme, which could have tackled fuel poverty and cut energy bills for millions of homeowners while cutting emissions—and since then the Government have scrapped the scheme altogether. The Government even failed to cut VAT on home insulation products to encourage people to invest in their home themselves. There was nothing on increasing incentives on electric vehicles, including VAT cuts or new grants. There was nothing on investing in more public transport or new walking and cycling infrastructure. Liberal Democrats wanted a Budget to kickstart the green recovery, but the Conservatives have failed to deliver. We must see a bold green recovery plan that will invest £150 billion in the next three years to tackle climate change, create new green jobs and help us to grow our way out of this crisis.
What is the Chancellor’s plan for investing in sectors that will create jobs? It is freeports in selected sites, yet there is little evidence that they increase economic activity rather than displace it. Again, we see the benefits concentrated in preferred areas of the country, rather than a strategy for the country as a whole. The one advantage of freeports, of course, is that they can avoid the customs duties and paperwork currently creating such a barrier to trading, thanks to the Government’s terrible deal with the EU. I find it extraordinary that the Chancellor has made no mention of how he plans to offset the OBR’s projected 4% hit to the UK’s GDP as a result of leaving the EU. He is bringing forward planned economic activity or concentrating it in specific areas of the country, rather than investing in new sources of wealth and future jobs. This Budget ignores the real needs of our economy, both for the immediate challenges of the pandemic and for its long-term future.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I welcome the Bill, which delivers on the Budget. The Budget struck the right balance, providing the immediate support that businesses need to enable us to begin the economic recovery from the past year, paving the way for sustainable growth in the mid-term and laying the ground for some of the tough decisions and challenges that we are going to face in the years to come to balance the books.
I particularly welcome the measures to support the hospitality sector. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, a sector that has been among the hardest hit as a result of the lockdowns. All the measures that were in the Budget, including extending the VAT cut and the business rate holiday, the additional round of grants, the extension of the furlough scheme and the additional self-employment income support scheme, have been hugely welcomed by the many businesses in my constituency that rely so much on tourism and hospitality. I also very much welcome the extension of the universal credit uplift, which will be vital for many families to support them through the rest of the spring and summer.
There is lots in the Budget and the Bill to welcome and support, but I just want to raise one element that I have grave concerns about. It relates to clause 98—I know that the Minister will be aware of this as I have already raised it with her—and it is the removal of the red diesel entitlement. Let me make it clear that, in principle, I absolutely support this measure. We need to move people and businesses away from an over-reliance on diesel and towards a cleaner and greener form of fuel, but I am concerned about the impact that the speed with which this measure is being introduced will have on one particular sector. I welcome the fact that agriculture and fishing will be exempt from this change and will continue to be able to use red diesel. That is vital for constituencies such as mine that have many businesses in those sectors, but there is another sector that is very important to my local economy: the mining and quarrying sector.
I should place on record that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for mining and quarrying. For more than 150 years, mid-Cornwall has been mining the highest-quality china clay in the world and exporting it around the world. This industry is still a vital local employer and a significant part of our local economy. The removal of the red diesel entitlement from businesses in this sector is going to cost businesses in my constituency alone more than £10 million a year. That is £10 million that is going to be taken directly out of our local economy.
I absolutely understand the Government’s rationale behind the decision to move people away from diesel towards alternative fuels to help to reduce their environmental impact and to help us as a country to move towards our net zero target, but the fact is that much of the heavy gear used in the mining and quarrying sector just does not have an alternative to diesel. The technology does not yet exist to provide an alternative form of cleaner energy. The sector will therefore bear the brunt of the Government’s decision to introduce this change from next April in the short term.
Let me also make it clear that the sector is not resistant to moving to clean power, and it has already done so where alternatives are available, but in many cases the technology is not yet available to replace some of its heaviest machinery with cleaner alternatives. It seems unfair to penalise businesses that are willing to move to cleaner fuels and sources of power but are unable to replace their diesel-powered equipment at this time. In the coming years, alternatives are likely to be developed, but I am told that we are probably at least five, and perhaps 10 years away from there being a viable commercial option. Imposing the change next year will mean that businesses face additional costs that they simply cannot avoid, which seems counterproductive.
As is often the case when decisions such as this are made, there are unintended consequences. The sector provides much of the raw material for our economy, particularly in manufacturing and construction, yet it will be unable to absorb the additional cost, which will result either in job losses or in rising costs. The Government’s ambition is to invest heavily in infrastructure and housebuilding. It seems strange, just at the time when we want to invest significant sums in building, to introduce a change that is likely to result in increased costs.
All this is unlikely to have any beneficial impact on the environment. There will be no reduction in emissions. Diesel will still be burned by these heavy-duty bits of kit because there is no alternative. It is not as though there will be a shift away from diesel to something else, because alternatives do not yet exist. If the aim of the measure is to reduce emissions, in the short term it is unlikely to achieve it. In fact, it could actually increase the environmental impact, because if it results in UK businesses becoming uncompetitive or, worse still, going out of business, we will end up importing these materials from countries that are burning diesel and increasing the carbon footprint.
I ask the Treasury team to look again at the speed at which the change is to be introduced. Let me be clear: I believe it is the right decision; I just question the timing of implementation. We need to give the quarrying and mining sector the time needed for new technologies to emerge, so that the sector can find alternative fuels before this significant additional cost is imposed.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill. It contains the right measures that our country needs now. I simply ask the Government to look at the speed of the removal of the red diesel exemption, particularly for the mining and quarrying sector, to give it time to adjust and the economy time to recover before the additional cost is imposed.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
The coronavirus crisis has not just been a public health emergency; it has been a social emergency as well—a social emergency worsened by the Government’s catastrophic handling of the crisis, which, as the Office for Budget Responsibility says, led to one of the worst economic downturns of any major economy.
Of course, for some, the pandemic has not been half bad—in fact, it has been a very good crisis for some. Serco and the like have been able to use the crisis to get their hands on contracts that should have been in the public sector, and boosted their profits. We have seen how contracts worth billions have been handed over to those with political connections to top Tories, and the Greensill case involving the former Prime Minister is no one-off—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not here in the Chamber and so is not getting the atmosphere of the debate, but no matter what the rules are, this debate is about the Finance Bill. It is only about the Finance Bill and matters within the Finance Bill, which is pretty wide-ranging. The hon. Gentleman appears to be making a speech that he might wish to make tomorrow. Could he please stick to the Finance Bill today?
Richard Burgon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The example I have just given is one of how our system works, and I would argue that that is entirely relevant to the Finance Bill, because while the super-rich have been able to profit from the crisis, the Government have washed their hands of others who needed support. Just this week, millions relying on legacy benefits such as employment and support allowance for disabled and sick people got a pathetic 37p increase in their benefits. What a snub, especially after already being refused the £20 additional payment that went to those on universal credit. With that 37p increase, the Government are deliberately punishing disabled people. It is yet another example of how they seek to make the vast majority pay for one of the world’s deepest economic collapses.
I will vote against the Bill because it fails to give NHS staff the proper pay rise they need, because it cuts the pay of millions of public sector workers and hands billions in giveaways to mega-corporations such as Amazon, many of which have done very well out of the crisis, because it leaves many of the lowest earners facing tax rises and because later this year it will cut social security payments for people who really should get much more help. I will vote against the Bill because it serves the few and not the many. This crisis has not only shone a spotlight on the deep inequalities in our society but widened them. We should be coming out of it with a more equal society, but, to help us do that, where is the tax on the companies that have made super-profits during the crisis? Where is the one-off tax on the super-wealthy as other countries are doing? I will vote against the Bill and table an amendment calling on the Government to take measures for a super-tax on the super-rich. We need to start to build a society that serves the many, not the few. That is what the Bill should be about, but it is no surprise that, with this Government, it is anything but.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
It is kind of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to call me in this important debate. I will try to reward that by sticking to the topic we are discussing. This is an excellent Finance Bill for a much-needed recovery. The UK is already a great place to start, grow and run a business, but to increase the rate of economic growth in the UK we need to restate and foster the pro-enterprise philosophy and measures that have served us so well in the past.
To govern is to choose and the Chancellor was absolutely right to choose fiscal discipline. The Bill begins to fix the public finances with a fair and honest plan about how to do so. Nothing is more devastating to enterprise and investment than high and volatile costs of borrowing, which wipes out small businesses like a pyroclastic flow clearing forested slopes. Thousands of otherwise successful businesses were crushed in the recession of the early ’90s caused by the error of the UK's membership of the exchange rate mechanism.
A centrepiece of the Bill is the super deduction. I have spoken to lots of businesses in my constituency, and it is already mobilising significant investment. The Bill also contains two excellent initiatives under the Help to Grow banner. I believe that the Government are really on to something here and that we could see the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy start to deliver a string of practical interventions to give small businesses a hand up. When the opportunity allows, I encourage them to go further. Only 10% of small and medium-sized British businesses currently export, leaving 90% of enterprises as potential exporters. That is a vast untapped opportunity to grow the scale and productivity of UK plc. Global Britain brings huge scope to increase the number of firms involved in international trade, but for many firms, where time is the scarcest resource, it is a big and uncertain step to take. Alongside the other elements of Help to Grow in this Bill, I suggest we make available grants to support exporting. It would be a natural extension of the support that the Government provide today under the useful, but relatively modest tradeshow access programme.
Like most, I welcome the extension of the lower rate of stamp duty in this Bill. On a future occasion, I encourage the Government to bring forward an exemption to stamp duty for downsizers. In many parts of the country, the real housing crisis is one of under-occupancy. With an ageing population, too many homeowners rattle around in accommodation that would be more suitable for growing families. Stamp duty is a real brake on downsizing. The Treasury will understandably be cautious about leakage, but it should be perfectly possible to define a downsizing transaction based upon the ratio of values and the limited time interval between the two housing transactions.
This is not an academic issue. Right now my constituents are blighted by development proposals on unsustainable greenfield sites in Ashington, Adversane, Buck Barn, Kirdford and Mayfield, all based on the fallacy that, despite the UK already having more than 600,000 empty homes and the highest rate of housebuilding since 2007, the only answer is to pile up even more supply.
For a similar reason, although I fully understand the context in which the decision was made, I regret the freeze on the lifetime allowance on pensions. The UK used to have one of the best systems of providing for retirement in the western world. Freezing the lifetime allowance is another Jenga brick whipped away from that once strong pillar. NHS consultants, headteachers and airline pilots are hardly plutocrats, but they now face a tax on thrift. Money that would have gone into well-regulated, well-diversified pension funds and been allocated to grow UK businesses has instead fuelled a boom in buy-to-let property, putting home ownership for millions further out of reach.
In the year in which the UK hosts the UN climate summit, let me conclude by welcoming two measures in the Bill that help us move towards a low carbon future. The first is part 2, which introduces a plastic packaging tax from next April. We should tax things we wish to have less of, and on that basis this is an excellent piece of legislation that will provide a clear economic incentive to use recycled material in the manufacture of plastic packaging. It is estimated that as a result, the use of recycled plastic could increase by around 40%, equal to carbon savings of nearly 200,000 tonnes a year and saving a lot of plastic from ending up in landfill and incineration. We only have one planet, so as soon as this useful measure is on the statute book, I encourage my Treasury colleagues to look at increasing the rate and lowering the exemption threshold.
Similarly, I welcome the removal of red diesel from many sectors, although I am glad there is a continued exemption for agriculture, which makes a significant contribution to the landscape in my constituency of Arundel and South Downs. Red diesel accounts for about 15% of diesel used in the UK and is responsible for the release of 14 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. This change will help the adoption of cleaner and greener alternatives, such as hydrotreated vegetable oil, and is yet another meaningful step by this Government, who are absolutely leading the world on climate action.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and to expand on the reasons so passionately set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) as to why the SNP will vote against the Bill this evening. The purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect to the Chancellor’s Budget. That Budget was a regressive Budget. It was an austerity Budget that turned its back on millions of those worst affected by the covid pandemic. It is a Budget that severely damages the interests of my constituents, so it is a Budget, and this is a Finance Bill, that I cannot and will not support.
Austerity is not an economy necessity. It is a political choice. It has been the first-choice response of almost every British Government of every complexion during my adult life, so it is maybe not surprising that so many people seem to have forgotten that there is a different way, a fairer way, and in fact a much more effective way to respond to an economic crisis. All we have to do is to care as much about the millions in these four nations who do not have enough to live on as we care about the lucky handful whose only problem is that they cannot count how many billions they have.
There is no disagreement about the fact that we need to start to repair the economic damage caused by the pandemic and by the measures that had to be taken in response. There are lessons to be learned, but perhaps the most vital lesson of all is that the inequalities that have been deliberately created and deliberately maintained in our society by successive Governments have also made our society as a whole much more vulnerable to the ravages of the disease. We know that the economic costs of covid have fallen much more heavily on the people who could least afford them. To give just one example, the British Retail Consortium did a survey that confirmed what we would probably have expected: during the pandemic, highly-paid people such as Members of Parliament have got better off and now have more savings than we had before, while most of our constituents on low incomes have been using up their savings just to survive, and many of them effectively have no savings left at all.
Presumably, the way we respond to that is to use the powers in the Finance Bill to redress that balance. Well, no—that is not the priority of this Government. In clause 5, we see a multi-year freezing of the income tax basic rate limit and, much more damaging, a freezing of the personal allowance at £12,570. It is not easy to find a way to change an income-based tax system so that we collect more tax but target the impact on people on lower incomes, but that is exactly what the Government propose to do. If it is accepted that the Treasury needs to collect more money in real terms from income tax, we should at the very least make sure that the impact in real terms is equally spread. In fact, the SNP would argue that whenever the time comes to increase taxes, those of us who are lucky enough to be on high incomes should be asked to bear a wee bit more of the pain.
I know that the Government will point to other provisions, such as clause 31 and the one-off uplift in working tax credit. In principle, that is something the SNP supports, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central mentioned, the way that it is implemented could harm some of the very people it is supposed to help. The eligibility criteria are crude, to say the least. It will not be at all easy for recipients to work out for themselves whether they qualify. What assessment have the Government made of the number of payments that they expect to be made in error, and are they seriously then going to chase down the recipients of those erroneous payments as if they had committed some kind of fraud, when in fact they have done absolutely nothing wrong?
I was interested to hear the comments of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), on freeports. “Freeport” is obviously a buzzword that the focus groups have told the Tories goes down well with the party faithful, so they have decided to invent, or rather reinvent, something that looks like a rehash of 1980s-style enterprise zones but call it a freeport because that sounds like a better term. Leaving aside the terminology, how do the Government know that the provisions in clauses 109 to 111 will create new investment and new jobs, rather than just move investment and jobs that would have happened anyway, as the Committee Chair asked? How will they make sure that those who buy and sell land in a designated freeport area are investing the tax breaks they enjoy in creating jobs on the site, rather than just siphoning the money off into the profit and loss account of an offshore investment trust somewhere?
Almost a third of the Bill’s clauses relate to the plastic packaging tax, and no doubt the Bill Committee will want to spend a proportionate amount of time scrutinising the details, but for now, I draw the Minister’s attention to the National Audit Office report on 12 February this year. The report found that, although the Chancellor in his Budget speech last year was able to tell us how many tonnes of carbon the tax would save,
“the exchequer departments did not set these as measures of success in the Tax Information and Impact Note”.
A previous Tory Government brought in tax information and impact notes in a blaze of publicity, announcing that they would support better parliamentary scrutiny of tax policy, but how can Parliament scrutinise the success of this new tax if the key measure of success announced by the Chancellor does not even appear on the success radar of the Department that has to implement it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central raised the more general point about the woefully inadequate scrutiny that the often massive decisions in Finance Bills receive. I know that the Government will point to the number of minutes, hours, days or weeks that people have spent talking about it in Parliament, but talking about it and reading prepared speeches is not the same as proper scrutiny. For example, in this Bill we can accept, reject or amend clause 32 on the tax statement of payments under the self-employment income support scheme, which is fair enough for those who qualify, but we cannot redress the glaring injustice of the excluded millions who do not qualify at all. We can accept clause 31 or amend it to make it a lot better, to support working people whose income has been affected by covid, but we cannot vote to remove the 30 September cliff-edge when the furlough scheme is removed, because that would be an inadmissible amendment. Although the Bill can be improved in Committee and made slightly more fit for purpose, we are powerless to force the Government to undo some of the deliberately disastrous flaws and omissions in existing support schemes.
It is right that this Budget and this Finance Bill should start the process of rebuilding the economy after covid, but as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, the Government seem hellbent on taking us back to exactly the same unfair, unequal and divided society that we had before. In fact, they will probably succeed in making it even worse than before. Of course, the Tories do not want to talk about the fact that their own analysis shows that the long-term economic damage of the covid pandemic will be less than the damage of the self-inflicted and totally avoidable disaster that is Brexit.
It is an indication of how out of touch the Government are with my constituents, and with the people of Scotland generally, that the Tories, the official Opposition in Scotland, have already surrendered in the Scottish Parliament elections. They are not even pretending that they want to try and form an alternative Government after 6 May. They are delivering glossy six-page leaflets that literally have no policies on them. They are not even pretending that they have anything positive to say or to offer in Scotland—which, after all, is kind of what Scotland has been saying to them since 1955.
The Bill will get its Second Reading tonight, it will get through the Committee and it will become law. Its regressive provisions will be imposed in Scotland against the will of three-quarters of our people, no doubt to great cheers from the socially distanced Government Benches. But let me say this to them: enjoy imposing this Finance Bill on Scotland’s people, because in just over three weeks’ time, those same people will take a decisive step towards making sure that their time for imposing their policies on our country comes to an end.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate that this is a Finance Bill and technically it can go to any hour, so the House could be sitting until 11 o’clock or midnight, but I ought to say something to Members who are not in the Chamber but who I hope might be listening. It sometimes seems that Members who are at home and participating virtually do not pay attention to the rest of the debate. If they are listening, let me say to them that there is something a little bit distasteful about those who are sitting at home making very long speeches and keeping the entire operation of the House of Commons going till well into the evening. Everybody has the right to speak on the Finance Bill and it is very important that they do so, but it is generally recognised, and I particularly recognise it today, that that which can be said in 10 minutes can usually be said more effectively in five.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The Bill recognises both the short-term demands of the covid crisis and the long-term needs of global Britain’s economic future, and I am delighted to support it. I shall keep my comments brief.
As we emerge from lockdown in a cautious and gradual way, it is right that provisions are made to extend furlough, reduce VAT for tourism, maintain the increased universal credit payments, support grants for the self-employed and so on. It will be some time yet before the economy is back to pre-covid levels of activity, although it may not be as far away as we had feared just six months ago. Those who have managed to save money over lockdown are keen to put their cash back into our national economy.
Stoke-on-Trent city centre business improvement district has ensured that we will play our local part in the resumption of consumer spending. Operation Sparkle is making our city centre smarter, cleaner and more inviting, but there is only so much that even the most dedicated local groups and bodies can do to fight against litter, so I welcome part 2 of the Bill for its potential to gear the tax system ever more against plastic waste.
There is a real problem with litter, particularly along Stoke-on-Trent’s beautiful watercourses and green spaces, made much worse by the thoughtlessness of those who fear no consequence from dropping bottles and wrappers that will not immediately biodegrade. It makes responsible residents across my constituency rightly angry. The tax system should not be neutral on litter. We have all seen the dramatic impact of the plastic bag tax. I hope that the plastic packaging tax is another step towards a tax system that increasingly targets problem litter and incentivises the reuse, return and recycling of packaging.
The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the pre-covid level of GDP will be reached only one year from now. It further predicts that unemployment will be in its second quarter of decline by then, having peaked at 6.5% by the end of this year. That means that UK unemployment will still be 1.4 percentage points lower than when the Labour party left office in 2010. It is an extraordinary achievement. The balance of measures has been more or less right, just as the balance of measures is right in the Bill.
We were never going to escape a global pandemic unscathed. Now we must face the reality of once again looking for measures to bring the books back into balance in the medium and longer term. However, that should not mean reductions in productive investment. I particularly welcome the super deductions for new plant and machinery in clauses 9 to 14, together with the provision in clause 15 for an extension of the £1 million annual investment allowance. We are enabling the private sector to build back better.
It is often said that Chancellors are conjurors, pulling rabbits out of hats, but today’s Chancellor is more of a tightrope walker, trying to maintain a very delicate balance indeed. He is admirably succeeding. We are emerging from the international crisis with renewed national confidence in a long-term future of better days ahead.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
This Finance Bill fails to meet the scale of the economic challenges and it fails to provide the growth that is needed to recover from the pandemic, not to mention the impact of Brexit. Unemployment is already at 5% and is set to rise to 6.5%. Some groups have been hit particularly hard, especially the young—youth unemployment is at 14.3%—and those from minority backgrounds face much higher levels of unemployment.
Business investment has been in decline for many years and the pandemic has not, of course, made matters any better. We have heard a great deal about the productivity rate being incredibly slow, which it has been for the past decade. Instead of focusing on the big challenges facing the country, such as tackling the jobs crisis and youth unemployment, and promoting growth, what we see is the Government reverting to their comfort zone with an irresponsible council tax hike that will create even greater pressures for families who have faced the most unprecedented of challenges over the last year, and huge adversity—ordinary families in constituencies such as mine, where the level of child poverty is among the highest in the country.
By freezing the threshold for the personal income tax allowance, the Bill introduces a stealth tax on households. Meanwhile, the so-called super deduction gives tax cuts to some of the biggest businesses in the country, including those who have done particularly well during the pandemic, when the support should be targeted to companies that need much greater help and where there is greater need for support.
It is as if the Government have learned nothing from this crisis, as they take funding away from families who desperately need help. That brings me to the issue of universal credit, which will return to its original level later in the year. Millions of families will suffer when that happens. That is why I believe that this Finance Bill does not support families. The stealth tax that has been introduced will hurt ordinary families, including our NHS heroes and other key workers who have sustained us through the pandemic.
The Bill does not go far enough to support the 700,000 young people who face unemployment. Only one in 49 are eligible for support through the kickstart scheme. The Government have not taken the opportunity in the Bill to provide additional support to get those young people back to work.
Despite the fact that local councils such as mine have had to spend a great deal more because of the pandemic, there is nothing in the Bill to support them. There is very little to support our public services when they are facing an unprecedented crisis. The Bill lacks the ambition that is desperately needed after the biggest economic hit for generations. It lacks the ambition to get the unemployed back to work, and bold action to increase investment, productivity, and innovation, create the green industrial revolution, and power our economic growth in the face of the double hit of the pandemic and the 4% long-term hit to GDP as a result of Brexit. It hits families hard when they need to be supported, and it lacks the ambition to match the scale of the economic, social and healthcare challenges exposed by the pandemic. I will therefore not vote for the Bill.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). Last month’s Budget was a missed opportunity to protect jobs and incomes, support struggling employers, and set out a clear vision for a green, sustainable and fairer post-pandemic economy that works for all four nations of the United Kingdom. Instead, the Budget became an exercise in political showmanship, which further undermined devolution and put party politics above the collective good. Supposedly new spending pledges were proven to be nothing of the sort, most clearly at Wales’s expense, where only 5% of the spending announced was new and unconditional. That disappointment was compounded by the proposals unveiled for the so-called levelling-up fund, which I am afraid does a disservice to Wales and to devolution.
The Bill confirms some of the most damaging elements of that Budget-day display. It prematurely ends the VAT reduction to help hospitality businesses across the UK. It neglects fully to correct the exclusionary failures of the self-employment income support scheme, and it fails to guarantee the permanency of the £20 a week universal credit uplift. Those measures alone suggest that the Bill will hamper rather than encourage our short-term recovery.
Equally worrying is the Government’s clear determination to re-establish the pre-pandemic dysfunctional UK economic model through a “Westminster knows best” approach that is openly hostile to devolution. That is why, to ensure that Westminster works with rather than against the devolved nations on policy issues such as freeports, Plaid Cymru will table amendments requiring the consent of the devolved Parliaments before freeports can be established in their respective nations. That such amendments are necessary is sadly indicative of the Government’s centralising tendencies over the economy, despite their appalling record on delivering schemes such as tax reliefs, which worsen rather than address regional inequality in the UK.
For instance, through the UK Government’s two main innovation investment reliefs—the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme—between 2015 and 2018, start-ups in London received four times more per head of population than businesses elsewhere. In contrast, only 1.3% of UK-wide investment through the enterprise investment scheme was in Wales.
Noting the significant risk that the proposed capital allowance super deduction might turbocharge regional inequality in the UK, Plaid Cymru will also table an amendment requiring the Government to consider the impact and geographical reach of that super deduction. Given the pressing challenge of climate change, and the need to recapitalise our economy to further decarbonisation efforts, our amendment will require the Government to consider the impact of a super deduction on climate change mitigation efforts. I sincerely hope that the Government will be supportive of that amendment, particularly given the Bill’s overall lack of measures and support for the green transition—except, it is worth noting, a welcome change to the Bank of England’s mandate.
Although I welcome the proposed plastic packaging tax, even that illustrates Westminster’s inability adequately to act on the pressing issues facing society across the four nations of the UK. Only days ago it was reported that the much vaunted deposit return scheme has been further delayed until 2024. Having been unnecessarily tied to Westminster inaction on that issue, Wales will by then have waited six years for such a scheme to come to pass. That outcome is made even worse by the Government’s United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which undermines Welsh efforts to counter plastic pollution, and pales in comparison to Scotland’s ability to deliver a bespoke system by next year.
In conclusion, this Bill fails to correct the flaws in the Government’s pandemic response, fails to live up to their rhetoric on levelling up and fails to match ambitious climate rhetoric with policy action to further the green transition. Instead, the Bill not only reflects the deeply misguided sense that the Treasury knows best when it comes to regional inequality, but misses an opportunity to provide a long-term plan for our post-pandemic recovery.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Let me start by expressing my sadness at the death of His Royal Highness Prince Philip. I send my condolences and those of the people of Redcar and Cleveland to Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family at this difficult time.
I direct Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a board member of the South Tees Development Corporation.
In the short time I have, I want to focus my remarks on clause 109 on freeports and on why I was so pleased to see Teesside play such a prominent role in the Chancellor’s Budget. Freeports are not of course new to Britain, but our ability to use them properly was strengthened by Brexit and the Prime Minister’s EU withdrawal agreement. Outside the EU, freeports have a significant role to play in our recovery and in levelling up our left-behind areas such as Redcar and Cleveland, and clauses 110 and 111 will help achieve that.
Our Teesside freeport is the largest in the UK, with a plan to create 18,000 jobs over the next five years. In less than a month since that Budget announcement, we have seen the creation of more than 2,000 jobs in offshore wind, with General Electric building its new turbine blade manufacturing plant within our freeport. However, the journey to this point was not a happy one. One of Teesside’s darkest days was in October 2015 when SSI fell into liquidation, with the end of 170 years of steel making on Tees and the loss of 3,000 jobs overnight. For many of us in Teesside this felt like a fatal blow and a shock from which we could not recover. For me as a chemical industry worker at the time, I remember the sinking feeling that we would be next—the next domino to fall into industrial collapse—but Teessiders throughout time have shown their immense resilience, and we refused to allow our decline to be inevitable.
In 2017, the election of a Conservative, Ben Houchen, as the Tees Valley Mayor began the journey of devolution in Teesside and the transformation of our area. That year we formed a development corporation to cover the site—the first mayoral development corporation outside London. Although there were many bumps along the road, by February 2020 the deal was done to get full control for the rest of the site, taking full ownership of the former steelworks. In July last year, Teesworks was launched, the new name for the now 4,500 acre site, and in August demolition began, clearing the way for the new jobs to come. It is the largest development site in Europe alongside the deepest port on the east coast, publicly owned and led by a Mayor who is determined to deliver for his area.
We started this journey with the loss of 3,000 jobs on Teesside, but now that site sits at the heart of the UK’s largest freeport, with a plan to create 18,000 jobs over the next five years. The Teesside freeport, which covers Teesworks, Wilton, port of Hartlepool, port of Middlesbrough, Wilton Engineering and Teesside airport, will be our gateway to global trade and the engine room for the northern powerhouse. This is our plan to level up our region, transform Teesside and truly build back better. Recoveries of the past have seen some areas boom while other areas go bust, and over the last 12 months we have faced a crisis like no other in our history. Now we will build a recovery like no other, where nowhere is left behind.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
That was a fair point well made about contributions earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as I am mostly going to address climate change, I will try to be aware of the levels of hot air I am producing myself.
I rise to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—my name is also on the amendment—and to say that Social Democratic and Labour party Members will vote against this Bill. We spoke last month in the Budget debate to highlight the missed opportunities, including the opportunity to respond to the economic challenges and the challenges of inequality that have been exposed by the pandemic. However, while interim and half measures can perhaps be explained away with an economy in lockdown and in deep freeze, they cannot be justified for the live climate crisis we are facing at the moment. This Bill misses the opportunity to act on that ecological emergency because it lacks the ambition and the urgency required to meet the UK’s obligations under the Paris agreement. It does not deliver the transformational investment needed to create green jobs, particularly at a time when so many people have lost their work and when so many sectors will take time to recover. Opportunities also need to be there, not least here in Northern Ireland.
Additionally, the Bill provides very little for those who have been working on the frontline throughout the pandemic. It does not say much either to people whose economic precarity has really been exposed over the past 12 or 15 months, or to young people who have missed so many experiences and opportunities and who need to see an economy in which they can have some hope—an economy that focuses on opportunities and wellbeing rather than on an obsession with growth. They need something that offers them more than just personal debt and insecurity in the years ahead.
This year, the UK hosts COP26, which provides even greater impetus than ever to be a leader in climate action, with meaningful cross-governmental action right at the very heart of the Bill and right at the very heart of this global inflection point that we are experiencing at the moment.
We have been doing things differently necessarily for the past year and we should continue to do that and to follow a different ecological and economic course from the one that we would otherwise be on. The Government have repeatedly highlighted the importance of net zero, which is welcome, but the Bill does not reflect the urgency of what we are experiencing here and what we are seeing around the world. We cannot keep putting the meaningful actions into the “too difficult” piles. Recent moves by the Government, including approving a mine, granting new licences for oil and gas exploration, scrapping the green homes grant and cutting overseas aid to countries that are dealing with the impact of climate change and removing funding at a time when they need to transition to less carbon-intensive measures, is going in the wrong direction. These are not the signals of a Government who are serious about a green recovery or serious about the wellbeing of the planet or of future generations. There needs to be consistency in domestic policies and international objectives that we are not seeing here.
I am pleased also to co-sponsor the Climate and Ecology Bill, which would have provided some signals for the actions that this Government could have chosen to take in this Bill if they were serious about the environmental urgency and dynamism that we need to see, so we will be opposing the Bill on that basis.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also want to highlight, as other Members have done, the tribute from my constituents following the death of His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. I know that the thoughts of so many have been with Her Majesty the Queen over the past few days.
I speak today in huge support of the Finance Bill. It is absolutely fundamental in the steps that we are taking for constituencies such as mine both in the short and the long term. I would like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). She made a really fundamental point, which is that we politicians in Westminster do not create the wealth; that is down to the businesses, entrepreneurs and workers in North West Durham and across the country, but we can help to set the pitch and enable them to succeed. The Government’s work recently, particularly in relation to continuing the business rate holiday and the VAT holiday, has been helpful and will really help some of my businesses rebound.
The broader point is that this Budget sets out some really good things for the long term, particularly around productivity, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). Technology adaptation, along with the Help to Grow scheme, needs to happen for those productivity gains in businesses. The super deduction gives a real opportunity, particularly for the manufacturing centre, which is so capital intensive, to invest for the long term, knowing that that cash will be repaid in spades and also that there will be a tax break. That will also help to counter some of the issues that we are bound to see around unemployment because of the covid pandemic.
More broadly, we are now seeing the levelling up start to take shape. The finance for lifelong learning is provided for in the Bill. That is hugely important for constituencies such as mine, where a far higher than average number of people do not have the level 3 skills that we know make the real difference to people’s earning capacity. Last year, we saw the great motor homes tax cut from the Chancellor in the Budget. That has had a real, direct impact on my constituents this year in our manufacturing centre.
On the levelling-up fund, it has been great to see that £4.6 billion was announced. The Treasury need to be aware that I will be putting in bids for both Consett and the three-town area of Crook, Willington and Tow Law. I have already had conversations with some of the other council candidates and the local council about that, so I am really hoping that we can get some of that cash into our areas to help to boost them and the towns that have felt left behind for too long.
I felt that a couple of comments from the Opposition on higher council tax being forced on to councils did beggar belief to a degree, especially when, in Durham, we are seeing our Labour-controlled council—Labour-run for 102 years—spending £50 million on a new county hall on a floodplain with a roof terrace, at the same time as raising council tax, which is currently the eighth highest in the country out of 340 councils.
I would particularly like to pick up on one other thing, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young): the really great news about the freeport. It just goes to show what great local MPs working with the superb Mayor of Teesside, Ben Houchen, can do. That is exactly what we need to see in County Durham as well—great, entrepreneurial, business-focused local government working with local MPs. I was somewhat alarmed by the comments from the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) from the Opposition Front Bench. He suggested that these freeports would be places for smuggling and organised crime to thrive. He made it sound a bit like “Pirates of the Caribbean” is coming to Teesside, when the truth is actually quite different. We have already seen thousands of jobs being created locally and huge numbers of Government jobs both from the Treasury and the Department for International Trade moving to the north-east. That is incredibly welcome not just for Teesside and the constituents there, but the entire north-east region.
There is a lot to commend in this Budget, but the financial responsibility and the need for fiscal responsibility have not gone away. It really matters in the long term, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, said at the start. We have to ensure that we maintain that financial responsibility because any rise in interest rates will see serious issues for the economy and Government spending in the long term. I think this is a really balanced approach. It has some short-term measures in there to restart the economy and some of the long-term measures that my constituents voted for at the general election. And crucially, it is a proper Conservative Budget, because at the heart of it is long-term fiscal responsibility.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s mishandling of the pandemic and an inadequate social security system have caused widespread financial hardship, unemployment and debt, yet the Finance Bill falls short in tackling poverty, low pay, insecure work and the ever-deepening divisions in our society. Instead, it includes a whole host of damaging measures, such as cutting working tax credit to its lowest level in decades.
Action for Children estimates that 2.5 million families with children currently on universal credit and working tax credit will miss out on a combined total of £1.3 billion across this financial year when these cuts are implemented in October. Today, the Child Poverty Action Group’s new report looking into the Government’s two-child tax credit limit estimates that at least 350,000 families, including 1.25 million children, have now been affected by the policy since it started four years ago; a far cry from the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda when those in the poorest parts of the country—children—will suffer even more.
But should we be surprised when the austerity policies pursued by this Conservative Government continue to have widespread and devastating impacts on the most disadvantaged? Years of austerity, welfare cuts, benefit changes and cuts to public services have disproportionately affected women, disabled people and black, Asian and minority ethnic people—a fact that has been repeatedly outlined by the TUC, the Runnymede Trust, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many more. That is why it was so utterly astounding and offensive that the report of the Government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities sought to downplay the existence of institutional racism, against all the evidence and facts showing that economic outcomes in our country are rife with racial disparities. Equally, the covid-19 pandemic is widely noted to have exacerbated these trends. It is disingenuous and misleading to seek to divide ethnic minority working-class communities and white working-class communities, which is what the report did. The same issues affect all our working-class communities. Opportunistically cherry-picking figures cannot alter what is clearly laid out in extensive research by a wide range of credible researchers and actual experts over a number of years.
When it comes to such legislation, as the Women’s Budget Group has rightly argued, meaningful equality impact assessments should consider cumulative impact, intersectional impact, the impact on individuals as well as households, impact over a lifetime, and the impact on unpaid care. Conversations about sexism, ableism, racism, poverty and the economy must go hand in hand. That is why I have consistently called on the Government to carry out and publish equality impact assessments, and I will be tabling an amendment to insist that they do so for this Bill.
Tax Justice UK and the Women’s Budget Group rightly argue that taxation and wealth is an equality issue. On average, women not only earn less than men, but they own less wealth than men, with women in the UK owning approximately 40% of the country’s total personal wealth. Coupled with the very obvious way in which the pandemic has hit women the hardest, it is clear that the Government should really be publishing equality impact assessments. Equality is our law, yet the Government refuse again and again to do that, and they have not done so for the 2021 Budget or for this Finance Bill, either measure by measure or cumulatively. While tax information and impact notes for each tax measure are available, they lack detail and quantitative estimates of impact, or simply state that no equality impacts are anticipated. That is not good enough for legislation that will so fundamentally impact on our society. I hope that the Minister will confirm why the Government have not published the information needed for Members to fully assess how the Bill impacts people right across the country.
Incentives such as the super deduction are biggest for larger firms, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that only 1% of firms will benefit this year, as the rest are within the annual investment allowance. How can the Government justify the fact that, under this Bill, the rich and big business are being treated to mouth-watering tax giveaways and reliefs despite unclear evidence about whether that will actually create the investment needed? For example, who benefits from Amazon paying no corporation tax in the UK as a result of the super deduction?
This Bill is a missed opportunity for a green recovery based on intersectional economics and progressive taxation to create decent, well-paid, unionised jobs and address our care crisis. It has the wrong priorities, it will create further inequality and it has unfairness and injustice rooted at its very core, so I will be voting against it today.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
An unprecedented time calls for an unprecedented Budget, and that is exactly what the Chancellor delivered, which is now set out in this Bill. The Budget had at its heart a focus on supporting people and businesses as we begin to emerge from the pandemic, and it laid out how, through fair taxation measures, not austerity, we can begin to rebuild and fix the public finances. Even the latest figures, published this morning, show an economy recovering, with exports, imports and GDP all improving. We already have a vaccination policy that, thanks to this Government, has been world-beating, and we now have an economy repairing itself faster than we all expected.
Not only can North Norfolk celebrate the fact that its economy, which is driven by leisure and tourism, will no doubt boom this summer, but my constituents have even more to celebrate, North Norfolk being in the top 100 places for the UK community renewal fund. Contrary to some beliefs, this is a Government reaching out to every corner of the UK, and I thank the Chancellor for putting North Norfolk on the map.
You might expect that a chartered accountant would want to talk about the taxation measures in this Bill, and I would hate to disappoint you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are undoubtedly those who have prospered in lockdown from a sense of a captive market, and thus the taxation policy to increase corporation tax not now but in a couple of years’ time is sensible and proportionate. Equally, our rates will still be some of the lowest in the G7. Those making the lowest profits—under £50,000—will be largely unaffected and only those earning over £250,000 will pay the top rate. The vast majority of limited companies in the UK will see little tangible difference. However, I would like the Minister to explain why the super deduction is only applicable to limited companies. I acknowledge that it is a superb incentive for investment, as it is designed to be, but why not broaden the scope? Imagine farmers in my constituency parting with the best part of half a million pounds to buy farm machinery such as combine harvesters, as many of them may do, but because they operate as partnerships they are ineligible for the tax break.
As I repeatedly and relentlessly mention in this place, my fears for the overall UK high street still remain. Yes, our high streets will have the rates reprieve for nearly another year, but in the long term they will suffer as those who have converted to shopping online continue to operate under that trend. The Government must look at modernising the rates system and consider how we level up the disparity in competition between those bricks-and-mortar stores that now face online competition. I certainly look forward to perhaps seeing more of this in the autumn. But I take nothing away from the tax breaks. The confidence that the Government have injected into the economy is working and the green shoots of a post-crisis recovery are already germinating.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Today I will vote against this Bill’s Second Reading, and I will focus on three reasons why.
Reason No. 1 is that I genuinely believe that our NHS and key workers deserve a decent pay rise, not just platitudes—the clapping of hands every Thursday some time ago, the selfies and the video clips. A vote for this Bill today is a vote to cut, in real terms, the salaries of those heroes, our key workers.
Reason No. 2 is that the regressive council tax bombshell of 5% imposed by the Chancellor on councils up and down this land is classed as spending power in his Budget—a Budget of smoke and mirrors—while ushering in a new era of austerity, with billions of pounds taken from the public sector providing vital services for the most vulnerable and the most needy, whether children or adults, in our society.
Reason No. 3 is that I and others are making a stand for the millions excluded from financial help and business support, whether freelancers in the Northwich part of my constituency or care workers from Frodsham who deserve a fair level of sick pay when they have to self-isolate in this covid pandemic.
My constituents may not have a direct line to the Chancellor, Ministers or leading civil servants, and they certainly do not have share options worth millions of pounds. However, 305 of my constituents in the Daresbury area of Weaver Vale have just lost their jobs—former employees of Greensill. That is the bulk of the UK employees; they are 305 of the 400 or so who have lost their jobs in the UK. Of course, there are thousands in associated industries, whether that is at Liberty Steel or further afield. They are victims of an unregulated shadow banking crisis and the new episode of Tory sleaze.
I want to see a Chancellor who pushes his team not to support his old boss, the former Prime Minister, but to give our key workers a decent pay rise and fully fund our councils, as promised, to help the many who have been excluded from business and personal support. That is how we build forward fairer for all. It is certainly not through supporting this Bill, which I and those on the Opposition Benches will oppose.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I welcome and endorse all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) about the Opposition’s deep concerns about the Finance Bill; I will be voting against it.
I want to focus on measures relating to contractors. The all-party parliamentary loan charge group has just published a comprehensive report, “How Contracting Should Work”, which found that the unintended consequences of IR35 or off-payroll legislation has been a proliferation of umbrella companies, some of which have pushed people into disguised remuneration schemes. The report also exposed significant malpractice, including withholding of holiday pay, kickbacks for recommending or passing on contractors, and even the provision of fitted kitchens and holidays for recruitment agency directors. We concluded that we need legislative changes in and beyond the Bill, including aligning tax and employment law. There is a real opportunity in this Finance Bill to address some specific concerns.
Clause 21 deals with “Workers’ services provided through intermediaries”. It has been described in the explanatory notes as addressing
“an unintended widening of the conditions which determine when a company is an intermediary”.
But, actually, this is a change following lobbying efforts by umbrella companies. The legislation as originally drafted would have meant that recruitment agencies had to put workers on their own payroll, where they would also have enjoyed the protections offered by existing agency legislation. That would also have meant closing the door on tax avoidance schemes. Now that door has swung wide open again, which is a very odd thing for the Government to be doing when at the same time they claim they intend to clamp down on tax avoidance schemes.
The Government could simply strike out clause 21. Doing so would ensure that workers got the agency rights they should be getting. Agencies can run their own payroll; they do for their own staff anyway. They do not need umbrella companies and neither do their contractors. Alternatively, the Government could redraft clause 21 to seek to stop the exploitation. They must do one or the other.
As the Government and HMRC are well aware, schemes are still being sold—mis-sold—to people including mid and low-paid public sector workers, nurses, NHS doctors and other clinical specialists, teachers and social workers. Such schemes are also being sold to many in the private sector, including in IT, business services and so on. We in the APPG support more action through the Bill against promoters of such schemes, but we want to see some detail in this legislation. Schemes must be stopped now, rather than trying to go after promoters when the damage has been done—many are offshore anyway.
I urge the Government to accept that there still needs to be a fair resolution for those facing the loan charge. The vast majority of people facing the loan charge and those duped into schemes since 2017—often lower-paid people—are victims of mis-selling by promoters and operators who gave and still give assurances of compliance and legitimacy, and did not make any mention of the risk of being pursued by HMRC. The reality is that people are simply not able to pay the loan charge, and enforcing it will lead to bankruptcy, hardship and worse. It is time that the Government and HMRC sought a compromise—a way to resolve this without destroying lives and families, and without making people unable to work through their being declared bankrupt. I urge the Government to look again at the APPG’s proposal last year for a final settlement opportunity.
We in the all-party parliamentary loan charge group welcome action to tackle promoters of schemes, but we want to see the details from the Government. We have seen very little so far. At the same time, we need legislative action to stop these schemes in the first place and the misery that they cause, and we want a fair resolution for those facing the loan charge. The Finance Bill gives the Government an opportunity do this, to clean up the supply chain, and to stamp out tax avoidance schemes and other malpractice. Given the importance of these workers to the economy and our public services, this is an opportunity that the Government must take now.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of my colleagues in our opposition to the Finance Bill on Second Reading. This might be the Finance Bill that we have, but it is certainly not the Finance Bill that we need right now. Despite warnings and despite the damage to employment that was caused by previous hard deadlines that the Chancellor set himself on furlough—which turned out not to be such hard deadlines after all—we once again face just such a set of cliff edges with these measures come September. We face a cliff edge with the ending of the support for the self-employed, the ending of furlough and the non-continuation of the equivalent of the £20 universal credit uplift—a policy that has done so much to get families on low incomes through the pandemic, making sure that food was on the table, bills could be paid and the wolf was kept from the door. We will also face a cliff edge in key elements of the Scottish economy thanks to the removal of the 5% VAT rate for hospitality. As things stand, all these cliff edges will be encountered irrespective of the condition of the economy come September or, indeed, the progress that we continue to make in suppressing the virus.
This Bill fails to get to grips with the big issues of ensuring a green recovery and fails when it comes to dealing with the much-vaunted levelling-up agenda. In the time I have left, I wish to highlight two points of particular interest to my constituents and to wider society across the north-east of Scotland: the recently announced sector deal for the North sea and the levelling-up agenda.
First, lest there be any doubt, the sector deal is absolutely welcome. It has been called for for a long time and I know that the Government and industry have been working together closely to deliver the package. Although it might be a sector deal, whatever else it might be it is emphatically not a fiscal deal. There are big numbers in respect of the amounts of investment money that might potentially come in, but the Government are not putting a huge amount of money on the table to achieve that. It may help—I hope it does—to drive the objectives of a just transition and to boost the skills and retain human capital in the north-east of Scotland, but we need to be prepared for the possibility that further incentivisation might be needed.
Secondly, on levelling up, people who listened to my good friends and colleagues from neighbouring constituencies who represent the Conservative and Unionist party would believe that the levelling-up fund was going to leave not a single pothole unfilled, not a bridge unrepaired and not a single social project unfunded in the north-east of Scotland. Instead, when the prospectus was unveiled, the city of Aberdeen was in level 2 and Aberdeenshire was languishing in the lowest level, level 3, despite the urgent need to address the hit that the oil and gas sector has taken and tackle the impact of Brexit on our exporters. It seems that the post-Brexit power grab on Scotland’s devolved Government has morphed into a cash grab on the north-east of Scotland.
In conclusion, this is the Bill that we have but it is not the Bill that we need. Along with my colleagues, I look forward to exposing more of its shortcomings as we see them, as the Bill progresses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My contribution will not be long, Madam Deputy Speaker; I just wish to make a few points.
As on several other occasions over the past year, I have looked to ascertain whether we are doing our best to offer support to help to sustain businesses and then encourage regrowth. I put on record my thanks to the Government for all that they have done, but I must also put something on the record on behalf of the aviation sector. I hope the Minister will forgive me for putting this on the record, but it is important that I do so.
Although I accept the difficult nature of presenting a Budget at this time and the immense pressure on the Chancellor, there were a number of gaps in the Budget, one of which was support for the aviation sector. The temporary extensions of the job retention scheme and the limited business rates relief for airports were welcome, but there was palpable disappointment in the sector that the Government failed to recognise in their Budget the impact of covid-19 on aviation.
The only aviation-specific clause in the Bill is one to increase the tax burden on international travel through air passenger duty—this at a time when the Government should be putting all their efforts behind the recovery of the UK’s lost aviation connectivity. As a member of the Democratic Unionist party, I have long opposed APD on internal travel—I believe it is a factor in the growing feeling of isolation that Northern Ireland is going through—but that is for another debate in which the Unionist voice must be heard and acknowledged much more than it is being currently.
The covid-19 pandemic is the worst crisis in the history of aviation. Last summer, passenger numbers travelling through UK airports were at their lowest level since 1975. Office for National Statistics data shows that aviation was the worst-hit sector of 2020 and will continue to be the worst-affected sector in 2021.
That tells me that we need to look at how we can encourage and build the sector. Not just the Airport Operators Association’s airport recovery plan but the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded their estimations of the recovery of levels of air passenger duty until as far away as 2024 and 2025. The Government need to acknowledge that other European countries are giving substantial grant-based funding to airports. The UK Government’s lack of support, other than limited rates relief and access to loans, risks UK aviation falling behind our European competitors. That cannot be allowed to happen given our vision of global Britain.
Instead of supporting the sector, the Finance Bill includes rises in air passenger duty that will harm the recovery of an industry that has largely been shut down for over a year. Added to that, there is the blow of the removal of airside VAT-free shopping at the end of 2020. That is another hit for airports, which rely heavily—up to 40% of their income—on retail and require a firm financial footing to successfully recover throughout the rest of the decade. The Finance Bill, unfortunately, fails to reverse that damaging decision, or put compensation in place such as arrivals duty-free shopping.
I conclude with this comment. In an intervention at the beginning of the debate, I made a comment about insurance companies. Some companies are unfairly using business interruption insurance premiums to punish businesses that had the foresight to take out said insurance before the pandemic. I believe there is a chance with this Bill— insurance companies are notorious for finding a loophole—to address this issue. I ask the Minister to do that.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I would like to begin by echoing the tributes made from all sides of the House in recent days to the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip. It is a testament to the endurance of his public life that you would have to be almost 80 years old to have any real memory of a time when both he and Her Majesty the Queen were not at the pinnacle of the monarchy. On behalf of my constituents, I would like to send Her Majesty and the royal family our deepest condolences at this most difficult time.
Turning to the debate, it is a pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I thank all Members on all sides of the House, who made very wide-ranging contributions today, and some of them, Madam Deputy Speaker, related to the Bill before us. We have heard excellent contributions on a wide range of issues, including the move away from diesel, climate change, local recovery bonds, the taxation of covid tests, those excluded from Government help schemes, the arts and cultural sector, the aviation sector, the Help to Grow scheme, freeports and regional inequality—or, as the Government call it, levelling up.
On the latter, we heard of the urgent need for action because of years of neglect. Now, I hate to pose an awkward question, but I have been scratching my head and I have to ask: who has actually been in power for the past 11 years? Who presided over that neglect? Who was it who cut billions of pounds from local authority budgets over the past decade? Who was it that abolished the regional development agencies that were responsible for regional development in the first place? Who was it that downgraded Sure Start, and attacked the opportunities and life chances of some of the lowest-income children in the country? I really think that we should be told who it was who presided over the neglect that has spurred the Government to these policies today. I admit that it is a neat trick to pretend that you have only been in power for a year, but the truth is that it has been 11 years. What the Government are now trying to do is fix their own mistakes to repair damage that they caused in the first place.
Now, I admit it must be a relief to the Treasury Ministers to attend the debate today and to be able to shelter on the Front Bench for a few hours, to get some respite from calls from David Cameron. They can tell him that they were in the Chamber and they had their mobiles switched off as he worked his way through the whole Department. If I am right, the Minister responding is one of the few people in the Treasury who has not yet received a call from the former Prime Minister, but he might still be working his way through the list. Right now in the Treasury there are no doubt officials cowering behind doors, hoping that the former Prime Minister does not have their phone number. If he does get through, they can give him the new excuse we heard today: that the new Government loan schemes on which he has been lobbying have nothing to do with the Treasury. Ignore all the press releases, ignore all the tweets, ignore the Instagram videos, ignore the invitations to “Ask Rishi”. It turns out that the case for the defence is that it is all somebody else’s responsibility. But that will not wash—it will not wash at all.
At the heart of the Finance Bill are the tax changes set out in the Budget. As we established during the Budget debates a few weeks ago, those tax changes turn on its head decades-long conservative orthodoxy, not just because tax rates are going up but because the expectation is that alongside rising tax rates will come rising revenues. The projections are set out in the Red Book on corporation tax, thresholds for income tax and the other measures laid out in the Bill.
The Red Book estimates and the Bill lay to rest the argument set out by Conservative politicians from Margaret Thatcher to George Osborne that cutting rates rather than raising them leads to an overall rise in revenues. Indeed, the argument advanced at the core of this Finance Bill—that corporation tax rates should rise and businesses should be compensated by an increase in investment allowances—is the exact mirror image of the argument used by the previous Chancellor to justify the cuts he made to corporation tax. At that time, we were told that all those reliefs and allowances were too complex and that they could be cut to help fund a cut in corporate tax rates; now, the opposite argument is being advanced. Osbornomics are officially buried by Rishnomics in this Finance Bill.
That is all, of course, at the level of policy and ideology. What about the practical level—the practical effect? The freezing of personal allowances will bring an extra 1.3 million taxpayers into the system over the next few years. I thought it might be helpful to illustrate the effect of some of the proposals on a particular constituency, so I picked one at random: Hartlepool. The proposals mean that 34,000 basic rate taxpayers in Hartlepool will face a tax increase before corporations have had to pay a single extra penny toward the costs of the pandemic. In Hartlepool, there are 11,732 households on universal credit. The decision to withdraw the £20 a week uplift from them later this year will cost them collectively almost £12 million extra over the following 12 months. That is what these changes mean in one constituency. That is what they mean to families around the country.
The Bill also sets out plans for the new system of investment allowances, which are related to the recovery loan scheme recently launched—I underline this—by the Treasury. The Treasury cannot escape ownership of this one. What will the Treasury system be to accredit lenders under the new recovery loan scheme? Will it just be for regulated lenders? How will it test the capital adequacy of the institutions involved? How will it avoid a repeat of accrediting for the scheme a lender who is on the brink of collapse?
Of course, the overall judgment on the Budget and the Finance Bill must be by the test of how it gets us through what is happening now and the foundations it lays for the future, and the Bill deals with only one phase of that. On the extension of many of the emergency measures put in place since the beginning of the pandemic, we called for many of those measures in the first place, and they are obviously necessary while we are still in the teeth of the fight against the virus. By that, I mean of course the extension of the furlough scheme, the help for the self-employed and so on. Those interventions cost considerable sums of money, but the social and economic cost of not doing them would have been far, far greater. Governments can act in times of crisis to help the country through. Indeed, if a Government did not do so, we would have to wonder what they were for. But in addition to that immediate crisis help, there is a longer-term rebuilding job to be done. We are going to need strong, job-creating growth if we are to recover from the past year. The economy will not come back exactly as it was before the first lockdown. The pandemic has exposed deep inequalities in society. It has shown the stark reality of what many key workers are paid. It has laid bare the vulnerabilities of our society and the very different circumstances of those who could work from home and those who had no choice but to go to work day after day, no matter the risk to themselves and their families.
In terms of other changes, the pandemic has been described as the “great acceleration”—10 years’ change crammed into one. The way we shop, work, pay for things, educate children, deliver healthcare and much else has been changed, probably forever. Technology and change apply to everyday life as never before. How do we make the most of these trends? How do we ensure that people are equipped for the economy that comes out of this pandemic and that these changes do not simply exacerbate existing inequalities? Those are the urgent questions facing politics today.
Expectations have been changed about what Governments can do, not only here but in the United States, as we have seen in recent weeks, and across the world. This will change the shape of the political argument in the future—not a return to the same old argument about tax and spend, but an argument instead about who can best equip the country for the future, who can rebuild the best and who can deliver the transition to greener jobs, heal the inequalities that have been exposed by the pandemic and help children to recover from the education that has been lost.
The Finance Bill is silent on those challenges, as was the Budget. That is why it is a job only half done. It puts tax increases in place for the next few years that hit family finances before corporations, and it does so with no plan for the recovery that the country needs or one to rebuild the public realm—the public square—to make it more resilient in the future. That is why we have tabled the reasoned amendment on the Order Paper. The second half of that job—what the country has to do—is still to come, and that will be where the argument over the best economic future for the country and how we truly recover from the events of the past year is played out.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
On behalf of my constituents, I join Members across the House in expressing my deepest sympathies to Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family on the death of His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. I would also like to briefly take the opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague, Dame Cheryl Gillan, who passed away over the recess. We worked closely together on the 1922 committee between 2017 and 2019. She was an unflappable lady and always good humoured. I cannot quite believe that she has left us, and it goes to show that we often do not know how much people mean to us until they are gone.
I turn to the matter of today’s debate, which it is a privilege to close on behalf of the Government. I thank all Members for their contributions. We have heard some excellent speeches, and in particular, I thank Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for the many deeply considered reflections they have shared based on the significant knowledge and experience they have gained outside the House. I will address as many points as I can, and I am sure we will consider in Committee those that I do not get to.
The Bill’s first purpose is to protect jobs and livelihoods threatened by covid-19 by providing tax support to businesses and individuals. It boosts some of the hardest hit industries through extending the VAT reduction for the hospitality and tourism sectors. It provides extra security for workers in the housing sector by maintaining the temporary cut in stamp duty until the end of June. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) raised the issue of businesses that are ineligible for support, such as English language schools in his constituency. The Finance Bill supports struggling businesses by allowing them to carry back up to £2 million of losses and receive refunds for tax paid in additional previous years further to the one year provided at present.
In addition, the Bill contains a number of other measures that will provide a helping hand to businesses and individuals at this most difficult of times. I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson), and all other Members who raised points on their constituents’ behalf on this issue.
The Bill has a second important purpose: to support the Government’s efforts to rebuild the nation’s finances, as eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), so that we have the fiscal flexibility to respond to new crises. As the Chancellor said at the Budget,
“our approach to fixing the public finances will be fair”,
asking those who can afford to contribute to play their part, while
“protecting those who cannot.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 256.]
That is why the Bill maintains the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold at their current levels from next year, and why it maintains the pensions lifetime allowance, the threshold for capital gains tax and the threshold for inheritance tax at 2020-21 levels.
As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, businesses have received over £100 billion of support through this crisis; it is only right that we ask the firms with the broadest shoulders to support our recovery. Therefore the rate of corporation tax will increase to 25%, but only from 2023. I was very pleased to hear the faintest of praise for that measure from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Those Members who have reservations about the impact on small businesses should know that small businesses with profits of £50,000 or less, which make up 70% of actively trading companies, will be protected from that rise. Let me also remind the House that a 25% corporation tax rate is still the lowest in the G7.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon asked why the diverted profits tax is maintained, not widened. This tax is charged at a higher rate than corporation tax to discourage the diversion of profits that should be taxed in the UK to another country. The six-point differential between the main rate and the DPT rate has proven an effective deterrent, and that is why the diverted profits tax is being increased from 25% to 31% from April 2023 to maintain the current differential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) all raised the important issue of investment and productivity, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for praising our Help to Grow scheme.
The measures in the Bill support the Government’s goal of an investment-led recovery from coronavirus. Our super deduction will allow companies to claim 130% capital allowances on qualifying plant and machinery investment from this month until 2023. That is the biggest two-year business tax cut in modern history, and it will support firms to make a transformative investment in the UK’s future growth and prosperity.
HMRC assessed the potential for fraud and tax avoidance—something which some Members raised. There are a number of safeguards in the legislation to prevent such abuse, such as the exclusions of connected party transactions and second-hand assets. The legislation introduces a new anti-avoidance provision that applies to counteract arrangements that are contrived, abnormal or lacking a genuine commercial purpose.
In addition, the Bill enables the Government to designate tax sites in freeports in Great Britain, as referenced by the hon. Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden), where, once approved, eligible businesses will be able to benefit from a number of tax reliefs, including capital allowances and relief from stamp duty. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham for his rebuttal to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who sought to link, incredibly, freeports to organised crime. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) that we do expect freeports to enhance the incentives in place in areas like his that already have enterprise zones.
I acknowledge the issues raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), including about steel imports into Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland protocol, and I welcome his remarks on clause 97. He is right to point out what the effect of 25% tariffs would be on engineering firms in Northern Ireland. The Government have been working closely with the steel sector to address that issue, and clause 97 is an example which shows that we are very much committed to ensuring that the protocol works for the people of Northern Ireland.
Let me remind the House that the Finance Bill also has a number of purposes beyond this crisis. As the Financial Secretary outlined earlier, it continues the Government’s work of building a fairer and sustainable tax system. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised air passenger duty. The Bill seeks to set air passenger duty rates for April 2022, and so will not take immediate effect. It will only increase long-haul APD rates in nominal terms, while short-haul rates will remain frozen at current rates, which will benefit over 75% of passengers. Long-haul economy rates, for example, will increase by only £2.
The Bill improves tax transparency by paving the way for the UK to implement the OECD’s international reporting rules for digital platforms, stops tax cheats by strengthening our existing anti-avoidance regimes and tightening the rules designed to tackle promoters and enablers of tax avoidance schemes, and provides even more certainty to taxpayers by setting out a more consistent, fairer penalty regime across VAT and income tax self-assessment. In addition, it will help to deliver a low-carbon future, as highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), with the introduction of a plastic packaging tax and by removing most sectors’ entitlement to use red diesel from April next year. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) raised concerns about the policy. I will ensure that officials continue to engage with the sector, and he should receive a letter from me shortly. We recognise that it will be a big change for some businesses. They have another year before changes take effect, and we are doubling the funding provided for energy innovation through the new £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio, which will support the development of alternatives that businesses can switch to.
As every Member of the House will be all too aware, the past year has been a time of deep economic challenge. The Bill plays a major part in allowing us to meet those challenges today while readying the country for a better tomorrow. For that reason, I cannot support the reasoned amendment, and I commend the Bill as it stands to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
Clauses 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the impact of any provision on the financial resources of families or to the subject matter of those Clauses | 2 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day |
Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and Schedule | 4 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day |
Clauses 109 to 111 and Schedules 21 and 22; and new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the impact of any provision on regional economic development | 6 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day |
Second day | |
Clause 30 and Schedule 6; Clause 36 and Schedule 7; Clause 41; Clause 115 and Schedule 27; Clauses 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to tax avoidance or evasion. | 2 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day |
Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17; Clauses 90 and 91; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and Schedules | 4 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day |
Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18; Clause 97 and Schedule 19; Clauses 128 to 130; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and Schedules | 6 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day |
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Pandemic
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I rise to speak about the use of “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” notices during the pandemic. Last year, the health service was hit by the worst crisis in its history. The whole country was told to stay at home for one simple reason: to save the NHS. That meant not overwhelming the system with too much demand—too many people needing care. We faced a real nightmare scenario of the NHS not being able to treat people who were sick and dying. The horrific idea emerged of doctors or local health managers or the NHS itself having to play God to decide who should live and who should die by deciding who should get treatment and who should not. Thankfully, the NHS was not overwhelmed. This, of course, was mostly due to the heroic work of frontline staff. It is also because every measure possible was put in place to reduce pressure on hospitals. That included people staying at home, building new hospitals at record speed and getting people out of hospital as fast as possible, including to care homes. This is where the occasion for the DNACPR notices came about.
Care homes found themselves under enormous pressure, too. Stories emerged last spring of blanket DNACPR policies being put in place in care settings. They were for people with certain characteristics—people with learning disabilities, people with certain complex needs, and people with life-limiting illnesses. This was done, the report said, without consultation with patients themselves or with families. All this was quite wrong and against all the guidance. Indeed, in April last year, the Care Quality Commission issued a joint statement with the British Medical Association, the Care Provider Alliance and the Royal College of GPs, reminding all providers that it is unacceptable for advanced care plans with or without DNAR notices to be applied to groups of people of any description. I am pleased that they did it. I am particularly pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care— I understand that the Minister herself was responsible—asked the CQC to investigate these reports and to review how DNAR orders were used during the pandemic. I will come to its findings in a moment.
I want to make it clear that DNACPR orders are an appropriate part of our health and care system and can be a right and proper part of an individual’s care plan. We need to distinguish between what might be called beneficial and futile uses of CPR. An obvious example of beneficial CPR is for young people with neuro-degenerative conditions. Respiratory arrest is common for these patients, but with CPR they have an almost 100% survival rate. For them, it is essential and necessary. If a patient’s other vital organs are shutting down—if they are dying—CPR can do little.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman and I share a very common cause, and I appreciate him bringing this debate forward. Does he not agree that for families such as mine who, last year, lost a loved one—my mother-in-law—we would like to believe that any and every measure was taken to save life. The stories that we have heard and that he has referred to are certainly heartbreaking. I very much share his concern.
