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
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
First, may I associate myself with the tributes on Monday led by you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister on the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, and the Humble Address of the House of Commons to Her Majesty?
We are committed to defending British industry and jobs and will not hesitate to take firm action where necessary, which is why we have safeguard measures in place. We know there are concerns that Chinese steel is receiving state subsidies that distort trade, so, working with our allies, we will challenge China and other countries to play by the rules.
Marion Fellows [V]
Motherwell in my constituency was once the heart of steel production in Scotland and the rest of the UK, but consecutive UK Governments have overseen the decline of steel jobs in Scotland from thousands to just over 100. Will the UK Government provide certainty for steelworkers today, support domestic production, protect those remaining jobs and retain the tariffs on steel imports?
Mr Jayawardena
When the Trade Remedies Authority is set up, it will conclude its investigation, which it would be wrong to pre-empt. We are of course working for every corner of our United Kingdom, backing British businesses and supporting Scottish jobs as much as we are supporting those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—at a time when the Scottish National party wants to cut itself off from its largest market: the British internal market.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
I am afraid the 5,000 workers at Liberty Steel will not have been reassured by the Minister’s answer. The collapse of Greensill Capital has created serious problems at Liberty Steel and is one of many reasons why the entire British steel industry now urgently needs leadership, stability and support from the Government. Can we get some clarity? Retaining the import tariffs is a political decision. Will the Minister play his part today by guaranteeing that the Government will retain the vital safeguard tariffs that Britain currently has in place against cheap steel imports for the full financial year ahead—no ifs, no buts and no maybes?
Mr Jayawardena
I do love the authenticity with which the hon. Gentleman asked his question; of course, if it were a political decision, he would be calling for it to be independent. It is an independent decision. The Trade Remedies Authority has teeth and will act accordingly. Just like this Government, our Trade Remedies Authority is going to defend the British national industry, back British jobs and support people throughout our United Kingdom.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
I am delighted that the United States responded to our de-escalation of retaliatory tariffs in January and has removed the 25% tariff on Scotch whisky and other products. This is fantastic news for the 50,000 people whose jobs rely on the industry. I am working with Ambassador Tai to get a long-term resolution to the Airbus-Boeing dispute.
Mr Carmichael
The Scotch whisky industry is of economic importance to a large number of the most economically fragile communities in the highlands and islands, so I genuinely wish the Secretary of State very well in her endeavours to get the removal of tariffs made permanent. Is the situation that the Prime Minister has created in Northern Ireland helping or hindering the engagement with the Biden Administration?
Elizabeth Truss
We are extremely committed to the Good Friday agreement and have had frequent discussions with the Biden Administration. I am having very positive discussions with my counterpart Katherine Tai about resolving the Airbus-Boeing dispute—which has been going on for 16 years—to the benefit of the Scotch whisky industry, other industries throughout the UK and industries such as aerospace, in which we need Airbus to be able to compete.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Madainn mhath, Mr Speaker.
The digital-service-tax threats from the USA show that the Biden Administration value their special relationship with big tech more than the one with the UK. The threat to the tax sovereignty of the UK and a number of other countries indicates that there is not really a relationship of equals. Is not the prospect of a trade deal with the USA pretty dead? In any case, the 0.2% of GDP that such a deal was going to recover was only a fraction of the damage done by Brexit. Has the Secretary of State accepted that fact yet?
Elizabeth Truss
We are urging the United States to desist from any more tit-for-tat tariffs disputes, including in respect of a digital services tax. We think that the best way to resolve the issue is through the process that the Chancellor is leading at the OECD. We are in further discussions with the United States not just to end the Airbus tariff dispute but to work with the United States at the G7 to challenge unfair practices in the global trading system by countries such as China.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
The Government back the British steel industry, as we have heard already this morning, and the unjustified US tariffs on steel, aluminium and derivatives imports from Britain are completely unfair and wholly unnecessary. Our rebalancing measures in response to the US section 232 on additional tariffs show that we will defend the British national interest and the rules-based system.
Stephen Kinnock [V]
Our steelworkers make the best steel that money can buy but, thanks to the indifference of successive Conservative Governments since 2010, they are constantly being made to compete with one hand tied behind their back. They are already dealing with the highest industrial energy prices in Europe and a Government procurement policy that fails the patriotism test, and now they face the possibility that, in June, steel safeguards that guard against import surges will be removed. Does the Minister agree that, if the Government were to remove those safeguards, it would add insult to injury and again undermine the ability of our steel industry to compete on a level playing field?
Mr Jayawardena
As the hon. Member knows, the British steel industry has benefited from investment of more than £500 million in recent years to help with the costs of energy, and we have announced a £250 million fund to support the decarbonisation of the industry. So this Government are dedicated to supporting the future of the steel industry and we will continue that work.
Margaret Ferrier [V]
Removing these measures would lead to the UK being one of the only steel markets without any protective measures for its steel industries. Does the Minister not agree that, while global overcapacity stands at over 500 million tonnes, it would be unwise to become a rare exposed market for steel when larger markets are still protected?
Mr Jayawardena
Mr Speaker, there are only so many times that I can say the same thing in a different way, but we have transitioned 19 of the EU’s measures and we have adopted systems in Britain for trade remedies based on international best practice to ensure that there is independence in this area. I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said already to her Scottish nationalist colleague, that the biggest market for Scotland is of course the British internal market, from which she is determined to tear Scotland.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
It is completely wrong that other countries are applying unfair practices to undermine fantastic British products. I am working with the new director of the World Trade Organisation, Dr Ngozi, to ensure that other countries play by the global rules of free trade.
Duncan Baker [V]
The wool trade started in Norfolk in medieval times, many, many years ago, and we have always been an outward-looking area to the world, but for trade to be free, it must also be fair. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps she is taking to protect vital industries to ensure that they are not undercut by those unscrupulous countries that engage in unfair trading practices?
Elizabeth Truss
We are establishing the new Trade Remedies Authority—which, of course, the Opposition voted against—in the Trade Bill, which will ensure that all countries follow the WTO rules. It will look at the evidence and be unafraid to recommend countervailing duties on exports when other countries do not play by the rules, so Chinese products, such as steel and ceramics, that receive unfair state subsidies that will distort trade and damage British business will be tackled.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
New research published alongside the Board of Trade paper “Global Britain, local jobs” estimates that 418,000 jobs were supported by exports in 2016 in Yorkshire and Humber. [Interruption.] Of course, the shadow Secretary of State laughs at the mention of jobs. It is notable how, in session after session, one issue that the she does not focus on is jobs and the livelihoods on which people depend. Of those jobs—I thank her for stopping her chuntering from a sedentary position. Of those jobs—[Interruption.] Oh, she has not stopped. Of those jobs, 234,000 were supported directly by exporting businesses, while a further 184,000 form part of the UK supply chain of exporting businesses.
Jason McCartney [V]
I recently hosted an online Department for International Trade roundtable with local businesses, giving advice and support on exporting. Will the Minister please thank his team for helping to host that session? Will he make sure that the Department continues to invest in regional exporting advisers to support businesses across Colne Valley and Yorkshire so that we can continue to take full advantage of the new, exciting opportunities that international trade is bringing?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend: is it not fantastic and uplifting to have someone who is genuinely dedicated to supporting and promoting the jobs upon which so many families depend? I am delighted that he has joined DIT’s parliamentary export programme, as have colleagues from right across this House, supporting and encouraging businesses to grow internationally, including through unlocking the benefits of the free trade agreements. As he rightly highlights, DIT has 28 international trade advisers dedicated to the Yorkshire region who help small and medium-sized enterprises to fulfil their exporting potential and connect them to international business opportunities.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Last month, I announced our new trade and investment hub in Wales, which will support almost 200,000 exporters and channel investment into Wales. It will play a crucial role in the export-led, jobs-led recovery for Wales.
Robin Millar [V]
The UK Government’s plan for a trade and investment hub in Wales is welcome support for business here in Wales. It will support exporters and help to restore inward investment in Wales to the levels we enjoyed in the past. What benefits has the Secretary of State identified that the hub will bring to exporters here in Aberconwy and across north Wales?
Elizabeth Truss
The trade and investment hub will provide support to business across Wales. There are already 2,000 people in Aberconwy working in export-intensive industries. The trade hub will provide support, including for Welsh lamb exports, which have resumed after more than 20 years to countries such as Japan.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government’s “Global Britain, local jobs” analysis does not take into account Brexit or covid, it ignores Welsh farming and Welsh steel production, and it appears to think that there are still 1,500 people employed in car production in Bridgend, which sadly there are not. Does the Secretary of State therefore think that this outdated, incomplete analysis is a reliable foundation on which to base her trade policy for Wales?
Elizabeth Truss
The analysis that we produced as part of “Global Britain, local jobs” is the first time that we have produced data at a constituency level for export industries, and it always takes time for statistics to be processed. The new Trade Bill has enabled us to get access to more up-to-date data that we will of course continue to update our strategy with. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the new trade hub that we are establishing in Cardiff, which will bring more investment to Wales—so let us hear from him.
Gareth Thomas
I think what the Secretary of State meant to say was that there is room for improvement, and that is certainly true. The stark reality is that Wales is getting a raw deal from the Trade Department. According to her own figures, the Department delivered 638 new inward investment projects for London but just 62 for Wales—a lower number of new investment projects than in any region in England, and for three years in a row. How can she justify those figures?
Elizabeth Truss
We are establishing a trade and investment hub in Cardiff this year that will employ up to 100 people precisely to bring more investment into Wales, more jobs into Wales, and more export opportunities into Wales.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
All arms exports require an export licence. I can assure the House that we take our export control responsibilities very seriously. We rigorously assess every application on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. We will not issue an export licence where to do so would be inconsistent with the consolidated criteria, including where there is a clear risk that the items might be used for a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
Kim Johnson [V]
The Yemeni community in Liverpool would like to know how the Minister can possibly justify the decision of his Department to increase its sales of bombs and missiles for use in Yemen to new record highs, while his friends at the Foreign Office are simultaneously cutting the amount of humanitarian aid going to starving Yemeni children. Does he accept that this is not just wrong, but downright immoral?
Mr Jayawardena
Not only are Her Majesty’s Government one of the biggest donors of aid around the world, including to Yemen, but as was set out in the Secretary of State’s written statement, we have devised a clear and revised methodology to make sure we will only license such products if they are consistent with the consolidated criteria.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We want to sell more British food around the world and help farmers make the most of our trade deals with 66 nations, plus the EU. We launched the Open Doors campaign, which will help our farmers to export to the world’s fastest growing markets.
Craig Williams
It is well documented that the food produced by our farmers is world class and demand around the world is increasing. Can my right hon. Friend build on the success of her FTAs, especially with Japan, in opening up markets for Welsh lamb and beef, including the United States? There was success with the United States on beef, and hopefully there will be on lamb. Can she update us in particular on the United States and Japan?
Elizabeth Truss
Welsh farmers export £144 million of lamb and beef around the world, and the recent opening of the US market to beef and the Japanese market to lamb will boost the figures further. Last month, I visited Kepak, which is already shipping beef to the US from farms across Wales, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in thanking Tim Smith and all the members of the Trade and Agriculture Commission for their final report published last month. Can I start by asking her when the Government intend to publish the core set of standards that the commission has called for, setting out the UK’s minimum requirements for tariff reductions when it comes to food safety, the environment and animal welfare?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with the right hon. Lady that Tim Smith and the team produced a fantastic report laying out the future for British agricultural trade, and I am also delighted that she welcomes the recommendations to promote the liberalisation of trade to influence innovation and productivity, and price and choice for consumers. We will be responding to the report in due course.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the Secretary of State for the answer, but it is vital that when this House comes to examine the upcoming trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, we are able to judge them against that core set of standards. Can I ask her to make it clear today that there will be no proposed reduction in tariffs as a result of those two agreements for any agricultural products that do not meet Britain’s core standards?
Elizabeth Truss
Part of the Trade Bill was the establishment of the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission. For every free trade agreement, it will produce a report on precisely the issues that the right hon. Lady outlines. I am very pleased that our partners in Australia and New Zealand are two countries with very high standards in animal welfare.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
The Secretary of State spoke with the US trade representative, Katherine Tai, on 22 March. They discussed a number of issues, including how the United Kingdom and the United States will collaborate to address shared concerns on serious matters such as forced labour. The Secretary of State also discussed the issue of forced labour with Ambassador Tai and her G7 counterparts during the G7 Trade Ministers meeting that she chaired on 31 March.
Yasmin Qureshi [V]
The Magnitsky-style sanctions against China are only the first step. While we welcome them, trade relations cannot be left out. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that UK consumers are not buying goods made with forced labour, and will the UK follow the US in banning imports of cotton from China’s Xinjiang region?
Mr Jayawardena
We are adopting a targeted approach to this issue, to make sure that we address the violations of rights and responsibilities. We have designated individuals and entities that have been involved in such violations. This is a smart tool, carefully targeted to achieve its goals, while minimising potentially negative wider impacts. It is not designed with a view to imposing sanctions on sectors within countries, for example.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
Sweden is a close ally of the UK on trade policy and a close partner in our day-to-day trading relationship. I was the first UK Minister to visit Sweden after the EU referendum, and through our excellent DIT team in Stockholm, we work hard to promote trade and investment between the UK and Sweden.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. According to a recent report by the Swedish chamber of commerce for the UK, almost 40% of Swedish businesses are optimistic about business growth in the UK and 70% continue to see the UK as an important step in international expansion. Does he agree that developing links with this greatest Scandinavian country, which shares our values and our growing economy, would be good for the UK, good for jobs and good for developing relations with our partners in the European Union?
Greg Hands
I commend my hon. Friend for his work as the chairman of the British-Swedish all-party parliamentary group and his mention of the excellent Swedish chamber of commerce for the UK, which was on one of my recent webinars. In my recent call with Swedish Trade Minister Anna Hallberg, we agreed to co-host a bilateral trade and business forum later this year. We have excellent trade co-operation with Sweden in sectors such as technology, financial services, defence and clean energy, so I very much share my hon. Friend’s optimism.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Joining the CPTPP is a massive opportunity for UK businesses, in particular those in areas such as financial services and digital, where the rules are world-leading. It will also cut tariffs for businesses in vital industries such as cars and whisky and help to drive our exports-led, jobs-led recovery from covid.
Clive Efford [V]
The very first of the 238 questions put to the Secretary of State in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on accession to the CPTPP asked her whether the UK will have the right to negotiate exemptions from those provisions of the agreement to which we do not wish to accede and amendments to those provisions to which we wish to make improvements, or whether it is her intention to join the CPTPP accepting all its current provisions in full. What is the Secretary of State’s answer?
Elizabeth Truss
The CPTPP is a very high-standards agreement, and the rules will have huge benefits for the UK. The reality is that UK products such as beef and lamb have been locked out of overseas markets for unfair reasons, so it is in our interests to sign up to a high-standards, good-rules agreement.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, there are at least 238 questions that the Secretary of State has to address on the subject of this agreement, and I look forward to receiving her answers soon, but today I want to ask her one simple one: can she guarantee that this Parliament will have as much time to scrutinise the proposed terms of accession to CPTPP before a vote on whether or not to approve them as the Australia, Canada and New Zealand Parliaments had before their respective votes?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question—she clearly comes from a profession where she was paid by the number of questions she asked. I will be delighted to answer all those questions and more when we publish the public bundle, which will include the scoping assessment and our negotiation objectives. We will publish that at the time of launching our negotiations, and we will also have full parliamentary scrutiny, including by the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission, in line with parliamentary systems across the world.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The UK greatly values its trade with each of Germany, Italy and Ireland. All trade data is currently volatile, especially due to the pandemic, but data released earlier this week showed a monthly upwards bounce in UK goods exports to the EU to £11.6 billion in February from £7.9 billion in January, including increases to all three countries referred to in the question.
Alyn Smith [V]
I appreciate that those on the Government Benches prefer breathless rhetoric to harsh reality, but the statistics to which the Minister refers are really quite clear for rural Scotland. Its meat exports remain down 52%, fish and shellfish are down 54%, dairy and eggs down 39%, beverages down 34%, cereals down 40%, and fruit and veg down 54%. Would the Minister like to apologise to the tens of thousands of people across rural Scotland who are in daily dread and fear of what their economic future holds?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Member for that follow-up question, and I wonder if, to coin a phrase, he has perhaps taken his eye off the ball, because actually there was a bounce back in trade in February. I will give him an independent view from the Office for National Statistics, which on the trade data says:
“Exports of food and live animals to the EU increased…in February 2021, after being significantly impacted in January… Exports of fish and shellfish to the EU also saw an uptick in February 2021 as exporters adjust to new regulations following the end of the transition period. The disruptions to food exports in January 2021 appear to have largely been overcome and may have only had short-term impacts on trade.”
That is from the Office for National Statistics, which he may seek to consult.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am delighted the Minister has quoted the ONS, because figures out this week show economic output remaining nearly 8% below the pre-pandemic peak and exports to Germany, Italy and Ireland down by as much as 50% to 75%. These are not teething problems; they are the bite of long Brexit. Does the Minister agree with Matt Griffith from the British Chambers of Commerce that his members are experiencing a
“permanent deterioration in their competitive position due to higher admin, paperwork and shipping costs”?
Greg Hands
It is good to have an argument about statistics, but actually the UK exports to the EU in February of £11.6 billion were only just below the monthly average for the whole of 2020, which was obviously very impacted by the pandemic, of £12 billion. I would caution against using statistics in this way—we need to see the bigger picture—but I refer the hon. Member back to what the ONS said. On the help we are providing for exporters, we have various Government helplines, the Brexit business taskforce, Brexit SME support and various measures in place specifically to support the agricultural sector and the Scottish seafood sector.
Drew Hendry
Let us come away from statistics and back to what is happening. JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon wrote to staff this month warning them that it will move all its EU-faced business out of London and into Europe. He says:
“Brexit was accomplished, but many issues still need to be negotiated. And in those negotiations, Europe has had, and will continue to have, the upper hand.”
The financial services sector is a huge employer in Scotland, and it is also facing this Westminster-inflicted disaster. Can the Minister now see why people in Scotland want to have their choice and their say over their own future?
Greg Hands
The hon. Member will know that there is of course a financial services memorandum of understanding between the UK and the EU, and we are acutely aware of the importance of the financial services sector, not least to my constituency as well. Many, I have to say, were surprised when the SNP voted for no deal on 30 December, especially after Nicola Sturgeon called it “unthinkable”. However, I have to say that I was not as surprised, because over the years I have seen the SNP vote against every single UK or EU trade deal, so the idea that it was going to vote in favour of a trade deal between the two of them was, frankly, highly unlikely. The SNP is anti-business, anti-jobs and against Scotland’s best interests.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Tunisia and Libya. There is great merit in strengthening the trading relationship with Tunisia. Our trade deal entered into force at the beginning of this year and it provides a platform to deepen trade and investment. As he knows, we are already supporting businesses such as Unilever, AstraZeneca and Vodafone, who already operate in Tunisia, and we look forward to backing British businesses to do even more.
Damien Moore [V]
Tunisia is a leading exporter of olive oil and wants to export more to the UK, but minimum quota requirements based on the last two years are making this difficult. Will my hon. Friend look into this so that trade is made easy with Tunisia, which is eager to build an even stronger trading partnership with the UK?
Mr Jayawardena
I am aware of this matter and am keen to make sure that businesses can make the most of our transition to trade agreements, so I will look into it. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and my Tunisian counterpart to open up and promote opportunities for British and Tunisian businesses; more trade means more jobs.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
My hon. Friend will be delighted that Teesside will benefit from one of eight new freeports, unlocking billions of pounds of private sector investment, and it will also help British businesses not just in his constituency but across the whole of the UK, including the 300,000 export-linked jobs in the north-east.
Jacob Young
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer and for her support for Teesside exporters. From raw chemicals to plastics and steel, Teesside manufacturers rely on global trade, so I am grateful to her Department for the work it has done, alongside Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, to bring more jobs, including in her Department, to the Tees valley. Can she outline when we might start to see these DIT jobs coming to Teesside, and what is her message to the people of the Tees valley ahead of the important elections next month?
Elizabeth Truss
My message is that Ben Houchen is doing a fantastic job, as is my hon. Friend. I am delighted that we are establishing a new trade hub in Darlington, which is only half an hour’s drive from my hon. Friend’s constituency. There are over 4,000 jobs in export-related industries in Redcar, including in the chemicals industry, and we will be doing even more to support them with the new Darlington trade hub.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The UK is a world leader in professional business services and the second biggest exporter of PBS globally, with a trade surplus of £33 billion in 2018. To support this important and diverse sector, we are seeking ambitious FTA commitments in cross-cutting areas like mobility and digital, as well as tackling specific behind-the-border regulatory barriers such as recognition and professional qualifications.
James Sunderland
The Minister will forgive me for being a bit concerned about ongoing red tape in post-Brexit trade with the European Union. This is affecting businesses in Bracknell and beyond. Will he please outline what his Department is doing to support the Cabinet Office in resolving this?
Greg Hands
DIT has very active participation in the current helplines for businesses facing issues in exporting to the EU. We participate, of course, in the Brexit business taskforce, we provide a DIT internationalisation fund for those looking to export, and we have 300 international trade advisers across the country and at posts right across the European Union. This is a whole-of-Government effort, and, as I said earlier, the data are starting to show encouraging signs of a recovery in our trade.
Felicity Buchan
Many of my Kensington constituents work in professional services, whether financial services, law, consulting or accountancy. These industries account for a huge amount of gross value added to our economy. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the professional services sector will be at the forefront of our minds in negotiating future trade deals?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend and neighbour puts it extremely well. Professional business services are vital for her constituency, for mine and for the whole country. Around 79% of gross value added and 80% of employment in this country is in services. As she knows, we secured special provisions for legal services in the EU agreement. I meet regularly with bodies such as TheCityUK, the City of London Corporation, UK Finance, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Law Society, the Bar Council and others to ensure that professional business services are right at the heart of the UK’s trade agenda.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Britain has strong bilateral trading relationships with our friends in the middle east and a clear ambition to deepen them. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are undertaking a joint trade and investment review with the Gulf Co-operation Council, with which total trade stood at over £33 billion in the year to September 2020. The Government have also signed trade agreements with Jordan and Lebanon, and just last month we entered into an agreement with the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi to provide £1 billion of investment into British life sciences.
Robert Halfon [V]
Today is Yom Ha’atzmaut—Israeli independence day—so I hope that my hon. Friend will wish Israel happy independence day. The normalisation of ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain last year was a hugely positive step not only for regional peace but for commerce, tourism and cultural exchanges. Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom is well placed to support our ally Israel in developing ties in the region, and will he explore the opportunities that these new trade relationships could bring to our country?
Mr Jayawardena
Indeed I do join my right hon. Friend in wishing all Israelis a happy independence day. He is right to recognise the strong relationships that we have with the state of Israel. We welcome the normalisation of relations, which creates many opportunities for increased trade, tourism and cultural links as well. Britain is well placed to support Israel in this endeavour. Total trade between us was £4.9 billion in the year to September 2020, up from the previous year. We are building a framework for a new bilateral science partnership. In addition, the tech hub based in the British embassy in Tel Aviv continues to partner Israeli expertise with British companies, delivering significant benefits to the British economy.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Around 630,000 jobs in the north-west were supported by exports in 2016, and export—[Interruption.]
Graham Stuart
Export activity helped support a further 472,000 jobs in the region through the consumption spending of export workers in the wider economy. In total, more than 1.1 million jobs—not a laughing matter, Mr Speaker—in the region are linked to exports in some way.
Mark Logan [V]
Napoleon said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers; I want to say that Bolton is a town of exporters. I recently hosted the parliamentary export programme in Bolton North East, seeking to help Bolton businesses such as Ajax Equipment and Velden Engineering to take advantage of new trading relations. Across Greater Manchester, foreign direct investment and foreign capital investment are worth £37 billion to the local economy. What actions is the Minister taking to put Bolton North East at the forefront of the global stage when it comes to research and development?
Graham Stuart
It is as much my hon. Friend as me who is putting Bolton North East at the forefront. He has joined colleagues as a member of the parliamentary export programme, and I congratulate him on hosting a recent event. He will have seen that we are working hard to help Bolton North East companies take advantage of new global opportunities and promoting a strong north-west R&D offer to international investors through the high potential opportunities programme in frontier sectors such as molecular diagnostics, lightweighting and sustainable packaging.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally. We are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. Although our approach to agreements will vary between partners, our strong economic relationships allow us to have open discussions on a range of issues, including human rights and responsibilities.
Patricia Gibson
In a leaked recording last month, the Foreign Secretary said he wants to do trade deals with countries that violate international standards on human rights, as not doing so would mean missing out on profit. Will the record now be set straight? Does the Minister recognise the remarks made by the Foreign Secretary as Government policy and is this the view shared by the Department for International Trade?
Greg Hands
I think the hon. Lady has misquoted the Foreign Secretary in her account of what he said, but let me be absolutely clear that we will continue to encourage all states to uphold international human rights obligations. The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally and remains absolutely committed to its international obligations. We are currently negotiating with Australia, New Zealand and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. They will all be important partners and they are all places that the UK will be engaging with when it comes to questions of maintenance and international support for global human rights.
Mr Sharma [V]
I will make the Minister’s life a bit easier when answering the question. Last month, the Foreign Secretary explained that there were some countries whose behaviour on human rights put them “beyond the pale” when it comes to trade agreements, but that otherwise we should be open to deals with anyone. Can the Minister of State save us some time by listing those countries whose behaviour the Government regard as beyond the pale and those that they regard as acceptable?
Greg Hands
Again, I will have to go back and see exactly what the Foreign Secretary said, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of what he said is not quite right. Let us be absolutely clear. I ask him to have a look at the roll-over trade agreements we have already done with 66 countries and see if he can identify any diminution of human rights in the agreements we have already done.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
On 4 March, we struck a historic deal with the US Administration, heralding the end of the 16-year Airbus-Boeing dispute. The deal removes the 25% tariffs on some UK exports, such as Scotch whisky, cashmere and machinery. It paves the way for an even deeper trading relationship with one of our closest friends and allies. I continue to work with the US trade representative on the deal and on our broader trading relationship.
Jason McCartney [V]
As co-chair of the all-party group for Fairtrade, may I please ask the Secretary of State what steps her Department is taking to make sure that our trade policies help and support Fairtrade farmers and growers across the world?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on the all-party group. The UK is a long-standing supporter and champion of Fairtrade. We are opening up markets with developing countries such as Kenya and Ghana. We will shortly be launching our new general scheme of preferences, which will give more access to developing countries, helping them to grow through trade.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
The UK is a country that follows the rules. We have very high standards in areas like the environment, animal welfare, food standards and intellectual property. It is in our interests to be in an agreement with high standards, so that we can ask the same of other countries and get access to their markets. That is the point of signing trade agreements.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of supporting SMEs precisely to get into that international business space. That is why we are developing a new export strategy. We have the developing Export Academy, with a range of toolkits and information to support small businesses. We have the internationalisation fund: £38 million of grants to help businesses to overcome any barriers to international trade. Last but not least, we have UK Export Finance, our award-winning credit agency, which has increasing numbers of staff not only across this United Kingdom, but across the world to make sure that SMEs, wherever they go, can be financed and supported to realise those opportunities, which are many.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Elizabeth Truss
First, we are not removing the safeguards in June. When we were part of the EU, decisions about safeguards were made on an independent basis. Nobody on the Opposition side of the House complained about that then, but they seem to object to independent decisions being made when we are a sovereign nation, which I find utterly bizarre. And I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s pessimistic prognosis of the future of Welsh exports. We have massive opportunities for more beef exports, more lamb exports, more car exports and more aerospace exports, and that is what we are going to do through our new trade and investment hub in Cardiff. It is going to be driving those opportunities and I urge him to get behind it.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) [V]
Elizabeth Truss
I would be delighted to engage with the local Indian community in Ipswich and across the country, because I think we have huge opportunities to expand our trade with India. It is currently £24 billion, but it could be so much more. We are currently working on an enhanced trade partnership with the Indian Government and I look forward to engaging with my hon. Friend and the people of Ipswich to make it happen.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
I am very happy to help the cheese company export not just to the EU, but around the world.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]
Graham Stuart
Like my hon. Friend, I am celebrating the freeport, which will make a positive difference and from which businesses will be able to export all around the world. Our export academy, the new export strategy and other elements are all there to help them to make the most of it, as well as, of course, probably the most ambitious trade policy ever conducted by a major economy in history, which we are successfully prosecuting. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would also like to thank my hon. Friend for briefing me ahead of my visit to Serbia last week, prosecuting the case for British businesses, in his role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
The text, and a parliamentary report and explanatory memorandum, will of course come before Parliament in due course. We wish to utilise the agreement to strengthen the trade ties between our two countries. I look forward to the Labour party supporting our agenda to create more jobs in every part of this country and in Cameroon.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I thank my hon. Friend for promoting the trade agenda so effectively in Wakefield. He is quite right that free trade agreements have a crucial role to play in enabling the UK to seize international opportunities to support that economic vision. Joining CPTPP now will benefit businesses in a number of ways, including through ambitious rules supporting digital trade and reduced tariffs on UK exports, enabling us to build back better and building more opportunities for businesses, supporting jobs in constituencies such as Wakefield.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Mr Jayawardena
Not at all. We have always been clear that more trade need not come at the expense of our values, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier today. We have one of the most robust systems of arms export controls in the world and have always been clear that we will only permit exports on a case-by-case basis where the consolidated criteria are upheld.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Greg Hands
I commend my right hon. Friend for his work to promote apprenticeships, first in the Government and then as Chair of the Education Committee. It is too early to have final figures for 2021, but we are confident of achieving the legislative target set, building on our previous performance. According to Cabinet Office statistics, DIT achieved 3.5% of its total workforce in England as apprenticeship starts in 2019-20, up from 1.1% the year before, easily clearing the target of 2.3%.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Independence of City of York Council
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In connection with this petition, I must mention that four of my employees are currently City of York councillors.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the 3,261 residents and businesses of York who are committed to local government reorganisation maintaining the integrity of the City of York Council unitary authority boundaries while North Yorkshire County Council moves from a two-tier to a one-tier authority as part of local government reorganisation proposed for North Yorkshire. It is our very firm belief that the future of York’s economy is best served through the focus that the city provides, that services best meet local need when they are provided locally, and that the proud identity of local people will best be retained in our special city of York after 800 years of a clear and distinct identity of York being York. This strong core to North Yorkshire will best meet the needs of the rest of North Yorkshire, too, rather than some random east-west proposal that serves no one’s interests.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to listen closely to York’s residents and businesses and to the City of York Council’s submission to its consultation on local government devolution, and to work with all local politicians, including MPs, city councillors and parish and town councillors, on any decisions to do with York’s council.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of York Central,
Declares that York’s residents and businesses are best served by having an independent council, on its current boundaries, that is focused solely on their needs and provides the basis for economic opportunity, high quality public services and a stronger community; further declares concern that if York is merged into a new council stretching 65 miles north to south there could be an increase in council tax by £117 per year; further that this would inevitably mean that resources could be diverted from York and residents would pay more money for poorer services; further that this would lead to the end of the 800-year connection between the city and its council; further that the role of Lord Mayor might be scrapped; further that the disruption to key service delivery across York would cost millions of pounds to implement; and further that it would be disastrous to do this during a public health crisis.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to listen closely to York’s residents and businesses and to the City of York Council’s submission to its consultation on local government devolution, and to work with all local politicians, including MPs, city councillors and parish and town councillors, on any decisions to do with York’s council.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002658]
Residents of Mary Feilding Guild care home
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am very pleased to present a petition in the Chamber today, on behalf of hundreds of members of the community in Hornsey and Wood Green, relating to the Mary Feilding Guild care home—a particularly loved care home in Highgate that has recently been bought by a new owner. The new owner has given elderly residents notice to move out by the end of next month, and the reply from the Health and Social Care Minister to my urgent inquiry of 11 March is still outstanding. May I just add that one of the residents passed away this week? She had a stroke and died yesterday.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green,
Declares that it is appalling that the new owners of the Mary Feilding Guild have issued eviction notices to the elderly residents during a pandemic; further that this is no way to treat vulnerable older people who have already been through such a difficult year.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on the owners to halt their plans immediately, cancel the eviction notices and instead work with residents to save their homes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002659]
University Students: Compensation for Lost Teaching and Rent
(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
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if he will make a statement on the return date given to university students and his Department’s plans to provide financial compensation to university students for lost teaching and rent during the coronavirus pandemic.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
This Government recognise just how difficult the past year has been for students. Since the arrival of new and highly transmissible variants, we have had to adopt a cautious approach, in line with the wider restrictions. In January, we enabled only students on critical key worker courses to return, and from 8 March we allowed practical and creative students to resume face-to-face teaching. This week, we have announced that the final tranche of students will be able to return on 17 May, subject to step 3 of the road map. This decision was made, as promised, following a review during the Easter holidays. I understand the frustrations of students and parents; the pandemic has disproportionately impacted our young. That is one of the key reasons why we have worked with universities to ensure that education carried on throughout and that students can graduate on time.
Many things are indeed opening up in step 2, but most are outside and social mixing remains focused outside, and they do not involve the formation of new households. We know that, inside, the risk of transmission increases with the number of people mixing and the length of time they are together, which is why we are being cautious until stage 3.
The Office for National Statistics estimates that 23% of students are yet to return to their termtime accommodation, which still leaves up to 500,000 students yet to travel. Throughout the pandemic, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned of the risk posed by the mass movement of students, especially given that they form new households.
At the heart of our decision was public health, but also student wellbeing. The last thing any of us wants is for students to have to repeatedly self-isolate, as some did last autumn. That would not only have been damaging to their mental health and wellbeing, but would have risked the ability to graduate of some students studying creative and practical subjects.
This decision was taken not in isolation, but as part of the Government’s overall road map to reopening. Every relaxation—even those with a low impact and low risk—will have an impact, so we have to judge the impact of these relaxations cumulatively to ensure that the road map is irreversible.
The Government do recognise the financial pressures the pandemic has placed on students in the financial sense, including accommodation costs. That is why, this week, we have announced an additional £15 million, on top of the £70 million since last December and the £256 million of taxpayer funding that we enabled universities to access for hardship.
It is important to clarify that the exemptions still apply to students who need to return to their term-time accommodation for mental health reasons or because of a lack of study space. We have asked universities to make their facilities available to all students who are back, to support their mental health and wellbeing.
I end by assuring the House that I will continue to work closely with universities so that, together, we can support students, and especially those who will graduate this year.
Daisy Cooper [V]
About 36 hours ago, around 1 million students who have still not returned to university since Christmas were told that they should not expect to do so until at least 17 May. Before that announcement, it seemed that the Government had forgotten them altogether, and now we have proof that they had, because for many students that date comes after their courses have actually finished.
This feels like a final, end-of-term insult to university students, who have had months of not being able to use libraries or labs, months without taking part in student societies or extracurricular activities, months of paying rent for accommodation that they could not use and months without being able to work, with some falling behind on rent and bills and needing to feed themselves from food banks. Is it any wonder that more than 50% of students say their mental health has got worse?
Students must be fairly compensated, both financially for rent and fees and with support to recover the learning time they have lost. The Government must more than double the funds for those facing hardship to £700 million, as suggested by the all-party parliamentary group for students.
Universities across the country have worked really hard. They have adapted to deliver courses online and invested considerable sums in doing so. However, the higher education sector is already facing huge financial uncertainty, so it is clear that universities alone cannot be expected to compensate students. The Government must step in. Will the Minister consider conducting a rapid review of the impact of the pandemic on university students and giving that review the powers to make recommendations on how students should be reimbursed by the Government in financial and learning terms? Will she consider calls to double the funds available to students facing financial hardship to £700 million? Finally, will she say sorry for the Government’s role in wrecking the last academic year for so many young people?
Michelle Donelan
I will address the hon. Member’s first point regarding 17 May. She is correct to say that some students will have reached, or will be approaching, the end of their course. However, a great number will not, and it is important to give them the opportunity to get back, for the wider university experience as well.
In regard to monitoring the impact on students, we constantly do that, and have done so throughout the pandemic, and I will ensure that we continue to do so. On financial support, we have now given an additional £85 million, which is targeted at those most in need and getting the money into their pockets. On the impact of the pandemic, yes, we all know how challenging it has been and continues to be for students, and that is why students have had a disrupted year.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
In 2018, just 12.3% of the most disadvantaged pupils in England were accepted into higher education institutions. The Minister’s passion and mine is to ensure that more people from disadvantaged backgrounds attend higher education, but does she agree that the proposal by Hull University to drop the requirement for students to demonstrate a high-level proficiency in written and spoken English is entirely the wrong way to go about that? It is patronising and counterproductive. Is it not better for universities to work with schools and colleges to ensure that all pupils reach the required standards of literacy to secure places on quality degree courses and degree apprenticeships?
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my right hon. Friend; I am appalled by the decision of some universities to drop literacy standards in assessments—that is misguided and it is dumbing down standards. That will never help disadvantaged students. Instead, the answer is to lift up standards and provide high-quality education. I assure him that we will act on this, in line with our manifesto commitments on quality.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last week, there was an exam-room silence from the Government on when universities would return, with students, their families and university staff learning from newspapers what was only announced to this House days later: that many students would not return to campus until 17 May. Why has this announcement come so late, and why was it briefed to the newspapers instead of being announced to those affected? Does the Minister not see that this is deeply disrespectful to the students and staff alike? For weeks, we have had students studying technical and creative subjects safely, thanks to the incredible work of universities and staff, and for many weeks students have been back in further education settings, so will the Minister explain why further and higher education settings have been treated so differently? Her written statement ignored the work of universities and the existing situation in colleges, and offered no evidence to support this approach. So will she tell us what the scientific basis was for this decision, and will she commit to publishing this advice today, so that she is at least forthcoming with students and the sector?
The Minister announced a further £15 million this year for hardship funding. Further support is clearly needed, but, once again, the Government are simply not working to the scale of the challenge. The funding offered to students in England is far smaller than that offered by the Labour Government in Wales. Will the Minister tell us why her Government believe that students in England need so much less than those elsewhere? At every stage of this pandemic, children, young people and students have been an afterthought for this Government, let down time and again. Will the Minister finally admit that these young people have been failed and tell the House what she will do to address it?
Michelle Donelan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has been an extremely challenging and disruptive year for students, and I assure him that students have never been and will never be an afterthought for this Government. In fact, this week we made a statement regarding the details of the plan for the remainder of students returning. We conducted a review over the Easter holidays, as we had publicly announced we would do, and we wanted to maximise the amount of time we had to review the data. The announcement made on 5 April was regarding the things that would open up in step 2.