Danny Kruger
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I extend my condolences to him and his family for the loss that they have suffered. I absolutely agree with him. The value of this debate is perhaps to help communicate the expectation that all patients receive the care that they need right up until the moment of death.
CPR can greatly distress the patient and their family in the last moments. CPR involves a team rushing to the bedside, shoving aside any family members who are gathered around and using what is basically a violent procedure, sometimes involving the breaking of ribs to try to restart the heart. As one doctor interviewed about CPR described it, it can be chaotic, traumatic and brutal. That is not what any of us would wish when our death is imminent, even if it extends life for a few minutes or hours. I have every sympathy with doctors and care home staff who want patients who are approaching death and their families to consider using DNACPR notices, but we have to be really careful about how they are used. That is not just because of the obvious immorality of a blanket policy that effectively judges some people as worth saving and some people as better off dead without consideration for their circumstances or their wishes, but because having a DNACPR notice influences the care people get more generally. There is anecdotal evidence from care homes that patients who have requested they are not resuscitated are not cared for as well as others. They might miss out on antibiotics for a chest infection, for example, or some other treatment for a reversible condition.
The essence of the responsibility of doctors and care staff is that care should persist for all, whatever their condition or capacity. That responsibility is well established in law and guidance, and I particularly value the principles in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which seeks fundamentally to honour the dignity of the individual, no matter their capacity or condition. The 2005 Act also sets out guidance on best interests, which is the test that should be used to determine medical treatment in the event of the individual being unable to decide for themselves. Crucially, a best interests consideration requires decision makers to take a view as if they were the patient. It is not about what they think is best, but what they think the patient would want, and that is vital.
The CQC review concluded in February, and I am greatly relieved by some of its findings and very concerned by others. I am relieved that it did not find evidence of blanket DNACPR policies being applied as official practice by any health or care provider. It also found evidence of really good care being provided, including with the use of DNACPR orders on an individual case-by-case basis, with proper consultation and consideration of the patient’s best interests.
The CQC report also causes me concern that de facto blanket policies may have been in operation largely because we simply cannot tell everything that has been going on. The report highlights some very serious failings. Of the 166 care records that the CQC reviewed, 103 should have included a best interests assessment. In only 33 of these cases is there evidence of an assessment being carried out. Talking to patients and their families, the CQC found that 30% of patients with a DNACPR decision and 43% of families and carers did not feel that the patient’s best interests were fully considered. I am glad to say that the opinion of people with learning disabilities and their families was more positive about best interests considerations in their DNACPR decisions.
I do not believe that providers have been applying blanket policies, but what I am concerned about is the potential for such a thing. I am concerned that not all health and care providers are properly applying best interests considerations in the advance care planning they do with patients.
As the CQC said, we need to take a number of essential steps to prevent the possibility of abuse. There are three main practical recommendations, and I hope the Minister can confirm that her Department is working to implement all of them. The first is that we need a more consistent national approach to the use of these notices. That emphatically does not mean a blanket policy for which patients should receive them, but the opposite: a process to ensure that all patients are treated as individuals. The CQC report particularly highlighted the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment—or ReSPECT—process, which helps everyone involved to make informed decisions about an individual’s future care and treatment.
Secondly, we need to enable these conversations through proper investment in the training and support of the staff who will have them. Thirdly, and crucially, we need proper oversight and assurance that the decisions made have proper record-keeping. It really is scandalous that that was not in place already last year. We need comprehensive records of conversations and decisions. Integrated care systems should be responsible for monitoring the use of DNACPR notices, and the CQC should be responsible for investigating anomalies, such as particularly high or low numbers of orders in particular places.
I conclude with a final and more general observation about what we need, which goes beyond these vital but ultimately technical remedies to the potential for abuse. We need a moral framework that honours the dignity of sick, disabled, elderly or dying people. That is not something that the CQC or the DHSC or this Parliament can simply draw up on a piece of paper. Indeed, I am nervous about the idea of over-regulating end-of-life care and reducing it to a process, because at the end of that road lies the awful scenario we are trying to avoid—a blanket rule on who should live and who should die.
We are never going to be able to write the rules of life and death and every attempt to do so is ultimately dystopian. That is why the ultimate locus of decision making should be in the conversations between doctors and patients, and those who know and love them. We cannot regulate for good conversations, but we can certainly do our best to facilitate them, and the CQC recommendations will help that. The only way to ensure good conversations is to ensure that doctors and families have at heart the best interests of patients. We in this place can encourage good conversations and the right decisions by stating as clearly as we can that human life is infinitely precious, right until the end.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) for securing this debate on the important issue of the use of “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” orders and the decisions that were taken during the pandemic.
We remain crystal clear that the blanket application of DNACPR decisions is unacceptable, and that standards and quality of care should be maintained even in pressurised circumstances such as we have had over the past year with the recent pandemic. Reports of inappropriate or blanket application of DNACPR decisions across groups of people, particularly our most vulnerable, have been—I think my hon. Friend used this word himself—shocking, and failure to consult people and their families on decisions around CPR causes significant distress.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the review undertaken by the CQC also saw examples of good practice. Much work has taken place over the past year, and I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on the action that the Department, the NHS and clinical leaders have taken to tackle this issue and to ensure that excellent patient-centred care is maintained.
In April and May last year, clinical leaders issued a number of joint statements and letters to health and care providers and professional bodies, making it clear that there has never been an instruction or a directive issued by the NHS to put in place blanket DNACPR orders. Those communications also directly addressed and clarified best practice around the use of DNACPRs for people with learning disabilities, and rightly challenged assumptions about clinical frailty regarding that particular group of people.
Clear messages on the use of DNACPR decisions were also reinforced in our adult social care winter plan in September last year. We made it crystal clear that any advanced care decision, including DNACPR decisions, should be fully discussed with the individual and their family, where possible and appropriate, and signed by the clinician responsible for their care.
I have personally been through this process recently. It is true, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that every end-of-life scenario is different. No two cases are ever the same. In my particular case, it was someone with very late stage 4 cancer, and the discussion was very simple and very easy and took a matter of moments. It involved family and clinician, but the person making that decision was very precise about what they wanted. That scenario exists frequently, but there are also people who may not have the full capacity or may require further input and discussions around the decisions that are being taken.
To ensure that we could take early learnings and address directly concerns about inappropriate DNACPR decisions, because we are aware of the variation, I commissioned the CQC to review how DNACPR decisions were being made during the pandemic. The CQC worked at pace to gather insight from across the health and care system. It took in views from experienced staff, and from patients, their families and representatives, to produce an in-depth thematic review of such an important yet complex—and it is complex—issue. I thank the CQC once again for its work, which was speedily and efficiently completed, as well as all those who participated in the review and shared their valuable insight and experience.
The review shone a light on what good conversations around end-of-life care should look like, illustrating examples of clinicians and care staff going above and beyond to deliver these conversations in a caring and compassionate way, despite the pressures posed by the pandemic. However, it also drew a worrying picture of the reasons that some of those conversations fell short of the high-quality and personalised care that people deserve. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the report identified three key areas where improvements must be made.
First, the CQC found a greater need for information, training and support for health and care professionals to hold DNACPR conversations. In particular, the report raised concerns that a range of equality groups, including
“older people, people with dementia and people with a learning disability,”
were not being supported in the right way.
Secondly, the report found that there lacked a consistent national approach to advanced care planning. The language used in holding DNACPR conversations was often complex, with many different types of advanced care plans in use. Clearly, this lack of consistency runs the ongoing risk of affecting the quality of care that people receive.
Finally, the report found that the right processes were not always in place to ensure that people experienced personalised, compassionate care in relation to DNACPR decisions. Poor record keeping and inconsistency in how DNACPR decisions were reviewed, as well as a lack of system oversight, meant that it was not always possible to understand how effective these conversations actually were.
Over the last year, our NHS and adult social care sectors have truly been the backbone of our nation, and staff have worked tirelessly to deliver outstanding care. Nevertheless, we must use these learnings as an opportunity to do better in areas where we can do more. Going forward, we must ensure that staff across health and social care have the tools required to hold these conversations appropriately and compassionately. We must also begin the journey towards normalising these conversations and giving patients, their families and representatives the knowledge to truly be equal partners in their care.
When staff, patients and their families have concerns, we must put in place the best processes to ensure that people feel supported to speak up. That is why we strongly recommend the findings of the review and, as the Minister responsible for this, why I am personally committed to driving forward its recommendations. To that end, I will be heading up a ministerial oversight group that will bring together partners from across the health and social care system, as well as the voluntary and advocacy sector, ultimately to ensure that everyone experiences the compassionate care that they deserve.
Sensitive and well communicated DNACPRs can and should be an important part of patient care. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware that nhs.uk has now put up a public facing message to explain the process of DNACPRs, how those decisions should be taken and how those conversations should happen, so that everybody who wants to know what the process is can go to the website and see it for themselves. We deliberately made it a public facing message and wanted it to be part of the general conversation around this issue. We are committed to taking continued action to ensure that these decisions are managed and communicated well in all settings.
Question put and agreed to.
9.3 pm
House adjourned.
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
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 |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) (Alba) | Owen Thompson |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba) | Owen Thompson |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Antony Higginbotham |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (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) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cathedrals Measure
Diocesan Boards of Education Measure
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Cathedrals Measure (HC 1260).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure (HC 1259).
Andrew Selous
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I shall be as speedy as I can so as not to detain colleagues for too long. Before I start my remarks on the measure itself, I have a few facts to give a little context to what we are talking about. There are 41 English Anglican cathedrals—not including Christ Church, Oxford, which is governed in a different manner—and the most recent survey—pre-covid—showed that each year, more than 10 million adults visit a cathedral, 330,000 schoolchildren go on cathedral visits, and cathedrals contribute around £220 million to the UK economy and employ more than 3,000 people. All cathedrals are involved in social action work, whether that be food banks or specialist training academies to help the long-term unemployed.
The cathedrals measure provides a new statutory framework for the governance and regulation of cathedrals and will replace the framework in the Cathedrals Measure 1999. Best practice in charity governance and safeguarding in the heritage sector have moved on considerably since 1999, and it was recognised that change was needed. The Archbishops’ Council set up the cathedrals working group to consider how the current legislation governing cathedrals was operating and what improvements could be made. That group’s report recommends significant changes to the governance structure of cathedrals, including changes to the composition of a cathedral’s chapter and the regulation of cathedrals by the Charity Commission. The General Synod endorsed the cathedrals working group’s report and recommendations in July 2018. The measure gives effect to those recommendations and involves legislative change.
The reforms in the new measure are designed to provide cathedrals with appropriate governance structures designed to support robust safeguarding, healthy finances and increased accountability. The measure is vital to provide cathedrals with the level framework that they need to support and facilitate them to function in a way that is fit for purpose in the 21st century.
The Archbishops’ Council set up the cathedrals working group in response to a request from the Bishop of Peterborough in his January 2017 visitation charge on Peterborough Cathedral, which was asked to look carefully at how the current legislation governing cathedrals was operating and whether any improvements could be made. The cathedrals working group was tasked with reviewing the sufficiency of the 1999 measure in relation to governance structure in cathedrals, with particular reference to financial management, major building projects, safeguarding, accountability, oversight and scrutiny.
In its final report, the working group set out its recommendations for the future regulation of cathedrals. The most significant of those recommendations related to the governance structure of cathedrals, including: first, that cathedrals should be brought within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Charity Commission; secondly, that changes to the composition of a cathedral’s chapter should be made; and thirdly, that cathedrals should no longer be required by law to have a council. The General Synod endorsed the recommendations in July 2018, and a draft measure was brought to the General Synod for first consideration a year later. The measure implements the recommendations in the cathedrals working group report that require legislative change, subject to amendments made by the General Synod.
In the June 2018 final report on the future of cathedrals, one recommendation was that the cathedrals should be regulated by the Charity Commission in the same way as other bodies in the Church of England. Historically, certain classes of charitable institution were exempt from Charity Commission regulation and did not have any principal regulator. Over the last 20 to 30 years, those classes of institutions have been brought within the Charity Commission’s jurisdiction, but cathedrals have not. Therefore, cathedrals were an anomaly, as a significant class of institution regarded as charitable by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs but not regulated by an independent third party regulator.
The General Synod endorsed the working party’s recommendation that, as a matter of policy, cathedrals should no longer be exempt from the Charity Commission’s jurisdiction. The legal office of the Church of England has worked closely with senior staff at the Charity Commission throughout the drafting process; the Charity Commission was consulted on proposed amendments to the measure, and issues raised with it were addressed. Where the Charity Commission raised issues in relation to the specific provisions of the measure, they were considered by the Revision Committee and an agreement was reached as to how the measure would be amended to address them.
The new measure provides for the Church Commissioners to co-regulate cathedrals with the Charity Commission. This is because the cathedrals working group recommends more, rather than less, oversight of cathedral finances and financial transactions.
As many of the Church Commissioners’ regulatory powers in the 1999 measure relate to areas of cathedral activity but are not regulated by the Charity Commissioner or charity law, the new measure provides that the Church Commissioners will continue to regulate these activities.
A memorandum of understanding between the Charity Commission and the Church Commissioners is in the process of being agreed, to support the co-regulation of cathedrals. The heads of terms for this memorandum of understanding were approved by both the Charity Commission’s board and the Church Commissioners board of governors in September last year, and the detailed memorandum of understanding is now in the process of being drawn up.
In addition, the Charity Commission and the Church Commissioners are expected to approve a registration protocol later this month to set out how the Charity Commission and the Church Commissioners will work in tandem to support and facilitate the cathedrals, adopting new constitutions and statutes, and applying to the Charity Commission for registration over the next three years.
On safeguarding, the new measure contains specific changes to improve safeguarding in cathedrals, including that chapters will become subject to the same statutory requirements in relation to safeguarding as parochial church councils and other Church bodies. The new measure includes similar provisions to the disqualification provisions for parochial church council members in the Church representation rules for chapter members. Chapters will also be included in the list of relevant persons, which must have due regard to, or comply with, the House of Bishops safeguarding guidance. Lastly, leadership on matters relating to safeguarding will become a formal responsibility of the dean. These changes will support the wider changes and improvements to safeguarding policy and practice currently being made with Church of England, which will apply to cathedrals.
In relation to councils and chapters of cathedrals, the current 1999 measure confirms the number of statutory functions on the Cathedral council, but without any power to take action if it considers that there are problems with the way the cathedral is being governed. The split in trustee functions between the chapter and the council has not been conducive to good governance in cathedrals.
The new measure therefore addresses this and provides that all trustee functions will sit with an expanded chapter, which has a majority of non-executive members. The members of the expanded chapter—with charity trustees, the dean and the residentiary canons—will continue to be ex officio members of the chapter.
While the new measure does not include a statutory requirement for each cathedral to have a council, a chapter will have the option of setting up advisory bodies, which may take the form of an advisory council of stakeholders, should it wish to do so. Such a council would have the functions conferred on it by the chapter, which could include the non-statutory functions currently undertaken by many councils. The details as to the composition, functions and proceedings of any advisory bodies, such as the council, will be set out in the cathedral’s statutes.
I now turn to the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991. If I may again provide a little context, Mr Gray, there are 4,644 Church of England schools up and down the country; that means that approximately 1 million children currently attend Church of England schools. About 15 million people who are alive today went to a Church of England school, and a quarter of the primary schools in England and over 200 secondary schools are Church of England schools.
The Diocesan Boards of Education Measure updates and replaces the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991, which provides a legal framework within which the Church of England’s dioceses engage and work with Church schools. This measure is necessary to reflect a number of significant changes to the education landscape over the past 30 years. The key changes made by the new measure to reflect the current and anticipated future education environment in which diocesan boards of education are and will be operating are as follows: first, the new measure makes suitable provision in relation to academies and multi-academy trusts to reflect the development of the school system since 2010. Secondly, diocesan boards of education will still be able to be an independent charity and, like other such charities, to be either incorporated or unincorporated. However, the new measure will also enable diocesan boards of education to be a statutory committee of the diocesan board of finance, rather than an independent charity. The option to be a statutory committee of the diocesan board of finance regularises the decision for a number of dioceses who, as a matter of practice, already have similar arrangements in place which they found to be a useful governance arrangement.
Thirdly, under the new measure, each diocesan synod must make a scheme designating a body as the diocesan board of education for the diocese, and must send the scheme to the Secretary of State. That simplifies the current system which requires the Secretary of State’s approval, and the Department for Education has been consulted and supports this change. The measure reflects and provides for the current and anticipated future environment in which diocesan boards of education are operating by making suitable provision for academies and multi-academy trusts. The Department for Education and the Charity Commission were consulted on the measure and on the amendments to it, and any points raised have been addressed. With that, I close my remarks, Mr Gray.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will be very brief, which I am sure everyone will be absolutely delighted to hear, although I must say this room is considerably warmer than the last time I remember being here. I do not have any questions on the education measure. I very much welcome the Cathedrals Measure overall and particularly the importance of safeguarding. I think that is very important, particularly the reference to actually reporting the outcome of such cases should they arise.
Just a couple of points on clause 23 on the disposal of land. What happens where, for instance, somebody is actually still living on that land? Is this an improvement on what exists at the moment or is there not a formal structure?
Clause 23 refers to property that has been endowed. Is that from the Church to the cathedral or does that include third parties as well? If it does include third parties and if there was an argument over that, are the Church Commissioners the appropriate body to look at that? If it is only referring to the Church providing the cathedral with that, that would not really arise. I do not have any further questions.
Andrew Selous
Thank you very much, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and particularly his welcome for the measures to improve safeguarding. The Archbishop of Canterbury is on record as being deeply apologetic about the Church of England’s abject failure in this area in the past, so it is absolutely incumbent on us to have the very best safeguarding procedures. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we will endeavour to be as excellent as we possibly can in this area.
Turning to the disposal of land, if there were tenants or people living on that land, the Church of England would always seek to act in a sympathetic and appropriate way. The Commissioners have extensive land holdings up and down the country—commercial, to a lesser extent residential, and agricultural—and we pride ourselves on wanting to look after our tenants well. Obviously, this would be considered on a case-by-case basis, but having served on the board of the Commissioners for a year, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take our responsibilities seriously when it comes to looking after our tenants.
Andrew Selous
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s probing of this question. Although, as he said, it is slightly outside the scope of this measure, I know that where someone—like your very distinguished father, Mr Gray—has been a clergyman all their life and has moved from vicarage to vicarage, and then does not have their own property, the Church of England will provide property for that retired vicar and their family to live out their retirement in. Obviously, the ownership remains with the Church and will revert to the Church on their death, but I know of many examples where that has happened. Again, we take our responsibility to our clergy very seriously, and want to be a good employer.
Turning to the disposal of land gifted to a cathedral, again, it is probably a little bit difficult for me to comment without particular examples in front of us, but the Church would always seek to follow property law properly. We would always look at the intentions of the settlor in leaving the land to the Church. The Church does dispose of land from time to time—in my own diocese of St Albans, I know that Church land has been sold to provide the funding for our local multi-academy trust—so the Church very much does put its money where its mouth is to support mission and its current objectives.
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Church, like any institution run by human beings, has clearly not got everything right in the past. However, from all my dealings with the property department at Church House, I know that they try very hard to do the right thing, as I also know from my correspondence with hon. Members about Church land in their constituencies—I have an ongoing correspondence with a number of Members in this area. The property department is accountable to the Board of Governors of the Church Commissioners. I sit there as a representative of Parliament, taking up the concerns of Members of Parliament, so I say to the hon. Gentleman, members of this Committee and Members of the House that if they have any concerns of this nature—that the Church might not be acting in the most appropriate or sensitive way—please get in touch with me, and I will take those concerns up. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that.
Question put and agreed to.
DIOCESAN BOARDS OF EDUCATION MEASURE
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure (HC 1259).—(Andrew Selous.)
Draft NuclEar Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, though obviously not when people are speaking. Our colleagues from Hansard would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 25 February 2021. This is an uncontroversial statutory instrument that is required to implement a protocol signed by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Japan on 16 December 2020 to amend the 1998 nuclear co-operation agreement between the UK and Japan. The draft statutory instrument will amend regulations to ensure that the United Kingdom may comply with the provisions of that protocol.
To understand the importance of the draft statutory instrument, one needs first to understand the purpose of the protocol. Nuclear co-operation agreements are commonly used international agreements that give legal underpinnings to civil nuclear co-operation. They provide key non-proliferation assurances, including respective nuclear safeguards and a framework for nuclear trade. Japan is an important partner of the United Kingdom in nuclear co-operation and non-proliferation. Both countries collaborate in the areas of nuclear regulation, research and development, decommissioning and advanced nuclear technology development.
The primary aim of the protocol is to maintain that mutually beneficial relationship between the UK and Japan on civil nuclear trade and co-operation. It achieves that by ensuring that the United Kingdom-Japan nuclear co-operation agreement, which it amends, is fully operable now that the United Kingdom operates its own domestic safeguards regimes and is no longer part of Euratom.
The protocol goes further, by including provisions that strengthen the mutually beneficial relationship between the UK and Japan. The additional provisions cover issues such as co-operation on R&D, intellectual property, safety and the expansion of the scope of the nuclear co-operation agreement to include technology.
I will now seek to explain what changes the draft statutory instrument will effect. First, it will amend the Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, so that the protocol is included under the definition of “relevant international agreement” for the purposes of the Energy Act 2013.
That primarily concerns the role and responsibility of the UK’s nuclear regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation. One of the office’s statutory purposes is to ensure that the UK complies with relevant international agreements. The draft regulations will ensure that the protocol is captured as such an agreement. Failure to pass the statutory instrument would therefore mean that the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s role would not include any reference to what has been agreed in the protocol, leaving the UK at risk of breaching the agreement. That, clearly, would not be an acceptable outcome.
The second change effected by this draft secondary legislation is the inclusion of the protocol under the definition of “specified international agreement” for the purposes of the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The change will extend the requirement in those regulations for operators to provide information to the Secretary of State relating to qualifying nuclear material or other relevant items in respect of the protocol. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Committee will be pleased to hear that we do not intend to oppose the draft statutory instrument. As the Minister has said, it relates to an international protocol that amends our relationship with the Government of Japan as far as co-operation on and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy are concerned. It has been properly arrived at with the Government of Japan, and it appears before us today for ratification. As the Minister can observe, if we did decide to oppose it, I think we would lose 3-2, so it is perhaps not worth going down that route.
Dr Whitehead
Tighter than sometimes.
I will ask the Minister a couple of questions, which will take a moment to unfold. I hope that she will be able to respond to me this afternoon. If not, perhaps she would be willing to write to me. When looking at this particular protocol, we need to nest it in what happened before it came about, its purpose and what it either adds to or replaces. In this particular instance, and in the instance of a number of other protocols that have been agreed bilaterally between the UK Government and foreign countries, it stems from the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, which clarified that the Government should sign a “relevant safeguards agreement”, in this instance
“relating to nuclear safeguards to which the United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency are parties.”
At that time, the relationship between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UK was effectively through the medium of Euratom. The UK was a member of Euratom, which had international protocols with various other states. It was therefore necessary, on the UK leaving Euratom, for us to not only replace a voluntary agreement with the IAEA but, as is set out further in the Act, ensure that principal international agreements had been signed prior to the UK leaving Euratom. The Act states that, if
“one or more of the principal international agreements have not been signed”,
a “relevant request” has to be made for a continuation of effective membership of Euratom until such signatories had been achieved.
That was given effect by the Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, from which this protocol effectively derives. Among other things, that secondary legislation required a Minister to specify the relevant international agreements. In other words, they had to carry out the part of the legislation that required those agreements to have been signed or, if they had not been signed, make a relevant request to Euratom for continuation. The UK formally left Euratom on 31 January 2020, which was not the same day as exit day from the EU. Euratom is a treaty organisation that precedes the EU, so the process of leaving was different.
The statutory instrument setting out those agreements was passed in 2019. During the course of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill Committee, the then Minister indicated that all the international agreements that should have been signed were well under way and there was not going to be much of a problem. Indeed, he was confident that they would all be signed and
“presented to Parliament before ratification, ahead of the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom”.––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2017; c. 57.]
What then appeared in the secondary legislation of 2019 was a little curious. On 7 June 2018, a protocol was agreed to distinguish the UK’s relationship with the IAEA from its relationship with Euratom. On 4 May 2018, a similar agreement was made with the USA, which is one of the countries with which it is necessary to sign. Similar agreements were made with Canada on 2 November 2018, and with Australia on 21 August 2018. Curiously, the 2019 regulations mentioned an agreement with Japan, but dated it February 1998. That agreement did actually exist but it was essentially superfluous because of the UK’s relationship with Euratom. That agreement with Japan specifically stated that the UK was a member of Euratom and that the agreement should therefore be in addition to those arrangements.
The 2019 regulations state:
“The Secretary of State specifies each of the following agreements as a ‘relevant international agreement’ for the purposes of section 112(1A) of the Energy Act 2013,”
which was, of course, amended by the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 and relates to the agreements that needed to be signed. My first question is: why did the 2019 regulations state that the agreement with Japan, which was signed on 25 February 1998 and which specifically said that we were a member of Euratom, was a relevant international agreement for the purpose of stating that we were not a member of Euratom?
The protocol that was signed in December 2020 is fairly hard to find, but happily I have a copy in front of me. It states specifically that the protocol deletes the words:
“and Recognising that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a member of the European Atomic Energy Community (hereinafter referred to as ‘EURATOM’).”
I agree that the protocol does a few other things in terms of nuclear co-operation, but its main purpose is to state that we are not a member of Euratom anymore. Indeed, that is why this draft SI is before us today—to amend our relationship with Japan on the basis that we are not a member of Euratom and are, therefore, acting independently of it with the IAEA.
My second question is: does the Minister recognise that what was passed in the secondary legislation of 2019 was simply a mistake and that it has been rectified by the protocol under discussion, on which I hope we all agree? Alternatively, does she think that that secondary legislation was all right, in which case what we are discussing this evening is superfluous? If that is the case, she should reflect on the possibility that what we have been doing since we left Euratom is not legal according to the legislation passed in 2018.
If we have been operating in a non-legal or semi-legal way for the past year or so, I hope it will not have any real consequences, but I would be grateful if the Minister would write to me about this matter. I do not expect her to give me all the answers today, but I hope that she can at least give me an assurance that everything has been done properly. If that is not the case, were steps taken to ensure that we did not cause any problems, given that we appear to have not done the relevant international agreements properly until the appearance of this agreement today?
Those are my couple of easy questions for the Minister. I hope she will consider them carefully and either tell me that I am completely wrong or reassure me on what has happened between 2018 and today.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, his forensic analysis and his challenge to the Government on process. Once I and officials have looked at his points in detail, I will absolutely write to him.
As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, the UK and Japan have previously had relevant nuclear co-operation agreements in force—the 1998 UK-Japan bilateral nuclear co-operation agreement and the 2007 Euratom-Japan nuclear co-operation agreement—which was not the case with the US, Canada and Australia. Of course, the 2007 agreement ceased to apply when we stepped away from the EU, but the 1998 nuclear co-operation agreement remains in force.
Given that the policy changes made to the 1998 UK-Japan nuclear co-operation agreement were minor, it was not deemed necessary to agree a whole new nuclear co-operation agreement. Instead, a protocol to the agreement was deemed to be the most appropriate measure. There was an exchange of notes, which was considered a temporary solution that would come into force in any scenario where Euratom arrangements ceased to apply, which indeed they did, and the protocol had not then come into force. This protocol obviously represents a robust solution for our UK-Japan civil nuclear trade and co-operation, following our departure from Euratom, and it ensures continuity with an important partner.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that partial elucidation. However, does she appreciate that, in terms of our leaving Euratom, at the very least this did not appear to have been made in time for the arrangements set out under the 2018 Act? I think she has partly confirmed that in her consideration of the status of the original protocol and what needed to be added to it in order to get us to a proper position—which is, indeed, the position we are now in today.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I hope that I have provided the necessary assurances for now and I absolutely commit to writing to him with the finer points of detail that I hope will give him the reassurance he needs that the UK-Japanese relationship is absolutely watertight and continues to be of great importance to both countries.
As I said at the start, these draft regulations will ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with the provisions of the protocol agreed between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Japan, and by extension will help to maintain mutually beneficial civil nuclear trade and co-operation between ourselves and Japan. Therefore, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Apsana Begum
On that point, after the Battersea incident, a group of campaigners gave evidence to various Committees of the House, which resulted in a crane register being developed. The register was scrapped after 2010. Does the Minister have any views on whether that should be brought back? In my view, it should.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the existence of the former tower crane register. The tower crane register was a short-lived statutory scheme requiring duty holders to send the HSE information about any tower cranes they were erecting. It was intended to provide reassurance to the public. There was, however, no demonstrable improvement to tower crane safety, and the regulations and register were revoked in 2015 as a result, but I do take her point.
[Official Report, 22 March 2021, Vol. 691, c. 753.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the existence of the former tower crane register. The tower crane register was a short-lived statutory scheme requiring duty holders to send the HSE information about any tower cranes they were erecting. It was intended to provide reassurance to the public. There was, however, no demonstrable improvement to tower crane safety, and the regulations and register were revoked in 2013 as a result, but I do take her point.
Petition
Extension of statutory paid bereavement leave
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
Global Human Security
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered global human security.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate. The extraordinary experience of the pandemic that we have just lived through has shown us, if anything, that we need an honest discussion about the threats that put all our lives at risk. For years, we have thought that security is about the risks to our nation from hostile actors. It is, of course, important that we are properly aware of and knowledgeable about those risks and equipped to tackle them, but as long as we continue to define security in those narrow terms, we risk neglecting our duty to our constituents to keep them safe now and for generations to come. The world around us is changing, and we must scrutinise our core conventional security assumptions. Ranging from emerging artificial intelligence, cyberwar and organised crime to pandemics and the climate emergency, threats to our security are becoming more complex and more diverse.
The term “human security” was first championed by the United Nations Development Programme in its annual report on human development. It is about security for people: it covers economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security; it puts the experience and wellbeing of the individual at the centre of security policy. Because the challenges that we face are increasingly transnational, human security prioritises international co-operation over competitive national strategies and emphasises the shared security of all humanity.
We cannot continue to seek 20th-century solutions for 21st-century problems. There is no starker reminder than the past year of the impact of the growing range of security threats on people’s lives. It was a virus, not a hostile actor, that brought our lives to a standstill overnight. It was a virus, not a hostile actor, that threatened businesses, jobs and livelihoods. It was a virus, not a hostile actor, that killed more than 120,000 British civilians in the space of a year. With more than 134 million cases worldwide, the truth is that many countries were simply not prepared for the covid pandemic. Our Governments, institutions, policy making and planning need to focus on how we become a lot better at detecting and responding to pandemic threats.
Conflict and crisis prevention are even more important than crisis management. Scientists are already warning that we face an increased threat from pandemics, in terms of both their size and their frequency. Many agree that our behaviour—from deforestation to our encroachment on wildlife habitats—is helping to spread diseases from animals to humans more frequently. In the past 20 years alone, there have been no fewer than six significant threats: SARS, MERS, Ebola, avian influenza, swine flu and covid-19. In the words of Professor Matthew Baylis,
“We dodged five bullets but the sixth got us.”
As the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response says, we must now learn the lessons of covid-19.
The human security approach is about addressing the root causes of vulnerabilities and taking early action on emerging risks. With the tragedy of covid still in our minds, we must use this opportunity to prepare ourselves better against the biological threats that we face. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office should use the G7 and other international gatherings as an opportunity to transform biological security across the board. After all, we do not know what the next covid-19 will look like.
By now, we have had plenty of warnings of the climate and ecological emergency, which has the potential to be even more devastating than covid-19. It is nearly 50 years since the UN’s first major conference on international environment issues in 1972, yet successive Governments have failed to take the climate emergency seriously. In just under 30 years we need to cut all our carbon emissions worldwide to net zero. Although we have known about the threats for decades we have failed to act decisively for far too long. Rises in temperature are now accelerating at a faster rate than most scientists anticipated. It might already be too late to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5° C.
Rising temperatures will lead to widespread natural disasters, environmental degradation, food and water insecurity, rising sea levels and shrinking amounts of land for humans to farm and live on. They will further exacerbate the huge inequality between the global north and south and could lead to large-scale migration and become a catalyst for new conflicts that will threaten international peace and security at a level as yet unknown and unquantifiable. Here in the UK there will be more frequent and severe extreme weather. Higher temperatures will mean increased flooding, property damage and pressure on public services. Crucially it will be those in the poorest communities who will suffer the most.
We are not just in the middle of a climate crisis. Nature is in crisis too. Our way of life, especially in developed nations, is exploiting our global resources in a way that is becoming increasingly unsustainable for our planet. As nature declines, so does the quality of human life. Pollution and poor air quality alone cost millions of lives every year across the globe. We in the UK are not excluded. Those things all beg the question whether the way we currently look at security policy limits the extent to which Government can keep us safe.
Threats to human security such as climate change are predictable and are incrementally destructive, but consecutive Governments have failed to do anything meaningful about them because the worst impacts of climate change stretch well beyond average election cycles. Short-termism leads to long-run costs for short-run savings. Issues of widespread consequences are neglected in the agenda in favour of matters that seem to be more immediate and easier to manage before the next election comes along. That is why the UK should lead the way by looking beyond short-term political cycles and should introduce a wellbeing for future generations Bill. That would reset our approach to the way we plan for long-term crises.
As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for future generations, I am a champion of the Wellbeing of Future Generations (No. 2) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It has the support of more than 100 organisations. That Bill would enshrine in legislation a long-term approach to security so that we could foresee and plan for growing risks, including nuclear proliferation, climate change, and risks from future technologies such as artificial intelligence and synthetic biology. It would ensure that Governments would publish a long-term vision for a better UK and put together a national risk assessment, looking forward to the next 25 years after each general election.
Many countries have already started to address damaging short-termism. Examples are the Finnish Committee for the Future and the Singapore Centre for Strategic Futures. Closer to home is the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. However, there is no such body in Westminster. Adopting a Bill designed specifically to mitigate the worst effects of climate change would set the UK up as a trailblazer at COP26—the first UN country with such legislation. An Act dedicated to safeguarding the wellbeing of future generations would set a gold standard for having preventive safeguards in place before it is too late.
During the pandemic we have seen the UK’s health and wellbeing inequalities playing out in real time, and threatening financial and health insecurities. We Liberal Democrats believe that someone in the Cabinet must be responsible for the wellbeing of the British people. A wellbeing budget, following New Zealand’s example, would help to inform the Government’s decisions on what would improve the wellbeing of people across the country. This year’s integrated review has come at the middle of one of the most disruptive global crises in living memory. It is encouraging that for the first time it defines whom our security policy is trying to keep safe. However, for all its talk of long-termism, co-operation and future technology, it is deeply rooted in the old logic of competition.
It is hugely disappointing that the review reneges on previous decisions to reduce the UK’s nuclear stockpile. Instead it increases our stockpile by more than 40% only a month before the next non-proliferation treaty review conference. This not only undermines our record on nuclear disarmament but makes it significantly more difficult for us to make a compelling case in encouraging other NPT-recognised states to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, let alone states outside the NPT.
Today I urge the Minister not to allow this integrated review to be a missed opportunity for setting a course for a sustainable future, and to provide an operational plan that assesses the implementation of the integrated review, based on how it improves global human security. Such a plan must permit us to monitor and evaluate who will benefit from the review, and what impact it will have on their security and wellbeing.
The scale of global human tragedy is alive in our minds. There is no better time than now to put in place long-lasting protections to safeguard current and future generations, focusing on the security and well-being of the individual worldwide, abandoning strategies based solely on competition between nations and ensuring long-lasting global co-operation.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this debate. We could not be further apart politically speaking, but she is right to raise this issue in a Westminster Hall debate, so that we can discuss how we can go forward in creating new ways to tackle this matter and to deliver on behalf of not only our own citizens but citizens around the world.
It is interesting to read United Nations resolution 66/290 from 25 October 2012, in which the UN outlines human security as something that tackles “survival, livelihood and dignity”, with an interest in restoring communities. I want to talk about dignity because, free from poverty and despair, having a people-centred approach and ensuring that we can provide peace, prosperity and development around the world is an important issue and one that I think the United Kingdom has been a global leader on.
Of course, that is somewhat in contention at the moment, because of some of the other issues that have been raised over the course of this pandemic, most specifically that of gender-based violence. I apologise to the Minister, because I think that every time we have come across each other in a Westminster Hall debate, I have raised this issue. However, what we have seen in the course of the past 13 months is a systematic rise of gender-based violence—the persecution of women, of men, of boys and of girls across the world. It is a pandemic that was here before the current Covid pandemic and it will be here long afterwards. Gender-based violence is an issue that is not just dealt with by or due to the nation state; it is a crisis that impacts humanity across the world and it must be addressed.
I make the point that the United Kingdom has shown global leadership on this issue, because we helped to pass the UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. However, in recent years we have seen the systematic increase of gender-based violence becoming all the more pronounced. In 2017, 87,000 women were killed, which equates to 137 a day, and the UN has suggested that last year alone about 242 million women and girls would be victims of sexual abuse. Of course, at the moment there is no remit to bring perpetrators to justice. We rightly talk about dignity and about the ability to help those most in need across the world, but where is the dignity if we stay silent on this issue? Where is the dignity in our responses and our ambitions if we fail to tackle this pervasive and increasing horror, which is a gross human rights violation?
We have been retreating on these issues, and I have heard time and time again from the Government about the fact that the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative continues to thrive from place to place, and continues to involve itself in different regions of the world. Yet at present in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, where some of the most appalling human rights violations—including sexual violence—are going on, the PSVI has not been deployed. The PSVI is no longer being used for the very purpose that it was set up for, so I have to question in this important debate on this important subject why we are not using the tools that we have at our disposal to help those who are most in need.
My second point should not be a surprise, given the point I have just made. It is the fact that one of the ways in which we can tackle this issue, and one of the ways in which we can show global leadership, is by retaining the 0.7% target. This is something that I have long seen as a tool in Britain’s diplomatic arsenal, a tool that allows us to be a global leader in development, and a tool that we have been able to use in our diplomatic network. To be able to tackle the valid points raised by the hon. Member for Bath, which I am sure others will raise as well, we must retain that number so that we can show our commitment to the world and continue to fund programmes and show global leadership
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the current signals from the Government, we are setting ourselves up against other nations rather than wanting to work with them? That is not a good way of seeking co-operation across the board on such important issues as women and violence.
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. I think we are stepping back where we should step forward. The UK has form in leadership, but we are not doing that. The Minister can shake his head—I am sorry to be against him on this issue—but when it comes to sexual and gender-based violence and aid, we are expected to play a part. Nations do not accept that we are doing that at present, so we must take a step forward.
I know many Members wish to speak in this debate. We have a duty to the world’s poorest, a duty to those in despair, and a duty to those who are suffering. As conflicts and crises rage around the world, we are seen to be mute. I hope the Minister can correct me on where I am wrong and can tell me that our units are going out to Ethiopia to help victims of gender-based and sexual violence, but nothing has shown me anything different from what has been suggested already. We often confuse movement for action. Following this debate and many others that we will have in this Chamber, I hope we will be able to address this issue and recognise that it is not just about the nation state, but about how we respond to human crises around the world in a way that we can rightly be proud of.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. My heartiest congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this debate. As is typical, she has covered most of the points that I intended to make, including the one about the number of nuclear weapons that this country proposes to have in future.
My hon. Friend made the point that human security is not just about armed forces, but about what has happened recently. She pointed out that the huge number of deaths in this country has been due to the virus, and that has led, we think, to a 20% drop in our GDP. As my party’s defence spokesman, I want to pay real tribute to our armed forces and the role that they have played in recent times. I have on several occasions pressed the Secretary of State for Defence on their deployment in terms of testing and the roll-out of the vaccine, and I give credit where it is due. I have had straight answers from him and have seen with my own eyes the good work that has been done.
Having served, not with any particular honour, as a private soldier in the Territorial Army, I know that the armed forces, once they have been trained and are ready, spend a lot of time waiting when nothing much happens. From the conversations that I have had, I know that the armed forces personnel who took part in testing the vaccination actually enjoyed the work. They saw it as something different and felt proud that they were playing a role in defeating the deadly virus.
As I represent a constituency that is subject to more extreme weather than many other parts of the United Kingdom, I know all about global warming, which has already been mentioned. The armed forces also have a big role to play when we have a landslip. God forbid that we do, but, alas, when we do and something goes wrong—when a railway line is blocked or a road goes over the edge—they too can help out, and indeed they do. Again, as in fighting the deadly virus, they actually enjoy the work, and it gives them experience of using their machinery to see what they can do with it.
For that reason, I am bound to make this one political point: I deplore the proposed cut in the number of military personnel. Yes, we can do things very cleverly with computers, to which I will turn in a minute, but at the end of the day we need the human bodies and the skills out there to fight and defend our human security in the widest possible sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath has outlined.
I turn now to cyber-security. As I have mentioned before, during the armed forces parliamentary scheme the year before last, when I joined the 3rd Battalion Yorkshire Regiment in Estonia, it was made clear to me by a colour sergeant that it would be extremely dangerous for me to turn on my iPhone that close to the Russian border. He said, “Quite simply, they will triangulate in on you right away and in no time at all hack into your iPhone”. We were told in almost blood-curdling terms, “Do not use social media. If you take a picture, don’t send it anywhere at all”. Despite my TA experience a long time ago, this shook me and showed that the threat to this country via cyber-attack is very real indeed.
I want to take this point one step further. It is easy to think of Russia attacking us in this way, but let us remember other enemies are out there—China, North Korea and others have been mentioned several times. Alas, we live in a dangerous world and we have to defend ourselves.
This is not just about an attack on an institution, such as the House of Commons and our own defence systems. It can, sadly, be on an individual. We have seen the spread of antisemitism and all sorts of unfortunate messages being pushed, possibly from Russian bots, possibly from other countries, we know not, but it is done with malevolent intent, make no mistake of that.
I close with two small examples of the connected-up nature of this. It is no accident that RT—Russian Television—uses its services to try to undermine some of the things that we hold most dear in the United Kingdom. I want to put on record today that I absolutely deplore Mr Alex Salmond’s refusal to accept the disgraceful, horrific nature of the murder and attack in Salisbury. I do not think this man realises that he is the unwitting pawn of Russia’s chess game to undermine the United Kingdom. I know that the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), has lived in Northern Ireland. As we see events unroll in Northern Ireland right now, how do we know that the hand of cyber-security is not in some way linked to this? Perhaps I am scaremongering, but I am also realistic as to the threat that this nation and the world face.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply with great interest. What does he feel about the connected nature of cyber-defence, not just in defending our institutions such as the House of Commons, the banks and defence systems, but also at the lower, individual level where somebody could be taken out via a nasty cyber-attack? How can we manage with fewer armed forces personnel?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
This debate is very valuable and important. It should have been held before the Government launched their review of this country’s security arrangements and before their statements about future levels of expenditure on overseas aid and defence. We put defence expenditure up by £24 billion and cut overseas aid expenditure, which surely gives a very bad message to the rest of the world.
Issues of real security need to be addressed in a fundamental way. What is security? Security for a human being is the ability to be able to live peacefully, to eat, to be educated, to have health care for them and their children, and to live a full and fulfilling life. That is surely something that we all want for ourselves. The UN recognises it is an important benchmark for human development. Indeed, our Ministry of Defence recognises that as well, because it has a department dealing with issues surrounding human security.
However, we then have to look at the reality of the world as it is at the present time. Broadly speaking, western countries have a fairly high standard of living, albeit with massive inconsistencies and inequalities, but other countries, mainly in the global south, have less access to health care, almost no access in some cases to free education and shorter life expectancy. Surely those factors are major drivers of world insecurity and the conflicts we presently have. We should be looking at human development in the future and how our overseas aid expenditure can help that; how a fairer trading system could reduce tensions around the world and raise living standards; and how we can deal with the food distribution crisis around the world that results in so many people living in hunger.
We must also look at the human rights crisis in many parts of the world in which women’s rights, children’s rights and the rights to free speech and assembly are denied. Those, too, are drivers of injustice and inequality.
The other factor in global affairs has to be the overwhelming need for us to take the present issues of environmental disaster and climate change very seriously. The rate of global warming is not slowing—it is increasing. We are not going to reach net zero by 2050 at the current rate of affairs, yet we need to reach net zero by 2030.
The opportunities coming up for us to contribute to this are numerous. One is COP26 later this year, at which we need not just to set an example of our activities in this country—where, yes, we are generating more electricity from renewable sources—but to go a lot further. We also have to ensure that we do not export pollution by importing goods made from polluting sources. COP26 is a huge opportunity that we must not miss to reach net zero by 2030, if at all possible, and to ensure that the technology to achieve that is universally shared.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the UN proposals on a global ban on nuclear weapons are also coming up. Yet instead of fulfilling our obligations under the NPT, we are proposing to produce even more nuclear weapons in this country. That will not make us safer, it is illegal within the terms of the NPT, and we ought to be leading the way towards a nuclear-free world by co-operating with the UN proposals, and with other countries.
The third area of great insecurity is the number of refugees around the world. There are 70 million refugees who are products of environmental disaster, of wars, and of human rights abuses. They demand somewhere to live; they demand the right to contribute to our world. Instead of using threats against them, we should recognise the problems that have led them to seek refuge in the first place. There are major issues around the world: a war in Yemen, a war in Afghanistan—albeit relatively low level—and the huge number of arms sales that we make to Saudi Arabia and other countries, which actually contribute to those conflicts.
I would hope that we could have a more thoughtful approach to the longer term. I have no truck with human rights abuses anywhere in the world, be they in China, in Russia, in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. Our contribution ought always to be arguing for the UN universal declaration and for human rights-based foreign policy. That, surely, would help to bring about peace in the future.
However, if the rhetoric from Government is always about ratcheting up a cold war with China, ratcheting up a cold war with Russia and pouring more arms into every area of conflict around the world, that will not bring us peace, and our armed forces could be put in harm’s way.
To follow what the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, I have met some of our armed forces who saved lives in the Mediterranean by pulling refugees out of the sea off the coast of Libya who were in danger of drowning while they were seeking a place of safety, or helped people dealing with the Ebola crisis, and they told me it was the most useful thing they had ever done. Our armed forces have enormous skills to protect us from cyber-security attacks, but we also need to ensure that those skills are used to bring about a more peaceful world.
Lastly, there is now a real danger of an even worse conflict developing in Myanmar, where there has been a coup to take over the Government and where the army is now in charge. Surely we must do everything we can to bring about a political solution for all the people of Myanmar, including the Rohingya people who have been forced into exile in Bangladesh, so that we can make our contribution to bringing about a much more peaceful world. Surely the crisis of the environment, of human rights and of refugees around the world ought to be the big signal that, post covid, the world needs to work together to conquer disease, poverty and inequality. Increasing arms expenditure and arms sales will not bring about that more peaceful world.
I want to record my thanks to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her thoughtfulness in introducing this debate and for her excellent early-day motion. She has made a great contribution to the House today.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I very much welcome today’s debate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for tabling this discussion, in which I want to raise a number of key points.
Fundamentally, this is about a reconceptualisation of security, away from essentially—in some respects, almost purely—national security towards human security. Historically, international law and security have largely been framed through the lens of the nation state. Threats have been considered in terms of the effect of aggression, or things such as economic warfare, on the autonomy of states. Obviously those are still realities in many respects, both for the UK and other states around the world. None the less, it is important that we change our assessment of threats and do so in a way that reflects our changing values.
Many speakers have referred to the importance of human rights. If we are to conceive human rights as genuinely universal, that cannot be just a theory. We must try to live that out in practice, and that means having a serious conversation about what it means to be secure. There are multiple dimensions to that, including someone’s personal autonomy and dignity, their economic prospects and prosperity, the most fundamental of which is their food security, and their opportunities, not least in education—educational opportunity for girls is a theme that many Members have been keen to stress—as well as basic freedoms and rights, and also more recently, with the realities of climate change, environmental security.
But this is not simply a question of altruism. We have to recognise our interdependence with what happens in the rest of the world—with our closest neighbours, but also with those much further afield. There are three major interlinking themes, which we are all very conscious of at present. One is the looming climate change and the climate emergency, and what we need to do by 2050 to ensure carbon neutrality. We cannot simply view that through the lens of the UK alone; we have to ensure that the world is moving at the same pace. The UK has a particular responsibility, as one of the states that industrialised first and that has historically been one of the greater polluters, to show leadership and bring others with us. We also have issues with migration flows and how destabilising they can be, so we must understand the reasons why people are often pushed to flee from their own societies.
Then we have the issue of pandemics. We do not know what lies in the future, even whenever we think beyond covid, but that reinforces the importance of seeing health security in a global sense, because the UK can never be fully safe unless the rest of the world is properly vaccinated. It is therefore important that the UK builds upon what I acknowledge to be strong leadership through COVAX and does more to try to ensure that the rest of the world is keeping pace with the UK.
Over the last number of decades, we have seen a range of conflicts and war zones around the world, and many of those have involved gross abuses of human rights right through to ethnic cleansing and genocide. We have to be honest that at times there has been a certain selectivity in terms of how different states around the world have responded.
I remember growing up in the 1980s and seeing the images from Cambodia on TV screens, and how that conflict was essentially parked by the great powers because it did not suit anyone’s interests to get involved. In effect, genocide occurred as we looked on with a degree of futility. More recently in the 1990s, we saw the situation in Rwanda where it was blatantly obvious what was happening and a full-scale genocide took place within a matter of weeks, but the world looked away because it was not viewed as an issue of national interest or people had been exhausted by interventions that had taken place elsewhere.
Other conflicts, even the situation in eastern Congo through to Yemen today, have not received the same degree of attention that other war zones have received from the international community because other interests have come to pass. Often where we have intervened or sought to use our influence, these have not been the ones where the greatest loss of life has occurred. Of course, where we have taken action has been important and was the correct decision to make, but we have at times turned a blind eye because we did not have either the capacity or the will to address certain situations. When we have intervened, it has been due to overspill issues or where the UK has had historical interests and relationships, or what used to be termed the CNN effect where TV cameras have shamed the world into action—leaving other situations where TV cameras perhaps have not been present without proper due attention.
I am not being naïve in suggesting that we move away entirely from the traditional national security lens. Clearly, there are huge threats out there that we would have to be alert to and address, and those are in many respects state-based threats from both Russia and China. However, the balance needs to change and the integrated review should be a pivot in that respect. We need to see a greater focus on international aid and humanitarian assistance, as well as on UN peacekeeping.
It is important that we return to the responsibility to protect doctrine that was developed by the United Nations in the early 2000s. Intervention has become somewhat scarred and undermined by a number of missteps that have occurred in more recent years, but it may be important that we return to that concept and see how it can be reapplied. We need to look at how we can ensure the sustainable development goals are properly developed and fully implemented by 2030.
On a more conceptual basis, we also need to think through what needs to happen in evolving international law, moving away from its roots in national security and issues around nations. We need to reform the United Nations and reconceptualise the concept of national interest.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise for not being here on time, Sir Christopher. I am dependent on the flight from Belfast. We had to de-ice and as a result we did not get away from Belfast in time. I have let the Speaker’s office know and I apologised to the Minister in advance as well.
I am very happy to speak in this debate and I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for setting the scene. I am sorry I was not here for it, but I am quite sure that I would endorse her comments as I am very interested in this subject.
We do not know what future threats to human security will look like. It might be another pandemic or something completely different. However, the good news is that if we know what many of the most extreme risks are, then we know how to best prepare for them—I am the eternal optimist and believe in the glass half-full. That is why I am looking forward to the Minister’s response and—putting no pressure on him—I am seeking some assurances, which I understand other speakers have asked for as well.
One thing that I would underline immediately is that people need each other. We have to realise that and that is where I come from. Nations need nations. We all depend and can support each other, and with that being the premise for where we are, we can start from that. Human progress does not go in straight lines, instead there are rare moments in which decades worth of progress can be achieved in a matter of months. The supreme example of that is one we have lived through in the last year—the covid vaccine. Our scientists and those with expertise and knowledge were able to come up with the vaccine to save lives and preserve lives. That has been a marvellous achievement within how we have dealt—and how the Government have dealt—with covid-19.
Technological progress since the industrial revolution has ultimately increased the risk of the most extreme events occurring, putting humanity’s future at stake through nuclear war, climate breakdown and other events. We cannot survive many centuries without transforming our resilience. We cannot ignore—I will not, and I hope that neither the Government nor anyone else would—the issues of the environment, climate change and all those things that are real to the people in my constituency who contact me on a regular basis.
I am also the human rights spokesperson for the Democratic Unionist Party, and often speak on these issues. Other hon. Members that I have heard so far, and those who will speak after me, also talk about human rights. Human rights are critical for me as an individual and for my constituents—it is one of the biggest mailbag issues—so I get questions about them and there are issues to speak out on. I have spoken out on those issues and will continue to do so.
Covid-19 has given us a sense of the devastating impact that extreme risks would have on our health and our economy. We do not know what the next extreme risk will be—we do not yet know whether we are out of the present one in its totality, although we are going the right way—but the odds that we face, or that our children will face, are uncomfortably high. As a grandfather of five, I very much want to put in place a system that preserves for them a future that we can all endorse. That is why we are all here—to meet that issue.
The good news is that we know what many of the most extreme risks are and how the Government can best prepare for them, both at home and internationally. That is why we are here today, and why I and others are calling for an international treaty on risks to the future of humanity. I am concerned, as others are, about what those risks will be.
Some of the most serious risks, such as climate change and nuclear weapons, are covered by at least some international law. However, there is no regime of international law in force commensurate with the gravity of extreme risks such as global pandemics—I wonder whether that is something we might need to look at right now; I believe that we cannot ignore it, because we have lived through 13 months of it, and are going into the 14th, so we need to look seriously at those issues—or that has the breadth needed to deal with the changing landscape of risk, as there are so many other things happening as well.
A new treaty on risks to the future of humanity has been recommended by—this is an Italian name; I will try to get it right, but am sure that in my Ulster Scots accent it will sound totally alien to most people—Guglielmo Verdirame, a QC and professor of international law at King’s College London. We need a new global framework for identifying and addressing those risks. That is what he asks, and I ask the same.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that so many of the issues that he describes are linked to our short-termism? Will he therefore consider the Bill on wellbeing for future generations, which I am supporting, as something he would support, so that we can ensure that Governments look to the long term and get away from short-termism?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her wisdom and for her intervention. She makes a valid point, which I would endorse. Of course, I would need to go over the Bill, and I serve under a Whip, as the hon. Lady does, and I must follow that whatever my own inclinations may be. However, I have every sympathy on the matter that she has mentioned. If it was up to me, then yes, but we have to discuss these matters, as we always do.
We need the new global framework to identify the risks. We know that this is not a challenge that can be left to a specialist institution or a body of experts, and international diplomacy and domestic politics must be engaged at the highest level.
I say to the Minister that these are not things to do on our own. We cannot do them on our own; we need to do them with others. That is why I said earlier that this is about nations working with nations; it is people working with people. Those might be people who have very diverse politics and diverse cultural and historical views, but who are working together to the greater good of everyone. I would like to hear what we are able to do on that, and I recognise that the Government, and the Minister in particular, have made a commitment to it.
Global Britain also has a diplomatic ability to make this happen. We are held in high esteem across the world and, with that in mind, our position, our role and our influence will be important. Such a treaty would provide a framework for identifying and addressing such risks, and international diplomacy on domestic policies must be engaged at the highest level to achieve that. How do we do it? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
A new treaty should be linked to UN Security Council resolutions to place this new framework on the strongest legal footing, so it is not just words, but actions—a legal framework that can actually make changes for everyone, for their betterment, with penalties for those who choose to remain outside the new legal regime or to flout it, so that the legislation has teeth.
I commend the Government’s recently published integrated review, which announced a much needed new approach to preparedness and response to risks. In the light of that, I urge the Minister to follow the encouraging promise of global Britain and lead calls at the G7 for a new treaty on risks to the future of humanity. There is, I believe, scope for the UK to take up a position of global leadership on the issue, and start to build an alliance, moving towards a treaty with like-minded countries with which we could do things. Will the Minister tell us whether there have been discussions with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and other great powers?
We should use the opportunity to forge a new pact between nations, to ensure that none are committed to jeopardising the whole of humanity. This is about accountability. If we all move forward in a spirit of co-operation, we can find a solution. We also have a duty as individuals; I say that for myself, for others and for Government. We have a duty to be good stewards. I believe that we need to step up and I look to the Minister to underline the next steps.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for enabling this timely and hugely important debate.
As many have noted in the debate, the way in which our lives, and the lives of everyone across the world, have been turned upside down over the past year has brought the need for global human security into sharp focus. However, it should not have taken a virus that, worldwide, has resulted in nearly 3 million deaths and counting, inflicted vast economic damage at home and abroad, and exacerbated inequality globally to force us to take more seriously the challenges and threats the world faces.
Furthermore, our renewed attention on health security and the necessity for pandemic preparedness, having been caught off guard this time around, cannot mean that we take our eye off the ball in the other dimensions of human security. If there is one lesson to learn, it is that the pandemic illustrates the interconnectedness of the modern world and the interdependence of health, environmental, economic, food, political, community and personal security.
What began as a health crisis in China has had previously unimaginable impact on the livelihoods of each of our constituents and on the wider world. Surely we must now know that we cannot pick and choose which threats to take seriously, prepare for and attempt to prevent. A holistic approach, based on the UN sustainable development goals, a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people on the planet, now and in the future, is the only way forward, building back better from the pandemic and ensuring that, truly, we are leaving no one behind.
For too long, security has been seen through the lens of traditional models of defence and military strength. That led to decades of prioritising a narrow concept of security over a whole-of-society approach. Defence is a vital component of our national security, but it forms only one part of this. We must look to re-evaluate what security means.
The UK Government’s recent integrated review could have provided an opportunity to do that, and the forthcoming G7 summit, to be held in Cornwall, and the UN climate change conference, to be held in Glasgow, provide the UK with an opportunity to bring the issue of global human security to the forefront. At this watershed moment, prioritising global human security cannot be just something that is proclaimed and paid lip service to; it has to be the lived reality.
What have the UK Government decided to do instead? The complete opposite. Any effort to improve global human security has been fundamentally undermined by the UK Government’s decision to cut aid spending from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5%. The reality of that cut is a reduction in the UK’s aid budget of £4.5 billion, or a 30% reduction relative to 2019. That is money that has saved lives and supported the poorest and most vulnerable people living in the most fragile places in the world, yet at the time of greatest need in the midst of a global pandemic, the UK Government are pushing through this ideologically driven desire to reduce aid and development spending. They are prioritising a windfall for the defence budget and look to use what is left of the aid budget to further trade.
Yemen was described by the UN as the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. There are 16 million people being put in hunger, 5 million civilians facing starvation and more than 3 million people being displaced as a result of the ongoing conflict, yet the UK Government are cutting their aid contribution by 50%. Mark Lowcock, head of the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, was blunt in his assessment of that decision as an act of medium-term and long-term self-harm. He warned that to balance the books on the backs of the starving people of Yemen has consequences not just for Yemenis now, but for the world in the long term.
In Syria—a country ravaged by a 10-year civil war on terrorism and a contributor to the global refugee crisis—the UK Government have slashed by a third their funding for the Syrian refugee programme. According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, more than 13 million people need humanitarian assistance to survive this year, yet the UK has decided to make devastating cuts.
How can the Minister seriously stand here and talk about global human security when the Government condemn millions to hunger, provide the weapons used in Yemen and create fertile ground for extreme poverty, increased violent extremism and conflict over control of scarce resources? No matter the amount of polish that is applied, the direction taken by the UK Government is not going to shine.
As a result of covid-19, development trends are being set back decades, with 2020 witnessing the first rise in global poverty since 1998. The UK’s integrated review recognises that. It also adds that it is estimated that absolute poverty will be almost eliminated in Asia by 2030, although Africa will increasingly be left behind, and by 2045 it is likely that around 85% of the poorest billion people will live in Africa. Despite that, the UK Government are intent on pursuing an Indo-Pacific tilt to their international outlook.
Furthermore, a leaked Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office report last month revealed that officials are considering slashing aid programmes to Libya by 63%, to Somalia by 60%, to South Sudan by 59%, and to Nigeria by 58%. That will not increase global human security; it will undermine it. By abandoning their moral duty to assist the world’s most vulnerable, the UK Government are increasing the likelihood of hunger, disease and political stability in the most fragile places in the world—risking instability not only abroad, but at home. Therefore, the Scottish National party will continue to oppose the aid cut and the devastating impact it will have.
As an independent country, Scotland will act as a good global citizen, committed to the internationally agreed 0.7% percent target and following the UN’s sustainable development goals to peace and prosperity for people and the planet. Indeed, Scotland is already proving itself a world leader and contributor to global human security through its international work on climate change. Climate change is the greatest security challenge we face, and it is an urgent and complex global problem that no one nation can tackle alone. It increases natural disasters and competition for basic resources.
The destruction of habitats will lead to famine, disease, conflict and displacement, which threatens to undo decades of development gains and increased prosperity throughout the world. The poor and most vulnerable are the first to be affected by climate change and will suffer the worst, yet they have done little or nothing to cause the problem. The least developed countries and the most vulnerable people will be hit first and hardest by climate change, and many are already suffering devastating impacts. We therefore cannot be serious about global human security if it to be is undermined by the destruction caused by climate change.
The SNP-led Scottish Government have put biodiversity and ecological strength at the very heart of their policy making and in 2012 were the first Government in the world to set up a dedicated climate justice fund. Climate justice was put front and centre in the International Development Committee’s 2018 climate change report, as a recommendation to the UK Government, and the UK Government must focus on that type of global human security challenge going forward. They should follow Scotland’s lead, rather than pursuing cuts and vanity projects.
Finally, there is no greater illustration of the UK Government’s disjointed approach to global human security, and of how their priorities differ from those of the SNP and an independent Scotland, than their recent decision to increase the number of nuclear warheads by more than 40% while cutting life-saving aid around the world. Rather than investing in global health and human rights, providing support to fragile and conflict-affected areas, providing nutrition to those who are starving or helping the poorest in the world, the UK Government have decided to increase their weapons of mass destruction. That not only demonstrates the UK’s complete moral failure, but perfectly illustrates the UK Government’s inability to comprehend the threats in the modern world and the need for global human security, and highlights a desperate clinging on to the idea of the UK as an imperial global superpower.
If the past year has shown us anything, it is that we must consign those outdated models of security to the past. Indeed, to honour the millions who have lost their lives and livelihoods to the pandemic, we must put people and our planet first, and take seriously the very present threats that we face.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher, and I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate on global human security. The world has entered a period of rapidly accelerating insecurities. From the climate emergency to infectious diseases, and from conflict to the subversion of human rights and persisted poverty, catastrophic crises now occur simultaneously, putting at grave risk the health, wellbeing and security of people around our interconnected world.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made an incredibly strong argument focused on dignity. He challenged his own Government on their appalling cuts to the aid budget, and on observing our duty to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, rather than turning away from the provision of desperately needed leadership. Multiple crises across the world combine at catastrophic human cost. From climate and conflict to covid, those crises all need action. There has never been a more important time to think strategically about how we approach them.
The hon. Member for Bath spoke of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I am proud to have been instrumental in introducing that ground-breaking Act in Wales when I was a special adviser to the Welsh Labour Government. We introduced the Act to focus on the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of Wales. In delivering the Act, I saw at first hand how it can help to bring about the changes we need. It puts in place seven wellbeing goals, and forces decision makers and organisations to think more about the long term; work better with people, communities and each other; look to prevent problems; and take a much more joined-up approach, which is desperately needed across the UK. The Act helps us to create the country that we all want to live in, now and in the future.
Unfortunately, the cornerstones of human security—freedom from fear, want and indignity—are being chipped away, and there appears to be little appetite in this Government to change course. The gap between the Government’s rhetoric and their actions is large and growing. We do not have to delve far into the catalogue of Government errors to find the cut of a third in the aid budget. Aid is our first responder to crises and our last line of defence, so the cut is dangerous and costly. Instead of the Government’s hasty retreat, we must shoulder responsibility and pool resource, knowledge, expertise and finance if we are successfully to reverse the drivers of those crises and chart a course to a sustainable and restorative future that protects the health of people and planet, and reduces the inequalities and insecurities that threaten us all.
In recent months, I have spoken to Rose and Eva, remarkable women from Uganda who shared with me their horrifying experiences of devastating extreme weather, with families uprooted from homes and their livelihoods lost. Just last year, I had similar conversations with constituents of mine who had been affected by flooding. Climate change affects the most vulnerable, wherever they are in the world.
As we have seen with covid, what happens in even the most distant communities reverberates back to our shores; what happens in Kampala is felt in Cardiff. That means confronting the challenges of our time, abandoning outdated assumptions about security and playing a responsive role in the world—unlike this Government’s approach, exemplified by the “Competitive Age” integrated review.
Labour is aligned with President Biden, but we cannot afford a strategy focused only on competition. When the threats to our world are felt equally, we are either all winners or all losers. It is a zero-sum game. As covid has taught us, only through co-operation in science, research and development, and data sharing have we been able to get a grip on this virus, to develop a vaccine and now, we hope, to be on our way to defeating it. Collaboration not competition—that highlights the nonsensical, ridiculous £250-million cut in aid to vital UK and global health research amid a pandemic.
When we talk about security, that must include climate, food and health. As the Secretary-General of NATO said recently, we need a “broader, more integrated approach” to security and resilience to keep people safe. The challenges that we must overcome are existential threats to humanity. Our approach must be more human-centred and holistic. We are all less safe as health and climate challenges aggravate existing forms of insecurity and as new forms of insecurity are created. They require different forms of action that this Government are failing to meet and which, with the aid budget, in effect they are abandoning.
Climate breakdown, with devastating drought and scarcity, drives conflict and is central to the humanitarian crisis in places such as Nigeria and Lake Chad. According to research conducted by the International Red Cross, the planet has witnessed a 35% increase in the number of climate-related disasters since the 1990s. There is also health breakdown, where biodiversity loss threatens not only the species with which we share the planet but our own health, forcing parasites to look for alternative hosts—75% of emerging infections in human populations come from animals. Professor Peter Piot from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine warned of an “era of pandemics”, brought about by humanity’s treatment of the natural world. That is what makes this Government’s cuts to aid, their abandonment of principles and alliances in their willingness to break international law, and their shocking lack of political will to foster long-term strategic thinking in policy making so very dangerous.
Do not take it just from me. Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, said that the Government’s current approach to security fails to acknowledge fully the depth of challenges—economic, political and military—that will face the UK in the coming years. Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief, who was instrumental in the Paris climate agreement, warned:
“There are raised eyebrows among world leaders watching the UK.”
Achim Steiner of the UN Development Programme said that the cut to aid “does not enhance” confidence in the UK internationally.
I therefore hope that the Minister can explain what the Government are doing to ensure that long-term thinking is taken into account. Will his Government consider introducing, as in Wales, a measure similar to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015? What assessment have his Government made of the short-term impacts of aid cuts on immediate crisis response and associated threats and of the long-term impact of that failure to prevent future risks or build resilience? Crises overlap and combine to drive poverty, and health and climate insecurity. They cannot be solved in isolation, so will the Minister explain how the Government concluded that structuring the UK’s development response into seven siloed core priorities will tackle overlapping crises?
Finally, Labour would introduce statutory duties to plan, audit and invest in pandemic responses. Will the Government confirm whether they will introduce a more human-focused and holistic health security policy to ensure that we address all those challenges? We are experiencing an abundance of shattering threats, but a shocking scarcity of necessary action from the UK Government. We must maintain our commitment to holistic forms of security, which protect people at home and abroad, and tackle insecurity and injustice at their root.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. As this debate has to finish by 10.55 am, we have plenty of time for the Minister.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate and also for the contributions made by Members across the House. I will try and cover a number of the points raised. Even though we have a fair amount of time, because the contributions have been wide ranging, I am not necessarily going to be able to give all elements the justice that they deserve.
As a number of contributors have mentioned, we live in an increasingly competitive, dangerous and, as the hon. Lady said, complex world. The integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy highlighted three broad and significant challenges including, first, the challenge from autocratic regimes that seek to undermine human rights and open societies; secondly, the challenge of rapidly developing technologies which, while often bringing huge benefits, also bring new dangers from states, from terrorists, from criminal groups and individuals who would do us harm; and thirdly, the challenge of existential threats, such as pandemics and climate change, both of which have been discussed significantly this morning.
In response to this challenging context, the integrated review sets out the Prime Minister’s vision for a stronger, more prosperous Union in 2030. It has, at its heart, the protection of the interests of the British people, our sovereignty, our security, our health and our prosperity. It sets out a comprehensive and holistic approach to our security. We should not forget, however, that the threats from terrorism and conflict remain. That is why a hard-edged security and intelligence capability is a recurrent thread in the integrated review, which we have underpinned with our increased investment in defence to 2.2% of GDP and our cherished security and intelligence agencies, particularly our work with NATO and Five Eyes.
A number of Members have mentioned our Official Development Assistance commitment. I remind them that despite the unique and extreme financial pressures imposed on us by coronavirus, the UK remains, in both percentage and absolute terms, one of the world’s most generous aid donors. The world is changing and we need to adapt to it. We must ensure that we have the capabilities and systems, not only to respond to today’s threats but to anticipate and respond to the threats of tomorrow. Our integrated review commits us to work to solve global challenges, to invest in science and technology, to act as a force for good, championing free trade, individual freedoms, global prosperity, and to take a more robust approach to security and deterrents.
Wera Hobhouse
After all the Minister has heard this morning—we could only touch on so many of the issues—does he not agree that the balance we have to strike about global security has to shift away from just arming ourselves again as a country, as if it were about the national threat, and looking at how we can work together globally and internationally? The signals we have been setting out in the past year or so about our strength and using international aid for our advantage as a country are going in the wrong direction. Does he not agree?
James Cleverly
I will address the points that the hon. Lady has raised in my speech, if she will bear with me. On the point about how she frames our use of international aid for the UK’s advantage, it is completely wrong. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, in fact, the whole of Government have made it very clear that we are committed and determined to be a force for good in the world and to work with partners to address global challenges. Our foreign policy is on behalf of the British people, but our development work is to be a force for good in the world, not for narrow self-interest.
Jim Shannon
We had a debate in Westminster Hall before the recess to do with non-governmental organisations and faith groups. There is a role for Government to partner with faith groups, Churches and those who want to help, and perhaps fill the gap or shortfalls between the moneys that the United Kingdom gave in the past and what it gives now. Will the Minister indicate, either now or by sending all of us details, how faith groups can partner Government to help, and how they can engage and achieve a better result for all of us?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of formal and informal faith groups, and the huge role that they play around the world in alleviating poverty and addressing difficulties and harm. The Government absolutely recognise the important role that they play. We work through a number of partners around the world, some faith-based, others secular, to try and deliver on that “force for good” agenda. He is absolutely right: faith organisations play a huge and important role in delivering humanitarian policy.
To help us deliver the agenda that we set out in the integrated review, we have brought together our diplomatic network of 281 posts in 178 countries with our aid budget and development policy to create the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That joined-up approach is helping to build partnerships and secure the opportunities that we need to tackle global challenges as part of the global community. We are making good progress against many of these challenges. The UK has been at the forefront of the international response to covid: helping to protect others and, in doing so, helping to protect ourselves. UK scientists developed the first effective and widely affordable vaccine. Our Prime Minister, Ministers and diplomats have consistently pushed for equitable global access to vaccines and therapeutics, and we have pledged £548 million of our aid budget to help to distribute 1 billion doses of coronavirus vaccine to 92 developing countries. To support the fastest route to national and global recovery, we have committed £1.3 billion of UK aid to help cushion the health and economic impacts of the pandemic around the world. We must learn the lessons of covid-19. Last year, the Prime Minister outlined his five-point plan for preventing future pandemics.
Jamie Stone
The Minister is absolutely correct that the roll-out of the vaccines is good news and is a success story. As I said in my contribution, our armed forces played a role in that. The point I want to make is a money point: the help with testing and vaccination provided by our armed forces takes the pressure off health professionals. It means that the money spent on the armed forces actually helps to relieve a budget in other parts of Government. I intend to explore that argument in the future, with regard to my unhappiness about the number of armed forces personnel being cut. If they are maintained and deployed properly on other things, that can help other budgets.
James Cleverly
I hear and understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. While it goes beyond the remit of this speech, I draw his attention to the Defence paper that was published and its focus on the greater agility, adaptability and deployability of the armed forces that we have. I hope that that goes some way towards addressing the concerns that he has expressed.
In March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined leaders from more than 20 countries who, alongside the World Health Organisation, called for a treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. That would be an important step towards increasing global co-operation and strengthening global health security. We will use our G7 presidency to work with other Governments, with industry and with international organisations to cut the target for developing and deploying new vaccines to just 100 days, addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Bath about working in co-operation, not in competition, with other countries.
I would also like to address the claim that the hon. Lady made about short-termism, which I have to reject. Climate change is a much longer-established existential threat than the pandemic to which we are currently responding. I remind her that in 1990, at the second world climate conference, Margaret Thatcher said:
“The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.”
I remind the hon. Lady that the Conservatives have a multi-decade track record of thinking about future generations. We are using our presidency—
James Cleverly
I will make more progress. We are using our presidency of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow later this year to get countries to commit to credible plans that will enable them to meet the commitments that they made under the Paris accord. We are also using the summit to boost co-operation and climate finance so that countries can adapt and build resilience to the evolving climate threat. The UK has pledged £11.6 billion of international climate finance over the next five years, and we will spend a significant proportion of that on building resilience in vulnerable countries. In January, the Prime Minister launched the adaptation action coalition to galvanise momentum on climate adaptation ahead of COP26 and beyond it.
We have also worked to secure more international attention on the overlap between climate change and security threats. In February, the Prime Minister chaired the UN Security Council open debate, which was the first-ever leader-level discussion on climate change in the Security Council. We are also addressing the interlinked climate and security challenges through NATO.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) raised the issue of cyber. Unlike pandemics and climate change, advanced technologies bring with them significant benefit, but they also have embedded in them significant risks. Artificial intelligence, for example, has the potential to help to tackle global challenges but, as AI technologies such as facial recognition continue to develop in sophistication, we need to ensure that such technologies are not used as a tool of repression. The UK Government believe in responsible technological innovation that benefits everyone, but this is a fast evolving area, with a dearth of international agreement. That is why we are working with industry and like-minded countries to enhance responsible development of AI and to ensure that the use of data is safe, fair, legal and ethical. The UK Government will soon launch a national AI strategy, which will help to make the UK a global centre for the development and adoption of responsible AI.
The UK is also at the forefront of demonstrating that there are meaningful consequences for malicious cyber-activity. Last year, working with the EU—this is another example of the international co-operation that we engage in—we imposed cyber sanctions on 12 entities and individuals from China, Russia and North Korea through the EU cyber sanctions regime. We will continue to work closely with international partners to impose sanctions through our own autonomous cyber sanctions regime. The National Cyber Security Centre has played a pivotal role in responding to cyber-incidents and is acknowledged as a global centre of excellence. The resilience of our allies is also critical, which is why, since 2012, we have invested up to £39 million in international cyber-security programmes and projects, working with more than 100 countries to build their cyber resilience.
The integrated review is a blueprint for navigating this more competitive and dangerous age. It identified the need to build our resilience, which we will address in greater detail in the new UK resilience strategy to be developed this year, looking at domestic and international challenges.
Anthony Mangnall
The Minister talks about the integrated review providing a blueprint for a long-term strategy to deal with the conflicts and crises of the world. Will he tell us how he thinks cutting the 0.7% aid budget fulfils that long-term strategy, or that commitment to the world’s poorest, or that commitment to some of the most challenging regions in the world?
James Cleverly
The integrated review makes a specific commitment to get back to the 0.7% as quickly as possible. The Conservative Government are immensely proud that we were committed to that 0.7%. I remind my hon. Friend and others that even 0.5% makes us one of the most generous aid donors in the world and is higher than in almost all years under the previous Labour Government. The most important way to get the UK back to the position where we can be as generous as we would naturally wish to be is to ensure that the UK economy recovers quickly. The faster the economy can recover, the more quickly we can get back to 0.7% and, in absolute terms, the larger that 0.7% will be.
James Cleverly
Let me conclude by making a pledge on behalf of the UK Government to continue to defend and promote the interests and wellbeing of the British people. The integrated review provides a framework to address the manifold threats that imperil our nation and our national security. While the challenges are significant, the UK is playing a leading role in finding global solutions. The diversity of our economy, the depth and breadth of British expertise, our targeted investment and the reach of our international networks mean that we are well placed to adapt and respond to the challenges ahead. As the host of G7 and the COP climate summit later this year, with our international allies on our side and the blueprint provided by the integrated review in hand, we are well placed to help the world to build back better from coronavirus and create a greener, fairer, more prosperous and more secure future for us all.
Wera Hobhouse
Many Members have made good and important points today. I am grateful for all the points that have been raised. I hope that this debate is not the last that we have, but the beginning of a discussion about how we view national and international security in the round. This is about tackling the climate emergency, the threat of global pandemics, upholding international human rights, global inequalities, and how we help poorer countries and do not exploit them.
As the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) said, this is about a reconceptualisation of how we think about security. The UK could be a global leader in this, but I fear that the current Government have not recognised this opportunity. Here in the UK, the Wellbeing of Future Generations (No. 2) Bill would be a good start. I urge the Government to consider bringing forward legislation that reflects the ideas that are embedded in it. Will the Government look at a wellbeing budget, as supported by the Liberal Democrats? That would be a good start. Abandoning the plan to increase our nuclear weapons arsenal would also be a good start.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I hope it is only the beginning of a debate on how we rethink global security.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered global human security.
Bay Local Authority in North Lancashire and South Cumbria
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a proposal for the Bay local authority in North Lancashire and South Cumbria.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I called for today’s debate because I believe that the current local government reorganisation process is being carried out in the wrong way and conducted at the wrong time. It is a rushed process, which councils are responding to at a time when they are also dealing with the pandemic. The reorganisation decisions that are about to be made will have a lasting impact on the Lancaster part of my constituency and how it is governed for generations to come. After all, it is 47 years since the last major review of local government in our area, which tore up the historic county of Lancashire and, I believe, got it wrong when removing Lancashire over the sands—that is, Barrow-in-Furness—from the rest of Lancashire. It could be another 47 years before we return to this topic, so we must get it right this time, both by creating effective structures and respecting cultural identities.
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in his response to the debate why Cumbria was invited to put forward proposals and Lancashire was not. In September 2020, Lancashire County Council submitted a request to the Government to be in tranche 1. By consulting only on Cumbria and not Lancashire, the Government have limited the opportunity to develop solutions that work across both areas, despite their repeated claims to want to enable locally-led solutions.
When the consultation opened in February, it was unclear on the consultation website whether residents in Lancaster were entitled to respond at all, because the consultation only mentioned Cumbria, despite one of the options involving Lancaster. I am grateful that, thanks to the lobbying of Councillor Lizzi Collinge, some of the wording was finally amended a few weeks ago. However, it is still unacceptable that, without those changes, Lancaster may have faced a once-in-a-generation change in governance without its inhabitants being meaningfully consulted.
The consultation website is also difficult to browse, loaded with jargon and confusing, particularly for my Lancaster constituents. I am that the Minister will tell me that the consultation meets the minimum standards required by the relevant legislation, but let us be frank: a poorly designed consultation, rushed through in a pandemic, is no way to make a decision of this magnitude, and nor is it the locally-led, bottom-up process that the Government claim it is.
In Lancaster, there is a long-held view that cross-county options for local government should be considered. As I have said, the current county boundaries were imposed in 1974 and do not reflect local geography or local identity. I support Lancaster City Council’s wish to work with neighbouring councils in Morecambe Bay to develop a proposal for a new council. I am grateful to our local councillors in Lancaster and south Cumbria and in particular to the leader of Lancaster City Council, Councillor Dr Erica Lewis, for her work to encourage people in Lancaster to engage with the consultation and consider the options.
Joint working between Lancaster, Barrow and South Lakeland is very well developed in the Morecambe Bay area, which is already recognised as the functional economic geography of the area, with a footprint for public services such as the NHS that makes sense. The Bay councils developed their proposal in record time. Despite the time constraints, they have put together a strong proposal and demonstrated strong local support for it. I hope the Government will give the Bay proposal proper consideration.
However, the approach so far from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government does not seem even-handed. The legislation, and the invitation, for local government reorganisation proposals expressly allow for a type C proposal from councils in neighbouring county areas, yet Lancaster has not been treated as a full participant in the process.
The process that the Government are following is flawed. A type C proposal is a legal proposal, yet the consultation treats Lancaster City Council, Lancaster’s residents and local organisations differently from their equivalents in other areas where proposals are being put forward. I would like the Minister to give a categorical assurance that the views of Lancaster residents will be given equal weight in this process.
The Bay offers a positive vision of investment, skills and jobs growth, tackling the climate emergency, and protecting and enhancing natural resources, infrastructure such as roads, flood defences and housing, and services that meet real need across adult and children’s services. The Bay area has 13,000 businesses, with 18,000 jobs in advanced manufacturing, 4,300 in agriculture and 25,000 in tourism and hospitality. Some 30 million people visit Lancaster and south Cumbria, contributing £2 billion to the economy. It has five major wind farms, oil and gas operations, and two major nuclear power stations. It also has two universities, both already effectively co-operating across the Bay.
The Bay has the capacity to tangibly improve people’s lives and is a place that works in the real economy. Council spending would be on the same footprint as the NHS, providing clarity and focus. The proposal addressed previously missed opportunities to create a council structure that reflects the economic, geographic and population realities of the area. This proposal will strengthen rather than undermine people’s identity and affinity with the area.
Changing administrative borders does not change people’s identity and affinities. The people of Lancaster will always be Lancastrians. Many people in Barrow, despite being administratively in Cumbria, consider themselves to be Lancastrians too—indeed, as I was born in Barrow, I very much consider myself a Lancastrian—but they are also from the Bay and from the north-west.
What will change is locally focused services, with decisions made close to where people live, and a greater, more meaningful role for communities and town and parish councils if they want it. Throughout this process, the three councils of the Bay have said that they want young people to be part of shaping what is in their community and their future. To secure a job with long-term prospects and find a home that they can afford, some young people feel that they need to move away from the Bay. I want every young person to feel that they can have the opportunities and the future that they want in Lancaster and across the Bay. Can the Minister reassure me that the views of young people will be considered in making a decision on local government reorganisation?
This should not be about party politics. The Bay proposal is based on the natural affinity of the three councils and the communities they serve. It transcends party politics locally and is based on the long-term interests of the people who live, work and invest in the Bay area, not short-term political advantage—a sentiment also reflected in the surveys conducted as part of the consultation.
I was disappointed to see the Lancashire County Council response clearly split on political lines. In weighing this as a consultation response, I hope the Government will reflect on the fact that, although Lancashire County Council is divided on these issues, there is strong cross-party support in Lancaster, Barrow and South Lakeland. Lancashire County Council Conservatives are completely wrong to claim that the Bay does not enjoy local support. The Government will see in the consultation process that there is still very strong local support. This has already been evidenced by independent polling. This is not a Labour proposal, or a Lib Dem or Conservative proposal. It has been supported by parties on all sides in all three districts, because they recognise that it is the best solution for the communities across Morecambe Bay, and it is not hard to understand why. We are a community tied by history, family, work and education.
The Bay would allow councils in the remainder of two-tier Lancashire to consider their own future, develop new authorities and move to a position where all of Lancashire has a single-tier local government. The Bay also creates an opportunity for a new north Cumbria council. With an affinity with neighbours in the north of England and southern Scotland, there is potential for enhanced borderlands working.
The Government have set out three tests for proposals. I will address each and set out why I believe the Bay meets them. On the first test, the Bay will improve local government and service delivery, and provide stronger leadership and more sustainable structures. There is a public service imperative to focus on what public services need to do to respond to today’s society and needs. The Bay proposal is about reform as much as reorganisation. Mature joint working between the three councils and alignment with health services is a strong basis for creating the new council.
On the second test, the Bay has strong local support. It is the only proposal on the table that has very clear local support from the public. It is not clear how the assessment of local support will be made by the Department. Can the Minister reassure me that he will not place the self-interested opposition of Conservative councillors from the other end of Lancashire above the wishes of local people in the Bay area?
The third test relates to population. The Bay is within the range proposed by the Government and has a credible geography. There is obviously a lot of work to do to develop the detailed plans for any new councils that are created, whether that is bringing together current district services or county services. There is also work to do with the police and fire authorities to develop arrangements. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will not put the district-led proposals, and specifically a type C proposal, at an immediate disadvantage? It would make nonsense of the invitation for a type C option if the Government were to rule it out on the alignment of police and fire authorities. There must be a pragmatic approach, and it must be recognised that there is an opportunity to work out new arrangements in the transition to a new authority. Those could be worked out locally and, indeed, the Government can intervene if they wish to.
Local government reorganisation must be about more than rearranging the deckchairs. On issues such as social care, public health, climate change and youth services, more of the same will not be good enough. The Department commissioned a research report from Cardiff University that concluded that size is not a detriment with respect to performance, and the implications for performance should be evaluated in the context of the reform proposed for each local area. The Bay is a chance to shake things up and to do things differently, on a geographic footprint that makes sense for services and local people.
Finally I want to say a word about democracy, which should be at the heart of the discussion. I agree with the Government that our current two-tier local government arrangement does not work. Routinely people do not know which council provides which services, who they should hold accountable for them, or where they should turn for help. I assist thousands of constituents with their issues each year as their MP, and I feel their pain. A change to unitary local government is welcome and in principle it has broad political support, because it would simplify services for residents and businesses. It would vastly improve the accountability of councils and councillors, and by doing so it would improve local people’s ability to understand and have a say in decisions that affect them. However, that sense of connection to local government will be realised only if the authority reflects the local identity and local patterns of living and working.
I believe that only the Bay will deliver that for Lancaster, South Lakeland and Barrow. Unlike proposals for county unitaries it operates on a scale that works, and unlike such options as greater Blackpool it represents real geography that will centre all the residents in decision making. The feeling is clear, from surveys, opinion polling and representations that have been made to me. Residents and businesses in Lancaster say that they would feel distant from a one Lancashire or greater Blackpool authority. The Bay would give leadership that local people would identify with, and enhance local democracy rather than weakening it.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on securing this hugely important debate. We strongly welcome her interest in ensuring that her constituents, the businesses, local organisations and voluntary groups, and everyone who lives and works in the area, can have a real say about the future of local government reform. It is hugely important. Of course, all the hon. Lady’s constituents can continue to contribute to the consultation, which is still open. If they have not had the opportunity to do so I certainly encourage them to join the process.
Perhaps it is right for me to begin by setting out the Government’s policy. We consider that locally led changes to the structure of local government, whether in the form of unitarisation or district mergers, can be an appropriate means of improving local service delivery, saving taxpayers money and improving local accountability. We are clear that any reform of an area’s local government is most effectively achieved through locally led proposals put forward by those who know the area best. That is the essence of localism, to which we are committed. There is no question of any top-down imposition of Government solutions in that area. That brings me to the proposals that we have received from councils in Cumbria for local government reorganisation.
On 9 October last year the Secretary of State invited all the principal councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset, including the unitary councils, to submit locally led proposals for unitary local government. The councils in those three areas had been developing ideas about restructuring local government for some time, and were well advanced, which is why they were selected. We consider it right that Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset councils had the opportunity to present their local proposals for unitary reform. Late last year, on 9 December, we received four proposals from Cumbria councils: one from the county council proposing a single unitary council for the area, and three from different groups of district councils, each proposing two unitary councils.
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood outlined, one of the two unitary proposals is from Barrow Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council, which they have developed with Lancaster City Council. Under the current statutory process, only councils which have received an invitation can submit a proposal. However, that proposal may cover areas outside of those councils. That is the case here, where the proposals submitted by Barrow Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council include Lancaster City, an approach that the city council supports.
On 22 February this year, we launched a consultation for proposals in line with the statute, which requires that before implementing a proposal a Secretary of State must consult any council that would be affected by, but did not submit, that proposal, as well as such other persons he considers appropriate. That closes on 19 April.
I know that Lancaster City Council has been working closely with Barrow and South Lakeland on their proposal, which includes Lancaster City as an area outside Cumbria that is part of Lancashire in terms of the statute. As the hon. Lady has outlined, this is known as a type C proposal. While Lancaster City supports this proposal and has been playing a part in its development, the position under the statute is that Lancaster City is not a proposing council.
We are consulting Lancaster City Council and Lancashire County Council on all the proposals put forward by the Cumbria authorities. We are also consulting the Lancashire police and crime commissioner and fire and rescue authority, along with the PCC and fire and rescue authority for Cumbria. It is also important to stress that residents and organisations in Lancaster can comment on the proposal, just like the residents and organisations in Barrow and South Lakeland.
That is extremely important feature, and the fact that hundreds of people in Lancaster City have already commented shows that the process is working; it is open, it is available, and it remains open until 19 April. In fact, we checked this morning, and—as an example—well over four fifths of email responses alone are about the Bay proposal, and nearly two thirds of the total emails for Cumbria are from the hon. Lady’s “Back the Bay” campaign. I think it is clear that we are encouraging views from anybody who is interested, whether that is businesses, the voluntary sector, organisations, or local residents in Lancaster and elsewhere in Cumbria, Lancashire and beyond.
The hon. Lady asked for confirmation that young people’s views will be taken into account, which is absolutely right and vital, and I can certainly give her the reassurance that they are submitting to the consultation. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to weigh up all the representations he receives, including from young people, and we have specifically asked proposing councils to actively increase awareness of and access to the consultation. Clearly, that would include young people as well, and they are able to use their resources to do that. In the case of Barrow and South Lakeland, with the help of Lancaster City Council, that will no doubt include raising awareness in those groups, and among those who live and work in Lancaster.
The hon. Lady also mentioned access to the consultation through the website, and she is right to highlight that the consultation website meets the commonly applied web content accessibility guidelines to help it be more accessible to a wide range of people. If she thinks there are ways that can be improved further for future consultation, of course we will be happy to listen to that.
On the wider point of access to the consultation, we ask all councils to facilitate the widest possible awareness of the consultation. We believe it is right that the councils that know their communities best and understand the requirements of local people are best placed to generate interest from a wide range of organisations using the connections and information that they have. For example, that could include a council making both the consultation and the proposal available digitally or in other accessible formats. It is also important to put on record that people can respond in writing or by email to the consultation, and the details of that are available on the consultation website. Councils can, of course, use that to promote access to the consultation, including to the groups that the hon. Lady has highlighted.
I just want to touch on the elections. As the hon. Lady will be aware, this year’s elections to the principal councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset have been rescheduled to May 2022. There is precedent for such a one-year postponement of elections where unitarisation is under consideration. For example, the same occurred in the Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire unitarisation exercises.
Rescheduling those local elections avoided creating a situation where the electorate would be asked to vote for councils a short time after being consulted on proposals that, if they are implemented, would result in the abolition of those councils. Rescheduling the elections also avoids members being elected to serve for potentially very short terms, a maximum of two years, where a shadow authority is established.
The order that postpones the elections also extends for a year the terms of office of councillors who would otherwise have retired following the May elections this year, and makes consequential provisions to ensure that by-elections to vacant seats can still take place. The order postponing the elections has been made without prejudice to any subsequent decisions on the unitary proposals that are under consideration, and does not affect the police and crime commissioner elections, the town and parish council elections or any other scheduled by-elections, which will still occur on the 6 May.
In practice, that means that elections to Lancashire County Council will go ahead in May this year, unlike elections to Cumbria County Council. That reflects the fact that, whatever Cumbria proposal may be implemented, there is no possibility of Lancashire County Council being abolished. In May of this year there are no ordinary elections to the city council.
Following the consultation, the Secretary of State will carefully consider the proposals and has a duty to take into account three criteria if the proposal were to be implemented: whether it would be likely to improve local government and service delivery in the area; whether it would command a good deal of local support; and whether it would lead to unitary councils covering a credible geography. The representations that the hon. Lady has made today and throughout the process will be taken into account as part of that.
The Secretary of State will then decide, having regard to all of the representations he has received on the proposals, including those received through the consultation exercise, and all other relevant information available to him, which proposal, if any, to implement. We envisage those decisions to be taken and announced before the summer recess.
If the Secretary of State decides that a proposal should be implemented, he will seek parliamentary approval for the necessary secondary legislation. Clearly such an order would need to be considered and approved by each House. If Parliament approves legislation implementing any proposal, the rescheduled elections in May 2022 would be cancelled. It is envisaged that they will be replaced in May 2022 by elections to either the new shadow authority or a continuing authority, which is to be the new unitary authority.
The expectation is that any new unitary authority would take on the full powers of a unitary authority from 1 April 2023. Those elected to the shadow or continuing authority in May 2022 would continue as members of the new authority, most likely serving a total five-year term, one year as members of the shadow or continuing authority and four years as members of the full unitary authority.
I am grateful we have had the chance to have this debate and to the hon. Lady for her speech and for putting on record all of the points she has made. I hope she understands that I cannot comment on the individual representations that she has made about the quality of any of the submissions, because the process is ongoing, and I encourage people to continue to take part in that until the 19th of this month.
By submitting their proposals for unitary local government, councils in these areas have an important opportunity to move forward with reforms, which can open the way to significant benefits for local people and businesses, delivering service improvements, facilitating economic growth and contributing to the levelling-up of opportunity and prosperity across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Vagrancy Act 1824
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I 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 would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. One Member has notified me that he has to leave for another very important debate in the main Chamber, and I have made provision for that.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered repealing and replacing the Vagrancy Act 1824.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am delighted to have secured this extremely important debate on repealing and replacing the Vagrancy Act 1824, and I thank hon. Members present for putting in to speak. I know from my mailbag that constituents, businesses and visitors to the Cities of London and Westminster are concerned about rough sleepers and share my desire—and that of the Government—to end rough sleeping for good.
As the title suggests, this debate is not just about repealing the Vagrancy Act, but to consider what should replace it to respond to the 21st-century reasons people find themselves on the street. I believe that the Government share my wish to see the Act repealed following the response from my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary to my recent question in the House, where he confirmed his belief that the Act,
“should be consigned to history.” [Official Report, 25 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 1138.]
The Vagrancy Act 1824 is an antiquated piece of legislation originally introduced to deal with soldiers returning from the Napoleonic wars. With no public services available, many ended up on the streets begging and sleeping rough. It is now used by police and councils to tackle the small minority of rough sleepers involved in persistent antisocial behaviour.
Similarly, powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, including public space protection orders and criminal behaviour orders, are increasingly used. Yes, we must challenge anyone involved in antisocial behaviour, but rather than criminalising a rough sleeper, I truly believe that the better outcome for both the individual and society is to address the reasons they are on the street in the first place, and provide the help and support they obviously need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Does the hon. Lady agree that, with over 50 housing and homelessness organisations supporting scrapping the Vagrancy Act 1824, the Minister and the Government must consider alternatives? They must acknowledge that many of these charities work with people experiencing homelessness directly, and that they see how it presently fails to end rough sleeping, instead pushing people into worse positions, and their circumstances must be respected and considered. The Government cannot ignore 50 housing and charitable organisations.
Nickie Aiken
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not know a charity involved in rough sleeping and homelessness that does not agree that the Vagrancy Act should be repealed.
If we get this right, it will end the revolving door that too many rough sleepers currently experience, whereby they accept outreach help and are placed in accommodation, but too often find themselves back on the street because their underlying mental health issues or addictions have not been tackled. Even on the coldest day of the year and during adverse weather conditions brought on by the likes of the “beast from the east”, a considerable number of people chose to ignore the no-questions-asked help of a hot meal and a roof over their head, whether from a local authority, a church, a community centre or a mosque. They are so fearful, mistrusting or mentally unwell that they prefer to remain outside in below-zero temperatures, where they feel safest.
There are more than 400 beds available on any given night in Westminster alone for rough sleepers. However, we must not just offer a bed. The accommodation available rarely comes with the vital health services required to help turn a person’s life around and address often years—sometimes decades—of abuse, poor mental health and addiction. But there is a clear solution: replace the Vagrancy Act with a new approach that places the preservation of life at its core through assertive outreach, alongside social care and specialist medical support, all attached to the safety of a bed. We need addiction counsellors, psychiatric help and medical support for those who have suffered years of sleeping rough.
The Government’s Everyone In strategy, in response to the covid-19 pandemic, saw an incredible 90% of rough sleepers accept accommodation, demonstrating that when central and local government work together, we can achieve impressive results, but what about the other 10%? Throughout the first lockdown, about 100 people in Westminster refused all help and remained on the street. I saw many of them myself. They were clearly very ill, with serious addiction and mental health problems.
Having witnessed what I have, and having spoken to former rough sleepers, outreach workers and other experts, I know that it is clear that if we are to end rough sleeping for good, a fundamental shake-up of mental health services is required. Charities including The Passage, Crisis and St Mungo’s have highlighted that outreach workers today find it near impossible to secure mental health assessments for rough sleepers. Even when one has been secured, often the vital missing piece of the jigsaw is a specialist bed for that person.
People on the street with the most complex needs often lack the mental health capacity to make decisions for their own wellbeing or accept help from others. At present, a rough sleeper’s mental state has to become so acute that he or she is self-harming or at risk of doing so for the police to take emergency action, and only then might they have a mental health assessment. By that stage, it is far too late, which is why we need an assertive outreach approach. We need outreach workers working in partnership with specialist homelessness mental health teams that can undertake mental health assessments under the Mental Health Act 1983, as well as other types of assessments on the street, with rapid access to specialist bed spaces. We then need the health services required attached to the bed that the rough sleeper is referred to. I would welcome it if the Minister can address that point and consider reintroducing street-based mental health services.
Of course, none of that can happen without the backing of long-term sustainable funding. I again ask the Government to give due consideration to extending the time period of funding allocations for such service to at least three years, preferably five, rather than the current annual basis.
As we slowly and carefully begin our journey out of the pandemic, much is in flux. However, we now have a golden opportunity to build upon Everyone In, to learn from that initiative and to reshape our response, so that we have the services we need to achieve our shared goal of ending rough sleeping. The Government, I believe, are willing and able to end rough sleeping. Repealing and replacing the Vagrancy Act, longer-term funding attached to mental health services and accommodation and re-establishing street-based mental health services will do just that. I look forward to the contributions of other Members and to the Minister’s response.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Back-Bench colleagues have around nine minutes each.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
Sir Charles, it is a privilege and honour to serve under your chairmanship. Members will be aware that this is an issue of great interest to me, and I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this important debate. Before the pandemic began, I volunteered each Sunday at Charles Thompson’s Mission in my constituency to help serve hot breakfasts to over 350 people who were then homeless across Merseyside. For me this was not a chore, it was a privilege.
The causes of homelessness are many and complex. Everyone I met at the mission had a different story to tell. Some were casualties of the housing crisis and a cruel and often incomprehensible welfare system, and some had fled domestic violence. Many struggled with substance abuse and mental ill health, and all were victims of a decade of brutal spending cuts that has left frontline services struggling to survive. The decade of austerity led to a staggering 165% increase in the number of rough sleepers in England. That is a shameful legacy and its victims deserve support, not punishment. No one deserves to be criminalised simply because they have nowhere to call home. Seven out of 10 local authorities continue to use some form of enforcement against homeless communities. In Merseyside alone, nearly 300 proceedings were brought under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in 2019.
For those who fall victim to this pernicious piece of legislation, the consequences can be devastating. Fines can sometimes be as high as £1,000—a whopping amount that will only plunge people further into dire poverty. It makes any chance of escaping the streets impossible. Just the threat of being fined or moved on by the police can drive many homeless people away from places of visibility. That puts them out of reach of frontline services and third sector organisations that could help them. It increases the likelihood that homeless people, who are already 17 times more likely to be victims of crime, will be subject to violence, abuse and criminal exploitation.
The Vagrancy Act traps homeless people in a vicious circle of criminalisation and marginalisation. I was therefore heartened to see the Communities Secretary tell the House that he thought the Act should be scrapped, at last adopting the position my party has held for many years. Nearly 200 years after the great abolitionist William Wilberforce first condemned this spiteful Act in the House, we now have the opportunity to right a wrong that has endured for too long.
However, we must go further. In place of the Vagrancy Act, we need a compassionate and holistic approach that tackles the root cause of homelessness, rather than simply giving homeless people a one-way ticket to the criminal justice system. That means restoring funding to frontline public services, which do vital work helping homeless people battling with mental ill health and substance abuse. It means giving local authorities the resources they need to tackle this issue with a public health-focused approach. We must write off all the debts incurred over the pandemic and restore funding after 10 years of austerity. Above all, it means tackling the housing crisis by ending the right to buy and launching a massive council house building scheme that creates homes fit for the 21st century and ends the blight of homelessness once and for all.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for calling for this important debate. As the Secretary of State and the Minister often point out, street homelessness is primarily a health issue. The hon. Lady bangs that drum all the time, and it is extremely important that we are to understand this. We constantly hear that homelessness is all the fault of the evil Government and the bedroom tax or whatever else. I know there are big issues around housing and lots of people who are homeless but not on the streets. That must be addressed, but to conflate those groups does nothing to help the street homeless. If we are serious, it is time for all those organisations that use the street homeless almost like a showcase group to highlight those other areas, to bang the drum and to hit at the Government, to stop doing that or we will not get anywhere. Repealing the Act may be an opportunity for a wider effort by both the Government and the Opposition.
The Act makes it an offence to beg. While I would welcome any changes and getting rid of the Act, we must preserve that in one way or another. I have met a lot of rough sleepers who freely admit that they are begging in order to find the cash to buy drugs or alcohol. The fact that they have received this generosity from the public keeps people on the streets much longer than they would be otherwise. I have often cited the example of a guy at St Mungo’s—I did not meet him; St Mungo’s told me about him—who had been around Covent Garden for many years and who had ended up having his leg cut off because of the long-term impact of sticking needles in his arm. This guy apparently says that if the public had not been so generous, he would have been off the streets an awful lot earlier.
A few years ago, when I did my last programme, I remember sleeping around the back of the “goods in” entrance of the McDonald’s by Westminster Cathedral with all the people who had taken spice. It was awful. There was one guy who clearly was not on spice—he was a drinker—and I slept next to him. He was called Andy; we made friends. The reason Andy is on the street is because that is the only way he can get money to get beer. Many of the people that my hon. Friend spoke about are on the street, despite the extraordinary success of Everyone In, because they need money to buy drugs.
If someone needs £150 or £200 a day to buy heroin, and is ill because they have been heroin addict for a long time, it is going to be hard for them to find any other means of paying for the drugs than by begging. People can make a lot of money begging. Some 25 years ago there were groups begging in Regent Street—what we call walking begging—that were getting £200 in a day. It is the same for some people in towns such as Winchester, particularly at the height of the tourist season. My appeal is that if we do something about the Act, we should keep the provisions on begging.
At some point we have to think about what we do for these people who are addicted to heroin, for whom I have a huge amount of sympathy. They have got to buy the drug somehow or they have to get some sort of treatment. To go slightly against what I am saying, if people are not begging for the money, they may be stealing for it. We need to have an honest discussion, at some point, as to whether we should medicalise the problem for people who are firmly committed to taking drugs. I end there, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing the debate.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I believe for the first time in Westminster Hall, Sir Charles. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing the debate. I congratulate her on her question to the Secretary of State that elicited the excellent response that he was minded to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, especially given that there has been considerable opposition from the Government, over an extended period of time, to repealing that legislation.
I have lobbied many Ministers responsible for upholding this Act to sponsor its repeal and to encourage the Government to repeal it. The Minister is new and when he replies to the debate I am sure that we can look forward to the announcement of the timetable for introducing the legislation necessary to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. It is in that capacity, and in my role as a member of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, that I have been investigating the causes of homelessness and trying to put this right over many years in this place.
We know that every person who is homeless is a unique case. We cannot put people in pigeonholes or say, “It is because of this or because of that.” There are some frequent reasons why people become homeless in the first place. The ending of a private sector tenancy is still the most common reason, but another is relationship breakdown, which very sadly leads to many people being forced to sleep rough in the first place. Before the passing of my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, single people would not receive any help whatsoever from local authorities. I am glad we have put that right.
Another reason is people becoming unemployed through no fault of their own. They may be made redundant or lose their job because a company goes out of business. It could be that they have suffered an accident and are no longer able to work. Additional reasons, as others have mentioned, include addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling, and substance abuse also must be taken into consideration. It is fair to say, therefore, that there is no one single cause for someone becoming homeless in the first place.
We also know that during this pandemic private sector rent arrears have increased dramatically. The National Landlords Association estimates that 7% of those with a private sector lease are in rent arrears. That may not sound like very much, but given that 3.5 million people are renting properties, that means that 245,000 people could be made homeless when the moratorium on evictions comes to an end. Indeed, they could be prevented from getting another lease if a county court judgement is made against them. Many of them may end up being street homeless if we are not too careful.
Clearly, we have come a long way with legislation over many years. Looking back, we can see that 1977 was the first time that local authorities had a duty to house those in priority need. It is easy to think now that of course local authorities should have that duty, but it was not that long ago that there was no such requirement. That reform was welcome.
In 2016, I had the opportunity and privilege to promote a private Member’s Bill, which subsequently became the Homelessness Reduction Act. I am very proud of that. It was done on a cross-party basis, with pre-legislative scrutiny carried out by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and supported by all parties in the House of Commons. That went on the statute book in April 2017, just before the general election, but it did not come into force until April 2018. Its most important duty is the duty to refer people who are threatened with being homeless to a local authority for assistance, but that did not come into force until October 2018. More than 30,000 people have been prevented from becoming homeless as a result.
The vast majority of people who become homeless in the first place say the same thing: “All we need is help and advice to get ourselves into an alternative property.” When being triaged by a local authority, however, they would frequently be greeted by the same response: “Sorry, we can’t help you. Go and sleep on a park bench or sleep in a shop doorway, and hopefully one of the housing charities will come along and help you.” People sleeping rough for the first time are extremely vulnerable, and sadly, those sleeping rough die at a very early age. The average age of men dying on the streets is 46. We have to combat that.
We should congratulate the Government on the Everyone In programme and celebrate its success. It is extremely welcome that it has taken more than 30,000 people off the streets and put them in safe accommodation. It is now time, however, to review not just the success of that policy but how we go forward. I congratulate the Government on providing money for move-on accommodation and on ensuring as far as possible that those people do not return to the streets, unless it is their absolute choice to do so. In addition to discussing the Vagrancy Act, we should also review all housing legislation and make sure that obstacles are not being placed in the way of assisting people into proper and decent accommodation.
I am a great advocate for Housing First, meaning that we take people off the streets, provide them with secure accommodation, and then build a network of support around them. The main reason for that is that it is no good just giving someone a property to live in when they have suffered from addictions or other problems. They actually need help and support to rebuild their lives, and it is only once they have a secure roof over their heads that we can do that. The trials and pilot schemes have been very successful and we should aim to roll them out so that this becomes a means of prevention, rather than cure, which is always the best approach.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly pointed out, the Vagrancy Act was introduced in the wake of the Napoleonic wars, during which men in particular had been crippled. There were no jobs for them, no national health service and no welfare state. We are now in a much stronger position and should deal with people who are homeless on the basis of their health and enable them to rebuild their lives.
It is right, however, that we have legislation to deal with aggressive begging in particular. My advice to anyone who asks me has always been: “Don’t give money to someone who is homeless and unfortunately living on the streets—give them help and support. Direct them to a charity where they can get the help and support they need to rebuild their lives, rather than potentially fuel their addictions”.
Surely now is the time that, above all else, we should say to the people of this country that people who are homeless should not be arrested but assisted. By assisting them we can help them rebuild their lives and rebuild the dignity of people across the country. We do need to build more social housing and provide a rental basis that people can afford. That is not a debate for today, but let us hear from the Minister the actions that the Government are going to take to repeal this legislation. Although we will need legislation to deal with aggressive begging, we need to make sure that people who are homeless do not feel threatened by the police and those in authority but realise that they can be assisted to rebuild their lives. Thank you, Sir Charles, for allowing me to participate in this excellent debate.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this important debate.
The Vagrancy Act, which was introduced in 1824 after the Napoleonic wars, continues to this day to punish vulnerable people who are begging or sleeping on the street. Since 2009, Leicestershire police have brought proceedings under the Vagrancy Act against 126 of our residents. While that relatively low figure further underlines the pointlessness of this legislation, it means that 126 too many Leicester residents who have been punished for the crime of being poor. Rough sleeping is a searing indictment of societal failure. Every person we see forced to survive on our streets while avoiding dystopian anti-homeless spite demonstrates how basic human needs have been sacrificed on the altar of neoliberalism. Rough sleeping in England increased by 141% between 2010 and 2019, while deaths more than doubled in the recent five-year period. Sadly, that is not surprising but rather the inevitable consequence of cruel Government decisions.
Over the past decade, Conservative Governments have implemented an ideologically driven programme of austerity that has left our public services weakened, vulnerable and underfunded, which has escalated insecurity at work and brought about a long and continuing squeeze on living standards. Rising rough sleeping figures are an inevitable consequence of such rampant inequality. On top of this, the Government have introduced a new set of immigration rules that make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of permission to stay in the UK. Seventy specialist organisations working in homelessness have expressed concern that that is as counterproductive as it is morally abhorrent, as the rules will push people further away from seeking support and leave them far more vulnerable to exploitation.
The new rules do not include protection for asylum seekers and refugees or for people who are illegally evicted from private properties. That is of particular concern, as a disproportionate number—26%—of people sleeping rough are non-UK nationals. It is especially callous for the Government to introduce these changes during a global pandemic. Following pressure, at the start of the covid-19 outbreak the Government introduced the Everyone In scheme, which helped temporarily house thousands of vulnerable people. While the scheme was commendable, it should not have taken a global pandemic for us to decide to take the issue of rough sleeping seriously. It is a matter of great concern that the support has already been scaled back.
The Government must recognise that rough sleeping is not a static problem, but rather a constant conveyor belt of misery. Throughout this pandemic, the injustice of the “no recourse to public funds” policy, the inadequacies of covid-19 support packages and universal credit, spikes in domestic abuse and the failure to cut rent and cancel arrears continue to leave more and more people vulnerable to homelessness. Between April and June 2020, almost two thirds of the 4,227 people recorded as sleeping rough in London were doing so for the first time, representing a 77% rise from the previous year. Shockingly, that includes an 81% increase in children and young people. This indicates that the economic fallout from the pandemic has pushed vulnerable people on to the same streets that the Everyone In scheme had temporarily vacated.
The pandemic has also led to concerns that the number of rough sleepers has been dramatically under-estimated in official figures, which are predominantly collated by a count-based estimate of the number of people seen sleeping rough in a local authority on a typical night. The National Audit Office has expressed alarm that between the end of March and November 2020, 33,139 people were given accommodation through the Everyone In scheme—a number almost eight times greater than the annual snapshot of rough sleepers. The Government must therefore urgently revise how they measure rough sleeping. Even more importantly, they must revoke the discriminatory new immigration rule and set in place a plan to permanently eradicate rough sleeping.
The Government have pledged to end rough sleeping by 2024, yet to achieve that they must invest much more than the £750 million earmarked for the next year. To put the issue in perspective, that is 3.4% of the £22 billion that the Government have spent on the failed, bloated Test and Trace system, which has had a negligible impact on covid-19 cases while lining the pockets of Tory party donors.
With the Vagrancy Act 1824 approaching its 200th birthday, there can be no better way to mark the occasion than to finally repeal this appalling, outdated legislation, along with the Government’s latest discriminatory immigration rules. We must stop punishing our most vulnerable members of society and instead focus on addressing the causes behind their misfortune.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this important debate. We want to talk openly and transparently about many of the issues relating to rough sleeping because, unfortunately, many of our constituents face these problems. Unless we talk openly and with honesty about these challenges, we risk not facing up to them.
The circumstances under which many find themselves rough sleeping can vary enormously. There are many individual factors, such as mental health problems, bereavement or experience of the criminal justice system. Individuals can face problems through no fault of their own, such as family breakdown, issues with friends or physical abuse from other members of their household. There can be a variety of causes, but none is any less important than another. That is why I welcome this debate.
In my constituency, like in most of the country, rough sleeping is a problem. It is also a problem in neighbouring Bradford and across the wider Bradford district. I therefore welcome the work being done to deal with these problems in my community. For example, Homeless Not Hopeless is a fantastic local organisation, which I have visited in Keighley, that does a lot of work in the Bradford district. It recognises that both mental and physical challenges can exist among those who are homeless. A team of compassionate volunteers provide support to those who most need it. Last Christmas, I was delighted to see groups across Keighley and Ilkley showing support for their work. The 5th Ilkley Brownies group collected items to donate to Homeless Not Hopeless, and staff at Airedale General Hospital donated over 200 gift-packaged shoe boxes to the charity.
There are also local charities that help those suffering from the symptoms of homelessness. For example, the charity Project 6 helps those in Keighley who are suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. People who sleep rough often fall foul of the misuse of those substances. The impacts can be life-crippling. Vicki Beere and her team at Project 6 provide vital support to people suffering from those problems. Preventing homelessness is vital, but help must also come to those who are sleeping rough. That makes the work of local charities like Project 6 so important.
I am pleased that the Government are providing support to help vulnerable people get off the street for good. The £212 million support package provided through the rough sleeping accommodation programme will help local authorities provide the funds to tackle rough sleeping. The Next Steps accommodation programme will support new tenancies for people who need them most.
Of course, more can be done to support those who are rough sleeping. The Vagrancy Act is almost 200 years old. Two centuries later, it stands unfit for purpose. The time has come for it to be replaced. That is why I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has said that it should be repealed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster on her work and on bringing forward this debate.
Of course, this a difficult issue to tackle. Unless we speak about it in places such as this, we are not doing all we can to bring it to the forefront, so I welcome this debate. It is also heartening to see all the work being done by local charities. The repealing and replacing of the Vagrancy Act is a step in the right direction. I support that move but long-term solutions are also required, including longer-term funding, street-based mental health services and a targeted approach that addresses the root causes of homelessness in their entirety. I look forward to supporting the Minister’s hopeful remarks on the Government’s aspiration to repeal and replace this Act.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this important debate, and I thank colleagues from across the House for taking part.
My goodness, it has been a long time coming, but it does look as though the Vagrancy Act might finally be scrapped. My simple question for the Minister is: when? How long do we need to wait for this review finally to be published? How long do we need to wait until this blight of a law is finally repealed?
As many have already said, the Vagrancy Act is an antiquated piece of legislation from 1824 and it has no place in modern society. It is 2021 and we are still criminalising people for rough sleeping. For years, the Liberal Democrats and colleagues from all parties have been urging action, and the price of inaction is high. Rough sleepers will continue to be arrested and prosecuted for being homeless.
I am told by those with lived experience that outside the official figures, there are many more people who may not be charged but who are threatened with the Act to get them to move on. From 2009 to 2019, 131 proceedings under the Act were brought by Thames Valley police alone. How much longer are we going to wait, and how much longer will the Government let this go on?
I started the campaign to scrap the Vagrancy Act in 2017, but the credit needs to go to the compassionate young people of Oxford. The genesis was a petition started by Oxford University students’ union and Oxford-based homelessness group On Your Doorstep. It arose in answer to the needless criminalisation under the Act of dozens of rough sleepers in Oxford. In February 2018, I introduced the Vagrancy (Repeal) Bill and raised it at Prime Minister’s questions.
Together with campaign lead charity Crisis and supported by Homeless Link, St Mungo’s, Centrepoint, Cymorth Cymru, The Wallich and Shelter Cymru, we officially launched the cross-party “Scrap the Act” campaign at an event in Parliament, with a 41-page report detailing the case against it. That included, critically, a lawyer-led review of the other Acts already in place to prosecute fraud and aggressive begging. MPs and peers from all parties heard stories from people who had lived experience of rough sleeping, and whose lives had been affected by the Act. It was heartbreaking, and we all resolved to do more to get the law repealed for good.
In August 2018, when the review was announced, we welcomed it as massive progress. Then we waited and waited. In January 2019 we debated it on the Floor of the House. It was again raised at Prime Minister’s questions with the then Prime Minister that February, and the Bill was introduced again in March 2020. When I heard the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government say on the Floor of the House in February this year—four years on from the introduction of the original Bill—that the Act should be scrapped, the word I said was “Hallelujah!”
Here we are in April 2021. The law is archaic and should be consigned to history, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State has said that he agrees. What now? The campaign has come a long way from its Oxford grassroots origin, and this debate is proof of that. I am saddened that the Secretary of State could not commit to a timetable in a letter to me last week. Will the Minister do that today? Will he guarantee that the repeal of the Vagrancy Act will be in the Queen’s Speech next month? This is the moment. I also agree with hon. Members who call for more, although I hope the Government will not use that as an excuse to delay the repeal.
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was a step change, and I commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for leading that work. I have been so grateful for his support in this campaign.
I also congratulate the Government on the Everyone In programme. I can tell the Minister that it has had a transformative effect on those who finally, for the first time, have a stable abode. I was told by council officers in Oxfordshire that the programme meant that, for the first time, many people engaged with the wraparound services that are available, and because for the first time they had the peace of mind of knowing where they were going to sleep night after night, it was possible to engage with them. That is why I believe that the “housing first” approach is certainly the way to go. We have had months of a pilot, in effect, during this pandemic. As outlined in the Public Accounts Committee report on the issue—led by me and the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan)—that approach also saves money. It is not just the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing to do.
Above all, repealing the Vagrancy Act would indicate a step change in approach by the whole of society. I am sure that Members from all parties remember the death of Gyula Remes in Westminster underground station in 2018, one of the two deaths that year at the very feet of Parliament. How did Parliament react? By erecting a new gate, further down the entrance to the tube station, and pushing the homelessness out of our way—out of sight and out of mind. That will not do, but it continues. Just this morning, a member of my staff saw British Transport police moving on some rough sleepers from outside our tube entrance. When the staff member asked the police officer what had happened to the homeless people, the officer said, “We told them to get lost, in a nicer sort of way.”
We need a step change in our response to homelessness. Our response needs to be more holistic and more compassionate, and it has to start by repealing this cruel and needless law, which continues to be used to punish the homeless. It is a disgrace. We have produced the work detailing why the Government can move forward quickly. The Bill exists, so just pick it up. It sounds as though the review that the Government commissioned has come to the same conclusions as we did years ago. I ask the Minister to do the right thing. Let us act now together. Let us scrap the Vagrancy Act, and let us make up for the nearly 200 years of hurt that it has caused.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Charles.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this absolutely vital debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on her campaigning work with Crisis and other organisations. They are both absolutely right—indeed, all the hon. Members who are here today seem to have made the same case—that it is time the Vagrancy Act was scrapped. We have covered a lot today, including many of the reasons why that matters and many of the alternatives. I am grateful to colleagues for adopting a cross-party approach to address this topic constructively, and I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
As others have done, I am going to quote the Secretary of State. When I searched in Hansard for his references to the Act, I landed on his response to a question from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster during the ministerial statement on rough sleeping on 25 February. The Secretary of State said:
“We have reviewed the Vagrancy Act and will be saying more in the weeks ahead. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is my opinion that the Vagrancy Act should be repealed. It is an antiquated piece of legislation whose time has been and gone. We should consider carefully whether better, more modern legislation could be introduced to preserve some aspects of it, but the Act itself, I think, should be consigned to history.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 1138.]
That statement contains a lot of what has been covered in the debate today. I would be interested to know whether the Secretary of State met the hon. Lady, but rather than put her on the spot I will ask the Minister if he has any further update for us all.
The Labour party’s position is clear. The next Labour Government will repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises begging and rough sleeping. That is because we believe our priority should be to support, not criminalise, those who are sleeping rough or begging, and to end rough sleeping for good. This Georgian-era legislation is unnecessary—I will explain why shortly—for dealing with genuinely antisocial behaviour, because a number of other civil measures exist in modern legislation, including civil injunctions and various orders.
Crisis, the homelessness charity, says that the Vagrancy Act
“gives the police in England and Wales the power to issue a formal arrest if someone has been offered shelter and continues to sleep on the street.”
The problem is that, as most of us who have spent time with people living on the streets know, there are often very real and genuine reasons why they cannot use any shelter that is available.
Rough sleeping is a criminal offence under section IV of the Act and is defined, in very quaint, 1824 language, as
“wandering abroad and lodging in any Barn or Outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied Building, or in the open Air, or under a Tent, or in any Cart or Waggon...and not giving a good Account of himself or herself”.
I am sure that is etched on the memories of everyone in this debate, but I am sure too that many people we serve would be surprised to hear such antiquated and mostly completely irrelevant language being used to deal with the problem in a 19th-century way—in fact, not even that—when we have 21st-century ways available to us.
The Vagrancy Act 1935 amended the 1824 Act to introduce the condition that an individual can be charged with rough sleeping only if alternative shelter is available. However, as I have said, that fails to account for the lack of knowledge on the part of many or the fears that some have about the alternatives, such as unsafe, overcrowded hostels. According to the homelessness charities, the offence of being in an enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose is also used to challenge rough sleepers.
Interestingly, the number of prosecutions and convictions under section IV of the 1824 Act has declined, to the extent that in 2019 there were 183 prosecutions and 140 convictions, only four of which were for the offence of sleeping out. Convictions for begging under section III have also fallen, although they are higher than those under section IV. In 2019, there were 926 prosecutions and 742 convictions. These are criminal offences whose use is clearly declining, but more importantly, are they solving the problems they were introduced to solve or those that cause them? Do convictions under the Act solve the underlying problems of destitution, rough sleeping, extreme poverty and the other contributory causes of rough sleeping?
Let us look at the underlying problems and take, for instance, the sharp end of poverty, destitution—when someone has literally nothing to live off. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published last year, which I am sure the Minister is aware of, presents data from 2019 that shows a worsening picture of 2.4 million people, including more than half a million children, destitute at some point in the year, an increase of around a half compared with 2017. Obviously most of them will not end up on the streets, but we do not want there to be destitution either, and if we are to tackle the root causes of rough sleeping, that must be part of it.
Over the last 10 years, wages have fallen in many sectors, jobs have become more insecure and the cost of housing in the private rented sector has increased, with very high rents across the country, particularly in parts of London, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will know, and the south-east. This is a toxic combination that needs a totally new approach to secure work conditions and decent pay.
Meanwhile, what of the safety net that we all believe anyone who falls on hard times should be able to turn to? I am afraid that, again, in the last 10 years there has been bad news for some people who turn to the state for help. As many have found this year, although the safety net has been there for some, it has not covered everybody. Many people found that it was not there when they needed it, and certainly not to the extent of preventing homelessness and the risk of homelessness. People in the private rented sector in particular have found themselves on the brink of disaster, which is often due to the toxic combination of high rents and insecure wages.
As the chief executive of Crisis has said:
“We understand that councils and the police have to strike a balance between the concerns of local residents and the needs of rough sleepers, and where there’s genuine antisocial activity, it’s only right that they should intervene.”
Homelessness charities therefore understand that, but we know that there are alternatives, such as the range of powers that public bodies have under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which include civil injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance, criminal behaviour orders, community protection notices, dispersal powers and public spaces protection orders. I am sure that the concerns that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) raised are covered by that Act. Unfortunately, however, the Government do not collate and publish statistics on the use of those powers, or not that I have been able to find. Will the Minister commit to publishing that data, which would be really useful, and any evidence about the impact of those powers? That might help to inform our debate about ending the 1824 Act.
Homeless people, as I think everyone in this debate has said, need help, not punishment—as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, assistance not arrest. Rather than criminalising rough sleepers, Labour would support them, with a real emphasis on the housing-first approach that many have referred to. We agree with Crisis that enforcement measures are not an effective way to engage rough sleepers, and with the other homelessness charities that have been mentioned, which were well listed by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I thank them for their sterling work. Does the Minister also agree with them that it is time we got rid and scrapped the Act?
If we are to prevent homelessness in the first place, even before coronavirus, poverty was rising, and that included in-work poverty, with poor pay and insecure work a primary cause, as well as expensive living costs. It cannot be right that so many people on low incomes are spending more than half their income on rent, particularly when that is so often in low-quality accommodation. A lot of those people are at risk of eviction under section 21 of the Housing Act 2004, which the Government committed to repealing. We had the renters’ reform Bill in the last Queen’s Speech; can the Minister tell us now whether it will be in the next one? Will it get parliamentary time so that we can debate constructively how we will reform the rights of people living in the insecure private rented sector?
The hon. Member for Harrow East said that now is not the time to talk about all the surrounding issues. He is right. We cannot go into them in detail, but it is worth mentioning that as we come out of this crisis getting people into good, secure jobs and secure housing will help prevent the sharp end of homelessness that we want to prevent when we talk about the Vagrancy Act and will also do so much good in the housing industry. If we invest—if we build the homes that we need, install the energy efficiency we need for net zero housing, and retrofit—that will create jobs. If we really want this, we should invest in council and housing association homes and, yes, homes to buy. Across all tenures, we need a mass house building programme that deals with the root causes and the 4.8 million shortfall in the amount of housing that the Minister knows that there is. Will the Minister update us on what work he is doing with his counterparts in other Departments to do that building back, and to ensure that we are building the future that we really need in this country?
Finally, the Act is unnecessary. Between us, we have made that case. The Act criminalises a form of homelessness, and I think that is immoral in this day and age when, as Members across the political spectrum have said, people need assistance, not arresting. The Act does not tackle the root causes—the lack of affordable housing, the shortfall in supply—and does not even deal with the symptoms. It is in fact a symptom of the broken housing system and it does not deal with the health needs mentioned by the hon. Member for Gravesham .
It is high time that the Government followed through on the commitment made by the Secretary of State—I know that he said it was his opinion, and did not commit to it as Government policy, and I hope the Minister will satisfy our curiosity on that. It is high time that we conducted a mass house building programme to create the truly affordable homes we need to buy and to rent, including council houses and housing association homes as well as those in the private sector. It is time that the Government prioritised the prevention of rough sleeping. It is time to bring in reforms to the private rental sector, to those sharp practices that hurt tenants, good landlords and the wider economy as people spend more of their money on poor-quality accommodation, even when they are in good jobs. I know of people who have spent a fortune on poor-quality accommodation in this crisis. It is time to focus on a housing-first approach with support for substance misuse, mental health and employment. It is high time that we got rid of this Act, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, although I hope I will be forgiven for saying that it is not as much of pleasure as it was to hear your pint of milk speech, of which I am a huge fan.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing the debate, and other Members on their contributions. We clearly have broad consensus across the political spectrum. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) talked about his time serving homeless people. Immediately before I came to Parliament, I worked for YMCA Birmingham, a charity for young homeless people, and, like him, I feel that it is a privilege to serve them and work with them. Common cause indeed.
As has been made clear during the debate, the causes of rough sleeping are complex and multifaceted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, it is critical that we not only provide a bed for individuals but provide support alongside accommodation for those individuals with complex and overlapping needs. Covid-19 has made that reality even more evident. It means that rough sleeping cannot be tackled by one agency alone. Effective multi-agency working has been critical to protect rough sleepers during the pandemic, and we have seen some truly creative and innovative solutions. For example, Bedford Borough Council quickly moved hostel residents into a hotel and provided a covid-safe environment that meant that people were not sharing communal sleeping facilities. It redeployed its rough sleeping team to work directly at the hotel, and staff were able to offer key services, including on substance misuse and health, to provide the holistic support that many Members have said is important. That has resulted in high-level engagement and has really turned around some rough sleepers’ lives in the past 12 months.