On further education and schools, the difference is that these youngsters do not go and form new households, nor do they travel across the country. On the data we have reviewed, we have considered the latest epidemiology data, alongside public health, economic, educational and other implications of the return. A wealth of data, papers and evidence is and will continue to be published.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for the extensive time that I know she has personally devoted to ensuring that students from my constituency get a fair deal from their universities, on a case-by-case basis. But given that universities are autonomous and independent of Government, does she agree that the example set by the best universities, which have been very proactive in ensuring students are treated appropriately, should be seen as an example for the others to follow, so that we ensure that all students who have not received the services in education or accommodation they paid for are fairly dealt with by those institutions?
Michelle Donelan
University staff have worked exceptionally hard over the past year to enable students to continue learning, and I want to take this opportunity to once again thank them for that. If students do have concerns, they should raise them with their university, which has a duty, under consumer rights, to have a transparent and timely complaints process. They can then escalate that to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if they remain unsatisfied
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Universities Minister can help me respond to a query I have had this morning from a constituent, who asks me why his siblings can return to in-person teaching in school and college, he can get a haircut and he can return to his part-time job in non-essential retail, but he cannot return to his university to continue his studies in person until after this academic year of teaching has finished. Student debt after graduating from an undergraduate degree is, on average, £40,000. Peter asks me why he is paying £9,250 a year for in-person teaching that has not materialised this year.
Michelle Donelan
I assure the hon. Member that we are confident that in-person teaching and learning can be delivered in covid-secure environments, but the area of concern has and always will be the movement of students and the formation of new households, which does not occur in schools and further education colleges. Many of the things that we are opening up in stage 2 focus on being outside. Social mixing remains focused on being outside. The key thing is that they do not involve the formation of a new household. Throughout the entire process, we have been clear that students should still expect the quality of education, the quantity of provision and for it to be accessible for all.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
As university courses remain primarily online until the middle of next month to control the spread of coronavirus, will the Minister confirm that universities continue to be expected to deliver the same quality and quantity of online learning as they have throughout the year? Will she encourage universities to extend their teaching and reviews so that students may experience classroom learning before their exams?
Michelle Donelan
The Government do indeed expect the quantity and quality of teaching to be maintained and to continue to be accessible for all, whether it is delivered in person or online. Quality is in fact an Office for Students registration condition, and students who have concerns may notify the OfS. I thank all higher education staff, who have worked tirelessly throughout, enabling students to continue their learning.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Laura Halliwell and Isaac Grinnell are two university students on student placement schemes in my office. They have both raised concerns about their peers’ experiences during this academic year about lost teaching, mental health pressures and accommodation rent payments. As many students have been unable to go to their universities this year, missing out on teaching and the many other opportunities such as student societies and mental health services, why does the Minister think it is okay to charge £9,250 for university tuition fees this year?
Michelle Donelan
I would like to clarify that the Government do not charge £9,250 for tuition fees; universities do, as autonomous institutions. The Government set the maximum level at which universities may continue to charge. Every university has opted to do that and, in return, we have said that we expect the quantity and quality of provision to be maintained, and for that to be accessible for all. If students have concerns, they should take it to their university and, if they remain unsatisfied, go to the OIA, which can lead and has led to fee refunds. No one, however, is doubting how challenging and different the past year has been for students.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Professor Whitty has said that the risk to 19 to 22-year-olds is very low. Professor Valance has said that the return of universities in the previous wave was not associated with transmission into the towns in which they are located. We know that universities are some of the best settings in the country for rigorous testing. Ten million pupils at schools and colleges went back on 8 March without incident. So why are these precious weeks for university students being lost to them, despite the evidence that we now have? Will my hon. Friend think again about this date? Every week is precious in the limited periods that people have at university. There are questions about careers guidance for people about to graduate. Will she look again at the evidence and if, as I suspect it justifies doing so, bring forward the return date?
Michelle Donelan
We have continued to review the evidence. We did a comprehensive review over Easter, taking advice from the likes of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Medical Officer and looking at the advice from SAGE, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is disappointing that we cannot get students back earlier and it is a very difficult situation for the students involved, but we cannot move too fast, too soon. That would risk a resurgence in infections, hospitalisations and deaths. We are talking about the mass movement of, potentially, up to 500,000 students forming new households.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her reply to the urgent question. Are there plans to ensure that the help towards bills that students studying in Northern Ireland were able to access under the covid study disruption payment scheme rolled out by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland will be replicated in mainland UK for Northern Ireland students studying here, so that they have financial aid to offset their huge bills for minimal interaction and teaching?
Michelle Donelan
The scheme in Northern Ireland has aimed to support those in financial hardship, as we have, but what we have done is slightly different. We have distributed £70 million and now an additional £15 million—a total of £85 million—of hardship money to universities to help those most in need, including international and postgraduate students. That is the process we have used to get money into the pockets of those most in need.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
I have been contacted by some university students from Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke who have felt the closure of universities more acutely from the additional costs of alternative accommodation, loss of employment and the extra costs of accessing teaching online. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the £85 million in total support being made available will deliver tangible help to those left financially struggling?
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we are focused on getting money into the pockets of the students who need it now. Universities have flexibility in how they distribute this funding in a way that will best prioritise those in need, but it must be spent on supporting students, including international students, postgraduate students and domestic undergraduate students. My message to any student listening is that if they need help, they should approach their university and ask for it. There is no stigma attached.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I have been inundated with messages from students and their families who are really worried about the impossible position they are in, having suffered huge restrictions to their education and social life and facing a mountain of student debt. Do the Government have a proper plan to address that? Can we put some energy into fighting for these young people?
Michelle Donelan
I assure the hon. Member that I have put energy into fighting for these students. That is exactly why I prioritised ensuring that they can graduate on time, in creative and practical subjects, and that we can support them financially, particularly those who are in hardship. Again, I urge any student who is facing hardship to approach their university. These are really difficult times for students and their families, and as we navigate through the pandemic, we hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that next year will be much easier for students.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Bucks New University in Wycombe will want to be in a position to address the logical inconsistency that has come up several times in the House, which is that students cannot return to university but can go to non-essential retail, including to work in it. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. Is the heart of the matter that students returning to university form new households? Is that what the Government are really worried about?
Michelle Donelan
We had to make this decision on balance in relation to all the things that we were relaxing, because everything—even something with the slightest risk—could impact our pathway out of the pandemic. My hon. Friend is right: one of our key concerns was the mass movement of students—potentially up to 500,000 additional students—across England and the UK and the formation of new households.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Last month, I held an open meeting with students in my constituency. They raised issues including financial hardship—current funding is wholly inadequate—and mental wellbeing, lack of planning, tuition fees, rent, professional accreditation and digital exclusion. This is not a question of consumer rights, as the Minister suggests; it is a question of students’ futures after the pandemic. I have written to the Secretary of State, but what does the Minister say to students in Newcastle upon Tyne Central who feel wholly abandoned by this Government?
Michelle Donelan
Once again, I reiterate that the Government appreciate how difficult and challenging this has been for students. It has not been the university experience that any of us would have wanted for them, and that is why we are working with universities to build back on the student experience as soon as they return. We are also working on a package of support for those who are graduating this year.
I have asked universities throughout the pandemic to prioritise mental health, setting up Student Space with the OfS, which is a £3 million additional platform, and setting up a working group and a Department for Education action group co-chaired by the Minister for Children and Families. We have now dedicated an additional £50 million to mental health via the OfS through the teaching grant next year. This is a priority for the Government, and we recognise the impact that the pandemic has had on the wellbeing and mental health of students.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
Every MP will have heard from constituents that, compared with previous years, the quality and quantity of provision for students since March 2020 has not be maintained. That is certainly my experience. The Government have done a remarkable and world-leading job in supporting businesses, families and all sorts of people across the country through the pandemic. Surely they can find a way simply to write off the student loans borrowed in 2020-21. It will not solve the whole of the problem, but it is a significant step that will support students and remind them that we are on their side and that we have hope for their future.
Michelle Donelan
I would like to remark on the resilience of students during this pandemic. University staff have worked tirelessly to ensure that students did not have to put their academic journeys or their lives on hold. We have seen some fantastic and innovative examples of this approach, but the Government have been clear throughout that we expect the quality, quantity and accessibility of tuition to be maintained. We have targeted our financial support to those in hardship and in getting cash into the pockets of those who need it. Any loan rebates would not achieve that.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
We all understand the need for caution, but we have heard that the problem seems to be about the formation of new households and so on. May I urge the Minister to talk to universities, because not all universities are the same? The timings of terms and the patterns of accommodation are not all the same. Rather than have this fixed, hard “No, it can’t be done until 17 May”, can we not try to look for some solutions? Will she talk to Universities UK about what can be done to help?
Michelle Donelan
I regularly engage with universities. Just yesterday, I spoke to Universities UK and also held a taskforce with university sector representatives. We need an approach that is fair across the board to students, and also that is workable and deliverable. The hon. Member is quite right, every university and higher education institution is slightly different, so it would be impossible to create a bespoke, detailed model. Our goal has always been to get all of the student population back as quickly as we possibly can.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
Students across Arundel and South Downs have told me of their disappointment with this week’s announcement. Will the Minister confirm that those students with inadequate study space or mental health or wellbeing issues may return now to their term-time address and that universities have been asked to open facilities such as libraries, catering and gyms to support those who have returned?
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend is correct. Universities should support the return of students for mental health reasons and those who have inadequate study spaces. Universities can now reopen a number of facilities, so we have asked them to allow access to all students who are back in term-time accommodation, to safeguard both student wellbeing and to prevent isolation.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The inquiry of the all-party parliamentary group for students in January received testimony from hundreds who felt that they had been overlooked: losing the income on which they depend from casual jobs that have disappeared and ineligible for the support available to other workers; paying rent for accommodation that they cannot use; and missing learning experiences despite the best efforts of universities and their staff. The Minister knows that the Government’s response in February and again on Tuesday fell far short of what was needed. Students in Northern Ireland have received support worth more than £500 each, in Wales £300, in Scotland £80, and in England just £43.70. Does she understand why students describe themselves as being forgotten?
Michelle Donelan
The difference is that we have started from a position of unlocking £256 million so that universities can support hardship. That is on top of the new money of £85 million that we have now dedicated. We cannot look at it on a per-student basis. We are very open and honest that this is not a per-student calculation; this is a targeted fund to support those most in need. Universities UK has estimated, and its studies show, that, on average, hardship funding is about £1,000 for each student. I do not want any student in England to feel forgotten. This Government have certainly not forgotten them, and we wholeheartedly accept how difficult and challenging the past year has been for them.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
North Devon is the first place in England to record no covid cases for a week this year, and our students are keen to return to campus. Will my hon. Friend detail what measures are in place to ensure that they can do so safely, as they will inevitably be travelling to an area with higher rates of infection?
Michelle Donelan
Universities continue to make significant investments in student and staff safety—including updated risk assessments, assessments of adequate ventilation and covid-secure measures such as mandatory social distancing, hand washing and face coverings—and testing is available to all students, who should currently be tested twice a week at their university test centre. From 17 May, we will move to home testing, with students first asked to take three PCR tests at their university test centre.[Official Report, 20 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 4MC.]
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) [V]
For my constituent Harry Wild, who faces finals in June, May is too late. Given that pubs, shops, barbers and gyms are now open, why is he still forking out £9,250, plus accommodation, for no direct staff contact? Doing a head of highlights requires far more close contact than distanced content delivery, which is happening in the Chamber as we speak. Is Harry being penalised for studying in England? In Labour Wales, hybrid blended learning is already happening on campus.
Michelle Donelan
We are confident that in-person teaching and learning can be delivered in a covid-secure environment; the area of concern has been and always will be the mass movement of students and the formation of new households. As the hon. Member pointed out, many things are indeed opening up, but most of them are outside and involve social mixing outside, and the key thing is that they do not involve the formation of new households.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her work throughout the pandemic to support students from Redcar and Cleveland and those studying at Teesside University. Just like in all walks of life, regular testing will be vital to getting life at universities back to normal. Can she confirm that no student will have to pay for covid tests to return to their studies?
Michelle Donelan
I can indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend that testing plays an important part in mitigating the risk of transmission and assure him that under no circumstances will any student have to incur financial costs as a result of participating in our testing programme.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I am very concerned about the mental health of students who are still not back at university. I am conscious that the university experience is about way more than lectures and tutorials—at least, it was for me. Will my hon. Friend please update the House on what we are doing to support the mental health of students who are not yet back at university?
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend is right: the wider student experience has been extremely impacted over the last year, despite the hard work of universities and student unions. UUK is sharing best practice and ideas to support universities to prioritise and enrich the student experience on return, and we are working with UUK on that.
Throughout the pandemic, I have reiterated to universities the importance of prioritising mental health and wellbeing and worked with them to enable that, including by convening a mental health working group. We have also worked closely with the OfS and launched Student Space, a £3 million mental health platform through which students can access support during the pandemic.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Time spent away from in-person learning has had a particularly damaging impact on students from deprived and disadvantaged backgrounds. Goldsmiths, University of London has raised with me its concerns about the widening gap between students from wealthy backgrounds, who have networks to help them to find jobs beyond university, and those from low-income families, who do not. To ensure that the gap in social mobility does not hold students back in the job market, what steps will the Minister take to make sure that tailored careers support and advice are provided?
Michelle Donelan
We are currently working with universities and sector representatives on a package of support for those who will graduate this year. It is important to note that we have already done a number of things, including putting an additional £32 million into the national careers service. The number of work coaches in this country is now up to 27,000, and we have the skills toolkit, which is a fantastic free resource that enables students or graduates to access courses that will add to their employability.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Has the Minister’s Department done any assessment of the impact on the levels of attainment and grades that might be achieved in finals this year? If it is less than normal, will some sort of gearing be put into the system to ensure that students are not penalised by the fact that they have had to do so much work away from the university, without the advantage of attending a library, for instance?
Michelle Donelan
Universities are autonomous institutions and all run their own assessments, so every single one of them is different in this respect. However, the Government are advocating that they introduce policies that mitigate some of the impact of the pandemic and that they are fair in doing so. Some have chosen to introduce no-detriment policies, for instance. However, this will not work in all cases—for example, if a university does not have enough information to do a no-detriment policy, or if the regulatory body that accredits the course is against that. My understanding from my work with universities is that they are on the whole being extremely flexible and accommodating for students and appreciate the sheer scale of the challenges that students have faced over the last year. I will continue to monitor the situation and work with universities on this.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
There is increasing concern from students who have not been able to take many of the part-time jobs that they would otherwise have been able to. They are not eligible for much of the Government support and they are having to continue to pay rent. Some universities have been good, of course, but the private sector has not been. Is it not now time for the Government to have serious plans to address this hardship, as we have seen in Wales, and not just the pittance that has been given, on a discretionary basis, to students, many of whom are not able to access it properly?
Michelle Donelan
It is important to remember that we have unlocked £256 million of taxpayers’ money for universities to access to support those in hardship, and we have allocated an additional £85 million. It is right that we have targeted that to those who are most in need, rather than allocating it as a blanket payment, which would have diluted the support available to those who genuinely need it at the moment. Once again, I reiterate my message to any student who is facing hardship: please come forward to your university and access that help. That includes international students and postgraduate students.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for literally being on call on evenings and weekends to answer any questions we have had on universities on a case-by-case basis. University should be some of the best days of your life. I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) will join me in thinking the same, given our shared time in Lancaster. However, the past year has raised severe mental health issues for everyone, as we have heard. What conversations is the Minister having with education providers to support students’ health, mental health and wellbeing when they return?
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend touches on a really important point. Throughout this pandemic I have reiterated to universities and sector bodies the importance of prioritising student wellbeing and mental health and moving that provision online in tandem with academic provision. I convened a working group to enable this. I have worked with the OfS to launch Student Space—a £3 million mental health project. We continue to evaluate the situation. We have also launched an action group with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), looking at mental health across the spectrum of education, because these challenges are not going away and we need to continue to support students throughout this period.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I have two privately run student accommodation blocks in my constituency, which in normal times are home to hundreds of students from London’s top universities. Because of the travel restrictions and physical closure, they have had to live elsewhere for most of the year, but they still continue to pay the rent. These students have exhausted all means, including discussions with their accommodation provider, and they have been looking at trying to terminate their contracts or to be offered a rent reduction, but to no avail. They have been put into an impossible position, having faced huge restrictions on their education and their social life, but they are still paying rent. All they want is a fair deal from their accommodation provider. What plans do the Government have to address this?
Michelle Donelan
We have urged accommodation providers to have students’ best interests at heart, to review their policies and to give refunds where they can, and a number have done so, including a plethora of universities and private providers such as Unite. The hardship money is there for those students who have faced a situation where they cannot access a refund. I again urge all students to access that, particularly if accommodation pressures are putting them in financial difficulties.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work she has done in supporting students and universities across this very difficult period. Clearly, students are now consumers—consumers enabled to demand the best from their universities—and the key point here is getting value for money. I know that she is trying to do that. Can she also state the position in relation to international students? Many universities are wholly dependent now on the income from international students. What advice is being given to those students, who are equally consumers of our education?
Michelle Donelan
The Government’s expectations are clear: universities should maintain the quality, quantity and accessibility of provision. If a student, whether international or domestic, is unhappy, they can utilise the OfS notifications procedure to pre-empt a review, or make a formal complaint to their university. If they are still unsatisfied, they can go to the OIA, which can lead to fee refunds and has done in the past.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The latest ONS statistics show that around three quarters of students are already back in their term-time accommodation. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s failure to provide any information or guidance whatsoever until so very late in the day meant that many students travelled unnecessarily in anticipation of starting back after Easter?
Michelle Donelan
We have continued to give guidance and advice to students throughout. We wanted to give the maximum period possible to review the data because our objective has always been to get students back as soon as we possibly can. At every stage, we have written to students and communicated with them via universities, but I do get how challenging it is and how disappointing it will be for some students not to be able to resume face-to-face teaching until 17 May.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is telling that the first step on the roadmap was education, so we know how seriously the Government take that subject. Will the Minister confirm that the highest rates of transmission among students are in university halls of residence and house sharing, so, regrettable as it is to have to delay the recommencement, it is simply a fact that we have to ensure the safety of this nation and that case rates continue to be suppressed?
Michelle Donelan
The Government have committed to taking a cautious approach to easing restrictions, guided by the data instead of dates. Encouraging students on non-practical courses to return to in-person teaching will potentially lead to a significant number of students forming new households from across the country—up to 500,000—and enabling this to proceed too early may result in significant, higher numbers of infection and could increase the risk of students having to repeatedly self-isolate, which I am sure none of us would want.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question; there were 29 questions in just over 40 minutes. We will now suspend for a short period.
11.12 am
Sitting suspended.
Business of the House
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 19 April will include:
Monday 19 April —Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (Day 1).
Tuesday 20 April —Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (Day 2).
Wednesday 21 April—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to counter terrorism, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, followed by a debate on the sixth report from the Committee on Standards relating to confidentiality in the House’s standards system and the seventh report from the Committee on Standards relating to sanctions in respect of the conduct of Members, followed by a motion relating to membership of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.
Thursday 22 April—Debate on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, eight report of Session 2019-21, on Government Transparency and Accountability During Covid 19: The Data Underpinning Decisions, followed by a debate on a motion on mass human rights abuses and crimes against humanity in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region. The subjects for those debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 23April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 26 April will include:
Monday 26 April —If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve the Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021; followed by a motion to approve the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (High-Risk Countries) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2021, No.392); followed by a motion relating to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No.7) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No.150).
Valerie Vaz
Follow that, as they say. I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I note that there is the possibility of proroguing on 29 April, and we only have the business up until the 26th, so we look forward to a further announcement.
I start by sending my condolences and those of Opposition Members who have not had the opportunity to send them to our Gracious Sovereign and her family on the sad passing of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip. We must remember him not just as the Queen’s consort but as a husband of 73 years. I know that the country will want to remember his good works, his deeds and his wonderful personality as he is laid to rest on Saturday. May he rest in peace.
Yet again, we have to have the Prime Minister come back to clarify his remarks. Yesterday, he said at Primeand Ethnic Disparities, but it is a Government report. They set it up: it is out of No. 10 and out of the Cabinet Office. It is totally discredited, as at least 20 organisations and individuals listed as stakeholders have distanced themselves from the report.
It is not clear what this took into account because the 2017 McGregor-Smith report, commissioned by the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), on race in the workplace, said:
“In the UK today, there is a structural, historical bias that favours certain individuals.”
The racism at work survey published in 2019 said that over 70% of black, Asian and minority ethnic workers had been racially harassed at work in the last five years. Between October and December, 41% of black people aged 16 to 24 were out of work compared with 12.4% of their white counterparts. Forty years on from the Brixton riots, black unemployment for that quarter was at the same level as it was as in 1980s. I urge the Leader of the House: please could we have a debate in Government time on the report? There are too many unanswered questions.
Today marks 32 years since the Hillsborough disaster, and the families have worked tirelessly in campaigning for an inquiry, and that is why it is important to get the inquiry right on the Greensill debacle. I do not know whether the Government think the country is stupid, but we are absolutely incredulous at asking a person who serves as a non-executive in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to lead the inquiry. The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution said yesterday that she has had to suspend him as a non-exec. The legal profession is brimming full of talent in lawyers with absolutely no connection with the Government, BEIS or anything. Why do we not have one of them?
The Prime Minister said yesterday that it is a difficult line with the civil service and “boundaries” are blurred—that was his word—but, no, civil servants do not have two jobs. A secondment is a temporary assignment. Yes, they should get the experience of both places—the private sector and the civil service—but not at the same time. This is an abuse of power. The Government are only making appointments when it is “one of us”—one of them—just as they are doing with the board of Channel 4.
It matters because this is about public money, and public money cannot be found for NHS workers and their agreed 2.1%, but it can be found for Greensill. It matters because council tax payers have to stump up £100 now, yet Greensill is bailed out. It matters because, as the shadow Chancellor said, Greensill met Treasury officials 10 times, whereas those excluded—entrepreneurs, small businesses, the self-employed—have got nothing out of these schemes and met Treasury officials once. It matters because this is public money and it should be used in the public interest. It is like having Lex Luthor in the heart of Government, but I want to tell the Government that there is no kryptonite on the Opposition Benches, and we will fight for truth, justice and the British way of fairness.
I know that the Leader of the House talks about transparency and accountability all the time, and I know he tries very hard to do that. He has seen the way Simon Case has acted—immediately—on the civil servants, so why has Sir Alex Allan’s post not been filled and when will the statements covering relevant ministerial interests be published? We should have had two a year, but the last one was in December 2019. I think the Government will look sleazy if they do not publish them. Former Prime Ministers released quarterly lists of donors meetings. I think the Government will look sleazy if they do not publish that, so I ask the Leader of the House: when could we have those published?
To coin a phrase, can I ask the Leader of the House to push the team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for an update on Nazanin and Anoosheh, who has had a 67th birthday in prison? They are all in Vienna discussing it, and we need an update.
We have lost some incredible people in the House, and I want to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. I worked with her on the all-party parliamentary group on epilepsy. She brought to the House and put on the statute book the Autism Act 2009, which means we value people on the spectrum and know they have hidden talents. She did that through her tireless campaigning for 29 years as a Member of Parliament. We will not forget; it seems like only yesterday that she was berating the Leader of the House for changing the hybrid procedure.
Ian Gibson was a geneticist and a former MP for Norwich North from 1997 to 2009. He was Chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee and joint manager of the parliamentary football team. I met him through the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union. He was so kind to people starting off on their political journey.
James Winston was valued and respected across both Houses and by all parts of the Chamber. He worked with Members in pursuit of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and we mourn his loss, especially at this time.
Then there is Shirley Williams—Baroness Williams. Despite being the daughter of George Catlin and Vera Brittain, she managed to carve her own way. She was absolutely brilliant as an Education Secretary and as a parliamentarian in both Houses. I saw her when I was at university. She really was, as the magazine headline said, “Sweet Williams”. She was wonderful and would have made a great future Prime Minister, as her father once suggested. She screen-tested for the “National Velvet” film, and I want to say something positive at the end: Rachael Blackmore should be congratulated on being the first woman to win the Grand National.
Finally, we cannot process this year, but I hope the whole House will join me in wishing all the Sikh community a happy Vaisakhi.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I join the right hon. Lady in wishing the Sikh community a happy Vaisakhi. I also join her in commemorating so many people who have died. This is a particularly sad business questions, because there are so many people of the greatest distinction to commemorate.
The House paid its tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, the longest serving consort and the longest serving member of the Privy Council in the Privy Council’s history. The tributes were extremely touching and represented the heartfelt sorrow of the nation at the passing of someone who supported our constitution and our way of life.
We are all saddened by the death of a Member, Dame Cheryl Gillan, who was just such a lovely person. She came to some of the meetings held in the run-up to the various Brexit debates. She was always advising goodwill, kindliness and respect for the views of others with steely principles underlying that. That degree of kindliness as well as sense of purpose is something that we respect in Members of Parliament, but also have great affection for, and I think that is important, too.
We also mourn Peter Ainsworth, who was one of the first people to come and campaign for me when I was selected as the candidate for North East Somerset. He was a committed supporter of the party. The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) also mentioned Ian Gibson, a distinguished former Member, and James Winston. There is also Robert Howarth and Paul Marland, who was a long-serving Member of Parliament. He was very much thought of as being a dutiful Member, who served his country in the traditional way that people like me perhaps have the greatest admiration for. Of course there is also Baroness Williams of Crosby, and I hope I will have an opportunity to say a little more about her later on in proceedings. On a happier note, I congratulate Rachael Blackmore on winning the Grand National, but it is mainly a sad day, and that is one bit of solace and happiness.
To come to the right hon. Lady’s detailed questions, she raises some very important points. The report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is very important and makes an important contribution to the debate. It has made 24 recommendations, which the Government are considering. I think it is right that we look at the progress made in this country and recognise how different the experience in this country is from the United States, rather than assuming that everything here is the same as the many problems they have in other countries. We should recognise success as well as understanding that we always have further to go. The fundamental recognition that there is equality under the law for everybody in this country is something that we can welcome and ought to be positive about. I am sure that this matter will be discussed in this House on many occasions and raised in many different ways, because it is a subject of fundamental importance about the type of country we are.
The right hon. Lady raises serious questions about Greensill Capital and the relationships between it and Government. It is right that the review is taking place under Nigel Boardman to understand primarily, as a starting point, the use of supply chain finance. Until we understand where it started—why the Government were using supply chain finance, which prima facie is something that we would not think a Government would do—we cannot understand what has happened subsequently, so it is the right review to be taking place.
Mr Boardman is highly respected. He is a non-executive director of BEIS. He has stood aside from that during the period of this inquiry, but he is a very distinguished lawyer and I think that he will bring considerable expertise to the report. It is right that this matter is looked at fairly and properly, and it will also be looked at by a number of House of Commons Committees, which will do so with the full power and authority of the House of Commons and the ability to send for persons and papers.
The right hon. Lady is right to say that public money should be used wisely and properly. In that context, she is not right to say that Greensill was bailed out, because it was not. That is the whole point: the lobbying was done, but the lobbying did not succeed. I think that is something that should reassure us about the propriety of the way this Government are run. Who someone knows and how they are connected does not mean that they get what they want. That, ultimately, is the test of whether a Government are operating properly, and this Government are operating properly.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
There are still pockets of my Congleton constituency, in both the rural areas and the towns, where constituents struggle to get access to fibre broadband, or indeed access to broadband or the internet at all. The pandemic has, of course, highlighted how crucial this is, not least for those in education or business, so may I press the Leader of the House to clarify what progress is being made towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment to ensure that everyone can have access to full-fibre broadband?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because I, like her, represent a rural constituency, and this is so important for our constituents. I am glad to report that over 96% of all premises in the United Kingdom can access superfast broadband, thanks to the success of the Government’s superfast broadband programme, meaning that the UK has one of the highest levels of rural superfast connectivity in Europe.
However, the Government are aware that we need to upgrade more of the network to gigabit-capable speeds as soon as possible, hence the expenditure of £5 billion of taxpayers’ money to support the roll-out of gigabit broadband in the hardest to reach, predominantly rural, areas of the country through our new UK gigabit programme. Progress is being made in connecting rural premises to gigabit speeds through our existing superfast broadband, but this is a big commitment of Her Majesty’s Government and one that I hope will help both my hon. Friend’s constituents and my own.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the comments of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, and send my condolences and those of the SNP to the royal family, at this difficult time for all of them, on the passing of the Prince Philip? I also pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan, Peter Ainsworth, Ian Gibson, Robert Howarth, Paul Marland, James Winston and Baroness Williams. It has clearly been a very sad time for a lot of families, as it is for so many around the country through these challenging times.
Turning to other matters, I have raised previously issues around transparency, and we have seen again this week, with the investigation now under way into lobbying, the actions of David Cameron and the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Lex Greensill as an adviser, that there are clearly further challenges that still need to be addressed. Will the Leader of the House commit to doing everything in his power to see that everything possible is done to ensure that any reviews undertaken go far enough, that any questions about the effectiveness of existing legislation are taken full account of, and that we put in place any necessary measures to ensure that such instances cannot and do not happen in the future?
I am personally slightly disappointed that we have not yet seen a further return of private Members’ Bills, particularly my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, which I suggest would go some way to addressing some of these issues around transparency in the awarding of contracts. In the short time that we have prior to the end of the Session, will the Leader of the House give consideration to how some of those Bills might be taken account of?
We are all very well aware of this Government’s lack of respect for our democracy in consistently refusing to acknowledge the sovereign will of the Scottish people to choose their own future, but it took a new turn this week, with the Government challenging through the courts the unanimous decision of the Scottish Parliament to pass the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill and the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time to a debate on the democratic deficit that exists in these isles as a result of this Government’s determination to ignore all views but their own? Does he agree that there can be no doubt now that the only way for the people of Scotland to get their own Government, a Government that they vote for, is by exercising our democratic right to choose, starting by voting SNP in both votes on 6 May?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First of all, on the Greensill reviews, obviously Committees of this House can make what inquiries they wish and set their own terms of reference. However, I think it is a mistake to rush to judgment, particularly in relation to David Cameron, who was a very successful Prime Minister who succeeded in getting the nation’s finances back in order. Rushing to judgment is not a proper way for this House to operate. We need to have the reviews and consider them. That is what is happening, both within Government and this House, and that is the proper constitutional process.
As regards private Member’s Bills, I do not think there is sufficient time in this Session, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the new Session there will be a new ballot, under the auspices of the Chairman of Ways of Means, and you never know, he may be lucky and be able to bring forward his Bill on a Friday later in the year. Who knows what excitements await us?
As regards the sovereign will of the Scottish people, that was expressed in 2014 in a referendum. Now would not be the right time to consider this issue, when there is the recovery from the pandemic to have. However, I am fascinated by the voting advice that the hon. Gentleman gives. It does not seem to match the voting advice given by Mr Salmond, who seems to be having a most interesting time in Scotland. I noticed from The Telegraph today that he could not even get the letters for his new party in the right order. I wonder whether the same will afflict the SNP—one never knows what set of initials they will come up with next. What the people of the whole of the United Kingdom want is good government for the whole of the United Kingdom and a balanced settlement that people accept.
In relation to the court case that the hon. Gentleman referred to, it is really important that we live within the boundaries that have been established and accepted, and that we operate within a system that is properly constitutional. It is not for one side or the other to arbitrarily change the devolution settlement.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
There has been precious little good news relating to the covid pandemic, but one positive benefit has been the revival of community spirit, as residents have come together to support each other in these difficult times. One such excellent example can be found in William Street in Kettering, which has been nominated by readers of the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph as one of the county’s best places to live. In William Street, which has 66 houses, a small block of flats, a converted shoe factory and a church, neighbours have come together not just to clap for carers but to organise socially distanced Sunday singalongs, an Easter egg celebration, street cleans, a wedding prom, a street carnival, and pumpkin and best-dressed window competitions. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the residents of William Street on their revival of the blitz spirit and in hoping that their example will be an inspiration to others?
Mr Rees-Mogg
William Street sounds a very happy street to live on, with singalongs and pumpkin prizes, so I absolutely congratulate William Street and the people living there, who I am sure will be pleased by the tribute paid to them by my hon. Friend. He is right that throughout such a difficult year for the country there have been many wonderful moments of kindness up and down the nation, which have done us proud. The outpouring of support for our care workers has been highlighted often, but there has also been an explosion of volunteering and fundraising. We should be very proud of how our nation has reacted in such difficult times.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench business for next Thursday, 22 April. I also associate myself with the comments about Dame Cheryl Gillan, who among many other things was a regular customer at the Backbench Business Committee and an excellent chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism.
Will the Leader of the House do whatever he can to help to expedite the re-establishment of the Backbench Business Committee at the earliest possible opportunity following the Queen’s Speech, so that debates applied for, agreed by and timetabled by Back-Bench Members can be led in the Chamber in a timely way by Back-Bench Members?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman, a distinguished Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, makes a very important point. The Government always like to see Committees set up in a timely fashion and will use their best offices, after the Queen’s Speech, to see what they can do to ensure that a Chairman, whoever that may be, is back in post as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Although many think of Burnley just as the town centre, we also have a number of picturesque green villages, including Worsthorne and Hapton. Unfortunately, in 2018, the Labour-controlled Burnley Borough Council adopted a local plan that allocates significant parts of these villages, and elsewhere, to housing developments and more, often directly against the wishes of local residents. This is just one of the planning issues we face. Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on local plans and how we can find a way to make sure they command the support of local residents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a point that is raised by many right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and planning is always a contentious local issue. The Government’s planning White Paper, published last summer, set out proposed reforms to increase community involvement in the preparation of local plans, including a simpler and digitalised plan-making process, with more opportunity for local people to influence the location and standard of new developments in their area. This is essential to planning for the homes the country needs, providing the clarity that communities and developers deserve about where new homes should be built and ensuring that development is planned, rather than the result of speculative applications. Plans should be produced in a way that respects crucial local assets, including open countryside and the green belt, but I should always remind hon. Members that new houses must be built. As they are built, we want to ensure that they are beautiful. If they are beautiful, local communities may be more inclined to accept them.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
This week, many loyal British Gas staff were sacked for refusing to accept a new contract that made them work longer hours for less pay, in the latest iteration of the growing national scourge of fire and rehire. Companies such as British Gas trade off our country’s name but do not have our country’s interests at heart. The Government have repeatedly stated that they consider these practices to be unacceptable, but those words will mean little to those ex-British Gas workers today. So will the Leader of the House please outline when the Government will be bringing forward legislation to ban fire and rehire, once and for all?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government do take this issue extremely seriously, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) has condemned the practice in the strongest terms on many occasions. The situation at the moment is that BEIS officials engaged ACAS in November 2020 to gather evidence on the prevalence and use of fire and rehire in workplaces. ACAS spoke to business and employee representatives in confidence, and has now concluded its work and shared its findings with BEIS. Officials are considering that evidence and the Government will communicate their next steps in due course, but it is right that a proper process is undertaken to see how prevalent this practice is. We would reiterate to businesses—I would say to my capitalist friends—that capitalism works when capitalists behave well and treat their employees well, and get the best motivation and success from their company and from those who work for them.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
On Monday, I was delighted to visit the newly opened one-stop shop in Daisy Hill. The volunteers Chris Hill, Rosie Bea and Beverly Hill, run the charity shop, and advice and digital services for the local community, and Anne Marie Broadley, who helped set it up, was delighted that so many people have stopped by to say hello. Will my right hon. Friend offer them congratulations on their achievements, and next time he is popping by or passing by, will he pop in?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend said that people were popping in to say hello. May I encourage them to pop in and actually spend some money, because in a one-stop shop that is really what you need? Like our hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who asked his question a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) offers a great tribute to the voluntary spirit of his constituency. I would be delighted to join him in congratulating Chris Hill, Rosie Bea, Beverly Hill and Anne Marie Broadley of the One Stop shop in Daisy Hill. These voluntary initiatives are how communities are made, how they come together and how they succeed, and, certainly, if I am in Bolton West, I shall stop in the One Stop shop.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. We all recognise that the pandemic has had a huge impact on young people, whose lives have been particularly disrupted, yet antisocial behaviour is on the rise and residents across Pontypridd and Taff-Ely are experiencing vandalism and disruption at an alarming rate. The simple truth is that the police and youth services do not have the resources to keep up. Will the Leader of the House therefore please commit to a debate in Government time to allow us to tackle antisocial behaviour at its root?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The key thing here is having police on the streets. It is remarkable how the presence of a police officer can stop antisocial behaviour early on and make people realise the problem caused by antisocial behaviour, which is sometimes just thoughtlessness, rather than criminality. It is important that there will be 20,000 extra police officers, of which 6,620 have so far been recruited, and that the police will have £15.8 billion of taxpayers’ money to help them to tackle this scourge. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is one of the most disagreeable aspects. It is the counter to what we were saying about community spirit. Antisocial behaviour causes disproportionate distress to people who are probably the most community-minded and it needs effective local policing to deal with it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
Global technology firms such as Google are not being held to account. A lack of regulation allows pension scammers to con millions of pounds out of people, and tech firms such as Google can also make millions of pounds from fake adverts that can ruin a business’s or an individual’s reputation. It is time to hold these multibillion-pound companies to account, so will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in the House to tackle this very important subject, which could help to protect people’s money, livelihoods and their reputations?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about the concerning growth and scale of online fraud. Online fraud can have a severe effect on individuals and businesses and on society more broadly. The Government work with law enforcement, industry and consumer groups to tackle online fraud. The Home Office, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are all working together to consider additional legislative and non-legislative solutions via a continuing programme of work. I would say, though, that not all of this is legislative. One thing that we should all always remember and should say to our constituents is that if they ever see anything online that is too good to be true, it is not true. That single piece of advice will save many of us from the illegal activities of scammers.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May I say to the Leader of the House that I hope that Members of all parties might be allowed to pay some tribute to my late colleague and friend Baroness Williams of Crosby? She was somebody who blazed a trail for women in politics in over five decades in public life in this country. She was blessed with a magic combination of both a fine political mind and genuine political warmth, which allowed her to reach out to people across the party divide and to people of no parties. I realised this for myself in 1983, when I heard her address an outdoor rally at a by-election in Darlington. There was a man behind me saying, “Hear, hear!”, and there was a lot of agreement coming from him. I turned around to see who this new convert to liberalism was, and it was, in fact, none other than Screaming Lord Sutch. I told Shirley that story some two decades later and it says a lot about her that she instinctively just loved the joke at her own expense. She will be enormously missed by people in all parties, but especially among the family of Liberal Democrats.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that tribute and I am grateful that he told me in advance that he would make it, because Shirley Williams was actually a great friend of my father. They knew each other from their Oxford days and Shirley got my father his first job. She wrote in an Oxford magazine that my father read the Financial Times every day at breakfast and the then editor of the Financial Times offered him a job, so my family has always been enormously grateful to Shirley for setting my father off in his journalistic career.