We know that this is not just about the initial intervention to bring people in. I again stress that it is critical to provide the right support and intervention that will successfully and sustainably move people away from life on the streets. That is why we have committed £433 million over the course of the Parliament to provide 6,000 vital homes for rough sleepers through the rough sleeping accommodation programme—the largest ever investment of its kind in this country. It is crucial to tackle the root causes of rough sleeping so that we prevent anyone from facing the damage and trauma that they have experienced from falling back into rough sleeping after having been given a helping hand. We are therefore also investing in high-quality support so that the vulnerable people helped through the programme can recover and maintain tenancies.
The data clearly demonstrates that our approach is working well. The rough sleeping statistics published this year showed a 37% fall in the number of people rough sleeping on a single day, compared with the previous year. This is the third year in a row that that number has fallen, which is a fantastic achievement. It is now incumbent on us to sustain the momentum and not just continue to reduce rough sleeping but end it for good.
It would be remiss of me not to briefly highlight the brilliant multi-agency work being pioneered by Westminster City Council and its partners to tackle rough sleeping. I know from conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and Councillor Rachael Robathan, and simply from walking a few minutes from this building down Victoria Street, that Westminster faces significant and complex homelessness issues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her exceptional dedication, both as the Member for this constituency and as the previous leader of Westminster City Council, to tackling these issues.
The dedication of the teams in Westminster means not only that beds are provided for those my hon. Friend described as fearful and mistrusting, but that the right support is provided alongside the accommodation. For example, the rough sleeping initiative-funded assessment project at Holly House, run by St Mungo’s, which I had the honour of addressing a few weeks ago, offers rapid initial contact for rough sleepers and provides a quick triage assessment with an offer of accommodation followed by effective follow-up support, ensuring that needs are identified and met. That is a pioneering approach for others to follow.
We are here to talk particularly about repealing and replacing the Vagrancy Act. My hon. Friend and others across the House have been determined advocates of the need to look closely at that legislation. The Government wholeheartedly agree that the time has come to reconsider the Vagrancy Act. As many Members have said, no one should be criminalised simply for not having anywhere to live. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said, and as others have quoted, the Act is “antiquated”, and its
“time has been and gone.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 1138.]
The Vagrancy Act is quite literally a relic of the 19th century and clearly needs to be replaced to reflect the civilised, compassionate society that this Government are committed to as we build back better. That is why we have committed to review the legislation. The review has, for understandable reasons, been delayed by the pandemic. I fully appreciate that, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, it was started some time ago, but we have unfortunately been knocked off course since then, partly by a general election, a change of Prime Minister and 12 months of a global pandemic. Clearly, it has not been smooth since then. However, with our world-leading vaccination programme forging ahead and our road map for cautiously easing lockdown restrictions in place, I am determined to take that work forward at pace.
At its heart, the review has been about the experiences of those on the frontline, including the police, local authorities and the homelessness sector, and, most importantly, those with experience of rough sleeping initiatives. It has been crucial to understand the full picture of why the Vagrancy Act is used and what impact any changes to it will have. It is vital that the legislation creates the right environment in which to deliver effective services, enables our police to operate effectively on our streets and engages constructively with vulnerable people. We are currently finalising the conclusions of the review and will announce our position shortly.
Of course, that is only part of the solution. Many of the individuals we have heard about face tremendous challenges, and we must ensure that their individual needs are front and centre in this national endeavour.
I will shortly speak about the support we have invested in making sure that the health needs of rough sleepers are adequately addressed, but I will first speak briefly to the points made so compellingly about what happens when an individual refuses critical care and treatment. Decision making in those situations is covered by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which exists to protect those with a lack of mental capacity and facilitate the expression of their rights and freedoms. When a person who is sleeping rough refuses care and treatment that others, including medical and outreach professionals, see as vital to survival, that is not on its own enough to demonstrate a lack of mental capacity.
We recognise, however, that some people who are sleeping rough lack the relevant mental capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. In those circumstances, the 2005 Act provides for a best-interest decision to be made by relevant professionals, including those supporting rough sleepers. That is never easy, but it is sometimes necessary. That is why we have previously written to local authorities to remind them of their powers during a period of severe cold weather, and of the need to ensure that outreach teams working alongside mental health services can pre-assess those who choose to remain on the streets and to alert police when mental health may be a factor.
Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly highlighted, the most important thing is to ensure that the root causes of the individual’s health needs are sufficiently supported before it gets to that stage. We know that the health needs of rough sleeping cohorts are significant. A survey published by my Department in December found that 82% of respondents who had slept rough in the last year had a mental health vulnerability, 83% had a physical health need, and 60% had a substance misuse need.
People sleeping rough often have complex and multifaceted needs, making the requirement for comprehensive wraparound support all the more crucial. That is why we are tackling this head-on, by delivering £52 million in this financial year to provide substance misuse treatment for people who are sleeping rough. That will provide the specialist support that so many of those individuals need to rebuild their lives and move into long-term housing. In addition, the Department of Health and Social Care is investing £30 million in the NHS long-term plan to support specialist mental health services for people sleeping rough.
In his brief contribution, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned that 50 organisations are seeking to see the back of the Vagrancy Act. As I think we have heard this afternoon, there is also cross-party consensus on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster suggested that three-year funding would be appropriate. Unfortunately, that decision is above my pay grade, but I am sure the Chancellor is listening to this debate and will have heard her comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) said that we need to address begging, so it is a question not just of repealing the Act, but of considering what is necessary to replace it. Certainly, as he said, there are examples of people for whom begging is a way of earning money to spend on drugs and alcohol. During my time with the YMCA, we found it incredibly frustrating to have people begging outside our establishments. I would go out to them and say, “You’re giving us a bad reputation. We’re here to provide the sort of support that you are conveying that you need. We could find accommodation and support for you.” They would say, “No, I’m quite happy where I am, thank you.” Sometimes, the people we see on the streets are not necessarily there because there is no opportunity for provision and accommodation.
Several hon. Members mentioned the Housing First programme. Obviously, I am a very big fan of that programme in the west midlands, which Andy Street championed from the start of his time as Mayor—pilots are ongoing. Although many hon. Members have, I am sure, seen good work come from that, we need to allow the review to continue so that we can get a detailed summary of what has worked best and then determine how to move forward based on the commitment that the Government made in our manifesto.
The only point that I would mildly take issue with is the one that the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) made about the new asylum legislation. I disagree with her point simply because that legislation is to tackle those who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour but refuse to engage with the support offered to them, so I do not think the Government are being particularly harsh or using legislation in an inappropriate way. I think there would be general consensus among the public that people who behave in that way and refuse to engage with support should be tackled, and should be subject to the law.
The renters reform Bill is clearly an important piece of legislation, but given that we are just coming out of the pandemic, the Government will have to decide which things they need to bring forward in legislation to get the country back on its feet. Again, that is a decision above my pay grade, but it is something that I personally will be pursuing in my ministerial role regardless of the legislative programme.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is very courteous. He says that it is above his pay grade to decide whether that happens, but will he be making the case for the renters reform Bill to be in the Queen’s Speech? That is really what I am asking him to commit to.
Eddie Hughes
My job as a junior Minister in the Department is to support the Secretary of State in identifying important legislation that needs to be considered. It is then the job of the Department and the Prime Minister to prioritise things appropriately, based on the collective need of the country.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) called for a significant house building programme. Personally, I think the £12 billion that the Government have committed to house building is significant, and we are determined not only to hit the target of 300,000 houses a year, but more importantly to do that across a mix of tenures. Before becoming a Minister, I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on shared ownership housing. It is not just a question of allowing people to have places to rent; many people have the aspiration to buy. It is up to us to try to support those people as well.
It has been a real privilege to take part in a debate that I feel so passionately about, given my professional background before coming to Parliament, but more importantly in which there is such cross-party consensus across the House. I feel confident that in due course we will make significant progress with this legislation.
Nickie Aiken
I thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate and the Minister for his response. It is clear from what we have heard from Members across the political spectrum that we are all of one belief: that the Vagrancy Act is no longer fit for purpose to deal with any issues surrounding rough sleeping in the 21st century. If we are ever to ensure that the Government meet their welcome ambition of ending rough sleeping for good, one of the first things they need to address is the Vagrancy Act, as well as long-term funding. Local authorities and charities cannot be expected to put in place the services required to support more rough sleepers off the streets without longer-term funding. It is just not possible.
The Minister made some very good points about the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but the problem is that we do not have sufficient capacity in homelessness mental health teams to go out on to our streets. Therefore, we need more funding, and more long-term funding, so that local authorities can put that in place. I honestly do not believe that it is a police officer’s job to have to move rough sleepers off the streets. I want police officers to be going after the bad guys, preventing crime before it starts and taking action against those involved in crime, not moving on rough sleepers. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government work together now. There is a brilliant opportunity, a golden opportunity, now, as we come out of the pandemic, for the three Departments to work together, with the cross-party support of hon. Members and charities in the rough sleeping sector, to ensure that we can repeal the Vagrancy Act and replace it with what is required in the 21st century.
I will end by mirroring what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said. We have to move away from arresting rough sleepers to assisting them. They are the most vulnerable, damaged people in our society, and they need and deserve better. And the first way to do that is to scrap the Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered repealing and replacing the Vagrancy Act 1824.
Criminal Cases Review Commission
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered strengthening the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon about the Westminster commission on miscarriages of justice. As someone who has been in the House for a very long time, I have to admit to you, Sir Charles, and to the Minister that this is my first time doing a Westminster Hall debate in this way. I was delighted yesterday to manage to come physically into the House of Commons after a year to pay my tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh. Please bear with me if I make any mistakes and do correct me if I put a foot wrong.
As you know, Sir Charles, I have been in the House for a very long time; and long before you were in the House, I was deputy shadow Home Secretary to the shadow Home Secretary, Roy Hattersley. All those years ago, at the time of the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and all those very controversial cases, I was quite intimately involved—well, rather on the periphery, but certainly involved at that rather interesting time in British politics—with what was happening in terms of alleged miscarriages of justice, so this has been a long-term interest of mine, an interest over a long period of time.
A very great friend of mine, Glyn Maddocks, who very early on was a research assistant of mine in the House of Commons, has over the years, as a lawyer—a solicitor—made miscarriages of justice one of his central areas of interest; and over those years, I have helped in individual cases when they have been brought to me as worthy of having a look at and perhaps giving my support to. We have had some very great successes, but I want to stress that many people, including many of my constituents, would not know very much about how we handle miscarriages of justice in our country. It shocks many people when they realise. We have a system that is not bad—not bad at all. When miscarriages are discovered and resolved, the wrong is put right to some extent. However, not many people realise that someone can serve 15 or 18 years in prison and it can be found that they have been wrongly imprisoned for all that time, but, when they leave prison, they get not one penny of compensation. Indeed, we can compare that to the situation of a convicted criminal who has been in prison, perhaps for murder, for a very long sentence—say, 12 or 15 years—and who comes out. They get rehabilitation and support to get back into the community, but if someone is found to have been wrongly convicted, they get nothing of that; there is no compensation, so this is something that has been a great interest of mine.
Back in 1997 we introduced the Criminal Cases Review Commission—the CCRC—and everyone thought at the time of its introduction that we had absolutely sorted the problem. To give you the background, Sir Charles, you will know as well as anyone that, even in the best criminal justice system, mistakes are made. If we look at countries similar to ours with good justice systems, throughout the world a good justice system also has the capacity to look at miscarriages that might occur. We all know—we are human beings—mistakes and errors are made in the criminal justice system for complex reasons.
Over the years of the CCRC working, it has done a good job, but we increasingly see evidence of a lack of cases being referred for review and that has been a worry. In my short speech today, I want to give some idea of the problem. I am a campaigner and I know that one of the greatest assets in a campaign is to have a good all-party parliamentary group. Two years ago, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and I started an all-party group on miscarriages of justice with very good membership in the Lords and the Commons. After some good seminar discussions and identifying the problems, we resolved that we would try to put together a commission to look at the issue, not only to give it some reputation, but to take written and oral evidence and to see if we could make good recommendations, not to criticise or be negative about the Criminal Cases Review Commission, but to assist it and make it even more effective. That is the background to why we founded the commission.
Very often, all-party groups can be extremely good, with very good seminars, but there is always one member who steps outside and we overhear them say, “That was a really good discussion, but it was just a talking shop”. We did not want this APPG to be a talking shop, so we founded the Westminster commission on miscarriages of justice and then we struck lucky, because Lord Garnier and Baroness Stern in the House of Lords—people with an enormous reputation in the criminal justice system—agreed to co-chair the commission and a commission of inquiry.
What I am putting forward in this debate through this strange online link is the fact that we very carefully and positively, on an all-party basis, tried to look at a problem that emerged and to come up with some good suggestions for improvement and reform—all in a positive spirit, but with an underlying passion. Miscarriages of justice do dreadful things to people who are wrongly imprisoned for long terms. They ruin their lives and their families’ and friends’ lives, and their communities are deeply damaged when a real miscarriage takes place and is not put right. In that spirit, we set course not only with the all-party group, but with the commission.
The commission has now published a report, which Lord Garnier and Baroness Stern gave the title, “In the Interests of Justice—An inquiry into the Criminal Cases Review Commission”. I want to briefly mention what we think the problems are. One is known as “the real possibility test”. We believe that the predictive nature of the real possibility test encourages the CCRC to be too deferential to the Court of Appeal. It seems to act as a brake on the CCRC’s freedom of decision and we believe that needs reform. We urge the Government to take that recommendation seriously.
My second point is something that not many people really know of. Those of us who care about our justice system have been very positive, and we know that justice is not a cheap commodity, but the Ministry of Justice has experienced the biggest cuts of any Department in the past decade. There is no doubt about that, and there have been serious effects in relation to miscarriages of justice. When that overall lack of resource for justice is combined with covid and its dreadful impact in delays in the courts of justice, we know that the justice system has been going through a tough time, and there has been an impact with miscarriages of justice in particular. At a time when the CCRC has been more needed than ever its budget has been slashed too, and we believe it urgently needs more resources to fulfil its role. The figures are not extraordinary; they are very modest with respect to what is needed to put things right.
The third issue is investigative powers. The inquiry revealed one instance where the CCRC had waited 1,000 days for a public body to comply with a disclosure request. What is the point of the CCRC’s having special powers to request public bodies to disclose evidence if it cannot enforce its requests? That seems extraordinary. The case taking 1,000 days was extreme, but in many cases there are serious worries about lack of co-operation. It is good for everyone in the justice system if there is transparency. The principle of open justice is at the heart of the system; but for that we need accountability and transparency, and the CCRC needs to do better on both counts, to maintain public confidence in its work.
We have done our job very well. The all-party group visited the CCRC. Not many people know this, but it is based in Birmingham. I am very much in favour of putting civil service jobs and Government jobs out in the provinces, as I am sure you are, Sir Charles, but the CCRC in Birmingham is somewhat out on a limb and a visit was important, so that we could see how those good, dedicated teams work. However, the all-party group was rather shocked by the fact that the team is small, commissioners’ remuneration has declined quite steadily—they are paid on a per diem basis as consultants rather than as full-time employees—and they find it hard to recruit some full-time staff because of the general level of pay and conditions. We saw a really good bunch of men and women, working hard—everything that I am saying today is what we say in the report—but they were restricted by the resources at their command. Also, we believe that the move away from more full-time people towards having part-time people working on a per diem basis has not been very good for the organisation’s overall effectiveness.
The last point that I want to make—and strongly—is that we believe the cut in resources has also affected communication with applicants. It is important for those appealing about a miscarriage who are in prison, and their families, to be kept in the loop about what is happening, and the stage that their application for a review has reached. We took evidence from people who had been wrongfully imprisoned and then released and from their families and friends. While the CCRC has made important efforts to make itself more accessible to potential applicants, it must communicate better during the case reviews. That is most important. It is a stressful time for many people and is made worse by silence or infrequent, hard-to-understand updates from the CCRC.
Sir Charles, this is a unique report, in the sense that it is very high quality. I do not think anyone could fail to be impressed by Lord Garnier and Baroness Stern’s commitment and the hard work they put in, or the quality of the report that we have subsequently published. I am sure the Minister and the Government have seen the report, but I ask today that they look at it in a positive spirit. Every inch of the way we have tried to say, “This is a very good organisation. It could be much more effective and it would be good for our justice system, and for its reputation as a high-quality justice system, if some modifications, along the lines of our recommendations, were made.”
We did not find any of the staff involved in the report to lack the commitment or desire to do a better job, and I know the report has been warmly endorsed by those delivering and working for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have worked hard, on an all-party basis. We believe we have come up with something that is useful to the Government. Would it not be nice if we could see that hard work, across the Commons and the Lords, produce something effective to improve the situation in our justice system?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on securing this important debate on strengthening the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out in his opening remarks, miscarriages of justice have terrible consequences for all those involved. He highlighted defendants, and their families and friends, and he was right to do so. He might also have added the impact on victims, because for a victim to go through a criminal justice process, only to find out that the wrong person has been convicted, is a cruel blow indeed. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for fighting this fight, for railing against injustice and for shining a light on the risk of miscarriages of justice. We are proud, as I think he is, of the work of the independent CCRC, which, on its establishment in 1997, was the world’s first statutory publicly funded body set up to review alleged miscarriages of justice.
It is worth pausing to reflect on the international context. Before the debate, I read an excellent paper by Kent Roach from the University of Toronto faculty of law. He noted that
“most common law jurisdictions have yet to create new institutions and procedures to correct miscarriages of justice and still rely on the political executive to order new appeals.”
In other words, they petition the Home Secretary or their equivalent to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. He adds:
“Most Australian and American states continue to rely on unfettered executive discretion on applications for mercy or clemency as their exceptional means to correct miscarriages of justice.”
Some have referred to that as a sort of conservatism of the legal system, which emphasises the finality of the process. In parts of the world where there is an embryonic form of CCRC, often the test for that threshold is much higher. For example, in North Carolina an establishment of factual innocence is required before a referral can be made. I make that point because we should not lose sight of the fact that the CCRC, although now of some antiquity, remains an international pioneer.
In September 2020, the CCRC referred its 750th case for appeal, meaning that it has referred one case every eight working days since it was established. Of those cases, more than 450 appeals have been allowed by the appeal courts, and each one of those represents a conviction or sentence that would have stood if it were not for the diligent efforts of CCRC commissioners and their staff. Given the commission’s vital role, it is absolutely right that we should ask whether we are doing all we can to support the CCRC in its work.
I join the hon. Member for Huddersfield in commending the authors from the Westminster Commission on Miscarriages of Justice, which as he rightly indicates was a distinguished panel headed by Lord Garnier and Baroness Stern. We recognise that they have given their time to shine a light on this matter. They produced an extremely worthwhile report, and I thank them for it. I also pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the spirit in which they produced the report. I was reading the foreword, in which I found the remarks that their conclusions were advanced
“in a spirit of constructive criticism, admiration and goodwill.”
That reflects the points that the hon. Gentleman made. We accept those observations in that spirit. Before I move on to some of those recommendations, let me emphasise that I sincerely thank the members of the commission for their clear analysis and detailed conclusions.
The report makes more than 30 recommendations, covering a broad area. I hope the hon. Gentleman, and indeed you, Sir Charles, will forgive me if I do not reflect on each individually, because time does not allow for that. I can say that the MOJ will consider each recommendation made for the Department in detail. I know that the CCRC will do the same for the recommendations that the report makes for it. He will have seen that it has responded already, albeit in a summary fashion. No doubt there will be a further response in due course.
The report highlights areas where there have been criticisms of the CCRC. One is the rate at which it has referred applications to the appeal courts in recent years, a point touched on by the hon. Gentleman. In fact, in the past 12 months, the CCRC has referred 70 cases to the appeal courts. That is more cases than in any previous year. It is important and fair to note that a significant proportion of those relate to the Post Office Horizon case, but none the less, it is right to emphasise that each case must be considered on its merits, with careful consideration of the evidence that exists in each specific case. We suggest that this is a significant achievement, delivered in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, when staff and commissioners have had to adapt to new ways of working.
While there must rightly be a focus on ensuring that those cases with merit are referred to the Court of Appeal or, indeed, other appellate jurisdictions, I agree with the CCRC that the referral rate cannot be the only measure of its success. There will always be factors outside the CCRC’s control that affect the number of applications and, indeed, referrals it makes in a given year. It is important for public confidence and for applicants that cases referred to the CCRC are reviewed thoroughly and objectively. The CCRC continues to closely monitor its referral rate, and it works with practitioners and academics to make sure that it is aware of any potential new cases of miscarriages of justice. I will return to that point in a moment, if I may.
Specifically on the CCRC’s performance, there have been significant improvements. By way of example, in 2017, it closed just over 70% of cases within 12 months. That figure has now risen to 83%. In the same period, the average duration of a review, from allocation to decision, has decreased from 40 weeks to 36 weeks currently. The hon. Gentleman referred to question marks over whether the budget somehow inhibits its having a proactive role. The CCRC takes a proactive role in reaching out to people who may need its services. Of course, it can only review cases that come through its front door, so to speak, which is why its work to reach those who may want to make an application—whether in prisons or elsewhere—is important. This outreach work is taken seriously. It has continued throughout the pandemic, taking place through planned updates to the website and a marked increase in the use of social media. In normal circumstances, it is done through visits to prisons, a stakeholder forum, working with other leaders in the sector, whether Barnardo’s or the Howard League, and other forms of targeted outreach.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the real possibility test. For those listening who might not be familiar with it, this test must be crossed before a case can be referred. The test is whether there is a real possibility that the appeal will overturn the verdict. That test is unchanged from the CCRC’s inception, and as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, there have been some criticisms of it. In using it, however, the CCRC is applying the express will of Parliament. I am aware that the Westminster commission’s report concludes that the test is problematic. It says, in effect—I hope it will forgive me for the shorthand—that it creates too much deference to the Court of Appeal. In effect, the bar is set too high. Let me make a couple of observations. First, changing the test has wider implications for the work of the CCRC. Indeed, in 2015 the Justice Committee, no less, recommended that any change would have to be undertaken in the light of a change to the Court of Appeal’s grounds for allowing appeals in total.
It is also worth pointing out that the mere possibility that the Court of Appeal will overturn the verdict is likely to be too low a bar, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would accept. Equally, real possibility is a far lower bar than exists, for example, when the Crown Prosecution Service has to make a decision about whether to charge someone. There has to be a probability that a tribunal of fact, properly directed, would convict. So it is some way short of probability, but of course above mere possibility. I accept that this is an inexact science, but it is not immediately clear to me how amending the test would make a material difference. As I say, we will keep the matter under review.
It is not appropriate for me to comment on how the CCRC, as an independent body, applies the test, but the current chief executive officer told the Westminster commission that she does not feel that it inhibits the ability of the CCRC to make referrals. I am confident that the CCRC will continue to adopt a professional, impartial and objective approach in deciding whether the test has been met in each case.
Let me turn to appeal mechanisms, although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to them in detail. The report recommends changes to the criminal appeal mechanisms. Current legislation already allows the CCRC to refer a case to the Court of Appeal in exceptional circumstances, and it also allows for appeal outside the 28-day limit if the Court considers that there are justifiable reasons for the delay. In simple terms, if a defendant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal outside the 28-day period, but he or she has good reasons for that delay, he or she can put those before the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal has shown itself well able to make a fair decision about whether extending time is appropriate in that individual case. To be clear, we do not currently have plans to review or amend legislation on criminal appeals, but we acknowledge the points that have been made.
The hon. Gentleman referred to resources. The Westminster commission considers that the CCRC is under- resourced. Decisions about funding are made by the Ministry of Justice annually in consultation with the CCRC. Funding figures for the MOJ in 2021-22 have not been voted on by Parliament and will be released in spring. In considering the funding settlement, it is important to weigh in the balance the fact that the MOJ has provided the CCRC with substantial capital funding over the past two years so that it can upgrade its IT systems and improve its casework processes. That investment alone totals more than £1.5 million, and it will support the CCRC in delivering high-quality casework.
Of course, it is the case that to make fair decisions, good people are required. I absolutely accept that. No amount of technology is going to address that, but it makes an important contribution to the smooth running of the CCRC. Although the hon. Gentleman deprecates the per diem approach, it can mean that the CCRC can potentially recruit counsel to work as commissioners where they might not necessarily want to be full-time employees. It allows the CCRC to recruit high-calibre people to act as commissioners, and it seems to me that that is something to consider properly.
The report also refers to strengthening the CCRC’s leadership and independence. There is no question but that the independence of the CCRC is of vital importance to the public’s confidence in its work. I welcome the High Court’s finding in July 2020 that the CCRC is both operationally and constitutionally independent of the MOJ. The judgment found that changes made as a result of the tailored review undertaken by the Department did not represent a diminution of the CCRC’s independence or integrity. I am confident that the chair, assisted by commissioners and senior management of the CCRC, has the strength and leadership to continue to deliver and improve the work of this vital part of our criminal justice system, and crucially to do so without fear or favour and entirely independently.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned legal aid. We absolutely recognise the importance of legal aid: it is a critical foundation stone of a fair criminal justice system. Significant sums of money are being put into the criminal legal aid system, not least through the first stage of the criminal legal aid review, which has injected up to £51 million into the system. There is an independent review of criminal legal aid taking place at the moment, tasked with securing the sustainability of the criminal legal aid system.
The CCRC remains something of a pioneer by international standards, despite being founded in 1997. It is a highly valued feature of the criminal justice landscape. We will continue to work constructively to strengthen and enhance its vital work. Reports like that of the Westminster commission provide an important challenge and help us to do just that. I will close by thanking the CCRC and paying tribute to its staff for their efforts to investigate miscarriages of justice. Their work strengthens justice and the rule of law, and makes us a fairer nation.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
UK Asylum System and Asylum Seekers’ Mental Health
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK asylum system and asylum seekers’ mental health.
There has been a long-overdue shift in the way in which we approach mental health; we are now rightly encouraged to be open, to talk and to seek help when necessary. However, this Government are less willing to talk about the causes of poor mental health, and when we consider our asylum system there is little acknowledgement of the Home Office policies that contribute to a situation where asylum seekers are five times more likely to have poor mental health than the general population.
The Mental Health Foundation has found that the increased vulnerability to mental health problems that refugees and asylum seekers face is linked both to their pre-migration and post-migration experiences. People who have fled persecution, violence and war hope to find safety and security in the UK. Tragically, the current UK asylum system often exacerbates their suffering, with long waits for asylum decisions, poor accommodation and a ban on working all contributing to this situation.
The backlog in decisions has been worsening for years. The most recent immigration statistics showed that the number of applicants waiting over six months for a decision about their asylum claim was the highest on record, with many people waiting years for a decision about their status. Among unaccompanied child refugees, the situation is critical. Following the deaths of four young Eritreans over a 16-month period, Helen Johnson, the head of children’s services at the Refugee Council, said:
“For many refugees, the misery and distress resulting from their experiences do not always end upon reaching a safe place. Those who have left their home countries as children and experienced such a lot in their short lives are particularly vulnerable. Most of us can only imagine some of the horrors children have witnessed or experienced themselves.”
Of course, there are times when society truly sees refugees as human; we all remember the images of poor little Alan Kurdi on a beach in Turkey. However, I gently point out that when the Home Secretary talks of a two-tier asylum system and only accepting those who come through so-called “legal routes”, that is not how fleeing trauma works. When we see desperate families risking a dangerous sea journey in a rubber dinghy, it is clear that safe routes are not working.
Here in Glasgow, we have direct and personal experience of working with asylum seekers. Glasgow is the only dispersal region in Scotland and it is the largest dispersal local authority area in the United Kingdom. Despite that, the city receives no funding from the UK Government. We take our responsibilities with the asylum seeker community very seriously and Glaswegians are proud to offer those fleeing trauma a home. However, current Home Office policies mean that those in organisations working with this community are effectively operating with their hands tied behind their back.
Very early on in the pandemic, Glasgow MPs were alerted to the fact that asylum seekers had been moved by Mears, an accommodation provider, to emergency hotel accommodation. The small asylum support of £5.66 a day was removed. These individuals have effectively become prisoners, with their freedoms controlled, little money for essentials and limited access to support services—even the internet.
In May 2020, Glasgow MPs and the leader of Glasgow City Council raised concerns with the Home Secretary in a joint letter, but our concerns were not heeded. The situation took a tragic turn in June with the stabbings at the Park Inn hotel. Prior to that attack, fellow hotel residents had expressed concerns about the attacker’s mental health. The attacker, of course, was shot dead by the police. I have since spoken with another resident of Park Inn at that time, who described his days as being filled with utter despair and hopelessness.
However, in Glasgow we have a new concern with a mother and baby unit. Mothers and young children have been moved from their flats into camps—ill-equipped bedsits—by Mears Group. Testimonies from these mothers are alarming. Some were told they were allowed to take only two bags and had to forfeit their remaining belongings, and any parent with young children will know how difficult it is to go anywhere with less than two bags. Others report cramped conditions, poor ventilation and indefinite social isolation. Mothers are cooking meals on small stoves beside babies’ cots due to lack of space.
These examples point to a more sinister shift from community-based accommodation to an institutional accommodation regime. The use of dilapidated Army barracks to house asylum seekers is a very worrying step. Last month, a joint report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration stated that Army barrack accommodation demonstrated
“fundamental failures of leadership and planning”
by the Home Office. The same report described living conditions as “filthy” and “impoverished”.
The impact of these appalling conditions on asylum seekers’ mental health is clear. Dr Jill O’Leary of the Helen Bamber Foundation assessed the same barracks in Folkestone. She said:
“We have consistently seen the threat these former military sites pose to the physical and mental health of residents. We have witnessed a devastating Covid-19 outbreak due to the dormitory-style accommodation, not to mention mental health crises, self-harm and suicide attempts as a result of the unsuitability of the environment.”
However, the Home Secretary shows no change in ideology, with the news today that asylum seekers have been moved back into these barracks.
Earlier this year, I was due to present a Bill that would give asylum seekers the right to work. This was not possible due to the pandemic, but I wish to raise a few points here. Most European countries, and even the United States, allow asylum seekers to work. Currently, asylum seekers may apply for permission to work only after 12 months, and even then they are restricted to roles on the shortage occupation list. There is therefore effectively a ban on working for a majority of those seeking asylum. This policy makes no sense economically and is counterproductive to both asylum seekers’ prospects of community integration and their prospects of living new lives with positive mental health and wellbeing. It is, quite simply, an ideological attack aimed at breaking and dehumanising those who most need our help.
A member of the Glasgow-based Maryhill Integration Network shared their thoughts on how the right to work and mental health are linked:
“The right to work is precious. It improves self-worth and esteem and provides social connection, independence and money to travel and meet new people. Without this, many people’s mental health deteriorates.”
Contrary to certain strains of inflammatory and divisive rhetoric, the vast majority of asylum seekers in this country are willing and committed to work. I always find it slightly ironic that the same people who talk about asylum seekers claiming benefits are those who talk about asylum seekers taking jobs.
There are some points that I hope the Minister will respond to today and take to the Home Secretary. First, the reliance on institutional emergency accommodation such as hotels and barracks should be ended. There must be investment in more community-based housing that is appropriate to people’s needs.
People seeking asylum should be given the right to work six months after lodging an asylum claim, unconstrained by the shortage occupation list. The Home Office must gather the right information from asylum seekers during interview and use it to make correct decisions the first time around.
I close by acknowledging the outstanding work of grassroots organisations that support our asylum seeker communities—organisations such as the Maryhill Integration Network and the Scottish Refugee Council, which offer a lifeline to those struggling with the institutional harm inflicted by the Home Office. That vital work should not, however, be shouldered by third sector organisations alone. It is essential that the Government take those issues seriously. It is common to see the slogan “Refugees welcome” around Glasgow. That absolutely remains the case, but we need a fresh approach in Home Office policies to enable us to support those in our communities more effectively.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on securing this important debate. The asylum system in this country is failing. In the year ending September 2020, the number of people waiting for an initial decision on their asylum claim reached 60,548, a record high, and 76% were waiting six months or more. That cannot be pinned solely on the covid-19 crisis: waiting times were already rising dramatically prior to March 2020, and the number of asylum applications actually fell by 80% during that year. I have a constituent, originally from Yemen, who claimed asylum in June 2019. He was told by the Home Office that he would be contacted about a substantive interview within six months. He is still waiting almost two years later and has had to forgo a PhD offer, which he is unable to accept while his application remains pending. That perpetual process can only be seen as a deliberate part of the wider hostile environment towards migration pursued by the Government.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there were 123,000 asylum seekers and refugees in the UK at the end of 2015. Asylum seekers and refugees face unique and complex challenges related to their mental health, and they are often at greater risk of developing mental health problems. Research commissioned by NHS Leeds has shown that 61% of asylum seekers will experience serious mental distress, and they are five times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. They are less likely than the general population, however, to receive support. The conditions connected to the process of seeking refuge—whether it be a protracted, processed asylum claim or separation from the family, or other common concerns such as poor housing—lead to higher rates of depression, PTSD and other anxiety disorders.
The Government could and should take immediate steps that would have a significant impact on the positive wellbeing of asylum seekers in Britain: immediately ending detention in unsafe, overcrowded accommodation such as Napier barracks, which we all can see is one of the clearest expressions of the disdain with which asylum seekers are treated by them; giving asylum seekers the right to work; preventing them from being left in limbo while they wait for a decision that could take years; ending the conditions of no recourse to public funds; and increasing benefits support for asylum seekers from the current paltry sum of £39.63 a week. The Government also need to set out a strategy to clear the backlog of asylum cases, because the delays are adding to the existing trauma. Ultimately, it will be refugees who continue to suffer while the Government remain intent on stoking anti-migration sentiment as part of their wider culture war.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by thanking all those who work with and help asylum seekers and refugees in Newport. They include The Sanctuary project, the Welsh Refugee Council, the British Red Cross, iNEED, Feed Newport and all the other organisations and individuals doing so much good work.
The Government have been keen to cultivate an image of being hard-line on asylum. The Home Office’s decision to house asylum seekers in the cramped, unsafe Penally barracks in west Wales during a global pandemic ignored both the welfare of asylum seekers and the concerns locally about the conditions and the unsuitability of the accommodation. The Home Office then abruptly emptied the camp, resulting in a flurry of people needing accommodation and support with inadequate measures in place. That just highlights the lack of dispersal accommodation and the need for the Government to properly help public bodies deliver services. I have to say, it stands in contrast to the approach of the Welsh Government.
That is important because, as has been said already, we know that asylum seekers and refugees are especially at risk of developing mental health issues. Research from the Welsh Refugee Council shows that refugees are five times more likely to have mental health needs than the UK population as a whole. The factors that contribute to this are not hard to identify. Before arriving in the UK, refugees may have lost loved ones, experienced violence or persecution or seen their livelihoods fall away, and in many cases will have made a perilous journey overseas. These traumas are often compounded on arrival in the UK by financial insecurity, the inability—as has been spoken about—to gain stability through work, issues with accommodation, the constant fear of deportation, the sense of isolation that comes with family separation and the all-encompassing stress of wrangling with a complex asylum system.
I have seen the last point at first hand through my casework in Newport. I pay a special tribute to my long-standing and excellent caseworker Sarah Banwell, who has much expertise in this area and many friends in the communities in Newport. Lengthy Home Office delays add to the stress by allowing the uncertainty to linger. Over the last few months, my office has dealt with constituents who have been waiting up to two years for their asylum interview after claiming asylum in the UK, while others are still waiting for their biometric residency permits to be issued six months after a positive outcome of their UK Visas and Immigration application. There is a real human cost to this.
On the delays, I know Home Office staff work really hard, and I appreciate that, in a pandemic period, adjustment will be needed. However, there should have been more decision making, and that is down to leadership and oversight at the top. The additional pressure caused by the delays is being heaped on individuals, inevitably resulting in greater strain on already hard-pressed mental health services. Liz Andrew, head of adult psychology for the Aneurin Bevan health board, which covers my constituency, has pointed out:
“It is hard to offer help when someone does not know if they are going to be granted leave to remain. They will remain in a state of threat and worry and this will make it harder to process trauma memories.”
Nor does it help that support services have struggled to provide home visits and face-to-face services in the pandemic, which leads to more isolation, or that accessing remote services is difficult for those who do not speak English as a first language and also because of digital exclusion. That has an impact on the ability to communicate about someone’s case, but also limits their ability to access things such as English as a second language classes. I hope Ministers listen to the concerns today. It is time for them to look again at their approach.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to contribute today with you in the Chair, Sir Charles, and to do so as a representative of Sheffield, the country’s first city of sanctuary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on securing the debate and on the powerful and comprehensive way in which she opened it.
The Home Secretary recently said that our asylum system is broken. She is right, although it is perhaps worth remembering who has been running it for the last 11 years. However, it is broken, above all, for those who come to this country seeking refuge, and too often it breaks them. The Government’s new plan for immigration encapsulates the approach of Ministers, framing asylum seekers as the problem rather than addressing the problems they face, dehumanising those who seek the refuge provided under international law and the treaties to which we are proud signatories, and talking about them as illegal migrants.
The move towards detention on arrival in the Government’s new plan is deeply worrying, particularly after the experience of Napier and Penally barracks, which others have mentioned. Reception centres where asylum seekers will be sent as they enter the UK look dangerously like becoming detention by another name. We have seen with immigration removal centres how facilities established for one function quickly develop another: long-term detention.
Moving towards detaining on arrival would shut down community links and create isolation. Those who seek asylum, with all the trauma associated with the persecution or conflict from which they are fleeing, which is often added to by the journey they have had to make, have that trauma exacerbated by detention. I co-chaired the 2015 cross-party inquiry into immigration detention, when detainees told us that it is “worse than prison”, because prisoners count down the days to their release, while those in detention count them up with no certainty about their future. Experts told us that those who were detained for over 30 days, as so many were—many for months, some for years—had significantly higher mental health problems.
There is a solution, and the Government have piloted alternatives to detention. I have met with previous Ministers who are genuinely committed to those alternatives, recognising that detention is inhumane, inefficient and expensive, but I understand that, instead of being expanded, these programmes are being wound down, with Action Access already finished in March. As the Government have committed to evaluating the programmes, I would be grateful if the Minister told us in winding up when the reports on those pilots will be published.
This morning I heard from the Snowdrop Project in Sheffield, a brilliant charity providing long-term support to survivors of human trafficking. It talked about the delays and indecision in the system, which traumatise survivors of trafficking. One victim supported by the project was exploited in the UK in domestic servitude until she managed to escape. She claimed asylum and was recognised as a victim of trafficking in the national referral mechanism. She was not granted the discretionary leave to remain, to which she was entitled as a recognised victim, despite multiple requests.
The Home Office delayed making a decision on her case for some years, despite legal and political representation highlighting the impact of that delay on her mental health. After four years, her asylum application was refused, but the case was appealed successfully and finally, after five years, she was granted protection in the UK. Those years of uncertainty had a profound impact on her mental health. She suffers from severe anxiety, depression and PTSD, and receives support for suicidal intentions. Someone who had been accepted as a victim of human trafficking should have been given leave to remain on that basis and that experience should have been avoided. The Snowdrop Project is right that it is not acceptable to keep someone’s life on hold for five years.
Like many colleagues, I regularly hear from those who are living in limbo, awaiting the outcome of a Home Office decision. They are all victims of what the Home Secretary described as a “broken system”. In conclusion, I hope the Minister will spell out what the Government plan to do to ensure that the Home Office ends the limbo inside and outside detention that is so damaging to the mental health of asylum seekers.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I will give you six minutes, Jamie Stone, if you require, because two speeches were only three and a half minutes.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am going to do something that I have never done before in this place. I am going to read a letter—it is such a good letter that it is worth quoting from. This would be easy but for the fact that I dropped my reading glasses outside my constituency office and a passing motorist drove over them. I hope colleagues will bear with me. The letter is from Christina Livesey who lives in Caithness. She says:
“While I appreciate that we must, as a nation, have a care for our own security when considering requests from people seeking asylum, this should not mean that Asylum Seekers are ‘Guilty until Proven Innocent’ and then treated far worse than convicted criminals in our gaols!
There have been reports from credible organisations such as Amnesty International, The Scottish Refugee Council, and Freedom From Torture that Asylum Seekers have while in the care of the British Government:
(a) been denied access to proper medical care, both for physical and mental health.
(b) have been driven to suicide by their circumstances and the lack of care they have experienced.
(c) have been housed in unsuitable places such as former Barracks, where they were unable to socially isolate (and where Covid-19 was spread).
(d) have been held in isolated locations where they had no access to legal advice or any other support services,
(e) have suffered immense trauma before arriving in the UK, and are often separated from their families, if indeed they have any family remaining alive.
This sounds more like the war torn, ravaged ‘Third World’ countries many of these refugees are fleeing from, rather than the civilised, proudly independent nation we claim to be!
I am aware that the Home Office are launching an online consultation of their new proposals (most of which have already been tried and which were later abandoned as unworkable) which will run until May 4th.
Among the measures proposed are to withhold or restrict appeal rights against a refusal of asylum if someone has entered the UK without prior permission. This is much like what Michael Howard did in 1999!
There is a proposal to build new asylum reception centres and withhold financial support from people on the basis of how they entered the country. David Blunkett’s first Immigration Act included each of these measures in 2002!
Britain is surely meant to be carving out NEW measures to build up the country and its people, not merely re-hashing outworn, unworkable policies from ages past. These are NOT policies we can be proud of.
We have an opportunity and an obligation to shape the future of all our citizens, as well as potential future citizens. Let us strive for better, not worse, conditions and for inclusive, not divisive, policies.”
Sir Charles, this is an uncompromising email. She does not mince her words, but she is exceedingly eloquent. I have spoken to her several times prior to deciding to read this letter here in the House of Commons. I often think that policy on this front—perhaps on all political fronts regardless of political colour—can sometimes be wrong. I do not doubt the good intentions and kindliness of people who attempt to do their best by refugees.
I will conclude with two points. First, I believe that the UK has a very proud tradition of accepting refugees. We generally agree that they very much better the nation. I am myself in part descended from Huguenot refugees who left persecution and found safety here in Great Britain. Secondly, in my constituency in the highlands of Scotland, there is a long tradition of strangers being welcomed, taken into the community, and we value the contribution that they make. I have probably said enough, though I have not taken up six minutes. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance in listening to me read an email rather badly, but I think it is worth considering what Christina Livesey said.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for setting the scene so very well, and I thank my colleagues for all their marvellous contributions. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). He plays himself down when he says he does things rather badly. On the contrary, he does things rather well. I think we all enjoy his contributions—I certainly do—whether they be in Westminster Hall or in the Chamber. He always gives his thoughts very clearly, and I think every one of us appreciates his comments.
I will begin with this quote from the Henry Jackson Society, because I absolutely agree with what it has to say: “Those that need our help the most are not the young men with the means to reach Britain, but they are the poor, the weak, the vulnerable trapped in conflict.” For me, that encapsulates where we are. I am not saying that we are better than anybody else, but my nature is one of wishing to help other people.
I am my party’s spokesperson on human rights, on health and on the Department for Work and Pensions—in a small party there are a whole lot of things to do, but I love the subjects I have been given and they are matters of interest. I am concerned that we could be throwing the baby out with the bath water, in our well-intentioned attempt to prevent abuse of the system. I know the Minister is a man of compassion and understanding, and a person who wants to help other people. I know that because I have had a friendship with him for many years, since before he was a Minister. Our friendship is the same; it has not changed.
We look to the Minister for the answers and to understand what the Government are trying to do. I understand that they have to control and oversee immigration, and when I asked the Secretary of State this question, she came back with a good answer. I ask the Minister the same question and I would appreciate a response: how can genuine cases involving women and children be addressed under this legislation? The people I refer to are the poor, the weak and the vulnerable.
During the pandemic, I highlighted the need to ensure that asylum seekers had access not just to services, but to food and clothing. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West has spoken about this, as have her colleagues. A report from Refugee Action stated that asylum support rates are currently set at £39.60 per week or £5.66 per day. My goodness, how on earth could anybody survive on that? I mean that honestly. People cannot live on noodles or the 99p specials in the shops all their lives. The money does not go far. What if they have a family? The problems are horrendous. The amount that these people are forced to subsist on is 73% below the poverty line. Again, I ask the Minister to outline the rationale behind this level of support and if there is an intention to ensure that anyone that lives in this country is able to eat and be clothed regardless of the reason they are here.
I want to give the Minister and the Government a plaudit; it is important that we recognise good things. It is not about asylum seekers, but we did have a scheme that brought people from Syria. Half a dozen families, who were persecuted Christians, came to Newtownards town and have settled, with the help of Government, local government and whole lot of individual bodies in Newtownards. Imagine what we could do if we made the same effort for everyone.
The backlog in decision making and the length of time that it takes to get a decision from Government is having a detrimental effect on mental health. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) gave the figures earlier on about the applicants waiting over six months. I will not repeat them, but can the Minister outline his intention to increase staffing and support so that people can have peace of mind in a timelier manner?
Every one of us has experience of how the pandemic has affected us, not just as representatives but through our constituents, both physically, through all the things that have happened, and in terms of the impact on mental health. I am very fortunate as I live on a farm. Whenever I go home at night, I can go for a walk in the fields with the dogs and get some respite. What about all the people who are living in flats and houses? I have thought about them many times, and I say to myself, “How on earth do they stick that?” How much harder is it for asylum seekers, who are living on a small wage, have lost their family and are living with the trauma of all that has happened in the country they have fled from, to look for support? I recognise that the Government and the Minister are wishing and willing to help. I am not saying the men are not important—they are—but for me the issue is the mothers and the children. We need to have some action for them and some responses from Government about what we are to do.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
We have a little spare time, so, Stuart McDonald, if you would like six minutes, please take six. It is normally five.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
That is very kind of you, Sir Charles. I expect I could speak for about six hours, but I shall do my best to confine myself.
We are at a pivotal moment for our asylum system, which is in a fragile state and in danger of breaking, because it is in desperate need of investment and of policies to improve it. Instead, the Government propose to take a massive hammer to it. They are not fixing it, but crushing it beyond repair. It is on that rather sad note that I offer congratulations and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for securing such a crucial debate about the mental health of asylum seekers, some of the most vulnerable people we have responsibility for, whether or not they become refugees, and the impact that the asylum system has on them. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and all the hon. Members who have taken part, on their speeches, which amounted to a pitch perfect critique of where we are at. As we have heard, too often people’s experience of the system is grim, and makes the mental health of already struggling people even worse. Those are people who have fled persecution and endured traumatising journeys, and too often are made even more ill by a system that should be helping and supporting them.
The debate has also reflected the fact that the situation works on two levels. First, there are policies that in principle we would all support, but the problem is that in practice they have been starved of resources or implemented in a faulty way, to the detriment of asylum seekers’ mental health. Secondly, the Government have made deliberate policy choices that are designed to tackle the big flying pig that they always point to—the so-called pull factor. In short, they choose to treat asylum seekers here, often, outrageously cruelly and inhumanely, to deter other people from coming here to claim asylum. As a point of principle that is thoroughly objectionable.
Depressingly, the Government’s so-called new plan for the asylum system will make things a million times worse, leaving even more people in limbo facing endless uncertainty and restricted rights. That is a fast track to an upsurge in mental ill health among asylum seekers. That is all on the pretext of a manufactured crisis in numbers, when in reality in international terms the UK receives a tiny number of asylum applications here, that it should be capable fairly easily of processing swiftly, efficiently and fairly. Rather, the crisis that we face is in Home Office resourcing and competence.
That brings me to the huge list of policies that the Government should fix, instead of destroying the asylum system altogether. Each of those could, as I have said, merit a lengthy debate in its own right. First, hon. Members have rightly mentioned the issue of decision making. First and foremost, it is too slow, as several Members have pointed out. That, of course, has been exacerbated by the pandemic, but it was already bad, and getting worse, beforehand. Secondly, too many poor decisions are made. About 40% of appeals against asylum refusals are successful. We need proper resourcing and training to resolve that.
A further issue is the dispersed asylum accommodation model, which has been thoroughly analysed in several Home Affairs Committee reports. It is right in principle to house asylum seekers in communities; but that approach is struggling in practice, thanks to the model of outsourcing where asylum seekers are placed in inappropriate accommodation and sometimes in altogether poor conditions. Ministers regularly complain that one of the issues is that not enough councils take part. I agree, but lots of councils that would want to take part are put off by the way that that process works. If the Minister wants me to, I shall happily arrange a meeting between him and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—and I am sure that the Local Government Association would want that too—to discuss the barriers to new local authorities getting involved. They include financing, and a them having a proper democratic say in how asylum seekers are treated and where they are placed in asylum dispersal areas.
We have heard mention this afternoon of the level of asylum support. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked how anyone could survive on it. It is a disgracefully low level. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West has championed the right to work through a Bill and on various other occasions. To use her words, excluding asylum seekers from the labour market altogether makes no sense at all. Work is hugely important for self-esteem and self-worth, and the implications for mental ill health of leaving folk out of work for months on end are obvious.
We have heard about the military barracks, and I have spoken about that absolutely disgraceful episode previously. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) was absolutely right to ring the alarm bells about the move to institutional reception centres that lies ahead. These military barracks seem to be a prototype of that. That would be a horrendous road to go down.
On family reunion, the UK has already been criticised for its restrictive rules for children who are here and for adult children who are abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) sought to fix that with his private Member’s Bill, but now things are set to be worse, with family reunion rights restricted for those who come to claim asylum here.
I barely have time to mention the new immigration rules. Restricting the admissibility of claims is just going to lead to asylum seekers being left in limbo for a further six months. An attack on the appeals process seems to be proposed in the Government’s new consultation document.
Ultimately, what this boils down to is that the Opposition want to put in place an asylum system that is designed to protect people and assumes that they have fled persecution. We should address abuse with fast decision making so that abusers do not benefit from trying to game the system. The Government seem to have a presumption of abuse, and therefore they intend to make the system as painful as possible to deter it. That is just a thoroughly inhumane way to go about things.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on securing this important and timely debate. She made a number of really important points. Although we are limited in time this afternoon, as others have said, this debate is timely because we have had the Government’s policy statement and new plan for immigration, and there is no doubt that, during the passage of the sovereign borders Bill, we will have to return to some of the really important points that she made.
On the asylum system and the mental health of those seeking asylum, it is hard to know where to start in the time that we have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, we agree with the Government that the system is broken and is failing everybody, but I politely remind the Conservative Government that they have been in power for 11 years and are, I am afraid to say, the architects of that failure.
A number of really important points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who raised the backlogs in the Home Office and made the powerful case for returning the right to work, as others did. That is a point that we will return to. The Minister will remember our exchanges and our support for that campaign during the passage of the immigration Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke passionately about the importance of co-ordination and the need for quality dispersal accommodation. We will need to return to the inadmissibility rule changes, passed in December, which will only trap more people in the system for longer. The reference to reception centres in the new plan and policy statement only further blur the lines between detention and initial accommodation.
In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on contingency asylum accommodation, in particular, and specifically the former MOD sites at Napier barracks and Penally camp, which represent a callousness in decision making that has been nothing short of inhumane. The Government initially claimed that the use of those barracks was due to the unprecedented pressures of the pandemic, yet the equality impact assessment that we have seen, conducted by the Home Office in September, revealed that the use of that particular type of accommodation was not borne out of necessity but was a political choice. It suggested that providing nothing but the absolute bare minimum to those seeking asylum is in the interest of community relations, but even the bare minimum should surely have meant safe. The Government’s reluctance to provide anything deemed to be beyond what is necessary has seen people, including those with leukaemia, diabetes and tuberculosis, housed 28 to a single dorm, sharing limited toilet facilities and communal areas that were cleaned only once a week during the pandemic.
We wrote to the Minister’s colleagues back in December 2020 calling on the Government to commission a review of covid safety in all establishments being used for asylum accommodation—a request that was ignored.
On 8 March 2021, in a report already referenced by others, the then independent chief inspector of borders and immigration published initial findings from site visits to Penally camp and Napier barracks in mid-February. They confirmed that, given the cramped communal conditions and unworkable cohorting at Napier, a large-scale outbreak of covid was virtually inevitable, which is exactly what happened: there were 197 positive cases of covid at Napier barracks between 1 January and late February.
The Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention report undertaken at Napier, which we secured through a freedom of information request, also confirmed that the site does not facilitate effective social distancing.
The ICIBI report raised serious safeguarding concerns about those who were most vulnerable, stating that there was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed and that people at high risk of self-harm were located in a decrepit isolation block that was unfit for habitation. Even more distressing was a survey conducted by the inspectors that found that one resident in three at Napier barracks had felt suicidal during their time there. That clearly demonstrates the damaging psychological impact that our asylum system is having on vulnerable individuals who require specialist medical care and need to be housed in suitable and safe accommodation.
In evidence provided to the Home Affairs Committee last month, the Government claimed that they had been following guidance in every single way, but the CCG and ICIBI reports make it explicitly clear that at no time has that been true. The barracks are just one element of this system, which is failing everyone, but they represent the recklessness of this Government at their worst, putting their desire to be perceived as hard-line on immigration above what is right, fair and safe.
We know that dispersed accommodation, with local councils and communities working alongside Government to make much better choices, will be the way forward. We are part of a valley of sanctuary in Halifax where organisations such as St Augustine’s are instrumental in supporting those seeking asylum and refugees, and facilitate integration within communities.
Ordinarily, a political choice to use barracks as asylum accommodation would lack humanity and compassion, but in a pandemic it is unforgivable. There is an opportunity, with the upcoming legislative changes, to build a fairer and swifter asylum system that does not have a detrimental impact on a person’s health and wellbeing, but instead unlocks a person’s potential. However, that will require a significant shift away from some of the proposals outlined in the policy statement.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Minister, please leave two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for securing this debate on the UK asylum system and asylum seekers’ mental health. It is timely, given our wider debate on the subject.
It is important to underline at the start the fact that our United Kingdom has a proud record of helping those facing persecution, oppression and tyranny. We stand by our moral and legal obligations to help innocent civilians fleeing cruelty around the world. As part of that, the UK resettled more people through planned resettlement schemes between 2015 and 2019 than any other country in Europe. In addition, the UK Government, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in relation to the contribution that his own area made to this work, have delivered on their commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees directly from the relevant region under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, despite the obvious challenges presented by the pandemic.
However, we recognise that significant improvements are needed to protect our asylum system from being gamed or abused by those who are actually economic migrants, while ensuring that it offers protection and fairness to those in need of our support. That includes, as a number of hon. Members have made clear today, a need for much more prompt decision making.
Through our recently announced new plan for immigration, we are committed to increasing the fairness and the effective operation of our system, so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of our protection, while deterring illegal entry to the United Kingdom by those coming from safe and democratic countries with functioning asylum systems. That is about breaking the business model of people-smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those whom they endanger, including through dangerous and unnecessary sea crossings.
We must do all we can to stop the criminal activity, which is putting lives at risk, while ensuring that we still play our part in the international effort to support those who are fleeing war and oppression in other parts of the world. I therefore urge all who have an interest in the issue to take part in the consultation on the new plan and to help to shape the future by creating a fair but firm system.
I note the concerns raised about the type of accommodation being offered to asylum seekers. To put that in context, we have seen an increase in demand for accommodation during the pandemic of about 30%, resulting in more than 60,000 asylum seekers being provided with safe and secure accommodation while their claims are considered. The challenges encountered throughout the pandemic have led to the use of contingency accommodation, including hotels and Ministry of Defence sites, and to some people being accommodated in such accommodation for more than a brief period. We are working closely with local authorities across the United Kingdom and with our contractors to procure more housing, reduce our reliance on this type of accommodation and minimise the time individuals are housed in it, when it is necessary to retain it.
Despite the challenges we have faced, we have consistently met our statutory obligations towards destitute asylum seekers. That has included, at times and where appropriate, continuing to provide accommodation when support would, in normal times, have ceased. We have also recently increased support payments for people in dispersal accommodation. Support maintenance payments are calculated using a methodology that the courts have considered sound, and the most recent increase of around 5% is above general year-on-year inflation of 0.8%.
However, as mentioned during oral questions, we need further commitment in this area in communities not only across Scotland, but across the rest of the United Kingdom. Put simply, passing motions, making statements of solidarity and sending letters does not provide the Home Office with options to house people seeking asylum. I was interested to hear the comments from my SNP shadow, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). In that regard, discussions between the Home Office, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government continue—work that I hope will be strongly supported by Members from Scotland who contributed today. That action forms part of and supplements the ongoing work of the Glasgow joint partnership board.
Across our United Kingdom, some very welcome progress is being made. I reference in particular the renewed commitment to providing dispersal accommodation in Wales. As I have noted, that is important because it helps to reduce our reliance on temporary, contingency and initial accommodation, allowing us to exit some sites we have been using, including Penally barracks.
All asylum seekers and refugees can access mainstream health services wherever they are in our United Kingdom, in line with the resident population, with these services being mostly devolved matters, alongside other aspects of health policy, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within the asylum process, we take all possible steps to identify potential safeguarding risks at the earliest opportunity, while acknowledging that, because of their journey and history, asylum seekers are not always ready or particularly willing to declare mental health issues to Home Office officials. When they first encounter the Home Office, asylum seekers are given the opportunity to declare any vulnerabilities that might impact on the way we manage their claim.
We also fund a charity-run help line, managed by Migrant Help, which is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for all those in the asylum process to seek advice and guidance, including when they are concerned about their own health or the health of a family member. Migrant Help will also provide an interpreter if required and escalate any issues of concern to the Home Office asylum safeguarding hub, which provides a link to the organisations with statutory responsibility for asylum seekers’ care, such as medical professionals and social services. That helps to ensure that there are clear, straightforward means through which concerns can be raised with the Home Office, and then with relevant professionals as required, case by case.
For those destitute asylum seekers who are supported by the UK Government in accommodation, our providers are contractually obliged to deliver welfare support, including staff appointed as welfare officers. They will also engage the emergency services where an immediate risk exists to the health of the individual or another person and deliver ongoing support while they are accommodated. Supported asylum seekers also receive a comprehensive induction in a language they understand, which details local and national support services available to them, as well as information to help them to settle into the UK.
Wherever we accommodate asylum seekers, we support their mental health and wellbeing through close working with local health services and, where practical, the provision of on-site activities such as sports and language training. We understand that some asylum seekers need more specialist support for their mental health. We therefore established a mental health forum, bringing together colleagues from across the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England and NHS England, alongside several non-governmental organisations, to discuss improved access to health pathways and alternative opportunities to support wellbeing throughout the asylum journey. We are looking at extending that group to involve counterparts in the devolved nations. We are keen to continue supporting vulnerable service users to prevent harm to them or others, and our ongoing engagement with civil society and broader health services provides that opportunity.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West under- standably highlighted the situation in Glasgow. It is right that I put on the record how grateful I am for the support that the whole community in Glasgow provides through their continued participation in the asylum dispersal scheme. As has been mentioned, Glasgow is the largest local authority dispersal area anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it is playing a key role in enabling us to meet our legal obligations.
I thank in particular Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Refugee Council for the support they provided to those who were affected by the tragic incident at the Park Inn hotel on 26 June last year. A significant amount of work has taken place to ensure that we are doing all we can to minimise the risk of a similar incident taking place again. An internal evaluation was commissioned and undertaken to determine whether asylum seekers accommodated in Glasgow were in accommodation that met their needs, in line with the contract, and whether appropriate wellbeing and mental health support was in place during the covid-19 pandemic.
The review looked at whether the accommodation provided to asylum seekers during covid-19 was suited to their circumstances. It explored moves from other contingency accommodation to hotels, including how specific needs are identified and addressed. It also looked at training needs, risk, and safeguarding, as well as considering whether any systemic issues extend beyond the arrangements made to accommodate asylum seekers during covid-19.
The report makes 20 recommendations and identifies key areas for improvement. I am pleased to say that significant progress has already been made in relation to the recommendations, including a review of catering arrangements in hotels, cash payments being made to those in hotels and section 4 and section 95 support, and individuals involved in the incident receiving bespoke support.
Several of the report’s recommendations require collaborative working between the Home Office, Glasgow City Council, COSLA, and Mears, the accommodation provider for the region. My officials advise me that fortnightly meetings take place between those organisations, when the key issues discussed in the report are taken forward, such as hotel moves and use, and the safeguarding and wellbeing of asylum seekers in Glasgow. I would expect Glasgow MPs to receive feedback on that work. If they do not, I will ensure that they do.
This area is complex. As I mentioned, my officials have already approached the Scottish Government and COSLA on a number of occasions about widening dispersal and opening up further areas to dispersal, to help to ease the pressure on Glasgow and the hotels in that city. We certainly look forward to taking that work further over the coming months.
The United Kingdom, particularly the city of Glasgow, has a proud record of giving refuge and sanctuary to some of the world’s most vulnerable and oppressed people. The UK Government remain committed to ensuring that asylum seekers and refugees receive the support and care that they need, even in the challenging circumstances of a global pandemic. Our focus, as we take forward our new plan for immigration, will remain on supporting the most vulnerable, ensuring their fair and humane treatment, and working with all our partners on matters relating to asylum seeker health, and mental health in particular. Ultimately, we want to build a system that is firm against those seeking to abuse or game it, but fair in offering the support that this country should offer to those who genuinely need to flee war and persecution.
Carol Monaghan [V]
I thank all Members who have taken the time to contribute to the debate. Some of the very personal testimonies that we have heard are important—people need to hear more of them. A phrase that I thought was quite useful came from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who talked about people being considered guilty until proven innocent. That is something that many of us who deal with asylum seekers in our communities would recognise.
The Minister spoke of his concerns about the system being gamed or abused. Well, there are many things that the Government could do to ensure that the system was neither gamed nor abused, but they are not doing them. One thing they could do is allow swifter decision making, using accurate information. The Minister also talked about criminal people smuggling. If we are tackling criminal gangs, we must recognise that there are innocent victims of those gangs, and if there are innocent victims, we must put in place support for them, but that is not happening just now.
Finally, I again thank all the organisations working throughout the UK to support refugees and asylum seeker communities, particularly here in Glasgow, where we have such a lot of asylum seekers. Glasgow is a city that is very strong and it will always state that refugees are welcome, but we need the Home Office to support us on this, so that we can help those who need our help.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK asylum system and asylum seekers’ mental health.
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bilateral Loan to Ireland
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I would like to update Parliament on the loan to Ireland.
In December 2010, the UK agreed to provide a bilateral loan of £3.2 billion as part of a €67.5 billion international assistance package for Ireland. The loan was disbursed in eight tranches, and the final tranche was drawn down on 26 September 2013. Ireland has made interest payments on the loan every six months since the first disbursement.
On 26 March, in line with the agreed repayment schedule, HM Treasury received a total payment of £406,428,318.19 from Ireland. This comprises the repayment of £403,370,000 in principal and £3,058,318.19 in accrued interest.
HM Treasury has also provided a further report to Parliament in relation to the loan as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 October 2020 to 31 March 2021. It reports fully on the two final principal repayments received by HM Treasury during this period. The loan has been repaid in full and on time.
A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report regarding the loan to Ireland was issued to Parliament on 5 October 2020, Official Report, column 18WS.
[HCWS907]
Contingencies Fund Advance: Covid-19
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will incur new expenditure in connection with the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic in 2021-22.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £765,000,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a main estimate for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £765,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
Further requests to the Contingencies Fund may be made as necessary to fund covid-19 activity delivered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
[HCWS908]
Overseas Operations Bill: MOD Support to Service Personnel
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Overseas Operations Bill was introduced to provide greater legal protections to armed forces personnel and veterans serving on military operations overseas. The Bill will provide a better legal framework for dealing with allegations arising from any future overseas operations, recognising the unique burden and pressures placed on our personnel.
As part of the debate on this Bill, there has rightly been a focus on the support which MOD provides to those personnel who may find themselves subject to investigations and prosecutions. We are grateful to right hon. and hon Members of both Houses for the interest they have taken in this issue and their commitment to ensuring service personnel and veterans who are impacted by historical allegations are properly supported.
As a matter of MOD policy, service personnel are entitled to legal guidance at public expense where they face criminal allegations that relate to actions taken during their service, and where they were performing their duties. This principle is at the heart of the MOD’s approach to supporting our people and is enshrined in the relevant defence instruction notices. It is a responsibility that MOD takes extremely seriously, and we keep our policies under review to ensure that they are appropriate and tailored.