She was also, as the right hon. Gentleman says, one of the most charming people to meet: always kindly and thoughtful, and good to her friends. As somebody who was very much in favour of state education, she actually came to speak for me for a society I ran at Eton, which I think is symbolic of how kindly she was. When I last met her, she said to me that she was very glad she was my brother’s godmother, not mine, because had she been mine she might have had to disagree with me a little bit in public. Again, I thought that showed such kindliness and charm.
Above and beyond that, she was also a stunningly effective politician, a great Member of both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and somebody this nation can be proud of for having produced a politician of such capability, such effectiveness, but also such kindliness.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
Last night, there was yet another fire on the moors of the High Peak, on Tintwistle Low Moor. I pay tribute to Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service, the Peak District Moorland Group and others for their efforts in fighting these fires, but it is very frustrating that they are forced to respond to so many fires usually caused by disposable barbecues. May we have a debate on preventing fires on our moorland and on the future of the laws on disposable barbecues? Can I urge the Government to do more to educate people on the countryside code, so that visitors to the Peak District know how to properly protect and respect our beautiful countryside?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Wildfires obviously pose a great risk to our countryside. Natural England has published a refreshed countryside code to advise us all on visits to the countryside. Everyone should enjoy parks and open spaces as we come out of lockdown, and we should be encouraging people to look after our natural environments and the livelihoods of those who work there. The Government are launching a long-term countryside code campaign to increase awareness of the code through 2021 and beyond. I think that is the right approach: to encourage people to behave responsibly, to educate and to tell people about what is expected of them in the countryside. I am afraid to say I am always more cautious about banning things.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Nearly a year ago, I warned the Government that if they did not act on fire and rehire when it reared its ugly head with British Airways, many others would follow. Just yesterday, hundreds of British Gas engineers were sacked without redundancy pay because they refused to sign an inferior contract. My Fire and Rehire Bill (Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill is essentially now dead, but we are aware that the Government received the ACAS report two months ago. I wrote to the Secretary of State urging him to publish the report and make a statement. Had they done so and given assurances that action would be taken in the Employment Bill, perhaps that would have forced the hand of British Gas. Will the Leader of the House give his colleague in the Cabinet a bigger nudge and get him to take action please?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because I think it is in the interests of public companies to behave well to their employees. Bear in mind that their employees are also their customers for a big company like British Gas. The name of British Gas has now been traduced in this House on a number of occasions. People who pay attention to our proceedings may feel that they dislike the way British Gas is behaving and want to get their gas supplied by another firm. There are powers in markets as well as in government, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do take this really seriously. What my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said is what the Government mean and the report is quite rightly being carefully considered.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
Will the Leader of the House join me in sending Sikhs in Wolverhampton best wishes for Vaisakhi and in thanking them for their efforts during the pandemic? Sikhs’ ongoing commitment to serve other people is always admirable, but during the pandemic it has been especially notable. We owe them a debt of thanks. Will he also welcome news that in September Wednesfield in my constituency will see the unveiling of a statue to honour the extraordinary bravery of 21 Sikh soldiers at Saragarhi in 1897?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in wishing a happy Vaisakhi to the Sikh community. I join her in paying tribute to their generosity and the principle of service that we have seen from NHS workers and doctors, police officers, armed forces personnel and all key workers.
I also join my hon. Friend in celebrating the news that the memorial will be unveiled in Wednesfield in September. The Sikhs provided 20% of the British Indian Army in the first world war and were the most decorated community in the British empire, winning more Victoria Crosses per capita than any other. When I was the Conservative candidate in The Wrekin, the family of the first Sikh to win the Victoria Cross lived there, and I must confess that I was very proud to meet them and to have an association with them, now 20 years ago. We should be very grateful for the enormous contribution made to the United Kingdom by members of the Sikh community.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Last month’s update on compensation for victims of the contaminated blood scandal was welcome, but there is still no provision or scheme for bereaved parents such as the Smiths from Newport, who tragically lost their son Colin, aged just seven, after he was infected with blood from Arkansas prison. Can we have an opportunity to discuss compensation schemes and to impress on Cabinet Office Ministers the need to finally include and, crucially, acknowledge bereaved parents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises a point of huge importance. This is something that the Government have an inquiry on, and that inquiry is continuing. The inquiry has not lost pace because of the pandemic; it has been holding remote hearings and will come to a conclusion. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will be having meetings with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, but also with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), to update people on what is happening and to give reassurance that this matter is taken deeply seriously. It was a terrible failing with appalling consequences for individuals and their families.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Given the decision by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that local councils should cease meeting virtually from 7 May, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether there is a similar plan for this place? If that is not the case, perhaps we could re-extend that courtesy to the shires, noting that attendance at local council meetings has never been this good.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The House’s proceedings are determined by Standing Orders, and the facilities for virtual meetings were created by statute. This was not a decision by MHCL; it is that the temporary statute expires on 7 May. However, as I understand it, a High Court ruling is due before May on what capabilities there are, and the Government will be supporting the action by Hertfordshire County Council, Lawyers in Local Government and the Association of Democratic Services Officers as the case is heard.
Virtual proceedings have helped councils, but they are allowed to meet, because it is a legitimate business purpose. They have to take covid-secure measures, as we are taking in this House to ensure that this House operates. The Government are not unsympathetic to considering how these things operate in future, but the legislation that was temporarily introduced expires on 7 May. My hon. Friend will know that we have a Queen’s Speech coming, and we have a number of Bills going back and forth between the Lords and the Commons, so the ability to legislate between now and then is extremely limited.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
Last week, one of my constituents visited a local park with her friend and their two young babies. They both began breastfeeding and before long saw a stranger taking photos of them with a telephoto lens. They confronted him, and the man refused to delete the photos, even when asked to do so by the park warden. They reported it to the police, who said there was nothing they could do, because it was a public place and taking photos is not illegal. It may not be illegal, but it is, as my constituent said, “disturbing and intrusive” and surely unacceptable. Could we have a statement from an appropriate Minister on how we might tackle a problem that left my constituent feeling
“violated and discouraged from breastfeeding outside the house”?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult issue of privacy in public spaces. It is not easy to legislate for every possible circumstance. People in public are obviously in public and it is hard to prevent from people seeing things that take place in public, but you would expect people, out of courtesy, not to photograph people doing things that are of their nature private in public.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I lead the Anglesey freeport bidding consortium, which includes Bangor University, Stena and my island council. Our bid is the only bid in north Wales and the only bid to include a university. Does the Leader of the House share my concern that the Welsh Labour Government dragging their heels over releasing the Welsh freeport bidding prospectus is delaying much-needed potential investment into my constituency and the whole of north Wales?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The problem with socialists is that they never want to level up; they always want to level down. They therefore always try to postpone economic opportunity because they wallow in economic failure. The freeport programme will be of great benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is exciting to see so many compelling bids being submitted by local business groups from across the whole of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have been emphatic in their support for establishing freeports in Wales. Her Majesty’s Government have discussed the issue with Ministers in Wales and with the many Welsh business groups that want take advantage of the opportunities that freeports bring, from tax benefits to greater freedom to innovate and build exciting, prosperous trading hubs throughout the whole country. The Government do not want to deprive the people of Wales of this opportunity, and we hope that the foot-dragging socialists will pull their feet out of the mud and get on with it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Australian Government have paid redress to my constituent, Christine Gow, for the institutional childhood sexual abuse crimes that she suffered, and she is going to use the money to pay for psychological counselling. In Australia, that redress is disregarded for benefit assessments, but here the Department for Work and Pensions states that she has to deposit the money in a trust fund, which involves lawyers and costs of up to £1,000. Can the Leader of the House help me to get the DWP to apply an exemption akin to what it does for money awarded under the British child migrant scheme?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman, as so often, raises important constituency issues that will have a wider effect for other people across the United Kingdom. I will certainly take this up with the DWP. His request sounds to be an eminently reasonable one. This is a compensation payment from a Government that would be treated differently if it were from Her Majesty’s Government in the UK rather than Her Majesty’s Government in Australia.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend and I share an enormous respect and affection for the great King Alfred, who defeated the Vikings against all the odds. Does he agree that victory would never have been possible without a good deal of local support, and that the only way to provide local support is through a proper referendum in which the votes are counted, and not through a cheapskate survey to which anyone anywhere in the world can contribute? Somerset local government’s future should never be decided by the toss of a coin in a Minister’s office or, dare I say, by a dodgy consultation. What is the hurry? The people need to be heard first, and woe betide anyone who takes Somerset for granted and ignores its people’s verdict or their voice. Could we please have an urgent debate on this?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that King Alfred pulled together the ealdormen of Somerset, Hampshire and Wiltshire to defeat Guthrum. It was a coming together and it was done from the Somerset levels, where he famously but probably apocryphally burned cakes as he was considering how he would deal with the problem. I know that the matter my hon. Friend raises is being carefully considered by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who has excellent judgment and believes in our great county, which is one of the oldest counties in the country, with an unbroken historic tradition. What would concern me personally about any referendum is that it would deal with only a part of the county and not with the whole of the county, and it would therefore not necessarily be the coming together that my hon. Friend is talking about.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I want to acknowledge the incredible, inspirational Ian Gibson. He was such a mentor to me, from my days in Norwich to this day. He will be missed.
The reopening of the economy is something we all welcome, and at each stage we must be careful, including with its evaluation. However, to leap from this to mass gatherings at sporting event trials is deeply disturbing given the terms that are being proposed, not least at York racecourse. We have new variants of covid-19 creeping into our community. Will the Leader of the House take my concerns, of which I will write to him, to Cabinet colleagues, and will he arrange for an opportunity for us to debate this in the House and for all MPs impacted by these decisions to meet the Secretary of State and his officials to discuss our concerns?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises concerns that many Members have. There was an opportunity to debate them immediately before the recess, with the continuation of the Coronavirus Act 2020. There were Health questions earlier this week, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has been assiduous in attending the House to give oral updates on the current situation. Obviously the Government want to see unlocking take place, and the road map has been set out, but if people have questions, they are entitled to raise them, and if they do not get answers directly, I will do whatever I can to facilitate answers.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
I join others in offering my deepest sympathy to members of the royal family on their great loss and to the family and friends of Members past and present who have died recently.
Following the reopening of some businesses earlier this week, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on support for the personal care sector? I have been contacted by a number of local establishments that are still being impacted by the pandemic and have not been offered sector-specific financial support, such as value added tax reductions. I hope that the personal care industry will be supported in its reopening.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise the needs of the personal care sector, which is a very significant employer and provides great joy to many customers. I have never been more relieved to have a haircut than I was on Tuesday night, when finally the barber’s clippers went snip, snip, snip and a degree of respectability was restored. This week, shops, hairdressers, nail salons—I am a less regular visitor to nail salons, I must confess—outdoor attractions and pubs and restaurants outdoors can open once again, which is good news for those operating in those sectors.
At the Budget, the Chancellor announced new restart grants worth up to £18,000, which will help more than 680,000 eligible businesses, including those in the personal care sector, to get going again. On top of the grants that closed businesses have received since January, businesses could receive up to £36,000 in grants this year. To support those that are not eligible for these grants, taxpayers are giving councils in England an additional £425 million of discretionary business grant funding, on top of the £1.6 billion they have already received. Nobody could say that this amount of money is a snip.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I cannot tell you how relieved I was to get to the hairdresser’s on Monday morning.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
Research from Unison has found that more than half of NHS workers are considering leaving their position in the next year, with one in 10 considering it very seriously. Additionally, Unison North West has raised the fact that many healthcare assistants are expected to carry out clinical duties that are above and beyond their pay grade, with many employed at band 2 while being trained to do band 3 work, which equates to them missing out on almost £2,000 per year. That is happening at Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport borough, as well as right across Greater Manchester, and it will almost certainly be happening across the country. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time to debate healthcare assistants’ pay rate and banding, and does he agree that this pay injustice needs to be rectified urgently?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think I would rather give the good news on NHS staffing, because since last year, there are almost 50,500 more people working in the NHS, of whom 6,600 are doctors and almost 10,900 are nurses. Recruitment in the NHS is very important, and we will employ 50,000 more nurses and 6,000 more doctors in general practice by the end of this Parliament. That is the target for the Government to deliver, while ensuring that people want to work in the NHS, but the figures for the last year are very encouraging.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
May I add my own tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan? I knew her for 20 years and adored her, and she will be sadly missed.
The Leader of the House knows that I have raised the health of the River Wye and River Usk, which run through my constituency, a number of times. This week, “Panorama” exposed water companies dumping untreated sewage into rivers, and specifically into the River Usk. However, the Welsh Labour Government, supported by the Liberal Democrats, insist that farmers are to blame for the problem and have voted through a misguided nitrate vulnerable zone across the whole of Wales. That is grossly unfair on farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire, and the Minister responsible should withdraw the proposals until the allegations can be explored. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate in this House on river pollution so that we can get to the bottom of this scandal and ensure that farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire are not unfairly blamed for a problem they did not cause?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), points out the dangers of incompetent socialist Governments getting the wrong end of every stick that comes within their sight. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, our hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), has had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) to discuss river pollution. The Government take this responsibility very seriously.
Water companies have a legal duty to avoid pollution and must act quickly to reduce any damage that happens as a result of their activities. The regulations are clear and are enforced robustly. Over the past six years, the Environment Agency has brought 48 prosecutions against water companies, securing fines of £35 million. The Environment Bill will also place a statutory requirement on water companies to produce drainage and sewerage management plans to help deliver more of the actions needed to address the risks that sewage assets may pose to the environment. Action is being taken, but my hon. Friend is right to stand up for farmers and stop sewage.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
My constituent Tony McDowall travelled to Istanbul in September last year. In the early hours of the next morning, he called his mum in a state of some distress, telling her that he had been awoken from his sleep by two men attempting to break into his hotel room. A few hours later, Mrs McDowall was contacted by local police at her home in Arran to be told that her son was dead.
Mrs McDowall was the last person to speak to her son, and despite being advised by the British consulate that her son’s death is being investigated by the Turkish authorities, no one on the investigation team has made contact with her or updated her on the status of progress of the investigation into her son’s death. I urge the Leader of the House to please use his good offices to ensure that a representative from the UK Foreign Office contacts Mrs McDowall to assist her in finding out what happened to her 28-year-old son.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a very sad case, and one’s sympathies go to Mrs McDowall, who must feel very bereft, both at the death of her son and at the lack of information. I assure the hon. Lady that I will take this up with the Foreign Office immediately after this questions session has finished.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The balloons were inflated and the banners unfurled in anticipation and excitement that we would be able to see the Chancellor walking down Mold high street in his lunch hour to get a sausage roll from Hulsons bakery for his lunch. But there must have been some mistake—they have sent the Treasury to north-east England instead of north-east Wales. There must have been some typographical error along the way. Undeterred, the people of Delyn will not be denied. The local Jobcentre Plus team would be delighted to have a local Department for Work and Pensions office in north Wales, and I am sure the farmers of Delyn would be equally excited to be able to beat on the door of a local Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs outpost at their earliest convenience. What does my right hon. Friend advise is the best course of action to ensure that north-east Wales is not forgotten in this redistribution of Departments?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The difficulty is that I think it would be hard to satisfy all 650 Members of Parliament. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is no longer in the Chamber, but the Shetlands islands outpost of HM Treasury may pose logistical difficulties.
It is a really important priority for the Government to ensure that Ministries move out of London so that we move away from this entirely London-centric approach to government. We need more variety in where businesses, Departments and Government business operations are placed to ensure that we reflect views across the whole of the country. I fear, however, that if people were to move to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), they would be so affected by the beauty of the area that they might find it difficult to concentrate on their work.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the dangers to the taxpayer of incompetent capitalist government? Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre has pointed out that the Test and Trace system in England, which has been outsourced to private companies, cost twice as much as the system in Wales where local government has been used.
I had a very disturbing report from one of my constituents that he had received the test results of two children from England, despite the fact that he has lived in Cardiff for 35 years. When I contacted the Department of Health and Social Care, they told me that it was probably because the wrong mobile phone and email details had been entered, and that no process was in place to amend customer details. The Government have allocated £37 billion to cover the cost of the Test and Trace system over the next two years, and it cannot even amend incorrectly entered customer details!
The Leader of the House talked about the unacceptable face of capitalism earlier, about British Gas’s behaviour, but what about the incompetent face of capitalism?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I note that of the tests carried out in Wales, 64% have been provided by Her Majesty’s Government. Had we left it to the Welsh Government and the public sector in Wales, only 36% of tests would have been carried out. I think that shows the effectiveness of Her Majesty’s Government—the United Kingdom Government—at getting things done. What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is that things do not get done. I, for one, am in favour of action, not of dither and delay.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Despite the hard work of postmen and women, my constituents have had months of problems with Royal Mail deliveries, their letters, cards, magazines and appointments arriving late or not at all. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about how Royal Mail should give the service that our constituents deserve and are paying for?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which has been raised with me before. I passed on the comments to the Royal Mail and had a full response from the Royal Mail sent to the Member who raised the issue previously.
It is worth pointing out that the Government are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company and do not play a role in handling or resolving complaints regarding Royal Mail. However, the Royal Mail has contingency plans to mitigate disruption to postal services, which are overseen by Ofcom. Ofcom has recognised that the covid-19 pandemic is an emergency under its regulatory framework. It continues to monitor Royal Mail’s performance carefully. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments, in the hope that I receive as good a reply on his behalf as I received last time.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
May we have a statement from the Leader of the House on the issue of inconsistency and its impact on the part of the Conservative party? In December 2019, his party had entered the general election campaign with a clear message of “Get Brexit Done”, and it won the election and was able to move forward with Brexit. If people go out and rightly cast both votes for the SNP on 6 May, why will his colleagues not accept that those people should get the independence referendum that the SNP is promising?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman knows that there was a referendum in 2014, which had a clear result. The leading lights of the separatist movement in Scotland—that is to say, Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond—both said that it was a generational issue. A generation has far from passed, and we are in the midst of a pandemic. We have a serious issue that we need to recover from.
The authority over a referendum is of course a reserved authority, and it is right that devolution should be allowed to work and to flourish. The results of elections to the Scottish Parliament are of fundamental importance, of course, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying is essentially a distraction from the business of dealing with the pandemic. It is irresponsible of the SNP to be saying it, rather than concentrating on getting over the pandemic and its consequences, from which this country is suffering.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan and Baroness Shirley Williams. Both served with distinction for many years in this House, improving the lives of their constituents and providing thoughtful insight into numerous debates. Both were characterised by kindness and firmly rooted principles.
Provisional figures given to me by Revolut show that, in comparison with a pre-lockdown Monday, spending on Monday 12 April in Wakefield was at 98.5%. On the high street, the figure was at 136.4%, but for pubs, spending was watered down—although not the drink—and remains at only 43.9% of pre-pandemic levels. Inevitably, this has had an impact on a number of businesses in my seat, such as Ossett Brewery and Tigertops Brewery. Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on support for businesses in this sector as we continue with the road map out of lockdown?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend. I am pleased to hear the good news from Wakefield on the return to a degree of normality, but I am sorry to hear that the pubs are only at 43.9% of pre-pandemic levels—my hon. Friend clearly has a lot of drinking to do to help get Wakefield back up to average.
There has been a good deal of Government support—taxpayer support: £5 billion for the new restart grants, which include pubs, and the business rates holiday, which includes pubs, and there is a total cost of cash grants to the taxpayer of £25 billion. Ultimately, though, this is up to all of us. If we want to save our pubs, we have to go into them. That does not mean that we have to drink yards of ale, though some may choose to, but we want to go in and have something to eat—I believe scotch eggs are popular in certain quarters—and to buy our children a Coca-cola or a lemonade.
We need to support our own pub industry if it is to survive, and we should lead by example. Perhaps, when times allow, we should have political functions in pub rooms—[Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House wants to go on a pub crawl. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can think of no finer companion for her than you—you could take her round the finest pubs of both your constituencies and get Britain’s pubs back into liquidity.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have been accused of many things over the past 29 years as a Member of Parliament, but not doing my bit to help the pub has not been one of them. I look forward to joining the right hon. Lady on visits to whatever hostelries she might wish to go to.
I thank the Leader of the House for making his statement and responding to 30 questions in over one hour.
Point of Order
Jim Shannon
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you outline House procedure that will enable me and others in this House to mark the tremendous victory of Northern Ireland women’s football team over the favourites Ukraine in qualifying for the women’s world championship Euro 2022? The team made history in what was classified as the ultimate victory for the underdog. This House wishes the Northern Ireland women’s football team continuing success for the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I wanted to hear the words “point of order” because over 29 years I have heard points of order stretched to the limit in this place—but none more so or in a better fashion than the one I have just heard. I just want to say that the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. We are all incredibly proud of what the Northern Ireland women’s football team has achieved and we wish them well for the future. Please pass on our best wishes. We will now suspend for three minutes.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Thursday 15th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 15 April - (15 Apr 2021)
15:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 360 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 352 / Noes: 222 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 361 / Noes: 218 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 362 / Noes: 217 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 362 / Noes: 217 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 350 / Noes: 270 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 352 / Noes: 270 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 351 / Noes: 226 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 352 / Noes: 226 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 41 and 43. If the Lords amendments that engage financial privilege are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered into the Journal.
Clause 2
Definition of “personally connected”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 4 to 8.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 10 to 32.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 34 to 36.
Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39.
Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 41, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 44 to 82.
Lords amendment 83, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 84 to 86.
Victoria Atkins
Before I start my speech, may I beg your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, and place on the record not only my condolences to Her Majesty the Queen but my and my constituents’ heartfelt thanks to His Royal Highness Prince Philip? He was the personification of public service, dedicating his life to Her Majesty and to serving our country for more than 70 years, and he did so with great style and often a twinkle in his eye.
May I also pay tribute to my friend, the right hon. Dame Cheryl Gillan, who passed away very recently? She would have loved to take part in today’s debate. She was a huge advocate for the vulnerable, including those who live with autism. She was a wonderful, wonderful friend and colleague to us all, and she will be very, very sorely missed.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for all that she has done with regard to recognising the problems around threats to publish intimate images. Will she join me in saying that we need to make sure that the law is all-encompassing in this area? It is important to improve the law on revenge pornography as it stands now, introduced by this Government, but it is even more important that we have a wholesale review of this area, such as that which is part of the Law Commission’s review.
Victoria Atkins
I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. I thank her for the work she has done over many years to address this and other issues particularly affecting women and girls. We very much take that point. We have worked on the amendment with Baroness Morgan to have an immediate impact, but in addition we look forward to receiving the Law Commission’s report and recommendations later this year—it is looking at the whole of the law on the use of intimate images and other types of malicious communications on the internet. If the law needs to be changed to reflect recommendations, we can address those in subsequent legislation. These clauses apply to all relationships and all encounters of a sexual nature, from a Tinder hook-up to a marriage of many decades. Those protections will be enshrined in this Bill.
I turn to another amendment that I know has been welcomed warmly by survivors and campaigners: the extension of the coercive and controlling behaviour offence to include post-separation abuse. We listened very carefully to debates in this place, as well as to charities such as Surviving Economic Abuse and, of course, to survivors themselves. We reviewed the offence to see how it is working after five years of being in force and we published that review in March.
We acknowledge that coercive and controlling behaviour continues and indeed may escalate following separation, so amendment 34 will extend the offence to cover post-separation abuse between former intimate partners and interfamilial abuse, regardless of whether the family members are living together or not. The amendment will send a strong message to perpetrators that controlling or coercive behaviours, irrespective of the living arrangements, are forms of domestic abuse and that the criminal law is there to protect victims.
The Bill also revolutionises the help that is available to victims who need to flee relationships to refuge or other safe accommodation. It is revolutionary in that it helps to ensure that they are helped to recover from their experiences. Part 4 introduces a duty on tier 1 local authorities to provide specialist services to such victims and we have announced £125 million of funding to support that provision in the Bill.
There is a cross-party desire to see those measures matched by equivalent provision in respect of community-based support. This Government are alive to such calls. Police and crime commissioners, and others, already provide significant community-based support to victims of crime, but we need better evidence of the gaps in current provision and how they might best be addressed. That is why the Government have now committed to consult on the provision of community-based support as part of this summer’s consultation on the new victims’ law. That commitment to consult is backed up by Lords amendments 5, 8 and 10 to 16. Lords amendment 5 will place a duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to publish a report, under her new powers in the Bill, on the provision of and need for community-based services. Lords amendments 8 and 10 to 16 will place a duty on tier 1 local authorities, with the support of their domestic abuse local partnership boards, to monitor and report on the impact of the safe accommodation duty on the provision of community-based support in their area. Taken together with the responses to our victims’ law consultation, those amendments will ensure that the Government have all the information they need to build on the strong foundations of existing community-based services.
Some of the most upsetting and torturous experiences that victims can experience happen after a relationship has ended, in the family and civil courts. Lords amendments 17 and 24 to 31 relate to special measures and the ban on cross-examination in person in civil proceedings. In short, those amendments more closely align the position in the civil courts to that in the family courts, so that victims of domestic abuse have the benefit of automatic eligibility for special measures to enable them to give their best evidence and to ensure that they are protected from being cross-examined in person by their abuser. Our justice system should not be used as another form of abuse. This Bill will help to protect victims and secure justice.
In the case of the family courts, perpetrators can continue abuse through repeated unmeritorious proceedings. Lords amendment 33 amends the Children Act 1989 to prevent such vexatious claims. The amendment makes it clear that a court may make a barring order in circumstances where it is satisfied that a further application made by the named person would put the child or another, for example the parent victim, at risk of harm. For all the victims and survivors I have met, and whose stories we have heard in the Chamber: these measures are to help you all to secure justice, as you deserve.
Lords amendment 39 would ensure that a health professional working in a general practice that holds an NHS contract cannot charge for evidence to show that a patient has been the victim of domestic abuse for the purpose of obtaining legal aid. We recognise that it is already the case that most GPs do not charge for such evidence, but the amendment will ensure that no victim faces that barrier to obtaining legal aid.
The Bill also reaches beyond these shores. Lords amendments 70 to 82 amend the extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions in the Bill to remove the dual criminality requirement for relevant sexual offences, including rape, committed outside the UK by UK nationals. That will enable UK nationals who commit marital rape in countries where such behaviour is not criminal to be prosecuted in UK courts. This is also a significant step forward towards ratifying the Istanbul convention, as it addresses one of the three outstanding matters set out in the statement to the House in October last year.
I turn to the 12 sets of Lords amendments to which we have tabled motions to disagree. I emphasise that, in line with our approach throughout the Bill, where we do not agree with the amendments, and where possible, we have sought to address the concerns raised through practical measures instead. The first set of amendments relates to the definition of domestic abuse. Lords amendments 1 to 3 would bring abuse by all carers of disabled persons, paid and unpaid, within the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill. I hope it is clear—it perhaps does not need saying—that the Government abhor all abuse, and we have every sympathy for the spirit of these amendments. Abuse of disabled people by their carers must be called out and acted upon. The issue before us today is whether this is the right Bill to strengthen the protection for disabled people.
The focus of this Bill is on domestic abuse as it is commonly understood—that is, abuse by a current or former intimate partner, or by a family member. That is the approach taken in the Istanbul convention, which I know many hon. Members are keen for the UK to ratify. Where a disabled person is abused by a partner or family member, the abuse will be covered by the definition as already agreed by this House. However, Lords amendments 1 to 3 would bring in a much wider range of relationships, outside a domestic abuse setting. We should steer away from diluting the purpose of the Bill.
As I have said, however, in inviting the House to disagree with these Lords amendments, we do not wish to downplay or deny for one moment the experience of disabled people who are abused by their paid or volunteer carers. There are protections in place, including the offences in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 relating to ill treatment and wilful neglect. However, we have listened carefully to the experiences and concerns raised in this House and the other place. We want to find practical ways in which to address those concerns. That is why the Government intend to carry out a review of the protections for people at risk of carer abuse. We will engage with the noble Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and the disabled sector on the scope of the review, but it would broadly seek to examine the protections offered against carer abuse and the support available to victims. We have listened and we will act.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Like the Minister, I wish to place on record my own and my party’s sadness on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. I suppose all your life you get used to the existence of the royal family as if they are always going to be there. In the passing of Prince Philip, we realised how lucky we are as a nation to have a sort of backbone that is always there—a family who are not always perfect, like anyone’s family, but who we can look to. I and we all feel very keenly in light of the pandemic the loss to the royal family specifically and to us as a nation.
We also share in the Minister’s sadness at the loss of Dame Cheryl Gillan. Regardless of political party, she was a friend especially to every woman in this House. To every woman from every party who came, she offered words of advice and words of exasperation in the lady Members’ rooms. She was one of a kind, and she will be missed genuinely and keenly across the House. She would definitely have been here today, without question. She spoke in almost every single one of these debates. We will miss her further, and no doubt we will all seek to take on her work.
Following the death of Sarah Everard, heartbreak, fear and anger ripped through the country—a response to the endemic violence that women and girls suffer. People felt it in their bones. Responding to such an outpouring of grief is our job. It is our duty and a privilege as parliamentarians to take that emotion, that fear, that rage, that passion and that injustice and to turn it into policy and law. It is our job to do something meaningful.
The question for the House today, as we consider the amendments inserted into the Bill by the other place in the heat of those moments, is: who do we decide to save? I will briefly talk through which amendments we are supporting and why, as the Minister has done.
I welcome very much, as I have throughout its passage, the immense changes to the Bill. It is unrecognisable from the day it started, which I do not know if anyone can remember; it seems so long ago. The spirit in which the Bill has been forged—that is how it feels—has always been to seek amendments and to work to improve it, and my comments will continue in that exact same spirit as we seek to continue to amend it.
Amendments 40, 41 and 43—I am sure nobody will be surprised to hear my views on migrant victims of domestic abuse—would allow migrant victims to access support and protection just like everybody else and just like I could. Without the amendments, victims will be left trapped in abusive households. It is as simple as that. The Government will seek to tell us that they have proposed a pilot project, which we have heard about today. I am pleased to hear that the pilot has gone to Southall Black Sisters, I believe in partnership with Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid—a place very close to my heart—but the specialist organisations and independent commissioners have all been very clear that the pilot is inadequate, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to.
Analysis by the domestic abuse sector suggests that thousands of victims could be left unprotected and unsupported under the pilot scheme. Students here studying, for example, might be raped, battered and abused by their partners. Thousands of students have this week talked on the Everyone’s Invited site about sexual assaults on campus. Foreign students would not be able to seek refuge in the same way that I can under the current rules in this country if they needed to escape.
This pilot is not good enough. It will only provide minimal, short-term support for 300 to 500 women. There is no money, for instance, for counselling, therapeutic intervention, interpretation costs, children’s costs and medical or travel costs. What happens, then, when the 501st victim visits? I can tell you what happens to the 501st victim, because it is what happens now. It is happening to Farah, who was routinely tormented and assaulted with a belt by her father and trapped in that abuse without access to public funds or support and protection. She said:
“I made many calls to the council and even the national domestic violence helpline and many other organisations for people who suffer domestic violence. They all said the same thing: I had no recourse to public funds, so they couldn’t and wouldn’t help me. Some of them even said it was the law not to help me. I guess that no recourse to public funds means that it’s okay for me to be violated physically and mentally abused by my father. I guess the Government approves of that.”
Lords amendment 40 establishes safe reporting mechanisms which ensure that all victims of domestic abuse feel able to come forward to the police. Perpetrators know at the moment that they can use immigration status as a weapon against vulnerable, frightened victims—“If you tell the police, you’ll get deported and you’ll never see the kids again. If you go to the police, they’ll lock you up in a detention centre.” I have seen this thousands of times.
At the end of last year, three police oversight bodies said that the data sharing with immigration enforcement was causing “significant harm” to the public interest. If victims cannot report, those perpetrators remain out there. We are leaving violent rapists and dangerous, violent men in our community, able to hurt people again and again. I listened to the Minister’s comments on this, and obviously I welcome the idea of a review. In terms of the idea that it is premature to ask for the law to be amended to protect these victims, I have stood in the House asking for this for at least four years. It does not feel premature for my constituents who had threats to kill and ended up in detention. It does not feel premature when I had to go to Yarl’s Wood to collect them.
I have to disagree with what the Minister said. These amendments do not ensure indefinite leave to remain for all victims of domestic abuse or allow some mythical path to dodge immigration processes. They are about getting victims out of an abusive and dangerous situation, on an equal footing to what any one of us in this House would expect for ourselves and our daughters. I also expect it for all my constituents.
Moving on to other serial offenders whom we currently leave on the streets and those victims who are at the highest risk of harm, Lords amendment 42 requires serial domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators to be registered on a database and accompanied by a comprehensive perpetrator strategy. The Labour party supports this amendment. Zoe Dronfield almost died when her ex-partner attacked her with a meat cleaver. Zoe spent weeks in hospital recovering from bleeding to the brain, a stab wound to her neck and a broken right arm inflicted during an eight-hour ordeal at the hands of Jason Smith. Zoe discovered after reporting her case to the police that Smith had abused 13 previous victims. There is a desperate need in this country to do something to identify, manage and monitor these high-harm perpetrators of stalking and domestic abuse. They would not have been met by current MAPPA. [Interruption.] The Minister claims that that is not true, but they were not in these instances.
Victoria Atkins
I just want to clarify this, because it is an important detail. Category 3 of MAPPA is defined as “other dangerous offenders”. It does not matter whether that offender has committed section 18 grievous bodily harm or criminal damage, which, as the hon. Lady will know, is a much lower offence. It is the risk assessment of that defendant in the circumstances of the offence that matters and puts them in category 3. That is the point—it already exists.
Jess Phillips
If it already exists, why was Jason Smith allowed to go on and abuse 13 other people? It is not just Jason Smith, of course—it is the person who killed Hollie Gazzard, the person who killed Jane Clough and the person who killed Helen. The reality is that this is not working, and the victims in these instances, like Zoe Dronfield, have spoken very clearly, and the agencies have spoken clearly. They have asked us to look again and help to protect them.
Victoria Atkins
Just to assist the House, as I hope I made clear in my speech, we know there have been horrific instances where, in the system itself, those risk assessments and the management have not been done properly. I think we are having a disagreement about whether putting in a new category will change that. We want to look, and we are doing so through the statutory guidance, at how these assessments are made on the ground. That is what will make a difference, not a statutory framework.
Jess Phillips
I can sympathise with what the Minister is saying, but I would ask the House and the Minister to sympathise with somebody on the frontline who has been watched again and again, through one multi-agency risk assessment conference after another, or a serious case review or a domestic homicide review. Again and again, the same thing is said—agencies do not speak to each other. The idea of amending the statutory guidance but not putting in place some legislative framework so that this has to occur is just more, “Oh, let’s see if we can get agencies speaking to each other again.” It just is not enough. It is not just me who thinks it is not enough. When I spoke to Zoe Dronfield herself this morning, she told me that she was devastated. In the heat of the Sarah Everard killing, she felt that the Government were listening, and today victims like her feel as though they have been let down.
The Government amendment in lieu is not enough. It is perfectly fine in its own right and the Labour party called for a perpetrator strategy in Committee, but it is not the same as what is proposed in Lords amendment 42. It is not even nearly answering the same question. Dangerous criminals are on our streets and in our homes, and repeating the same acts of violence and abuse over and over again, moving from victim to victim. Nothing in what the Government have proposed, I am afraid, has anywhere near enough teeth or will account for, identify and offer safety to the victims now dead at the hands of the most serial perpetrators. The amendments from the other place are strong, and I very much imagine that it will successfully push back. The Labour party stands ready to support it as it does so, and stands to support the victims.
Disabled victims are currently left out of the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 change the definition of “personally connected” to reflect the lived experience of disabled victims of domestic abuse. Disabled people can be victims of domestic abuse by paid and unpaid carers, with whom they have close, intimate relationships. For victims, this abuse of trust and power is experienced in exactly the same way as that perpetrated by a mother, a father or a partner, so it should be recognised as such in the Bill. The expansion of the definition of “personally connected” will not dilute it, as has been suggested by the Government, but fortify it to protect those who right now are being domestically abused because they are dependent on another person in their lives. This is what disabled people have asked for, and I am sure we will see after today if the review proposed by the Government is satisfactory to those voices, who are the ones we must listen to in this.
Moving on to training of the judiciary and the accreditation of child contact centres, I want Members in this House to know that today they will be voting against making it mandatory for family court judges to be trained on domestic abuse. The Government are claiming that Lords amendment 33 threatens the independence of the judiciary. They have yet to elaborate, and the Minister did not elaborate on this point earlier. However, I shall assume—she can of course correct me if I am wrong—that she and those who sit behind her, both metaphorically and actually, are using the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which gave the Lord Chief Justice responsibility for training. I am assured that those who tabled this amendment in the other place took legal advice on this exact thing, and they do not agree that it is unconstitutional, but think it fits very well with that Act.
The amendment was drafted by a peer who is a QC, and was accepted by the parliamentary Clerks. On Report, a number of significant legal minds voted in favour of the amendment, including QCs and the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court. I would very much welcome a copy of the Government’s legal advice. There is absolutely no desire on our parts to do anything that is unconstitutional. We are not even saying what the frame of the training has to be, just that it has to happen. The idea that the Lord Chief Justice would push back, saying it did not have to happen and was against the independence of the judiciary, is something, frankly, that we would want to push against.
The Government’s own harm review found that comments made by judges in the family court included, for example, that a woman could not be a victim of domestic abuse because she wore make-up to court. Judges also found that women were emotional and temperamental when they cried about their abuse in the court room. Who knew that we did not need the police, the courts or welfare for victims of domestic abuse? We should have just told women to pop on a bit of make-up, and that would have protected them from domestic abuse. That is essentially what is being said in our family courts: if a woman wears make-up, how can she be a victim of domestic abuse? That was not said by me but by a judge in our family courts, and that kind of attitude is not just insulting but dangerous, because terrible practice in our family courts leaves children alone with violent perpetrators. I am not offended by the sexism; I am frightened for people’s lives.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
If I may crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish, as the Minister did, to take the opportunity in this Chamber to pay my tribute to our late right hon. Friend, Cheryl Gillan. Cheryl was an incredible person. She was a fierce defender of her constituents and proudly put forward their interests, but she was also a great friend to MPs across this House. As the Minister and the shadow Minister recognised, she was particularly a friend to women in this Chamber. Quite simply, with the passing of Cheryl Gillan, this House has lost one of the best of its Members.