Since the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan, the armed forces have learned lessons on better resourcing and professionalising support to those involved in inquiries or investigations arising from operations, and the mechanisms for providing this support have been transformed in recent years. The way in which this is delivered and by whom will depend on the specific circumstances of the case, the point which has been reached in the proceedings and, most importantly, the needs of the individual concerned.
Any individual who is investigated by the service police is entitled to legal representation as well as the support of an assisting officer who can offer advice on the process and procedure and signpost welfare resources. The individual’s commanding officer and chain of command have overall responsibility for the person’s welfare and for ensuring access to the requisite support.
Individuals who are interviewed as suspects under caution will be entitled to free and independent legal advice for this stage of the investigation. Subsequently, legal funding for service personnel and veterans facing criminal allegations can either be provided through the Armed Forces Legal Aid Scheme (AFLAS) or through the chain of command.
Where the chain of command accepts funding responsibility this is means-test exempt and therefore no personal contribution will be required. The Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority (AFCLAA) will act as a conduit for the provision of publicly funded legal representation on behalf of the chain of command, including all aspects of financial and case management. However, if available evidence suggests the individual was doing something clearly outside the scope of their duty, then it would not be appropriate for that person to receive this chain of command funding.
All other serving personnel and veterans facing criminal proceedings prosecuted through the service justice system, and who are not covered by the chain of command funding, may apply for legal aid through AFCLAA and may be required to make a personal contribution, determined by means testing, if funded through the Armed Forces Legal Aid Scheme. This is in line with the civilian legal aid scheme.
There is an important exemption from the means-testing requirement, which has been waived in criminal cases arising from Iraq or Afghanistan operations heard in the Service Court. Separately, legal advice and support is also available whenever people are required to give evidence at inquests and inquiries and in litigation and this is coordinated by MOD.
We also recognise that for service personnel and veterans who are involved in these processes, legal guidance by itself is not enough. This is why we have developed a comprehensive package of welfare support to ensure we deliver on our commitment to offer ongoing support to veterans.
As part of delivering on this commitment, the Army Operational Legacy Branch (AOLB) was established in 2020 in order to co-ordinate the Army’s support to those involved in legacy cases. Fundamental to this is ensuring that welfare and legal support is provided to all service personnel and veterans involved in operational legacy processes. The AOLB provides a central point of contact and optimises the welfare network already in place through the Arms and Service Directorates and the network of regimental headquarters and regimental associations. Veterans UK are also closely engaged in providing support to veterans and, where required, the Veterans Welfare Service will allocate a welfare manager to support individual veterans. Although the AOLB has been established to provide an Army focus to legacy issues, the support it provides is extended to the other services.
This is provided in addition to the range of welfare and mental health support that is routinely offered to all our people. The potential impact of operations on a service person’s mental health is well recognised and there are policy and procedures in place to help manage and mitigate these impacts as far as possible. The MOD recognises that any operational deployment can result in the development of a medical or psychiatric condition and that service personnel may require help before, during and after deployment. All armed forces personnel are supported by dedicated and comprehensive mental health resources. Defence mental health services are configured to provide community-based mental health care in line with national best practice.
In terms of support for those who have left the forces, veterans are able to access all NHS provided mental health services wherever they live in the country. As health is devolved and services have been developed according to local populations needs, service specification varies. This can mean bespoke veteran pathways or ensuring an awareness of veterans’ needs. All veterans will be seen on clinical need. What is important is that best practice is shared between the home nations and there are several forums in place to provide this.
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs works closely with the MOD and Departments across Government, the devolved Administrations, charities and academia to ensure the needs of veterans are met.
[HCWS905]
Further Education Capital Transformation Fund
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
The FE capital transformation programme delivers the Government’s £1.5 billion commitment to upgrade the FE college and designated institutions’ estate in England. It builds on the £200 million further education capital allocation paid in September 2020 to support FE college and designated institutions to undertake immediate remedial works and provide a boost to the economy and the education system.
There are two elements to the FE capital transformation programme. The first element was announced on 21 January 2021, when we launched the open bidding fund to which all FE colleges and designated institutions can bid for larger projects to tackle their condition need and upgrade their estate. We are now announcing the second element today: we will be working in partnership with 16 colleges with some of the highest condition need in the country. High quality buildings and facilities will aid colleges in supporting their students to gain the skills they need to progress and help the economy to grow. The 16 college sites, which are spread across England, and with which we are working to develop plans are:
Beacon Centre, Blackburn College;
Lansdowne Site, Bournemouth and Poole College;
Brooksby Melton College, SMB Group;
Ashington Campus, Education Partnership North East (Northumberland College);
St Austell Campus, Cornwall College;
Houghall Campus, East Durham College;
Rochdale site, Hopwood Hall College;
Isle of Wight College;
Great Yarmouth Campus, East Coast College;
Stafford site, Newcastle and Stafford College Group;
North Lindsey College, DN College Group;
Merrist Wood College, Activate Learning;
Strode College;
Parsons Walk, Wigan and Leigh College;
Yeovil College;
Stanmore College.
The FE capital transformation programme means that colleges will be able to make strategic investment decisions which will lead to a transformation of the FE college estate, providing excellent places to learn.
This investment should be seen in the wider context of our reforms to further education. The White Paper “Skills for Jobs: Lifelong Learning for Opportunity and Growth” sets out our vision of enabling everyone to get the high-quality skills employers need in a way that suits them. The reforms set out plans to transform technical education, boost UK productivity, build back better from the coronavirus pandemic, and create a more prosperous country for all. This is an exciting moment for technical education and training and an opportunity for real change.
[HCWS906]
High Needs Provision Capital Allocations
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
On 9 April, the Department for Education announced £280 million of capital funding to support local authorities to create new places and improve existing provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) or who require alternative provision (AP). This investment will support our manifesto commitment to deliver more school places for children with complex special educational needs and will help ensure that every child has the opportunity to receive a world-class education, whatever their background.
The funding announced today is for places required for September 2022 and will allow local authorities to invest strategically to ensure they deliver a good quality and appropriate place for every child who needs one. It is on top of the £365 million we invested between 2018 and 2021 to support local authorities to deliver new places for children with education, health and care plans, and the additional places we are creating through our continued investment in new special and AP free schools.
Full details of this announcement, including allocations broken down by local authority and the methodology used to distribute funding, have been published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-provision-capital-allocations.
[HCWS909]
Higher Education
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The Government recognise the disruption that covid-19 has caused for many students and their families because they have not yet been able to return to their university. Last academic term we advised that all students on practical and creative courses could return to in-person teaching from 8 March and committed to reviewing further returns by the end of the Easter holidays.
Today, my Department has announced that remaining students will be advised to return to in-person teaching alongside step 3 of the road map, when restrictions on social contact will be eased further and the majority of indoor settings can reopen. This will take place no earlier than 17 May, following a further review of the data against the four tests. As was announced in February, students and higher education providers will be given a week’s notice of any further easing of restrictions as it affects them in accordance with the timing of step 3. Until then all students should continue to learn remotely and remain where they are living, wherever possible.
Universities have a strong track record of delivering excellent remote learning, students in higher education are well equipped to study and meet their learning outcomes remotely. The Government remain clear that the quality and quantity of taught hours must be maintained and that all learning must be accessible.
The Government and I recognise just how difficult and disruptive the last year has been for students. However, the road map is designed to maintain a cautious approach to the easing of restrictions, to ensure that we can maintain progress towards full reopening. By step 3, more of the population will be vaccinated, and there is also more time to increase testing to reduce risk further.
The movement of students across the country poses a risk for the transmission of the virus—particularly because of the higher prevalence and rates of transmission of new variants. Students who have returned to higher education settings should not move back and forward between their permanent home and student home during term time unless they meet one of the exemptions.
Our advice remains that some students, such as those with inadequate study space and/or mental health and wellbeing issues, may need to return to their term-time address despite their teaching still being online. We have asked providers to consider opening facilities to support those who have returned to their term-time accommodation alongside those who have resumed in-person teaching and learning; this is to safeguard students’ wellbeing and to prevent isolation and mental ill health.
We are supporting universities to provide regular, twice-weekly, asymptomatic testing for all students residing in their term-time accommodation, or accessing university facilities, and to all staff. In May 2021, we will be making home test kits available to universities to supply to their staff and students as appropriate. In addition, staff and students can make use of the universal testing offer by ordering home tests online or visiting a pharmacy. Students returning to university should undertake three supervised tests at an on-site test facility. They should then test twice a week, either using home test kits or at an on-site facility. This is in line with the expectation in most other education settings and will help break chains of transmission of the virus. We strongly encourage all universities to ensure that all students and staff get tested regularly and report their result when testing at home.
I realise that a delay to a return to university may cause some students to face additional costs. With this in mind, I have now announced that we will be making a further £15 million of funding available for student hardship this academic year. This is in addition to the £70 million of funding already distributed in the previous financial year. As with the £70 million, international and postgraduate students will be eligible for this funding along with domestic undergraduates. We will work with the Office for Students to allocate these funds and will set out the details of this shortly.
I recognise that these unprecedented circumstances are also affecting student and staff mental health and wellbeing, and I am committed to addressing these concerns. The Mental Health in Education Action Group, which I convened with the Minister for Children and Families, Vicky Ford, will continue to prioritise the mental health and wellbeing of students and staff, alongside the HE Taskforce Mental Health and Wellbeing subgroup. We have continued to ask universities to prioritise mental health support and have worked with the Office for Students to provide Student Space, which is a mental health and wellbeing platform designed to work alongside existing services, to support students throughout the pandemic. I have asked the OfS to look at extending the platform and I am delighted it has done so for the 2020-21 academic year. This resource, which is funded by the OfS, provides dedicated one-to-one phone, text and webchat facilities as well as a collaborative online platform. In addition to this, the Office for Students has recently published its consultation on the distribution of the £15 million for student mental health support in the coming academic year, focusing on supporting transitions to university.
We are continuing to explore other ways to provide further support for students and particularly appreciate how vital it is that we support graduates and new students as they move into their next stage. We are working in parallel with Universities UK, the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services, the Institute of Student Employers, the Office for Students, and the wider sector to understand what we can do to complement their planned support. We know that providers are best placed to lead on this and have assured them that we will work with them to signpost students to useful resources, share good practice, and communicate effectively with schools, colleges, and employers.
More broadly, the Government are doing all they can to help people who are at the start of their career journey. The Department for Work and Pensions has successfully recruited over 13,500 new work coaches as of the end of March 2021. This will ensure that high-quality work search support is available to those who need it. We are also investing additional funding in the National Careers Service up to March 2022. This investment will support delivery of individual careers advice for those whose jobs/learning have been affected by the pandemic (by end of FY21-22).We have also added additional courses to the skills toolkit to develop “work readiness” skills that employers report they value in their new recruits.
I want to assure all students, staff and parents that student welfare continues to be a priority and I will continue to work closely with the sector to ensure that our additional hardship funding and our transition support reaches those who need it most. As always, I want to thank students for their resilience and university staff and student unions for their determination to ensure that students are supported at this challenging time.
[HCWS912]
Covid-19 Vaccine Deployment
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the contingent liabilities relating to the contracts signed between Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) and covid-19 vaccine suppliers for the phase 2 deployment of vaccines.
Today, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has published its final advice about the next phase of the covid-19 vaccine deployment. In line with its interim advice, it has recommended an age-based strategy for prioritisation as the best way to further reduce mortality and hospitalisations.
The JCVI has advised that rapid vaccine deployment is the most important means to maximise public health benefits against severe outcomes from covid-19. There is good evidence that the risks of hospitalisation and critical care admissions from covid-19 increase with age, and that in occupations where the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 is potentially higher, persons of older age are also those at highest risk of severe outcomes from covid-19. It is for these reasons that the Committee has recommended that the offer of vaccination be age-based, starting with the oldest adults first, and proceeding in the following order to facilitate rapid deployment:
All those aged 40 to 49 years
All those aged 30 to 39 years
All those aged 18 to 29 years
Throughout the vaccination programme the independent regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA), has published data on the effects and side effects of the vaccine. It has independently assessed that all three vaccines in use in the UK are safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency and the World Health Organisation have reached the same conclusion. Having considered this data, which has been published, and in order to make the vaccine programme as safe as it possibly can be, the JCVI advises that it is preferable for adults aged under 30 years without underlying health conditions that put them at a higher risk of severe covid-19 disease, to be offered an alternative vaccine, if available.
The JCVI has weighed the relative balance of benefits and risks, and advises that the benefits of prompt vaccination with the AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine far outweigh the risk of adverse events for individuals 30 years of age and over and those who have underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of severe covid-19 disease. The Government have accepted this advice in full, and the rollout will put this advice into operation.
With the deployment of phase 2, I am now updating the House on the liabilities Her Majesty’s Government have taken on in relation to further vaccine supply via this statement and the departmental minute available as an online attachment.
It has been and remains the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19 until an effective vaccine or vaccines can be deployed at scale. Putting in place appropriate indemnities for vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers are willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we along with other nations have taken a broad approach to indemnification proportionate to the situation we are in.
Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. The independent MHRA’s approval for use of the currently deployed vaccines clearly demonstrates that these vaccines have satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness, and quality. We are providing indemnities in the unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines are deployed.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-04-13/HCWS911/
[HCWS911]
Covid-19 Vaccine: Moderna
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the contingent liabilities relating to the contract signed between Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) and Moderna for its covid-19 vaccine.
On 1 April 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) granted a conditional market authorisation (CMA) for use of the covid-19 vaccine being manufactured by Moderna. With deployment of this vaccine beginning on 7 April 2021, I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to this vaccine via this statement and the departmental minute available as an online attachment.
The agreement to provide an indemnity as part of the contract between HMG and Moderna creates a contingent liability on the covid-19 vaccination programme. It has been and remains the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19 until an effective vaccine/s can be deployed at scale. Putting in place appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers are willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we along with other nations have taken a broad approach to indemnification proportionate to the situation we are in.
Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. The independent MHRA’s approval for use of the Moderna vaccine clearly demonstrates that this vaccine has satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness, and quality. We are providing indemnities in the unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
Given the pace of vaccine development and our ambition to deploy the vaccine as soon as it has been authorised, it has not been possible to provide the normal 14 sitting days to consider this issue of contingent liabilities. Therefore, with immediate effect, all vaccination services are now able to extend their vaccination offer to those aged 45 to 49 years.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines are deployed.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-04-13/HCWS910/.
[HCWS910]
Building Safety: Monthly Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I have undertaken to provide the House with a monthly building safety update.
On 10 February I announced my five-point plan to bring an end to unsafe cladding and my officials are working at pace to develop and deliver the products, systems and legislation associated with these:
1. The Government will pay for the removal of unsafe cladding for leaseholders in all residential buildings 18 metres and over in England
2. A generous finance scheme to provide reassurance for leaseholders in buildings between 11 and 18 metres, ensuring they never pay more than £50 a month for cladding removal
3. An industry levy and tax to ensure developers play their part
4. A world-class new safety regime to ensure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again
5. Providing confidence to this part of the housing market including lenders and surveyors
We have now committed an unprecedented £5 billion investment in building safety. This will ensure taxpayer funding is targeted at the highest risk buildings in line with longstanding independent expert advice.
Remediation statistics
We continue to make good progress on the remediation of unsafe cladding, with around 95% of all high-rise residential buildings with unsafe ACM cladding identified by the beginning of last year now either remediated or started on site.
Our expectation is that unsafe ACM remediation should be completed as soon as possible and by the end of 2021 at the latest.
Full details of our progress with ACM cladding remediation can be found in the Department’s monthly building safety data release, which will next be published on 15 April on the Government’s website.
Previous monthly building safety data releases can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/aluminium-composite-material-cladding#acm-remediation-data.
As at 31 March 2021, the building safety fund registration statistics show that 1,075 decisions have been made on the basis that sufficient supporting information has now been received. Of these, 668 registered buildings are proceeding with a full application and 407 have been shown to be ineligible, mostly on grounds of not meeting the published criteria or because they do not have unsafe cladding systems in place. The total amount of funding allocated is £319.2 million (including social sector) correct at 31 March 2021. Full details can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/remediation- of-non-acm-buildings#building-safety-fund-registration-statistics.
[HCWS913]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Kyoto Protocol Registry) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Kyoto Protocol Registry) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the regulations, which were laid before the House on 25 February 2021, be approved.
The statutory instrument is laid under the power of Section 8(1) of, and paragraph 21 of Schedule 7 to, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to address deficiencies of retained EU law that arose from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The purpose of this SI is to amend retained EU law related to the UK’s Kyoto Protocol registry to ensure that it will be operable in the UK. The statutory instrument is not introducing any new policy; it is simply ensuring continuity of the UK Kyoto Protocol registry, independent of the EU’s registry system.
As a party to the Kyoto Protocol, an international climate change treaty with which I am sure Members are familiar, the UK has a legal obligation to maintain a Kyoto Protocol registry. This registry enables the UK and UK-based account holders to hold and trade Kyoto units. Kyoto units are each equal to one tonne of carbon dioxide and can be traded on the international carbon market. Kyoto units held by the UK Government are used to demonstrate compliance with our emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol covered the period from 2008 to December 2020. However, due to the time lag in collecting emissions inventory data, final accounting cannot be completed until several years after December 2020, hence the continued need for a registry. Future registry requirements under the Paris agreement, as the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, are due to be decided at COP 26 in November.
While the UK was a member state, the UK’s Kyoto Protocol registry was housed in the EU’s Consolidated System of European Registries. The UK has now established its own domestic platform to house the UK’s Kyoto Protocol registry, independent of the EU system. This platform is due to be operational in May 2021. The UK Kyoto Protocol registry enables the holding and trading of Kyoto units, just as a bank account does with money.
As an industrialised country with emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK is allocated a number of units, known as “assigned amount units”. These units are held in the UK Kyoto Protocol registry. When finalising accounting for the Kyoto Protocol commitment period, countries have the option to trade or cancel any surplus units if they have met their emissions reduction targets through domestic action. The registry enables this activity.
Private entities can also open accounts in the registry to hold and trade Kyoto units generated through the clean development mechanism under the Kyoto protocol. The clean development mechanism allows a country with an emissions reduction commitment under the Kyoto protocol to implement an emissions reduction project in developing countries. Such projects can then earn certified emission reduction credits, each equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide, which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets. This mechanism can enable more cost-effective emissions reductions, and the emissions credits generated can be traded, thereby creating a carbon market.
This statutory instrument is about continuity and compliance rather than any substantive changes to policy. By amending the retained EU legislation relating to the Kyoto protocol, this statutory instrument provides a clear legal basis to operate and administer the UK registry domestically. This SI does not have any significant impact on businesses, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector. The Environment Agency will continue its role as administrator of the UK Kyoto Protocol registry, as it did before our departure from the EU.
There are currently 112 businesses with accounts in the UK Kyoto protocol registry. The units and transaction history relating to these accounts are being transferred from the EU system to the new UK system hosting the UK Kyoto Protocol registry. As I mentioned, the new UK system is due to be operational in May 2021, which is when account holders will be able to register on the UK system to access their newly migrated accounts. Trading Kyoto units via the UK Kyoto Protocol registry should be possible from June this year.
Businesses with accounts in the UK Kyoto Protocol registry were given advance notice about changes to the registry while the transfer from the EU to the UK system takes place. The Environment Agency, in its capacity as administrator of the registry, continues to provide updates to account holders, and we are not aware of any concerns being expressed by those account holders. All four Governments of the UK nations have agreed with the purpose and content of this statutory instrument.
I therefore conclude by emphasising that I see the measures contained in these regulations as important, since they will ensure the UK’s ability to uphold its international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, following our departure from the EU. I hope on this basis that noble Lords will feel able to support these measures and I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for these regulations, given that Brexit means that we are no longer party to the EU recording of emissions for Kyoto registry purposes.
I have three questions, two operational and one rather fundamental. First, can the Minister assure the House that this methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions will not be changed unilaterally by the UK and that, in terms of trends, we will be compatible with both past reported trends for the UK and the EU system of reporting, as well as simply meeting the requirements of the Kyoto registry?
Secondly, while the figures in this log will not determine what allowances can be traded in the new post- Brexit UK emissions trading scheme, can I assume that they will be compatible with it?
Thirdly, and more strategically, do the Government recognise that the methodology of determining individual nations’ contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, taken on its own, is fundamentally misleading? It reflects reduction within the national emissions’ geographical boundaries, not the national demand generated by that nation’s society and economy, which would produce a very different impact on global emissions. For example, the UK final demand will include demand for imports, in the production of which greenhouse gases will have been emitted in China, say, or on the high seas or in the air, in transporting them to the final user or consumer. The global total will be the same, but the relative contribution of each nation to that total will be radically different, and the implied policy priority for each nation will therefore also be radically different. To put it crudely, if countries such as the UK and the United States, or companies in those countries, in effect offshore or export their dependency on greenhouse gas emissions by shifting production to the Far East, it is our economy, our final user and our supply chains whose behaviour needs to be addressed, rather than, or as well as, those of the Far Eastern nations.
This, then, is an issue that the Kyoto mechanisms and registry need to address. I do not say we do not need this production-based data—we absolutely do—but it needs to be augmented by a parallel index analysing, as best we can, the carbon-equivalent content of each nation’s final demand. Production-based data is important and we need to keep it, but we also need demand-based data. Do the Government recognise this as a priority and, if so, is it an issue that will be discussed at the forthcoming COP 26 later this year, when the Government will be in a highly influential position to get the nations of the world to agree to work on a parallel system of demand-based greenhouse gas figures, as well as the figures covered in the regulations today?
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, as this is an SI, there is obviously little we could do to change it, even if we wanted to, but it makes sense that this SI goes through post Brexit. Its importance is its link to the trading regime. I have always been a sceptic of the trading regime, unlike my noble friend Lord Teverson—we have both been in the House long enough that we were debating this between 2006 and 2009. However, trading has taken place, with differing levels of success. A friend of mine was a carbon trader and I asked him how he made up his mind whether to buy or sell. He said, “It’s very simple. When it’s sunny, I sell, because people want to buy on a sunny day, and when it’s raining, I buy, because people want to sell.” It was as simple as that, and he made quite a lot of money using just that simple methodology, which shows that it had less to do with the actual price of carbon and more with how traders felt about carbon on that particular day.
As we are moving to a registry, I will ask the Minister one thing. We now perhaps have the opportunity to become a little innovative in the way we move forward. Could we not look at a registry not just of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases but based around methane? Methane constitutes 23% of our emissions and we could do a great deal to focus on it. There is a great deal that we could do internally on the methane marketplace that would have a major effect on climate change, because methane production is not always linked to fossil fuels.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clear exposition of this SI. I am delighted that the Government have been showing strong commitment to addressing climate change, and of course I support the aims of the regulations and the amendment of EU law as it now applies to UK—which is, sadly, required following our departure from the EU. I also support our work to comply with our assignment amount units and targets under the Kyoto Protocol in order to reduce emissions.
In my brief time today, I shall ask my noble friend a few questions. What are the advantages from the extra costs incurred in setting up our own domestic registry, independent of the EU-wide CSEUR software platform, and how much is it expected to cost? Was there any opportunity to remain part of the EU system? Will my noble friend also provide an update on the progress so far and the Government’s confidence level in meeting the May deadline for transferring accounts over to the new UK system and for verifying the information from those accounts when they are transferred from the CSEUR?
This SI also removes obligations from the Environment Agency to comply with EU law. Now it only has to comply with our international climate law obligations. Will this departure from EU rules have any impact on the trade in certain sectors or products? I wonder whether my noble friend could comment on any assessment that may have been made of the implications of departing from the presumably higher EU standards.
Finally, following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, could my noble friend comment on the possibility of bringing together the various different schemes? We have already established our own emissions trading scheme for greenhouse gases, and we are now setting up our own registry for the Kyoto Protocol. Are there plans under consideration to bring together all our climate change obligations so we can monitor them in a comprehensive fashion?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The next speaker on the list, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out so clearly the effect of these regulations.
I support these regulations, which amend retained EU law. We clearly need to do that in order to ensure the continued application of the UK’s Kyoto Protocol obligations, which, as my noble friend said, persisted from 2008 to 2020 but will clearly go on for several years after that. That is the importance of these regulations.
Along with other noble Lords, I am keen to hear from my noble friend that we will carry on in the same way. I think he gave that reassurance, but I hope that that will be carried across in our ambition to COP 26. As he said, there will be a fresh assessment made at COP 26, and I will say something about that in a minute, if I may.
I am also concerned by the hiatus, which my noble friend touched on, between the end of the transition period and the new regulations taking effect in, I think he indicated, June 2021. Clearly there is a gap there. I think I understood him to say that that gap has been catered for and that the 112—I think he said 112—businesses that are potentially affected by this are aware of this, and I hope that they have been given guidance on how that will affect them in the period before our own registry takes proper effect in June 2021. I would welcome that reassurance.
We as the United Kingdom have a historic opportunity with COP 26, and it is incredibly important that we seize it and go forward with at least the ambition that we had in the EU—and I hope beyond it—to show that global Britain really does mean business. I know my noble friend will say that this is a matter for the usual channels, but I hope that he will be able to convey to the usual channels and to other parties the importance of having a meaningful debate in your Lordships’ House well ahead of COP 26 so that we can express our collective ambition so that can be carried forward, because this is of crucial significance not just for our country but for the entire globe.
With that, I am more than willing to support these regulations, which make sense, but I would welcome my noble friend’s reassurance with regard to the hiatus and, I hope, to a meaningful debate on this issue.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I echo the final question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the true nature of our carbon footprint in the world. I will also point out that global emissions are again set to rise, and that, while the goals of greening our economy and aiming for net zero are admirable, they and the Kyoto regulations, in whatever form we now take them on board in the registry, fall far short of what is needed to tackle climate change.
I am sorry to strike a slightly negative note. However, as Jeremy Warner remarked in last week’s Sunday’s Telegraph,
“unless China and the rest of the developing world are on board, all efforts to reach a net zero world are doomed. It matters not a jot what America and Europe do to reduce their emissions if the rest of the world isn’t doing the same.”
The Kyoto Protocol is 24 years old, but here we are still struggling to curb rising greenhouse gases, both CO2 and, even more of course, methane, which is 28 times as lethal. We really do need accurate and frank guidance on how to avert world climate catastrophe, which we are just not getting from the Committee on Climate Change and other authorities. This could be the opportunity to get the change needed.
As I said, global emissions are set to rise, after a pause during the pandemic, whereas to reach Paris accord targets they should be falling by at least 7.6% per year. Rising emissions in the big emitting countries, particularly from coal burning and particularly in Asia and Africa, are about to outweigh by far any reductions we can possibly make, so carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are set to continue growing almost unabated.
Coal of course produces about 46% of carbon emissions and, unless the technology for capturing and using carbon from these world sources is vastly improved and cheapened, and applied to all coal burning throughout Africa and Asia, there is not the slightest chance of meeting climate goals, which presumably is what we are about. This is where there should be an all-out concentration of resources and brainpower.
Present policies, although they involve enormous expenditure of national resources and are desirable in our narrow national interest, are not addressing the key issues. There is no safe haven here at home from climate change. What we need is not Kyoto or Paris but a multinational endeavour, a Manhattan-scale project, at least on the scale of China’s belt and road initiative.
Without this kind of new strategy emphasis, the rise in global emissions will continue. Kyoto, Paris, net zero and all the rest will do almost nothing to check the real drivers of global warming. That is the honest and frank message that I would like to see come from these discussions to shape policy priorities, and it is the real message and policy direction which the next generation deserves and which should shape the whole approach that we take at COP 26.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I respectfully disagree with his suggestion that any blame for lack of progress lies with the Committee on Climate Change. It is providing the advice that is needed. The failure is with government action, and I agree with the noble Lord on the extraordinarily urgent need for action.
I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. As he outlined, it establishes the new UK registry that is currently in development. As our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted with dry restraint:
“Until then, UK businesses that wish to trade KP units will have to open KP accounts in other countries’ registries.”
Once again, the Government are scrambling, still belatedly filling in basic gaps nearly six years after the Brexit referendum. This is continuity and compliance, as the noble Lord said, with an international agreement signed more than 20 years ago.
However, I will look primarily not backwards but forwards, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did with his important focus on consumption emissions rather than just measuring territorial emissions. This debate comes on a day when both the Guardian and the ENDS Report carry articles from respected international figures expressing concern about the damage done to the UK’s moral authority, as chair of COP 26, by domestic decisions. Christiana Figueres, a key Paris climate talks figure, said:
“There have been recent decisions in the UK that are not aligning with the ambition of the net zero target. It is worrisome. There are raised eyebrows among world leaders watching the UK.”
What we have here is a problem not just with the decisions being made on roadbuilding, coal mines and airport expansion, but with the failure to deliver policies—the kind of slow, snail-like progress that we are seeing here today. Just look at a list of what the Government are supposed to deliver before COP 26: a heat and buildings strategy, a transport decarbonisation plan, a Treasury net-zero review, an England tree strategy, a hydrogen strategy, an industrial decarbonisation strategy, a nature strategy, and a net-zero strategy. Of course, we are still waiting for the crucially important Environment Bill, in the country ranked 189th in the world for its state of nature.
I do not expect the Minister to have complete answers to all these concerns today, but I ask him for an acknowledgement that the Government have heard these concerns from highly respected, knowledgeable, non-partisan international figures and are at least reflecting on them, and ask him whether he might acknowledge, at least privately, that attaching the label “world-leading” to every government claim is counter- productive and serves only to highlight, as today’s SI does, that the UK is currently profoundly unprepared for the climate emergency and nature crisis.
A “legally binding target” for net zero for 2050 is, in terms of its impact on members of the Government today, precisely meaningless. What matters is action— practical, workable, effective action today—to slash emissions by 2030. That is something the Government have to show progress on, once they are done with the catching up that this statutory instrument demonstrates.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I welcome my noble friend Lord Callanan to his place and I look forward to his views. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to his position and thank him for his excellent chairmanship of the outgoing EU Sub-Committee on the Environment.
I thank my noble friend Lord Callanan for his clear exposition of the statutory instrument, which I support as it gives a clear legal basis on which the UK register will function. Does he share my concern that there will be a number of months before any trading can take place? Is my understanding correct that these account holders have now left the international register and cannot start trading until June this year? If that is the case, I understand from paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum that his department is encouraging account holders to register with other countries. If that is the case, can he explain what the cost and administrative burden on these account holders will be? Does he accept my concern that this is a burden with which they could well do without? Is it the department’s intention that they continue to register on two registers—the UK’s and another country’s register—or is this meant to be a short-term fix for the five months until our register becomes operational?
Further, is my understanding from A5 in appendix 1 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report correct that the account holders have to register for two UK registers, effectively holding a register for the UK emissions trading scheme as well as for this one before us on the ETS allowances? Again, can my noble friend comment on what the cost and administrative burden to these companies will be?
Can my noble friend also assure me and other noble Lords who have asked him about this that we will not lower expectations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions now that we have left the European Union? What will be the mechanism? Will there be a role for the OEP under the Environment Bill in this regard?
My final point is that there has been no public consultation, but there has apparently been an ongoing communication with account holders. That is slightly alarming. Could my noble friend explain to us precisely what those forms of communication have been? If they have not been sufficient, is it therefore any surprise that no account holder has registered any dissent?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I must admit that when I first looked at this instrument, I was severely disappointed with it. I can normally find in any secondary legislation at least 25 points of criticism to talk about for six minutes. Looking through these regulations, I could see nothing contentious at all.
That was until I started reading the explanation for them, which raised a number of concerns. One of them, which has been talked about a number of times, is the gap in trading. Given that we knew there was going to be a notice in this area, how come we have a gap in trading, even though only 112 organisations deal with it? I suppose that having to send our registrations on carbon abroad is one interpretation of global Britain, but that concerns me. I noted that the Minister said that the system was due in May, I think. He did not say that it would actually happen in May. I would be very interested if he would confirm that the system will be operational next month, so that we can all, let alone the users, have confidence in it.
I was also rather concerned by the last bullet point in paragraph 7.6 in the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:
“Amendments include … ensuring that provisions regarding the operation of KP registries are compatible with the software for the UK KP registry.”
That seems the wrong way round to me. Surely we design the software to meet the needs, rather than the needs to fit the software. I am interested to understand why it is that way around. Can the Minister assure me that we are not just buying an app from the Apple shop, or whatever? It seems very strange that we are not designing something that is right for this, but, rather, are having to change our systems to meet the software. I tried to look up the value of one of these traded units but could not find it, so perhaps the Minister could tell us, without conferring, the current-day price of these units. That would be very interesting to know.
I move on to an area of potential confusion for us all here between the Kyoto trading system and the new UK ETS. I realise that that is not the direct subject today, given the very important role of this new UK ETS, but it would be useful if the Minister could help us to understand this. Its first trading day is due in May, so it would be very useful to have clear understanding and to be certain that it will happen at that point. I know there is a wish, which I applaud—it may be a hope—that there might be a connection between the EU ETS and the UK ETS in future, giving greater liquidity for the UK market. I would be interested to understand from the Minister whether those conversations have started and already take place, or even whether that is still the Government’s wish or objective.
Lastly, in that area, consumption figures were mentioned, as was offshoring, which is one of the problems of having high prices on national emissions. Are the Government considering or investigating further a carbon border tax, which has been mentioned more broadly in the western world?
I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Redesdale about methane. One of the areas of climate change concern is that methane emissions have increased quite substantially, and what is perhaps even more worrying is that most authorities do not understand why that is the case. Any insight the Minister can give us on that would be very useful. The consumption figures are extremely important. I congratulate Defra, which looks after consumption, rather than BEIS, which looks after production, for that time series, and I encourage government to give it more publicity and more time.
I will not go into the broader issues of climate change and COP 26, which has been covered very adequately indeed by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Howell, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in particular, but even on these smaller issues, not least the UK ETS, it would be very good to have confirmation from the Minister about those important areas.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I add my thanks to the Minister for his introduction to the SI before the Committee today. As he said, the Kyoto Protocol and its mechanisms have been crucial in setting up co-ordinated international regimes to combat climate change. The treaty agreement has focused on green development through sustainable technology and investment. It has helped countries to meet emission reductions targets, removing carbon from the atmosphere cost-effectively, and has certified trading through registries to encourage industries and companies towards sustainability.
This statutory instrument continues the necessary arrangements to set up a complementary UK protocol registry following the UK leaving the EU emissions trading scheme, and I approve of it. However, as others have commented, the Government have not yet got the UK registry operational in time for the end of the transition period. The UK Kyoto Protocol registry will not become available until May this year, albeit that that is now only a few weeks away. Can the Minister confirm that everything is on track and that the trading of KP units will begin in June this year? Granted that priority has been given to the UK emissions trading scheme to be operational at the end of the transitional period in January, can the Minister confirm that this scheme has been embedded successfully and that the preparatory work undertaken so that the necessary international connectivities can proceed under this protocol will now proceed smoothly?
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted in its 48th report the possible impacts on businesses. Interestingly, neither the department nor the Environment Agency has received complaints from businesses about interruptions or costs as a consequence of this failure to maintain continuity with the EU registry. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has asked, will any issues become more pressing by June, when businesses bear the costs? While being reassured that any damage may prove to be minimal, does the Minister expect any consequences at all? Perhaps he could comment further on the point that the UK KP registry serves as a distinct and separate policy from the UK ETS registry. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think that an understanding of these technicalities would be most helpful.
At this point in the process of establishing the UK regime, the future objectives and priorities of the scheme closely resemble those of the EU. Does the Minister’s department have any variations in mind that might enhance the UK’s path towards net zero? Any changes to the scheme, including calculations on emissions, must have only that intention and direction in mind in order to avoid the offshoring of emissions.
We are also somewhat in the dark regarding the Government’s intentions. The weakness of this statutory instrument is that it is silent on all this. How similar to and how compatible will it be with the EU scheme? Indeed, what links may there be at all? As my noble friend Lord Whitty asked, will the UK scheme address carbon demands within the UK economy or merely reflect production? Will it add to the focus on the need for more attention to methane emissions, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked? There are also issues about possible competitive distortions in state aid to certain industries. The greater challenge is halting the relentless increase in global warming, as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. It may well be a challenge to the Minister, but if he could reveal anything at all, that would be most helpful.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, summed it up well. This is fairly uncontroversial territory and I am pleased that most Members are supportive certainly of the principle of this legislation. As I expected, most of the questions did not focus on the content of this fairly dry statutory instrument but covered a range of other areas connected to our emissions reduction and greenhouse gas policies. However, in an effort to be as helpful as possible to the Committee, I will endeavour to answer as many of those questions as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether the methodology for measuring greenhouse gas emissions will not be changed by the UK. I can assure him that the UK will continue to report greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol using exactly the same methodology as it did when we were an EU member state. The noble Lord also asked whether the Kyoto Protocol allowances would be compatible with the UK ETS. I can tell him that, under the UK ETS, the Kyoto Protocol units will not be able to be converted to allowances, and international credits are not permitted in the UK ETS at this time. However, the Government and the devolved Administrations are open to reviewing the usage of offsets in future, especially in deciding how best to implement the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation, or CORSIA as it is known, alongside the UK ETS.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also suggested that the UK should include imported emissions in its climate target. That issue was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. In our view, targets should strive to follow the best available science and methodologies to account for emissions and it is currently standard international practice to set such targets based on territorial emissions. Including imported emissions would, of course, risk double-counting emissions that had already been captured in other countries’ national efforts.
The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Grantchester, asked about the important subject of methane, as well as carbon. I can tell them that methane is covered under the KP and calculated as a CO2 equivalent, following internationally agreed methodology provided by the IPCC.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked about the costs of the new domestic registry system and plans to bring together all our climate commitments. The UK KP register has been developed as part of the same IT project as the UK emissions trading system registry. The two systems share a lot of the same IT functionality and we are able to maximise economies of scale and increase value for money by housing the two separate registries on the same system. I know that she will approve of that.
My noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth asked whether we have provided guidance to businesses affected by the change in the registry. The answer is yes, we have provided regular updates to account holders about the changes. Account holders were given advance notice that the UK KP registry would be inaccessible for a period while the transfer from the EU to the UK system took place. They were advised that, should they wish to trade Kyoto units before the UK registry had been successfully transferred on to the new domestic platform, they could open a KP account in another country’s registry. As yet, we have no evidence to suggest that any businesses with accounts in the UK KP register have felt the need to take that step.
My noble friend Lord Howell rightly expressed concern about the urgent need internationally to reduce emissions and he made some good points, particularly about the number of current coal-fired power stations built by China and elsewhere. That indicates the challenge that faces us for the COP meeting, but I reassure my noble friend that we are making progress on international efforts to address these matters. That is certainly a priority for the Government through our presidency of COP and we will continue to make those points strongly to other member states, jointly with Italy and in partnership with many other countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her predictable manner, made many of the same points that she always makes in these debates, not many of which had anything to do with the subject facing us in the statutory instrument, but let me reassure her that over the past three decades the UK has achieved record clean growth and has met its climate change commitments. Those commitments are indeed world-leading. I understand that they will never be enough for the noble Baroness, but nevertheless we think that we have made considerable efforts. Between 1990 and 2019, our economy grew by 78% while our emissions decreased by 44%, which is faster than any other G7 nation. The Prime Minister is building on that progress and has set out his 10-point plan for the UK to lead the world into a new green industrial revolution. This innovative programme sets out ambitious policies and significant new public investment to support green jobs, to accelerate our path to reaching net zero by 2050 and to lay the foundations for building back greener.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about the impact of the changes to the KP registry on account holders. The instrument impacts a limited number of organisations that hold the Kyoto Protocol registry accounts. Our analysis has shown that the costs to businesses are expected to be minimal, as the instrument allows for the continued functioning of businesses through the operation of a UK KP registry, rather than making any substantive changes to existing policy. As I mentioned, account holders were advised that, should they wish to trade Kyoto units before the UK KP registry had been successfully transferred on to a new domestic platform, they could access another county’s register, but so far, as far as we are aware, none has done so.
I can also tell the noble Baroness that the UK will not be lowering its climate standards or commitments as a result of leaving the EU. Our UK ETS is more ambitious than the EU system that it replaces—I know that this will be hard for some noble Lords to appreciate, but it is true. From day one, the cap has been reduced by 5%, which just goes to show that, as usual, we can do things better than the EU does.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the gap in trading for account holders following the end of the transition period. As I said, we have provided regular updates to them. I earlier covered the point about what they could do in the meantime. The value of CERs, the most commonly traded unit on the Kyoto Protocol registry, is approximately 20p.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether the registry will be ready for June and why there are two separate systems. I can reassure him that the scheme will be ready for trading in June. That may be a commitment that I will regret, but I give him it. We are working closely with the Environment Agency and the IT software developer and keeping in regular contact with account holders to ensure that the transition goes smoothly. The registry must be connected to the UNFCCC international transaction log. Before being reconnected, it must pass a series of tests that meet the international standards. The registry is currently undergoing those tests and is on track to pass them. Once those tests are passed, the register will be able to go live.
In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about linking the UK ETS with the EU ETS, of course we recognise the importance of international co-operation on carbon pricing and the important role that international carbon markets can play. We are indeed open to linking the UK ETS internationally in principle. We are considering a range of options, but no formal decisions have been made at this point on any linking partners.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords, following the breadth of their questions, that the statutory instrument is worthy of their approval. I think that the only remaining question was from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, about scheduling a debate. In asking the question, he predicted the answer: this is a matter for the usual channels. I am sure that the Whip has taken careful note of his concerns and will relay them to the Chief Whip, who will consider them accordingly. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.35 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before the House on 25 February 2021, be approved.
This is an uncontroversial statutory instrument, which is required to implement a protocol, signed by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Japan on 16 December 2020, to amend the 1998 nuclear co-operation agreement between the UK and Japan. The statutory instrument amends regulations to ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with the provisions of that protocol.
To understand the importance of this statutory instrument, one first needs to understand the background to, and purpose of, the nuclear co-operation agreement and the protocol. Nuclear co-operation agreements are commonly used international agreements that give legal underpinning to civil nuclear co-operation. They provide key non-proliferation assurances, including in respect of nuclear safeguards, and a framework for nuclear trade. In 1998, the United Kingdom signed a nuclear co-operation agreement with Japan, reflecting Japan’s position as an important partner in nuclear co-operation and non-proliferation for the United Kingdom. Both countries collaborate in the areas of nuclear regulation, research and development, decommissioning and advanced nuclear technology development.
On 16 December 2020, the United Kingdom and Japan signed a protocol to the nuclear co-operation agreement. The primary aim of the protocol is to maintain this mutually beneficial relationship between the United Kingdom and Japan on civil nuclear trade and co-operation. It achieves this by ensuring that the United Kingdom-Japan nuclear co-operation agreement, which it amends, is fully operable now that the United Kingdom operates its own domestic safeguards regime and is no longer part of Euratom.
However, it also goes further by including provisions that strengthen the mutually beneficial relationship between the United Kingdom and Japan. These additional provisions cover issues such as co-operation in research and development, intellectual property, safety and the expansion of the scope of the nuclear co-operation agreement to include information. The protocol therefore maintains and builds on both countries’ commitments on non-proliferation and ensures the continued peaceful uses of nuclear materials and information.
Until this protocol comes into effect, the current nuclear co-operation agreement remains operable through an exchange of notes, which was agreed as an interim measure between the UK and Japan in February 2019. This exchange of notes came into effect at the end of the transition period.
I shall now explain the purpose of this instrument and what changes it effects. The statutory instrument amends regulations to ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with the provisions of the protocol and ensure that its objectives can be achieved. First, it amends the Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, so that the protocol is included under the definition of “relevant international agreement” for the purposes of the Energy Act 2013.
This concerns primarily the role and responsibility of the UK’s nuclear regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation. One of the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s statutory purposes is to ensure that the UK complies with relevant international agreements. These regulations ensure the protocol is captured as such an agreement. Failure to pass this statutory instrument would therefore mean that the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s role would not include any reference to what has been agreed in the protocol, leaving the UK at risk of breaching this agreement. That, clearly, is not acceptable.
The second change effected by this statutory instrument is the inclusion of the protocol under the definition of “specified international agreement” for the purposes of the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This is achieved by extending the requirement in the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 for operators to provide information to the Secretary of State relating to qualifying nuclear material or other relevant items in respect of the protocol.
For the purposes of the Energy Act 2013 and the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and operators are currently required to fulfil certain reporting obligations relating to the UK-Japan nuclear co-operation agreement. Operators are therefore already required to provide information on nuclear material to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and information on non-nuclear material and equipment to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As a result, there are existing reporting mechanisms that will allow them to meet the additional obligations detailed in these regulations, specifically on information. We therefore expect the administration costs associated with implementing new requirements under the protocol to be very low.
There is a statutory requirement to consult the Office for Nuclear Regulation and others that the Government consider appropriate on these regulations. The Government have therefore worked closely with the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the civil nuclear industry to implement the new domestic safeguards regime and to ensure that the appropriate mechanisms are in place to implement obligations contained in international nuclear agreements such as this protocol. It has been of utmost importance to ensure that their interests and concerns were reflected throughout the policy process.
Moving forwards, we will continue to work closely with the Office for Nuclear Regulation and to engage regularly with the civil nuclear industry, highlighting the guidance available and addressing any questions and concerns. The Government have also engaged with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the Lords EU Environment Sub-Committee, and the Lords EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, informing them of the protocol and the changes it makes.
The territorial extent and application of the statutory instrument is England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government have shared it with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations so that they are aware of the obligations it creates.
I conclude by emphasising that I see the measures contained in these regulations as important but uncontroversial, since they will ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with the provisions of the protocol to the UK-Japan nuclear co-operation agreement. I hope that noble Lords will support these measures.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those SIs that you cannot find any reason to object to, so I will be extremely brief. While it talks about co-operation, it is unfortunate that Toshiba cancelled the Moorside project in 2018. Since then, two further projects have been cancelled at nuclear power plants.
Of course, this SI is relevant to the EU exit regulations. One of the issues raised was that, by moving away from Euratom and joint co-operation with our EU partners, we are in effect increasing costs to those organisations that would want to undertake development of nuclear power plants in this country. It seems that EDF is the only viable alternative for nuclear power plants at the moment, but could the Minister give an indication of how much the new regulations are costing industry, or maybe write to me?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing these regulations. I declare my interest as a consultant to the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power.
The introduction of our own nuclear safeguards regime, supervised by the ONR, should enable us to comply with IAEA standards in a less cumbersome and less expensive manner than when we were able to while a member of Euratom. We no longer need to rely on complicated verification processes that do nothing to ensure full compliance with IAEA standards. Our NCAs of course ensure that our independent safeguards regime will permit no diminution whatever in the maintenance of the highest possible standards.
However, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that under our independent regime we no longer have issues such as those faced by Urenco in the past? These included the requirement for Euratom’s approval of any new contract and firm declarations on end use for the material. All that required much expensive bureaucracy, which added nothing to the agreements with, and undertakings to, the IAEA, which were not needed by non-European competitors.
Of course, UK companies remain fully covered by the Government’s undertakings to the IAEA, and any shipments from the UK have to meet the requirements of UK export controls. However, it is not clear yet whether, after the inevitable teething problems, the Government have got to grips with the need to ensure that costs and bureaucracy are reduced to the maximum extent compatible with the necessary maintenance of the highest international standards.
I welcome the introduction of these regulations, whose effect is to add technology to the scope of the UK-Japan NCA through its amending protocol. This will enable the ONR to ensure the UK’s compliance with the amending protocol. Will the Minister confirm that the Government agree that co-operation with Japan in civil nuclear power is even more important than it has been until now? The energy White Paper recognises the need for at least one more major large new nuclear power station project, besides confirming the Government’s intention to continue to support the development of SMR and AMR technologies.
As the Minister is aware, Wylfa is perhaps the best available site for a nuclear power station in the country, if not in Europe. Is she also aware that Hitachi waited some 18 months after its decision to suspend the project before cancelling it, and that if the Government had come forward with additional financial support and a committed operator within that time, the project might have been rescued as a tripartite UK-Japan-US project? Would that not also have sent a very positive message about our trade and investment relationship with Japan, coming hard on the heels of the signing of the CEPA, and provided strong support for our tilt towards the Indo-Pacific, so important for the success of global Britain?
Does the Minister also agree that it is important that, where possible, major investors in our nuclear energy projects should be from countries whose security and defence interests are aligned with our own? What steps are the Government taking to revive the Horizon project? Does she agree that it is in our interests for them also to support other UK-Japan nuclear projects such as that on which Penultimate Power is collaborating with the JAEA to commercialise its high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology in this country?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to her position and thank her for her clear and lucid explanation of the SI before us, which I very much welcome.
I note in the Explanatory Memorandum that the UK already has a number of bilateral nuclear co-operation agreements with countries such as Australia, Canada and the USA, which is very welcome in addition to the measure before us. Are any other agreements in the pipeline of which we should be aware? That would be welcome news indeed.
I particularly welcome the extension that my noble friend outlined in her introduction. She said that the mutual co-operation will continue to exist, but that it will be extended to R&D, international property and the other items that she mentioned. That is very positive.
I really have only one question, which I appreciate is not directly relevant to the SI before us. It deals with civil nuclear co-operation but, in view of the Government’s recent announcement that we are to increase—I presume unilaterally—the number of nuclear warheads in this country, has her department had any negative feedback in relation to civil co-operation? It is interesting that my noble friend dwelt quite positively and strongly on this being a key nuclear non-proliferation safeguard. Obviously, it could be a potential setback, so I would be very interested in that regard, particularly in view of the sometimes tense relations that we have with my home country of Scotland, the place of my birth.
With those few remarks, I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to consider the SI before us. I would very much welcome hearing more broadly of other co-operation agreements. I hope that we will continue to co-operate with Japan and the other countries along the terms that she outlined to us this afternoon.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her introduction to the instrument this afternoon on the relevant international agreements on nuclear safeguards. The UK regime was one of the crucial elements necessary for having effective and coherent UK controls in place during the Brexit process. The Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 gave powers to the Office for Nuclear Regulation to monitor and regulate the nuclear co-operation agreements, one of which was with Japan.
I am very happy to approve these regulations today, which amend and update the original 1998 UK-Japan agreement with the December 2020 amending protocol. They provide a framework for further trade in nuclear materials and technology, and facilitate research, development and exchanges of information. Without the details of the updates with Japan, can the Minister advise the Committee whether this amendment to the 2019 agreement is made further to the position under Euratom? As I understand it, the 2019 amendment merely confirmed the NCA with Japan in the original Euratom protocols under the IAEA. If my hunch is correct in any way, do the Government intend to update other NCAs, most notably with the US, Canada and Australia, in a similar fashion? Have the Government received any comments from the IAEA?
When the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, now an Act, was before the House in 2018 one of the concerns was the recruitment and training of nuclear inspectors for the ONR to undertake what was then its new task to the high IAEA standards. For interest, it would be helpful if the Minister could give any update on the operations of the ONR. Maybe she can confirm whether any ONR review or report is intended to focus on the nuclear safeguards part of its responsibilities.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this short debate. The points that we have been discussing today highlight that these regulations will ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with the provisions of the protocol agreed between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Japan. The amendment ensures that the protocol is captured under the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s statutory purpose: to ensure compliance by the UK with relevant international agreements, and that operators provide information on qualifying nuclear material or other relevant items to the Secretary of State.
In response to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard regarding the Government’s commitment to minimising cost and bureaucracy, I must emphasise that a number of requirements already existed through the agreements between the UK and Japan which this protocol amends. Under the new regime, operators are required to provide information on nuclear material to the Office for Nuclear Regulation and information on non-nuclear material and equipment to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. There is no requirement to provide information to Euratom. We therefore expect the administration costs associated with implementing new requirements under the protocol to be very low.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard also asked whether co-operation with Japan in civil nuclear is more important than ever, and whether it is important to have major investors in our nuclear energy projects from countries whose security and defence interests are aligned with our own. Japan is a significant strategic partner for the UK and we regularly discuss a range of issues, including nuclear energy. Both countries collaborate in areas of nuclear regulation, research and development, decommissioning and advanced nuclear technology development—although it would not be appropriate to comment on the detail of these discussions. As Japan requires a nuclear co-operation agreement with countries before it will conduct nuclear trade with them, the protocol in this secondary instrument is an important enabler of co-operation between the UK and Japan on any future nuclear projects.
Both noble Lords mentioned the Wylfa project. We recognise that Hitachi’s decision to pull out of the proposed project at Wylfa and wind up Horizon Nuclear Power was disappointing for local communities, and personally for me as the spokesperson for Wales. Ultimately, though, these were commercial decisions, and the future of the site is a matter for Hitachi. However, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard rightly pointed out, the energy White Paper is clear that nuclear remains an important part of the UK’s energy mix. We have committed to at least one more 1 gigawatt power plant and we will continue to discuss new projects with other viable companies and investors wishing to develop sites, including the one in north Wales. The civil nuclear sector continues to be of key strategic importance to the UK and we welcome foreign investment in our infrastructure, subject to thorough scrutiny and the need to satisfy our robust legal, regulatory and national security requirements. I point my noble friend to the National Security and Investment Bill that is going through the House this week.
In relation to the question on high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, in 2019 the UK and Japan signed a memorandum of co-operation on energy innovation. This is the beginning of discussions on what the UK-Japan collaboration on advanced nuclear might look like. The joint NNL and JAEA report was published in October 2020 to provide a technical basis to establish and agree the next phase of collaboration, which will be welcome.
In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I will say that the UK Government are considering NCAs with other countries. We cannot comment on any ongoing negotiations, but we are of course keen to put in place NCAs with any country where such an agreement would be mutually beneficial. All the NCAs that the UK has in place are operable and we review them regularly.
With reference to the change in the UK’s overall weapons stockpile, the UK Government have consistently stated that we will both keep our nuclear posture under constant review, in light of the international security environment and the actions of potential adversaries, and maintain the minimum destructive power needed to guarantee that the UK’s nuclear deterrent remains credible and effective against the range of state nuclear threats from any direction. We regret that the security environment has necessitated this change, but we must recognise that the security situation has worsened since the previous Government’s declaration of their intended nuclear warhead stockpile ceiling in 2010, since when we have seen an increase in nuclear challenges. Against this backdrop, the UK must ensure that its nuclear deterrent remains credible and effective against the full range of state nuclear threats from any direction.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his question about the interests of the IAEA in relation to this SI. The IAEA seeks to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies. The nuclear co-operation agreement between the UK and Japan seeks to do the same. As a former chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, I am sure that IAEA director-general Grossi will be pleased to see that we have brought our agreement up to date and in line with NSG guidelines.
To close, I will underline that the protocol, and by extension these regulations, reaffirm the importance that the Government place on ongoing co-operation with the UK’s international partners in the civil nuclear sector. It highlights the continued value we place on mutually beneficial co-operation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.40 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee.
As we expect a further Division in the House, we have agreed that the Committee will adjourn now until five minutes after the vote has been called on Amendment 6, if that vote is called. I remind the Committee that, should there be a further Division, we will also adjourn for five minutes. So the Committee now stands adjourned until we know whether there has been a decision on Amendment 6 to call a vote—and, if there is, five minutes after that decision has been taken.
Audiovisual Media Services (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Audiovisual Media Services (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid in both Houses on 25 February and is being made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This instrument will remedy certain failures of retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. It addresses minor and technical issues in domestic law after transposition of the audio-visual media services directive by the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2020, and is necessary to ensure that the law remains fit for purpose beyond the end of the transition period.
These regulations amend references to EU legislation, substituting domestic law references and making references to EU legislation ambulatory where appropriate. They also remove the requirement for Ofcom to notify the European Commission of services in scope falling within the UK’s jurisdiction, and address Ofcom’s co-operation with EU member state regulators.
I will now look at the regulations in more detail. The audio-visual media services directive, also known as the AVMS directive, is long-standing EU legislation that co-ordinates the regulation of audio-visual media services. The AVMS directive was revised in 2018 to take into account changes to the media landscape since the last revision of the directive in 2010.
The UK’s Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2020, which transposed the revised AVMS directive, were made and laid in Parliament on 30 September 2020. Those regulations came into force on 1 November 2020. They introduced rules for video-sharing platform services for the first time, with Ofcom as the national regulatory authority for video-sharing platforms falling under the UK’s jurisdiction. The new rules for video-sharing platforms stipulate that platforms which have the required connection with the UK must have appropriate systems and processes to protect the public, including minors, from illegal and harmful material. The “required connection with the UK” means that if the platform provider is established in the UK, or if a group undertaking of the provider is established in the UK and the service is not regulated by another EEA country, Ofcom will in those circumstances have jurisdiction to regulate the video-sharing platform service.
Three key requirements have been placed on video-sharing platforms: first, to take appropriate measures to protect minors aged under 18 from harmful content; secondly, to take appropriate measures to protect the general public from material inciting hatred or violence, and certain illegal content; and thirdly, to introduce standards around advertising.
Ofcom is currently actively engaging with platforms that may be affected and has published guidance on scope and jurisdiction. In March, Ofcom published draft guidance for consultation on the list of measures that video-sharing platforms can take to protect users from harmful material. More vigorous regulation will commence once all guidance on video-sharing platform regulation has been published later this year.
I now draw the attention of the Committee to the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considering this instrument, and thank it for its work. The committee’s helpful report flagged two key areas: first, Ofcom’s power to co-operate with EU regulators and, secondly, the delay in the introduction of the online safety Bill.
I will first address the committee’s concern that replacing Ofcom’s duty to co-operate with a power to co-operate with EU regulators could result in uncertainty regarding enforcement for platforms whose services are used in the UK but where the platform is based and regulated outside of the UK.
Co-operation and sharing information between national regulatory authorities is helpful for the purpose of enabling authorities to fulfil their functions in the most efficient and joined-up way, and to collaborate on matters of common interest. In this post-transition period, co-operation continues to be important and this instrument provides Ofcom with the power to co-operate with its EU member-state counterparts. Engagement with other national regulatory authorities will be helpful to resolve any jurisdictional issues and help ensure that UK users are protected from illegal material appearing on a video-sharing platform where the provider of the platform does not have the required connection with the UK.
Ofcom will be able to use this power in a number of circumstances: addressing jurisdictional matters, such as determining where a provider is established; co-ordinating enforcement action; engaging to ensure cross-border compliance; and exchanging regulatory best practice. Without that power, Ofcom would be able to engage only in non-case specific informal co-operation with other EU regulators—for example, exchanging regulatory best practice rather than co-ordinating enforcement action. This could result in a lack of transparency between regulators and could lead to less effective protection of UK users, including minors.
Although this instrument does not guarantee that EU counterparts will reciprocate and co-operate with Ofcom, these regulations show a willingness on the part of the UK Government that Ofcom should engage and promote collaboration in this important area of online safety. Leaving a duty to co-operate in place would be inappropriate because of the lack of reciprocity from EU member states, and would provide no incentive for EU national regulatory authorities to co-operate with Ofcom.
I will now address the committee’s concerns about the timing and introduction of the online safety Bill. While we recognise the importance of being online and the benefits that this can bring, we acknowledge that online safety is a major concern. There are serious risks that users, especially children, currently face when they are online, and the prevalence of the most serious illegal content and activity online is unacceptable. We are working at pace to prepare online safety legislation, which will be ready this year. In the meantime, we are working closely with Ofcom and will continue to engage with parliamentarians as we prepare the legislation.
The current regulation of video-sharing platforms shares broadly the same objectives as the upcoming online safety legislation. In particular, it places requirements on UK-established video-sharing platforms to have systems in place to protect their users. The online safety regime will be broader and is expected to apply to a much wider range of online platforms. It is therefore the Government’s intention that the UK video-sharing platform regime in Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003 will be repealed and superseded by the online safety legislation once the latter has been implemented. Ahead of the repeal, Ofcom, through regulating video-sharing platforms, is gaining invaluable knowledge about systems regulation and how best to keep UK users safe online. This knowledge and experience will help the Government to meet our objective to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the explanation given by the Minister. I have to mind the old joke about déjà vu all over again, because we have been here and will undoubtedly be here again to discuss the necessary measures that, I hope, will emerge from the online harms legislation, which we are all anticipating and looking forward to scrutinising following the Queen’s Speech in May. We are looking forward to it, because the situation that we face at the moment, as outlined by the Minister, is totally unsatisfactory.
I appreciate that this is just a technical measure, and that is why I can be brief. However, the technicality of providing a power to Ofcom to collaborate and share illustrates the paucity of any real measures that we have to hand to be able to deal with the situation whereby a platform is outside the UK but is beaming into and is used extensively in the UK. That is the problem, as we all know, with this technical regulation. Very few, if any, of the major platforms that we are talking about fall into the category of being overseen by Ofcom, and we need collaboration across Europe and the world to deal satisfactorily with online harms.
That has been thrown into contrast by one of the continuing emotional spasms during the recess—namely, the issue of whether boys are a dangerous species in our schools. I do not underplay it; I have written about it, and do not want to be misinterpreted. There is a real problem. But the problem, in part at least, springs from pornographic material that, sadly, is available for young people to access, and the distorted view of relationships, including sexual and emotional relationships, which are affected by it.
I wanted to put on record this afternoon that it will be absolutely crucial that we get the new legislation right and ensure that the powers will be available, whether the major platforms and big tech like it or not, in order to be able to protect our citizens, and particularly our young people, from the harms that they currently face.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, last November, when we debated the earlier SI, I welcomed it but raised a number of concerns. Frankly, today’s extra-technical fixes do not allay those concerns. A critical concern was about who would regulate to our satisfaction services that are available in the UK but are based elsewhere. The Minister said in November:
“Under the revised AVMS directive, each EU member state and the UK is responsible for regulating only the video-sharing platforms that fall within its jurisdiction. There will be only one country that has jurisdiction for each platform at any one time.”—[Official Report, 27/11/20; col. 440.]
So we have no say in the regulation of on-demand platforms, such as Netflix, which will be regulated in the Netherlands, and video-sharing platforms, such as YouTube, which will be regulated in Ireland.
Today’s SI does not help. It merely replaces the duty on Ofcom to co-operate with EU regulators with a power for Ofcom to do so. As the Minister explained last November,
“Ofcom will rely on informal co-operation with the relevant EU regulatory authorities for information regarding determination of jurisdiction and discussions on co-operation and consistency of approaches towards video-sharing platform regulations”.—[Official Report, 27/11/20; col. 451.]
So it is down to informal co-operation rather than, as previously, having membership of the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services, which sets the rules for how all other EU regulators will operate.
I have frequently asked whether Ofcom will seek at least observer status of ERGA so that we may have something a little more than “informal co-operation”. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are urging Ofcom to do so? Of course, if it were significantly updated to cover ODPs and VSPs, the Council of Europe’s Convention on Transfrontier Television could provide a way for us to have a greater say, as, along with most EU countries, we remain in membership of the council. Are the Government considering this? Can she outline the intended regulatory regime once we have our much-awaited online harms legislation?
Last November, I asked the Minister:
“Do the Government intend their online harms legislation to bring all VSPs that impact on UK consumers under the scope of UK regulation?” —[Official Report, 27/11/20; col. 444.]
I did not get an answer then. Can she tell us now? If the answer is no, surely the much-vaunted taking back control will be a sham.
Finally, I ask the Minister to reflect on something else she said back in November, when she commented that
“if a platform has no physical presence in any country covered by the AVMS directive, then no country will have jurisdiction over it, even if the platform provides services in those countries.” —[Official Report, 27/11/20; col. 440.]
Are we really to believe that if a service provided to UK customers is based outside the EU or UK—say, in China—we will have no power to regulate it? I hope she can explain.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, the regulations are obviously necessary. However, the powers cover only those platforms that fall within UK jurisdiction, as has already been said, and where it is necessary to protect the public, including, especially, children, from illegal or harmful material. We are immediately in difficult territory. In order to become subject to control, the definition is limited to those VSPs that either display a physical presence in the UK or are based or established here. Those companies with a presence elsewhere cannot be controlled, and only one country can have control at any time. Many of the VSPs are international concerns, as we know, such as Facebook or YouTube, where video material is widely propagated. Examples of child sexual abuse being displayed are, sadly, becoming more common, and the Internet Watch Foundation, with which I am connected, has drawn attention to the growth of undesirable content.