Before I comment on the amendments, I want to say a huge thank you to all those who have been involved in this Bill from the very inception of the idea of having another Domestic Abuse Bill. Although I do not necessarily agree with all the Lords amendments, I recognise that everybody has been working to make the Bill what they believe to be absolutely the best. This really important Bill will save lives and protect the too many people who, daily, are sadly abused by their partners and those they are living with in horrific and terrible ways.
I turn now to specific amendments. I have just referenced the abuse that takes place, and I fully recognise the intention behind Lords amendments 1 to 3. We should, of course, have absolutely zero tolerance of abuse by carers. The very name “carer” means that they are supposed to be looking after and caring for the person they are with. One of the most important aspects of the Bill—it seems very trivial, but it is one of the most important aspects—is the definition of domestic abuse, and the fact that we are adopting that wider definition of abuse. Domestic abuse is not simply abuse that takes place within a domestic setting. It takes place between two individuals who have a particularly close and intimate relationship, and it is that personal connection that I think is important.
The Government are absolutely right to be working with those who have raised, in particular, the abuse of disabled people to look at what protections need to be put in place, why the system is not currently working and why the arrangement that can deal with these cases does not always appear to be working. What lies at the heart of domestic abuse is the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. That is why it is important that we do not widen the definition in the way their Lordships have proposed.
Of course, domestic abuse can continue outside the domestic setting—for example, in a workplace or online. That is one of the reasons why I particularly welcome Lords amendment 34, to extend the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to a situation where the perpetrator and victim are no longer living together. It is a mistake to think that domestic abuse ends if the two individuals, the perpetrator and the victim, are physically separated by no longer being together in the same premises. This is an important amendment. As we know, too many survivors find themselves subject to controlling and coercive behaviour even after they have been separated from their perpetrator. I commend the role played by my noble Friend Baroness Sanderson in putting forward the amendment. I also commend her for all the work she has done on domestic abuse when she was working for me in No. 10 Downing Street and subsequently in her time in another place. I am sure she will continue to work on these issues.
I want to come on to the Lords amendments that I do not agree with. Lords amendment 33 is about training for judges. I have heard the arguments across the Front Bench on that issue. During lockdown 1, I joined Dr Peter Aitken, Elizabeth Filkin and the former Supreme Court judge Nicholas Wilson to produce a report called, “Seize the Moment to End Domestic Abuse”. We focused particularly on the Bill and its implications. One important recommendation we made to the Ministry of Justice was that the MOJ should ensure the proper training of judges on the implications of the Bill once it is enacted. The shadow Minister is absolutely right that there have been some very bad cases where the attitude of judges has shown that they simply do not understand domestic abuse, the nature of domestic abuse or the wide range of abuse that can take place. It is important that training is the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice, and I think the commitments given by the President of the Family Division and the Judicial College are important in that respect. I would simply say to the Government that it is important that the Government make sure that those steps are put in place and that training is put in place.
I want to raise a question that may be answered later. There is an issue about who decides the nature of that training, how good the training is and what it actually covers. I am sure there are those who would say that the judiciary have had training already. Well, it is patently obvious that there are some who perhaps did not imbibe the training as well as they might have done.
This point is not specific to the amendments, but, if I may, it is not just the judiciary whom we need to ensure are trained. We need to ensure that the police, local authorities and others are trained on the implications of the Bill when enacted if we are going to see it being implemented. One thing we sometimes forget in this place is that it is not just about passing pieces of legislation; it is about what then happens with that legislation and how it is implemented.
I will now come on to one of the more contentious areas in the amendments, which has been a long-standing issue: the question of support for migrant victims. The Minister and the Government have given a clear commitment to ensure that the victims of domestic abuse are treated as victims, whatever their immigration status. Of course, systems of support are already in existence—the destitute domestic violence concession scheme, as has been referred to by others, is for those who are here on a spousal visa, while victims who are also victims of modern slavery can be referred to support available through the national referral mechanism—but the concern is that there are those who are falling through the net. The Government undertook a review. They have now undertaken to put in place the Support for Migrant Victims scheme. The Minister announced that Southall Black Sisters will run that scheme, which I welcome.
It is important that we recognise that not all victims are the same and that we are able to identify the specific circumstances and the specific protections and support needed in those cases where people are currently falling through the net. I support the Government’s decision not to support the Lords amendments on these particular issues. What matters is that victims are recognised as victims, regardless of their status. What we must now allow is the good intention of providing extra support for victims inadvertently leading to more victims.
On data sharing, which has been linked in the amendments, the issue is not as simple as it is sometimes portrayed. I am very pleased to be able to say that this is, I think, the first use of the police super-complaints process, which was introduced, as the Minister said, under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, so I have some sense of bearing some responsibility for it. That is good, because it shows that it can work.
Mrs May
The hon. Lady is right; it won’t be the last. The important thing is that it has been shown that it works and that a super-complaint can be brought. Let us respect that process and do what has been recommended by HMICFRS—I apologise for the initials; I think I put the fire service in with the inspectorate of constabulary—and, as the Government say, undertake that review and put into place whatever is necessary as a result of it.
On Lords amendment 42, on the register, this has been a matter of debate for some considerable time. It has been raised with me by constituents and by one of my local councillors on behalf of a resident not in my constituency. What I would say is that simply putting somebody on a register does not mean that protection is going to be provided. There was an exchange across the Front Benches about MAPPA and how it is operating. MAPPA can currently cover these cases of serial domestic abuse offenders and high-harm domestic abuse offenders, so there is a question as to who would be covered who is not already covered. If they are already covered but there are still these cases, the question is not whether the system applies to these cases, but why the system is not working in relation to them.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this hugely important debate. First, let me echo what both the Minister and the shadow Minister said about His Royal Highness Prince Philip and about Dame Cheryl Gillan. We will very much miss what would typically have been a knowledgeable and passionate contribution from Dame Cheryl in this debate and in so many debates to come.
Although these Lords amendments cover many significant issues, I shall take only a short time to cover two, as the Bill almost exclusively extends to England and Wales and relates largely to devolved matters. The two excellent Lords amendments I wish to express Scottish National party support for are Lords amendments 40 and 41, which were drafted expressly with a broader scope, touch on a reserved matter—immigration—and have the potential to bring significant benefits to victims from across the UK if we support them today.
Lords amendment 40 would start to roll back the Home Office’s ever-extending network of data sharing agreements and its grab of sweeping exemptions to data protection laws—my party has repeatedly proposed this. These exemptions have contributed to a dangerous situation in which migrants feel unable or reluctant to access potentially vital public services for fear that any information they share will end up being used by the Home Office in a bid to remove them. Domestic abuse is one severe but perfect illustration of that point. Fleeing an abusive partner can of course put women at risk, and none of us would want them to fear seeking the protection and support that they need. The reality, however, is that too often they do, and one reason for that fear is precisely because they do not have faith that the information they are required to share will not result in an attempt to remove them or have other implications for their current and future status here.
That is what Lords amendment 40 effects, by requiring the Home Secretary to put in place
“arrangements to ensure that the personal data…processed for the purpose of”
securing that help and support “is not used” against victims for immigration purposes. We therefore give it our support. I listened to what the Minister said in response, but I do not understand how police guidance can provide any sort of comprehensive answer and I fear that the evidence shows that it will not. It does not provide the necessary or sufficient reassurance that a statutory provision can provide. It is that simple.
Lords amendment 41 is, as we heard, the new clause that would broaden the scope of the domestic violence rule and the concessions so that more victims of domestic abuse here can find safety, knowing that they also have a pathway to leave to remain and do not need endure destitution and homelessness while they pursue it. Now, those possibilities are limited largely to those who are here on spouse visas.
The domestic violence rule and the concessions have been transformative for many victims of domestic abuse who are able to access them. The very same reasons for putting them in place for those on spouse visas clearly also apply to other victims of domestic abuse. If we do not completely break the link between a woman’s lawful residence here and her relationship with an abusive partner, far from helping her, we are hindering her ability to find help and support—we hand power to the abuser. No one wants that but, unless we support the new clause, I fear that is the position that we will risk remaining in.
Again, I do not understand the Government’s answers in response, in particular what was said about the Lords amendment not being true to the original purpose of the rule and the concessions. On the contrary, it is about applying the same purpose, intention and reasoning to a broader group of victims who equally require support and protection, ensuring that they may access them.
In relation to another Government response, the Lord Bishop of Gloucester explained in the other place why the Government’s support for migrant victims, while welcome, is not a comprehensive answer, as the shadow Minister said today. We need bolder action as a matter of urgency. There is already an abundance of evidence that the changes proposed by way of Lords amendment 41 are utterly necessary and could transform lives.
The Government also seem to object that the leave proposed might ultimately be indefinite leave. If they find that objectionable—I do not understand the reasons why they might—rather than reject the amendment outright, they should at least provide for a decent period of time unencumbered by restrictions, including on public funds, to allow victims to get the support that they need and to get their lives back on track.
In a letter to MPs this morning, Ministers argued that migrant victims are not a homogeneous group, and that argument has been repeated this afternoon, but we know that—those advocating Lords amendment 41 know it better than anyone—and supporters of the amendment are not treating them as such. Rather, we would create a space in which complex and diverse needs can be better understood and addressed and where victims are free of the incredibly intimidating coercion and control that precarious immigration status can cause a victim. The Government risk denying victims that space and the possibility of addressing their diverse needs.
In conclusion, the focus should not be on the nature of victims’ immigration status or the type of visa that they hold; it should be on their needs as victims. Despite the Government’s protestations to the contrary, Lords amendment 41 would be another step towards ensuring that that happens. The question for this House is: what is more important, protecting and supporting victims, or protecting Home Office powers over migration? We say, support the victims, and we therefore give our full support to the Lords amendments.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
I join in the tributes to Cheryl Gillan, whom we all miss badly from this House and from debates such as this one in which she has been a participant for so many years.
I welcome the progress made on the Bill with the work done in the House of Lords. It is an important Bill and I commend the work on it of the Minister, the Opposition Front Benchers and all those in the Lords who sought to improve and build on it, because it got better as a result of all that work along the way. We have seen, for example, the addition of references to children as part of the Bill—something that our Home Affairs Committee recommended some years ago—and the amendments to reflect the issues raised earlier in our Commons debates about making non-fatal strangulation an offence.
I want to focus in particular on two areas where the Lords have proposed amendments that the Government are still resisting. The first is to support points made by other Members about the need to make sure that migrant women are not deterred from coming forward to get help when they desperately need it. These can be some of the most vulnerable women of all, threatened by perpetrators with losing their immigration status. Effectively, what the perpetrators are doing is exploiting the immigration system to exert coercive control over vulnerable women. We have a responsibility to make sure that that cannot happen, but, again, the Government are not going far enough in that regard.
The second area that I want to address is in relation to Lords amendment 42, which was put forward by Baroness Royall with support from across the Lords, including from Baroness Newlove. It is similar to an amendment that I put forward at an earlier stage in the Bill’s consideration, which the Government did say they would consider, because they recognised the importance of the issue. It builds on the work that Laura Richards at Paladin has done and has the support of hundreds of thousands of people who have signed petitions for stronger action against repeat perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking.
We know that there are too many cases of awful crimes against women—serious domestic abuse, awful violence, horrendous stalking, murder, and lives that are lost as a result of terrible crimes—and yet the perpetrator has committed crimes before. They may have been involved in other stalking offences, harassment, repeated domestic abuse or violence. They move from one victim to another and sometimes from one town or region to another. They find someone new to control and to abuse and someone else whose lives they can destroy. Too often, when those previous crimes emerge, everyone sighs in sadness, everyone wishes that the signs had been picked up earlier, everyone says that the dots should have been joined, and everyone says that lessons should be learned, but in the end they never are and not enough changes. We cannot carry on like this.
Hollie Gazzard was stalked and murdered by a man who was involved in 24 previous violent offences, including 12 on an ex-partner. Even though he had been reported to the police many times, there was no proactive risk assessment, and there was no management despite his previous violent offences. Linzi Ashton was raped, strangled and murdered by a man who had strangled two previous partners, but his repeat pattern of abuse towards women was not picked up. Jane Clough, an A&E nurse, was stalked and then murdered by a violent ex-partner, even though he had a history of abusing other women. He was not on the high-risk offenders register and the police were not monitoring him.
There are so many cases. Shana Grice was stalked and murdered in 2016. The man who killed her had abused 13 girls before, yet there was still no focus on him as a perpetrator, and no intelligence or information sharing. Faced with these cases, where perpetrators have repeated convictions for domestic abuse or for stalking, why on earth are their names not on the high-risk offenders register? Why on earth is there not a process to identify or manage these high-risk individuals? Why on earth do the police not take these cases seriously, because it is not happening? That is what Lords amendment 42 is all about. It adds convicted serial domestic abusers and stalkers to the high-risk offenders register so that police and specialist agencies can work together to prevent them from offending again and to use the multi-agency public protection arrangements to keep more women safe.
We know that, when it comes to domestic abuse, stalking, or violence against women, the most serious offenders are those repeat offenders. That is where we should be trying to focus more of our efforts.
Let me consider the Government’s objections. The Minister says that they will draw up a perpetrators strategy, which was part of Lords amendment 42. That is strongly welcome, but the Government are not going far enough with their plans for that strategy. For example, the strategy currently does not include stalking, which it needs to do, and it is not a replacement for the high risk register and the proper monitoring and interventions underpinned by statute that we need.
The Minister has said that a new category 4 is not needed on the high-risk offenders register—a new category from MAPPA—because these dangerous people can be included in category 3. The trouble is that just because in theory some of them can be does not mean that most of them are. The system is not working; simply adding a bit more guidance, a bit more urging and a bit more soul searching will not mean they are included in practice either.
Category 3 has historically been interpreted very narrowly and is interpreted by gatekeepers—people who are concerned about stretched resources and will continue to be so. At the moment, what that means in practice is that police, probation officers and other agencies involved in the system are simply not treating repeat perpetrators —those with repeat domestic abuse convictions—as high- risk offenders, yet they are high risk. Someone who has already been convicted of domestic abuse against a series of different women is a risk to other women and needs to be properly assessed, yet at the moment the system does not assess them as high risk. That is what we are trying to fundamentally change through legislation, to send a strong signal through the system—to police officers, specialist agencies and probation services across the country—that these cases are high risk and put other women at risk in future. They need to be properly assessed and managed to keep other women safe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice, Sir Robert Neill.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate because this is a very important Bill, it is a good Bill and it significantly improves the law in a number of respects. A number of the amendments made in the other place improve the Bill, too.
I am particularly pleased to see the creation of the offence of non-fatal strangulation. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, I practised in the criminal courts for some 25 years before coming into this place. There was a gap in the law here. Evidentially it was often very difficult to fit that course of conduct into the existing offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to reflect the gravity of it—the lower offence under section 20 often would not give adequate sentencing powers. Equally it was often difficult to demonstrate that the elements of attempted murder were made out—often it would not be possible to prove that was the case—in the light of what had happened. So the creation of a specific offence to deal with a type of behaviour that is particularly pernicious in abusive relationships—I certainly came across it in my career, as I am sure have many others in this House—is particularly valuable and welcome. I know it is welcomed by practitioners and by judges in these cases, because it now gives us a means of capturing the whole of the conduct that can happen in these types of relationship. So that is very welcome.
I welcome, too, what the Minister said about revenge porn. The Law Commission’s work is very valuable in this field, but the Government’s commitment to moving swiftly on this is important too, because it is critical that offences are kept up to date with the changing technologies and use of social media in society. So these are very good aspects of the Bill, in addition to the others that have already been mentioned.
I want to talk briefly about three Lords amendments that the Government are right to resist, although I understand and support, as will most Members, the sentiments behind them. The first is Lords amendment 33, which relates to judicial training. The Minister’s comments on this are right. It is absolutely right that there must be training. A great deal is being done now to improve awareness by judges and sentencers—both judges and magistrates, because we must remember many of these cases will be tried by lay magistrates as well as by professional judges. It is absolutely right that there is up-to-date and comprehensive training in this regard. The Judicial College has done a great deal of work now. As Baroness Butler-Sloss—a former president of the family division and one of the most experienced family judges we have in this country, although she is now retired—pointed out, that has been incorporated specifically both into the initial training and the refresher training that is required for judges and magistrates. The Justice Committee in previous reports in relation to the role of the magistracy has urged that there be a more comprehensive training programme. It is important that the Minister ensures that the Ministry of Justice makes the funding available for those training programmes, whether residential or day courses, to be systematically and comprehensively delivered across the country, and that all magistrates and judges have access to them in a timely fashion.
However, I do not think we need primary legislation to do that. We certainly should have a practical strategy, but I do not think it is right that that should lie in the hands of the Secretary of State. If I can draw an analogy, later in the proceedings, there is a Government amendment in lieu setting out a strategy for the prosecution of offenders. I think that is properly a strategy that can be owned by Ministers because it relates to what is done by the Executive arms of state such as the prosecution. That is different from what is done by the judicial arm of the state. It does not seem constitutionally proper, despite the good intentions behind the amendment, to enable any Secretary of State to have power to dictate to the independent judiciary how they should set about their training programmes and what they should contain. That is a discrete but significant flaw in the amendment, which is why the House would be right to resist it. The objective can be achieved but without trespassing over the constitutional division between Executive, legislature and judiciary that unfortunately is the inevitable and logical consequence of the amendment. It puts the power in a Minister’s hands when in fact there is a clear willingness by the judiciary to seize the nettle themselves on this. We shall make sure that they have the resources to enable them to seize that nettle, but we should not be dictating to them as to how they do it. That is why the Government are right to resist the amendment.
Lords amendments 37 and 38 relate to reasonable force as a defence and a further statutory offence in domestic abuse cases. Again, the intention is entirely laudable but, certainly in my experience, it is not necessary to put this into primary legislation. For example, the circumstances that are set out in the two amendments and in the lengthy schedule—I think that is Lords amendment 83, which is attached to one of those— relate to offences where it is already possible under existing criminal law for a defendant to raise the full defence of self-defence, which once raised must then be rebutted by the prosecution, or a partial defence—for example, an offence of duress, which can, under certain circumstances, either be a complete defence to an offence or reduce murder down to manslaughter. Those are already available.
Since the decision in the Challen case—a case that came too late in terms of justice to the individual concerned but which has now set the law on a much better and more up-to-date footing—there is a recognition that the course of conduct of coercive control can be regarded as a factor that raises the defence of duress in the appropriate case. Therefore, the means of a victim of domestic abuse to bring that before the court is already available and it does not seem necessary to add these clauses to the Bill. It might actually have the effect of limiting, unintentionally, the scope of conduct that can be captured and used by a defendant to assert that they were acting in self-defence.
The law of self-defence has changed. In fact, I was involved in one of the leading cases in the Court of Appeal, which rightly—albeit I was on the prosecution side—said that the law prior to the case of Bird back in the 1990s was too restrictive in what could be pleaded as self-defence. That is particularly important to a woman, and the defendant in that case was a female. The person she had assaulted in self-defence was, as it turned out, a man. That imbalance was not properly reflected in the law up until the Bird case, but it then was, and therefore the existing common law is on a much sounder footing to deal with this. Therefore, it is not necessary to go down the route set out in Lords amendment 38.
The defence of duress is, as I say, already available. Evidence that shows that the defendant had been a victim of domestic abuse is of itself already relevant and admissible to set up the defence of duress, in the same way as it is relevant and admissible where a defence of self-defence is pleaded. So we are in danger of over-engineering a solution that is already there and where the courts have shown themselves willing to reflect changes in social conditions and the pressures that exist.
Let me end my observations by stating that the attitude of the courts in relation to domestic abuse offences, and to sexual offences more generally as well, is sometimes criticised—sometimes rightly—but I have noticed that the judiciary’s approach has changed vastly over the years I have been involved in criminal law. There is now a much greater understanding of the power imbalance that often exists in relationships and that, very frequently, women are in the more vulnerable position. In both the investigation of offences and their handling in court, far greater sensitivity is now shown to victims and complainants in such cases, and absolutely rightly so.
It seems to me that the law is able to deal with these matters without the need for further primary legislation. The sentiments behind the three Lords amendments I have spoken about are entirely laudable, but they can be picked up and captured elsewhere. For those reasons, it is proper for the Government to resist them.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I express my commiserations to the Queen, the royal family and, of course, the family of our very own Dame Cheryl Gillan.
I really welcome the Bill: it is a huge step in the right direction to better support victims of domestic abuse, and I thank all those who have worked so hard to make sure that it has come forward. However, in passing this legislation we must ensure that someone’s migrant status does not prevent them from getting the support that they need.
One of the greatest challenges in tackling the abhorrent crime of domestic abuse is the fact that all too often incidents go unreported. The problem is further exacerbated if victims are afraid to come forward because they fear that doing so could lead to their deportation. For example, there is a risk that people will be afraid to report their abuse if their right to be in the UK is dependent on their staying with their spouse. Everyone, no matter their migration status, deserves equal protection under the law.
Lords amendment 40, on data sharing for immigration purposes, is therefore a huge opportunity to reassure victims and witnesses that the details they share with the police and other agencies will not be used for any immigration-control purposes. This will give them the confidence to come forward and report this often-hidden crime.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 41, on leave to remain and the destitution domestic violence concession. The long, arduous process of reporting domestic abuse and then through to eventual conviction is immensely taxing for all victims. The stress caused is unmanageable if victims are having to secure their right to remain in the UK at the same time.
The situation is made worse by the policies that limit access to some key services for those subject to immigration control. Lords amendment 41 will enshrine into law the right of victims of domestic abuse to have a route towards being granted indefinite leave to remain. Importantly, it will also guarantee their right to access services that could provide a vital lifeline. It could save lives.
In building a global Britain, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with all victims of domestic abuse, no matter their country of origin. Not only do we have a moral responsibility to enact the changes in the Lords amendments but, as signatories to the Istanbul convention on preventing violence against women and girls, we have an international responsibility, too.
One of the remaining hurdles in the way of full implementation of the convention is equal protection on the grounds of migrant or refugee status. Eight years on from the UK having become a signatory, it is a national embarrassment that the Government have repeatedly dithered and delayed its implementation. Lords amendments 40 and 41 will remove the stumbling block and pave the way towards Britain fulfilling its international and moral obligations.
Domestic abuse has existed in the shadows for far too long. This legislation goes a significant way towards protecting victims, and I hope Members will support Lords amendments 40 and 41 to ensure that its protections are available to all.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to speak in this debate. Some excellent additions have been made to what was already a very strong Bill. In particular, I am delighted to speak to Lords amendment 35, which makes threatening to share sexual photographs or videos of someone without their consent an offence punishable by up to two years in prison.
Let me put on the record my thanks to both Bill Ministers, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I know that they have long supported these measures and worked hard to include them in the Bill, and they have put up with my badgering them on this issue with good grace. I also thank Baroness Morgan of Cotes, whose expert—and indeed noble—badgering was successful in getting the amendment over the line in the other place.
Most of all, however, I thank my constituent Natasha Saunders. I should say “my former constituent” because I have lost her to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin)—although she assures me that that is no reflection on her former Member of Parliament. Brave women such as Natasha, and brave men, have stood up and told their stories. It is one thing to campaign for changes to the law; it is much harder for someone to speak publicly about the darkest moments—the most personal and private moments—of their life.
When we last debated the Bill in this House, I shared some of Natasha’s story. She said, in her own words:
“The threat of those photos being shared was my worst nightmare—I had no choice but to comply with his continued abuse or face potential humiliation… The threat was always there and as the years went on, it was like I ceased to exist. He made me feel invisible to everyone and if I displeased him in any way, I knew he could use those pictures to ruin my reputation.”
Natasha has been working with Refuge. I thank it, too, for its excellent research on this issue, which gave us the evidence base we needed. Refuge’s “The Naked Threat” report found that one in 14 people in England and Wales, and one in seven young women, has been a victim of threats to share. Almost four in five women changed the way they behaved as a result of the threats, proving how much this law is needed.
Threatening to expose someone at their most vulnerable because they have done or want to do something you do not like is a deeply sinister crime. It has already resulted in tragedy, and I know it has contributed to trapping people in dangerous, abusive relationships. Now survivors will have a route to justice.
I am proud to vote for Lords amendment 35. I am even prouder of Natasha. She has decided to start on the journey from campaigner to Member of Parliament, to do more to protect others from the horror she suffered, and I very much hope that she will join us on the iconic green Benches before long.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister and the tributes to both His Royal Highness Prince Philip and Dame Cheryl Gillan?
It is, as others have said, a privilege to take part in this debate. When the Bill was first introduced, we were already aware of the need for protection for so many in our society. Roughly 2 million people a year in the UK, most of them women, are subject to some form of domestic abuse. In the subsequent debates, we have heard some incredibly brave and moving stories.
Throughout the covid-19 crisis, we have seen domestic abuse figures increase exponentially. In the past month, we have become, if anything, even more aware of the need for this landmark legislation. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) expressed, it is our duty here to reflect the demand for change that we have seen and heard from so many in our society.
The Bill has certainly changed and developed over the past four years. It has been supported and shaped positively from both sides of the Chamber, and I believe it has become stronger as a result. We have made progress and strengthened the Bill in areas such as including children in the definition, introducing protections for survivors of abuse in court, and taking our first steps towards making misogyny a hate crime.
However, the Bill could still be stronger. There are important, significant areas in which there is more work that we need to do. They include migrant women, who should have the same consideration as every other woman in our society. Getting out of a violent or abusive situation should not be dependent on where someone comes from. For me, this is a critical point. As has already been mentioned, this country has signed the Istanbul convention, but the Government have yet to ratify it. Under that convention, a person could not be denied support on the basis of their immigration status.
There is a specific amendment that I would ask the Government to reconsider: Lords amendment 42, on monitoring serious and serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking. In the other place, my colleague Baroness Brinton spoke powerfully from her own awful experience about the clear need to strengthen MAPPA and introduce a register for serious and serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking. That is why Lords amendment 42 is so important, and we should oppose the Government’s attempt to replace it with a much weaker amendment.
Tackling domestic abuse must include ensuring that the criminal justice system deals with obsessed serial perpetrators properly. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation, and the fact that she sympathises with the objective of the Lords amendment, but I cannot agree that there are not sufficient benefits to justify complications. There is no complication I can see that is ever too great to justify not increasing protection for any of us at any time from anyone. We have already heard numerous moving examples today of the damage done to lives by repeat offenders, and Liberal Democrats do not believe that the Government’s amendment in lieu goes far enough. We will therefore not support it.
This Bill speaks to a problem that infects our society and threatens people, mostly women, in every part of the country every day of the year. We are sending a message today from this place. Let us make it the strongest it can possibly be, so that when the Bill reaches the statute book, this landmark legislation is the strongest it can possibly be.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
I am privileged to speak in this debate today, and I would like to start by joining in the tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. She was an incredibly kind individual and she will be sorely missed in the House.
This really is a landmark piece of legislation. It shows what the House is truly capable of when it works together, and I commend all those who have been involved in bringing the Bill to where it is.
Over the past year, we have experienced life in a very different way, often not being able to leave our homes. For most of us it has been incredibly difficult, but for victims of domestic abuse the reality has been much harsher. Over the past year, victims of domestic abuse have often found themselves trapped by their abuser without any space, physical or emotional, between them. There has been a worrying increase in the demand for domestic abuse support, and this has been seen across the country. In fact, just last night I was contacted about someone who is a victim of domestic abuse and who needs my support. This just happens way too often.
There are two parts of the Bill to which I will refer today: Lords amendment 42 and the now-included provision in Lords amendment 35 on the threat to disclose intimate images. On the latter, I will say this. In 2015, we recognised the manipulative and psychological power that abusers had over victims when laws were introduced in relation to revenge porn, and we have seen more than 900 abusers convicted as a result. I am relieved to see that the threat to disclose intimate images is now being addressed in this legislation, because the harm caused by these threats is immeasurable and can have an extremely deep and lasting psychological impact on the victims. It is a sinister and cowardly crime.
I have heard anecdotal stories of communities in which honour plays a big role, and where abusive husbands have threatened to disclose intimate images of their wives or partners in an attempt to dishonour them in order to coercively control and manipulate them. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards letting those women know that this is not okay and that they are not alone. I thank Baroness Morgan for all the hard work she has done in getting this legislation amended. I also believe that social media companies need to play their part in fulfilling their responsibility to take down any distressing or manipulative images that may be classed as revenge porn—and swiftly, so that victims are protected.
I empathise with the intention and spirit of Lords amendment 42. However, I accept the Government’s position on this. There is, of course, still more that can be done through existing systems and better use of the MAPPA framework. As long as that is possible, the objective is the same, and if a way forward can be found through non-legislative means, that is certainly worth exploring. Of course, as has been said, domestic abuse does not just end when two partners—two individuals—stop living with each other.
By improving MAPPA, by improving the information-sharing processes with different agencies and individuals, the message to those who commit these cowardly acts of violence, stalking or domestic abuse is very clear: through this legislation, this Government and this House are determined that you will feel the full force of the law. We will come for you and we will not let you get away with it. And for the victims of these heinous crimes, the message is simple: you are not alone and we will not let you suffer alone.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
May I associate myself with the comments today about the Duke of Edinburgh and Dame Cheryl Gillan?
If we want to tackle violence against women, we need to change the conversation. We need to stop asking how we keep women safe and start asking how we stop the violence. I pay tribute to the many organisations and many Members across the House who have devoted time, effort and energy to the Bill and to that conversation—SafeLives, Refuge, Women’s Aid, Southall Black Sisters, Laura Richards, to name but a few of the many. The bitter reality is that whatever political perspective we come from, we have all known, in the many years that we have worked on this legislation, that it is a once- in-a-lifetime opportunity, because the conversation has all too often been about how women should keep themselves safe, rather than our responsibility to free them from harm.
I welcome the Government’s agreement to many changes to this legislation along its journey—just today, we are discussing their acceptance of Lord Kennedy’s amendment to stop doctors charging domestic abuse victims for medical evidence, for example. This also includes the changes on revenge porn, treating crimes that are motivated by misogyny as hate crime and ensuring that the police act to record how hostility towards someone’s sex or gender means that women are targeted for assault, abuse and harassment. However, in the time I have today, I want to urge the Minister to go further and drop the Government’s opposition to amendments where we ask a victim to fit a particular box rather than recognising that they all need our assistance to stop the violence.
Lords amendments 1 to 3 recognise the abuse of disabled people by paid or unpaid carers. Disabled women are twice as likely as their non-disabled counterparts to experience abuse, so we seek to support our disabled sisters from those who are their intimate contacts—people we trust to undertake some of the most sensitive acts, whether that is personal care, or emotional or financial matters. The Minister says that she cannot accept these amendments because giving those who are abused by their carers the protection of the Bill would change the common law understanding of domestic abuse and somehow dilute the purpose of the legislation, but the amendment is exactly about changing our understanding of abuse, where it happens and who suffers from it. This abuse takes place in a domestic setting and it is the result of an intimate relationship. For too long, those affected have been telling us about reviewing their evidence, how somehow they have to prove their case and why they cannot keep themselves safe through existing legislation. If we want to stop violence and abuse, we need to act and change how we think about domestic abuse accordingly. That is what Lords amendments 1 to 3 do.
Many have already spoken about Lords amendment 41, because that ensures that we give migrant victims of abuse the help that they need to leave abusive relationships, whatever their status. Without it, the Government are asking us to make a decision on whether to keep a victim of violence safe not on whether she is at risk, but on whether she has the right stamp in her passport. There is a speech for another day about the dysfunctionalities of the UK Border Agency and its ability to manage our immigration service, but it is a simple matter of fact that many victims of domestic abuse cover the cost of getting support, help and access to a refuge through their ability to access public assistance. When we deny women access to that assistance due to their immigration status, we consign them to having no way out of harm. Indeed, as Refuge pointed out, the number of survivors of abuse with no recourse to public funds is likely to increase post-Brexit under our new immigration proposals, so the need to address this will become even more pressing.
The Minister said that migrant victims should be seen as victims first, yet as she can see from the super-complaint and the evidence that it reveals, the reality is that they are all too often treated as potential criminals first and foremost when they come forward. We need to not only safeguard them from having their data shared but give them protection from being exploited full stop, and that is what Lords amendment 41 does. There are contradictions already exposed in this debate. The Minister says in one breath that the key consideration for migrant victims is not their immigration status and then says that victims of domestic violence should not have an automatic right to status in the UK. She says she needs more information and claims that the amendments are unnecessary as a result because she is reviewing the matter. I tell her, as somebody who has had to deal with these cases in my constituency and who is a big fan of the work that Southall Black Sisters does, that we do not need more reviews and more evidence, because the evidence is painfully already there.
The Minister says there is support, but we know that in 2019, for example, four in five migrant women were turned away from refuges due to their “no recourse to public funds” status. We have seen at first hand the women kept in violent relationships because of their immigration status. We have given testimony of the culture of fear they experience—fear of not only their abuser but the officials who are supposedly there to help them.
I also say, as a former member of the Council of Europe who had the privilege to serve on it alongside Dame Cheryl Gillan and learn from her in that institution, that we cannot ratify the Istanbul convention while we try to draw a distinction between women in the help they can access. Ministers told us that women in Northern Ireland were not treated differently when it came to their reproductive rights, and quite rightly, the Council of Europe told them otherwise. It is the same when it comes to drawing a distinction between migrant women and whether they can access support for being victims of domestic abuse. It is long overdue that we ratify the Istanbul convention. We cannot let this prevent us from being able to do that. We are one of the few countries left in Europe that has yet to ratify the convention, and I ask the Minister to talk to her counterparts in Europe, and to recognise how this will be a barrier to doing that and will leave women at risk in our communities.
Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 42, another matter on which there is much agreement in the House that we need to act. It is the best example among the amendments of how we can change the conversation and stop the violence caused by serial perpetrators and stalkers. The Minister tells us that the amendment is not needed, that it is not about the category of an offender but how MAPPA processes work, and that her proposals for reform will address that. I understand the point that she is making, and I can see that there is some truth in her argument about how services need to work together, because the evidence shows time and again that serial offenders and serial stalkers were left to target women without intervention. For years, women have lived in fear and begged for help from the police to protect them, only to be told that they were being overdramatic. That is not me being overdramatic. Research shows how the constant dismissing and downplaying of stalking’s serious nature means that, on average, victims of the crime do not report to the police until the 100th incident.
Shana Grice was fined for wasting police time before she was murdered by her stalker—a man who had been reported by 13 other women for stalking. Alice Ruggles was murdered by her ex-partner in 2016. The court heard how a restraining order had been taken out by an ex-girlfriend of his just three years earlier, but at the point at which Alice was begging the police for help, Northumbria police had no knowledge of that. Janet Scott, Pearl Black, Linah Keza, Maria Stubbings, Kerri McAuley, Molly McLaren, Hollie Gazzard, Justene Reece, Kirsty Treloar, Jane Clough, Linzi Ashton—all those cases involved serial perpetrators who had been violent and abusive to other women before they were attacked. No one joined the dots. No one asked whether they were at risk and acted. These women were sitting ducks. That is the system that the Minister is defending today.
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) says that putting someone’s name on a list does not make a difference. Frankly, I disagree. It means that we can finally hold the police, not the victims, to account, because they would have direct accountability for the management of their behaviour. It makes stalking something that the police have to recognise in its own right as something they need to stop, rather than something that women have to prove and manage. I pay tribute to the work that Laura Richards has done tirelessly to expose the situation and fight for these changes and to Baroness Royall, Baroness Newlove and Lord Russell for their work in the other place on this issue.
We know that this Bill has been a marathon, but we are asking the Minister to keep going that extra mile, to use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to stop trying to defend the indefensible and the status quo, to change the conversation so that we can stop the violence and not allow perpetrators of these crimes to use the loopholes—those that the amendments would close—to continue the abuse. The evidence base is already there. It just needs the political will to act. I say to the House that if the Minister will not listen, we must, and we must vote for the amendments.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I join colleagues in their tributes to Dame Cheryl Gillan. I knew her for 20 years, from her role as shadow Secretary of State and later as Secretary of State for Wales. I am so very sorry she has gone; she would have made a fantastic speech today.
It was an honour to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee last year. I am extremely proud that we have managed to prioritise this vital piece of legislation at this time. It will empower victims, communities and professionals to confront and challenge domestic abuse, and above all to provide victims with the support they deserve.
I commend the Minister for her efforts in this area and the shadow Minister, who talked about the spirit with which this Bill was forged. She is absolutely right that it has been made stronger all the way along by Members on both sides of the House, and I very much welcome that. I welcome the Government’s support for some of the amendments that were laid in the other place. They will create a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation, extend the coercive and controlling behaviour offence to post-separation abuse and criminalise threats to share intimate images.
I also support the Government in opposing Lords amendment 41. I believe that, as worded, it could risk further exploitation of vulnerable individuals, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) pointed out. The Government have taken a significant step in supporting migrant victims today by announcing the scheme to be delivered by Southall Black Sisters. I met them when they gave evidence to the Bill Committee, and I am confident that they will be successful.
Much of what we will discuss this afternoon will be addressed later this year as the Government look at the violence against women and girls consultation. I commend the Government for acting fast and reopening that consultation in the wake of the horrific murder of Sarah Everard. It is extremely positive that so many more contributions were made to that consultation.
While I have the Minister’s ear, I want to press again the need to do something about cyber-flashing—spreading indecent images using mobile devices on an unsolicited basis. That happens often on public transport. I was once flashed by a man on a night out in Cardiff. I could have had him arrested, because doing it in person is a criminal offence, but if a person digitally exposes themselves unsolicited, it is currently not the same offence. That needs to change. No one should be made to feel alarmed, distressed or intimidated as a result of being sent an unsolicited explicit photo. With so many more of our young people living their lives online with their own mobile phones, we need to put a stop to cyber-flashing.
I briefly want to mention the case of Ruth Dodsworth. For those of us in Wales, she is a very familiar face. She is a TV and weather presenter on ITV Wales. Yesterday, her ex-husband was jailed for three years after making her life a misery for nine long years. He was verbally abusive and physically violent. He followed her to work, put a tracker on her car, and even used her fingerprints to open her phone while she was sleeping to read its contents. Every day, Ruth went to work and read the weather forecast in a sunny, positive manner, completely concealing the horror that she was facing at home. I raise that point not only to praise Ruth’s bravery and incredible courage but to remind victims everywhere that they do not have to put a smile on their face, pretend they are okay and get on with it. The police and the criminal justice system are there to support them when they come forward. Ruth’s case shows that this is not something that is happening in the shadows to women we do not know. We all know a victim of domestic abuse, whether we know it or not. This Bill is landmark legislation that will go a significant way to protecting the estimated 2.4 million victims of domestic abuse each year. I wish it swift passage through these Houses.
Before I close, I want to single out the work that has been going on in my local area in Powys. I particularly applaud Powys County Council’s children’s services. Recently, I met its head of service, Jan Coles, and she talked me through the outstanding work it has been doing to support children victims of domestic abuse. That work has obviously been made so much more difficult during the recent pandemic, and I want to put on the record my thanks for what it has done. Powys was one of the first local authorities to quickly get vulnerable children into school hubs at the same time as key worker children, and I commend the council for that effort.
Finally, I thank all the brave survivors and tireless organisations who have given evidence during the passage of the Bill. This Bill is stronger because of them. I give it my full support, and I am proud to have played a very small part in it.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I would also like to pay tribute to the great Cheryl Gillan, an inspirational and supportive colleague whose presence is felt very strongly on this side of the House. The Bill returns to us in different and better shape from how it left us. The amendments do not just add content, but expand the framework through which domestic abuse in all its insidious complexity is understood. It is something that may well outlive the relationship. I have seen through work I have done with a particular constituent of mine that coercive or controlling behaviour can live long after the couple have stopped living under the same roof.
The Bill recognises that the threat of certain forms of abuse can be as pernicious as the act itself. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) for the beautiful way she expressed the shame and humiliation that lies at the heart of revenge porn, which is an offence irrespective of whether the threat is actually carried out. The amendments provide protection against sexual violence that does not depend on any particular relationship status. The measures on revenge porn and non-fatal strangulation and the prohibition on the rough sex defence are all examples of that, and I pay tribute to Baroness Newlove for succeeding where we failed.
The Bill has evolved in part into a very significant body of law on sexual violence. It says to women, “It doesn’t matter if he is your husband or just someone that you met on Tinder. If he tries to choke you, that is a crime. If he tries to silence you by saying that he will share images of you online, that is a crime. If he hurts you, whether through choking or anything else, and says that you were up for it, that will not work; it is a crime.”
This Bill comes at a very important moment in a national conversation we are having. We know such things are happening because of the countless women who have submitted their stories to the campaign group We Can’t Consent To This in the past 18 months, detailing terrifying sexual violence in intimate encounters, and the more than 14,000 young women who have submitted anonymous testimonies on “Everyone’s Invited”, in particular describing the sharing of online images. Then there are the 40% of young women who told the BBC in 2019 that they had experienced unwanted strangulation. What we have heard time and time again is that they just thought it was normal. They did not think that they could report it. For now, these changes meet that challenge and give women a route to justice in respect of these crimes.
I want to speak briefly on judicial training. I start by reminding the House of what the Court of Appeal said about that in an appeal it heard on domestic abuse about a fortnight ago. It said that while domestic abuses are often not “crystal clear”, where there is detailed guidance on judicial training, the number of appeals tends to be smaller.
I would like to talk about judicial training in the context of non-fatal strangulation, which is something I have raised with Lord Wolfson. Subsection (2) of clause 72 says that the offence is initiated by consent. I understand as a matter of law and principle why that is, but we need to be realistic about what the offence looks like. First, we know that it is occurring frequently, and we know that it occupies a sprawling kind of grey area. As the Centre for Women’s Justice put it, there is
“growing pressure on young women to consent to violent, dangerous and demeaning acts”,
such as strangulation, most likely
“due to the widespread availability…and use of extreme pornography.”
Without proper training from the Judicial College, it is easy to see how the defence could be used to lead to an acquittal.
Very often, perhaps always, the victim will have consented to sex in the first place. She may on a previous occasion have consented to strangulation or something like it under duress or a desire to please, and by the time she reports it to the police, she may not have very strong evidence of physical injury. We know from precedent, such as the Samuel Price case in 2015 on very similar facts, that her history will be used against her in evidence and will be relevant. Judicial training is imperative so that a case founded on these facts is not destined to fail.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
I would also like to associate myself with colleagues’ remarks about the sadness of the passing of His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, our dear colleague Dame Cheryl Gillan and of course Baroness Shirley Williams in the other place, and I send my sincere condolences to their families and friends.
I will be supporting the Lords amendments to this important Bill tonight. That we should need a Domestic Abuse Bill is a sad indictment of our society, but the facts speak for themselves. In England and Wales, two women a week will die at the hands of their partner, ex-partner or a family member. Yes, domestic abuse affects men as well, but most abuse is directed at women. Seventy-three years on from the commitment to universal human rights, which declared that
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”—
that women are equal to men—our fundamental rights to life are being denied by too many.
This violence against women and girls in a domestic or wider setting has context. For some, girl babies are seen as less important than boy babies, and daughters who are deemed to have shamed their families are punished, sometimes fatally. Too many still see their wives and daughters as chattels, and too many justify rape on how women dress. Our right to an education, to marry whom we wish, to work in whatever job we wish—limited only by our abilities, not by prejudice and discrimination—and to be paid equally for that work still elude us. If we want to stop violence against women, including in the home, we need a cultural change. Society needs to stop paying lip service to women’s rights and to treat women equally in every aspect of life, and this culture change requires leadership.
In addition to the cultural context, if we are going to try to prevent domestic abuse, we also need to recognise its drivers, including socioeconomic conditions. Yesterday, at the Work and Pensions Committee, we heard evidence that, although domestic abuse happens in all walks of life, being under financial pressure is associated with an increased risk of abuse. Poverty cannot be decoupled from abuse; it is both a cause and a consequence.
The lack of provision in the Bill to address wider cultural issues and the socioeconomic context associated with abuse were discussed at a recent Oldham roundtable looking at the impacts of covid on domestic abuse over the last year. In addition to these gaps, I noted with some concern that the detection of abuse at community level did not translate into incidents reported to the police. Reflecting national patterns during the first lockdown in Oldham, the average number of cases at MARAC doubled every fortnight and the numbers of children on child protection plans following domestic abuse concerns increased by 41%, but this was not reflected in the numbers of domestic abuse incidents reported to the police, which has remained fairly static at about 400 a month. This obviously suggests that domestic abuse has been under-reported and that there is an increased problem of hidden abuse, as colleagues have been discussing as we have been going along.
The concerns raised in Oldham about the provisions in the Bill were particularly related to the issues, first, of victims with complex needs; secondly, of victims with no recourse to public funds; and finally, of the practical implementation of the Bill and its funding mechanisms. On victims with complex needs, including disabled people or people with a mental health condition, there were concerns, on top of the shortage of refuge places ordinarily, about the new duty to support a victim in safe accommodation and the availability of appropriately adapted or supported safe accommodation. Basically, there are not enough places. I would also like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and other colleagues who have been raising the disappointment regarding the Government’s position on abuse of disabled women by their carers and the lack of the support for the Lords amendments on this, which we think is very short-sighted.
I also echo colleagues’ remarks concerning the Lords amendments to address the lack of support for women with no recourse to public funds—predominantly but not exclusively migrant women. Currently, the destitution domestic violence concession scheme is a lengthy and bureaucratic process, leaving these women in limbo, often without access to the support they need, and we need to change that.
On the practicalities of implementing the Bill, there are concerns that the timescales for local authorities will be challenging in the context of an ongoing pandemic, particularly in regard to the requirements to have local strategies in place by August and to spend budget allocations by April 2022. Similarly, there is concern that funding will be skewed towards services around the narrowly defined duty for local authorities, at the expense of other essential support services, and that needs to be addressed. Given the timescales, local authorities will need to commit funding in advance of the strategic framework being ready, and they may not be able to spend the full allocation within this year. I hope that the Minister will also be able to address those remarks in her closing statement.
The Bill is a good move forward, but supporting the Lords amendments could make it even stronger, and I hope colleagues will support it.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I, too, would like to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. She gave me and so many others much support and encouragement on our journeys to this place, and she is an inspiration to us all.
It is a privilege to speak in this important debate, and it was an honour to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee last year. I commend Ministers and Members on both sides of the House for the hard work behind the Bill. As we focus on the recent Lords amendments to the Bill, it is important that we remember that we are debating the finer detail of a Bill that will, as it already stands, deliver a radical change to the way that domestic abuse is defined and legislated against.
Not only does the Bill extend the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive and controlling behaviour, but it extends the definition of those who suffer to include children. For thousands of adults in the UK, the abuse they witnessed as a child will have had a profound and long-lasting effect. Many suffer deep trauma from the verbal, emotional and financial abuse they witnessed as children, which was perpetrated on and by the people they trusted to be their primary carers.
What we see and experience at an early age forms the basis of our future expectations, our own patterns of behaviour, and our health and wellbeing outcomes. It is devastating, therefore, to be exposed to any kind of abuse, including controlling and coercive behaviour, in our formative years. Studies have shown that children who witness domestic abuse often have the same poor life outcomes as those who are actually abused. They have the same likelihood of developing post-traumatic stress disorder as soldiers returning from war. They are also more likely to experience stress-related physical illnesses and mental health problems throughout their lives, and they are more likely to exhibit health-damaging behaviours such as smoking and drug-taking. Crucially, they are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide.
Charities such as Gorwel in my constituency see those issues time and time again. In addition to providing refuges and support for men and women who are direct victims of domestic abuse, it offers specialist provision for children and young people who are dealing with the effects of domestic abuse. However, it can only do so much. As a result of the Bill broadening the definition of domestic abuse, we can improve the lives of not just the children of today but the adults of tomorrow. That is why the Bill is so important and why I commend the hard work that has gone into ensuring that it is fit for purpose and serves the needs of the adults and children of the UK.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
The Domestic Abuse Bill provides an opportunity to deliver transformational change in tackling domestic abuse and violence, and many of the Lords amendments, which I wish to support today, strengthen it considerably.
Sadly, domestic abuse and violence remain endemic in this country, while unmet need remains a problem. Services have suffered under austerity, and one in six refuges in the UK have closed since 2010, while demand has increased, especially during the pandemic. Welsh Women’s Aid has shown that there has been a 32% increase in referrals to community-based support in the last year. Having worked in women’s refuges and with the victims of domestic abuse, I have witnessed the devasting impact this has on people’s lives—on women of all ages and backgrounds, on their children, and on families, friends and communities. I have seen how severe funding constraints hamper the development of effective services. I pay tribute to the excellent work carried out by Women’s Aid in my constituency, despite these challenges.
Mrs Miller
May I again associate myself with the remarks about the passing of Prince Philip and of our wonderful colleague Cheryl Gillan?
This Bill was announced four years ago, and two generations later—sorry, two general elections later; it feels like two generations— we are on the cusp of it going on to the statute book. It is important to think about the time and the perspective, and to try to understand how the Bill’s evolution reflects the very much broader way society now understands the many forms of violence against women. Although I completely agree with the Minister that we cannot dilute the focus of this Bill from that specifically about domestic violence, and we are right to resist Lords amendments 1 to 3 to expand the application of the Bill to include paid and unpaid carers, we need to acknowledge that the Bill is not the same as it started out and that that is because of how we have seen and been appalled by the way in which violence affects women’s lives.
We have an opportunity in this Bill to ensure that women and girls know that they do not have to suffer abusive behaviour without having the support of the criminal justice system, but we also need the Government to make sure that there is consistency across all elements of Government policy in this respect; when it comes to schools, online and workplaces, we have to make sure that Government strategy reflects that there is no place anywhere in our society for abuse and violence against women. I hope that the Minister, whom I know feels this as strongly as I do, will make sure that this is reflected in the new strategy that she puts forward for the Government in the coming months, because at the moment there are inconsistencies there and that is confusing and undermining for women.
I welcome the approach that the Government and particularly the Minister have taken and the spirit of collaboration and co-operation across the House, which is important on an issue such as this. This Bill is not about what the Conservative or Labour party thinks; it is about what society thinks about women’s roles. That is hugely important when it comes to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said about how the Bill will only be of benefit if the police and judiciary put it into practice. In demonstrating that this is an issue that society feels strongly about and that transcends individual party interests, we demonstrate that what they have to embed, not just in their training systems but in their culture and ethos, is that violence against women is not acceptable in our society.
I commend the co-operative approach that the Government have taken, which I certainly saw when I chaired the Joint Committee scrutinising the Bill—which now feels like a lifetime ago. Indeed, the Government addressed almost all the Committee’s recommendations. In considering the more than 80 amendments today, we should not forget how far the Bill has taken us in making the culture change that we need to see, through establishing a commissioner, having the definition, stopping cross-examination by perpetrators and providing access to special measures. These things cannot be taken for granted, which is why we need to get the Bill on the statute book in its own right. We need those things to start to happen, rather than just continuing to talk about them. That is why I hope this is the last debate we have on the Bill.
I wish to speak in favour of two amendments that the Government are taking on board today. The first is Lords amendment 35, which concerns the disclosure of private intimate images. As other hon. and right hon. Members have said, it recognises a crime—the threat to publish private and intimate images—that has an appalling impact on those affected. I pay tribute to Refuge and its “The Naked Threat” campaign, but let us ponder what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) said. She reminded us that one in seven women have experienced a threat to share an image in this way.
I fear that this will only become an increasing problem, because we have failed to tell young people that they should not share intimate images of themselves—that it is against the law and that they might never be able to remove them from the internet for the rest of their lives. We have failed to tell them that. In speaking in support of Lords amendment 35, I also urge the Minister to ensure that we tell young people, in our newly mandatory sex and relationship education—which, after 20 years of debate, has been on the statute book effectively since last September—that they cannot share such images. It is against the law and is not a normal part of growing up. We have still not landed that message.
My hon. Friend’s constituent Natasha’s story was from an adult’s perspective, but there will be hundreds and thousands of young women, and men, listening to this debate who are also living in fear of intimate images being released that they know that others have. This is a ticking time bomb and something that I hope my hon. Friend on the Front Bench and other Ministers will address even more directly in the online harms Bill and in response to the Law Commission’s long overdue consultation on intimate image abuse, which will look not only at the publication of such images but at issues such as cyber-flashing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) mentioned.
The other amendment that I want briefly to speak in support of is Lords amendment 36, which concerns non-fatal strangulation. As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee and the Joint Committee on the Bill, I have heard various evidence from young people under the age of 18 about how strangulation had become a routine part of their sexual experiences. I do not think we can overestimate the seriousness of this issue at all. I go back to my message to the Minister about telling young people that it is unlawful. Strangulation, simulated strangulation or semi-strangulation is not part of a normal loving relationship. If we do not tell young people that and they still have considerable access to extreme pornography, then we cannot expect anything to happen with regard to tackling the aggression rather than simply punishing the offenders.
The one hanging thread that remains from our Joint Committee inquiry into and scrutiny of the Bill is the individuals who have no recourse to public funds. That was not addressed at all when we scrutinised the Bill in Committee and it is, correctly, an issue we need to debate today. We need to get it right, and I just want to press the Minister a little further on it. No one wants to create a system that has the unintended consequence for migrant women of potentially putting them into a situation where they could be subject to further abuse as a result of the way our system of support works.
When we took evidence, the Joint Committee saw that there were very strong views on both sides on the support that would be in place for migrant women in particular. We took very strong evidence that said that a complete firewall was not always in the best interests of data and not always in the best interests of victims. We made a recommendation that there should be a much more robust Home Office policy on the use of firewalls and data in separating policy and practice with regard to support on immigration control.
The Minister has introduced a way forward on that with the pilot scheme she announced, the support for migrant victims scheme, but I feel we need more detail. We need to understand what will happen as a result of the pilot. Will £1.5 million be sufficient funding for the number of women who find themselves in a situation where they are suffering domestic abuse yet have no recourse to support? What metrics will be used to determine whether the pilot has been successful? How will it be rolled out? It is there to find more information, because the Government felt there was insufficient evidence to shape a policy in this area, but we really need to see from the Government more details about how the scheme, when it ends in 12 months’ time, will be evaluated and then taken forward. We cannot allow ourselves to be continually in the situation where we do not know how to put in place a long-term scheme to support migrant women who find themselves in this situation. I hope the Minister might at least be able to indicate today when we can expect to get more information and more detail. Maybe she could provide a briefing to those of us who follow these issues very closely.
In conclusion, the Bill was framed as a gateway to the ratification of the Istanbul convention. That is important because, as one hon. Member mentioned, we need to get ratification of the Istanbul convention. I hope that once the Bill goes on to the statute book that is what will happen—again, maybe the Minister will want to comment on that. The Bill is another clear sign of the Government’s commitment to helping to tackle the culture of violence towards women in this country, but there is much more to do, especially in the online world, and we need to keep going with our efforts to stop violence against girls and women around the world. We need to make sure we keep our focus on this very significant issue. By having this debate in the House of Commons today, we are showing that abuse is no longer something that will be tolerated in this country and that there is no place for violence against women at all. With this Bill, we will be adding yet another important piece of legislation to the statute books to ensure that women are safer in their day-to-day lives in our country.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I echo colleagues’ comments and put on the record that my thoughts are with the royal family and the friends and family of Dame Cheryl Gillan at this difficult time.
It is crystal clear that the Bill on the whole is extremely welcome. The strength of feeling across the country is that it has genuine potential to transform lives. It was a privilege to sit on the Bill Committee last year and I am proud of just how far the Bill in its current form has come.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I welcome with open arms the Government’s recent short-term investments in perpetrator work. What remains crucial, however, is for the Government to publish a comprehensive perpetrator strategy that addresses all the gaps identified in the debate in the other place. That strategy must be driven by the data.
At the moment, with current practices, we have no real idea about the true extent of the number of women losing their lives at the hands of a known perpetrator. Lords amendment 42 is utterly crucial if we are to get a real assessment of the extent of the issue. By forcing the Government to provide a comprehensive perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers within one year of the Domestic Abuse Bill being passed, we will be able to improve the identification, assessment and management of perpetrators to ensure a more co-ordinated approach to data collection across England and Wales.
That is critical to tackling domestic abuse in all its forms. Without an accurate picture, it is undeniable that cases will continue to fall through the net. It is utterly shameful that we live in a country where one woman is killed by a partner, ex-partner or family member every three days. Many of these perpetrators of violence have a history of abuse.
A multi-agency approach to managing risk is central to our ability to getting to grips with this crisis. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, only a few weeks ago, peers in the other place overwhelmingly voted for the plan to add convicted serial domestic abusers and stalkers to a high-risk offenders register. There is an obvious need and a desire for police forces and specialist agencies to have the tools to allow them to have a cohesive approach to preventing perpetrators from offending again, but also to protect victims going forward. Lords amendment 42, passed in the Lords, has the incredible potential to do just that, yet today Ministers are calling on MPs to vote to drop those plans.
Sadly, we all know the horrendous stories, we have all seen the headlines and we all know those women. The hard truth is that simply too often women are losing their lives at the hands of a perpetrator who has a history of abusive behaviour. That is an utterly shameful reality. I find it incomprehensible that the Government are failing to support action against serial abusers, who often pose the most serious risk of violence to women and girls.
There is no proper system for identifying these perpetrators, no system to monitor them and no system to centralise vital data that can assist in managing the risks and odds of abuse occurring when making initial risk assessments. I struggle to see how that can still be the case when we have known for years just how deeply rooted violence against women and girls and domestic abuse are in this country.
I pay tribute to campaigners such as Laura Richards, a former violent crime analyst for the Met police and the founder of the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service. She has been fighting for legislation covering monitoring arrangements for serial and high-harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators for years, and this is our chance to make that happen.
Domestic abuse is not inevitable, it is not something new and it is possible to prevent. Lords amendment 42 is a vital step forward, yet I find myself today facing a Government who just do not seem to get it. The Minister made some interesting remarks on the amendment in her opening contribution. She mentioned that the Government have concerns about the complexities of adding to the existing multi-agency public protection arrangements, but surely she must recognise that, if the Government’s hesitancy is about logistical challenges, as opposed to statutory frameworks, that opens some important questions about the Government’s ability to apply seriously the intricacies of the Bill in practice.
I am grateful for the honest assessment in recognising that there is more that the Home Office can do to improve arrangements, but I urge MPs to vote to keep Lords amendment 42 in the Bill and not to agree with the Government motion to reject the amendment.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
This is a very important Bill. In April last year, I made my maiden speech during the Bill’s Second Reading debate and talked about my passion for supporting those who need it the most. Many Members from different parties have explained how far the Bill has come over the years, and it is important that changes have been made. I am proud to support the Bill as it will protect and give new rights to victims.
The Minister said in Committee that more than 2.4 million people are not safe in their own home and are subjected to scarring abuse. That is a huge figure and I am glad that the Government have responded to the voices of victims with this Bill, which is set to transform millions of lives. I thank everybody who has shared their personal experiences and contributed to the Bill.
Before I go any further, I wish to acknowledge the work of my local victim support services in Hyndburn police and the Hyndburn and Ribble Valley domestic violence team. These organisations have given a lifeline to domestic abuse victims in my constituency, as statistics continue to show the prevalence of domestic violence in households across the country. I speak regularly to Debbie who runs the Emily Davison Centre in my constituency. She has told me some harrowing stories and how covid has exasperated domestic abuse in homes. The centre has had to completely adapt the services that it provides and it is now much more about wraparound care.
I agree with the sentiments behinds all the Lords amendments, and I am pleased to see that the Government have accepted amendments such as Lords amendment 36 and Lords amendment 35, on what we know as revenge porn and the sharing of private images. Just the thought of being in that position, especially in professional positions—we will have seen and heard about that. It is hard to think that somebody could share an image and then everything that a person has worked for is gone, due to that one action by somebody who, in a lot of cases, that person will have previously loved, thinking it would never happen to them.
I welcome the Minister’s comments about the strategy review and the need for reform, and I welcome the support scheme for migrant victims, although, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), I would like the Minister to address specifically what it will look like. That is important for us all.
The Bill goes beyond previous definitions of domestic abuse and highlights the harrowing impact of emotional and coercive abuse. The definition is in place for victims who felt that their concerns were not legitimate when they were criticised by their partner and who were made to believe that the problem was always their fault. The Bill reinforces the rights of victims and shows perpetrators that they cannot get away with physical or emotional abuse anymore. As I have said previously, we are now joining together to say that it is absolutely not okay.
I got into politics to help those who have no voice and this landmark Bill does just that. I am proud of the difference that the Government are making, with this Bill, to the lives of people across the UK, and I am proud of the cross-party support that we have seen as we have moved through all its stages. I have not been around for all the Bill’s stages, but I have seen that that support has done tremendous work in making the Bill what it is today.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
I speak in support of the amendments passed by the Lords that seek to protect those suffering from all forms of domestic abuse, regardless of factors such as their age and immigration status. The no-recourse-to-public-funds condition means that migrant victims face an increased risk of abuse, with limited support services to which to turn. That is why I support the Lords amendments that would ensure that support is provided to people regardless of their immigration status.
Today, the Minister announced £1.5 million of funds for an immediate-support programme targeted at migrant women. She mentioned data collection for the programme in order to potentially inform a more sustainable future programme. Many migrant victims will be asking whether they should come forward to receive help from this Government-funded programme; what kind of data on the support they receive will be collected; and whether the risk of immigration enforcement and deportation is the same, if not higher.
Furthermore, questions remain as to what assurances there will be that the pilot will believe migrant women’s experiences of abuse and that they will not be seen through a lens of suspicion. Many are perceived as exaggerating their experiences of abuse and even accused of lying to be granted indefinite leave to remain. All this is against the backdrop of an increasingly inaccessible and restrictive immigration system.
If we can recognise that abusers threaten to inform authorities and exploit fears of deportation, why cannot we recognise the fear that victims have in coming forward to seek help? Perpetrators use such systems to perpetuate their control. The HMICFRS, the College of Policing and the Independent Office for Police Conduct said only last year that police forces should restrict the sharing of information about vulnerable victims of crime, such as in cases of domestic abuse, with immigration enforcement, because the current system has been causing significant harm to the public. The Government need to address that now, because addressing this means recognising migrant victims for the victims that they are where they are.
It is positive that there is now a recognition that the harm caused by domestic abuse is far-reaching and that, in order for us to fight it, there must be a co-ordinated response across a variety of Government Departments. I do welcome the Government accepting amendments on areas such as the prohibition of charging for GP letters, but these concessions must be seen in the context of the Government continuing to strip away provision after provision, benefit after benefit, community space after community space, so support for those in need continues to weaken.
As chair of the all-party group on domestic violence and abuse, I pay tribute to the tireless work of those who have gone before me, my predecessor in the chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the many campaigners who have fought with such bravery and determination to stand up against domestic abuse and injustice, empowering people who, for too long, have had no voice, with support and rights—people like myself. As a survivor of domestic abuse, I cannot over-emphasise how, quite literally, life changing and life saving this support and solidarity can be. That is why it has truly been a privilege to be able to stand in this House and participate in the process of making the protections in this groundbreaking piece of legislation a reality. We can never stop our work in this area until no one has to go through what I have and what so many of us continue to be subjected to. This is why the amendments passed by this House, and by the House of Lords in particular, are so vital. Accordingly, I really urge the House to do the right thing today.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a great honour to speak in this debate and to follow two moving and passionate speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). But can I first pay tribute to three former colleagues who have so recently died? Earlier this week we paid our tributes to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, but, today, I want to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, and the former hon. Members for East Surrey, Peter Ainsworth, and for West Gloucestershire, Paul Marland. All three were, in their own ways, colleagues of the greatest fun and compassion in doing serious work.
Dame Cheryl in particular I want to thank for the advice she gave me when I joined our party board. Peter Ainsworth, who I have known since university, was a man of wide talents who played an important role after leaving this place in the Big Lottery and the Churches Conservation Trust. He was the only member of the shadow Cabinet to vote against the Iraq war. Paul Marland, who was the first Conservative MP for West Gloucestershire and represented that constituency, which neighbours my constituency of Gloucester, for 18 years should give everybody who aspires to be in politics the belief that, if you can keep trying, you will succeed, for he succeeded at the fourth attempt.
Turning now to this incredibly important Bill, the Domestic Abuse Bill, I cannot help but note today the number of speakers who have recognised, first, the importance of the Bill and, secondly, that the Bill has got better, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spelled out clearly. It is worth recognising how long work on this Bill has gone on for. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) briefly suggested that the work first started two generations ago, rather than two general elections ago, which is what she meant. It probably feels like that for the Ministers and those on the Bill Committee who have been involved. It has been a huge amount of work.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd. I, too, would be very grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. She was of course a former Secretary of State for Wales, and when I first arrived in the House in 2015 I personally found her very keen and very supportive of cross-party working. It was a pleasure and honour to work with her.
I am, of course, pleased that this vital legislation has nearly completed its passage through the House and the other place. It has been an extremely interesting learning experience over two general elections for me as well, with the Joint Committees working on this. The issue of domestic violence has come into sharp focus in the public mind following the deaths of Sarah Everard, Wenjing Lin and others, and it is right to acknowledge that the Bill represents a positive step forward in addressing the deep-rooted reality of domestic violence in society.
First, I want to welcome the Government’s support for a number of Lords amendments—including especially Lords amendment 32, which seeks to reduce coercive control and vexatious activities in the family courts. I am glad to say I was able to raise this issue in my Courts (Abuse of Process) Bill back in 2017.
As for the rest of the amendments, a key concern of mine and many others has already been mentioned today: the monitoring of offenders and the effectiveness of the multi-agency public protection arrangements. I tabled an early amendment for a domestic abuse register and am pleased that Lords amendment 42 follows in the same vein. As Baroness Brinton said in the other place about MAPPA, there is some very good practice but it is not consistent because the agencies are not being forced to work together. The impact that is having on victims is appalling.
The Government need to evidence how exactly their changes to MAPPA guidance will be qualitatively different from what came about before. These figures are important. At present, just 0.4% of cases fall into category 3 of MAPPA—that is, on average, just 330 offenders a year, and the numbers have fallen by 48% since 2010. MAPPA category 3 can cover domestic offenders, yet it does not, at present, does it? The optimistic statement that data sharing will wave a magic wand and make this fit for purpose, especially after 11 years of austerity justice, is quite difficult to credit on face value.
The Government have promised that changes in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will clarify and extend the information-sharing powers of agencies subject to MAPPA. It is crucial that these measures complement rather than run counter to Senedd legislation in Wales. For example, how will updated information-sharing powers interact with devolved services in education and housing—areas of policy that should play a key role in the prevention agenda?
The Home Secretary had previously hinted that a register could be implemented. Can the Minister commit to reporting back to this House with data about how stalking and domestic abuse offenders will be increasingly monitored through MAPPA, and also commit to evaluating the effectiveness of this route? We have all learned too much to trust implicitly a system that has failed so many victims so comprehensively in the past.
On domestic abuse protection orders, I echo Welsh Women’s Aid’s call for clarity on the delivery of DAPOs for Wales. Further clarity on resourcing and guidance for both devolved and non-devolved areas are important, as the jagged edge of justice in action in Wales needs greater scrutiny—until, of course, such matters are coherently devolved. How will DAPOs be resourced? What guidance on resourcing will there be for commissioners both devolved and non-devolved, and how will the UK Government work with the Welsh Government on the application of DAPOs?
I strongly support Lords amendments 40, 41 and 43, which offer protections for migrant women who have suffered domestic abuse, given that they face additional, complex, interlocking barriers that can shut them out of safety. The Government argue that the existing asylum system can offer support to migrant victims, but in reality this is not often the case, and the Home Secretary’s plans for changes to the asylum system will make it harder for migrant victims to access support and fair treatment if they arrive in the UK by non-official means.
This flies in the face of the Istanbul convention, which requires that survivors of violence against women and girls can access protection irrespective of their immigration status. My party wants Wales to be a nation of sanctuary for those fleeing abuse and persecution and for us to be party to implementing the Istanbul convention in full. Sadly, however, the Government’s position at present is a barrier to these ambitions.
I urge the Government to support the Lords amendments and enact the ambitious and transformational change needed to shift the focus and balance in favour of the needs and welfare of victims, so that we can consign domestic abuse to the history books across the UK.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I support this Bill because it is an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of those affected by domestic abuse. We all recognise that enormous progress has been made in the way we treat victims and their families, and also perpetrators, and the Bill sets out positive steps and more progress that we plan to make. A lot of the debate about the amendments before the House reflects a desire for practical outcomes that Members want to see, yet I accept the Government’s position that many of these are often better achieved through non-legislative means.
The response to domestic abuse as experienced by victims, families and perpetrators comes from a local partnership typically led by our councils but involving the police and the NHS. It is through these organisations that we make the difference that we all want to see. Ensuring that we learn from their experience and that we resource them properly to do the job we expect of them is critical. I pay tribute to the work done by former Hillingdon councillor Mary O’Connor, serving Hillingdon councillors Jane Palmer and Janet Gardner, and former safeguarding board chair Stephen Ashley to improve the way in which domestic abuse is managed in my constituency. They led the way in training people to identify victims of modern slavery and in uncovering complex forms of abuse, including coercive control. They have created a situation for my constituents where there is a local safe space night-time economy, with more than 40 businesses and hundreds of staff in different organisations trained in identifying the signs of risk and knowing how to support people. Vitally, they have ensured that this learning is shared at a national level, to help other places transform their approach too.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
I add my tribute to our late colleague Dame Cheryl Gillan.
I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said about the importance of the role of local councils in dealing with problems of abuse. Like a number of other Members, I want to support Lords amendments 41, 40 and 43 and to argue that a serious problem of perpetrator immunity needs to be grasped and tackled. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) had to say on this.
Lords amendment 41 was moved in the other place by the Bishop of Gloucester. It provides migrant victims of abuse with temporary leave to remain and access to public funds for no less than six months, having left the abuse and while applying to regularise their status. People are often surprised that a large number of law-abiding, hard-working families in the UK—often with children born here, and sometimes with children who are UK nationals—have an immigration status subject to no recourse to public funds.
For a victim of domestic abuse, having no recourse to public funds is catastrophic. Basic victim protections are not available. Only 5% of refuge vacancies are accessible because costs in a refuge are generally met through housing benefit, and people with no recourse to public funds cannot claim housing benefit. Women’s Aid points out that a woman with no recourse to public funds who, as a result, cannot stay in a refuge has to choose between homelessness or going back to their abuser.
I commend the important work of Southall Black Sisters in this area, which has been frequently referenced in the debate. It says:
“Many women are too scared to report their experiences to statutory agencies because they are wholly financially and otherwise dependent on their abusive spouses or partners, many of whom use women’s immigration status as a weapon of control and coercion.”
The denial of safety in these arrangements to migrant women is obviously bad for them, but it has other immensely damaging impacts as well. Above all, it creates impunity for perpetrators, who get free rein to go on and harm other women and children.
The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to provide accommodation and financial support for some families with no recourse to public funds, but they often do not provide it, due to lack of resources or confusion about what exactly people with no recourse to public funds are entitled to. There is, in practice, a postcode lottery of support, so Southall Black Sisters often has to take legal action against councils that are not fulfilling their obligations to vulnerable women. That is no way to run a system of proper support.
The DV rule introduced in 2002, which has been mentioned in this debate, allows migrant women on spouse visas to apply for indefinite leave when their relationship breaks down due to violence. In 2012, a concession was introduced giving those applicants three months’ leave and access to limited benefits and temporary housing while their applications for indefinite leave are considered, but the concession does not apply to women with other kinds of visas, including those with student visas, work permit holders and domestic workers. Southall Black Sisters reports more and more women on those other kinds of visas with no recourse to public funds being turned away, including by refuges and domestic abuse services.
Women’s Aid found in its report “Nowhere to turn” that, over a year, two thirds of its users were ineligible for support because they had visas other than spouse visas. There is a 2019 study by the professor of development geography at King’s College London, which reported a survey of migrant victims of domestic violence, in which two thirds had been threatened by the perpetrator of the abuse that they would be deported if they reported it. The ability to make that threat credibly, which the current arrangements allow, maintains the awful climate of impunity that we have at the moment. The Government are right to recognise that abused migrant women with insecure status need immediate support and protection, but restricting it only to women with spouse visas perpetuates impunity for perpetrators, and that is in nobody’s interests except the perpetrators.
The Government have responded with the support for migrant victims fund pilot, which we have heard about, both to support survivors of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds and to help gather data to formulate policies eventually to support all migrant victims of domestic abuse. It is due to report next March, and I welcome the announcement that Southall Black Sisters will manage it, but it has been pointing out that there is already ample evidence. We do not need more evidence on this. The pilot and the Bishop of Gloucester pointed out what a small amount of funding it entails, compared with the scale of the problem, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted that in his earlier intervention. The pilot must not be used to avoid addressing the problem and to carry on maintaining perpetrator impunity. We need the change in the law that amendment 41 would provide.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to put on the record my party’s condolences and thoughts about Dame Cheryl Gillan. I had the opportunity to speak alongside her, along with many others in this House, in many debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. She had a particular interest in autism, which I have an interest in. I want to put on the record my condolences to her family, which I have conveyed by letter already.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this weighty, comprehensive and important issue. I begin by thanking the Government for the proposals to change the wider support for those suffering from domestic violence. I thank the Lords for their reasoned amendments, a few of which I will discuss in the short time available to me. In particular, I want to thank the Minister and the shadow Minister. The significant contributions from right hon. and hon. Members have really enhanced the debate on this Bill.
To illustrate the importance of getting this right, I wish to highlight that there are approximately 1.8 million people in Northern Ireland. In the year between October 2019 and October 2020, there were 32,000 reported incidents of domestic violence within our very small population. Of course, charities always tell us that the figure is much higher, when we consider how many incidents are unreported.
Coronavirus has affected us all over the past year and a bit. Heightened domestic abuse is another side-effect of this dreadful pandemic and the forced isolation that has come with it, so we need to get this Bill right, and that is why I am very grateful for the Lords amendments. For many victims, going to the police is the very last step in a long, harrowing journey of abuse. It is our responsibility to ensure that no one walks that journey alone.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the police look at patterns of behaviour? I have often found that they look at these as isolated incidents—whether that is stalking, or whatever it is—rather than an actual pattern of behaviour?
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), made that point very well in her introduction. If there is a pattern—other Members across the Chamber have referred to this—there is a need for the police to be aware of that.
In reading through the Lords amendments, I noted that Lords amendment 39, after clause 72, highlighted that there must a prohibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse. This should go unsaid, yet I understand the rationale behind highlighting this.
That brought my mind to the fact that the Bar Council had asked for the financial income limit as it pertains to legal aid to be withdrawn. Many Members have referred to legal aid. Legal aid expenditure on domestic violence cases has been cut by 41% in real terms, and has been declining ever since, with a 51% reduction. At the same time, I believe sincerely that this decline in funding cannot be attributed to a reduction in need, because the figures tell us something different. They tell us that there has been a 49% increase in domestic violence cases in the courts since 2012. Again, the situation since the start of the pandemic indicates that cases and reporting are likely to continue to increase even more so, meaning that we can expect a continued increase in the number of cases in court, with the UN—we cannot ignore it—calling domestic violence a “shadow pandemic”. That is a massive issue, which we must try to look at. Money is often controlled by the abuser. In terms of legal aid, it is clear that the victim must never be put in a position whereby they halt proceedings due to the lack of legal aid support. Legal aid is therefore a really important issue to those who are subjected to domestic violence.
I welcome many of the amendments that have come forward, such as Lords amendment 6 to amend clause 33, highlighting the need for domestic abuse protection orders to include a requirement not to
“come within a specified distance of any other specified premises”—
such as workplaces or, for example, even places of worship. Those are ones that I would be aware of and that change in the law is so important. In my constituency, over the years, I have honestly been heartbroken and righteously angry about the tales of intimidation from an abuser towards a victim in safe places, such as their local church and their workplace, and it is past time that churches and other places can legally prevent access in an attempt to intimidate. This provision is therefore necessary and I trust that it will soon become law.
Another issue that has come to me in my constituency office relates to the technological age that we live in. It is always great to be able see photos of my grandchildren—I have two grandchildren who have been born in lockdown, and I have seen one because we were able to have our cluster at Christmas. I have not seen the other one up close, except in a video—one thing I do know is that he has red hair; I am not quite sure where the red hair came from, as it is certainly not from my side of the family, but obviously there is some a few generations back somewhere—but I look forward very much to that time. However, I am desperately aware that there is a very real, very difficult and very disturbing downside of the no-hassle digital picture age, and that relates to revenge porn using very personal images. Every Member has spoken about that and I will, too, because I feel really annoyed and angry about it.