Also, the regulations on the powers of Ofcom do little to control online advertising, which is another source of concern in the need to protect children, in contrast to TV advertising, which is controlled. Few of the most widely patronised VSPs meet our requirements for Ofcom or government attention or control. Many of the most popular, including Facebook and YouTube, but also Instagram and Twitter, are outside our jurisdiction. Some are based in EU countries, including Ireland. That leaves us unable to intervene effectively and our citizens in danger. Can my noble friend advise how else we can gain more control in view of the rules that we now accept? The new online harms Bill, which we are promised, is still awaited with interest, and perhaps we can hear today from my noble friend how it might deal with the obvious limitations we currently have.
I have been arguing in the field of technological legislation that we should try to ensure that it is smart legislation—that is, updatable, like the software we use in computers and cars. If it is not, technologically will inevitably always be ahead of the regulators and any desirable controls the Government might need to protect us. In view of the fact that the EU and other countries have their own criteria to apply to online content, which might be very different to our own, what steps are being taken to try to maintain that common approach, with common limits on acceptability of content?
Ofcom is on record as saying that it will prioritise only the most serious potential breaches arising following our leaving the EU until it has fresh and comprehensive guidance. Does my noble friend not believe that clearer guidance should now be given? This is an area of our lives which will not wait and where we need always to be up there with those who provide these services. Online services can be a force for good, just like TV and radio communications, but there is evidence that they can be accessed by those whose aims are less beneficent and, in some cases, criminal. We cannot preside over such uses.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the straightforward way in which she introduced this statutory instrument. It is, as she said, a technical instrument and I even welcome it in part. It is a positive that the UK will continue its commitment to the European works regime. As a generator of content, our creative industry will be a beneficiary of this regime and it makes sense to continue that involvement.
However, I can only echo the concerns expressed by others this afternoon about the limitations left unanswered by this legislation. With so much content being generated by platforms based outside the UK, our users of social media in particular and platforms generally are being left highly vulnerable to what is produced that is not regulated from the UK. This is a matter not just of the pornography that is being piped out and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, inflicting damage on our youngsters. An immense amount of really dangerous stuff about suicide gets circulated online. On anorexia, thinness websites are pushing our young ladies into starving themselves. It is really appalling. It will not be stopped by the regulators in other countries and I am afraid that our regulators will not be able to do it.
We have heard many times already this afternoon about the long-awaited online harms Bill, but when will it actually hit the statute book? How extensive will it be? Anyhow, I query whether Ofcom will be ready to deal with it when it arrives. From looking at its website, it is desperately trying to recruit people to deal with this. It still needs a principal to deal with online harms —somebody who can build and lead a multidisciplinary force across Ofcom to deliver high-quality policy and advice on complex issues. It is still hunting for a policy manager to support the development of its approach to regulating online harms. Can the Minister reassure us that Ofcom will be able to fulfil the duties being imposed on it to protect our country from online harms?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister to her place and thank for the very clear exposition of and background to the regulations before us. I declare my interest as on the register as chairman of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board.
I will make two points and ask my noble friend a question on each. Is she in a position to give us the timetable for the online harms Bill, in particular as regards identifying and proving the age of minors to ensure that they are not subject to harmful images and content online? What discussions has she had with her opposite number in the Home Office, in particular my noble friend Lady Williams, with whom we have been working closely at PASS in this regard, to establish a digital ID and to verify how proof of age for the purposes of such a digital ID for young people can be set up? It is extremely important that these departments co-operate and work very closely together in this regard. I would welcome an early meeting with my noble friend if that is potentially helpful.
Secondly, on the issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Foster, and others who have spoken so far, all making the same point, how do the Government intend to resolve the question of jurisdiction and the potential for video service providers to escape the control of Ofcom, although offering services in the UK? What provision do the Government intend to make in that regard?
Finally, paragraph 7.2 on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The references in the transposing Regulations which are being fixed include amending and substituting references to EU legislation with references to domestic law”.
The duty on Ofcom to co-operate with the European Commission, and presumably other member state bodies, is therefore being replaced with powers for it to co-operate with EU regulators. How does my noble friend expect that these changes will be made? Personally, I regret that there is a downgrade from a duty to powers for it to co-operate. I will follow this very closely.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, indicated, this debate is but one small piece of a larger jigsaw which Parliament will have to put together in the new Session in May. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his colleagues, including the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for the painstaking way in which they have gone about consultation and involvement in preparing for the online harms legislation. I hope that they will go one step further by including pre-legislative scrutiny in the process by which the proposals will be brought forward.
Nineteen years ago I sat on the Puttnam committee, the Joint Committee of both Houses which gave pre-legislative scrutiny to what became the Communications Act 2003. That pre-legislative scrutiny made for a better Bill. The SI before us makes a number of tweaks to that Act, which was, of course, the legislation which created Ofcom. I remember that pundits at the time were predicting that the media vested interests would overwhelm Ofcom—or, as it was indelicately put then, “Murdoch’s lawyers will have them for breakfast”. This proved not to be the case, but there is no doubt that the same vested interests will be at work trying to draw the teeth of legislation designed to limit their powers to make money. As my noble friend Lord Foster and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, indicated, who regulates what could turn out to be a lawyer-fest.
The Communications Act 2003, which we are amending today, contains the crucial Puttnam amendment, imposing on Ofcom the statutory duty to further the interests of citizens. That has been crucial in ensuring that regulatory decisions are not dictated by market criteria but governed by proper considerations of the broader public interest. It is essential that the Puttnam protections appear in the new Act. That statutory duty becomes even more important as Ofcom takes on the role of online regulator. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, outlined, it will be essential in reinforcing its ability to protect citizens, including children and the vulnerable, from a range of social harms as well as the threats to our democracy via fake news and disinformation.
Ofcom’s willingness to shoulder those responsibilities and the way it works with our other regulators—the ICO, the CMA and the Financial Conduct Authority—in the newly created digital regulation co-operation forum will depend on the effectiveness of the protection we now seek against internet harm. The protection of the citizen and of the wider public interest must remain part of the architecture of the regulatory system that we seek to put in place.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this short debate. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the way that she introduced the regulations. In doing so, I declare my relevant interest as a board member at Channel Four Television Corporation.
These are technical regulations, so forgive me if my questions are of a somewhat technical nature. What mechanisms and technologies are currently in place to ensure that the power to co-operate can be exercised effectively and in real time? To echo my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft’s point, does the Minister believe that Ofcom currently has the resources and expertise required in this area in terms of individuals, and the hard and soft resources to back this up?
In her opening, the Minister set out the learnings that would come through Ofcom’s engagement with VSPs. How will those learnings feed into the online harms legislation process and can a mechanism be established to ensure that they can be fed into any pre-legislative scrutiny in real time, because they could be invaluable to that process? I agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh that, as with so much that we are considering now, a lot of this tracks back to the need for a distributed digital ID. Can the Minister outline some of the work going on in her department? What can be done to accelerate that and what proofs of concept may be undertaken that could be particular to the issues we are discussing?
Does the Minister agree that we have world-class broadcasters and content producers in the UK, and that it is essential that we have world-class online harms legislation? Will she conclude the debate by giving us a date for when the legislation will be introduced?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is ironic that we keep coming back to this set of audio-visual media services regulations, yet this regime is only ephemeral and rather limited in scope. Schedule 15A was inserted only in November, as the Minister said, and is destined to be repealed, we hope, within a short space of time. This is really a dry run, as the Minister accepted, for what we are expecting to be the much wider scope of the online harms legislation, due, we hope, shortly after the Queen’s Speech, at least in draft. That is why we need to kick the tyres pretty hard at this stage on the way in which Ofcom plans to regulate and on the provisions of this SI.
As my noble friend Lord Foster asked, how many on-demand and VSP services are now covered, or have been since 6 April? He also asked what the Government intend as regards VSPs not based in the UK when the new online harms legislation is introduced. The Minister used the phrase “wider ambit”. Is that a commitment? We can, of course, talk about the provisions of the regulations themselves, the duty of co-operation and so on. She referred to the findings of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and its view that the SI created some uncertainty.
The Minister was not wholly convincing in pushing back on the fact that the powers are essentially informal. There are not duties that require formal mechanisms of co-operation, least of all those belonging to the association of regulators mentioned by my noble friend Lord Foster. Perhaps the Minister can also talk about the consequences of the “ambulatory” definition of “European works”. There seems to be some confusion about the way in which that will operate. It is important to have transparency between the regulators and a commitment by the Government to make sure that our legislation is on all fours, at least during the interim period and probably for some time thereafter. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about the concerns over the timing of the introduction of the online harms legislation.
We should all be interested today in the substance of the Ofcom consultation on the video-sharing platform guidance. Of course, we are all concerned about the question of freedom of expression, but Ofcom in its consultation said
“The VSP Regime does not set standards for content which providers should meet”.
Is that going to be the online harms approach? I very much hope that we will go further and adopt the risk assessment and management approach discussed later in the VSP consultation by Ofcom. That would fulfil what my noble friend Lord McNally referred to as the Puttnam criteria.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned age verification. Ofcom said:
“For VSPs which specialise in, or have a high prevalence of pornography, we think robust and privacy preserving forms of age verification are key to providing necessary protections for under-18s”.
I entirely agree with that, and with what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, had to say. But will this be mandatory or a matter of judgment? What sanctions will there be if age verification is not introduced?
It is evident from the answer to the recent Written Question from my noble friend Lady Grender that user-generated content will be more heavily regulated than commercial pornography sites which do not carry user-generated content. Is that the Government’s settled approach? If so, they will have a fight on their hands, especially in the light of BBFC research which showed that parents agreed with a statement that there should be robust age-verification controls.
I could go through age ratings and the DRCF workplan mentioned by my noble friend Lord McNally. I strongly support the proposal for a centre of excellence. The dispute resolution mechanisms discussion is also of great interest, and I declare an interest as chair of the board of Ombudsman Services Ltd. The Government have said that they do
“not intend to establish an independent resolution mechanism”.
Ofcom clearly considers it important to have independence, and I hope that the Government will have changed their mind by the time we come to the online harms legislation. Furthermore, Ofcom’s statements are very cogent about media literacy, but where is the Government’s strategy?
Finally, are Ofcom’s enforcement guidelines fit for purpose in regulating VSPs? What kind of assessment has been made of them and what assurance can the Government give? I have great confidence in the way in which Ofcom is steering its activities towards preparing for online harms regulation. I am not so sure about the Government, however, given the regulatory framework and the policies that they are adopting.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right to say that this afternoon’s discussion is something of a dry run. If that is the case, there will be anxious people around the world concerned to know exactly what we are going to get in the online harms Bill, when it is forthcoming.
In a previous debate, I raised the question of how we would regulate the big players such as YouTube when they are established elsewhere if they are regulated entirely by the EU and outside our jurisdiction. That question has cropped up again today. I welcome the fact that colleagues across the House have begun asking the Government more about that issue, because it is a very important one. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
Noble Lords have said this afternoon in no uncertain terms that they find the current situation highly unsatisfactory. Reference was made to resources by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, while the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about jurisdiction. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, was clearly concerned to ensure that we have the online harms Bill brought forward sooner rather than later. While the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was happy to see detailed consultation carried out, I think that he also would like to see some of that during the pre-legislative process, so we can all understand how the legislation will work.
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, want—[Inaudible]—online regulation, and that is the view of my party. So while the changes made by this statutory instrument were not felt to be day-one critical, it was always inevitable that they would have to be made to ensure that Ofcom’s powers and duties reflect the new informal relationship between the UK and the EU and EEA regulators, and the fact that the UK no longer needs to notify the European Commission of certain changes.
As noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, however, there was a recommendation for this instrument to be upgraded from the negative procedure to the affirmative. We welcome the fact that the Government accepted this recommendation, but the fact remains that there is too little information on the proposed timetable for the online safety Bill for us to be entirely reassured. I hope that the Minister will address those concerns and perhaps give us a timetable for pre-legislative scrutiny and the final introduction of the Bill. Can she do that this afternoon? We need to have some certainty. Does the Minister also accept that the current regulatory vacuum, where significant video-sharing platforms operate but are entirely outside our jurisdiction, rather undermines the Government’s commitment to protect users?
We welcome the Government’s plan to introduce a duty of care on online service providers, but while legislation exists only in draft form this does nothing to keep users, particularly younger ones, safe at present, despite various voluntary initiatives. We continue to see worrying cases of users encountering harmful and inaccurate content online.
Paragraph 2.13 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes:
“Guidance issued by the European Commission will continue to have relevance in the UK should it be updated.”
This makes sense, but it could be argued that this approach is inconsistent with the handling of similar guidance in some other policy areas. What was the rationale for this specific decision? DCMS says that the new ambulatory reference will fall away if the EU opts to adopt an entirely new definition or guidance. Can the Minister put on record her understanding of the current regime and the level of regard UK bodies should have for it in the light of this statutory instrument? What future changes to the EU guidance would DCMS consider inappropriate in the UK context?
Paragraph 2.15 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the Government are giving Ofcom statutory powers to co-operate with EU and EEA regulators in part because
“it is hoped it will incentivise other regulators to co-operate with Ofcom.”
What has this co-operation been like during the first three months of the new relationship? Does the Minister accept that we have become dependent on the good will of others, something that we are increasingly needing to rely on in our new relationship with the EU? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to this and the other important points raised from across the Committee today.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords for their valuable and insightful contributions to this debate. I will do my best to answer the points raised in the time allowed, but if I run out of time I will of course write to your Lordships.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Kirkhope asked how this approach would work in practice in terms of co-ordination with EU regulators. I believe that I covered some of this in my opening remarks. I would just add that the UK and the EU have similar objectives regarding online harms and continue to share similar values. Both the digital services Act and the online safety legislation will set out new expectations on companies to ensure that they have proportionate systems and processes in place to mitigate risk and to keep their users safe online. We are committed to working with our European and international partners, as well as businesses themselves, to understand how we can implement these existing frameworks better. However, I would like to be clear, in response to many noble Lords’ requests for clarification on jurisdiction, that our forthcoming online safety regime will regulate platforms irrespective of jurisdiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked which platforms would be regulated by this new instrument. From 6 April this year, VSP providers in UK jurisdictions have been legally obliged to notify their services to Ofcom. Existing providers have one month—until 6 May —to notify their services, and the list of providers will be published shortly thereafter. We expect, and this is very important in light of the very valid concerns that your Lordships raised, that this will include some smaller platforms that have never previously been in scope of regulation.
A number of questions were asked about ambulatory references. These ensure that UK law reflects updates to the definition of European works and/or the relevant guidance attached to that, so that when the EU makes changes to legislation, a full legislative process has to be gone through and the UK will therefore get a reasonably lengthy period of notice in which to consider whether or not to disapply the ambulatory reference. As a matter of policy, however, the UK wants to keep close to the EU on the definition of European works, which is why the definition is ambulatory. It is also a technical definition and has links to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, to which the UK is a party.
A number of questions, including from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were asked about the use of age-assurance and age-verification measures within the video-sharing platform regime. Age assurance is one possible appropriate measure in the VSP framework. In order to comply with the VSP regime, age-assurance measures may be adopted by VSPs, along with other measures such as age ratings and parental controls. When considering which measures are needed to protect users adequately, platform providers must consider what is practicable and proportionate, which includes taking into account the rights of users.
Ofcom is committed to promoting best practice in this area within the VSP regime, and its guidance is consistent with the guidance on establishing age within the Information Commissioner’s age-appropriate design code. Throughout the duration of the regime, Ofcom will work with the ICO to provide clarity on roles and coherence in approach. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this will be done with a risk-based approach, both in this regime and in the forthcoming online safety regime.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked whether Ofcom had sufficient resources to fulfil its role. Ahead of the online safety Bill we are working closely with the regulator to understand the challenges that it faces, and we are working to ensure that it has the resources, processes and expertise to start building its capability as an effective regulator of VSPs and of course, importantly, as the future online safety regulator.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, asked again about jurisdiction and the regulation of platforms not established in the UK. VSPs that are not established in the UK will be regulated not by Ofcom but rather by the EEA state in which they are established. Ofcom will regulate VSPs that are not established in the UK but have a group undertaking in the UK, if the VSP does not fall under the jurisdiction of an EEA state. We hope that the regulation provided by other EU member states will be effective enough to provide protection to UK users in the interim. But, as I said earlier, our online safety regulation is intended to be the long-term regulatory framework.
Lastly in relation to this instrument, my noble friend Lord Kirkhope asked about the regulation of advertising. Under the VSP regime, the requirements placed on providers with regard to restricted material and relevant harmful material in videos apply to adverts as well.
In the time remaining, I will turn to the online harms legislation. Most noble Lords asked me to clarify the timing of the online safety Bill. We are working at pace to prepare the legislation, which will be ready this year. As for pre-legislative scrutiny, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his kind remarks about our engagement with parliamentarians, which we have found extremely useful. We will make a final decision on pre-legislative scrutiny nearer the time of introduction, but your Lordships will have heard the Secretary of State say that he is minded to undertake it.
A number of noble Lords asked for clarification on what would be included in the new regulatory framework. In brief, the framework will prioritise action to tackle illegal content and the protection of children. All companies in scope will need to tackle illegal content on their services and protect children. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, cited some of the most troubling examples of legal but harmful content. In that case, companies will be required to set out clearly what content and behaviour are acceptable on their services.
I fear that I am running out of time and have not answered all noble Lords’ questions. I will follow up in writing. As I have set out clearly today, these regulations are required to fix the remaining issues of the transposition of the AVMS directive to ensure that the law remains clear and operable beyond the transition period. This instrument will allow Ofcom to continue regulating video-sharing platforms effectively and will give it the power to co-operate with EU regulators when it is appropriate to do so. This will help to ensure that online users, particularly those under the age of 18, will benefit from the protection from illegal and harmful content provided by Ofcom’s regulation of video-sharing platforms ahead of the upcoming online safety legislation. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Death of a Former Member: Baroness Williams of Crosby
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the distinguished former Member, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on 12 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our very sincere condolences to the noble Baroness’s family. I hope that there will be an opportunity for tributes to be paid in the very near future.
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 9 April, of the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock of Holyhead, whom we know so well, and, with effect from 12 April, of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ryder of Wensum, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their very much-valued service to this House.
Clerk of the Parliaments
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
To resolve that this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Ed Ollard from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Ed Ollard has executed the important duties of his office.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to move this Motion to give the House an opportunity to pay tribute to the outgoing Clerk of the Parliaments, Ed Ollard.
From 1983, when he joined as a fast-stream clerk, Ed served this House with distinction. He provided outstanding service in a variety of senior roles within the House, including as Private Secretary to the Leader and Chief Whip, Finance Director and the Clerk of Committees. Before he became the 64th Clerk of the Parliaments, he served as Clerk Assistant to Sir David Beamish for six years.
In these varied roles, Ed provided Members across the House, and its political leadership, with courteous and professional procedural advice and was a source of authoritative leadership to the staff of the House. He was generous and resourceful, often going way beyond the call of duty. On one such occasion, he went so far as to provide clothing to the Government Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Ashton. I am happy to confirm to noble Lords that this did not involve Lycra, but my noble friend did borrow a white bow-tie from Ed to save his blushes at a reception in Buckingham Palace.
Between 1992 and 1994 Ed served as Private Secretary to the then Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, and Viscount Cranborne. Some noble Lords will recall this as a particularly demanding parliamentary Session, as the Maastricht Bill was passing through the House. Ed must have had a strong sense of déjà vu over the last few years as we worked through legislating for our exit from the European Union.
Across the various posts he held, Ed oversaw a number of significant changes which helped modernise our processes for the benefit of the whole House, including overhauling the clerks’ Table with modern equipment, overseeing the transformation of House publishing and printing, and playing a central role in implementing the recommendations of the Ellenbogen report on bullying and harassment—an issue he was deeply committed to addressing as the senior officer responsible for the staff of the House.
But by far the most significant changes Ed presided over have been those implemented since March 2020 in response to Covid. These changes will be familiar to noble Lords across the House, but what may be less well known is the vast amount of work he did behind the scenes to bring our hybrid proceedings to life. Over Easter last year, Ed helped develop and oversee the initial setting up of our virtual proceedings, in less than three weeks, and then our move to hybrid proceedings. It was a huge but critical task that ensured that this House has been able to undertake its business during these unprecedented times, and while we all may have had our frustrations with the hybrid way of working, none of us can deny how essential the changes Ed helped deliver have been in allowing us to continue our important function during this pandemic. For that, we all owe Ed an immense debt of gratitude.
Ed has left the House as we undergo a significant period of change. Over the next few weeks, we will have a new Speaker and a new Chief Operating Officer, and we will, I hope, be taking further steps forward as we slowly return to the normal way of doing business. I look forward to working with the new Clerk of the Parliaments, Simon Burton, as we navigate the future and welcome him to his role.
As he leaves this role, I am sure Ed will find more time to enjoy his favourite pastimes of watching Charlton Athletic—I could not say so myself, but I am sure some will think that only a Clerk of the Parliaments who has served over the last few years in this House can enjoy such a thing, but that is up to Ed—and, of course, following the Tour de France and cycling himself. I suspect the sightings of Lycra on the West Front Corridor will decrease quite significantly now Ed has left us. On a more serious note, I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Ed for his distinguished service and we wish him, his wife Mary and their family all the best for the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to have the opportunity to pay tribute to Ed Ollard as the outgoing Clerk of the Parliaments on his retirement. I admit that this is something of a first for me: it is not the first time that I have spoken to recognise somebody’s service on retirement, but it is the first time I have ever done so for somebody who is younger than I am.
Ed started his career in the House of Lords in 1983. Noble Lords might be aware that this was the year in which it was first decided to televise proceedings in your Lordships’ House. We cannot hold him responsible for that, but I refer to it to illustrate that he started his career here at a time of great change, and his career here has ended at a time of great change, although I know he shares our optimism that many of the current changes will be temporary.
When Ed announced his retirement last September, we knew that his choice of date was for our convenience, not his. As I said at the time, for a man who cycled into the office each day—hence the Lycra—the choice to continue to do so in the wet and cold winter months could have been only through a sense of duty. Those of us who saw his Lycra-clad arrival, and then his appearance in the Chamber, could only marvel at his Superman-style changes as he swapped one pair of tights for another.
As we heard from the noble Baroness, his career has been one of diligent and resourceful service. Taking account of Queen’s Speeches, royal visits, addresses from Heads of State, restoration and renewal, security issues and the pandemic, it is true to say that there is never been a quiet moment. He has seen many challenges, not least over the past year. The hybrid way of working, despite its necessity, is frustrating to us all. Ed’s guidance, advice and suggestions, as we navigated our way through the difficulties to ensure that we could continue our work, were always thoughtful and considered.
On many occasions, I have been grateful for his advice. I say “grateful,” but it was not always what I wanted to hear. However, I was never in any doubt that he had the interests of your Lordships’ House, its Members and its staff at heart. It is to his credit that he has never been precious about the issues that I raised with him. I can remember calls from sunnier climes during recesses, including one occasion when I had to seek advice about the House being recalled. On another occasion, I was locked in the car park and the police could not find the key to the barrier. Ed was on call with good humour, courtesy and advice at all times—and he found the key.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in paying tribute to Ed Ollard for his work as Clerk of the Parliaments and his long career in your Lordships’ House.
To the outside world, I am sure that the House of Lords looks a rather timeless place, where tradition counts for everything and nothing ever changes. During Ed’s career, and particularly during his time as Clerk of the Parliaments, very much has changed. When he started work here, there were approximately 250 life Peers and 450 hereditary Peers. Among Peers with political affiliations, the Conservatives had almost exactly twice as many as Labour and ourselves combined. Even when I joined in 1997, I was told by our then Chief Whip not to expect to be able to do anything or change anything because of this overhang of such a huge Conservative majority. How things have changed: the removal of most of the hereditaries, the greater politicisation of the House and the willingness to challenge not just the Government of the day but the way we do things have transformed the nature of the Lords. The pandemic has brought with it revolutionary changes in the way in which we conduct our business, which a little over a year ago could not have even been contemplated.
During his time as senior clerk, and most particularly Clerk of the Parliaments, Ed has had to manage these fundamental changes of procedure and the way we operate in the Chamber. He has also had to confront, as a result of the Ellenbogen report, the need for widespread change in the way we do things outside the Chamber, while preparing us, I hope, for the rigours of the R&R process. I worked closely with Ed since he became Clerk of the Parliaments, and have seen at first hand, to quote from the Motion before us today,
“the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity”
with which he has undertaken this role. He embodies the best traditions of the British Civil Service and has set high standards for professionalism and probity, for which we should all be very grateful. Personally, I have been immensely grateful for the consideration he gave me when I contacted him on the most disparate range of issues, one of which, for at least one member of my group on that day, was the most important thing in their life, but certainly not the most important thing in his. He will have a worthy successor in Simon Burton, with whom I look forward to working as closely as I have with Ed.
In his interview in the House magazine, Ed says that his plans for the future consist of going to the beach as soon as Covid restrictions allow. On the assumption that he did not only have UK beaches in mind, I am sure that he is aware that the places that are likely to open up their beaches soonest include Caribbean islands and the Maldives. I have, therefore, attempted to picture Ed suitably attired, perhaps in a floral shirt, sipping an umbrella-topped cocktail in one of those places. I am afraid that my imagination has failed me, but I hope that on whichever beach he chooses, he enjoys a very well-deserved break now and a very long and full retirement thereafter.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, this is the second time in less than 24 hours that I have stood up to say that I agree with everything that has been said by everybody who has spoken before me, and, more importantly, all of them have agreed with each other. Long may it continue, making Simon Burton’s role so much easier to perform. Can we hang on to that?
I will not repeat the many admirable qualities that Ed Ollard has brought to this office. I join the others who have spoken on behalf of the Cross-Benchers and enthusiastically adopt what they have said, but there is something that this House seems not to know about Ed Ollard. He is a master of quizzes. Did your Lordships know that he has been given a trophy as the champion quiz man in this place? It is a lovely little cup that was presented to him by members of the staff. He knows all sorts of outrageously stupid things, meaning that he has a mind crammed full of completely useless intelligence. However, I have set him a few questions for his retirement. Which institution has been described in the past as “addled”, “drunken”, “mad”, “merciless”, “useless” and, just but once, “good”? I am sure that he knows the answer to that. Then there is a trick question. How many Members of the House of Lords can stand on the head of a pin? Well, he has spotted the trick there, but here is one that even he will need a whole week to get round to answering: how long is a piece of string?
I do not anticipate much of an answer, but I do anticipate the continuing accumulation of this wonderful, useless knowledge, so that when teams are being picked—remember when we were small, we all lined up and hoped that we would be picked for the best team—Ed Ollard will always be picked first for any quiz. He will have time to learn more and more of what it is lovely to think of as fulfilling knowledge as well as trivia.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I am very glad that I do not have to answer those questions, because I do not know the answers. However, I want to add a few words from these Benches, paying tribute on behalf of the Lords spiritual. My colleagues and I have greatly benefited from Ed Ollard’s sound judgment, diligent support and practical guidance in his time as the Clerk of the Parliaments. We on these Benches are immensely grateful for his calm and steady stewardship during, as others have said, this very unpredictable time. Navigating a unique transition to a hybrid Parliament, the role of the Clerk of the Parliaments has been challenging. He has met it head on, and it is a testament to his adaptability that your Lordships’ House has functioned so well and effectively during this pandemic. We warmly welcome Simon Burton to the role and very much look forward to working with him, but today, we want to say a huge “thank you” to Ed Ollard and to wish him all the best for the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, before I put the Question on the Motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, I add that Ed has been invaluable during my time as Lord Speaker. The advice he has given on a range of issues has been an enormous support. His approach was always cautious. On more than one occasion, he counselled that what I was proposing would not be appropriate, and what was worse was that he was always right. Importantly, he always spoke with authority, and the Deputy Speakers also thank him for the enormous support that he gave.
When Ed assumed office as the Clerk of the Parliaments in 2017, little did he know what lay ahead. His advice and practical guidance acted as a bedrock during one of the most tumultuous periods in recent political history, as the United Kingdom left the European Union and the House found itself at the heart of a landmark Supreme Court case. Recently, of course, he has led the radical procedural changes and wholesale operational transformation that has enabled the House to keep working during the Covid-19 crisis. It was an enormous achievement.
On behalf of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the Deputy Speakers and the whole House, I express very sincere gratitude and wish Ed a very happy and well-deserved retirement.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them reasonably short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
United Nations Biodiversity Conference
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what preparations they are making for the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) to be held in Kunming, China, in October.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, it has recently been confirmed that the CBD COP 15 will now take place between 11 and 24 October in Kunming, China. Despite the continued delay due to Covid-19, we are engaging fully in the preparations and negotiation process. We continue to lead work internationally, including on the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, through the UK-led Global Ocean Alliance and in our role as ocean co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition, to secure support for our objectives. We are also working closely with non-state actors, including the private sector and NGOs, to help shape UK priorities, and will continue to engage in opportunities at all levels in the lead-up to COP 15. Domestically, we are extending our protected areas, bringing forward new legislation to restore and enhance nature and introducing new funding to support that process.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the Minister’s comments about oceans and maritime issues. It is really important that COP 15 is successful—we need it to be. Will it be attended by a senior Minister or the Secretary of State? What is the most important matter that the Minister and the Government wish to be resolved and acted upon following the conclusion of this conference?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK is playing a key role. I think it is fair to say that we are doing more heavy lifting than almost any other country in the world to secure the maximum possible ambition from the CBD. Clearly, our number one goal is to leave the convention with meaningful, robust and ambitious targets commensurate with the scale of the challenge we face. In addition, we need the world to raise its collective finance for nature and nature- based solutions to climate change. We also need mechanisms to enable people—individuals, civil society and other Governments—to hold countries to the promises they make.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, in demonstrating our commitment to biodiversity, can we in the UK put more emphasis on the diversity part? To take the example of what we are doing with woodlands, it is wonderful that we are planting lots of trees, but it is a very limited range of species from a very limited selection of genotypes. We need to take diversity seriously if we are to push that in the world.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. As the Minister in charge of developing the tree strategy, I am absolutely determined that as we use public money, which will be necessary to achieve the targets we set, we do so in a way that delivers the maximum possible solution. That means not simply having hectare after hectare of monoculture but ensuring that we maximise biodiversity at every opportunity and deliver not just a win for climate but a win in terms of boosting our declining biodiversity in this country.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, many species of plant, animal and other life forms have been in steep decline over centuries, yet the COP measures hitherto have not been transformative. Are the UK and the world systematic, ambitious and bold enough? Do we not need a national and global census of all life forms and clear, actionable plans to safeguard the myriad wonders of our natural world?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord about the scale of the crisis. We will be familiar with the numbers; they are shocking at every possible level, whether we are talking about terrestrial or ocean biodiversity. He is also right to say that targets have been set and missed many times in the past. What must be different about this convention is that, in addition to having those strong targets and ensuring we have the finance necessary to deliver them, we must have mechanisms enabling countries to be held to their promises—just as we have with climate and carbon emissions reduction commitments. We do not currently have them in relation to biodiversity. That is the bit that is missing and that the UK is pressing hardest for.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, biodiversity decline and climate change are twin crises and need equal and urgent concentration, so why are the Government continuing to refuse to accept a legally binding state of nature target in the current Environment Bill, in the way that there are already legally binding targets for climate change in UK legislation? Does the Minister agree that we will not get much credit for any heavy lifting or leverage at Kunming if the Government have just had a messy public punch-up as the Environment Bill goes through, refusing to adopt legally binding biodiversity targets here in the UK?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is absolutely right to say that climate change and biodiversity are two sides of the same coin. They represent the gravest threat we face, and we cannot tackle one effectively without also tackling the other. There is no pathway to net zero emissions without a major increase in support for nature and nature-based solutions, so I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness. It is not the case that the Government are refusing to include the mechanism she proposes—the target around biodiversity and state of nature. This is a live issue and one we are engaging with very actively. I hope that when we bring the Bill to the House, we will be able to have a meaningful discussion about that.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
Targets for previous CBDs have been missed, as the Minister has acknowledged. None was legally binding, unlike the Paris climate agreement. Do the Government support the post-2020 CBD framework, including legal obligations for all countries to deliver against global targets?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The Government are keen to push for the maximum possible ambition. There is no area in the discussion where any country is having to drag us kicking and screaming. We are the country pushing hardest for that ambition, but there is a line somewhere between the maximum ambition and what is deliverable. Things that may appear relatively mundane and not particularly radical to the UK are nevertheless big sells for certain countries. Our job is to use every diplomatic skill and lever we have to bring the rest of the world with us, and we will take the world as far as we possibly can. Where that takes us is hard to predict.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
In recent decades, freshwater species have seen their populations decline twice as fast as land and marine species. Sadly, English rivers are in a particularly bad state, with just 14% deemed to be of good ecological standard. Ahead of the UN biodiversity conference, does the Minister agree that it is more important than ever for the UK, as the host of COP 26, to lead by example? Can he confirm whether Defra will use the Environment Bill to deliver the department’s recent pledge to finally do something about tackling sewage pollution in rivers?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
It is absolutely right that to speak with authority internationally, the UK needs to get its own house in order. That is not the case at the moment. Our biodiversity has been in decline; our environment is denuded. However, we have put in place a number of ambitious steps to try to turn that trajectory: the first Environment Bill for 20 years, with a whole host of ambitious measures; the green recovery challenge fund; getting NGOs restoring nature and tackling climate change in communities up and down the country; a £640 million Nature for Climate Fund; big and ambitious tree-planting targets; peatland restoration targets; and, above all, a commitment to switch the old land use subsidy system so that instead of incentivising destruction, it incentivises good environmental stewardship. The tools and the commitment are there, but we have some way to go.
Lord Benyon (Con) [V]
My Lords, the ground-breaking UN report, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, said that we need to reflect on both
“the value of nature, and on the nature of value.”
The loss of species and the decline in the ability of natural systems to provide for humanity’s needs is not just an environmental catastrophe—it is an economic one as well. As has been said, the two COPs happening this year have complementary ambitions. Will my noble friend the Minister encourage the UK position to reflect the fact that Governments alone cannot solve this problem? We have to engage, empower and deploy the power of markets and the private sector, on a global scale, to make the difference that is needed.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
That is absolutely right. A big part of our campaign as president of COP is to encourage donor countries to step up with more finance for nature. We are showing leadership ourselves, having doubled our international climate finance to £11.6 billion. We are committing to spend about a third of that on nature-based solutions and we want others to do something similar. Even if we succeed, however, that will not be anything like enough finance for nature; we will need more. That means mobilising private finance on an unprecedented scale and ensuring high-integrity carbon markets; we need a breakthrough around the Article 6 negotiations. Above all, we need to mainstream nature through the way we do business and align, for example, the big multilateral development banks not just with Paris commitments but with nature as well.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
The link between agriculture and biodiversity is absolutely clear. What plans do the Government have to take targets to reduce the land use for agriculture to the meeting? Can the Minister tell us his view on the need to cut down the amount of land used for livestock and livestock feed? Currently, humans and the animals that we plan to eat make up 96% of all the animals on Earth, which is not a bio- diverse way forward.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
This will be an important part of our work in the run-up to COP. The noble Baroness may perhaps consider that the top 50 food-producing nations spend about $700 billion a year subsidising often destructive land use. One of our goals—an important one—is to try to encourage as many countries as possible to shift the way those incentives are used so that they support nature. We are also trying to break the link between commodity production and deforestation—commodity production is responsible for about 80% of the world’s deforestation. We are leading in global dialogues with producer and consumer countries to that end.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Clergy: EU Visas and Residence Permits
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of new (1) visa, and (2) residence, permit regimes for United Kingdom citizens working in the European Union on the numbers of Church of England clergy securing such permits.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the withdrawal agreement protects UK nationals who were lawfully resident in the EU before the end of the transition period. Thirteen member states require them to apply for new resident status. British citizens travelling to the EU for work may need visas or permits from relevant member states. Member states are, of course, responsible for implementing their domestic immigration systems, and the UK does not hold information on the specific occupations of UK nationals abroad.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]
I thank the Minister for his Answer. This is of course a question that goes wider than the Church, but let us consider a diocese in Europe supporting UK citizens which is now unable to assign clergy for locum duty, for example, because of the lack of clarity regarding work permits. How do the Government intend to support UK citizens in what was an inevitable outcome of the withdrawal agreement? Can the Minister give any practical encouragement to the Bishop in Europe as he seeks to resolve these issues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the right reverend Prelate that, as he may well be aware, we are working very closely with the Church of England—for example, on citizens’ rights—as it is one of the implementing partners of the UK nationals support fund. In addition, through our embassies, we are providing direct and relevant support as well as an extensive communications programme for all citizens across the European Union.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, in questioning the Minister for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I hope that it is appropriate to say that my noble friend Lady Kinnock of Holyhead was an inspirational internationalist all her working life. Her lifetime of public service has helped changed lives throughout the world and we wish her well in her retirement. On the issue of visas for clergy, the Church of Scotland also has deep concerns about the position of locum ministers serving congregations throughout the European Union following Brexit. It also has concerns about split ministries, where the minister involved may be part-time in two different, perhaps neighbouring, countries, in two different churches. Will the Government guarantee to involve the Church of Scotland in any discussions about resolving these issues, including, of course, other Churches and faiths?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can of course assure the noble Lord that we will work with all organisations, including the Church of Scotland. If there are specific issues that he wishes to raise with me, I will be happy to answer them directly.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, are the problems experienced by the Churches not yet a further example of the increasingly tetchy relationship between the UK and the EU? I commend to my noble friend the very perceptive article in today’s Times by our noble friend Lord Hague, who points out how very important it is that we get on well and constructively? We have not left Europe. These are our friends and neighbours; it is incumbent upon them, and us, to ensure that we have a relationship which enables the normal decencies of life to be observed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack, and indeed with my noble friend Lord Hague. That is why we work very constructively, including on citizens’ rights, with the European Union. The Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights oversees the implementation and application of citizens’ rights; this is part of, and central to, the withdrawal agreement.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the loss of free movement has harmed the lives and livelihoods of so many. Given that families and the ability to work have been severely impacted by the pandemic, are the Government considering alleviating one aspect of the childcare crisis—namely, the loss of au pairs—by providing a usable, dedicated visa route, so that this cultural exchange programme, which also assists families, can continue?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that, as part of the trade and co-operation agreement, we have agreed various protocols. There is not a specific resolution for each and every profession but, as I said in response to an earlier question, we are looking at this very constructively with our European Union friends to ensure that we can unlock any issues or particular challenges for workers, as the noble Baroness has suggested.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, many religious communities are not yet aware of how they will be affected by Brexit. They have relied on EU members to fill temporary posts; this will be hit when free movement ends on 31 December, along with routes for the previous temporary priest cover for summer holidays, for example. They can no longer sponsor a worker in the tier 5 category to fill the post of temporary minister of religion. Do the Government anticipate that the basis of an individual’s visits will fall within the visitors’ visa rules?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will write to my noble friend on the specific question he raises and, of course, place a copy in the library.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Question reminds us that we have inextricable ties of culture, trade and even religion with our former partners in the European Union. Does the Minister agree that, rather than looking selectively to the concerns of Anglicans, we should be looking to better working arrangements for all branches of Christianity, as well as other faiths and cultures, in reducing onerous visa requirements and enhancing better living and working arrangements with our former partners in Europe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will first perhaps correct the noble Lord by saying that we do not regard the European Union as former partners; we continue to have a strong partnership with the European Union on a range of different issues. On the issues of religion and communities across Europe, yes, diversity is a strength of the continent and we should encourage those who wish to visit different parts of it. In this regard, the noble Lord will be aware of what has already been agreed: the ability to visit different countries on a rolling basis without the necessity of visa requirements. Anyone wishing to visit the European Union from the UK can do so for 90 days on a revolving 180-day basis.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to broaden the Question a little. The Church of England has a long and established history of engaging with other Churches in Europe and further afield, as well as with other faith groups. One campaign that it is involved in is VaccinAid, a campaign that aims to help to fund Covid vaccine rollout. What has the Government’s response been to ensure that that programme continues and that the Church of England’s practical support in Europe and further afield is aided?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already said in response to an earlier question, we are working very closely with the Church of England. We have set up a specific fund that helps to support UK citizens and are working with partner organisations, of which the Church of England is one, on the programme that the noble Lord has raised. I will write to him on the specifics of that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to press the Minister on reciprocity. There are expatriate communities in this country that also have religious services—the Swedish Church in London, in which I have sung, and other Lutherans; French and Polish congregations; Jewish congregations with visitors from the continent—so there are clear mutual interests. Are we negotiating on the basis of reciprocity or are we asking for greater freedom of access for UK citizens in the EU than for EU citizens in the UK?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important issue on reciprocal arrangements. There are a whole range of areas where we have seen reciprocal arrangements put in place. The whole purpose of the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights, which is supported both by the UK and by the EU—officials are meeting regularly—is to unlock those very issues that can provide for the kind of access that he is suggesting.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, the questions that I was going to ask have been answered by the Minister in response to the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Wallace, so I am going to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, to ask her question within the allocated time.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, French Minister Clément Beaune recently said in a parliamentary answer that it could be possible to find an opt-out or more flexibility on the 90-day rule for visa-free travel in Europe but that the British had little appetite for negotiating this point. What does the Minister make of that? What action are the Government taking to get a fair deal for UK citizens on visa-free travel in European countries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe that what we have negotiated is a fair deal. It allows anyone from the UK to travel to the European Union—the Schengen area specifically—for 90 days without the requirement of a visa. This period extends 90 days for a period of up to 180 days on a rolling basis. In essence, 50% of that 180 days can be on a visa-free basis. That is a substantive agreement reached with the European Union. On the question of rights, whether of UK citizens within the EU or otherwise, as Members will be aware, two different systems operate, where in certain instances UK citizens have to declare their intent to reregister, while other instances are provided through the natural law applying to existing UK citizens. On both processes, both streams of work are very efficient and effective, and where we find a challenge there is a joint committee to try to resolve those issues.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, thanks to the generosity of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, all supplementary questions have been asked and we can move to the third Oral Question.
Central Bank Digital Currency
Lord Sarfraz
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of a Central Bank Digital Currency.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the UK, like many countries globally, is actively exploring the potential role of central bank digital currencies. A CBDC would be an electronic form of central bank money, like cash, that households and businesses could use to make payments. The Bank of England published a discussion paper in March 2020 exploring the possibility of a UK CBDC, and the Treasury and the Bank are working together to consider next steps.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Does she agree that a digital pound held in an electronic wallet could considerably reduce bank fees and currency risks for businesses buying and selling overseas and, when combined with smart contracts, reduce friction in trade finance? Does she agree that a digital pound could benefit individuals who suffer from exchange losses in foreign transaction fees when travelling?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that CBDCs could present a number of benefits, which the Treasury and the Bank are continuing to explore. These may include supporting resilience, innovation, competition and payments, potentially including reducing costs in domestic and international payments. The Bank of England’s paper last year noted the potential for CBDCs to enable smart contracts, including in relation to the supply and delivery of goods.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
My Lords, while we have been issuing discussion papers, for the last seven years the Chinese have been undertaking practical tests of a digital currency in retail and wholesale markets. When will the Bank of England and the Government start to undertake practical tests for a pound sterling digital currency?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Treasury continues work with the Bank of England on its discussion paper and next steps for that. The Bank has also been part of a coalition of central banks, including the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, in considering the roles of CBDCs internationally and the importance of cross-border interoperability of such CBDCs.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, what specifically is being done to learn from experience in other countries, including the digital yuan in China, the e-krona in Sweden and in particular the sand dollar in the Bahamas, which is already in operation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is correct that a number of countries have launched pilots of central bank digital currencies, which the UK is looking at closely. As I noted previously, the UK is also leading international work to ensure that there are standards for CBDCs and that they are interoperable across different jurisdictions.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I shall bring this down to ground a little. A central bank digital currency paves the way for the abolition of cash, but the market is already doing that: across the country, increasingly over the past year, many businesses refuse to accept cash or cheques and accept only digital—either a card or an app. There are about 5 million people in this country who are excluded because they are cash-dependent. What are the Government doing to ring-fence those people to make sure that they can continue to participate in the economy? What will they do as this move to digital gets even faster?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government recognise that cash remains important to millions of people across the UK and have committed to legislating to protect access to cash in this country.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, while I can understand that a CBDC will help business if it can be got off the ground, can the Government assure us that the status and backing of this currency will be as firm as the real currency that we currently enjoy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I can absolutely reassure my noble friend on that point. A central bank digital currency would need to be a risk-free currency backed by the central bank, and it would need to coexist with and complement existing forms of money.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I had not heard of CBDCs until I was faced with this Question. The briefing paper by the Bank of England in March 2020 is particularly useful. It is clear that the system very much depends on the successful integrity of information technology. A successful cyberattack on the systems would be catastrophic. What additional measures are the Government taking to complement the work of the Bank of England and the Treasury to ensure that any systems introduced are cyber robust?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have a leading cybersecurity programme. In addition to that, the Bank of England has committed to publishing a further paper this year on the potential financial stability impacts of digital currencies because, as the noble Lord notes, as well as the opportunities presented by these currencies there are risks that they could pose.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, CBDCs are here to stay and more than 60 central banks are studying how they could affect the role of traditional forms of money through proofs of concept. Some 36 central banks are exploring both retail and wholesale CBDCs. Will the Minister prioritise government work into how the retail use case can improve payment safety, increase domestic payment efficiency and ensure financial stability and inclusion in the metaverse?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that that is exactly what the Government’s work with the Bank of England is seeking to do. It is focusing on the retail and consumer side of a central bank digital currency rather than wholesale.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Desai. No? I call the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is no surprise that China is a leader in central bank digital currency because essentially this involves us all having a bank account with the central bank over which the Government can, without the most rigorous safeguards, maintain panoptic surveillance. In China it is used as a means of social and economic control. Will my noble friend agree that the British people, jealous of their liberties, should be very anxious about the introduction of such a project here?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I agree with my noble friend on the importance of privacy considerations in these matters. We know that more than 80% of central banks globally are doing some form of work on CBDCs and different nations will take different approaches. In the UK, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Bank of England are looking at all the public policy considerations of a CBDC very carefully, including privacy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister comment on the extent to which the increased use of digital payments during the pandemic is expected to accelerate the development of central bank digital currency in the UK?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The increase in digital payments during the pandemic has happened without the introduction of a central bank digital currency. However, the Government continue to look at the potential benefits of introducing a digital currency which may improve the resilience and innovation of payment systems within the UK.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Is the noble Lord, Lord Desai, there? He is not. All the supplementary questions have now been asked and we move to the next Question.
China: Convictions of Democracy Campaigners in Hong Kong
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jordan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made (1) to the authorities in Hong Kong, and (2) to the government of China, about the recent convictions of democracy campaigners in Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about the targeting of politicians and activists in Hong Kong and are following these cases closely. The apparent focus of the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities seems now to be on retribution against political opposition and the silencing of dissent. We continue to raise our concerns directly with the Hong Kong and the Chinese authorities, including this week with senior members of the Hong Kong Government. We urge the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the joint declaration.
Lord Jordan (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply. This Friday my friend Lee Cheuk-yan, leader of Hong Kong’s independent trade unions, along with other democrats, is likely to be sentenced to years in jail for the crimes of peaceful protest, exercising freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. China’s blatant disregard for agreements and promises and its suppressions of freedoms must be halted.
I ask the UK Government, as a signatory of the Sino-British joint declaration, to lodge a formal complaint at the UN International Court of Justice against China for violating its international obligation. As China’s prosperity is built on trade with the west, I ask the UK Government, together with the United States and the European Union, jointly to tell China that if it continues to deny people their basic human rights, trading arrangements will be put at risk.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the general thrust of the noble Lord’s suggestions, I assure him once again that we are not just working directly in raising these issues with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities but are also doing it on a range of different issues with our key partners, including the United States and European Union.
On the ICJ, the noble Lord will be aware that the application of any decision of the ICJ requires the agreement of both parties. I suggest that in this instance China may not agree with any decision taken at that level. We are keeping the situation, which is fluid, under review to see what further steps we can take.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, may I first take this opportunity to thank the Minister. Within hours of discovering that I had been sanctioned by the Chinese for my work in this House and beyond in relation to the gross human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese Government against the Uighurs and the people in Hong Kong, he was a great support.
Can the Minister say whether the decision by the Chinese Government to sanction UK parliamentarians and convict—as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jordan—decent, good pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong will finally lead to the announcement of Magnitsky sanctions on Hong Kong officials? They are clearly responsible for the dismantling of the city’s autonomy and for covering up human rights abuses.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sure I speak for every Member of your Lordship’s House in paying tribute to the noble Baroness and other parliamentarians, as well as others outside Parliament, who continue to raise their voices in the interests of the Uighur community within China.
On the noble Baroness’s specific points about Magnitsky sanctions, while I cannot speculate, recently we have taken specific steps against those operating in Xinjiang, as I am sure the noble Baroness acknowledges. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, we continue to see what further steps we may take.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, it is welcome that BNO passport holders have a route to UK citizenship, but the current crackdown shows how vital it is that younger people who may not have that entitlement are also protected. What action is being taken to extend these rights to those who do not hold BNO passports?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I will first share with the noble Baroness that the BNO passport route and applications for BNO are functioning smoothly and effectively. On her second point about those who do not qualify for BNO status, if there are specific individuals who raise issues of concern and security and claim asylum within the confines of the United Kingdom, we look at those cases directly and individually.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, whose work in this field is hugely appreciated and acknowledged. Will the Government not only to make representations but, with our allies, to take real and practical steps to bring home to the PCR and the Carrie Lam Administration in Hong Kong that repression will not work? It makes them look ridiculous and should not be pursued.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I totally agree with my noble friend’s second point and I assure him that we are working directly with partners. He will be aware that on 9 January the Foreign Secretary released a statement with Australian, Canadian and US counter- parts on the mass arrests. On 13 March the Foreign Secretary issued a statement declaring a breach of the joint declaration. We continue to work with partners on further steps we may need to take.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, in thanking the Minister for his support following the imposition of sanctions. I declare that I serve as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. Has the Minister noted that, following the Chinese Communist Party’s sanctions on European Union parliamentarians, major parties in the European Parliament have indicated that until sanctions against their MEPs are lifted they will not ratify the European Union comprehensive agreement on investment with China? While sanctions attempting to curtail free speech are imposed on UK parliamentarians, are the Government willing to make a commitment today to take similar action and see how concerted measures can be taken to ensure that parliamentary free speech is not impeded?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. Again, I pay tribute to his work in standing up for the rights of people in both China and Hong Kong. We will continue to observe and work with our partners to see what further steps we can take. I cannot answer the specific point he raised on trade, and nor would he expect me to at this juncture, but, in terms of our relationship, we are keeping all things actively under review.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to my noble friend for the terrific work that she has done and for standing up to the bullies of the Chinese Communist Party. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is important that we are able to respond quickly and effectively, and that means working with our allies. It is now more than a month since the US applied sanctions to Hong Kong officials. Why is it taking us so long? Why are we not working with the United States to ensure that these bullies are stood up to?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are working with the United States. However, in applying any sanctions to anyone across the world, or to any organisation, we need to ensure that, with the robust test that we have set up with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, they are fully justified and can be defended.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, on page 63 of the integrated review the Government say:
“We will not hesitate to stand up for our values and our interests where they are threatened, or when China acts in breach of existing agreements.”
How successful have we been in standing up for our values and interests in relation to Hong Kong?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have been successful. For example, following the action we have taken in the context of the Human Rights Council, there has been an increase in the number of countries supporting the United Kingdom’s statements, not just on Hong Kong but on Xinjiang as well.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, domestic Ministers are currently making preparations across various departments to welcome Hong Kong British national (overseas) passport holders and to ensure that their settlement works well across the four nations. However, I am concerned about some of the families and friends that they leave behind in Hong Kong. Is the Foreign Office making representations to ensure that the families of any of those who take up visas and settle in the UK are not facing retribution?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that BNO status is a generous scheme and extends to family members. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, if specific issues arise with individuals who do not qualify, wherever they may be in the world, the United Kingdom has always been generous in providing protection and I am sure will continue to be so.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the obliteration of democracy in Hong Kong and the persecution of the innocent is simply following the playbook of Germany in the 1930s? A one-party state is tolerating no dissent, treating Taiwan like the Sudetenland, threatening its neighbours, exterminating a religious minority and building a massive military machine preparing for war. Will my noble friend the Minister please tell China that we will form every alliance possible in the world to challenge it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I say to my noble friend that Hong Kong’s prosperity and its way of life rely on the respect for fundamental freedoms, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. I further assure him that we will continue to bring together our international partners—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins—to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their rights and to hold China to the obligations it freely assumed under international law. We will continue to work in that respect.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and it brings Question Time to an end. We move now to the Private Notice Question on Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Northern Ireland: Violence
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the ongoing violence in Northern Ireland, what representations they are making to the Northern Ireland Executive to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government take their responsibilities to protect the provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement extremely seriously. The Northern Ireland Executive are united in their condemnation of recent unrest. The Government will continue to work alongside the Executive to support a peaceful, prosperous Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has met political, community and faith leaders to call for calm and the Government will continue facilitating further constructive discussions over the coming days.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
Mindful of the fact that all the church leaders on the island of Ireland have issued a statement urging political unity, what immediate action will be taken by the British and Irish Governments, acting jointly as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, and working and talking with the political parties in Northern Ireland? Will they hold an immediate meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to address the need for renewed political stability, an end to street violence and tension and a strategy to end poverty and marginalisation —in so doing, adhering to the key principles of the Good Friday agreement, those of peace and reconciliation?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As the noble Baroness will respect, the immediate priority is to provide the Executive and the PSNI with the support needed to manage the current unrest. However, we continue to consider a range of options to support their efforts in the medium term. These include the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference—the BIIGC, to which the noble Baroness referred—which is an important element of strand 3 of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and stands to promote bilateral co-operation at all levels and in all matters of mutual interest.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the recent disgraceful, totally unjustified and counterproductive violence in Northern Ireland has a number of different causes, many of them going back many years? To suggest that this is solely about Brexit is wilfully ignorant of the situation in Northern Ireland. Is it not the case that this Government remain wholly committed to upholding all strands of the Belfast agreement and, in addition to a robust criminal justice response, the Executive urgently need to focus on those policies designed to build a genuinely shared future for all the people of Northern Ireland?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes some sensible points. He is right that the reasons for the unrest are complex and multifarious, some to do with localised issues. The House will know that 10 April this year marks 23 years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed—an achievement of which the UK, Ireland and the US are justifiably proud and which led to transformative change. Today it falls to the people of Northern Ireland to decide what sort of society they want. It is clear that they are choosing the right path, which is to build an inclusive, prosperous and hopeful society that builds on the hard-won peace.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
I support what my noble friend Lady Ritchie has said. Should the Government not decide today to pledge themselves to calling and meeting urgently the parties involved 23 years ago—the British Government, the Irish Government and the United States, perhaps including the EU—and maybe bringing in other moderators to help put the deal together? We cannot now, 23 years on, go on like this. We need to take the next steps to implement parts of the Good Friday agreement that have not been implemented and to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have a decent and peaceful life and that children can be educated.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
To reassure the noble Baroness, and to go further than I did before, much work is going on. The Northern Ireland Secretary is in contact with Northern Ireland’s party leaders. The collective priority at present is to work together to ensure public safety. The noble Baroness will know that the Northern Ireland Executive issued a joint statement on 8 April, which is a very welcome sign of solidarity against the despicable violence and which declared their support for law and order and policing. I assure the noble Baroness that nothing is off the table and they are doing their very best to resolve the current unrest.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also strongly condemn the recent criminal violence. Sadly, 23 years on from the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, segregation, division and poverty are still far too much a part of society in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister regard it as acceptable that only 7% of young people in Northern Ireland are in integrated education? Will he undertake to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive as a matter of urgency to promote measures to overcome these divisions in the education sector?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important and specific point about education. It is appalling that there are reports of teenagers coming on to the streets when, in fact, they should be going back to school—schools have opened—and then back home. I applaud the achievements of the community leaders, who are working extremely hard in the various parts of Northern Ireland where there has been unrest to encourage these pupils to go home and to stop adults encouraging them.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
I join others in saying how deeply disappointing it is that, 23 years later, we are witnessing unjustifiable violence on the streets. However, Her Majesty’s Government have responsibilities with regard to the agreement, and I contend that, in fact, they themselves have set an example and have broken it by changing the economic status of Northern Ireland without either consultation or consent contained in the terms of the protocol. Will the noble Viscount encourage his right honourable friend in the other place to hold all-party discussions? Trying to do deals behind closed doors with a limited number of parties has not worked in the past, and the same mistakes are being repeated time and again.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am listening to the noble Lord’s experience and knowledge. As he will know, the Belfast agreement provided a foundation for growth and a framework for peace. I reassure him that my right honourable friend in the other place, Brandon Lewis, has been working extremely hard. He has met the five parties and other community leaders to help the Northern Ireland Executive to resolve these matters.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, having been very much involved in the negotiations leading to the Belfast agreement, I ask whether the Minister can confirm that it has already been breached by the protocol and that the economic and political status of Northern Ireland has changed without the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland, which was a requirement of the Belfast agreement? Since there is this terrible trouble on the streets, which could continue, will the Minister please encourage the European community to identify the real causes of the unrest in Northern Ireland?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am happy to report that there has been calm over the last two days, particularly last night, as the noble Lord will know. As he will also know, the protocol was designed to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, east/west as well as north/south. The gains of the peace process prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and safeguard Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when we negotiated the Good Friday agreement 23 years ago, we knew that the only way to success was through intensive dialogue and negotiation. While I agree that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is doing his best to talk to the political parties there, is it not now time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said, that the Government meet the Irish Government at prime ministerial level in what is known as the BIIGC—a specific body, set up by the Good Friday agreement to deal with matters like this one? Frankly, we need the spirit of the agreement now in these difficult times.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As the noble Lord will know, I alluded to the BIIGC earlier. The Government are very aware of the ongoing concerns of some in the unionist and loyalist community over recent months. However, I echo the words of the noble Lord: the right way to express concerns and frustrations is through dialogue, engagement and the democratic process, not through violence or disorder. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland met with community, faith and political leaders last week. I reassure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend in the other place is in regular touch with the Irish Government.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, Brexit may not be the only cause of the disorder in Northern Ireland, but it is a catalyst. There have been encouraging press reports in recent days about the progress of technical talks on resolving outstanding issues in the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about this, saying when these technical talks might move to a political phase and result in an agreement to streamline checks and paperwork, while respecting the law?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am happy to give whatever information I can to help the noble Baroness. The UK Government are committed to working rapidly with the EU through the Joint Committee to address the outstanding concerns about the protocol to restore confidence on the ground. It is welcome that the UK and EU are able to use the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee, which they did as recently as 26 March, to take stock of outstanding issues. Following that, the UK Government have proposed a work programme to the EU—the first step in working jointly to make progress across the full range of issues that remain. However, as the noble Baroness will tell me, this is urgent.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the human rights flaw at the heart of the Northern Ireland protocol is that, outwith the Good Friday agreement, binding law and regulation can be amended in a foreign state—in the EU—and then have direct effect in Northern Ireland without any democratic say by the people there. Does my noble friend agree that a first step to addressing this would be to change the protocol so that all binding law and regulation in Northern Ireland is made in a democratic forum where Northern Ireland electors are represented—that is, in this Parliament or, if it is a devolved matter, in the Northern Ireland Assembly? This would strengthen the Good Friday agreement in spirit and action.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
All sides need to continue to work together to ensure that the protocol can deliver these objectives and ensure that Northern Ireland continues to build on the gains of the peace process. We need to create the conditions that allow people and businesses to adapt to and implement the new requirements of the protocol. Ultimately, the protocol’s fate depends on the political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. The Stormont Assembly will vote on it in 2024, as agreed in the protocol.
Lord Eames (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has emphasised the widespread anxiety throughout Northern Ireland at the recent events on our streets, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has endorsed that emphasis. Does the Minister agree with me that, at present, all parties must take the utmost care in their use of language, which can so easily be used as an excuse for violence? We must use every means possible to prevent us drifting back to the dark days of the Troubles. Does he agree that we need to emphasise care in what we say?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Notwithstanding the barking in the background of the noble and right reverend Lord’s call, it was a serious question. He is absolutely right: as well as the work that my right honourable friend in the other place is doing with community leaders, measured language is very important. We do not want to see again these disgraceful scenes and the reckless, dangerous and criminal behaviour on the streets. Of course, this week’s events do not reflect the true spirit of Northern Ireland—the creativity, the optimism, and the determination never to return to the conflict and division of the past.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that at least some people in Northern Ireland believe that the British Government are not as interested in what is going on there as previous British Governments used to be? Furthermore—[Inaudible]—the Government made repeated statements that the protocol—[Inaudible] —not impose any constraint. The Government have to think harder about how we treat the people of Northern Ireland—[Inaudible]—honestly and properly.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid that we missed the point from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, because of connection problems, so I suggest that we move on to the next speaker on the list, with apologies to him.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister will agree to write to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in response to the question. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, no one in government should underestimate the frustration, the disappointment and even the anger across Northern Ireland at the protocol, but it is not the only reason for the recent violence, which we all the condemn. There is an underlying feeling that the east-west relations aspect of the Belfast agreement has been disregarded and that north-south relations have been given more importance. When will Her Majesty’s Government stop taking the neutral position that they seem to adopt? Like the Irish Government, who speak up for Irish nationalism, when will the United Kingdom Government start speaking up for the British union?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We have been doing just this. The union is very important. We have said again and again that Northern Ireland is a firm part of the United Kingdom. On the noble Baroness’s question relating to east-west, I suspect that she is referring to the current challenges and the details that need to be sorted out as a result of Brexit. Much work has been done to ensure that food supplies, parcels et cetera are delivered to Northern Ireland from Great Britain and that supermarket shelves are full, as they should be.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. My apologies to the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Dubs. We will have a brief pause to allow the Chamber to reassemble in readiness for the next business.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, we come to Report on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Tuesday 13th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 147-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (8 Apr 2021)
16:30 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 228 - Amendment 3 agreed.
16:46 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 308 / Noes: 249 - Amendment 6 agreed.
18:35 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 225 - Amendment 13 agreed.
19:49 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 223 - Amendment 14 agreed.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Ability to conduct a fair trial
The principle referred to in section 1(1) is that a relevant prosecutor making a decision to which that section applies may determine that proceedings should be brought against the person for the offence, or, as the case may be, that the proceedings against the person for the offence should be continued, only if the prosecutor has reasonable grounds for believing that the fair trial of the person has not been materially prejudiced by the time elapsed since the alleged conduct took place.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement on a prosecutor deciding whether to bring or continue a prosecution to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we open the debate for the Report stage of the overseas operations Bill, I want to remind colleagues that, like many across this House, we remain determined to protect our troops from vexatious claims and shoddy investigations. We want it to be done in a way which directly tackles the problems head on, and which is in line with our international obligations. As I move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 6, it is with these aims clearly in mind.
I am sure that the Government will try to portray Amendment 1 as a wrecking amendment, but nothing is further from the truth. It aims to protect troops directly by removing the presumption and ensuring that prosecutors have regard to whether there can be a fair trial given the time allowed.
As drafted, the Bill is silent on the cycle of reinvestigations, and we cannot wait for the outcome of yet another MoD review before we deal with it directly. That is why we also fully support Amendment 6, which states, importantly, that there must be compelling evidence to justify a new investigation. It would place an effective framework around investigations, still allowing them to pursue new leads or witnesses when appropriate. This approach is complemented by Amendment 1, but we accept that Amendment 6 might be seen as the priority.