I have watched as my office staff have consoled young ladies whose ex-partners have threatened to disclose images, and their devastation is so very real and heartbreaking. The staff have a sadness in their faces as they know that unless an image is posted, very little can be done under harassment or other general laws, yet the distress is real; it is palpable—it could touch you and cut you. This behaviour is clearly another example of threat and control. It is right and proper that it is addressed in the Bill and I wholeheartedly support Lords amendment 35, which seeks to clarify that it is not okay to threaten the release of these images—by anyone, male or female. Sometimes we must remind ourselves that the release of any personal image without consent can be emotionally damaging for any person, no matter how seemingly confident they may be. Personal images are just that—intensely personal. I welcome the amendment’s reaffirming that no one can have the right to release an image of a personal nature without consent.
To conclude—I said I would be quick, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is difficult for one Bill to cover all the facets of the support and help that is needed for domestic abuse victims, but we must seek to get this right and ensure that the law supports every victim and does not further traumatise. I thank the Minister and the Government for their sterling efforts to deliver a Domestic Abuse Bill that really can protect.
Victoria Atkins
Home should be a place of love and safety, but for 2.3 million adult victims of domestic abuse, and for their children, it is not. We all want this abuse to stop, and we want victims to live peaceful, safe and happy lives, and as I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, that is why this Government are bringing forward the Domestic Abuse Bill. The continued passage of the Bill marks an important milestone in our shared endeavour across the House to provide better support and protection for the victims of domestic abuse and their children. It is the culmination of over three years of work, although I rather liked the slip of the tongue by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) when she said it felt like two generations. I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend, who as chair of the Joint Committee, set in train much of the work that has happened in this place and the other place when the Bill was in draft form. I thank her sincerely.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for championing the Bill, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, and now—eminently, if I may say so—from the Back Benches. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed today. The Bill has been improved during the course of debate in both Houses. It was scrutinised properly and thoroughly by their lordships, whom I thank for their vital contributions. I do not know whether many other Bills have had a mere 86 amendments to them when they came back to this place. This is a sign of their lordships’ commitment. The Bill includes real measures to help victims of domestic abuse and, as we have heard, even beyond those relationships. It expressly recognises the harm and distress caused to victims by so-called revenge porn and threats to disclose such images.
The Bill also creates a new offence of non-fatal strangulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) did much in this place when the Bill was before us for scrutiny, along with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), to campaign on the issues of rough sex and non-fatal strangulation. My hon. Friend asked me about consent in the amendment, and I want to try to clarify that in order to reassure people who may be watching. A valid defence of consent is available under the new offence only where the offence does not involve causing serious harm or where the perpetrator can show that they had not intended to cause serious harm or had not been reckless as to the serious harm caused. This provision reflects the current law as set out in R v. Brown and, indeed, in the rough sex clause that was passed earlier in the Bill’s progress. We have had to be, and tried to be, consistent with both of those provisions, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
I have listened carefully to colleagues who have raised the issue of the management of perpetrators. This is absolutely critical. I have talked in the past about the evolution of our understanding of domestic abuse. We look back on the days of the 1970s when brave campaigners for Refuge and other organisations started setting up refuges and talking about domestic violence. Our understanding and our efforts to deal with this have obviously moved absolute milestones in the decades since then, but one of the challenges that we will certainly be looking to address in the domestic abuse strategy is the management of perpetrators. I am delighted that we are now investing unprecedented amounts in perpetrator programmes, as announced in the Budget, because we have to prevent perpetrators from committing harm in the first place. Again, let me emphasise that the reason we find ourselves unable to accept that Lords amendment is that creating a separate category as envisaged in the Lords amendment does not get away from the need for the MAPPA authorities to make a judgment in individual cases as to whether a particular offender should be managed under the framework. I want to be clear that three categories exist in MAPPA. Category 1 covers registered sexual offenders. Category 2 covers any violent offender or other sexual offenders convicted of offences under schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment. Category 3 covers any other dangerous offender. So on the sorts of horrific examples we have been hearing about, if there are convictions in the background of those offenders, these categories would cover some of the convictions that have been described. I say that, but I hope again that colleagues have appreciated that I have been very clear that there must be improvements in how the system works on the ground. That is why we have announced—we went into a little more detail in the “Dear colleague” letter—that we are going to revisit and refresh all relevant chapters of the MAPPA statutory guidance so as to include sections on domestic abuse, to ensure that agencies are taking steps to identify perpetrators whose risk requires active multi-agency management. We are ensuring that cases of domestic abuse perpetrators captured under categories 1 and 2 are included in the threshold guidance that is being developed. We will issue an HM Prison and Probation Service policy framework setting out clear expectations of the management of all cases at MAPPA level 1. This work on this new system, the multi-agency public protection system, will have a much greater functionality than existing systems, including ViSOR, enabling criminal justice agencies to share information efficiently and to improve risk assessment and management of MAPPA nominals. That is what will address the very understandable concerns that colleagues have raised in this debate.
I come to the final point I wish to touch upon, and I hope colleagues will understand why I am going to be quick. Hon. Members have raised questions and concerns about the issue of judicial training. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) set out the problems with the way in which Lords amendment 33 seeks to achieve that laudable aim, which we all agree with, of ensuring that the judiciary and magistrates must be trained well and, importantly, trained regularly. Referring back to the comments I was making earlier about the progress that has been made in the past few decades, let me say that, by definition, our understanding has grown, even, as some have said, during the passage of this Bill. Of course, that knowledge must continue to be deployed and trained. Domestic abuse is covered in all family law courses run by the Judicial College, and the debates held in the other place and in this place will I know—I have faith—have been watched and listened to very carefully by the President of the family court and others.
Jess Phillips
I admire the hon. Lady’s faith, but I would like something more than faith. The triumph of hope over experience will, I fear, leave us in the exact same position with the exact same problems. Faith is well and good—I have it in spades—but I would like to know about a monitoring process that will be done to review how well people are trained and how well this is working.
Victoria Atkins
I am happy to help the hon. Lady. As I said in my opening remarks, the President of the Family Division has indicated that he will consider making recommendations regarding training, taking into account this Bill, the harm panel report, which, as she knows, is critical to the Ministry of Justice’s concerns in this area and the four recent Court of Appeal judgments in domestic abuse cases. I would argue that there is a real understanding among our independent judiciary of the need to make sure that they are equipped to ensure that justice is delivered—and delivered well—in the courtrooms over which they preside.
In summing up, let me reflect on the course of the Bill. Progress on the Bill has been characterised by a determination on both sides of the House to work constructively and collegiately. At every stage, we have endeavoured to focus on what can be done to help victims of domestic abuse and to ensure that the abuse can stop. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke put it, these are not our issues—these are not party political issues—but the issues of our constituents who are victims and of their children, and I know that each and every one of us has had that very much in mind in all our deliberations on the Bill.
I therefore commend the Bill and the amendments that the Government support to the House. I very much hope that we will be able to make real and meaningful progress and pass the Bill, so that we can get on with the job of helping the victims we all feel so strongly about.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I put the Question, just a reminder that, should there be more than one Division, the doors will be locked after eight minutes in the first Division and, after that, after five minutes.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Petitions
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In connection with this petition, I must mention that four of my employees are currently City of York councillors.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the 3,261 residents and businesses of York who are committed to local government reorganisation maintaining the integrity of the City of York Council unitary authority boundaries while North Yorkshire County Council moves from a two-tier to a one-tier authority as part of local government reorganisation proposed for North Yorkshire. It is our very firm belief that the future of York’s economy is best served through the focus that the city provides, that services best meet local need when they are provided locally, and that the proud identity of local people will best be retained in our special city of York after 800 years of a clear and distinct identity of York being York. This strong core to North Yorkshire will best meet the needs of the rest of North Yorkshire, too, rather than some random east-west proposal that serves no one’s interests.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to listen closely to York’s residents and businesses and to the City of York Council’s submission to its consultation on local government devolution, and to work with all local politicians, including MPs, city councillors and parish and town councillors, on any decisions to do with York’s council.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of York Central,
Declares that York’s residents and businesses are best served by having an independent council, on its current boundaries, that is focused solely on their needs and provides the basis for economic opportunity, high quality public services and a stronger community; further declares concern that if York is merged into a new council stretching 65 miles north to south there could be an increase in council tax by £117 per year; further that this would inevitably mean that resources could be diverted from York and residents would pay more money for poorer services; further that this would lead to the end of the 800-year connection between the city and its council; further that the role of Lord Mayor might be scrapped; further that the disruption to key service delivery across York would cost millions of pounds to implement; and further that it would be disastrous to do this during a public health crisis.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to listen closely to York’s residents and businesses and to the City of York Council’s submission to its consultation on local government devolution, and to work with all local politicians, including MPs, city councillors and parish and town councillors, on any decisions to do with York’s council.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002658]
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am very pleased to present a petition in the Chamber today, on behalf of hundreds of members of the community in Hornsey and Wood Green, relating to the Mary Feilding Guild care home—a particularly loved care home in Highgate that has recently been bought by a new owner. The new owner has given elderly residents notice to move out by the end of next month, and the reply from the Health and Social Care Minister to my urgent inquiry of 11 March is still outstanding. May I just add that one of the residents passed away this week? She had a stroke and died yesterday.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green,
Declares that it is appalling that the new owners of the Mary Feilding Guild have issued eviction notices to the elderly residents during a pandemic; further that this is no way to treat vulnerable older people who have already been through such a difficult year.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on the owners to halt their plans immediately, cancel the eviction notices and instead work with residents to save their homes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002659]
English Language Sector
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this Adjournment debate this afternoon and to conclude the formal business of the House this week, in which we gathered to pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. I would like to add my own tributes to the Duke. The Duke held a popular misconception about the town of Bournemouth, which I represent, which he demonstrated to me on one occasion in Buckingham Palace when he said, “Where are you from?” I said, “Bournemouth, Sir.” He said, “Bournemouth, hmm. Full of old people.” I said, “Indeed, Sir. Many of them a good deal younger than you.” He looked thunderous for about three seconds, then burst out laughing and called the Queen over to tell her about the exchange.
I rise to speak on a constituency interest, but also on a national interest. This debate is about the future of the English language sector. My constituency of Bournemouth West has a very high proportion of English language schools within it. It is one of the things that adds to the cultural social diversity of the town that I have the privilege to serve.
It is—I rather sadly looked this up earlier—3,948 days since I rose in this Chamber to deliver my maiden speech in an Adjournment debate on the subject of the future of the English language sector. At the time, we were trying to persuade the Government to introduce an extended student visitor visa to allow those coming from beyond the nations with which we share an alphabet—places such as Japan, China and Korea—to have longer to visit to learn the fundamentals of the alphabet before they learned the language, which of course took a longer time. I am pleased to say that we were successful in persuading the Government to go down that course.
In that debate, I tried to outline the importance of the English language sector to the UK. I said:
“The English language is one of our greatest assets. English is the language of world commerce, and if we shut off the ability of those schools to thrive, to welcome people to our shores and to enable them to immerse themselves in our language, our culture and our values, in time we will look back and realise that we made a very fundamental mistake.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 538.]
I am pleased to say that we did not make that mistake. Despite various challenges, the sector has thrived over the years.
The Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, used to boast of the statistic that one in seven of the kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers around the world had their education here in the United Kingdom. When I had the privilege of serving as the Minister of State for Trade Policy, I had co-responsibility for the international education strategy alongside the Minister of State in the Department for Education. We saw the vital importance of English in promoting Britain’s interests overseas commercially, politically and socially.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech about the importance of the English language sector and English language in schools, and he rightly identifies the point about soft power. Will he also reflect a little on the positive impact that being able to welcome people has on our constituencies and our local economies? I have two English language schools in Totnes, one of which sadly has not made it through this crisis, but the other, which has, I hope will have a long and prosperous future. Does he agree that by securing their future, we can benefit both our soft power and our local community’s interest?
Conor Burns
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who as ever demonstrates what a powerful champion he is for the community he serves. He is absolutely right, it is not just about the direct employment provided by the schools in terms of their teaching staff and ancillary staff who support their work, but the host families who welcome students into their home as a vital part of the experience. One of the reasons, which I will come on to a little bit later, why the response to the sector going online is not quite as compelling as it at first may seem is that part of the experience is actually coming to the UK and going on cultural visits to Stonehenge, to see Westminster Abbey, Parliament and Salisbury Cathedral, and do all the things that people do when they are here.
My hon. Friend is very wise to point out that the spend of these visitors is much higher than that of traditional visitors in the time they are here, so the benefit to our local economies is enormous. That is before we even consider the long-term, slow-burn benefit we get as the people who have come here, studied here and immersed themselves in our language, culture and cultural traditions —and have been, although perhaps not in recent years, inspired by our parliamentary democracy—return as champions for the United Kingdom in their home countries. As they grow into positions of political and commercial leadership in their home countries, often that benefit is returned to the UK in contracts awarded and supply chains enhanced, so it is very powerful indeed.
Of the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, I note that in The Times yesterday the brilliant sketch writer Quentin Letts referred to him coming to do an urgent question earlier in the week, saying that
“the Whips fielded their second-string punchbag, a business minister”.
Well, I am not going to punch my hon. Friend, but I know he understands this issue and this sector, and is indeed sympathetic to the cause I am trying to advance on its behalf.
I want to get on to the business end of the problem we currently face. Like many other sectors, those in this sector have been profoundly affected by the implications of the covid crisis. One of the things they need is financial support to survive and be in a position to reopen when normal commercial travel is resumed and we can welcome students again to the United Kingdom to study. They have been disappointed and I think perhaps even bemused to find this in the guidance issued by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in February 2021. Question 4 in the question and answer section asks:
“Are schools and education providers eligible to receive grants under the LRSG (Closed) Addendum: 5 January onwards, and Closed Businesses Lockdown Payment Schemes?”
The answer is:
“Schools and education providers, including English language schools, tutoring services, private and state schools, are not mandated to close in the regulations and are therefore not eligible to receive a grant under these schemes.”
Of course, it is absolutely correct to say that the schools were not mandated, but the reality is that, because of the number of other very difficult decisions that the Government rightly had to take to protect the safety of our population, they have had to close because their customers have not been able to travel to the UK to enrol on those courses and their business have been dramatically impacted. I will say a word about that in a moment.
The Department says, and I understand why it is saying this, that the schools are not eligible for the restart grants as this funding is for the businesses in the non-essential retail, hospitality, leisure, personal care and accommodation sectors, and they were not mandated to close and therefore they are not eligible for support from the mandatory grants scheme, but they are eligible for support through the discretionary funding available to local authorities. In my own case, my local council is doing its level best to get support to those businesses. Of course, it is not as generous as it would have been under the preceding scheme had they been brought under its auspices.
Business rates are in fact the largest single fixed costs— non-controllable costs—that businesses face and, bluntly, it will make the difference between their surviving or going under. As I said 10 years ago or nearly 11 years ago, I think we will look back with regret if we see this sector go under for the want of a relatively modest element of support. Ministers these days—I suppose I was guilty of it as well—use the word “investment” as though it is synonymous with spending, and much of it is actually just spending, not investment, because one gets a return on investment.
This would be an investment because, for the reasons I have articulated, this sector is so vital to the UK. It is worth about £1.4 billion in value added, with 35,000 jobs, and is part of the wider £20 billion international education sector. Some 91% of the employees in the sector have been either furloughed or sacked. Student numbers are down by 79% on 2019. The hopes of a longed-for summer recovery have been hit badly by the outbreak of and renewed rise in cases in some of the main countries that we attract students from. Only 17 local authorities across the whole UK are providing business rate relief to these schools.
The ask of the sector is straightforward. I am not asking for a commitment from the Minister today, but could he undertake to go away and look at this and meet me and representatives of the sector to talk about what further support could be put in place to help the sector? Could we extend the business rate relief to language schools in the same way as we have for other leisure and hospitality businesses for the current financial year and into the next financial year? We have already seen 13%—more than 50 educational centres—close during the pandemic, which is a serious and regrettable situation and, sadly, one that I predict will get worse if we do not do something in the coming months.
Could we extend the List of Travellers scheme post October 2021, so that third party national school groups would not need visas to come to the United Kingdom? Could we look at extending again something that was offered up 11 years ago in return for the extended student visitor visa: limited rights to work for students who are in the UK? I see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on the Treasury Bench, and the hospitality sector is very important to our part of the UK in Dorset. Businesses in the sector are struggling, post our departure from the European Union, to find the staff to populate hotels and restaurants as they prepare to reopen, due to people returning from this country to their home countries. This could be a very good way to give them some respite. Those are just some of the small things that we could look to do.
Anthony Mangnall
I apologise for having two bites at the cherry, as it were, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we might try to make it easier for people to set up English language schools? We have lost some, as he has outlined, but being able to set up English language schools when normality returns would be a strong way to fulfil the points that he has made.
Conor Burns
I absolutely agree with and endorse the sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses. When I travelled as a Trade Minister, I was struck by the very fond reflections that the people I met had of their time in the UK—people in Chile, Brazil and even in Vietnam. Through the GREAT brand, we put some extra money into promoting the English language sector and other aspects of our educational provision. One massively untapped area where the UK is a world leader is special educational needs, and we could do an awful lot to share that with other countries around the world.
We are not the only place where can come to learn English—we might be the best, but we are not the only one. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Ireland are all competing for students in this market, and they are doing lots of things to make life easier for those seeking to come and study in those countries, such as accessible visa applications, in-country visa extensions and part-time work rights. The Prime Minister very much shared my long-term bugbear about the fact that we should remove international students from the net migration figures, because it sends a very negative message internationally and confuses our offer to the wider world.
That is all that I want to say on this subject, because I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister to reply, but what I am really saying to him is, will he undertake to look at this and work with me and the sector to see what we can do to support this incredibly powerful national asset that is so pivotal to our ambition to be global Britain?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) on securing today’s important debate and want to start by noting that the Government have introduced an unprecedented package of support for businesses, including grants for those businesses that are required to close or that are severely affected by restrictions put in place to tackle covid-19 and save lives. With the new restart grant scheme available from April the Government will have allocated a total of £25 billion solely on business grants in the £352 billion total package. To put that in context, that is about two or three times greater than the NHS budget for a normal year.
The Government continue to work closely with local authorities to make sure that grant funding can get to the businesses that need it as soon as is practicable, but, as my right hon. Friend said, there are clearly businesses that we need to continue to work with to see what can be done to support them, because we want to ensure that every business, no matter what area they are trading or working in, that has the reach of language schools and the soft power that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) talked about, can continue to flourish, and indeed attract new businesses to open within that space. I pay tribute to local authority staff, who have been working hard over the course of the pandemic to get these schemes in place and money out to businesses, under extreme pressure of illness to themselves, as well as covering the additional work that local authorities have had to take up.
However, the business grants programme forms only part of the massive support package put in place throughout the course of the pandemic. Since March 2020, in addition to £20 billion in grants, we have provided £10 billion in business rates holidays and £73 billion in loans and guarantees, supporting every sector of the economy.
I recognise the long-standing support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West for the English language schools sector. I forget how many days ago it was, but as he noted he first raised this issue in his maiden speech, in an Adjournment debate, unusually in this place. There are many such businesses in his constituency and he is doing exactly what a constituency MP should do: standing up for businesses in his constituency and the people who benefit from them. My right hon. Friend mentioned that the sketch writer Quentin Letts described me as a “second-string punch-bag”, and it occurs to me that people can only start to pick up such idioms by coming to language schools in this country, otherwise they might be sitting scratching their heads while reading the international press.
Throughout this pandemic we have taken difficult decisions on whether and when to require some businesses to close by law, and they were not taken lightly. We recognise that many businesses have made huge sacrifices in recent months. Where closures have been required, they have been in business units where significant numbers of people are likely to come into contact: retail, hospitality, leisure, personal care, hotels and some others. But, as my right hon. Friend noted, English language schools were not mandated to close in the regulations, as it was believed that these types of businesses, along with other education providers, could access online markets, but he has eloquently outlined their ongoing situation and the pressures they face. Only those businesses that were mandated to close in the regulations were eligible for mandatory scheme support such as the local restrictions support grant (closed) and variations thereof, which includes the scheme that covered the national lockdown period from 5 January onwards.
The restart grant scheme, which launched on 1 April this year and goes hand in hand with the Prime Minister’s road map, supports businesses in the non-essential retail, hospitality, accommodation, leisure, personal care and gym sectors, to enable them to reopen to customers and get those sectors back to as close to normal as possible. Unfortunately, English language schools again find themselves not eligible, as they do not meet the sector definitions set out for the restart grant scheme.
However, a number of business sectors—English language schools among them—have clearly been severely affected by the restrictions, even though they have not been required to close; some home-based businesses and businesses outside the business rates system find themselves in the same position. That is why we have made substantial grant support available for local authorities to develop local discretionary schemes—that is, the additional restrictions grant.
Under the scheme, more than £2 billion has been allocated to local authorities since November 2020. Local authorities have the discretion to use the funding to support businesses as they see fit. The scheme is open to all businesses from all sectors that were severely impacted by restrictions, including English language schools. Crucially, it is for local authorities, which know their local economies better than we in central Government do, to make sure that the discretionary support that they put in place is proportionate and tailored to the local circumstances.
I am personally speaking to local authorities to press them to get funding out of the door as quickly as is practicable. The Chancellor gave an extra £425 million in additional restrictions grant money to local authorities, but only if they had used up their original allocation. I call on local authorities to use that extra allocation either to give more money to the businesses covered by their local policies or, as my right hon. Friend is rightly asking for, to look into expanding their local policies to encompass businesses that continue to fall between the cracks.
I hope that the sector is also making use of the remainder of the Government business support offer, including the job support scheme, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has confirmed will run until June 2021, and the various loan and finance-guarantee schemes that have been in place throughout the pandemic. The position for English language schools is that although they have not been required by law to close, their trade has been affected by the restrictions. I encourage the sector to explore, with the relevant local authorities, whether English language schools are eligible for a covid-19 business grant from the additional restriction grant scheme, at the local authorities’ discretion.
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Chancellor announced at the Budget the continuation of several business-support measures to provide a platform as the economy reopens. I am hopeful that, taken in the round, the package of support that we have put in place for businesses—the grants, loans, furloughs and others measures—is substantial and offers support both for those businesses required to close and those that have been open but have had their trade affected.
I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to be a strong advocate for the sector and look forward to continuing this conversation. I am happy to take him up on his offer to meet to converse and see what more we can do to support businesses—not just English language schools but other businesses, too—in his constituency with not only reopening but recovery and beyond. I am grateful to him for bringing this matter to the House and being such a strong champion for the sector and for the businesses in his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | 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 |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | 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 |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (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) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
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) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
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) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
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 |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (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) | Jim Shannon |
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) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
DRAFT INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS (DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Accounting Standards (Delegation of Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The regulations, laid before the House on 1 February 2021, follow on from the International Accounting Standards and European Public Limited-Liability Company (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—the principal regulations—which aimed to address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively in the field of accounts and reports from UK corporate bodies.
International financial reporting standards are a set of international accounting standards used in more than 125 countries across the world, including Australia, Canada and in the EU. Their widespread use provides consistent and comparable financial reporting that facilitates transparency, accountability and investment across borders. In 2005, the UK mandated the use of IFRS as endorsed and adopted by the EU for all publicly traded companies when preparing their consolidated accounts. The UK is the largest single user of the standards: we estimate that 15,000 UK companies use them, including those that do so voluntarily.
In preparation for our departure from the EU, the principal regulations transferred all existing EU-adopted IFRS into UK law to form UK-adopted international accounting standards. They also provided the Secretary of State with the power to adopt new IFRS for use in the UK after the transition period. That action meant that the UK was able to adopt crucial amendments to IFRS immediately after the transition period, including those relating to the ongoing interest rate benchmark reform. Despite the framework being only a few days old, the UK adopted the amendments ahead of the EU.
That was, however, intended only as a temporary solution. The regulations delegate the power to adopt IFRS for use in the UK from the Secretary of State to the UK Endorsement Board. The board will provide the specialist expertise and dedicated resource to undertake two key functions: to make the final decision on whether all new standards, amendments and interpretations should be adopted for use in the UK; and to influence the development of IFRS by the International Accounting Standards Board.
I will quickly explain how the endorsement board will undertake those functions. To adopt a standard, the board will need to be satisfied that the standard meets the statutory criteria. The criteria are: its application is likely to be conducive to the UK’s long-term public good; the standard meets the criteria of understandability, relevance and comparability; and its application would not be contrary to the principle that accounts provide a true and fair view. The board’s activities will be undertaken in line with the four guiding principles of accountability, independence, transparency and thought leadership.
The board will be required to consult publicly before taking a decision and will be independent in that technical decision making. In addition, the board will have a significant role in influencing the development of new standards, which will be delivered through proactive engagement with the IASB at all stages of the development of a standard, together with building and maintaining the UK’s international reputation as a world leader in accounting excellence. In that way, the endorsement board will work to ensure that IFRS remain suitable for use in the UK.
The UK Endorsement Board is comprised of a group of experts with backgrounds and experience across different sectors with a strong interest in the quality of financial reporting in the UK. The board will be led by Pauline Wallace, who was appointed as interim chair in September 2020. Pauline has been instrumental in completing the establishment of the board, and I extend my thanks to her for her tireless work in bringing the board to this point of readiness. The remaining 10 members of the board were appointed following an open and transparent recruitment process. They comprise representatives from preparers of accounts, investors, academics and members of accounting firms. The board is an independent, unincorporated association with its operations facilitated by a subsidiary of the Financial Reporting Council.
The FRC will provide support in the areas of human resources, finance and IT equipment under the terms of a service level agreement. That will ensure that the board will have the necessary resources to undertake its functions without compromising the independence of its technical decision making. I am grateful to the FRC for its support for the project. The endorsement board will be funded by the FRC’s levy on preparers of accounts and audit firms, which means that the cost of the board will be borne by those who benefit most from the use of IFRS. Ongoing costs are expected to amount to about £2.9 million annually.
I have already set out that the endorsement board will be independent in its decision making. However, that does not mean that it is beyond active oversight and public scrutiny. The endorsement board will be required to report to the Secretary of State on the carrying out of its statutory functions on at least an annual basis. This report will be laid in Parliament. Meetings will be held in public, discussion papers will be published, and the board must publish decisions reached within 10 working days. The inaugural board meeting took place on 26 March, and is available to view on the board’s website. The board will also report to the FRC on its governance and due process in a publicly available document.
In conclusion, Mrs Miller, I hope that the Committee will recognise that the instrument is in the UK’s long-term interest, and agree that now is the time for the UK Endorsement Board to be given the functions envisaged by the principal regulations. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I ought to indicate immediately that we do not intend to oppose this regulation. Indeed, we see the need to ensure that the international standards, which have now been put in place across the world, are properly placed into a UK context, particularly given the UK withdrawal from the EU. There is also a context in terms of an independent body that can bring those standards forward and into the mainstream of UK accounting life, in good order, with confidence behind it so that the UK can be seen to be playing its part in the international structure that is now the norm for those accounting standards.
However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the process by which this has been set up. I thank him for going substantially beyond the explanatory notes in his introductory comments this morning; he has fleshed out one or two things that I wanted to focus on.
My concerns are that the SI itself, by way of a preamble declaration, states that:
“It appears to the Secretary of State that—
(a) the UK Endorsement Board is able and willing to exercise the functions transferred by regulation 2 of these Regulations, and
(b) that body has arrangements in place”,
and so on. I suppose the Secretary of State would say that, since it was the Secretary of State who very recently indeed created the UK Endorsement Board, as the Minister has set out. It is difficult to see how the Secretary of State could know that this brand new board is indeed
“able and willing to exercise the functions”,
as it has no track record and it has not undertaken any significant activities.
The only activity of the UK Endorsement Board so far has been to bring itself into being, and that has been done by a rather curious route. First, the chairman was appointed—by the Secretary of State, I assume—and the chairman then essentially constructed her own board. That is not absolutely normal practice: the board usually elects the chairman, rather than the chairman electing the board, but perhaps that is a part of the process of bringing these things into being.
Then we have the question of the independence and accountability of the board; I wonder to whom exactly the board is accountable. It is barely accountable to Parliament. One could say that it is perhaps rather more accountable to the accountancy profession, as most of the members of the board who have been appointed are accountants. The potential danger for the board is that, in a circular way, it reflects its own view of the profession on the profession itself. I would like reassurance from the Minister that that, in his view, will not happen as a result of the work of the endorsement board as it goes forward.
The other matter, as far as independence is concerned—I always look for it when such things happen—is how the board is funded. Has it got independent pay and rations, and can it guarantee the funding that the Minister elucidated was £2 million or so?
Dr Whitehead
Okay, £2.9 million. How is that actually guaranteed? It turns out that it is to be sorted out and guaranteed through a subsidiary company of the FRC, which, again, is a slightly unusual procedure for guaranteeing pay and rations and organisational independence for such a body. It is especially unusual in view of the fact that the FRC is about to be abolished. It is to be replaced by the interestingly named ARGA—the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority, which does not exist yet. We are still awaiting a paper promised for the spring of 2021. Cold weather notwithstanding, I am assured that it is now the spring of 2021, so we await the detail of what the new body is expected to do, how it will be set up and organised, at what point the FRC ceases to exist, and how the functions of the FRC will be transferred to ARGA.
There is a particularly important element: the guaranteed transfer of financial independence from that subsidiary of the FRC to, I presume, something relating to ARGA at the point when FRC ceases to exist. Can the Minister give a brief assurance that there will be no hitches and that there will not be any necessary further secondary legislation to secure the proper transfer of the financial arrangements relating to the board from the subsidiary of the FRC to a possible subsidiary of ARGA? I think he will agree that this looks a little rickety at the moment.
As I have said, the really important international regulations will be placed in the hands of a body that has only just come into existence and that is funded by a body that is just about to go out of existence. I hope the Minister can give us some assurances about the solidity and continuity that we should be able to expect from such an arrangement for the future. I am sure he will be able to satisfy us on those matters this morning.
Paul Scully
I am grateful for the insightful contributions to the debate.
We have discussed the fact that 15,000 UK companies apply the IFRS. That is why it is important that we get consistency of reporting and enhanced transparency for investors, which obviously brings benefit to UK capital markets.
I will cover some of the very pertinent questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. As for the UK Endorsement Board itself and its make-up, we appointed Pauline Wallace without a public appointment process. That was necessary to facilitate the establishment of the endorsement board in time for it to consider IFRS 17, the major new insurance standard. That met the exceptional circumstances, referred to in the board’s terms of reference, in which an interim appointment can be made. However, we will advertise for a permanent chair later this year, following the public appointments process, which is important.
The future UK Endorsement Board chair and members will be appointed following an open and transparent recruitment process, to demonstrate the independence and robustness of the board in the way that has been described. The chairman will be appointed by the Secretary of State and the board members will be appointed by the chair, upon the approval of the Secretary of State.
As for how the board will be shown to be in the public interest, clearly this goes right to the heart of how and why the board is established. The statutory instrument transfers the responsibilities under the principal regulations to the UK Endorsement Board, but that includes the requirement that the standard must be in the long-term public good. That means that public interest will be absolutely at the heart of the endorsement board’s activities, which is underpinned by the terms of reference.
Regarding funding, I talked about the fact that it will come indirectly from a levy on the people who most benefit from these standards—the £2.9 million that is expected from 2021 to 2022. It will be funded from the Financial Reporting Council levy, which puts the cost directly on those who benefit most from the IFRS. That spending represents value for money, because it allows the UK to influence directly the international standard setters and ensure that the development of the standards takes into consideration any UK public good issues before being finalised.
We worked closely with the FRC during the development of the UK Endorsement Board and we are confident that it has the capacity to perform its oversight role. However, it was important that the creation of the endorsement board was not delayed while we were waiting for ARGA to be formed in the first place. When ARGA is functioning, it will take over the FRC’s responsibilities in relation to the oversight of the UK Endorsement Board’s governance and due process. We recognise that that transition needs to be smooth, to give certainty to businesses that these standards will be maintained and that the levy is maintained to fund the board satisfactorily.
Clearly, there is an ambitious remit, but I am confident that the endorsement board will meet the challenges and make a valuable contribution to financial reporting, both in the UK and further afield. We set high standards for bodies with decision-making powers, and in the endorsement board the Government have recognised the need to balance independent decision making with accountability and transparency, to ensure that we can give the certainty that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is rightly seeking. Members of this Committee and all other parliamentarians will have the opportunity to scrutinise on an annual basis how the board carries out its functions, which are delegated by this SI.
I thank hon. Members again for their valuable contribution and for giving their time to this debate. The UK Endorsement Board is now ready, and I hope the Committee will approve this SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Covronavirus, Disability and Access to Services
(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 Graham Brady (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the 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 Westminster Hall debates, and that they are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall debates.
The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee is introducing the debate and will probably take a little longer, but if Back-Bench contributions could be kept to about five minutes, hopefully we can get through everybody on the list without my having to impose a formal time limit. I call Caroline Nokes to move the motion.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, “Unequal impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services: full Report”, HC 1050.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and I thank my colleagues on the Committee for their work on both the inquiry and the report. I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) participating in the debate.
With your indulgence, Sir Graham, I would like to highlight that some of the issues we will discuss concern children with special educational needs, and when it comes to autistic spectrum disorders, there was one Member of this House who championed the issue, spoke in pretty much every debate on the subject, and chaired the all-party parliamentary group on autism. Cheryl Gillan is already much missed in this place, not least by me today. I know that she was a real expert and spoke with passion and knowledge in debates such as the one we are having today. I am sure she would have been present to put on record her thoughts about access to services for children with autistic spectrum disorders.
Relevant to this debate is our interim report, published in September last year, which was intended to inform the first six-monthly review of the Coronavirus Act 2020 temporary provisions. I will start by drawing attention to an important outstanding issue in this context—one that has not received a great deal of attention. The temporary provisions included unused provisions that relaxed requirements for sectioning under the Mental Health Act 1983, provisions that curtailed or restricted hard-won rights of disabled people to get the care and support that they needed in their everyday lives—the so-called Care Act 2014 easements—and a power to modify duties under the Children and Families Act 2014 in relation to assessment and provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
We welcomed the Government’s decision last year to repeal the unused Mental Health Act 1983 provisions. We very much welcome the recent decision to remove the Care Act 2014 easement provisions, and we look forward to this happening as swiftly as possible. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work will chase that up with the Minister for Care at the Department for Health and Social Care. Although the easements were not widely used, their availability in statute exacerbated a perception, which has existed among disabled people right from the outset of this crisis, that their rights are somehow seen as less important than other people’s.
The outstanding issue from our interim report is that one of the temporary provisions affecting young disabled people remains in place. The power to modify education, health and care plan duties was used by way of national notices issued by the Secretary of State for Education in May, June and July. The power remains available in the Coronavirus Act. My view is that this power must be removed.
We are in a very different place in the pandemic. As the Minister for Children and Families acknowledged in a recent letter to me, there is much less need for the additional flexibilities, yet the power is being retained, for the time being, as a contingency. The Government have said they will act to remove temporary provisions as soon as they are no longer necessary. They have done so in relation to the mental health and social care provisions. It is an important matter of principle: the Government must not hold on to emergency powers a moment longer than they absolutely need to. Removing the power to modify duties in relation to children’s and young people’s education, health and care needs would send a clear message to children and their families that the Government fully support their right to receive the provision they need. I see no reasonable justification for keeping the Secretary of State’s power to modify duties in statute any longer.
Over the last year, my Committee’s work has emphasised the unequal impacts of the pandemic on three groups of people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010; women, groups of black and minority ethnic people, and disabled people—the subject of the debate today, who have received, sadly, relatively little attention. Yet the adverse effects on disabled people have been starkly disproportionate, including tragically high death rates. The chance of dying from covid was more than three times greater for someone with a disability than for someone who was not disabled. The chance of dying for a person with a learning disability was probably more than six times greater than that of the general population. A young person aged between 18 and 34 with a learning disability was some 30 times more likely to die than a young non-disabled person.
Our inquiry heard evidence about decisions and policies that might have contributed to those tragic statistics, such as a relative slowness to protect people in a range of social care settings, and a lack of clear and accessible information for disabled people. That is why we called for a discrete independent inquiry into the causes, including the decisions made by Government. The response, “Now is not the time,” will inevitably start to wear thin. The Government should commit to an independent inquiry, including into what led to disabled people feeling the brunt of the pandemic, and they should set out a timetable not just for its start but for its completion. They should do so now.
A major theme in our full report was the Government’s consultation and communications with disabled people during the pandemic. We heard that disabled people felt excluded and ignored. Witnesses pointed out that effective consultation with disabled people could have made it possible to avoid some of the problems that they faced early in the pandemic, such as a lack of accessible food shopping. Disability charities told us that the Government were talking to them, but in broadcast mode—not listening and not resolving problems effectively. When the Government did communicate with disabled people, their communications were not always psychologically informed, and too often they exacerbated disabled people’s already heightened anxieties. There was confusing guidance on shielding, and it was sometimes poorly thought through and poorly timed—for example, a text message sent at the weekend before important changes to guidance were issued on the Monday.
I want to see evidence that the Government have learned from what happened. Right from the outset, from the Prime Minister’s letter to the nation in March explaining the need to stay at home, communications have not been fully accessible. There were no accessible versions of that letter for several days. I know that a great deal of work is going on in the Cabinet Office to provide the shopping list of accessible communications asks put forward by disability charities last year; but the Government could and should go further and faster. I find it utterly incomprehensible, for example, that the Government have still not arranged in-person British Sign Language interpretation of their televised covid briefings. I raised that issue with the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee in January, and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) raised it again very effectively at Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday. On neither occasion was a proper response forthcoming. The reasons relied on in written responses—that there is not enough space in Downing Street, or that there is not enough time to make arrangements—are weak. Surely the Government could have found space during the recent media suite refit. I am unsurprised that campaigners have resorted to judicial review, but I am surprised that the Government have not sought to resolve the issues swiftly and simply by finding both the space and the inclination to include a BSL interpreter.
Practices in health and social care added to disabled people’s perceptions that their lives were less valued than others. The guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on the use of the clinical frailty scale in making decisions about who should receive critical care if NHS resources had been overwhelmed were potentially discriminatory against disabled people. We heard from disabled people that, while they accepted that the guidelines were swiftly amended, it left a very bad taste.