Ministers have identified problems with vexatious claims and shoddy investigations but are pursuing an indirect approach, and many colleagues do not understand why. We have the Bill in front of us now, so let us amend it now to solve the problems for good. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thought it would be interesting to look back at the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the 2019 election. It said that
“we will introduce new legislation to tackle the vexatious legal claims that undermine our Armed Forces and further incorporate the Armed Forces Covenant into law.”
You will note that nothing is said there about a presumption against prosecution or anything about the criminal law, so the proposals in this Bill have been dreamed up without consultation. Certainly, there was no consultation with the former Judge Advocate-General, Jeff Blackett, who is internationally respected for his expertise in this field. As far as I can ascertain, there was no consultation either with the Director of Service Prosecutions or any of his highly respected predecessors. How, incidentally, in the light of the manifesto commitment can the Government resist the amendment that we shall later discuss in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, on the Armed Forces covenant?
The hole in this Bill is that it does not directly address the scandal of delayed investigations and reinvestigations of service personnel. Amendment 6 would fill that gap with a code of investigation procedures. Investigations are fraught with difficulty in overseas operations. They operate in an insecure environment; potential witnesses may be reluctant to speak; there are language and cultural difficulties; and forensic services of the quality to be found in the UK may be unavailable for pathological examinations, DNA sampling, fingerprints and so on. I recall a case from Iraq in which the body of an alleged victim had been buried on the same day, in accordance with Muslim custom, in a cemetery in Najaf which covers 1,500 acres. No Iraqi witness could pinpoint the exact place and, accordingly, there could be no pathological investigation of the cause of death—indeed, in that case, it was an issue as to whether anybody had been killed at all.
It is obvious, therefore, that investigations may be protracted. It is equally obvious that the possibility of prosecution cannot be held over a service man or woman indefinitely. There has to come a point where a decision is made: should this case proceed, or should it stop? Amendment 6 proposes a workable and practicable code in which the service police or other investigator is supervised and monitored by the Service Prosecuting Authority under the direction of the independent Director of Service Prosecutions. Within six months of the report of allegations to the service police, an investigator has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct to refer the investigation to the SPA. Once he is so satisfied, he must make that report within 21 days, submitting his case papers to date for consideration.
Under the proposed subsection (4), the SPA has power to
“order the investigation to cease if it considers it unlikely that charges will be brought.”
Alternatively, the SPA will advise and direct the investigator on the issues he needs to clarify and the direction in which his inquiry should proceed. If the investigation proceeds, the code in Amendment 6 requires that it be reviewed by the SPA every three months, when a fresh decision will be made on whether to cease or proceed with the investigation. On its conclusion, the investigator must send his final report, with accompanying case papers, to the SPA.
The case cannot be reopened at the whim of the investigators. The consent of the Director of Service Prosecutions would have to be sought and granted only on the grounds that there is new and compelling evidence or information that might materially affect the previous decision to close the investigation and might lead to a charge being made. A decision to reopen would, of course, be challengeable by judicial review. As a final back-up, the Judge Advocate-General is given power to give practice directions for these procedures.
So there we have it: a code tailored for the particular circumstances and difficult environment of overseas operations. I shall be moving Amendment 6 in due course. But I also add my support to Amendment 1. The position of the DSP has evolved. Amendment 1 emphasises an important part of his role—considering the public and the service interest in deciding to prosecute and, namely, whether a fair trial might be prejudiced by delay.
The answer to the problem of delay is not to introduce the concept, novel to serious offences in the criminal law of this country, of presumption against prosecution after an arbitrary period of five years has elapsed. Let us take a likely scenario: an ex-soldier confesses to shooting a wounded prisoner, but no evidence emerges for 10 years because the “wall of silence” of his comrades —a phrase used by the trial judge in the case of Baha Musa—has protected him.
Blanket walls of silence appear in other contexts. I once prosecuted a prisoner and extracted a confession from a fellow prisoner of the abduction and murder of a little girl four years before. The first prisoner said nothing of the man’s confession for five years. But then he became an evangelical Christian and finally reported it to the prison governor. The Government say that for such a heinous crime as shooting a wounded prisoner, the presumption would probably be waived, but by whom? Who would decide whether the threshold of heinousness had been passed? If the presumption would be waived routinely so that every murder in theatre should be prosecuted, then murder as a crime should appear in the schedule to this Bill. But if that is resisted—if there are to be degrees of murder so that the presumption would be waived in one instance but not another—what are the criteria?
I turned to the Bill to see what factors are referred to. First, it is immaterial
“whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify prosecution”
according to Clause 1(2). Secondly, the status of the person killed is not a factor for consideration. As to whether the victim is a combatant or a civilian, captured or wounded, man, woman or child, no factors relating to the murdered person are mentioned in Clauses 1 to 3.
What the prosecutor must consider, however, is the adverse effect of operations on the perpetrator, the conditions he was exposed to and the strains and stresses of combat. But here is the most surprising thing: it is not the effect on the individual under suspicion that is considered—how he personally was affected by the exigencies of service, how he suffered from “shellshock”, to use the First World War phrase. It is not like the case of Sergeant Blackman, who remembered, after he had been convicted but in time for his appeal, that he had personally been suffering from stress, and his responsibility was thereby diminished. No; Clause 2(3) provides that
“the prosecutor must have regard to the exceptional demands and stresses to which members of Her Majesty’s forces are likely to be subject while deployed on overseas operations, regardless of their length of service, rank or personal resilience.”
The test is objective. The presumption against prosecution applies even if the personal resilience of the soldier who commits murder or a war crime is such that he is unaffected by the stresses of combat. It is a charter for the callous, psychopathic killer hiding in a military uniform.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 6. The Bill sets out to make better provision about legal proceedings for our Armed Forces when they are or have been engaged on overseas operations. The Bill’s significant emphasis on presumption against prosecution as a way of relieving some of the stress of legal proceedings implies that that solves the problem. However, it is the investigation and reinvestigation process that is so debilitating and wears people down. Prosecution may even come as a form of relief. It is important to bear in mind that even when the presumption is in place, there is no total lifting of the threat of prosecution after five years. This can still happen if the Attorney-General sees fit.
However, that is all by the way. As I have mentioned, the investigation process needs to be addressed to ensure that it remains relevant, that a watchful, supervisory eye is kept on the process so that it does not drift, that there are timelines with which investigators have to comply and that reinvestigations are launched only after the most careful judicial oversight. Amendment 6 sets out to cover all these points, as was so well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. For that reason, it has my support.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall say something about Amendments 1 and 6. Before I do, I draw attention to a ministerial Statement that has been put in the Library about overseas operations in which the MoD indicates its support for service personnel in these situations. The Statement—I hope your Lordships have access to a copy of it—says that the Overseas Operations Bill was introduced
“to provide greater legal protections to Armed Forces personnel and veterans serving on military operations overseas. The Bill would provide a better … legal framework for dealing with allegations and claims arising from future overseas operations and recognising the unique burden and pressures placed on our service personnel.
As part of the debate on this Bill, there has rightly been a focus on the support which MoD provides to those personnel who may find themselves subject to investigations and prosecutions. We are grateful to right honourable and honourable Members of both Houses for the interest they have taken in this issue and their commitment to ensuring that service personnel and veterans who are impacted by historical allegations are properly supported.
As a matter of MoD policy, service personnel are entitled to legal guidance at public expense when they face criminal allegations that relate to actions taken during their service and where they were performing their duties. This principle is at the heart of the MOD’s approach to supporting our people and is enshrined in the relevant Defence Instruction Notices. It is a responsibility that the MOD takes extremely seriously, and we keep our policies under review to ensure that they are appropriate and tailored.
Since the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Armed Forces have learned lessons on better resourcing and professionalising support to those involved in inquiries or investigations arising from operations, and the mechanisms for providing this support have been transformed in recent years. The way this is delivered and by whom will depend on the specific circumstances of the case, the point which has been reached in the proceedings and, most importantly, the needs of the individual concerned.
Any individual who is investigated by the Service Police is entitled to legal representation as well as the support of an Assisting Officer who can offer advice on the process and procedure and signpost welfare resources. The individual’s Commanding Officer and Chain of Command have overall responsibility for the person’s welfare and for ensuring access to the requisite support.
Individuals who are interviewed as suspects under caution will be entitled to free and independent legal advice for this stage of the investigation. Subsequently, legal funding for service personnel and veterans facing criminal allegations can either be provided through the Armed Forces Legal Aid Scheme (AFLAS) or through the Chain of Command.
Where the Chain of Command accepts funding responsibility this is means-test exempt and therefore no personal contribution will be required. The Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority (AFCLAA) will act as a conduit for the provision of publicly funded legal representation on behalf of the chain of command, including all aspects of financial and case management. However, if available evidence suggests the individual was doing something clearly outside the scope of their duty, then it would not be appropriate for that person to receive this Chain of Command funding.
All other serving personnel and veterans facing criminal proceedings prosecuted through the service justice system, and who are not covered by the Chain of Command funding, may apply for legal aid through the AFCLAA and may be required to make a personal contribution, determined by means testing, if funded through the Armed Forces Legal Aid Scheme. This is in line with civilian legal aid scheme.
There is an important exemption from the means testing requirement, which has been waived in criminal cases arising from our Iraq or Afghanistan operations heard in the Service Court. Separately, legal advice and support is also available whenever people are required to give evidence at inquests and inquiries and in litigation and this is co-ordinated by MOD.
We also recognise that for service personnel and veterans who are involved in these processes, legal guidance by itself is not enough. This is why we have developed a comprehensive package of welfare support to ensure we deliver on our commitment to offer ongoing support to veterans.
As part of delivering on this commitment, the Army Operational Legacy Branch (AOLB) was established in 2020 in order to coordinate the Army’s support to those involved in legacy cases. Fundamental to this is ensuring that welfare and legal support is provided to all service personnel and veterans involved in operational legacy processes. The AOLB provides a central point of contact and optimises the welfare network already in place through the Arms and Service Directorates and the network of Regimental Headquarters and Regimental Associations. Veterans UK are also closely engaged in providing support to veterans and, when required, the Veterans Welfare Service will allocate a welfare manager to support individual veterans. Although the AOLB has been established to provide an Army focus to legacy issues, the support it provides is extended to the other services.
This is provided in addition to the range of welfare and mental health support that is routinely offered to all our people. The potential impact of operations on a service person’s mental health is well recognised and there are policy and procedures in place to help manage and mitigate these impacts as far as possible. The MOD recognises that any operational deployment can result in the development of a medical or psychiatric condition and that service personnel may require help before, during and after deployment. All Armed Forces personnel are supported by dedicated and comprehensive mental health resources. Defence Mental Health Services are configured to provide community-based mental health care in line with national best practice.
In terms of support for those who have left the forces, veterans are able to access all NHS provided mental health services wherever they live in the country. As health is devolved and services have been developed according to local populations’ needs, service specification varies. This can mean bespoke veteran pathways or ensuring an awareness of veterans’ needs. All veterans will be seen on clinical need. What is important is that best practice is shared between the home nations and there are several forums in place to provide this.
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs works closely with the MOD and departments across government, the devolved Administrations, charities and academia to ensure the needs of veterans are met.”
I am sorry that that was a rather long but, I think, very comprehensive statement of what is required. Of course, it is not only applicable to operational situations overseas but is also important in reference to all the Armed Forces. It would therefore seem right that this kind of thing should be legislated for in the Armed Forces Bill when it comes along.
I turn briefly to Amendments 1 and 6 in light of that provision. In my submission, Amendment 1 departs from a very clear statement of the situation in which particular prosecutions should not start or be continued, towards a very vague one where the decision is put on the shoulders of the prosecutor, who must decide whether a fair trial is likely to be damaged by the delay.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to offer whole-hearted support to Amendments 1 and 6 which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, also put his name to Amendment 1, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Dannatt, put their names to Amendment 6.
First, I wish to say something about the statement to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has referred. I was going to comment on it later in the context of the new duty of care in Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has taken the trouble to read the statement in full, and it is therefore no doubt fresh in the minds of noble Lords, perhaps this is a convenient moment to express two considerable concerns that I have in relation to the statement by the Secretary for Defence. The first is in relation to legal aid and the second is in relation to mental health support.
In relation to legal aid, there is a very serious ambiguity—perhaps not even an ambiguity, perhaps a straightforward gap—in the support that is being offered to service personnel in relation to legal aid. I refer your Lordships to the part of the passage that reads,
“where the chain of command accepts funding responsibility, this is means-test exempt and therefore no personal contribution will be required. The Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority will act as a conduit for the provision of publicly funded legal representation on behalf of the chain of command including all aspects of the financial and case management, however”—
I emphasise “however”—
“if available evidence suggests the individual was doing something clearly outside the scope of their duty then it would not be appropriate for that person to receive this chain-of-command funding.”
So this non-means-tested automatic funding that does not require a personal contribution is not available to personnel and veterans facing the gravest peril from investigation and prosecution. This is hardly comfort to those to whom this Bill is supposed to be addressed. It is those who face the gravest allegations who principle suggests should have the greatest legal support, for it is those who are facing charges that they were doing something clearly outside the scope of their duty who are losing sleep at night as they may face dishonourable discharge and very serious criminality and consequence. This is the very group who are being let down and denied automatic non-means-tested legal provision. I have to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about the Defence Secretary’s statement offering very much comfort at all to serving Armed Forces personnel or indeed veterans for the reason I set out: those in greatest jeopardy are left with least protection by way of legal aid.
Secondly, in relation to mental health provision, we know and the statement makes clear that to put someone in harm’s way in these circumstances is almost automatically to expose them to great jeopardy in relation to their mental health. Here is an ambiguity rather than a clear gap because at various points in the passages of the statement referring to mental health provision there are caveats about “where needed” “pathways in the community”, “best practice” and “local population needs”. I do not know what these words mean and no doubt the Minister will be able to clarify them in a moment, but to me it looks as if, subject to signposting and pathways, these people are being left, broadly speaking, to take their chances in a Cinderella part of the NHS. It does not seem clear from this statement that all serving personnel and veterans are given automatic mental health support. It is all “subject to clinical needs” or “subject to local population needs” and all of those caveats. That is what I would have said later about the need for the duty of care in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
Returning to Amendments 1 and 6, Amendment 6 and the proposed new clause seem to me to address exactly what the Bill was supposed to: the problem of delayed, shoddy and, therefore, repeated investigations, which cause so much concern to members of the Armed Forces and veterans. Tackling this head-on, with some comprehensive statutory provision to push investigations to be timely and adequate, is a very good idea. Of course, the amendment has very distinguished and gallant supporters.
In relation to Amendment 1, respectfully, I could not disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, more than I do. It replaces the presumption against prosecution with a very common-sense consideration of fair trials and whether they have been compromised by the passage of time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, says that you cannot expect a prosecutor to make those determinations and that it is not appropriate, but this is what prosecutors up and down the land do every day. It is completely within, and absolutely core to, a prosecutor’s duty to consider whether it is possible, in light of the passage of time and the possible deterioration of evidence, for the accused to have a fair trial. This would be crucial to both the evidential test and, indeed, the public interest test, which all prosecutors have to consider. If that is the case—if these are normal prosecutorial factors—this might lead some noble Lords to ask why they should be put in the Bill. They should be because we have been told repeatedly during the passage of the Bill to date that a lot of what is required is comfort—clear statutory comfort to personnel and veterans that they will not be let down by the system and that they will be protected.
Putting this fair trial consideration, and including the passage of time, alongside the new provisions offered on investigations is a very good idea. As others—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in particular—have said, the five-year rebuttable presumption is rebuttable. Perhaps with the triple lock it is very difficult to rebut that presumption, but it will still leave concerns in the minds of personnel and veterans that a lengthy or late investigation may lead to a prosecution. It is so much better to protect people in the way offered by those who tabled these amendments. It is a far greater protection against late, shoddy and repeated investigations than the so-called triple lock that is causing so much concern. Normally, when employers and people seek to protect those who have been under especial pressure at work and in their service, it is support, not immunity, that is offered. That is the common-sense approach offered in these amendments.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 1, to which I have put my name. As a former prosecutor, I do not think that the task it sets the prosecutor is likely to be all that difficult, given that it must proceed on the information available to the prosecutor at the time the decision has to be taken. It may be that the information is relatively slender at the very beginning, when he is considering whether to bring proceedings, but such as it may be, it is the information that he should take into account. If one considers the stage at which proceedings are continuing, which this clause also covers, he is likely to be in possession of a good deal more information. So I do not think that there is anything wrong in the wording of Amendment 1. The essence of it lies more in what it takes out than the simple wording of what it seeks to put in. What it takes out is the presumption. I have no difficulty with the way in which the presumption is expressed in Clause 2, but I do object to it in principle.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of Amendments 1 and 6. There is little I need to add to the words of my noble friend who moved Amendment 1 and the particularly forceful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
As a criminal law practitioner all my professional life, I spell out my concern that, whatever the circumstances, there must be a fair trial in accordance with the principles of our criminal law. Defendants can be materially prejudiced by the passage of time and, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, prosecutors take this into account every day in their decisions. Certainly, in authorising prosecutions that came within my particular field as Attorney-General, I took this into account as a prosecutor. This is my concern. I hope it is the concern of Her Majesty’s Government regarding the current backlog of criminal trials in our courts.
I will give a simple illustration of what can happen in practice. First, memories fail. Secondly, circumstances are embroidered, sometimes innocently. Ask two or three people for their recollection of a fairly simple set of circumstances, and they frequently vary. I have spent many happy hours in our courts pointing out discrepancies in the accounts of different witnesses of very simple circumstances. The deeper one dug, the greater the rewards. They were frequently meat and drink to a defence lawyer who did not have much greater ammunition.
I will mention rape trials as an example. Whenever the defences consent, in my experience, the chances of a London jury convicting when no complaint is made within three weeks are not high. This is a very serious matter, which we will have to address at some stage. Time is of the essence in seeing that justice is done to both complainant and defendant.
I hope that the drafters of the Bill, in particular this clause, have sufficient experience of the dangers of justice not being done when there has been a passage of time. I support these amendments and believe that they are sufficiently important to be put in the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I support both Amendments 1 and 6. In the light of all that has been said, I need not add anything in respect of Amendment 1, but will make some brief remarks on Amendment 6. Investigating offences and prosecuting them are inextricably intertwined. To ensure fairness to all concerned—complainants, victims, defendants and prospective defendants—an integrated approach is essential.
By and large, in our civilian justice system, the CPS and police forces have, over the years, come to work very closely together to the benefit of all. In the military justice system, there can be no doubt that the creation of the post of DSP has, particularly through the work of the highly respected holders of that independent office, greatly improved the quality and fairness of service prosecutions. It is now clear that the conduct of investigations has given rise to most of the issues and, in that respect, reform is needed. This amendment is therefore greatly to be welcomed.
The amendment does not deal with instances in which there has been an error in failing to identify cases where there is evidence of criminal conduct but nothing has been done. It is not appropriate to address that at this stage; no doubt it can be covered when Sir Richard Henry Henriques has reported. However, in cases where the investigator has concluded that there is evidence of criminal conduct, the interposition and proposed role of the Director of Service Prosecutions should bring significant improvement.
In my experience of the military justice system, there are many reasons why delays in prosecution occur, but often the causes are lack of focus, insufficient concern about timeliness, and a lack of accountability—particularly the latter. It is clear that the delays that occurred in relation to Iraq arose in large part from these factors, although, as the Minister pointed out in Committee, there have been great improvements since and in the work of IHAT. The risks of a lack of focus, a failure to act with expedition and timeliness, and a lack of accountability remain, as they are endemic to any system. This clause should address those issues.
I will make one last observation. I particularly welcome the provision for the Judge Advocate-General to give practice directions to investigations of overseas operations. Although that would not be usual for a judge in the civilian system, the Judge Advocate-General has a unique role. This was particularly demonstrated by the highly successful and distinguished tenure of that office by Judge Blackett. When holder, he ensured that changes were made to keep the service justice system in line with modern procedure. The power to make practice directions for investigations is consistent with the Judge Advocate-General’s unique role and, I hope, will ensure that problems are promptly addressed as the way in which cases are investigated changes, with changes to the way in which matters should be done as well as the advent of technology.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support both amendments, but in particular Amendment 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. Both seek to focus on prosecution, but also deal with the issue that the Government stated at the outset that they wanted to deal with; that is, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out, vexatious claims. The way the Bill is presently drafted does little to deal with repeated investigations. These amendments, in particular Amendment 6, are intended to deal with precisely the problem that the Government say that they wish to deal with. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to us how she feels that the Bill, as drafted, is going to do what the Government claim that they want to do, because nothing in the Bill is going to stop vexatious investigations.
These amendments are not intended to undermine the Bill. In moving Amendment 1, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that the Government would perhaps think that it would rip the heart out of the Bill. Neither is intended to do that; they are intended to be helpful and ensure that vexatious and unnecessary prosecutions cease and that prosecutions are dealt with expeditiously, where appropriate. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, these Benches do not think that prosecutors will find it too difficult to do the job outlined for them in Amendment 1. I support the amendments, and we will call a vote on Amendment 6, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out earlier.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank your Lordships for your contributions. As has been indicated, Amendment 1 seeks to replace the presumption against prosecution with a requirement that the prosecutor, when deciding whether or not to prosecute a case, should consider only whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.
I say as a general comment that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, dwelled at length on the important matter of support for our Armed Forces, as covered by the Written Ministerial Statement tabled today. The noble Baroness raised specific issues which, with her indulgence, I propose to deal with when we debate Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
I will explain why the Government are resisting Amendment 1. In doing so, I will cover much of what I said on this in Committee. First, we are not suggesting that service personnel or veterans have been subject to unfair trials. Our concerns have always been about the difficulties and adverse impacts on our personnel from pursuing allegations of historical criminal offences. Your Lordships are familiar with the character of such difficulties and adverse impacts—repeated inquiries and uncertainty hanging over the heads of our personnel for years as to whether any prosecution is to be brought.
Secondly, we are reassured that a person’s right to a fair trial—the nub of this amendment—is already protected in law by, among other safeguards, the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Thirdly, the amendment would remove the high threshold of the presumption against prosecution. We have specifically introduced this measure to provide the additional and overdue protection that we believe our service personnel and veterans so rightly deserve, while ensuring that, in exceptional circumstances, individuals who have done wrong can still be prosecuted for alleged offences.
Fourthly and lastly, Part 1 of the Bill already addresses the potentially negative effects of the passage of time, by requiring a prosecutor to give particular weight to the public interest in finality in Clause 3(2)(b).
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, after listening to the debate, it is clear that we are united in seeking to protect our troops from vexatious claims and shoddy investigations. Both amendments in the group seek to do this and would approach the issue head on, unlike the presumption. However, I am convinced from my previous research and from listening to the debate that Amendment 6, which has direct effect, has the appropriate priority. It seems that, while one hears little accusation of unfairness by prosecutors, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, there is a requirement for prosecutors to ensure that prosecutions are fair. There has been much concern about the investigations, so I favour the clarity of Amendment 6. We will not divide the House on Amendment 1 and will support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, whom we urge to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 6. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 5: Requirement of consent to prosecute
Amendment 2
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is one of a series in the name of Baroness Ritchie designed to limit the extent of the bill insofar as it applies to the courts in Northern Ireland in order to remedy the incompatibility of the present bill with the provisions of the Belfast Agreement that require incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Irish law in a manner that ensures direct access to the courts and remedies for ECHR breaches.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, all the amendments in this group apart from Amendment 18 are in my name. Amendments 2, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 30 are the core amendments and the others in my name are consequential.
The purpose of this suite of amendments is to limit the extent of the Bill’s application to the courts in Northern Ireland in order to remedy its incompatibility with the provisions of the Belfast agreement that require incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Irish law in a manner that ensures direct access to the courts and remedies for ECHR breaches.
These amendments are supported by the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland, and Rights and Security International, based in London. They are concerned that the Bill as drafted directly conflicts with binding provisions under the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement and would roll back broader reforms of the peace process in Northern Ireland.
I raised these issues in Committee and took note of the Minister’s response. In the longer term, it would be preferable if I could secure a meeting with the Minister, along with the two rights-based organisations, to discuss these pertinent issues. For now, I shall continue.
Both these organisations concur with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others that the Bill, as it applies to the UK as a whole, breaches the UK’s legal obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law. Amendments to remove provisions in the Bill to address these breaches would also, by default, remove the incompatibility with the Belfast agreement. Should these amendments not be made, the issue of incompatibility with the Belfast agreement would remain and would, I fear, set a dangerous precedent if left unchallenged. I therefore urge the Minister to meet me, and representatives of both organisations, to discuss these issues further.
The Belfast agreement includes a UN-lodged international treaty, under which the UK is legally bound to implement the provisions within its competence. Paragraph 6—the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity section of the agreement—includes the following undertaking:
“The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the Convention”.
As currently drafted, the Bill undermines this provision by limiting direct access to the Northern Ireland courts and to remedies for breaches of the ECHR in relation to proceedings in connection with overseas operations. It should be noted that the commitment to incorporate the ECHR in Northern Irish law is not limited to events in Northern Ireland.
Under Article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol to the UK-EU withdrawal agreement, “Rights of Individuals”, the UK has made a legally binding commitment that there will be no diminution of rights in the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity section of the 1998 agreement as a result of the UK’s departure from the EU. This commitment is given domestic legal effect through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. It would clearly make a mockery of this Brexit-related commitment to the Belfast agreement if the Government, while simultaneously championing it, concurrently diminish rights under the same section of the agreement for other reasons. That would be the case under this Bill.
Quite clearly, the Bill would set a difficult precedent, especially in the light of the Government’s stated intentions to review the Human Rights Act and of the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 March 2020 to introduce legacy legislation for Northern Ireland that provides a level of equivalence to the current Bill.
Clause 5—in so far as it applies to Northern Ireland—would have the practical effect of reversing one of the key criminal justice reforms of the peace process. In the criminal justice review which flowed from the Belfast agreement, superintendence of the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Attorney-General was removed to ensure the independence of the prosecutor. That change was made in the context of the Attorney-General’s controversial role in decisions not to prosecute members of the Armed Forces. Clause 5 would, in effect, restore the situation whereby the UK Advocate-General for Northern Ireland would wield a de facto veto over prosecutorial decisions in cases falling under the scope of the present Bill, returning to the situation of what would be seen as political intervention in such cases. That is why my amendment seeks to leave out lines 27 to 29, which deal specifically with Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 18 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. It is a simple amendment to Clause 15, seeking to put into legislation the promise made by the Government that the same protections in relation to prosecutions of veterans of overseas operations will apply to those who served in Northern Ireland—that is, to the 300,000 service personnel involved in Operation Banner from 1969. The amendment requires the Government to report on progress to that end before the necessary commencing regulations under subsection (2) are made. I hope that progress will come early rather than later, although I recognise that it will require courage within government—the same kind of courage as was displayed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Johnny Mercer MP, who took this Bill through Committee in the other place.
On Second Reading, I explained that the Army and the police stopped a civil war breaking out in Northern Ireland, for which they get little thanks, just vexation, prosecutions and unending reinvestigations—largely due, ironically, to the overinterpretation of the right to life in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They paid a colossal price in blood: some 700 soldiers, including in the UDR, and 300 RUC officers were murdered. The equivalent number of police officers killed on a UK-wide basis would be 10,000; that figure says it all.
In reality, the Bill is limited in its provisions. Reinvestigations will not be ended but I hope that they will be curtailed. It does not constitute an amnesty, although it is worth pointing out that, since the Belfast agreement, we have already had many elements of an amnesty, including the early release of all paramilitary prisoners and the letters of comfort for IRA members on the run.
Now the only matters investigated and coming to prosecution are those involving Army veterans, half a dozen of whom are awaiting trial in relation to events 50 years ago. That process has taken a very long time. Much of the investigation evidence appears to be based on files in the National Archives at Kew, where the Troubles archaeology proceeds apace. The IRA did not leave any paperwork to be excavated, of course.
The Bill before us carries in Clause 1 a permission for prosecutors to consider
“whether or not any proceedings against a person for a relevant offence should be continued”.
This is a key provision that must be extended to Northern Ireland and just might enable the persecution to cease. Our Amendment 18 is grouped with 17 others, all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, from whom we have just heard. Those 17 amendments are a pre-emptive strike against the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland, which is what my amendment wants. It is being pushed hard by the legal academics at Queen’s University and the CAJ, who all seem to be more obsessed with persecuting veterans than real justice.
In the Member’s explanatory statement, the noble Baroness states that the Bill is incompatible
“with the provisions of the Belfast Agreement that require incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Irish law”.
However, in my view, she misinterprets the 1998 Belfast agreement. It said nothing about the prosecution or non-prosecution of members of the security forces. Yes, the UK Government undertook to incorporate the ECHR into British law; they duly did so in the November of that year when the Human Rights Act received Royal Assent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said at Second Reading,
“nothing in the Bill could be interpreted as undermining the commitments contained in the Belfast agreement, and nothing that would diminish the essence of the protections that the Human Rights Act currently offers to the people of Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 9/3/21; col. 1585.]
The Government gave a promise. I strongly want to believe that promise but I am afraid that some of the things that have happened in Northern Ireland recently show even more that there is a need for this Government, and us in your Lordships’ House, to show that we mean what we say. That is why I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept my amendment and put it into the Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the collection of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It does not take me to remind your Lordships that this is a very difficult moment in Northern Ireland and not one to be doing anything to undermine, or anything that could be interpreted as undermining, the Good Friday agreement.
I hear the endorsement from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, of the Government’s position: that the Bill must do nothing to jeopardise the ECHR and the agreement. With respect, however, that view is not shared by human rights analysts in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland and internationally. Of course, in this respect, even the perception of jeopardising the convention, and therefore the agreement, is a significant problem.
In the context of Northern Ireland, the problem stems from going down this road of de facto—or attempted—immunities and statutes of limitation in the first place. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, further demonstrates the difficulty with opening this Pandora’s box and going for limits on prosecution and on suits against the Government rather than bolstering the robustness and timeliness of investigations and providing adequate support for veterans and serving personnel.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, all the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has put before your Lordships would delete from this Bill its application to Northern Ireland. In other words, the result of these amendments would be that this defence Bill would not affect Northern Ireland.
It is vital that all defence legislation for the United Kingdom applies to the United Kingdom because the purpose of that body of legislation is the protection and defence of the whole United Kingdom. Therefore, whatever solution may be necessary for what the noble Baroness speaks of, it certainly cannot be to delete from the defence legislation of Northern Ireland an Act that will affect the defence legislation of the rest of the United Kingdom. I strongly suggest that this is not a feasible way of proceeding. I am all in favour of her having a meeting with the Minister in early course— I hope that the Minister will have time for that—but I do not think that we in your Lordships’ House can possibly accept this solution.
So far as the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is concerned, the question of how to deal with this matter is very tricky indeed. I have been anxious about it for a long time, and I do not see it getting any easier to solve. I do not feel able to comment on the wisdom of that amendment at this time, but I would be happy to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, although on this occasion I do not reach the same conclusion as he does. I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for the reasons that she has eloquently given. I wish to add to that only by emphasising that it is not acceptable to undermine the commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights provided by the Belfast agreement. Recent events have emphasised the importance of upholding and, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti pointed out, being seen to uphold, both the letter and the spirit of that agreement.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been an important short debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, set out very clearly in her speech, these amendments aim to limit the extent of the Bill in so far as it applies to the courts in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday/Belfast agreement provides that the Government will complete incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law, ensuring direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the convention. When we debated a different set of amendments in Committee last month, a number of noble Lords raised very real concerns that the Bill, as it currently stands, could potentially be interpreted as undermining this requirement.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out, there are, in particular, concerns that the Bill will not allow for either direct access to the courts or domestic solutions for any breaches of the ECHR for cases that fall under its remit. When we previously debated these matters in Committee, it was made clear that this Bill does not deal with matters relating to Northern Ireland, but I would be grateful if the Minister would none the less address the specific issue of incorporating the ECHR into law in Northern Ireland.
In light of the recent tensions and, indeed, violence in Northern Ireland, it is more important than ever that the Government reconfirm their continued and unequivocal support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, including in all of its practical applications in terms of rights. In Committee on 9 March, I raised a number of other concerns about the Government’s general approach towards legacy issues and asked whether they remain fully committed to the balanced and well-considered approach set out in the Stormont House agreement. Some 23 years since the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed, and well over a year since New Decade, New Approach was published, it is increasingly important that the Government make clear their policies and general approach to legacy matters. This is all the more urgent given recent events, where, all too tragically, we have been witnessing a return to the politics of blame and division.
I appreciate that the Minister, who is always so generous in her replies, is not actually from the Northern Ireland Office, but I asked in Committee whether I could receive a more detailed reply on this subject, perhaps in a letter, or have a meeting with the Northern Ireland Office to discuss these matters in more detail. Unfortunately, neither has been forthcoming, so I would like to add to the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for a meeting so that we can discuss and explore these matters further.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, important issues have been raised on this group and I thank colleagues for tabling these amendments. The Good Friday agreement is central to the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland; we all have a vital role to play in safeguarding that agreement and building on its promise, and we must ensure that this Bill, or any other, protects it.
The Bill raises important concerns over access to justice and it should be improved for the entire United Kingdom. The Government have also promised legislation to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. Ministers need to get this delicate legislation right: it must be in the spirit of the Stormont House agreement; we need victims to be at the heart of legacy proposals; and the Bill must maintain a broad-based consensus on proposals, as outlined in New Decade, New Approach, which restarted power-sharing. I look forward to hearing from the Minister actual details about this, rather than the usual “when parliamentary time allows” line.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, once again I thank your Lordships for contributions to an important issue which is, for obvious reasons, very much to the forefront of our minds at the moment.
Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, seeks to create a new condition that must be satisfied before the provisions in the Bill can be commenced. That condition is for the Government to publish a report on the progress made in relation to legislation addressing the legacy of the Troubles. I thank the noble Baroness for her eloquent address, to which I know we all listened with both respect and interest, but I think she will understand that the Government cannot accept an amendment, no matter how well intentioned, that puts conditions on the timing of the implementation of provisions that seek to provide certainty and reassurance to our service personnel and veterans who have served on overseas operations, which is a different issue from the position of Northern Ireland.
I understand the concerns that sit behind this amendment, so I reassure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to making progress on legacy issues and we will not allow our brave service personnel who served in Northern Ireland to be forgotten. In order to make further progress, the Northern Ireland Office must continue to engage with the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland parties, and civic society, including victims’ groups. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the UK Government recognise the importance of working with all parts of the community as part of this process.
I hope noble Lords will recognise that, sadly, the pandemic has had an impact in causing a loss of momentum, but I reassure your Lordships—in particular with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said just a few minutes ago—that this Government will bring forward legislation to address the legacy of the Troubles that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims, and ends the cycle of investigations. The Government—in particular, the Northern Ireland Office —are committed to making progress on this important issue as quickly as possible. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, will be minded to not move her amendment.
The other amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, seek either to remove references to Northern Ireland in parts of the Bill or to stop certain provisions extending to Northern Ireland. The Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for a reason. Defence is a United Kingdom competence and our Armed Forces personnel are drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom, in whose name they serve. That is why the effects of the provisions in the Bill are substantively the same throughout the entire United Kingdom. It is right and desirable that the objectives of the Bill should apply throughout the United Kingdom; my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made that point well.
However, as different pieces of legislation in the different nations of the UK are impacted by the Bill, to ensure technical compliance and drafting accuracy the necessary amendments have been effected in respect of the relevant law in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. I say gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the Bill is not a de facto immunity, and I think many people are coming to accept that as being an extravagant interpretation of the Bill.
Clause 10 and Schedule 4, which this group of amendments seeks to remove in their entirety, amend only the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. These provisions introduce new factors that the Northern Ireland courts must consider when deciding whether to allow certain claims relating to overseas military operations to be brought after the primary time limit expires and set the maximum time limit for such claims at six years. It is necessary to extend similar provisions across the whole of the UK to ensure consistency. Your Lordships would acknowledge, I think, that it would be deeply unsatisfactory if the changes that the Government are introducing in relation to claims brought in England and Wales and Scotland could be circumvented by a claimant bringing their claim in Northern Ireland instead.
I am absolutely sure that the intent of these amendments is not to create legal loopholes. No one could listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, without understanding her commitment and sincerity about the concerns that she has articulated. The stated reason for these amendments is a concern that the Bill will undermine a specific provision in the Belfast agreement stipulating that the United Kingdom Government would complete the incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights, with direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the convention rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, sought reassurance on this point.
As I said when this issue was debated in Committee, the commitment to incorporate the ECHR into Northern Ireland law has already been met by enacting the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides for direct access to the domestic courts to vindicate convention rights, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides that the Northern Ireland Assembly may legislate only in a way compatible with the convention rights, and that Northern Ireland Ministers must also act compatibly with these rights. As currently drafted, the Government consider the Bill compatible with the convention rights. Your Lordships will acknowledge that review of the Human Rights Act is not the responsibility of the MoD.
Statutory limitation periods, which seem to be what these amendments are mainly concerned with, are generally considered legitimate restrictions on the right of access to a court. That right of access is not absolute, and the European Court of Human Rights has upheld the compatibility of limitation periods, even if these periods are in themselves absolute, including the absolute six-year limitation period for claims resulting from intentional torts in England and Wales. That was the finding in Stubbings and Others v the United Kingdom. Limitation periods do not impair the essence of the right of access to a court. Such periods ensure legal certainty and finality, avoid stale claims and prevent injustice where adjudicating on events in the distant past involves unreliable and incomplete evidence because of the passage of time. As such, nothing in the Bill would diminish the essence of the protections that the Human Rights Act currently offers the people of Northern Ireland. I reassure noble Lords that the measures in the Bill do not undermine the United Kingdom’s commitment to human rights and to the European Convention on Human Rights.
For the reassurance of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I repeat that this Government remain fully committed to the Belfast agreement, the constitutional principles it upholds, the institutions it established and the rights it protects. This agreement has been the foundation for the welcome political progress, peace and stability in Northern Ireland over the last 22 years and will be protected going forward.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, have asked whether I am agreeable to meeting them. I am very happy to agree to meet them if I can help them, but it may be—and I would ask them to reflect on this—that they would find engaging with the review of the Human Rights Act, and perhaps meeting with the Northern Ireland Office, more relevant to their specific concerns. If they still wish to meet me, however, I would, of course, be happy to do that. With the explanation offered by these remarks, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, some in favour of my amendment and others not. That is the very nature of debate: it is about achieving an opinion that can be either for or against a particular Motion or amendment—or, in this instance, several amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, outlined her amendment in relation to Operation Banner. She obviously viewed my amendments as a pre-emptive strike at removing the references to Northern Ireland from the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, believed that it was important not to undermine human rights provisions, particularly in relation to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—a view also taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is very much a learned lawyer, said that this was about protecting the defence of the UK. While I understand that argument, I am none the less concerned that there will be contraventions of the Belfast agreement in terms of the ECHR.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, agreed about the importance of the Belfast agreement, particularly at the moment, in developing political stability—a view shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie—and the importance of that political stability. As I said earlier during my Private Notice Question, there is a compelling need for the British and Irish Governments to meet as part of the intergovernmental conference, a provision within the Good Friday agreement to deal with all these issues, including this one, which will become very pertinent to legacy issues and veterans.
The Minister has kindly agreed to the meeting request of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and me. I suggest, in relation to that, that we might meet the noble Baroness, the noble and learned Lord and the Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, because these are issues to do with the Belfast agreement and Northern Ireland. While my views and concerns have not been assuaged to any degree, I feel that these issues would be better explored in such a meeting, to which the noble Baroness has very kindly agreed. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to Amendment 3. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 6: “Relevant offence”
Amendment 3
“( ) An offence is not a “relevant offence” if it amounts to—(a) torture, within the meaning of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture); or(b) genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime as defined in section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (meaning of “genocide”, “crime against humanity” and “war crime”).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 3 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord West. The amendment will provide that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture.
Maybe after a lifetime in politics I was affected by some uncharacteristic naivety in thinking that the Government, faced by almost universal and expert opposition on this aspect of the Bill, would by now have changed their mind. Reasonable and knowledgeable people can only be dismayed by the obduracy of Ministers in this situation, and it is why there is a more than normal responsibility on this House to ask the Commons to look again, reflect and change the Government’s mind, before lasting and serious damage is done to the interests of our Armed Forces and the reputation of this country.
The objective of the Bill is clear and understandable: it is to protect our troops in foreign operations from vexatious prosecutions. Who could reasonably object to that? Certainly not me. But sadly, the Bill does not do what it claims to do and instead actually harms those whom we seek to protect. At best it would prevent only 1% of prosecutions, but it would not prevent seemingly endless investigations. Not only would this legislation not do what it claims to do but it would single out our Armed Forces for a privileged protection previously unknown in British law—what the Law Society, in its submission to us today, calls a “quasi-statute of limitations”.
For the first time in the history of British law we would be creating a two-tier justice system in which troops acting for us abroad would be treated differently from other civilians in society. That is serious enough, and alone should make Ministers worry about what they are embarking on, but, additionally, by saying that there is a presumption against prosecution for the most serious of all crimes—namely genocide, crimes against humanity and torture—the Bill undermines some of the most basic international legal standards for which this nation was renowned.
It does not end there. As a result of this quasi-statute of limitations, our troops might, for the first time, have to appear in front of the International Criminal Court. The chief prosecutor of the ICC, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, has said that
“were the effect of applying a statutory presumption be to impede further investigations and prosecution of crimes allegedly committed by British service members … the result would be to render such cases admissible before the ICC”.
The next chief prosecutor of the ICC is a British nominee, Mr Karim Khan, and the irony might be that among his first cases could be a British one.
Like so many of my predecessors as Defence Secretary or NATO Secretary-General, in these positions I had to take weighty decisions about foreign deployments and sending people into harm’s way. These were never easy or lightly thought decisions, and there were many sleepless nights involved. No one should underestimate my feeling when I say that I believe that this Bill is bad for our troops, bad for our British legal system and very bad for our national reputation.
I ask the Minister today to reflect for a moment on a few additional factors. First, there was unanimous criticism from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and my noble friend Lord West, in the last debate that we had. Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, former Conservative Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and former Conservative Attorney-General Dominic Grieve, have all publicly opposed this measure. What about General Sir Nick Parker, former commander of British land forces, who urged Ministers not to damage the reputation of British Armed Forces overseas? Then there is Bruce Houlder QC, a former Director of Service Prosecutions, who told the Financial Times that the five-year limit would be “an international embarrassment”. On top of all these salvos, just yesterday the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, issued a statement of real significance, saying that this Bill
“in its current form, risks undermining key human rights obligations that the UK has committed to respect.”
I remind the House of the report of the non-partisan committee of both Houses of the British Parliament, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which considered this Bill and said that
“we have significant concerns that the presumption against prosecution breaches the UK’s legal obligations under international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict), international human rights law and international criminal law. It risks contravening the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute and international customary law.”
Those are devastating comments.
Perhaps, in my naive hopefulness, I allowed myself to think that no Government, still less one ostensibly committed to the interests of our Armed Forces, would pursue a measure which would harm them, their reputation and the reputation of our country as a stalwart upholder of the highest international legal standards. That is why I hope that now, at the last minute, the Minister will recognise the forces of reason arrayed against her and, in good military parlance, make a tactical retreat. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. I wholeheartedly endorse his comments. He has made the case so well, having spoken with all the advantage and experience of high office in government and NATO, that I can be relatively brief.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, pointed, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson did, to the broad coalition inside and outside this House which spans from well-experienced military personnel to the United Nations, human rights charities and former Defence Secretaries. Those diverse voices have cogently argued that we should extend the exclusions from the presumption to cover genocide, torture and crimes against humanity. Echoing those concerns when speaking earlier today on a previous amendment, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead also set out some of the compelling reasons why the House should support Amendment 3.
I will say a few words about the crime of genocide. Following the overwhelming support which the House gave to the all-party amendments on genocide that I recently moved to the Trade Bill, the House will have noted that many of the same arguments advanced during those debates about strengthening the rule of law also apply to Amendment 3.
Reflect for a moment that the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor has urged the United Kingdom
“to ensure that the exemption clause extends to all crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court”.
Are we seriously going to ignore this admonition? What calculation have we made of the reputational damage and the danger of being accused of being Janus-faced when we call out genocide in places such as Xinjiang, against the Uighurs, or Myanmar, against the Rohingya, but do not hold ourselves to the same stringent test?
Showing contempt or disdain for the ICC is something that we usually associate with authoritarians and dictators. We should be leary of being found in such disreputable company. It also stands in stark contradiction to the vaunted claims in the integrated review that the United Kingdom will be a world leader in promoting British values and a rules-based international order. Global Britain will be measured by its actions and not as a slogan.
The ICC’s chief prosecutor has said that, as this Bill stands, the result would be to
“render such cases admissible before the ICC”,
and that the UK would
“forfeit what it has described as its leading role, by conditioning its duty to investigate and prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law, crimes against humanity and genocide on a statutory presumption against prosecution after five years.”
As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, added her voice only yesterday, urging us, as parliamentarians, to heed warnings that, in its current form, the Bill risks undermining key human rights obligations that the United Kingdom has committed itself to respect. She urged us to ensure that the law
“remains entirely unambiguous with regard to accountability for international crimes perpetrated by individuals, no matter when, where or by whom they are committed”.
She went on to pay tribute to our courts and what she called
“the independence and fairness for which they are known around the world”.
She urged us to maintain and strengthen our judicial approach to atrocity crimes—to strengthen, rather than diminish, their standing and reputation.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 3 and have added my name to it. I have the advantage of having heard the last two contributions to this debate, which is, to some extent, a rehearsal of that which we held in Committee. I will take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, on one point—I have often known him to be hopeful but never naive.
I am tempted to adopt a speech that I made in Committee and sit down, but I will not do that because, like those who have spoken already, I do not understand the intransigence of this Government. I do not recall any noble Lord, other than the noble Baroness herself, making any speech in favour of the Government’s position either at Second Reading or in Committee. How much does it take? How much evidence is necessary to persuade this Government to change their mind?
Of course, we have heard the weight and the quality of the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with his extensive experience. We heard, essentially, the forensic destruction of the government case, line by line, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in Committee, and we continue to hear the well-known and, one might think, well-informed opposition of Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank and General Sir Nick Parker. Some of these have been mentioned already, but no one has mentioned Elizabeth Wilmshurst —that most courageous opponent of the legality of military action against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, who resigned from her position in the Foreign Office—and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who has been both Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. How is it that, in the face of the mounting volume of evidence against them, the Government insist on holding to this position? I fail to understand.
In Committee, I quoted from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. At that stage, its approach to this was to provide an executive summary, in the course of which it said that
“murder, torture and other grave war crimes face substantial legal barriers before there can be a prosecution … The Bill undermines our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture”.
Again, I ask: what further evidence is required to persuade the Government that they are in the wrong place? Since then, the Bingham centre has produced a more detailed analysis of this proposed legislation. If your Lordships wish to see it reinforce what it has previously said, you will find that on page 16 of that analysis.
What do we know now? The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has made pretty clear a view that might result in a British citizen, a member of the British Armed Forces, possibly being taken to the International Criminal Court—can you imagine it? This country takes pride in our being advocates for the rules-based order in the face of other countries that simply want to ignore it or toss it aside.
I refer to the interests of the United Nations and the official responsible for human rights. Can you imagine the embarrassment of a prominent member of the Security Council asserting the rules-based order, in the teeth of Russian and Chinese unwillingness? I would love to know what the permanent representative of the British mission at the United Nations thinks about the position now being adopted.
Perhaps we should not be surprised. To plagiarise Lewis Carroll, laws mean what we want them to mean. That is certainly the position that was adopted when we came to Part 5 of the Internal Market Bill. What does this do for our standing and influence? How can we make those who breach international law understand the consequences of what they are doing if we are, on the face of it, doing exactly the same ourselves?
I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness because she has gallantly sought to defend the Government’s position. However, I finish by offering her some advice: Oliver Cromwell, in a substantial disagreement with the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, wrote on 3 August 1650—the language is perhaps of its time:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
The language may no longer be appropriate, but the sentiment is surely something to which she should give effect.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
I wish to speak briefly in support of Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and others. I say at the outset that I will not be able to match the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who preceded me and whose views I totally share.
I speak in support of this amendment, as I did in Committee, on the grounds of both principle and pragmatism. The arguments of principle that underpin this amendment are clear. Unamended, the Bill would effectively—de facto if not de jure—open the door to a time limitation on the inquiry into and, where justified, the prosecution of the most heinous of crimes set out in the Rome statute, establishing the International Criminal Court—war crimes and genocide—and those set out in the convention against torture.
I say gently to the Minister that I was a bit disappointed that, in one of her replies to earlier amendments, she suggested that the suggestion that this was a de facto limitation was quite wrong. I question what she said then because if it is not a de facto limitation, what on earth is the point of the Bill? I really do not understand it. I happen to support the main thrust of the Bill.
Neither the Rome statute nor the torture convention provides for any such time limitation on the crimes covered by them, nor in my view should they do so for crimes of that extraordinary seriousness. I suggest that to allow such a limitation into our domestic legislation is not consistent with this Parliament’s ratification of the Rome statute and of our acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC. At a time when there is so much evidence worldwide of these sorts of crimes being committed—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken movingly about them—we should not be playing fast and loose with our own obligations to inquire into them and to prosecute.
The arguments of pragmatism are equally compelling. Unamended, the Bill will actually increase, not decrease, the chances of British service personnel falling within the purview of the ICC. We know that because we have been explicitly warned of it by the court’s prosecutor, who has hitherto relied on our willingness to prosecute crimes under the Rome statute as a sufficient reason not to pursue such cases through the ICC machinery. If that commitment were in any way removed or questioned, the chances of action by the ICC would sharply increase. I was glad to hear the Minister, in responding to earlier amendments, recognise that that risk really exists. It would be a supreme and shameful irony if action by the ICC had to be taken by the recently appointed ICC prosecutor, a British national.
I hope that the House will amend the Bill in the sense proposed to remove from it any limitations of time for crimes set out in the Rome statute and the torture convention and will do so without in any way calling into question the original objective of the Bill: to lift the shadow of vexatious inquiries and prosecutions for lesser offences from our service personnel.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. I support Amendment 3. As your Lordships may know, I have no legal or military experience and therefore enter this debate today as someone who has listened to and participated in all previous stages of the Bill, and has been powerfully persuaded that my own concerns about the Bill at the outset were rightly felt.
As did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I shall quote from the conclusion of the recent executive summary of the briefing from the Bingham Centre:
“The UK has a long and proud reputation of decisive action against war crimes. This Bill weakens that reputation. It makes it harder, not easier to stamp out abuses that our own troops have committed. We do not protect British troops and British values by hiding from the truth or acting with impunity.”
Although it invokes “British values”, surely these are international values, based on the international rule of law.
The UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, quoted previously by my noble friend Lord Robertson, this week urged the UK Government to heed the warnings that the Bill in its current form risks undermining the human rights obligations that the UK has committed itself to respecting. As a former teacher, when people make a commitment to respect something, I expect them to follow through.
The UN press release says:
“In its present form, the proposed legislation raises substantial questions about the UK’s future compliance with its international obligations, particularly under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment … as well as the … Geneva Conventions. These include obligations to prevent, investigate and prosecute acts such as torture and unlawful killing, and make no distinction as to when the offences were committed … ‘The prohibition of torture in international law is both clear and absolute,’ Bachelet said. ‘Article 2 of the Convention against Torture is unequivocal, stating that “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”’ The obligations in the Convention to investigate and prosecute such allegations recognize none of the new distinctions that the Bill would now bring into law.”
Surely that is a reason for amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it must be a rare thing in nature, and in life, for so many doves and hawks to fly together. I agree with every speech that has been made so far in this part of the debate, with perhaps the small caveat that I disagree with the protestations by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that he lacked the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—he certainly did not.
I need not repeat the various points particularly regarding the coalition of disapproval in relation to refusing to, at the very least, put war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture in an excepted category. Like others, I cannot understand the Government’s intransigence, especially as they are so well served in relation to the Bill in your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.
As the Minister spoke gently to me with her usual charm earlier in the debate, I will speak respectfully to her in return. Five years is a very short time indeed in the context of war, covert operations or peacekeeping operations that may be ongoing five years after an alleged atrocity, so in practice this triple lock will make it very difficult to prosecute some of the gravest offences that unfortunately sometimes arise in conflict. As we have said repeatedly during the passage of this legislation, the Government have already conceded the need for certain excluded offences, particularly sexual offences, which have been placed in Schedule 1 to the Bill so do not become subject to the five-year limitation. So it is inexplicable that in the light of everything that has been said to the Government, in the most constructive tone possible, they should not listen to your Lordships’ House and add the offences mentioned in this amendment to that list.
Whenever the Minister has been asked about the distinction between these grave offences and sex offences, she has presented a response from the department about the importance of sending signals and giving confidence in relation to sex offences and overseas operations. We need that comfort and those assurances on these grave offences, not least to avoid the perversity of a situation where, in the context of sexualised torture—sadly, we know this has been perpetrated in conflict situations even by allied forces in recent decades—a veteran or a serving member of personnel could be prosecuted for indecent assault when the allegation is of sexualised torture because the five-year period had passed. That is absolutely perverse.
I urge the Minister yet again to listen to this coalition of opinion from people who do not always agree with me by any stretch of the imagination on human rights matters. Hawks and doves are in complete agreement about this. I urge her to think again. My noble friend Lady Blower may not be a lawyer or a military person, but she is an educator. As she spoke I wondered how we will explain this legislation to our children and grandchildren, let alone to the various hard men of the world cited by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who will be applauding the opportunity that the duplicity of our position on these crimes presents them whether in China, Myanmar or elsewhere.
I can only support these amendments and hope that the distinguished signatories to them will, if the noble Baroness does not concede, test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We have no connection at the moment, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, once again I am taking the opportunity to express my concerns about this Bill, particularly the five-year window for prosecution and the ability that that will have for the Government to meet their long-standing human rights obligations.
I support Amendment 3. I want to remind everyone that there is already an exclusion in this legislation for rape and other sexual offences. It is there correctly. I suspect that the Government, in putting this Bill together, had their ears bent by women in their own ranks saying, “You can’t possibly put off rape allegations simply because they haven’t been put forward within the five-year window.” There are many reasons why you could not bring a prosecution within that window of five years in relation to sexual offences, which we are now much more willing to recognise as one of the horrors of war. The reasons why people do not come forward and are not able to put their case within short order may be fear or lack of resources. They are often in denial about the horror they have experienced. They may be experiencing coercion or threats or a desire to avoid reliving the past. I am afraid I know all this directly. The reason why evidence is gathered over time to become strong enough to bring cases—it does not happen with speed—is because it is difficult, hard work involving sensitivity to victims. The same is true for victims of torture and other grievous war crimes.
Without the present exemption, the vast majority of rape victims, largely women, would be barred from accessing justice through no fault of their own. Victims of other forms of abuse and violence, such as torture, should be afforded the same opportunity to seek justice on their own terms and in their own time. For example, we are now gathering evidence from places such as Syria—a war that started in 2011. The triple I investigatory processes are gathering that evidence. Prosecutions will happen much further down the line; that is the nature of this.
We have led the world in advocating for the rule of law. I have met the most wonderful lawyers in the ranks of the British Army working for the British Army. They are champions of the rule of law. We should recognise that we have been at the heart of creating the well-established principles and provisions of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. It is a source of pride to me and should be to everybody. We lose our moral authority by going down this road.
I work closely with the United Nations Human Rights Council on matters of law. Senior officials are shocked, deeply alarmed and disappointed to their hearts that the UK of all nations should be retreating from this high ground, so I want to emphasise the implications of this on our standing in the world. The United Kingdom has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations convention against torture. We have heard about the convention in relation to genocide, of which I have spoken many times in this House. They all mandate the absolute prohibition of torture. The absolute nature of the prohibition is at odds with the restrictions in this Bill.
I speak with sadness that we have come to this place. In answering the questions, “What has persuaded the Government? How have they come to be in such a wrong place?”, I think this Bill was put together at a time in relation to matters to do with Iraq, and of course with memories and considerations in relation to Ireland. Courage was given to this Bill by the fact that in the United States of America there was someone like Donald Trump, who had such little respect for the rules-based international order and wanted something somewhat different. He was not interested in international law or international courts. We stand as one of the nations that has been true to those things. We have been one of the few nations that has not experienced fascism, and perhaps that has given us the experience of sticking with law and knowing why it is so important. The value of our commitments becomes meaningless and rings hollow across the international stage by bringing this Bill into being.
The people who experience torture end up deeply traumatised. The families of those who have experienced the horrors of these terrible crimes are traumatised. It takes time to work with them to put together evidence to consider prosecutions. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has also found that a state’s lack of response to an investigation of a complaint is in itself a violation of the prohibition of torture.
We are coming up against a whole body of law that we have been at the heart of creating. What are we thinking about? I wonder whether there are other lawyers in government like Elizabeth, the great lawyer in the Foreign Office who was really alarmed over the Iraq war, who are experiencing the same anxiety that something of serious consequence is being lost here. In its present form, this Bill will not only violate individual procedural human rights and create a culture of impunity for torture and inhumane treatment, but will diminish our capacity to influence in the international human rights sphere, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, described.
I urge this House and the Government to have a rethink because the consequences of this legislation will be far-reaching. Here we are trying to speak in a world that is currently dealing with the horrors perpetrated on the Uighurs and those in Myanmar and the anxieties and fears about what is going on in Hong Kong. We need to have our voice strong in the world right now. Look at Belarus, look at the different places where horrors are taking place; we need to be a voice for values.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I start by saying that I accept a number of the arguments that the Government have advanced against it. I do not think that the Bill is intended to provide UK forces with a blank cheque for torture or genocide; nor do I consider that, as currently worded, it has that legal effect. Investigations into and prosecution of those suspected of such offences should and could be pursued even after the five-year limit, provided that the evidential case is sound. I am in no doubt that those involved in such decisions would consider the facts carefully and conscientiously before coming to a decision one way or the other.
I do not regard the exclusion of sexual offences, and not of torture or genocide, as attributing any hierarchy of seriousness to these crimes. I accept that in claims of torture or genocide, the admitted outcome—the death or wounding of individuals—might reasonably be the consequence of legal military action. Sexual assault, on the other hand, can never be the result of anything but a criminal act. There is a logic behind the distinction. Nor do I accept the argument that the Bill as worded would make our own military personnel more likely to be tortured themselves. During the first Gulf War, I commanded aircrew who were shot down, captured and tortured. The Iraqis did not have, nor did they require, the incentive and cover of this Bill for their actions. I seriously doubt that future captors of UK military personnel would be likely to say to themselves, “Well, I would not ordinarily have tortured these prisoners but, in view of the UK overseas operations Act, I now will.” Regimes that are going to torture captors will; those that are not, will not. I do accept, however, that this Bill might make it harder for us to protest such actions or subsequently to hold the perpetrators to account.
My concern about this part of the Bill has less to do with its legal intent and effect, and more to do with the perceptions it may create and the consequences of such perceptions. I have said that in my view, the Bill does not diminish the seriousness with which we view or treat torture or genocide, but it is clear that many people disagree, and that they will not be persuaded by any words of mine or of the Government. This is important. What people think about such matters is crucial, regardless of whether we regard their interpretation as correct. Reputations, national as well as personal, depend on perception as well as on fact, and the UK’s reputation in the international arena is not something to be taken lightly or to be hazarded without great cause.
One possible consequence of a diminished reputation for an unswerving opposition to torture or genocide could be the increased interest of the International Criminal Court in accusations against UK military personnel—an outcome that I would regard as disastrous. I have heard the arguments against this likelihood, and I am unconvinced by them. I have in the past heard similar arguments advanced about the negligible impact that human rights legislation would have on military operations, only to see those confidently expressed opinions proved dramatically wrong. The Government no doubt feel that they are on firm legal ground with regard to the International Criminal Court, but that view has yet to be tested. Meanwhile, risk must be measured as a combination of probability and consequence. Even if the chance of challenge by the ICC is not large, the severe damage it would cause demands that we do all we can to guard against it.
The risks that I have identified might nevertheless be borne if they were sufficiently outweighed by the advantages that Clause 6 offers, but I do not believe this to be the case. The underlying problems that need to be addressed are the protracted and repeated investigations of speculative and malicious claims, along with the extension of human rights legislation into areas for which it is ill-suited. The Bill, of necessity, comes at these issues obliquely and is therefore likely to be of limited value. I know that the Government believe that the measures proposed on prosecutions will have an impact on the timeliness of investigations. I hope they are right, but the potential benefit is not obviously overwhelming. So, while I support the Government’s aim, and while I understand the logic behind the drafting of Clause 6, I believe that the current wording poses risks that far outweigh the potential benefits. Unless I hear in this debate a far more compelling argument than has so far been made against it, I shall support Amendment 3.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, as well, indeed, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy in the arguments they have put forward. The House has enormous respect for the Minister. I share that respect but it is noticeable that, despite her arguments, she had no support in Committee. I looked at her closing arguments then and found this one:
“In the course of their duties on overseas operations, we expect our service personnel to undertake activities which are intrinsically violent in nature. They fight, they use force”.
That seemed to be the justification for this provision: that force has to be used. I do not believe that force is the same as torture. If there were to be confusion between the two, it would be up to the courts to make a decision. It would not be up to a government Minister to say whether an action was unacceptable or, indeed, appropriate for it to be excused altogether by the provisions of this Bill.
In her closing remarks—she was trying to be helpful—the Minister also said:
“I undertake to consider with care the arguments that have been advanced and to explore if there is any way by which we can assuage your Lordships’ concerns.”—[Official Report, 9 /3/21; cols. 1575-77.]
I am not sure that anything has happened about that commitment. I understand why Ministers make such commitments and why she did so; perhaps she was not comfortable with the Government’s whole argument. However, I am not clear what she has done to assuage our concerns; I do not believe she has.
As has been said before, the reputation of this country is at stake. One thing we surely value very much is our reputation for adhering to the rule of law—for having a proper system for considering it and, indeed, being implacable in our opposition to any breach of it. That reputation is surely worth preserving, yet it is now at stake. We deal all the time with countries that do not observe the rule of law, be it Hong Kong, China in respect of the Uighurs, or Myanmar in respect of the Rohingyas—or, indeed, of their own citizens. There are too many examples of the rule of law being breached; we can ill afford to join the ranks of countries that breach it. We have had severe warnings that we might find our service men and women up before the International Criminal Court—which would be mortifyingly embarrassing and absolutely appalling were it to happen.
I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which made a detailed assessment of the Bill and its various provisions and produced a report. At paragraphs 63 and 64, the report says that
“we have significant concerns that the presumption against prosecution”
runs the risk of contravening
“the UK’s legal obligations under international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict)”
and
“international human rights law ... It risks contravening the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute and international customary law.”
The report goes on to say:
“At a minimum, the presumption against prosecution should be amended so that it does not apply to torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.”
Nothing could be clearer than that.
We have also heard quoted today Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. She said:
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
I can think of no clearer comments than those I have quoted. I fully support this amendment.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have heard some very distinguished speeches this afternoon and the passionate speech from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, destroyed any case that the Government might have. As an old soldier—a national serviceman—and a Defence Minister many years ago, I yield to no one in my concern to protect the armed services from vexatious investigations and prosecutions. As Attorney-General, I played a very small part in encouraging the late Robin Cook’s successful advocacy for the setting up of the International Criminal Court. As an active member some years ago, I advocated successfully at the IPA conference in Cape Town for the international recognition by all nations of the offence of torture. I believe I was kicking at an open door when the paper that I had prepared was accepted. All civilised countries now accept that the offence of torture is unique; likewise, of course, genocide.