Extremely concerning issues about the inappropriate use of “do not attempt resuscitation” notices, or DNARs, have been much more prolonged. The Government asked the Care Quality Commission to investigate in October last year, and last month the CQC found that that hundreds of inappropriate DNARs had been applied. These issues demonstrate a deeply worrying lack of concern for the rights of some groups of disabled people.
We all understand the pressures that people were under early in the pandemic, but more than 10 years on from the Equality Act 2010, it is shocking that disabled people’s rights were not properly considered in the formulation of policies and practices in health and social care. That is why we recommended a robust response to prevent such mistakes being repeated. We called on the Government to allow the Equality and Human Rights Commission to issue a statutory code of practice on the public sector equality duty, to provide greater legal certainty about the actions that public authorities must take to prevent discrimination. Greater certainty would provide more effective protection, so the Government’s dismissal of our recommendation is extremely disappointing. Their argument that the status quo is sufficient flies in the face of recent experience. If there is not a statutory code of practice, how will the Government prevent these issues from arising in future public health crises? Again, we have to learn from experience.
The pandemic has very clearly emphasised and exacerbated known systemic problems affecting disabled people. We know that the SEND system is facing a crisis. The aims of the Children and Families Act reforms have never been consistently achieved. Services for children with SEND are too often inadequate. In too many places, the integrated education, health and care services envisaged in the 2014 Act have never materialised.
I speak as a member of the Bill Committee that way back in 2012 or 2013 scrutinised the Bill that became that Act. We spoke endlessly in our debates about parents having to fight to get their children the services they need. However, parents are still struggling in an overly bureaucratic system and the evidence that they gave us through our inquiry was that they are still using the word “fight” when describing their attempt to get their children’s needs assessed and provided for. The Government acknowledged that in announcing their SEND review, but that was in September 2019, more than 18 months ago. The experience of children with SEND and their families during the pandemic must provide the impetus to sort these problems out. We called for the review outcome to be published in the first quarter of this year, but we are still waiting. The Government’s response to our report acknowledges the importance of these issues. The Government say they need more time to get the reforms right. Of course time is needed to grapple with the complex issues in the SEND system, but if much more time elapses people will start to question whether SEND is the priority that it ought to be.
The same is true of the review of adult social care. There is no doubt that the devastating experience of the pandemic in social care settings was exacerbated by systemic issues of funding, of workforce—including pay and staff turnover—and a lack of proper integration with NHS services. That is why we were disappointed in the spending review settlement for social care and disappointed that there was nothing on social care in the Budget. We only know that the Government intend to bring forward their proposals for social care later this year. That needs to happen sooner rather than later.
There are positives in the Government’s response and I do not denigrate the hard work that is undeniably going on in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to disabled people’s access to food and in the Cabinet Office on accessible communications; and the work that the Disability Unit is putting into the national strategy for disabled people. The Government have opportunities in the national strategy, the social care review and their SEND review to understand the particular problems faced by disabled people, their carers and their families in the pandemic, to understand the part they have played in those problems, and to start putting things right and restoring trust. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister in his response to make it clear that the Government will grasp those opportunities and do so in a timely fashion.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the Women and Equalities Committee for its work on the report, which shines a light on issues that, sadly, have been too often overlooked throughout the pandemic. Before I get to the main points raised with me in the last year by my disabled constituents, I will echo the Committee’s findings about systemic issues in the SEND system and the way in which covid-19, and in my view the Government’s inadequate response to it, has exacerbated them.
The report correctly concludes that there must be targeted support for pupils with SEND to recover, and fundamental reform of the broken SEND system. I share the Committee’s hope that the Government’s SEND review will bring forth a blueprint for reform at the earliest opportunity. I feel that disabled people, much like children, have been an afterthought for the Government in the pandemic even though they have been disproportionally affected by the virus in health and social terms. We have seen that particularly in engagement and communications this past year, which the report rightly focuses on as a key issue facing disabled people.
Straight after the very first coronavirus press conference on 16 March 2020, I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting a British Sign Language interpreter. We eventually got one for the BBC coverage, but, despite the hefty £2.6 million price tag for the flash new press suite at Downing Street, no one thought to make provision for a BSL interpreter, as the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said. Similarly, at the start of the crisis, it took weeks for written Government communications to be available in accessible formats or large fonts. As evidence gathered by the Committee shows, many deaf people and people with learning disabilities were not properly informed about what was happening around them or about the latest public health advice as Britain was plunged into lockdown. Lessons should have been learned from those early failures, but I am afraid that recent failures to provide BSL interpretation for Government communications indicate that they were not.
Face masks are another issue for deaf people and the hard of hearing. They are of course essential to protecting us against coronavirus, but they can be profoundly isolating for those who rely on lip-reading and facial expressions to communicate. In Parliament last year I raised several times the importance of rolling out clear face masks—those with a transparent strip over the mouth. Like the Committee, I was pleased to see procurement of clear face masks for NHS trusts towards the end of last year, and I echo the Committee’s call for a proper evaluation of the roll-out and an assessment of need across services. However, I remain concerned that the Department for Education’s guidance continues to state that there is
“currently very limited evidence regarding the effectiveness or safety of transparent face coverings”
given that they have been rolled out in health and care settings. I urge Ministers to take another look at that guidance to avoid teachers being unnecessarily put off using clear face masks and impeding the education of children with hearing loss.
I want to focus briefly on “do not attempt resuscitation” notices being issued without consent, which in the last year has, perhaps more than anything else, sowed mistrust among the disabled community and made many feel their lives were valued less than others’. During the first wave of coronavirus, some people with learning disabilities were told, shockingly, without prior consultation, that they would not be resuscitated if they were to fall ill from covid-19. The Care Quality Commission found that, since March 2020, more than 500 DNAR decisions were made without being agreed with the individual or their family beforehand and, in some cases, such decisions caused potentially avoidable deaths.
Given the outcry when that first happened, I was appalled to hear reports from Mencap that the same practice was happening again at the start of this year. As one constituent, who has been a care home operator and seen this issue affect elderly people in hospitals, wrote to me,
“imagine the horror and terrible stress now imposed on parents or relatives to think that their child or adult will not be given the absolute best care and may be abandoned by the NHS in their hour of most need”.
The truth is it that this is unimaginable, and it is something that we have fought to address.
I urge Ministers to heed the advice of the CQC by making urgent and wide-ranging improvements to care planning, including better training and information storage, and creating better oversight structures. What struck me most when reading this report is that there seems to be no one at the highest levels of Government actively thinking about the impact of policies and communications on disabled people. This failure to consider the needs of disabled people has to change, and I hope that this report and this debate can be part of that push to ensure that disabled people are properly represented and accounted for in policy making and Government decision taking, especially at moments of crisis.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and her Committee for producing such an important report and for securing this debate.
I welcome the Committee’s approach to looking at the effects of the covid-19 pandemic on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Although the pandemic has affected everyone, it is clear that those groups in society that already faced structural barriers and discrimination have been hardest hit. It is for this reason that last year I worked with an organisation in my local area to produce a report on the effect of the pandemic on people in Erith and Thamesmead with one or more protected characteristics.
In April last year, I met members and representatives from Inclusion London and the Greenwich Association of Disabled People to discuss the local and regional impacts of covid-19 on disabled people. In the time available to me, I will set out a few of our key findings relating to disabled people in my constituency, and steps that I believe the Government must now take.
A number of organisations and individuals have raised concerns about measures in the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the Care Act, the Mental Health Act and the Children and Families Act. I am pleased that the Government have now listened and ended the provisions related to the Care Act, but I know that there are still concerns about the risk to disabled young people due to the easements to the Children and Families Act.
Research by Inclusion London has found that only 32% of disabled children received all the SEND provision in their education and health care plan, with the rest either receiving some or none of their usual provision. As we move into the recovery stage of this crisis, I urge the Government to look at this again, and to ensure that disabled people and young children are able to access the support that they need for their education.
Erith and Thamesmead constituents have raised a number of concerns about access to food for disabled people during the pandemic. For example, disabled people who usually rely on supermarket deliveries, but who are not considered clinically extremely vulnerable, struggle to access delivery slots. Food parcels provided by the Government did not take into consideration accessibility needs, such as mobility and available cooking appliances. There were also limited supermarket delivery slots, which meant people were unable to shop at cheaper supermarkets, so grocery outgoings increased for some people. That is something the Royal National Institute of Blind People has also reported.
I welcome the guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that food retailers make reasonable adjustments for disabled people throughout the pandemic. However, the Government must do more to ensure that disabled people are properly supported in any future pandemic or emergency.
Many constituents have raised concerns about mobility and travel accessibility during the pandemic. Issues included: being unable to access support on public transport due to social distancing; problems visiting certain locations, such as supermarkets, with carers due to one-person shopping rules; and difficulty in hiring personal assistants during the pandemic.
Finally, looking towards the future, disabled people have been disproportionately impacted by the effects of the pandemic on employment. According to Inclusion London, over 37% of disabled people have experienced financial difficulties or employment issues due to covid-19, including problems with the Access to Work scheme, discrimination in the workplace and failure by employers to make reasonable adjustments. I fully support the Committee’s call for an independent inquiry into the profoundly adverse effects that the pandemic has had on disabled people, including the stark disparity of the death rate. We should look into the decisions and policies of the Government and public authorities.
As we begin to recover from the coronavirus, we need to see increased funding for health and care services that are tailored towards disabled people. I strongly believe that legacy benefits should have been uplifted in line with universal credit and that neither should be cut later this year. I want the Government to fund user-led organisations to a level that recognises their essential role in ensuring that all public and private services are accessible to disabled people. A national strategy for disabled people is needed now more than ever, and must contain a long-term plan for employment and accessibility at work. As we begin our social and economic recovery, the Government must ensure that disabled people are never again left behind. Sadly, they have been too often over the last year.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for leading this extremely important debate, and I thank the members of the Women and Equalities Committee, of which I am a member, and, most especially, the witnesses who gave evidence to help form this report.
Yesterday, as other hon. Members have already mentioned, I was pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) highlight at Prime Minister’s questions how disabled people have been overlooked in something that could and should be easily fixed: the lack of a BSL interpreter during Government televised briefings. That is one of the report’s recommendations that I hope will be put in place very soon. We know that this lack of thought for disabled people during the televised briefings is symptomatic of the wider issues that we highlighted in the report.
Throughout the pandemic, disabled people have faced problems with unequal access to food and potentially discriminatory practices in health and social care services. On top of that, the existing systemic problems in education for children and young people with special educational needs have worsened. The pandemic has shone a light on the pre-existing inequalities in the UK and, if we are to build back fairer, we need the fullest possible understanding of why existing inequalities were highlighted and/or reinforced because of the pandemic, so that we do not leave people behind as we recover.
That is why it is so important that this report is listened to in full and why there must now be an independent inquiry into how Government policy and decisions led to disabled people being disproportionately affected by the pandemic. It is disappointing that the Government’s response to the report has not committed to this expert-led inquiry. I hope that the Minister can give a more detailed response and explain the reasons why there is no commitment from the Government on this.
On the report’s wider recommendations, it is pleasing that several were accepted by the Government, but four were rejected and 10 were accepted in part or in principle. For me, one of the most concerning is the lack of commitment to include access to food in future emergency situations within the forthcoming national strategy for disabled people. I hope that the Minister can clear up whether the Government agree with the report’s recommendation that access to food must be included in the national strategy, and explain how they plan to consult with disabled people on the struggles that many have faced in accessing food during the pandemic.
On health and social care, the report recommends a code of practice that lays out what the NHS and local authorities must do, unlike the current situation, where they are told only what they should do. Can the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for rejecting this proposal, and why they believe that a code of practice would not make life better for disabled people and staff in the NHS and local authorities? The report highlights how the pandemic has exacerbated the pre-existing crisis in provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Can the Minister update us on any progress the Government have made on their SEND review, which was supposed to be published in the spring?
The report widely acknowledges the problems created by a lack of ring-fenced funding for children with SEND in mainstream schools, and evidence that these pupils consistently make less progress than other pupils with the same starting points. It is disappointing that the Government rejected the recommendation that funding be increased to allow for pupils with SEND in mainstream schools to receive £240 per child, ring-fenced for their catch-up support in this academic year. I hope that the Minister can give further explanation as to why the Government have not committed to ring-fencing funding for pupils with SEND in mainstream schools.
In conclusion, although it is welcome that a number of the report’s findings and recommendations have been accepted or will be looked at further, it is still worrying that a number have been rejected. It is also worrying that there is a lack of commitment to an independent inquiry. It is vital that the Government learn from their mistakes in regard to disabled people’s experiences of the pandemic, and it is essential that effective mechanisms are put in place by which disabled people can influence policies and practices that affect them, and ensure that hard-won equality rights are not eroded but built upon.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this important debate, and to the Women and Equalities Committee for their report. I fully support the Committee’s call for an independent inquiry into the causes of adverse outcomes for disabled people.
From delayed and confusing guidance over shielding to difficulties accessing food, many disabled people have felt abandoned throughout the crisis. To this day, as we have already heard, we are waiting for the live British Sign Language interpretation of the Government’s press briefings on TV. One of my constituents in Bath was born with a rare and incurable breathing problem, and is in a high-risk group. Despite registering as extremely vulnerable on the Government’s website to receive food parcels in March last year, she did not receive her parcel until mid-June. Of the Government’s guidance about ending shielding, another constituent said:
“I don’t understand anything the Prime Minister said at all. It is so confusing. Why can’t they just say this in basic language?”
One of the most obvious failures we see again and again is that services are being designed for disabled people without actually consulting them. This pandemic has hit disabled people particularly hard, and in so many ways. In employment, disabled people have been disproportionately affected by furlough, reduced hours and redundancies. Despite this, the Chancellor’s plan for jobs made only one reference to disabled people, and contained nothing to address the specific challenges facing them. Recent figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions reveal that the number of disability employment advisors has fallen by 32% during the pandemic, at a time when knowledge of the barriers faced by disabled people will be even more necessary. Everyone should have the right to secure employment. I sincerely hope that promotion of inclusive workplace practices will be a top priority in the Government’s national strategy for disabled people. We need a targeted strategy to tackle barriers to work for disabled people as we emerge from the pandemic.
Covid has also exposed how isolated some disabled people can be. Many of those with mental health difficulties in Bath have already been struggling without face-to-face care. The value of our social care sector and its workforce has never been clearer, and I pay tribute in particular to the 7.3 million unpaid carers in the UK, without whom the pressures on adult social care services would be even greater. Many are facing extreme financial hardship. The Liberal Democrats are calling for carer’s allowance to be raised by £1,000 a year—the same as the uplift in universal credit. The underfunding of social care was a problem long before covid. Now its effects will be felt even more severely. I support the Select Committee’s recommendations, which highlight that the £300 million in additional grant funding for local authority social care budgets falls far short of what is needed.
We are now 25 years on from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Unless we truly recognise the value of the social care sector, we risk going backwards on the progress we have made towards equality for disabled people.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. This pandemic has been one of poverty and inequality. Pre-existing health, housing, employment and income inequalities have combined to form a perfect storm for disabled people.
In my role on the Women and Equalities Committee, I have listened to so many heartbreaking and shocking stories of the barriers that disabled people have faced during the pandemic. Disabled people have overwhelmingly been abandoned without the basic support they need to survive or live in dignity—from the suspension of local authority’s legal responsibilities to provide basic social care, to the reduction of access to activities and day centres, to an increase in isolation and loneliness, and difficulties in accessing healthcare, education and even food.
Mencap’s “My Health, My Life” report into inaccessible healthcare during covid highlighted some truly shocking realities faced by people with a learning disability during the pandemic. Some people with a learning disability were told that they may not receive life-saving treatment. Some were encouraged to avoid hospital and were asked to consent to DNRs. Overstretched and under-resourced hospitals meant there was a reduction in learning disability nurses, and some acute learning disability nurses were redeployed to other units.
While we welcome the Government’s commitment in their written response to the report to more funding for local authorities, their reference to the recent hike in the social care council precept raised concerns that they intend to place the burden for social care on those least able to pay for it. Such an approach is both unfair and completely unable to meet the scale of the challenge. This Government are in denial of the social care crisis that we are facing.
Can the Minister explain how this Government can claim a levelling-up agenda while forcing the costs of the crisis in social care on to the worst-off through this regressive taxation? About 60% of people in the UK who have died from coronavirus are disabled. Will the Minister please explain in clear terms why the Government have not taken up our report’s recommendation for an independent inquiry into the disproportionate deaths and adverse outcomes for disabled people from the pandemic? Also, why did the Government reject the recommendation for a statutory code of practice on the public sector equality duty?
We are having this debate in the most tragic of circumstances. What will it take for this Government to act? Disabled people’s lives must be valued equally. This Government have a responsibility to take action against the disadvantage and discrimination that put the mental and physical health of disabled people at risk. To do that, the Government must commit to full and transparent engagement with disabled people and groups about their concerns during the pandemic when forming a proposed national strategy for disabled people, upholding the principle of “nothing about us without us”.
Everyone has the fundamental right to live in safety and in dignity, with full access to health, social care and education. The report and the evidence we have heard has shown that we have failed disabled people by not upholding these basic rights during the pandemic. The report must be a turning point. The Government must investigate their failures, involve disabled people in developing a national strategy to uphold, protect and strength the rights of disabled people, and commit to significant and progressive funding to tackle our crisis in social care and ensure that disabled people can live in safety and in dignity.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I am grateful to the Women and Equalities Committee for all its work. It is also a pleasure to follow such a powerful speech advocating for the rights of disabled people. For too many disabled people, the pandemic has raised new challenges and barriers to accessing services as they go about their daily lives. We need to be clear that equality for disabled people should be central to what we do here every day, but the attitude of Westminster and the Tory Government towards disabled people is nothing short of a disgrace. Scotland has not voted for a right-wing Tory Government for decades, but the harmful policies that they inflict daily on disabled people come none the less.
The SNP’s manifesto includes a disability manifesto, and I am sure that anyone watching its launch this morning—there was a BSL interpreter and subtitles; perhaps the Prime Minister could take note of that— will have thought very deeply about that. It focuses on strengthening rights and opportunities, investing in the NHS, supporting disabled young people, a commissioner for autism, fairer social security, improving accessibility and employment representation. Those critical steps matter all the more now because of the disproportionate impact of covid on disabled people. The UK Government’s response to the Select Committee report landed in inboxes only last night. I am afraid that does not speak well of the Tory Government’s priorities or their views of this important issue.
All of us surely know, from our constituency work and from discussions with local and national organisations, about the impact of covid on disabled people and on existing inequalities. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), I have had extremely useful meetings with organisations such as Epilepsy Action, looking specifically at how we can support people through this period. More locally, I have had great cause to value the excellent work of East Renfrewshire Disability Action, Cosgrove Care and Include Me 2 Club, among so many other excellent third sector and voluntary groups making a huge impact on the ground. That work has been vital, along with the work of NHS and care professionals, because of the stark fact that disabled people were more likely than non-disabled people to have died of covid-19.
We know that nearly half of all people in poverty in the UK are disabled or live with someone who is disabled, and we can easily predict a very challenging period ahead because of decisions this Government are taking, which we know will disproportionately impact on people with disabilities. We know that 82% of disabled claimants have had to spend more money than normal during the pandemic as a result of increased costs. Two thirds of those disabled claimants have had to go without essential items at some point during the pandemic, and almost half say that they have been unable to meet financial commitments such as rent and household bills. Those are the most fundamental things, so we should not be surprised to learn from research by Scope that disabled people were increasingly worried about extra utilities costs because of the pandemic.
In that context, there is no exaggeration when I say that Westminster’s policies are damaging lives, and the Government’s response to the report does not give me great confidence that that will change. I am hugely concerned at the prospect of people who receive universal credit facing benefit cuts later this year, when unemployment is likely to hit its peak, and that is before we get on to the lack of support for people on legacy benefits, including many disabled people. The SNP has been very clear that failing to extend an equivalent uplift to legacy benefits is discriminatory to the core and disproportionately impacts on disabled claimants.
The Social Market Foundation and Scope have found that, despite decades of reforms and political promises from successive Westminster Governments, more than four in 10 of all people in homes relying on disability benefits live in poverty. There can be no more compelling evidence that the UK Government must commit to making permanent the £20 uplift to universal credit and to extending it to other legacy benefits. The system is simply not fit for purpose, and that includes the work capability assessments. The SNP welcomed the suspension of face-to-face assessments, but some have started again and the anxiety and practical issues that that has caused cannot be underestimated.
To conclude, I would like to focus briefly on the issue of work. For so many disabled people, the disability employment gap and the challenges of work are so important and will become so much more pressing as we move out of the pandemic period. This is a time for the UK Government to step up and look at what is happening in Scotland and to show the leadership that will allow flexible, sustainable and continued work for many disabled people.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this important debate, and I thank the members of the Women and Equalities Committee and those who further contributed to this report. I also want to thank the right hon. Lady for her tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan, who is indeed sorely missed.
It is important to note that the coronavirus pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities and has in fact exacerbated the inequalities that they face. Disabled people are more likely to have died as a result of covid-19. Notwithstanding this Government’s aversion to independent judge-led inquiries, there must be one on this issue. We must understand why people with disabilities were so much more affected than others. Is it because of poverty? A recently published report by the Social Market Foundation, commissioned by Scope, revealed that almost half of all people in poverty in the UK are disabled or live with someone who is disabled. The Disability Benefits Consortium reports that 82% of disabled benefit claimants have had to spend “more money than normal” during the pandemic. Almost two thirds have had to go without essential items, and almost half report being unable to pay basic bills for rent and utilities.
Scope recently reported on difficulties with employment and support allowance, such as work capability assessments not being scheduled before the end of the 365-day period. This means that entitlement to the supplementary benefits that claimants should receive is withheld and they can become between £54 and £39 a week worse off. If someone then has to claim universal credit instead, they face a five-week wait. If they have earnings above the threshold, they might not qualify at all, leaving them without adequate support.
The SNP has repeatedly called for the £20 per week uplift in universal credit to be applied to legacy benefits such as ESA, but the Government have completely refused to do so. When that lifeline ends, 700,000 UK families will be pushed into poverty when their incomes fall by £1,000 a year.
The UK Government have had difficulty in communicating with people with disabilities, as pointed out in the report. Even an easy thing to do such as having a BSL signer at No. 10 briefings during the pandemic was not in place, whereas in Scotland the daily briefings with the First Minister were signed from the start. It is not hard to arrange, but the lack of that basic tool for the deaf community reveals a lack of thought on the best way to communicate directly with deaf members of the population who need to understand what is going on. They feel cut off at the best of times.
The report notes that the use of “do not resuscitate” notices, which emerged in the early days of the pandemic, is “deeply concerning”. These issues caused disabled people great distress and anxiety and left them feeling that their lives were less valued than others. Indeed, one of my staff was deeply affected by the rising panic on UK forums where this was being discussed. I was really pleased that I could reassure her that such a practice was not being carried out in Scotland. Bad communication makes bad situations worse.
People with disabilities must never be othered by Government, which is why the SNP Scottish Government have built a social security system based on the principle of dignity and respect. As set out in their Budget, the Scottish Government have committed £3.5 billion in benefits to support people with disabilities in 2020-21. Those payments will reach more than 800,000 people. The money will go directly to the people in Scotland who need it most.
The first disability assistance benefit to be introduced by the Scottish Government was the child winter heating assistance annual payment of £200. That is the only annual winter heating payment for children in the UK, and it represents a £2.9 million investment in the health and wellbeing of the most severely disabled children and young people. Payments have already been made to people who are able to benefit from the care component of child disability living allowance.
The Cabinet Office disability unit is developing a national strategy for disabled people, and the Minister for Care has said that that will be published “later this spring”, but later this spring is not an exact enough date. We need to know when it will be published. May I suggest that the Minister look at what the Scottish Government have already done in publishing a delivery plan called “A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People”? That is our delivery plan to incorporate the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It covers the period from 2016 to 2021, and it aims to make equality of opportunity, access to services and independent living a reality for all disabled people in Scotland.
The Scottish SNP Government are already delivering things such as free bus travel for disabled people and have protected the disabled students allowance and bursaries. They have changed the rules on war disablement pensions so that they are exempt from the assessment of income. The Scottish Government will continue to fund support payments to severely disabled people, enabling them to live as independently as possible. This Government should do as much.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham, and to have the opportunity to discuss the Women and Equalities Committee report on the unequal impact of covid in relation to disability and access to services.
I put on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for her leadership, and to my Committee colleagues, the hon. Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), as well as all those who contributed their work on the issue. As a member of the Committee, I am pleased that the report puts on record the lived experience of disabled people throughout the pandemic, which has exacerbated the inequalities they face. One of the report’s most import findings is, sadly, the fact that disabled people are more likely than non-disabled people to have died of covid-19 in the past year. At this time of mourning, it is worth remembering them. I hope the Government will take seriously the report’s recommendations.
Many disabled people came before the Committee to describe their lived experience of the issues of food insecurity and the struggle to access online shopping delivery slots. Ultimately, the UK Government must ensure that they continue to make their messaging, whether on the pandemic or on other Government announcements and communications, accessible, through BSL interpreters and in other formats. Today, we have heard the SNP’s announcement in its manifesto in relation to such commitments.
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who highlighted the fact that this is a tale of two Governments. In relation to the forthcoming elections to the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister has announced that the Scottish Government have introduced the first social security system of any devolved Government and that the SNP will continue to address the issues of social care by investing £800 million in a national care service over the next Parliament, as well as many, many more commitments to reduce inequality and to improve the life chances of many Scots.
The manifesto also contains announcements on the four-day working week and a pilot on greater flexible working, for which I have been calling for some years. The benefits outweigh all of the associated costs by reducing the gender pay gap, allowing those with disabilities to maintain working lives and improving the life-work balance of so many families.
The report summarises what we now know is for many people and for many lives the long-term impact of covid. Following on from the report, we need to highlight and bring attention to the need to prepare for the issue of long covid, and to consider the response the Government make to that. Today, the SNP has made a commitment to work with GPs to co-ordinate a multidisciplinary response on the issue of long covid. I call on the Minister to consider what more his Government can do to ensure that they are supporting those suffering from long covid.
As we listen to each of those who have contributed to the debate, it is worth noting that the report makes it clear that in many respects the UK Government have failed disabled people throughout this pandemic. I call on the Minister to consider what more his Government can do, specifically on issues of food insecurity. As we have heard, many disabled people who relied on others to shop for them or to deliver food to them during the national pandemic faced struggles to access online shopping and delivery slots, as well as websites and telephone lines that were inaccessible to people with sensory impairment. On accessibility, the report recommends that Ministers and officials involved in communicating public health messages to disabled people should undergo training on psychologically informed communications that fully take into account and emphasise disabled people’s lived experience.
The report highlights that many of the issues in the social care sector have been exposed and exacerbated by the pandemic, such as the lack of long-term sustainable funding and workforce issues, including low pay and high staff turnover. Often, poor integration of NHS services meant that many people were even further impacted on by an already inequitable system.
Finally, it is worth noting that as we make our way through the vaccination programme and can see a way out of this pandemic, covid might continue to impact on the lives and life chances of many disabled people. There is little research at this point on the effects of long covid, but I am sure I am not alone in hearing from constituents about the effects of this virus on previously fit and healthy people. Long covid is an invisible illness that needs much more medical research and support, and the Government should provide desperately needed support to those experiencing the long-term impact of the health effects of the viral infection.
This really is a tale of two Governments and a matter of choices, so I hope that we will see a real commitment from this Government and this Minister to improve the life chances and opportunities of those most adversely affected by long covid, and of all those experiencing disabilities who are affected by the adverse impacts of the covid pandemic.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I thank everybody who has participated for being considerate in their use of time, which has made it possible to let everybody have their say.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. May I begin by thanking the Women and Equalities Committee for its invaluable work in writing this incredibly important and serious report? The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is the Chair of the Committee, made a number of vital points in her opening address, which I hope the Minister will respond to fully. I thank the Labour Members of the Committee, including my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for their robust contributions both to the report and to this debate. I join them in thanking the individuals and organisations that contributed evidence to the inquiry so that the Committee could provide the focus and consideration that the Government have failed to give to the lived experience of disabled people in this country.
The whole country has looked to the Government for action to keep us safe, and they have a particular obligation to protect the most vulnerable, who have been especially exposed to the virus. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) highlighted that the virus has exacerbated existing inequalities. Although the past year has been difficult, depressing and frightening for us all, disabled people have suffered even more than the rest. I join her in paying tribute to the work of Inclusion London, which I have also met recently, in highlighting the multiple injustices that disabled people have faced during this pandemic.
As the report states, the Office for National Statistics found in September that almost 60% of deaths with coronavirus were of disabled people, even though they make up only around 16% of the country’s population. In November, Public Health England estimated that the death rate with coronavirus of people with learning disabilities might be more than 6.3 times higher than that of the general population. The report clearly sets out a number of areas where disabled people were unfortunately let down by a Government who should have done better to protect them. Instead, they were failed. The report sets out how too often they were an afterthought throughout the pandemic.
On the provision of food, 60% of disabled people struggled to access essential supplies in the early months of the pandemic, but the report notes that the Government’s definition of “clinically extremely vulnerable”—those medically shielding—“was an inappropriate proxy” for disabled people who needed help accessing food. That influenced the policies of the supermarkets, as the British Retail Consortium made it clear that it had been directed by the Government to prioritise the clinically extremely vulnerable group for online deliveries. We all know that demand for delivery slots increased vastly, and many disabled people who were not considered clinically extremely vulnerable had to rely on community volunteers. We thank everyone who stepped up to assist in that way, but it is not the standard of support that disabled people deserve.
The report calls for a Government assessment of the effectiveness of using the clinically extremely vulnerable definition for food provision, and we would welcome that assessment as well, because, in the words of the report, the definition
“may have contributed to some supermarkets overlooking their legal obligations to make reasonable adjustments for the broader population of disabled people”.
The report quotes the evidence of Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK, who said that
“tens of thousands of other…disabled people felt that, for various reasons, maybe not medical, they could not go out either. It may have been that they were blind or had learning disabilities and felt social distancing would have been difficult. […] it might have been because they could not stand in queues for a long time. There are a whole host of reasons.”
That is why Labour agrees with the report that the Government need to adopt a social model of disability that recognises the challenges of lived experience that go beyond medical impairments to consideration of how we remove societal barriers.
The Government’s response to the report does not address that issue, even though it was the subject of a specific recommendation. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not recognise this issue sooner and urge supermarkets to use definitions other than “clinically extremely vulnerable”? When the NICE guidelines for critical care put too much emphasis on the clinical frailty scale, a revised set was published four days later. Why could the Government not make adjustments as they saw the real world impacts of their decisions?
I have discussed a number of the impacts on people with learning disabilities before, such as in a debate in December. At that time, the Minister for Social Care assured me that the blanket “do not resuscitate” orders were unacceptable and had been stopped, that the CQC was reviewing them and that an updated framework required GPs to review all such decisions for people with learning disabilities, to make sure that they are appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) was absolutely right to highlight the horror it has caused disabled people and their families to learn that they may not receive the care that they deserve and should be able to expect in their time of greatest need.
The CQC has since reported, saying that
“poor record keeping and lack of audits meant that we could not always be assured that…decisions…were being made on individual assessments. Once…decisions were in place, it varied whether providers and local systems reviewed them.”
The CQC also said that of the 508 decisions put in place during the pandemic that had not been agreed in discussion with the person, their relative or carer, around a third— 180 out of 508—were still in place by mid-December. Is the Minister confident that all of these decisions have now been properly reviewed?
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside powerfully raised the crisis in social care and its impact on disabled people, alongside the harmful easements in the restrictions under the Coronavirus Act that affect the quality of care that they can expect to receive and the impact on their dignity. The report highlights the Government’s initial focus on the health service at the expense of social care, and the lack of personal protective equipment provision. That speaks to the Government’s ongoing neglect, as spending on adult social care has fallen in real terms by 2.1% since 2010-11, despite an increase in demand. Adult social care needs both funding and reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow spoke at length about the impact on children with special educational needs or disabilities during the pandemic. On SEND, the report sets out how many children and young people received little or no support for three months, and it stresses the importance of the Government’s SEND review. I hope that the Minister can tell us in his response what scope the review will have to consider the focus on SEND in mainstream schools, including funding arrangements, and when the review is expected to be published.
Across all of these areas, the report says that
“we have been disappointed…with the Government’s attention to equality issues.”
It will not come as a surprise to those of us who see Ministers’ attitudes to equalities as just another opportunity to wage their tired and divisive “war on woke”, but this is where we see the real world impact.
The report states that, because of the need to restore disabled people’s confidence that their needs are given equal consideration, the Government
“should consent to the Equality and Human Rights Commission issuing a statutory Code of Practice on the Public Sector Equality Duty.”
Labour supports that call.
One issue not mentioned in the report, but which has a massive impact on disabled people, is the Government’s failure to uplift legacy social security benefits, even in line with the temporary £20 increase in universal credit. They have failed to support more than 1.9 million disabled people who have faced increased costs as a result of the pandemic, such as to pay for PPE for their carers. That once again exposes the fact that the Government’s priorities do not include the most vulnerable. There is some unintentional comedy in the report, about consultation:
“Ministers described a very positive, inclusive approach with open lines of communication.”
Most witnesses had a different perspective.
All of us understand and, indeed, sympathise about the difficulties of setting up new rules and systems in a hurry at the beginning of the pandemic, but Ministers should learn from mistakes and not deny reality. Something that has been raised in the debate by several hon. Members, and repeatedly with the Government over months, is the question why they—and not least the Prime Minister—have been so resistant to having British Sign Language interpreters at the briefings. The report makes it clear that that has been alienating and dangerous for deaf people, and people with hearing difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn rightly raised the question of other barriers that deaf people face, including the lack of provision of clear face coverings in public sector settings, which made communication extremely difficult for those who rely on lip-reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead also raised important issues about the adverse effects in connection with accessibility of public transport—something that the shadow Women and Equalities and Transport teams have raised with the Government—particularly for such things as pre-booked passenger assistance.
The lack of progress in those areas says much about how the needs of disabled people have been overlooked or neglected during the crisis. The Select Committee report calls for a separate independent inquiry on the impact on disabled people, once the situation is stable, as I hope it now is. I look forward to the findings of that inquiry, so that disabled people cannot be overlooked again. I look forward to the Minister setting out a timeline for the beginning and conclusion of the inquiry. We cannot accept more delay while the needs of our disabled constituents continue to be unmet by the Government.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I, too, want to put on record my personal tribute to Cheryl Gillan—a sad loss. No parliamentarian did more to champion the rights and opportunities of those with autism, and it was a great pleasure for me as the Minister for Disabled People to meet and work with her, and respond to her comprehensive, proactive and constructive letters, asks and challenges. With my ministerial hat on, I would say that her greatest legacy is how much she achieved for those who were reliant on having that strong voice in Parliament.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) who not only spoke passionately in the debate but has, through her excellent chairmanship of the Women and Equalities Committee, held the Government and the whole of Parliament to account on a number of serious issues. She is a formidable parliamentarian, and is held in the highest regard among colleagues. Frankly, it is staggering that she is not in the Cabinet helping to lead the challenges that are often raised, and on which we must keep a laser focus.
The unprecedented challenges of covid have impacted all, including disabled people, as has been highlighted by the important report by the Women and Equalities Committee. In my role as the Minister for Disabled People I welcome the opportunity to talk through the measures that the Government have put in place for disabled people throughout the pandemic, and how we are responding to those serious recommendations. My involvement in my cross-Government capacity, and that of the Disability Unit for which I am responsible, is to influence and shape Government policies, sharing our subject matter expertise, data, and knowledge of lived experiences and connecting relevant stakeholders with colleagues across Government to reach the best outcomes for disabled people.
Before I turn to the specific points raised by my right hon. Friend and the report, I would like to say how proud I am of the roll-out of the vaccination programme, which was an absolutely key issue and ask of the disability stakeholders that I regularly meet with. The Government are now offering vaccines to all those aged over 45, those on the learning disability register or clinically extremely vulnerable people, and health and social care staff. I am very pleased that my own Department has linked with NHS services in England to share data on over 600,000 carers, allowing the NHS to invite those carers to book an appointment for a vaccine. This is a huge achievement, and makes a significant impact on the lives of disabled people as they navigate this pandemic. This is a good example of cross-Government work.
Turning to the specific points raised, from the very start of the pandemic, we have ensured that the views of disabled people and their families and carers have been taken into account when considering how best to support disabled people and link through to the relevant Ministers, Departments and agencies. Casting our minds back to the beginning of the pandemic, there was real concern about access to food and medicine, as a number of the people who have spoken in this debate have highlighted. In normal circumstances, Governments would typically take 12 to 18 months to develop policies, engaging, consulting and piloting before implementing new legislation. However, with the challenges of covid, that time was simply not available.
Therefore, by connecting key stakeholders with real lived experience, we were able to help relevant Ministers and Departments develop responses quickly. For example, we linked stakeholders including Disability Rights UK, Scope, Sense, Leonard Cheshire and the RNIB with the Minister for farming, fishing and food, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and her officials to engage through the food vulnerability stakeholder group. Within days, they were able to resolve this potentially serious issue, as the Committee report highlights. This is an example of best practice. Several speakers raised the challenge faced by those who did not get included in the clinically extremely vulnerable list, but an additional scheme was organised through 305 local authorities, Age UK, Mind, Scope and RNIB, which were able to then make referrals for priority online shopping slots. Again, these important changes were vital.
More widely, to identify potential issues and areas of real lived experiences, we have an extensive programme of engagement. I regularly meet with the Disability Charities Consortium, which includes Scope, Leonard Cheshire, Disability Rights UK, the National Autistic Society, Mind, Mencap, Sense, RNIB, RNID and the Business Disability Forum. That includes being joined by relevant ministerial colleagues to discuss aspects of the pandemic’s impact on disabled people. During covid-19, this forum’s work has included meetings with the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi); the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately); and the Minister for Civil Society. It has been a real opportunity to share their expertise and help shape the urgent new policies that are needed to support those who are most vulnerable in society.
Furthermore, the Cabinet Office covid-19 taskforce considers disproportionately impacted groups, including disabled people, through policy development to tackle the pandemic. They do this through close working with the Equalities Hub and, within it, the Disability Unit, co-ordinating with other Government Departments and wider stakeholders to ensure a holistic approach to policy implications and delivery. In addition, we have regular stakeholder engagement through our regional network, which includes disabled people, carers, and crucially those with real lived experiences.