My noble friend Lord Robertson comprehensively and eloquently moved the amendment. The Bill proposes a presumption against prosecution of torture and other grave crimes after five years, except in exceptional circumstances. As my noble friend states, this risks the creation of de facto immunity after that time. That is the bottom line. Unfortunately, the result is that our troops risk being open to prosecution by the International Criminal Court. The effect of the Rome statute is that the court can prosecute where there is no robust domestic civil process. Perhaps the Minister will say specifically what the danger is of our troops being brought before the International Criminal Court?
As a former law officer, I had the task of advising Her Majesty’s Government on international law; I cannot see how we can avoid process before the International Criminal Court. May I make a practical suggestion to the Minister? Before Third Reading, will she consult the law officers and get their views—if they have not given them already, as I suspect they may have—on the point raised by so many Members of this House, without opposition, that we are in danger of allowing our troops to be hauled before the International Criminal Court?
I strongly support the exclusion of the most serious crimes, such as torture, war crimes and genocide, from the immunity proposals. Put simply, in international law—I can only emphasise this—there is no expiry date for the prosecution of torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment. The bottom line is that there is no expiry date for the prosecution of these offences. It may not have been the intention, but the unfortunate consequence is that our troops might find themselves before the International Criminal Court.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, this amendment has had no opposition. I thought very briefly that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was perhaps going to speak against it because he raised concerns about the nature of some aspects of what has been said. The Minister has heard nobody from her own Benches, or rebel Labour, Liberal Democrat or Cross-Bench Peers, speaking against the amendment. Nobody has given any reason why this amendment should not be supported. That has been true at virtually every stage. The only noble Lords who perhaps could have given the Minister some succour at an earlier stage, at Second Reading, were the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, who listened very carefully to what the Minister said. However, even the noble Lord, Lord King, said that maybe the Government needed to think again about torture and genocide.
If there is a presumption that sexual violence and exploitation should be left out of Part 1 of the Bill, what possible justification can the Government have to leave out genocide, torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity? As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, the Minister, at previous stages of the Bill but also in her written response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, has said that the Government would never ask our Armed Forces to perpetrate crimes of sexual violence or sexual exploitation. Good—that is obviously what we want to hear. However, the Minister does not say the same thing about war crimes and torture. She merely says that the Government take them very seriously. While, clearly, the Bill does not make it impossible that prosecutions could be brought against allegations of torture, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, surely the logic of the Minister’s response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is that the Government, if not endorsing or requesting that people perpetrate torture and war crimes, somehow do not view them in the same way.
Occasionally on these Benches we have very different views from the Minister. We know that we are never going to change the Minister’s mind; nevertheless, we listen and we understand where the Government are coming from. Perhaps the Government have a point of principle. On this occasion, it is almost incomprehensible what the Government’s point of principle can be. If somebody has committed torture or a war crime, that needs to be investigated and prosecuted. The fact that the Government merely take it very seriously simply is not good enough. This amendment rights a complete defect in the Bill. We support the amendment and I believe that many noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber support it.
I ask whether the Minister did go away and think carefully after Committee. As several noble Lords have said, we respect the Minister but we have not yet heard any sense of reflection from the Government. We have not had a scintilla of a change. We have heard nothing that makes anybody feel that the Government are likely to change their mind. If the Government cannot find a way of changing their mind, it is essential that this House asks the other place to think again.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is almost universal support in this House for ensuring that torture, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are excluded from the presumption. It is clear what the ICC thinks: if we do not do so, as has been quoted many times, the UK would
“forfeit what it has described as its leading role, by conditioning its duty to investigate and prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law, crimes against humanity and genocide.”
That is why there is such strong support for Amendment 3 and, importantly, for its approach to protect these offences so that they cannot be removed by statutory instrument at a later date. I hope that the Minister has listened closely to the powerful debate and the broad coalition that spans military figures and human rights experts, and will promise that government amendments will come forward at Third Reading. Otherwise, we support my noble friend Lord Robertson in his important amendment and urge him to divide the House.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and all other noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. We heard some exceedingly powerful speeches on these issues in Committee, and they were echoed today. I recognise the understandable concern and emotion that accompany the arguments that have been adduced. This is an extremely important matter, perhaps the most passionately debated part of the whole Bill, and I do not underestimate the scale of my task to address the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his supporters, but it is my job to try. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a telling point about perception, and it is my job to try to address that issue as well.
I reassure the House that the Government have given considerable and careful consideration to the offences that are excluded from the measures in Part 1. The intent of the Bill, as drafted, ensures that the Part 1 measures will apply to as wide a range of offences as possible, in order to provide that necessary reassurance to our service personnel that the operational context will be taken into account, in so far as it reduces a person’s culpability, in the circumstances of allegations of criminal offences on historical overseas operations. The broad objective of the Bill is to support our Armed Forces personnel, and I accept that that has been recognised across the Chamber. The divergence of opinion is on how we can deliver that reassurance.
In considering the provisions of the Bill, the Government gave careful thought to the physical environment of an overseas operation. As noble Lords who have served on such operations will know, the range of activity is diverse and the threat of danger ever present. It is a lethal environment in which our Armed Forces are called upon to deal with unimaginably challenging situations, and it is predictable that, arising from such activity, allegations of wrongdoing may be made. The one type of activity which can never have any place in such an operation is the commission of a sexual offence, so I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that is why sexual offences are excluded from the Bill. She referred to that as a presumption: it is not a presumption—it is an explicit exclusion.
Some have argued that such an exclusion means that the Government are relegating other crimes to a lower classification of gravity. We are not. We are acknowledging that in an overseas conflict, because of the inherent nature of such activity, there is a predictability about allegations being made that crimes have been committed. The Government are neither defining nor categorising what these crimes may be, we are merely creating a clearer framework and structure as to how such allegations are to be handled. It goes without saying that of course we shall take other offences, such as war crimes and torture, extremely seriously. I repeat that the Government’s decision to exclude sexual offences only, as I set out in detail in Committee, does not mean that we will not continue to view with the utmost gravity other offences such as war crimes and torture.
Nor will the Bill somehow provide an excuse for poor behaviour or enable impunity for very serious crimes allegedly committed by our Armed Forces personnel. I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his comments in that respect and I am pleased that many noble Lords recognise that the presumption against prosecution does not amount to either an amnesty or a statute of limitations, nor the creation of a de facto immunity. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that a bar on prosecution in gremio of the Bill would be an amnesty—it would be a statute of limitations and a de facto immunity— but there is no such provision in the Bill. I remind noble Lords that the severity of an alleged offence will continue to be an extremely important factor for a prosecutor in determining whether to prosecute. We should remember that the presumption is, of course, rebuttable.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Kennedy, referred to the five-year period. I just observe that the period was informed by the response to the consultation carried out on the Bill. Interestingly, the period of five years was visited at an earlier stage, in Committee, and has not been revisited.
I have listened to the very real concerns expressed by many in this House, including references to many third parties holding similar views, that the Bill undermines the United Kingdom’s continuing commitment to, and damages our reputation for, upholding international humanitarian and human rights law, including the United Nations Convention against Torture. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that I seek to assuage these concerns and to reassure once more on this point: the United Kingdom does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Our Armed Forces will continue to operate under international law, including, of course, the Geneva conventions, and we will continue to expect that others will do the same.
I would like to explain further why the Government’s view is that Amendment 3 should be resisted. First and foremost, we are concerned that it would undermine the reassurance that we are seeking to give to our service personnel and veterans by excluding a considerable list of offences from the application of the measures in Part 1. The Bill does not prevent such offences being investigated nor prosecuted. Indeed, in relation to prosecution, the gravity of the crime will be a cogent factor. It is perhaps also worth adding that, in the interests of clarity and to preserve the structure of the Bill as currently drafted, we believe that all the excluded offences should be listed in the same place in the Bill, and that the appropriate place is Schedule 1, instead of being spread across the Bill, as the noble Lord’s amendment would provide.
I have endeavoured to present the Government’s position and, in these circumstances, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I do not have to repeat the respect that the House has for the Minister, but she does not speak with any great enthusiasm. That is not surprising because her case is so weak that enthusiasm and passion certainly cannot be part of her argument. I do not want to take up a lot of the time of the House at this stage, but let me quote what General Sir Graeme Lamb, the former director of Special Forces in the British Army, said in the weighty Policy Exchange document that was critical of this Bill. He said
“good intentions are not enough as the Bill as it stands may fail to protect our troops adequately … it does nothing to address the problem of repeat investigations.”
Then there was Bruce Houlder, the former Director of Service Prosecutions whom I quoted in my original speech, who told the Financial Times that the five-year limit would be an “international embarrassment”. I did not quote what he added, which was that
“the idea that we then treat torture and other grave crimes including homicide as excusable, and legislate in effect to make it difficult in the extreme to prosecute after five years, is really outrageous.”
The Minister has not quoted anybody in support of her contention that what the Government are saying is reasonable. I and other noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords have quoted endless examples of those who say that what is happening here today in this Bill is outrageous. Even today’s Daily Mail editorial condemns the Government for apparently legitimising torture in the way that the Bill does.
In light of the fact that the Minister has given no defence whatever, I insist that we test of the will of the House on this amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Investigation of allegations related to overseas operations
(1) In deciding whether to commence criminal proceedings for allegations against a member of Her Majesty’s Forces arising out of overseas operations, the relevant prosecutor must take into account whether the investigation has been timely and comprehensively conducted.(2) Where an investigator of allegations arising out of overseas operations is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct to continue the investigation, the investigator must within 21 days refer the investigation to the Service Prosecuting Authority with any initial findings and accompanying case papers.(3) An investigation may not proceed after the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the allegation was first reported without the reference required in subsection (2). (4) On receiving a referral under subsection (2), the Service Prosecuting Authority must either—(a) order the investigation to cease if it considers it unlikely that charges will be brought, or(b) give appropriate advice and directions to the investigator about avenues of inquiry to pursue and not pursue, including—(i) possible defendants to consider,(ii) possible explanations to consider for the circumstances giving rise to the investigation, and(iii) overseas inquiries and seeking the help of overseas jurisdictions.(5) Where the investigation proceeds, the Service Prosecuting Authority must monitor and review its progress at intervals of three months and must on each review make a decision in the terms set out in subsection (4).(6) On the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator must send a final report with accompanying case papers to the Service Prosecuting Authority for the consideration of criminal proceedings.(7) After receipt of the final report, the facts and circumstances of the allegations may not be further investigated or reinvestigated without the direction of the Director of Service Prosecutions acting on the ground that there is new compelling evidence or information which might—(a) materially affect the previous decision, and(b) lead to a charge being made.(8) The Judge Advocate General may give Practice Directions as he or she deems appropriate for the investigation of allegations arising out of overseas operations.(9) For the purposes of this section—“investigator” means a member of the service police or a civil police force;“case papers” includes summaries of interviews or other accounts given by the suspect, previous convictions and disciplinary record, available witness statements, scenes of crime photographs, CCTV recordings, medical and forensic science reports.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister’s response to Amendment 6—on the necessity of monitoring investigations to ensure that they are timely, effective and not continuously repeated—was to defend the status quo when the current system has manifestly not prevented delays, shoddy investigations and reinvestigations casting a shadow over serving members of the Armed Forces and veterans. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 7. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 8: Restrictions on time limits to bring actions: England and Wales
Amendment 7
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, in speaking to these amendments, my first point is that legitimate claims for misconduct by British troops involved in overseas operations are a fact that has to be faced, however unpalatable that is. According to a Written Answer given to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on 15 June last year,
“in excess of 1,330 claims”
have been brought against the MoD since 2003, and they have been settled at a cost of some £32 million. Nobody suggests that these were not proper claims. Indeed, the noble Baroness said:
“The claims received focus predominately on alleged unlawful detention but many incorporate allegations of mistreatment at the hands of British military personnel.”
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 7 and 8 are, in effect, wrecking amendments, while Amendment 13 seeks to distinguish the position of service personnel and other potential claimants. I expressed the view in Committee that I was not convinced that the provisions in Part 2 would make all that much practical difference. The primary limitation period for personal injuries is three years, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has just pointed out, except in so-called delayed date of knowledge cases, as provided by Sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980. There is a discretion to disapply the limitation period under Section 33 of the 1980 Act. As he also pointed out, claims under the Human Rights Act have to be brought within one year, with a discretion to extend in rather limited circumstances.
My experience of personal injury claims as a barrister is that courts need considerable persuasion before they extend the three-year period and that the burden rests on a claimant to persuade a court that that primary limitation period should not apply. Limitation periods exist to reflect the difficult balance that has to be struck between allowing everyone to put a line under actual or potential claims and the fact that some claimants will have good reason for delay.
The provisions in Part 2 provide a long-stop, subject to a delayed date of knowledge provision. It seems that claims arising out of overseas operations present particular difficulties for all those involved, and I respectfully differ from the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about Salisbury Plain, particularly in overseas operations where the theatre of operations has moved on or changed its location and it may be extremely difficult to investigate, on either side, the basis of any such claim.
As I said, the provisions are not likely to have much practical effect, but they will nevertheless have some indirect effect in encouraging appropriate claims to be brought with as much speed as is practical. They will also provide a degree of reassurance to our service personnel that a time will come when they will be involved in one way or another in so-called late claims. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to some uncertainty over what the date of knowledge might be which would defer claims. Subject to what the Minister says, I understand it to be concerned with cases where, for example, there is latent disease that could not be reasonably known about by a claimant at the time; for example, somebody who sustains mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos dust or who has some other illness or injury that becomes manifest only some years after the event in question.
I am not attracted to Amendment 13 either. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, suggested that I was concerned only with claims brought by the military and not with those brought by the non-military or civilians in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan. That was not in fact what I said or thought. It is therefore something of an irony that this amendment would make that very distinction. I am unaware of any such provision in any other area of the law of limitation of actions—that is, a provision that distinguishes between classes of claimant. There are of course provisions distinguishing the position of a claimant who has not attained his or her majority or who lacks mental capacity. However, it would set a most unfortunate precedent somehow to elevate a particular claimant to have a special status.
The provisions in Part 2 ought to apply in precisely the same way across the board to whomsoever is involved in claims arising out of overseas operations and provide equal protection for all of them. This amendment is discriminatory and should not be included in the Bill. Surely our service personnel want to be treated fairly, rather than to be given some special privileged litigation status. I will listen with great interest to what the noble and gallant Lords who are to follow in this debate have to say about the matter, but for the moment I am unconvinced that any of these amendments should be made to the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will add just a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said in support of Amendment 13. The provisions to which it is addressed which are of particular interest to me are in Schedule 3, which seeks to amend the legislation that applies in Scotland to the same extent to that in Schedules 2 and 4, which apply to the other jurisdictions. The crucial point is the imposition—for such it is—of an absolute prescription of six years.
As we know, the three-year limitation period that applies at present is accompanied by protections that enable the court to extend the limitation period if it is justified by the circumstances—the date of knowledge exception. It seems that the Bill applies a hard-edged cut-off that makes no allowance whatever for extenuating circumstances. I could understand it if this proposal had been accompanied by a carefully conducted research programme into how the three-year limitation has worked in practice over the years, identifying on how many occasions the period has been extended for more than three years, and why and at what point the extensions have been sought and justified. We are, of course, in this case, and indeed throughout the Bill, dealing with the consequences of operations that have been conducted overseas, maybe under very difficult circumstances. Gathering together enough information to determine whether a claim would be justified, let alone to bring together all the information needed to justify bringing the claim before the court out of time, may take much more time and effort than is needed in the more benign domestic cases. That is the reason for seeking the discrimination to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I too support the amendments. In particular, I support wholeheartedly Amendments 7 and 8, which, if accepted, would obviate the need for Amendment 13. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in relation to Amendment 13, which in my view does not go far enough.
Clauses 8 and 9 would have the effect of preventing a number—a small number, I accept—of meritorious civil actions being brought by service personnel, or their estates and dependants, against the Ministry of Defence, where the latter has negligently caused their injury or death. I see no justification for imposing harsher limitation provisions for actions in respect of personal injuries or death that relate to overseas operations of the Armed Forces than in relation to other civil claims. The factual matrix in which a claim arises will always be a crucial factor in the determination of the court’s discretion to allow late claims. The imposition of the time bar in Clauses 8 to10 will undermine the confidence of military personnel who might be injured or die on overseas operations. They knowingly and bravely take the risk of injury or death in enemy action, but they do not consent to risks created by the negligence of the Ministry of Defence, as in the case of my former client, the mother of a soldier killed by a high-explosive shell fired at his tank from another British tank, which had mistaken it for the enemy. After interminable investigations, belated disclosure of documents and the work of our expert, the case was made that the Ministry of Defence was at fault for a long-standing failure to fit identification equipment and for a consistent failure to train tank commanders properly in identification.
The Ministry of Defence eventually settled the case with a substantial payment but no admission of liability. It took years. Had the proposed regime of Clauses 8 to 10 been in place, my client’s action might never have got off the ground. I feel I owe it to those who might in the future be in the sad position of my former client, having lost a son or daughter, to resist the inclusion of these clauses.
What can be the justification for imposing a bar on such claimants, a bar which does not apply to any other claimants other than in relation to members of the Armed Forces who suffer personal injury or death on overseas operations? The ostensible purpose is to bar vexatious claims but, with respect, that is nonsense. Bill or no Bill, there will always be unmeritorious claims. The courts have a powerful armoury of mechanisms for throwing them out. They do not need the blunt instrument of Clauses 8 to 10. Although those clauses would time bar some vexatious claims, they would equally time bar meritorious claims. That is not forgivable. It is no answer to say that there would be few of the latter. There should be none.
In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out, all claims are subject to the Limitation Act, which imposes strict time limits on them. These may only be exceeded by express permission of the court—an exercise of the court’s discretion which is subject to specified and comprehensive conditions under that Act.
The imposition of the time bar in Clauses 8 to 10 is likely to undermine the confidence of military personnel who might be injured or die on overseas operations. They should not be subject to hurdles to which other claimants are not.
I agree with the sentiment of Amendment 13, which seeks to exempt service personnel from the time bar of Clauses 8 to 10. However, its shortfall is that it fails to bring the estate and dependants of such personnel within the exemption, thus allowing the time bar to apply to those in the position of my former client. Amendments 7 and 8 are therefore preferable. I had hoped that those who tabled them would have pressed them to a Division.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 13 is about the six-year time limit imposed by the Bill on those who have been engaged on overseas operations, and the ability of such servicepeople to bring any grievances against the MoD after that time. As we have already heard, this would have the perverse effect of limiting the rights of individual service personnel by restricting their access to legal remedies for harms caused by their employers. This would not apply to their counterparts not engaged on overseas operations.
In Committee, the Minister’s comment that, based on past statistics, this might apply only in a very small number of instances was specious. The Armed Forces are all of one company and thus should all be treated the same. Even if only one person were to be affected, he or she should not be discriminated against. It cannot be just for such situations to be allowed, so I support Amendment 13.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I had intended to involve myself deeply in the passage of this important Bill through your Lordships’ House, although I hesitate to speak on matters about which I am much less qualified to pronounce than the learned and gallant noble Lords who have made such a great contribution to our debates on the Bill. I have found it difficult to keep up with and to remain fully involved in this Bill as well as in the Financial Services Bill. For most of my working life, I have been a full-time banker; on the other hand, my military experience is limited. I was a TA soldier for 10 years and, more recently, have been honoured to act as an honorary air commodore in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
I very much welcome the Government’s decision to introduce the Bill and to deliver on our manifesto commitment to end vexatious legal claims. I also understand and agree with the Government’s intention in Part 2 to ensure that claims are brought sooner. This should mean that service personnel and veterans will not be subjected to criminal investigations that may be triggered by civil claims. I therefore cannot support Amendments 7 and 8 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, which have the effect of wrecking this part of the Bill in its entirety.
However, I am impressed by arguments by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the courts should continue to be allowed to hear personal injury claims against the Crown even after the six-year time limit has expired. I know enough about the culture within the Armed Forces—a major reason for the high regard in which they are held—to agree that it may also create situations where someone may be told that he cannot make a claim, when actually he can, but he will still believe and accept that he cannot. I am therefore sympathetic to the purpose of Amendment 13 but look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response to the powerful arguments put forward in its support.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support these amendments, with a very strong preference for Amendments 7 and 8, although I understand that they will not be pressed; half a loaf is better than no bread. It is clear to me that a combination of rules and discretion is what the law is. This is the protection against arbitrary action, and I have heard no compelling argument whatever at any point in the proceedings relating to this legislation for limiting the discretion of the courts completely, particularly in the light of the sorts of cases described by my noble friend Lord Hendy.
However, I was interested in the newly expressed concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, about discrimination; his view of equal treatment under the law is novel to me. He seems to be concerned about discrimination in relation to a Bill, which he supports, that is inherently discriminatory. He is concerned about giving extra protection to a particular class of claimant—namely, veterans and personnel, who are supposed to be protected by this legislation. But he is not concerned, it would seem, about giving special protection to a class of defendants—the MoD, the Executive—which is the initiator of the legislation as well as the civil defendant. He is not concerned about giving special protection and limitations to criminal defendants in the military, but he is concerned to give the protection offered by Amendment 13 when it is not being offered to overseas civilians, yet he does not support Amendments 7 and 8. This is not levelling up; it is levelling down.
As I say, I would very much prefer Amendments 7 and 8 to be pressed, but in their absence I will support Amendment 13. The Government brought forward this legislation with a promise to give protection to service personnel and veterans but, instead, if they do not go along with at least Amendment 13, it will protect the Exchequer—the Ministry of Defence—from the very people that it claims to protect.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13, to which I have attached my name. Its purpose is to ensure that service personnel are not debarred by time from pursuing claims against the Government for harms suffered on overseas operations. It seems strange to me that a Bill with the avowed purpose of providing government reassurance to service personnel seems intent on preventing those very personnel from seeking redress from that same Government. This may not be the intention, but it is one of the potential consequences of the Bill as it is currently worded.
In responding to a similar amendment in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland, argued against it because it would have very limited effect. At Second Reading, the Government said that some 94% of service personnel and veterans who brought claims relating to events in Iraq and Afghanistan had done so within six years. He later confirmed that this figure included those who had brought a claim within six years of the date of knowledge. My response is to repeat the question that I posed on that occasion, and which was never answered: are we to assume then that, had the proposed timescale been in effect, the Government believe that it would have been acceptable for the other 6% to lose the opportunity to pursue their cases?
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Not for the first time, I found his contribution compelling and I hope the Minister did as well.
During the passage of this legislation, it has become clear that the application of this six-year unextendable deadline for claims by members of our own Armed Forces— principally against the MoD—is probably an unintended consequence. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, the Advocate-General for Scotland, said:
“The purpose of the limitation longstops is not to stop service personnel from bringing claims”.
He went on to say that
“excluding claims from service personnel from these measures is likely to be incompatible with our obligations under the ECHR. That is because there would be an unjustifiable difference in treatment between different categories of claimants—for example, between service personnel and the Ministry of Defence civilian personnel who deploy alongside them on overseas operations … There is therefore no objective or functional reason why claims from service personnel and veterans should be excluded from the longstops”.—[Official Report, 9/3/21; col. 1596.]
A plain reading of that explanation is that the Government are compelled by obligations under the ECHR to apply these longstops to all personnel in respect of claims that arise from their deployment on overseas operations. It is that argument that I wish to test.
On 11 March, in the debate on Amendment 32 in my name—supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—I raised the issue of discrimination in Part 1 between those who are deployed on overseas operations but operate remotely, such as UAV pilots, and those who are deployed on overseas operations and operate physically in the theatre. The purpose of the amendment was to explore whether the consequences of the stated intention of the integrated review—that new technology be integral to the future of UK defence—has been fully thought through in this legislation, and whether the discrimination between those operating remotely and those deployed in the theatre is sustainable in the light of the implications of this technology being used by service personnel deployed in overseas operations.
In response to the debate on that amendment and in a subsequent letter of 25 March, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, sought to assure me and others that the Bill was future-proofed and that the full implications of new technology and its deployment had been thought through. I am far from convinced that that is the case and will continue to press the Government for a comprehensive review of these issues.
As well as writing, the noble Baroness graciously offered and arranged for me a virtual meeting with her and senior officials to discuss many of the complex issues raised in the debate and referred to in her letter. That discussion is ongoing. I await a further letter of clarification, and I have been offered and have accepted a second detailed briefing with senior officials. It is likely that we will return to this in the Armed Forces Bill.
However, relevant to this debate, the letter of 25 March includes the following:
“When we were developing the policy intent for the Bill, we considered very carefully those flying UAVs in an overseas operation but from within the UK. We determined that, although UK-based UAV pilots would be considered to be part of an overseas operation, it could not be said that they would be at risk of personal attack or violence (or face the threat of attack or violence), as would be the case for an individual deployed in the theatre of operations. Nor would the difficulties of recording decisions and retaining evidence be the same as when deployed within the theatre of an overseas operation. We therefore determined that personnel in these roles should not be within the scope of this Bill. It is important to recognise that this decision is not limited only to UAV pilots. There may be others, in future … to whom these measures would equally not apply … When this technology is used by service personnel deployed on an overseas operation, they will be covered by the Bill, but it is important to make a distinction between those that are deployed in a high threat environment, and those that aren’t, due to the very different operating conditions.”
I repeat:
“We therefore determined that personnel in these roles should not be within the scope of this Bill … this decision is not limited only to UAV pilots … There may be”—
unspecified—
“others, in future, who participate in an overseas operation remotely … to whom these measures would equally not apply.”
This explanation makes it clear that, in respect of all parts of the Bill, the Government have decided that there will be a difference in treatment between different categories of claimants; for example, between different categories of service personnel deployed on the same overseas operations—that is, those who are in the theatre and those who are not. My question is simply: how is this difference in treatment justifiable, and how is it compatible with our obligations under the ECHR if it is not compatible when expressed as in Amendment 13?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in essence, Amendment 13 in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Boyce, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would reintroduce the normal approach to limitation: if a claim is not brought within 12 months —or three years if it is a personal injuries claim—under the Human Rights Act, the court can extend indefinitely if it is just and equitable to do so. This will allow personnel to bring claims after the Government’s proposed six-year longstop.
While the Minister argues that the longstop will apply only to a small number of personnel, I was struck by the comment from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—repeated again today—that
“to argue that only a small number of service personnel would suffer injustice does not seem a respectable position for a Government to take at any time”.—[Official Report, 9/3/21; col. 1594.]
We wholeheartedly agree with him. We have to correct this unfairness and avoid a breach of the Armed Forces covenant, as suggested by the Royal British Legion. While a soldier injured through negligence by a piece of equipment on Salisbury Plain can bring a claim under normal rules, it is wrong that different rules apply for the same act of negligence if it occurs in an overseas operation.
I also want to highlight a concerning Answer I have received to a Parliamentary Question. When asked about government investigations against civil claims, the Minister revealed that the MoD is launching three times more investigations against personnel who pursue civil claims than it did five years ago. These examine
“the true extent of a claimant’s alleged injuries”
and
“the veracity of a claim”.
This Answer, along with the six-year limit in this Bill, indicates that government is increasingly more suspicious of civil claims from troops against the MoD. We should not provide additional limitational hurdles in respect of military personnel bringing claims against the MoD. Therefore, the Bill clearly needs to be amended. When Amendment 13 is called, I intend to seek the opinion of the House.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 7 and 8 seek to remove Clauses 8 and 9 from the Bill. Clause 8, in conjunction with Schedule 2, introduces new factors to which the courts must have particular regard when deciding whether to allow personal injury or death claims connected with overseas military operations to proceed after the primary time limit expires, and sets the maximum time limit for such claims at six years. The Government’s intent behind that is to help ensure that claims for compensation for personal injuries or deaths arising from overseas military operations are brought more promptly, and to help achieve a fair outcome for victims, for the service personnel and veterans who might be called upon to give evidence, and for the taxpayer.
Sections 11 and 12 of the Limitation Act 1980 set a three-year primary time limit for claims for personal injury or death, as do equivalent provisions in the other jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. This three-year time limit is not absolute, as the House heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, when introducing the debate. Section 33 of the 1980 Act gives the courts discretion to allow claims to proceed beyond that time limit if it is considered that it is equitable so to do.
When assessing whether it is fair to allow a claim beyond the initial three-year limitation period, courts must have regard to all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, to six factors which are set out in Section 33 of the 1980 Act. In broad terms, these relate to the steps taken by the claimant to bring the claim, the reasons for delay and the effect of the delay on the quality of the evidence.
The Government’s view is that these factors do not adequately recognise or reflect the uniquely challenging context of overseas military operations—a factor, I think, which is recognised more or less universally across your Lordships’ House. The Government are concerned that, unless the courts are directed to consider factors that are relevant to overseas operations, they may wrongly conclude that it is fair to allow older claims connected with overseas operations to proceed beyond the primary time limit.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for their support for my Amendments 7 and 8. I am also grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for pointing to the difficulties for MoD civilians who are deployed on overseas matters.
The argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, is that Amendment 13 would not apply to them. It would discriminate against them because they are not included—so what do you do? You do not add in the MoD civilian employees; you reduce the rights of the combatants—it seems completely topsy-turvy. Another argument is: everything is okay because, when the guillotine comes down, there will only be a few people left on the other side. I do not think that that is a proper basis for a policy.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, for answering the questions that I posed, and I shall study his answers with care. When he said that these proposals encourage civil claims to be brought more promptly, I reflected that, not an hour or two ago, the Government resisted the code that I proposed, in Amendment 6, to do precisely that in criminal matters. I argued there for matters to be brought more promptly, and the Government resisted those proposals—but I am pleased to see that the amendment passed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, said that there are factors unique to overseas operations that prevent, rather than allow, the extension of time. Overseas operations are extremely difficult, as was discussed in earlier debates; it is extremely difficult to pursue a claim, to get the evidence right and to get the advice, witnesses and so on. You would have thought that overseas operations would allow for more time to bring an action, not less.
The balance, apparently, is to be struck such that the problems of investigating witnesses’ memories are to come before the death or mutilation of a victim. The Welshpool figure of justice, with the scales of justice permanently tilted in one direction, comes to mind.
I have indicated that I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7 and shall not move Amendment 8, but we shall certainly support Amendment 13 when it is put.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 11. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 12: Duty to consider derogation from Convention
Amendment 11
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I understand that this may be quite a short debate, but I should like to say a few words by way of introduction, to explain again why I am unhappy with Clause 12. I still find it hard to know what to make of it. As I said in Committee, at first sight the clause is simply unnecessary. The power to derogate from our obligations under the European Convention by means of a derogation order under Section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 already exists. Of course, we must remember, as we were reminded last time, that derogation orders are open to judicial review, so derogation is not something to be undertaken lightly. Nevertheless, once again I question the need for this clause. Where there is a power, as there is here, there is already a duty to consider whether, should circumstances require, it should be exercised. This clause adds nothing to the existing law.
However, there is a much more troubling aspect to this issue than that. Is the clause there simply to send a message? If so, to whom, why, and what is the message? We must remember that there is a threshold that must be crossed if the order is to meet the criteria in Article 15 of the convention. Clause 12 says that this is where the operations
“are or would be significant”.
Article 15 of the convention, on the other hand, says that derogation may be resorted to only in time of war or other public emergency
“threatening the life of the nation”.
It is hard to see how conducting operations overseas in themselves, if that is all we were doing, could satisfy that test, even if they are or would be significant.
The fact that the clause shrinks from using the words of Article 15 makes me wonder whether the meaning and effect of Article 15 has been properly analysed. I wonder whether the clause is really facing up to what would be needed to justify derogation in this kind of case where we are operating overseas. There is a real danger that it will lead those who may be encouraged by this clause to resort to a derogation order when its use could not be justified. The message, if there is one, seems to be offering something that the Government cannot deliver.
There is no sign either that the Government have appreciated the other limitations in Article 15.2 of the convention. That provision states that no derogation from Article 2, the right to life, can be made except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war; or from Article 3, the prohibition of torture; or from Article 4.1, the prohibition of slavery; or from Article 7, no punishment without law. There remains Article 5, the right to liberty and security, which is what the 2001 order case, which pointed to the way that derogation orders are subject to judicial review, was about. Is this the purpose of the clause? Is it simply so that our Armed Forces can lock up any person they detain during their operations without trial indefinitely? If so, why does the clause not come out into the open and confine its scope to that article, for that is really all it could achieve?
I suspect that the Minister is unable to give clear and convincing answers to these questions, as she has chosen to make a statement immediately after me. I look forward to that statement and I very much hope that she will be able to give me an undertaking that this clause will be removed from the Bill. That, I think, is the only way that the real danger to which I have referred can be avoided. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution which I hope may assist the progress of the debate on this amendment. I am very conscious that I have been unable to radiate much cheer this afternoon, so I will try to do better. As the noble and learned Lord has stated, Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that, subject to certain conditions, states may derogate from—that is, temporarily suspend—relevant human rights obligations. Clause 12 would require any Government in future to consider whether to make a derogation under Article 15 in relation to significant overseas operations.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his analytical clarity in addressing the issue surrounding Clause 12. He has been persistent in his focus on this issue and I thank him for that close attention. He is correct that the ability under Article 15 to derogate in appropriate circumstances would remain and would not be affected by the removal of Clause 12 from the Bill. It is also the case that the removal of Clause 12 would not prevent the Government from making a conscious decision when committing the Armed Forces to significant overseas operations as to whether it is necessary to avail themselves of the suspension mechanism created by Article 15 of the ECHR. It is important to recall that, if the UK did decide to so derogate in relation to a specific future overseas military operation, it would not prevent Armed Forces personnel or the MoD from being held to account.
Having listened closely to the issues raised about the way in which the Government have presented this clause—as I promised the noble and learned Lord in Committee I would do—and, although the Government consider that there was a place for originally including the clause in the Bill, I have detected that the House is sympathetic to the representations of the noble and learned Lord, and that there is a general consensus across the House for the removal of this clause. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will accept the noble and learned Lord’s amendment to remove Clause 12 from the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am relieved to hear the Minister’s statement concerning Clause12 and its removal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked who the message was to be sent to. The proposal to give notice to a potential enemy that British forces would not be bound by the restraints of the European Convention on Human Rights was truly alarming. It would have exposed our troops in the field to reciprocal treatment.
I followed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in Committee in pointing out the utter uselessness of this clause anyway, in that it could not deal with those most pertinent and significant rights in the covenant from which no derogation is possible. It did not even try to mirror the circumstances of war or national emergency contained in Article 15, which permit derogation only in very strict circumstances. I do not propose to repeat that analysis.
The Government have thought again on the desirability of this clause. I urge them to think again on the desirability of the whole Bill. I urge them to pull the whole Bill and bring it back in the next Session after proper consultation. I do not say this from any party-political position but wearing the hat of the chair of the Association of Military Court Advocates. I cannot say that I am speaking for that association because no meetings have been possible during the pandemic, but you will appreciate that its members’ primary concern is with defending the ordinary service man or woman in courts martial, many of which relate to overseas operations.
For the reasons which I gave in relation to Amendments 1 and 6 and will not repeat at this stage, this Bill does not protect our service men and women. The only body protected by the Bill is the Ministry of Defence, probably for the ignoble reason given in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy: to save a bob or two. It is badly thought out, with many omissions and with repercussions that were not understood, not least in its failure to carry out the manifesto commitment of the Government to give statutory force to the military covenant—a matter which we shall shortly discuss. So, they should pull it now, and by all means bring it back in the next Session in a form which will be of use to and protect serving seamen, soldiers and airmen, without the ill thought-out provisions which expose them to danger. I say to the Government: pull the Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister’s statement. As I have reminded the House, the Government’s justification for this clause to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 was to reflect the undertaking of a ministerial Statement by the then Defence Secretary, and repeated in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on 10 October 2016. If the Government still stand by it, it is worth recalling parts of that Statement. It explained that in overseas operations our personnel have had to face growing legal uncertainty and an unprecedented level of litigation. The Statement said that
“the resulting uncertainties have been distressing to many current personnel and veterans, and military advice is that there is a risk of seriously undermining the operational effectiveness of the armed forces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/16; col. 3WS]
I draw attention to the risk mentioned in that Statement—the risk of seriously undermining the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces when engaged in conflict.
The Bill does not adequately address the growing concern that commanders of whatever rank may, for fear of later legal challenge or charge, be unsure or inhibited in the orders or directions they give to engage and defeat an enemy in the course of conflict. Statements about combat immunity in relation to human rights legislation lack the precision required for conflict. To state that a court should be
“very slow … to question operational decisions made on the ground by commanders, whatever their rank or level of seniority”
lacks precision for commanders at the time, on the spot. Even before a case reaches court, the accused will be subject to worries and uncertainty for weeks, months and even years while evidence is collected, witnesses identified and prosecuting authorities decide whether to take the case to court for trial. Some might even describe this as mental torture.
In Smith, the judgment was that there is a “middle ground” between close combat on the one hand and political direction on the other about the allocation of resources, where the actions or omissions of individual service personnel can be determined only on the evidence ex post facto—that is, a review far removed in time, place and emotion from the possible extreme dangers of the moment.
I am not questioning these well-argued legal judgments but drawing attention to a mismatch—and I think it is important to draw attention to it—between the disciplinary dictates of the Armed Forces Act and human rights legislation that may arise when service personnel are at or near to war. I drew attention to this in 1998, when debating what is now the Human Rights Act 1998. Regrettably, this Bill does not address this issue, in spite of the Defence Secretary’s Statement. One must hope that the human rights review now being undertaken by Sir Peter Gross—he has assured me that the issue of combat immunity will be considered—will provide a workable solution.
Meanwhile, Clause 12 provided for no more than was originally and clearly stated at the time the Human Rights Bill was being debated in 1998. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, said, and these words are well rehearsed already:
“I also remind your Lordships and the noble and gallant Lord—
that is me—
that under Article 15 of the convention a state may, in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, take measures derogating from its obligations under the convention to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation.”—[Official Report, 5/2/1998; col. 768.]
The noble and learned Lord further asserted that the human rights convention was a flexible instrument. I fear that is now rather a dubious claim. Clause 12 added nothing to what was made clear in 1998, and I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his persistence with this, and I especially thank the Minister, for her gracious concession.
It was just a few weeks ago that the former Prime Minister Mrs May warned the Government, in another place, of what she described as the
“fine line between being popular and populist”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col. 78.]
I wonder whether that line is quite so fine. To be more explicit than the noble and learned Lord, dog whistles are bad enough in politics, but they are a lot worse in legislation and worse still when they are by way of legislative amendment to the Human Rights Act—our modern Bill of Rights. To turn the power to consider derogation into an express statutory duty, but not to import the appropriate legal test for such a derogation, was a very dangerous dog whistle indeed. I am very glad that it has been withdrawn. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I hope that the Government continue in this positive vein and consider other fundamental concerns about the Bill in general.
I do not want to be churlish. This is an important concession from the Government; to treat the Human Rights Act in this way, and to set a precedent for creating duties to derogate and put them in the Act, would have been very dangerous and would have sent a bad signal about the Government’s commitment to human rights at home and internationally.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for her pragmatic approach to this. I entirely agree with the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that the real issue was Article 5 and the right and ability to detain on the battlefield. There was a real problem there and, with respect to the Government, they were right to consider it. The unfortunate thing is that they chose the wrong route. I do not think that they considered carefully enough the decisions of the Supreme Court in Al-Waheed and Serdar Mohammed. But, if a problem remains, I am sure that it will be looked at sympathetically because, for the protection of our troops, it is necessary to take a realistic view of the ability to detain on the battlefield or in close proximity to it. Again, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his clear analysis of this, and the Minister, for her wise decision.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like others, I welcome the Government’s concession on this amendment and thank the noble Baroness for having listened, gone away and come back with a helpful proposal. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I suggest that it would be good if Ministers talk to their colleagues in another place and consider whether, rather than insisting that amendments that have passed through your Lordships’ House today have to be subjected to votes in the other place and brought back and forth for ping-pong, the Government could perhaps consider their own amendments to deal with the views that have been put forward on genocide and other matters. I do not expect an immediate concession on that from the noble Baroness, but I at least put it out there.
While my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has clearly made his views known to the House—to kill the Bill—I do not expect that to happen. I do not expect my colleagues to push for a vote to kill the Bill, but, if we could amend it significantly to deal with the real concerns of our service men and women and veterans, it would be all the better for it.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing to add but to congratulate to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on his tenacious pursuit of this point and to thank the Minister for this moment of warmth and light.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
To all noble Lords who have contributed, I am pleased that this gesture has been received positively. I have listened carefully to the other observations, and these will be relayed to my colleagues in the MoD.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, and especially to the Minister for her kind words and generous concession, which has solved my problem.
I would like to take a moment to refer to the remarks made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who has kindly supported me all the way through my attempt to deal with Clause 12. He has raised again a concern among certain people, which I entirely recognise, that the ability to bring claims under the Human Rights Act risks undermining operations on the ground because decisions taken by the people engaged in them are exposed to the risk of being said to be in breach of the convention rights.
I delivered the leading judgment in the case of Smith v The Ministry of Defence, which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred to earlier this afternoon. One of his clients was the mother of a solider who was, unfortunately, killed by friendly fire from a tank operating in the same battlefield. I spent considerable energy, in delivering my leading speech, to make it clear that the ratio that had driven me to reach the conclusions I did was concerned with actions by the MoD far removed by the battlefield. I made it clear that decisions made in the circumstances of combat by people usually under great stress and pressure was not what the Human Rights Act claim was about. It was about decisions taken, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, explained, long before the operations began which could legitimately be criticised as breaching the convention right.
The decision that I led has been misunderstood because of a dissenting judgment, which has received more weight than it should have since it was only a dissent. So, I would encourage those who still have a lingering doubt to look carefully at my judgment, which was a majority judgment. They will see that it contains the reassurance I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord of Craig of Radley, is seeking.
That said, I come back to the Minister. I am well aware that a speech of the kind she has made this afternoon cannot be made without discussion behind the scenes. She listened carefully to what I said last time, and we owe her a great debt for taking up the points I made, understanding them and putting them across to others to achieve the result we have achieved this afternoon. We owe her a considerable debt and are fortunate to have her in the House as a Minister. I commend Amendment 11, the effect of which is that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Restrictions on time limits: actions brought against the Crown by service personnel
Nothing in this Part applies to any action brought against the Crown by a person who is a member or former member of the regular or reserve forces, or of a British overseas territory force to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (members of British overseas territories’ forces serving with UK forces) applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause amends Part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitations on courts’ discretion that the Part imposes in respect of actions relating to overseas operations.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 13 and wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 14. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make this clear in the debate.
Amendment 14
Lord Dannatt
“Duty of care to service personnel
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year— (a) prepare a duty of care update, and(b) include the update in the Armed Forces Covenant annual report when it is laid before Parliament.(4) The duty of care update is a review about the continuous process and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;(d) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.(5) In preparing a duty of care update the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;(b) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;(c) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct;(d) meeting national standards of care and safeguarding for families of service personnel, where relevant.(6) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).(7) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.(8) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause will require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, and to include a duty of care update in the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, in opening this short debate on Amendment 14, I first thank the noble Baroness the Minister and the Minister for Defence People and Veterans for meeting me and other noble Lords on matters pertaining to this and other amendments. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for meeting me twice on these matters.
It is perhaps no surprise that I am of the view that we share common objectives for the Bill, which I hope will become an Act within this parliamentary Session. These common objectives include the better protection of serving and veteran soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from repeated and extended investigations and unjustified prosecutions arising from their service on behalf of the nation on overseas operations.
We also share the common objective of properly supporting such personnel while they are going through an investigation and prosecution process—after all, when a soldier lays their life on the line at the behest of their employer, I am sure that we can agree that he or she has a right to expect that employer to exercise a proper duty of care towards him or her as they go through any investigative or judicial process.
If we are broadly agreed on the common objective, where we are not yet fully agreed is on the scheme of manoeuvre—the campaign plan, if you like—to reach that common objective, but we are making progress, and many of the constituent parts of a successful plan are beginning to emerge. Amendment 6, which we earlier debated and voted to stand part of the Bill, for the time being at least, is an important and welcome addition to the provision of safeguards into the investigation of allegations relating to overseas operations. Moreover, the Minister has today released a Written Ministerial Statement asserting that the purpose of the Bill is to provide better legal protection to Armed Forces personnel and veterans serving on military operations overseas. The Statement references and underlines a defence instruction and notice whose basic principle is that the department
“is committed to standing behind its people who act reasonably and in good faith in the course of their duties”.
If we are agreed that a good employer will discharge a proper duty of care towards its people, then the pieces of this jigsaw—this campaign plan—are beginning to come together. Amendment 14 would join those parts of the jigsaw into one picture, to bring these hard-fought battles and engagements into line in a comprehensive campaign plan for the benefit of our people in uniform and for those who have worn a uniform in the past.
Defence priorities change; the fortunes of military charities fluctuate; Ministers come and go; but the law does not change. Amendment 14 would bring into law the good ideas and intentions of well-meaning Ministers and officials with whom we are currently united in common cause but who are strangely reluctant to enshrine the fruits of their endeavours in a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament and thus part of our law—a law to protect our people for all time from vexatious investigations and prosecutions.
I have heard an argument that says that if we enshrine a duty of care in law it will present the possibility of creating grounds whereby disaffected parties could take the MoD to court if in their opinion the terms of the legally binding duty of care had not been adhered to, but is that really an honourable or credible argument against creating a duty of care in the first place? Surely in any walk of life, rules and regulations setting out what is and what is not acceptable are a commonplace occurrence. If you act within the rules, all is fine, but if you step outside, then sanctions follow. I am no lawyer, but I am sufficiently aware of the way our civilised society is organised to know that if I step outside the law, whether it is in a transaction on the high street or in my behaviour on a rugby field, I will be sanctioned. Is the Ministry of Defence so frightened that if it establishes a duty of care that passes into law and then it acts outside that law some of its employees might sue it? Surely the correct approach is for the Ministry of Defence to lay down a duty of care within the next six months, as Amendment 14 suggests, and then commit to live within that legally based statement of the duty of care for the benefit and transparency of both the employer and employees. Is that too much to ask? I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I offer my support for this amendment for all the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Dannatt. I thought that it would be right for me as a lawyer to ask myself whether the amendment was asking the Secretary of State to do something that our legal system would find hard to recognise or put into effect. It is a long amendment, full of what no doubt was thought to be necessary detail; but the key words to which I have directed my attention are to be found in proposed new subsection (1), read together with the definition in proposed new subsection (7). They are the words “duty of care”, which are used to define the obligation that is already owed to service personnel, both moral and legal, to ensure their well-being.
There are a number of things that need to be said to explain why the amendment has my support. First, this is a duty of care, not an absolute duty. It sets a standard that the amendment is talking about at the right level. An absolute duty is a duty that must be complied with irrespective of the circumstances. What has been talked about here is a duty to take reasonable care to achieve that standard. It is not driving the Secretary of State to achieve something that cannot be achieved with the exercise of ordinary care.
Secondly, the concept of setting a standard to be applied in addressing the needs of a particular group within our community is not new. It is familiar in the context of healthcare, for example, with regard to the care of the elderly.
Thirdly, and most importantly in view of the point made by my noble friend some moments ago, the method used should not be seen as encouraging a resort to litigation any more than the setting of standards does in healthcare. What is sought is to set a standard of behaviour, not a set of statuary rules. If litigation has to be resorted to, the complaint would be of a failure in a duty to take reasonable care, using the standard simply as setting out the criteria for what that duty required. There is nothing novel in that approach.
The Ministerial Statement that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, very helpfully read out to us when speaking on amendments in the first group this afternoon is, of course, to be welcomed. I do not for a moment doubt its sincerity, but Ministers come and go, and Ministerial Statements are, I fear, a bit like the Cheshire Cat. This amendment seeks to bring it up to a higher level of formality. Added to that, it seeks to ensure that the matter is kept under continuous review and public scrutiny. All that seems to me to be for the good. Therefore, if the amendment is put to a vote, I will support it.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I have thought carefully about this amendment since Committee, when it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. I also reread the debate that took place on that occasion. The amendment received a great deal of support around the House, which was plainly directed towards our Armed Forces and reflected a general desire to ensure that they were, and would be, properly protected against any of the consequences that followed from vexatious claims and repeated investigations. That is of course what lies behind the Bill as it is.
When I first saw the amendment, I thought that it was essentially probing. To that extent, it could be said that the amendment succeeded, albeit rather at the 11th hour, in provoking the Statement issued today and read out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. During the debate in Committee, however, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said that the duty of care standard—the expression used in the amendment—which would be established by the Secretary of State in this amendment, if properly worded, would prevent the outrageous behaviour of Phil Shiner and others. In response to the Minister’s reply to the debate, the noble Lord also said that the duty of care would end recurrent vexatious claims and almost unending investigations.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, as speakers ahead of me, and especially my noble friend Lord Dannatt, spoke eloquently in support of this amendment, I will not tax your Lordships’ patience by repeating all that has been said. However, I wish to reinforce the point that we need something of a more permanent nature by which the Government may be held to account rather than a set of conventions and understandings, including defence instructions and notices. These can be easily changed or cancelled without any significant effort or recourse to Parliament. That is why, although I have very carefully read the Ministerial Statement that the Minister laid before us this morning, which sets out what is available to Armed Forces personnel, serving or veteran, I am afraid that it does not offer the guarantee of permanency of the responsibility of the MoD for the duty of care that this amendment proposes.
I also share, by the way, some of the concerns about the Statement expressed earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Furthermore, regarding that Ministerial Statement, I am incidentally unclear of the definition of “legacy cases” that the Army Operational Legacy Branch has been created to deal with. That also raises the interesting question of why exemption from means testing for legal aid cannot be applicable for criminal cases arising from all overseas operations, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.
This Bill, which sets out to relieve the strain on personnel under investigation, must surely reflect the fact that the MoD has a statutory obligation for the care of such people. I therefore support Amendment 14.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, in support of the vital amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. It is vital because there does not seem to be anything quite like it on the statute book.
While the Bill, controversially, attempts to protect the MoD from civil suit and individual members of the Armed Forces and veterans from criminal prosecution, it does not provide actual support for them. It does not provide mental health support, legal support or anything else mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
I will not repeat what I said earlier, but even the Statement that was made today clearly to reassure your Lordships that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, is not necessary gives me cause for concern. There are holes in the automatic non-means-tested legal advice and support, which should be automatic and non-means-tested for any serving member of the Armed Forces or veteran, whether they are facing investigation or prosecution or are a potential witness. That was the biggest problem I found.
Even the mental health support was less than specific or certain and seemed to be about signposting people to general NHS services, even though we all accept that people serving overseas are under particular strain. If their mental health is under particular strain and they are especially exposed to the law, as the Government maintain, why do they not get specific statutory and automatic support?
This is perhaps one of the most important parts of the debate today, and this amendment is possibly one of the most important that has been tabled. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, will press it to a vote.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I start by adding my thanks to the Minister for the time and trouble she has taken since Committee to listen to the concerns that my noble friend Lord Dannatt and the other movers of this amendment, of whom I am one, have sought to address. The Government have argued, and no doubt will continue to argue, that what we are trying to achieve is both unnecessary and dangerous. I am unconvinced and I shall try to explain why.
In her response in Committee, the Minister pointed to the mechanisms and processes already in place to support service personnel and veterans. There are indeed both official and charitable structures set up for this purpose; they do a great deal of excellent work, as today’s ministerial Statement made clear. But as I tried to explain in Committee, the situation of those accused of criminal activities and subject to the corresponding and prolonged investigations is particularly difficult. I pointed out that the stresses on these individuals and their families are profound and enduring.
These people are not just accused of a crime; they are charged with trampling underfoot the values and ethos that are an essential element of the special body of which they have been a trusted part. They are suspected of betraying their comrades and bringing them into disrepute. I ask noble Lords to imagine what sort of impact all of that has on people who are members of such a close and unique community.
It is alas true that in some cases the opprobrium will be deserved, but we also know that in such circumstances the innocent and the guilty will suffer alike. Even a subsequent and unequivocal demonstration of innocence will not entirely remove the shadow from their lives or allow them to feel quite the same ever again.
Given such horrendous and, in some cases, undeserved consequences, is it so unreasonable to seek a special degree of support for these people? Is it unreasonable to ask that the requirement for and processes to deliver such support should be codified? After all, Part 1 of this Bill is itself mostly about codifying procedures that nearly everyone agrees a competent prosecuting authority would follow in any case. If these need to be set out in the Bill, why not the processes for ensuring the appropriate source of support for service personnel and veterans? To argue in favour of the former and against the latter would strike me as strangely inconsistent. Just to be clear, I do not believe that defence information notices constitute adequate codification.
The dangers that the Government seem to think lurk within this amendment apparently derive from the legal rights it would afford to those it seeks to protect. The accused could sue the Government if they thought that they had been inadequately supported—and who is to say what level of support should be considered adequate? The only beneficiaries, it appears, would be the legal profession.
Well, my first response would be that if the Government failed to provide the appropriate support, then they should be liable. It seems that in this day and age, we are keen to afford justiciable rights to just about everyone—except our service men and women. As to the definition of adequacy, I entirely accept that Amendment 14 as worded may not have adequately circumscribed this, but is it really beyond the wit of government lawyers to come up with a form of words that would do the trick? Surely, the concept of reasonableness and the appropriate kinds of test are not alien to our legal system.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said that this amendment would do nothing to prevent future Shiners, and I agree with him. I also agree wholeheartedly that tackling the difficulties caused by the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act is essential. None of this, though, obviates the need to support those who need our help.
The Government’s argument appears, in essence, to be, “We don’t think this amendment is necessary because we already do what it suggests, but we’re rather afraid of being sued for not doing what the amendment proposes.” This does not strike me as a tenable position. I urge the Government to think again.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I speak in this debate to support the amendment moved by my noble friends. I do so because it is the closest to resolving, or at least ameliorating, the problem—and it is a problem, as many have rehearsed. It is essentially a practical one, relating to training, leadership, command oversight, operational reporting and improved investigative capacity and competence.
I fear that I remain convinced that the resort to legal exceptionalism which this Bill contemplates, and which appears to have initiated so much of the debate in the House, is an ill-considered course of action. It will make our service men and women more, not less, exposed to the challenges of the law. Law, in the context of this debate, is not simply the legislative framework within which war is conducted; it has become a weapon of that war. In the jargon, it is a new vector of attack. By way of emphasising my point, while this Bill has been maturing, we have seen the product of an extended review of the country’s security, defence, development and foreign policy. The results have been the integrated review paper and the companion MoD document, Global Britain in a Competitive Age.
These are both excellent pieces of work and speak to the radically different character of future war. At the heart of both documents are the themes of systemic and enduring competition between nations, between political systems, across multiple spheres. The documents emphasise the lack of clarity over where the threshold of conflict sits, the impossibility of differentiating between peace and war, home and away, friend and foe. They speak of the far greater reliance, in future, on technical advantage, automated processes, autonomous systems. They move the comprehension of conflict beyond the recent sense that it is periodic, adversarial, away fixtures.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we have heard some important speeches making it clear why this amendment is so important. However, I confess that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, I almost got to the point that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford got to on the previous group: ought we to be killing the Bill, or asking the Government to kill it? Although I did not think at the previous stage that this amendment was necessarily a probing amendment, the more I looked at Amendment 14, the more it looked like the Government needed to be thinking about these issues more generally, not just in the context of overseas operations.
The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the amendment, but I think it raises issues which, if the Government have thought about them, have not yet been made clear to your Lordships’ House and perhaps to the other place. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out, since the Bill was introduced in the other place, we have had the integrated review, the defence White Paper and the defence industrial strategy. There seems to be a whole swathe of legislation coming forward. We also, I assume at some point, are going to have legislation dealing with historic issues associated with Northern Ireland, and surely the duty of care links to the issues of Northern Ireland.
I did not speak on the second group of amendments, but it was interesting to hear the very different approaches to saying that we need to think about Northern Ireland again. They did not fit into a Bill on overseas operations, quite clearly, yet some of the issues, and that sense of repeated investigations, apply as least as much to Northern Ireland as to overseas operations. Are the Government proposing at some point to bring these themes together? Are they going to be in the Armed Forces Bill 2021? Are we going to see questions of duty of care that ought to be embedded not just in this Bill but more broadly? If not, could the Minister take this away and talk to her colleagues in the MoD Main Building and in the other place?
The Armed Forces Bill is coming up this year. As we have heard, issues about hybrid warfare and artificial intelligence need to be thought about, and potentially thought about differently, but this Bill does not really get into them. I fully understand that the Minister might say that this is intended to be a very small and discrete Bill. That may be so, but if those matters are not being considered in this Bill, are they being considered elsewhere? If not, could she undertake to go away and think about them?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we fully support Amendment 14.
By my count, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Stirrup, have about 120 years of service in the Armed Forces between them. They have all argued passionately for a duty of care standard to be in the Bill. As a former acting pilot officer, I have to say that I am very proud of the stance they have taken. It shows that the former leadership of the Armed Forces is capable of being both compassionate and wise. When colleagues of such experience speak, we should listen. I am unsure why the Government remain so resistant to this. We stand foursquare behind our troops and a duty of care would ensure that our Government did so too. We will support the amendment if it is pushed to a vote.
As Amendment 14 refers to legal support, I want to seek some clarity on legal aid. I thank the Minister for writing to me on this issue, but the position stated in the letter is a little different from the position of the Minister in the Commons. The letter says:
“We cannot categorically say that Service personnel will receive legal aid”
but Johnny Mercer said:
“There is … full legal support, paid for by the MOD, for everybody swept up in these investigations.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 22/10/20; col. 351.]
Can the Minister confirm that? The letter also says that cuts which were applied to the national legal aid system were also applied to the Armed Forces legal aid scheme as they mirror each other, but the Armed Forces Minister said that the Armed Forces system is “bespoke”. Can the Minister confirm how much money for legal aid has been cut in the last decade from the Armed Forces legal aid scheme? This confusion between Ministers demonstrates exactly why we need protection in the Bill.
Ministers say they have made progress, but ultimately Ministers move on. Let us put a duty of care in the Bill so that personnel have full confidence that Ministers are serious about helping them through difficult times. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, seeking the decision of the House. We will undoubtedly fully support the amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I am very grateful for all the contributions that have been made. Amendment 14 proposes that the Ministry of Defence should establish a statutory duty of care standard for current and former service personnel and, where appropriate, their families, and that the Secretary of State should be required to provide an annual update in the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.
This is obviously a matter of great importance which commands the interest of us all, and I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Boyce, and the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Tunnicliffe, for their commitment to ensuring appropriate protection for our service personnel and veterans and for the conversations we had following the debate in Committee. In terms of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the broad objectives which he and the noble and gallant Lords seek to achieve, I doubt if there is a cigarette paper between us—where we diverge is on the mechanism for delivery—so I can see why many are attracted to this amendment and feel the Bill could be enhanced by it.
I start by saying that we take our responsibilities to our service personnel and veterans extremely seriously. I have listened to the concerns raised in Committee and I have met further with the noble and gallant Lords. I thank them for their willingness to have these meetings, which have been constructive. I understood from the meetings that further reassurance was needed about the breadth and depth of support now available to those who are subject to investigations and prosecutions. As has already been referred to, a Written Ministerial Statement was published which set out as a matter of record the diversity and depth of the support that is and will continue to be available.
Although in Committee I provided an overview of the support that we give to our personnel and veterans, I am happy to summarise the key points from the Written Ministerial Statement for the benefit of the House. First—and importantly—as a matter of MoD policy, service personnel are entitled to legal support at public expense where they face criminal allegations and civil claims that relate to actions taken during their service and where they were performing their duties. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who asked whether there was a discrepancy between the descriptions given of the availability of legal aid, that I am not sure what the nature of the difference is between what I had said and what my honourable friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans said in the other place, but it may have been the simple distinction that there has to be a need to be performing duties. Obviously, a member of the Armed Forces could commit a crime while not engaged in their duties, and one would imagine that that would then become the responsibility of civil authorities if it took place in this country. If it took place overseas, other interventions might be necessary.
Legal advice and support are also available wherever people are required to give evidence at inquests and inquiries and in litigation, and this is co-ordinated by the MoD. This principle is at the heart of the MoD’s approach to supporting our people and is enshrined in the relevant defence instruction notices. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was slightly caustic about that, but these are the notices which make clear to our Armed Forces personnel what they can expect, in terms of support, from the MoD and their chain of command and what facilities are available to them. It is a responsibility that the MoD takes very seriously, and we keep our policies under review to ensure that they are appropriate and tailored to need.
At an earlier stage this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised a couple of issues about legal aid, and I will try to clarify what some of this provision is. Any individual who is investigated by the service police is entitled to legal representation as well as the support of an assisting officer, who can then offer advice on the process and procedure and signpost welfare support. Individuals who are interviewed as suspects under caution will be entitled to free and independent legal advice for this stage of investigation. Subsequently, legal funding for service personnel and veterans facing criminal allegations can be provided through the Armed Forces Legal Aid Scheme or through the chain of command for as long as is necessary.
As regards legal aid funding, the Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority will provide legal aid in circumstances where service personnel are not entitled to regular legal aid because of where they are employed or resident as part of their military duties. Where service personnel’s employment or residence has not disadvantaged them, they can apply for regular legal aid as well, as would a civilian, and are therefore not placed at a disadvantage. Personnel are entitled to apply for legal aid regardless of whether they are considered to have acted outside the scope of their duties, but the MoD can still decide to pay for legal representation in respect of an allegation arising from an act committed in the course of the service personnel’s duties. There is extensive provision. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was interested in this issue, and I can undertake to provide both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, with more detailed information if that would be helpful to them.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I was going to say that it was a short debate but it was a proper-size debate, getting at a number of these issues. I thank the Minister for her thoughtful and comprehensive reply to the points raised and for addressing Amendment 14. She is right that in some ways there is no more than a cigarette paper between us. In my opening remarks, I said that I was pretty clear that we shared a common objective. The current area of disagreement is over how we march towards achieving success on this common objective.
Amendment 14 is about establishing a duty of care standard. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for referring to this as a vital amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also indicated the support of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. If we believe that we have a common objective in doing the right thing by our serving and veteran personnel, then I fail to see why clearly setting out a duty of care is causing so much difficulty for the Ministry of Defence.
In Committee, there was some discussion about whether this was the right Bill to address these issues. Many of us argued that, if we were to lose this Bill, it could be quite some time before there was another Bill that could address them. I argue strongly that we should maintain this Bill on its passage through Parliament.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 1: Excluded offences for the purposes of section 6
Amendment 20
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the scope of paragraph 14.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, we come to what some might argue is the least thrilling and interesting part of Report stage, but I hope I can conclude our proceedings on Report with something slightly positive and welcome.
These amendments are minor and technical. They are being brought forward to improve the drafting of the Bill. Amendment 20 corrects the scope of paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 so that it refers only to the offences listed in paragraphs 2 to 13 of Schedule 1 and not to Section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. This is not required because Section 42 does not create any new offences in addition to those listed.
Amendments 23 and 25 correct errors in the Bill and omit paragraphs 23 and 30 of Schedule 1 because neither is necessary. Paragraph 23 is unnecessary because Section 65 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001—referred to in paragraph 23—does not establish an offence separate from those already mentioned in paragraphs 17 to 22 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. Similarly, paragraph 30 is unnecessary because Section 5 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001—referred to in paragraph 30—does not establish an offence separate from those already mentioned in paragraphs 27 to 29 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, this might be the shortest intervention of the evening. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that there are errors in the Bill and removing the relevant paragraphs. I do not think anybody will be too sad to lose certain paragraphs from this Bill. There may be clauses that we would have preferred to lose, but I do not think that there will be any objections from these Benches.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
I am willing to accept the assurance from the Minister that these are technical amendments, and I have no further comments.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It would seem trite to say that I thank your Lordships for this long and interesting debate but, none the less, with great sincerity, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their contributions.
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an error in the Bill. The provision omitted by this amendment is unnecessary because section 65 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 does not establish an offence separate from those already mentioned in paragraphs 17 to 22 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an error in the Bill. The provision omitted by this amendment is unnecessary because section 5 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 does not establish an offence separate from those already mentioned in paragraphs 27 to 29 of Schedule 1.