Turning to accessibility, I reaffirm that it is vital that public information on covid-19 is accessible to all, and we have made key strides in this area. These are things I was challenged on during my stakeholder engagement, and I happily raise these across Government. The Government are committed to providing both key covid-related guidance and communications in alternative formats, including large print, easy read, British Sign Language and audio. Most recently, this has covered ensuring that national restrictions, vaccination testing and the Government’s road map are accessible. We have now established BSL interpretation at the No. 10 press conference via the BBC News channel and iPlayer, available on all TV packages as part of Freeview. Accessible information is also available on the Government’s social media channels.
A significant further improvement, following the Committee’s report, is that the Cabinet Office now has a senior lead for accessible communications as part of the national resilience communications hub, who meets with a group of disability charities on a monthly basis. The group is briefed on the latest covid-19 guidance, including accessible versions, and works to ensure that communications to disabled people continue to be accessible and timely. Most recently, we held bespoke briefing sessions with the disability communications working group on 25 March, explaining the road map and communications activity, enabling charities to brief their audiences, prepare and share accessible communications through their network. I have personally pushed hard for that and I thank the Women and Equalities Committee for its support on the need for this vital additional layer of support.
Turning to health and social care, as we have seen, the covid-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the NHS and social care systems. Recognising the challenges in care settings, the Department of Health and Social Care made £546 million available in its adult social care winter plan, including money for vital infection control measures to ensure that disabled people getting social care and support are kept as safe as possible. The Government has also made £4.6 billion available to local authorities to address pressures on local services, including adult social care. Furthermore, the Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention announced £500 million for mental health recovery, of which £31 million will be used to support learning disability and autism services, alongside an additional £3.6 million announced by the Minister for Care for disability voluntary sector organisations to provide practical support to disabled people to mitigate the impacts of covid-19.
I know many disabled people and their families have raised concerns about easements to the Care Act, which were introduced as a temporary measure to help local authorities continue to meet the most urgent and acute needs in the face of covid-19, when local authorities were experiencing extraordinary pressures. The measure was used sparingly and has now ended. In response to concerns about the use of “do not resuscitate” decisions and the clinical frailty scale, the Government recognised the issues and guidance was changed strongly and quickly.
It is important to recognise the particular challenges the covid-19 outbreak has had on families of children with disabilities or serious illnesses. Supporting vulnerable children is a priority for this Government and has been central to our response throughout the pandemic. Turning to the work done by the Minister for Children and Families, the Government provided £40.8 million for the family fund in 2020-21, which supported more than 90,000 low-income families who are raising children who are disabled or seriously ill.
I know there are concerns about the legal duties to provide support to children and young people with education, health and care plans. The Secretary of State for Education has not used this power since July last year and has made it clear that he would need a compelling reason before doing so again.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the Minister for giving way on the point about the Secretary of State for Education’s powers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he would require a compelling reason to use them, but he has not used them, he does not plan to use them and there is much less need to use them. Will my hon. Friend indicate whether there might be a timescale for when they are going to go?
Justin Tomlinson
That is a fair challenge. I do not have the answer, but I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State for Education gives a clear response to that question.
While the covid-19 pandemic has unavoidably delayed the completion of the special educational needs and disabilities review, the Secretary of State for Education is clear that it remains a key priority for this Government. It is vital that we deliver on our promises to children and young people and the DFE intends to publish proposals for consultation in the coming months.
Several speakers talked about the importance of disability employment. I am incredibly proud, as the Minister for Disabled People, to have presided over record disability employment. In normal times, when I have the pleasure of travelling around the country on visits, when I talk to young disabled people and say, “If you were the Minister, what would be the single thing that you would want to see?” the answer is nearly always, “I just want to have the same opportunities that my friends have for work and career progression.” I have never lost sight of that. I speak as somebody who has employed and benefited from employing disabled people, both prior to being an MP and as an MP. We have faced unprecedented challenges, but we have not lessened our ambition to have a million more disabled people in work by 2027. I want to reiterate that that has not changed.
During covid, we have made changes to the support provided. We have recently announced over 300 more disability employment advisers, taking the figure to over 1,000. We continue to review our Work and Health programme. All of the plan for jobs is fully inclusive, and we have made changes to schemes such as Access to Work, where we now provide support within the workplace. We will keep that beyond covid-19, which will perhaps open up opportunities for more people who have not been able to access work opportunities up to now. I am proud that we have reached 20,000 employers signed up to Disability Confident. The equivalent of 11.2 million employees are now represented by businesses in the Disability Confident scheme, sharing best practice about helping disabled people into work, to progress in work and be retained in work. That is very much a priority for me and the Department.
While there will undoubtedly be opportunities to learn from our covid-19 response in the longer term, the overall picture is that the Government have moved fast and flexibly to provide support for disabled people in these unprecedented times. The importance of cross-Government work linked to and supported by those with real lived experiences is absolutely clear, as it allows us to move faster and more flexibly to provide support to those most in need, including those with disabilities.
To ensure that that notion is embedded at the heart of the Government, we now have ministerial disability champions in every Department, with whom I meet regularly, with the full authority of the Prime Minister. They are genuinely enthused, engaged and determined to play their part on behalf of their respective Departments. In our forthcoming ambitious national strategy for disabled people, we will demonstrate the very real and vital focus on cross-Government work to remove barriers and create a fully inclusive society as we return to normality.
In conclusion, I thank all the staff and volunteers across the country working on the frontline, and in particular those supporting people with disabilities, as we navigate these challenges. I thank again my right hon. Friend and her Committee for their fantastic ongoing work, the Committee’s important report and the recommendations it made. The Government and I personally take them very seriously, and we are acting on them.
Caroline Nokes
I put on record my thanks to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I recognise that lots of Government Departments are very much in the frame here, whether it be the DHSC, the DWP, the DFE or, indeed, DEFRA, and my hon. Friend the Minister has not done a bad job of answering for all of them. However, what has been singularly lacking is the provision to him by those Departments of dates. When might we see an independent inquiry? When might we see the SEND review from the DFE? When might we see measures to integrate health and social care effectively from the DHSC? I ask him in particular to take back to fellow Ministers the message we heard repeatedly from colleagues about social care, the lack of attention on it, and the impact that has had on the lived experience of way too many disabled people up and down the country in every single one of our constituencies.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the pandemic gave the Government an unprecedented challenge, and in many instances there was really good cross-Government working to rise to the challenge. What Members need now is some sort of assurance that lessons have been learned and will continue to be learned because, should another public health crisis like covid hit us in future, we cannot afford to have disabled people pushed to the back of the queue, have their needs forgotten and feel, as too many of those who spoke to us of their lived experiences said, forgotten, marginalised and as if they did not matter. I urge him to ensure that that sensation is not left with them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, “Unequal impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services: full Report”, HC 1050.
Adult Skills and Lifelong Learning
(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
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
I now call Robert Halfon, Chair of the Select Committee on Education, to move the motion.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Education Committee, “A plan for an adult skills and lifelong learning revolution”, HC 278.
It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I am grateful to have secured this debate today on the Education Committee’s adult skills and lifelong learning report. Let me start by giving special thanks to the Education Committee officers and advisers, who have spent so much time working on the inquiry with Members. And I pay tribute to all my parliamentary colleagues on the Committee, who worked so hard on the report and evidence sessions. I welcome here today two of my colleagues on the Committee: my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson)—I know that I am not supposed to say “hon. Friend” about an Opposition Member, but in this capacity I hope that you will allow me to do so, Ms Rees—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis).
There are overwhelming benefits to lifelong learning—benefits for productivity and the economy, for health and wellbeing and for social justice and our communities. Our nation faces significant skills challenges from the fourth industrial revolution, automation, an ageing workforce and the devastating impact of covid-19. The Government are rising to those major challenges by providing some new funding for adult education, and I welcome the recent increases in finances that the Government have announced. The further education White Paper marks a sea change in Government thinking about skills. The flagship £2.5 billion national skills fund offers a significant opportunity to transform adult skills and lifelong learning. It will fund a lifetime skills guarantee, supporting adults to access about 400 fully funded level 3 courses. The Government have also funded a number of important schemes to support a post-covid skills recovery. There is the £2 billion kickstart scheme, the hiring incentive of £3,000 for employers who hire new apprentices—and much more besides.
However, despite the recent increases in funding, the welcome White Paper, the kickstart fund and the other programmes that I have just mentioned, participation in adult skills and lifelong learning is in a dire state; it is at its lowest level in 23 years. It is the case that 38% of adults have not participated in any learning since leaving full-time education. Participation rates in adult education have almost halved since 2004. Even worse, lifelong learning is an affluent person’s game; those who might benefit most from adult learning and training, low-skilled adults in low-income work or the unemployed, are by far the least likely to be doing it. It is the case that 49% of adults from the lowest socioeconomic group have received no training since leaving school.
It is the already well-educated and the well-off who are far more likely to participate. In 2016 92% of adults with a degree-level qualification undertook adult learning, compared with 53% of adults with no qualifications. I would argue that poor access to lifelong learning is one of the great social injustices of our time. We must reverse the decline in participation and offer a way forward for those left-behind adults. There are haves and have-nots in terms of adult education in our country.
There is a significant problem with low basic skills. It is hard to believe the fifth largest economy in the world has 9 million working-age adults with poor literacy or numeracy skills or both. Nine million adults also lack the basic digital skills that nowadays are essential for getting on in modern life, and 6 million adults do not even have a qualification at level two, which is equivalent to GCSE. In the past 10 years, just 17% of low-paid workers moved permanently out of low pay.
Unequal access to lifelong learning is a social injustice that traps millions of workers in below-average earnings. Even before covid kicked in, our nation faced significant skills gaps. By 2024, there will be a shortfall of 4 million highly skilled workers. Colleges up and down the country, such as Harlow College, an exceptional further education college in my constituency, will be central to the skills-led recovery, and we have to do all we can to support them.
Support for colleges is especially important now. This week, an Association of Colleges report found that three quarters of college students are between one and four months behind where they would normally be expected to be at this stage of the academic year. The advanced manufacturing centre at Harlow College—a multimillion pound investment—is a leading example of what can be achieved when business, FE and the Government work together to make sure young adults are retrained.
Part-time higher education has fallen into disrepair. Part-time student numbers collapsed by 53% between 2008-09 and 2017-18, resulting in over 1 million lost learners. When I think of potential part-time higher education students, I think of a single parent in my constituency who will not take that part-time opportunity because they are worried about the loan that they may have to take on.
Adult community learning is vital to social justice. It gives a helping hand to the hardest to reach adults, including those with no qualifications, learners in the most deprived communities, and those furthest from the job market. There has been, however, a 25% decline in adult community learning participation since 2011-12 and a 32% fall since 2008-09.
Finally, we should all be concerned about the decline in employer-led training. During our inquiry, our Committee heard that 39% of employers admit to training none of their staff. Employer-led training has dropped by half since the end of the 1990s. Previously, the Committee visited the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Germany. This kind of lack of training by businesses for their workforce is unthinkable in those countries.
Investment in workplace training favours the already well qualified, and workers with the lowest prior qualifications are the least likely to have received job-related training in the first place. Some 32% of adults with degrees participated in in-work training, compared with just 9% of workers with no qualifications.
I have set out some stark statistics about what is wrong. Our Committee tried to look at some of the solutions. I do believe that we can solve some of these issues. Just 40 or 50 years ago Britain had an adult education system that was world-leading. Despite well-intentioned reforms over recent years, adult education policy making has too often suffered from initiative-itis, lurching from one policy priority to the next.
We can rebuild this by pursuing an ambitious long-term strategy for adult skills and lifelong learning. The strategy has four pillars. First, let us fund an adult community learning centre in every town. Community learning supports adults who cannot even see the ladder of opportunity, let alone climb it. In Harlow, we are lucky to have a remarkable adult learning community centre, and it will soon be relocated to the beating heart of the town, in the main Harlow library building. Just because there is an adult community learning centre does not mean that millions have to be spent on a new building or estate, but there should be one for residents who need it.
Some 92% of community learning centres are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, and I have seen time and again how they are an important bridge for people— many from disadvantaged backgrounds—to begin the first stage of education. Community learning centres are places of social capital: they are real places that bring people together and that often get people who go there to go on to further or additional education. Organisations such as the Workers’ Educational Association, and HOLEX members, do an incredible job at bringing learning to disadvantaged communities. About 38% of Workers’ Educational Association learners are from disadvantaged postcodes, 44% are on income-related benefits, and 41% have no or very low previous qualifications.
Secondly, let us kickstart participation by introducing individual learning accounts, funded through the national skills fund. Individual learning accounts would evolve funding into the hands of learners, giving them choice and agency over their skills development. They should have a strong social justice focus and initially be aimed at those who would benefit the most, including low-skilled, low-paid adults. A further option might be to introduce them for vital skills deficit subject areas, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We can start small and learn lessons from the success of individual learning schemes in countries such as Singapore and Scotland.
Thirdly, part-time higher education needs to be nursed back to health. The fall in part-time higher education numbers undermines organisations such as the Open University and Birkbeck that do so much to widen access to learning for disadvantaged adults. Part-time study provides a route to higher skills and higher pay for adults alongside work or caring responsibilities. It offers a crucial second-chance route for mature students.
The lifelong loan entitlement for modules at higher technical and degree levels, which was set out in the FE White Paper, is a step forward in the right direction and will improve access to flexible part-time learning, but as I mentioned earlier when I gave the example of a single parent in my constituency, the part-time learner cohort is very different from the full-time one. Learners tend to be more mature and highly debt-averse. On average, they are older and have more financial commitments. Over a third have dependants to think about, and many are from very disadvantaged or modest backgrounds. Offering fee grants to part-time learners from the most disadvantaged backgrounds who study courses that meet the skills needs of the nation would really transform adult learning. Let us end the unfair anomaly that excludes part-time distance learners from receiving maintenance support.
Another way to encourage adults to pursue higher education, particularly those who might be more debt-averse, is to champion degree apprenticeships. Students earn while they learn, gaining the skills and qualifications to climb the ladder of opportunity. Allocating the £800 million-plus spent by universities and the Office for Students on access and participation to those universities growing their degree apprentice student numbers would help rocket-boost degree apprenticeships. If the recent upwards trend in degree-level apprenticeships continues at the same rate, with some serious policy encouragement it could take as little as 10 years for half of all university students to be doing such courses. I think the Minister is the only person in the House who has done a degree apprenticeship, or at least the only Minister who has done a degree apprenticeship.
Fourthly, to revitalise employer-led training, the Government should introduce tax credits for employers who invest in training for their workforce. The Government have a research and development tax credit and tax refunds for construction companies investing in machinery, as announced in the Budget, so why not invest in a skills tax credit for the skills that are regarded as having strategic importance for the nation? Those are the four pillars needed for an ambitious long-term strategy for adult skills and lifelong learning. To make a success of these reforms, we need flexible and modular hop-on, hop-off learning. It should be like taking a train journey—stopping at stations and then getting back on the train again towards the destination.
There are not nearly enough qualifications that can be taken in a bite-sized modular way. This is a huge barrier to participation for adults with busy working lives and caring responsibilities. Much better careers advice, individually tailored to help adults find the best learning opportunities for them, without the huge replication and duplication that already exists, is essential. Although there are incredible career organisations and grassroots organisations on the ground, I despair of the replication and duplication and the huge amount of money that goes into organisations such as the Careers and Enterprise Company, the National Careers Service and many other organisations in the Department for Work and Pensions that replicate a lot of things and create a lot of the work that each of these organisations do. Careers advice, in terms of the Department for Education, should be predominantly focused on skills, skills, skills.
Despite all that, there is much to be proud of in our adult education landscape. The four pillars set out in our report—a community learning centre in every town, individual learning accounts, boosting part-time higher education and introducing a skills tax credit—must be at the centre of the country’s adult learning revolution. Let us build a lifelong learning system that supports all adults to thrive. For too long our country has underinvested in adult lifelong learning. Our businesses have underinvested in training. Our skills deficit should be regarded as unacceptable. The Prime Minister’s lifetime guarantee signals recognition that change is needed. So, too, does the Education Secretary’s acknowledgement that further education has been historically underfunded and the subsequent FE White Paper. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Government need to build on the lifetime skills guarantee and really offer an adult learning experience fit for the 21st century.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I intend to start the wind-ups no later than 4.20 pm, so I would appreciate it if the five Back-Bench speakers tailored the length of their remarks to fit in with that timescale. I call Mick Whitley.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)[V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I thank the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing it. I also draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Looking at the current state of post-16 education, I cannot help but think of how dramatically things have changed in the years since I was a young man. When I left school there were proper training opportunities that paved the way to secure, well-paid and lifelong employment. That all changed in the 1980s when the Thatcher Government took a wrecking ball to our industrial heartlands and ripped the heart out of towns such as Birkenhead. As the factories, steelworks and shipyards slammed their gates shut, the day-release apprenticeship that gave my generation skills, jobs and hope all but vanished. Since then we have been stuck on a policy merry-go-round that has taken us nowhere. Adult education and training now face a massive crisis since the incorporation of further education colleges in 1993.
There have been around 40 Green Papers on adult education policy, yet today participation in adult learning is at its lowest level in 24 years. Nearly half the poorest people in our country have had no additional training since leaving compulsory education. Well-paid quality apprenticeships are in scarce supply, too. In 2021, it is easier for a young person to get an offer from Cambridge than it is to get an apprenticeship at Rolls-Royce.
I therefore welcome the Education Select Committee’s call for a well-funded long-term adult education strategy that gives adult workers the opportunity to learn new skills. That is key to our being able to ensure that our workforce can adapt and thrive in an economy convulsed by covid-19, Brexit, climate meltdown and the fourth industrial revolution. However, I feel that the Select Committee, like me, will be bitterly disappointed by the Department for Education’s recent White Paper on further education. It falls short of the further education revolution that was promised.
I worry that the Government have ignored a key factor that is essential for success. Any adult skills and training strategy must be backed up by a comprehensive industrial strategy that delivers economic justice for towns like Birkenhead. I welcome the work that employers are doing with Wirral Met College to develop training programmes for young people in my constituency. I hope that the Committee’s proposed individual learning accounts and skills tax credits will help to support adult learners.
What is urgently needed is for the Government to get serious about creating jobs and training opportunities for adult workers in the industries of the future, such as green energy and the digital economy. Yet, it is not clear how the recent further education White Paper relates to the 10-year industrial strategy unveiled in 2017. Moreover, the Business Secretary’s disastrous decision to axe the Industrial Strategy Council suggests that this Government are not interested in the long-term, joined-up planning that will be essential to deal with the unemployment and skills crisis that confronts us today.
The Committee is also right to call on the Government to reinstate the union learning fund. As a lifelong trade unionist, I have seen at first hand the transformative role that the ULF plays in equipping those workers least able to access learning opportunities with the basic skills they need to survive in the job market. With every pound invested in the scheme returning £12.30 to the wider economy, the Government’s decision to scrap it seems to me to be petty and ideologically driven—an act of industrial sabotage. It flies in the face of the Government’s pledge to level up the country.
I urge the Education Secretary to go even further. In much of Europe, trade unions play a vital role alongside colleges and employers as a provider of adult learning opportunities, but there is not a single mention of the unions in the White Paper. It is time he finally stops treating the unions as the enemy and realises the vital role that they can play in any attempt to reach out to or to level up left-behind workers.
The Committee’s report calls for bold and ambitious action to prepare British workers for the immense challenges of the coming decades. That must mean apprenticeships, training, education, skills and jobs. Sadly, it appears such action is not on the Government’s agenda.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate and on the pioneering work that he and his Committee are carrying out, both generally with their inquiries and specifically with the publication of this report.
My interest is twofold: first, as a constituency MP, where securing this revolution is vital, if we are to deliver sustained economic regeneration that transforms the lives of local people, and secondly, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning. Local colleges, deeply embedded in their communities, such as East Coast College, with campuses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, will be the cornerstone on which this revolution is founded.
There has been a need for this transformation for a very long time, but we are now at the zero hour. If it is not delivered now, the long-term implications for the country and for many people will be profound. The challenges of improving productivity, enhancing social mobility and eliminating pockets of deprivation have been with us for a long time, but they are now compounded by the need to ensure as smooth as possible a pandemic recovery, which includes the shock that there is likely to be from the ending of furlough, as well as making sure that people of all ages have the skills required in a period of rapid technological change.
In East Anglia there are enormous opportunities in the low-carbon economy. It is vital that local people are able to acquire the necessary skills that are required for the rewarding and exciting jobs that will be available. It is also important to bear in mind that if we do not properly prepare for these challenges, many communities will remain left behind and for many people there will be a sense of personal despair and despondency.
The good news is that the Government recognise the need for change. The skills White Paper sets out a compelling vision, and there is a welcome recognition of the important role to be played by existing institutions—whether that is local authorities, local colleges or local businesses.
Both the lifetime skills guarantee and the lifetime loan guarantee are welcome steps in the right direction. With the former, the restriction that it is available only for those who do not hold a level 3 qualification should be revisited, as many people will need to reskill and upskill as the world of work changes. With the latter, there is a need to ensure that—where necessary—maintenance funding is provided as, without it, lifelong learning will remain unaffordable for many.
Moving forward, it is vital that Government work collaboratively with colleges. The report from the Independent Commission on the College of the Future, “The English College of the Future”, provides a template of how they should do this, with a statutory entitlement for lifelong learning for every adult, which includes the necessary financial support.
Local colleges should be a touchpoint for people throughout their lives, where they will go to reskill and retrain in response to technological change, such as the move to a carbon-neutral economy.
In many respects, the future is bright and exciting, but there are two immediate issues that need to be addressed. Firstly, there is a need for a long-term funding settlement, which should be addressed at the forthcoming spending review later this year. The recent uplifts are welcome, but there remains a great gulf between what a university student receives, averaging £6,600 per annum, and what a further education college student is provided with, which is just over £1,000 at £1,050 per annum. The funding settlement should be for longer—for three years—and should be simpler.
Secondly, the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s decision to claw back adult skills funding from colleges and local authorities if they missed their 2020-2021 academic year targets by more than 10% must be revisited and reviewed urgently. College finances have been ravaged by the pandemic; the clawback is equivalent to a £60 million cut to adult education funding, and it was announced eight months into the academic year in which it applies. This approach undermines the ethos of collaborative working that we should be promoting, and it is contrary to the aspirations of both the White Paper and the Education Committee’s report, which we are debating today.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is passionately committed to securing a lifelong learning revolution, to do all she can to ensure that the ESFA work with colleges to come up with a revised approach that will give them the financial security they need at this challenging time.
I shall end on a positive note: the future can be incredibly exciting, with real benefits being secured for communities and people all around the country. My right hon. Friend and his Committee have come up with a compelling vision, and Government have embraced it, as have colleges and businesses in Dorset. We must now get on and deliver it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, with you in the Chair, Ms Rees.
I thank the Education Select Committee for its outstanding report on the adult skills and lifelong learning landscape. It is honest and analytical, and it seeks to provide a route map of reparation and advancement. In what has been an overly complex web of funding streams and reduced opportunities, learning in adult life has become significantly bureaucratic, and nothing can disguise the scale of the cuts to adult learning—which this confusion has presumably been intended to mask.
The sheer scale of lost learning is concerning and it explains why, for a decade, productivity has been suffocated. It explains a decline in wellbeing and in mental and physical health. It most definitely explains a stifling of social mobility and—oh—the lost potential too.
When we talk to colleges of further education and other local providers, it is clear that the Government have failed to understand the power of adult learning. To this day, there is still a woeful insufficiency in funding. College staff are often on low pay and insecure contracts—devalued like no other professionals in the public sector, yet charged with the greatest of responsibilities, which is to nurture adults in a learning environment, which, in turn, unlocks new job opportunities, moves people out of poverty, and brings fulfilment and achievement.
The Minister will put a gloss coating on the tenure of her Government, but I have to say that nothing but regret should drive a commitment to do far more. A 45% cut in skills funding since the Tories came to power, as the Augar review noted, cannot be justified in terms of either economic or social equity. With participation in adult education at a 23-year low, that takes us back to the period when Labour picked up the failure of the previous Tory Government.
Now, 9 million people are abandoned to low literacy and numeracy skills, 6 million are without a GCSE or equivalent qualification—a decline of 87% under this Government—9 million are without the low-level digital skills necessary to navigate an increasingly digitalised society; 15% of 19-year-olds today do not have a level 2 qualification, and 60% do not have a level 3. Those people would have been just nine years old when this Government came in, and their education has taken place on the Government’s watch.
As we heard earlier, 49% of adults from the lowest socioeconomic groups have had no training since leaving school. Just last month, the Minister scrapped the union learning fund, not seeking to immerse herself in the evidence of how it got people who were furthest from education to develop a passion to learn, with the union learning reps at their side, giving them a new confidence. Even now, the threat of the Education and Skills Funding Agency clawing back millions of pounds from the sector is threatening the finances of colleges, as an impossible target of 90% provision of adult learning through the pandemic was set and is unachievable.
Scrapping that threshold today would show some commitment to colleges that a lot more is urgently needed, but, as ever, cuts have consequences, and those must be understood and never repeated. While the National Skills Fund is welcome, it must be recognised as a first step, since it will replace only a fifth of all that has been stripped away in the last decade.
If we are serious about seeing a skills revolution—and I am—we have to take down the barriers to learning, recognise its return, and empower local communities, local colleges and universities with the funding and scope they need to make learning accessible. In York, I see how York College is leading the skills strategy, and how the universities and colleges are shaping the economic strategy for the city. The value of those powerhouses must be understood.
On funding, I agree with the call from the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for a long-term plan, which is an economic necessity, and for Labour it goes to the core of our values. Withholding vital funding chokes off the economy and chokes off opportunity, yet the Minister is significantly holding back on the resources needed, not least at this time of crisis. We have heard about the ageing workforce and the loss of skills through Brexit, advances in technology and automation. Obviously, the fall-out from the pandemic, which we are facing now, and the climate catastrophe will demand real new skills to turn the situation around. Therefore, adult skills and lifelong learning have to be funded effectively.
The report shows that, incredibly, every pound invested in levels 1 to 3 of adult learning returns between £20 and £30. I am not sure that there is a better return anywhere else in the economy, so that is an investment that pays back, but to upskill and reskill, barriers have to be taken down. That is why I support measures that would ensure that adults who were learning received free childcare. I would remove the age gaps, particularly if we are to consider diversification of skills. Yes, invest in community learning centres in every town and city, which would ensure a place-based approach to learning and the economy. We should reinstitute individual learning accounts. Yes, the governance needed changing, but they were transformative, as I witnessed during my time as a union official.
I also call on the Government to look at the kickstart scheme. Many employers have been reluctant to take up this opportunity because they are concerned about what happens to people on the scheme at the end of the six months. Having a learning offer would certainly encourage employers to know that the people they have taught over the last six months and skilled up have an opportunity to move into a secure learning environment.
I also call for a right to learn. It is shameful that 39% of employers do not train any of their staff, yet they play a part in the economy. Everyone must have that responsibility, and a right to learn enshrined in law would secure that.
On digital, we have got a lot of catching up to do as a country, and these last 13 months have shown the deficit that exists. Free broadband, as Labour proposed at the last election, would certainly be a step on the way, but ensuring that people have the tools they need to be digitally savvy enough to navigate their way through the economy is absolutely vital, and there can be no holding back.
We need to have a look at ways of unshackling those opportunities in higher education to see more modular learning and more flexibility in part-time learning. Of course, that will mean that the funding structures need to change. I think it is high time that we look at the way that tuition fees have suffocated opportunities for people, and I certainly am an advocate of free higher education.
In particular, I want to close by bringing to the Minister’s attention an issue that a constituent raised with me. Her story is that she fled domestic violence, but education gave her an opportunity not just to rebuild her skills, but to rebuild herself. As the Domestic Abuse Bill is being debated in the Chamber right now, I ask the Minister to look at what my constituent is calling for: a secure way into further and higher education for people fleeing domestic violence so they have an opportunity to start their lives again.
If we applied that to other people experiencing challenges and vulnerabilities, just think how transformative it would be. I look at the work of Thames Valley police in diverting people out of county lines and the whole area of dealing drugs, and getting those youngsters into a learning framework instead of the criminal justice system. That has been transformational not least in reducing crime but also in giving those youngsters a chance again.
As we come out of this pandemic, more than ever we have seen the need to address mental health and loneliness, and some of the real challenges people have experienced. Social prescribing is at the frontier of that, and having a pathway into learning at this point in time could certainly address many of the health and wellbeing needs that people are facing. A creative Government could do so much to transform the lives of the people we represent as well as our economy, and I trust the Minister will reflect on the power of her portfolio and use it to its fullest.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees, and thank you for calling me in this very important debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate, and on his work chairing the Education Committee and bringing this report forward. I am a member of the Education Committee, and I am pleased to have been able to listen to and review the evidence that we were given from many different quarters and work with the team on this report. I am glad it has got an airing today.
The adult skills and lifelong learning report calls for revolutionary action. It does not deserve to be sitting on a dusty shelf; it deserves to be brought out and put into action because, as we have heard, it is needed now more than ever.
The Education Committee started working on this report before covid, and our recommendations have become even more important since covid. The impact that covid has had on employment, on loss of income, on loss of businesses, on the self-employed, on low earners, on stay-at-home parents and on young people has been very high, but there are many ways forward to address the issues in this report.
As has been said, across England, 9 million adults lack functional literacy and numeracy skills. Over the last decade, adult learner numbers have fallen by 3.8 million. The poorest adults are often the least likely to access the training they need the most. There has been a 45% decline in funding for adult skills in the last decade, so there has never been more of a need for a shake-up in our adult learning. The current system is absolutely failing.
Lifelong learning is essential for skilling up, for enabling people to develop their potential and achieve things, and for tackling inequalities in all our communities, which have grown ever wider under covid. It is essential for mental health and wellbeing, and for tackling isolation. It is also vital for our economic growth as a country, and for keeping our workforce skilled, adaptable and able to respond to climate change and to changing circumstances in the labour market. That is why this report asks for no less than a revolution in lifelong learning.
Before becoming an MP, I used to work for a community learning centre, the Katherine Low Settlement. It provides English for speakers of other languages—ESOL— and other courses, and classes for over 100 local people. It provides the means for building community, empowering parents and getting access to jobs. I have seen in action this kind of organisation, which could provide a community hub, so I know that it is perfectly possible. However, the Government response to the recommendation in the report for a community learning centre in every town was very disappointing. I will focus on this recommendation today, and I hope that in her response, the Minister will give more reasons for hope in relation to bringing this recommendation to life.
Community learning centres are a major recommendation, based on the Education Committee receiving evidence from a variety of educators, looking at the failures in our system up to now and considering solutions that would address many different barriers to education all at once. The centres do not need to be new buildings or new organisations that require many millions in funding; lots of community spaces or education providers could step up and provide this. In my constituency, South Thames College could be one of these providers, working in conjunction with other partnerships. There are lots of places on our high streets that could provide the necessary transformation and high profile for adult learning.
That one innovative change—having a community learning centre in every town—would bring together so many different solutions. The centres could be well-known places that provide information and support. They would help to overcome the current fragmented funding and provision, which the Government acknowledge, but do not address, in their response to the Select Committee’s report.
It is very hard to access information and to get the required mentoring and support for learning. That is acknowledged by the Government, and it has been recognised by others who have spoken today. That is why there is a recommendation in the report for careers guidance, information and support. It can be especially difficult when someone is working two jobs, or caring for children or parents; when there are so many different providers with different and changing courses in different places, most of which are currently without childcare on site; or if someone’s literacy or confidence are not very good, they have special educational needs or they think that learning is not for them.
Having one local centre physically and online would help to overcome the significant barriers to adult education. The centre would be a trusted provider, and it would help to overcome the psychological barriers to education that many people experience. The Government response to the report stated:
“Adults, particularly those with lower skills, face significant physical and psychological barriers to learning.”
Community learning centres would enable people to overcome those barriers.
We have heard time and time again about the importance of trusted providers. The union learning fund has been mentioned. It showed the importance of in-work mentors providing support and guidance, encouraging people to apply for things and supporting them to go on in education, which is necessary to get on to the ladder, let alone up it. Cutting the union learning fund has been a huge step backwards for adult learning, and I hope that decision can still be reversed. The importance of employer-led learning cannot be overestimated.
What else could a community learning centre provide? It could be a place that provided support for an increase in qualifications, up to levels 2 and 3, which are under-utilised at the moment. It could also be a place for part-time learning and the modular learning that is recommended in the report. Very importantly, a centre would provide childcare alongside courses in the same place. If that childcare were free, that would be a revolution in lifelong learning. There would need to be enough courses, and so enough people with children, in one place to make childcare a viable option, and the centre would need to be close enough—a buggy walk or bus ride away—to allow people to get back and pick up their kids from school. Those practical details will make community learning centres work, and they are why such centres are so needed.
A community learning centre would also be an important place for addressing the dire cuts in ESOL provision, enabling communities to be integrated. The Government response to the report just acknowledges the current low ESOL provision numbers, as if that is great, and says nothing about the swingeing cuts to ESOL courses—especially those with childcare—which leave so many people without the English skills that they need to get access to further courses, to be empowered parents in talking to teachers, and to contribute in the fullest way, as they want to, in our communities.
A community learning hub would also be that place that builds and strengthens communities. It has that social capital that has been mentioned, and would inspire more learning. There would be different generations, and ways for someone to get the training needed to get a job or a better job, tackle in-work poverty, or see different courses that they never knew existed, all in one place in their town. What an amazing vision—but instead of meeting that ambition and new vision with enthusiasm, the Government response was like taking a cold shower. It listed existing provision and talked about the adult education budget as the only answer. However, that adult education budget for local government has been cut, from £3 billion in 2010 to £1.5 billion now—so it is hardly the answer.
A vital partnership of councils and education and community organisations is perfectly possible, doable and achievable, and it is fantastic value for money. It could be the revolution that we need to meet the crisis that we face. I hope that that recommendation will not sit on a dusty shelf but will be given life and used, so that part of our building back better after covid will be an adult learning revolution across the country—starting just a short walk or bus ride away.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
There is a series of votes in the House, but there is no need to suspend the sitting, because we all have proxy votes, so we shall plough on.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees? I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate, and on all the contributions that have been made. It is an absolute honour to speak on a report that I assisted with, alongside my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), as members of the Education Committee.
Education is particularly important to me. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I spent eight and a half years, before entering this place, as a secondary school teacher. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and the hon. Member for Putney are sick to death of hearing about that. Also, my father benefited as an adult from going through the Open University process, which enabled him to get on the career path that perhaps was not expected for him, avoiding factory work in Trowbridge, and ending up working in accountancy. In fact, he has gone further into teaching.
Adult education is important—particularly for the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. The sad reality is that a recent report by the Office for Students said that my constituency is the seventh worst of 535 English constituencies for people going on to higher education. In 2019 the number of people achieving a level 3 qualification by the age of 19 in Stoke-on-Trent was under 50%, and only three quarters of people achieved a level 2 qualification by that age. That challenge has only got worse, as we are facing a joint mission: getting millions of people back into work, because of the global pandemic, and driving up the skill levels of those who were already being left behind before it arrived. Put simply, there is a more pressing need than ever for people to be able to retrain, reskill and upskill throughout their lives.
One of the big, glaring holes is the fact that employers should be doing much more to train their workers. For a long time the United Kingdom has had a productivity problem, and business has often looked to the Government to come up with initiatives to tackle it. However, it seems to me it could be greatly helped if business would invest properly in its people. As an example, David O’Connor worked his way up from the shop floor and is now the chief executive officer of Churchill China in my constituency, which is a multimillion-pound company. That happened through the company investing in him, and giving him the opportunity to go to Staffordshire University and gain qualifications, so that he is now driving that company from the very top. Ultimately, it is one of the great success stories in my local area; there are so many others that I could rant about today, but I want to make sure that we focus on this.
I do think that the Minister has done some superb work with the FE reform White Paper. It is a real step forward in the right direction, and a real change in attitude towards adult education. I believe that we in this country have fallen into the trap of seeing education as beginning at four and ending at 18. Other countries, such as Germany, have managed to power on ahead. They have got rid of that silly gold standard when it comes to A-levels and said that a vocational, technical qualification is as important as an academic one. This has seen them drive massively forward in many of their vocational qualifications.
The lifetime skills guarantee is something I am very excited by, as many other Members have said. I know that places such as Stoke on Trent College, run by Denise Brown, are extremely excited to take part, and Burslem campus in my constituency is really looking forward to hosting this. However, a conversation with Denise produced a few queries, questions and bits of advice about how we can make this lifetime skills guarantee really work, and I think they would be helpful to the Minister. One concern is that limiting the guarantee to adults who have not yet achieved a full level 3 qualification does not fully address the retraining issue. One way of avoiding the problem would be to offer loan-maxed graduates free retraining courses at levels 3, 4 and 5 in technical subjects.
Also, the qualification list that has been approved for the lifetime skills guarantee is too narrow, in my opinion. Local enterprise partnerships or chambers of commerce could be given the authority to include qualifications that are not on the national list if those qualifications met local or regional labour market demands. At the moment, we have a shortage of lecturers and teachers in higher technical subjects in colleges and other providers. Part of that is because of pay, and because enticing highly skilled technical people to teach in colleges is an uphill battle. As such, Denise Brown wanted me to put to the Minister the idea of a scheme whereby employers loan members of their staff to a college, and the college would pick up maybe 20% of the salary cost. In that way, employers and colleges can work much more closely than ever before and bring the very best of their business into the classroom, ensuring that those young people or adults are ready for the education ahead.
Finally, qualifications at level 3 are often a two-year programme, and this links into issues with the Department for Work and Pensions. If adults are to retrain and get back into the workplace, the level 3 qualification needs to be shorter. Work needs to be done with the awarding organisations to ensure that level 3 qualifications can be achieved as quickly as possible, so accreditation of prior learning needs to be taken into account so that adults follow courses that do not repeat what they already know. Awarding organisations also need to develop shorter qualifications that can be achieved in one academic year. I also put that challenge to the higher education sector. In many cases, a three-year degree can easily be done in two years, and in my personal opinion, that should be the approach that is taken.
We have heard fantastic comments and contributions from Members about the community learning centre in every town, and I fully endorse them. The school building sits there empty for so many weeks and months throughout the year, yet it is one of the biggest community assets. What I sometimes get very scared about with Government is that we look for the easy solution, which is the shiny building. To the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, capital investment projects are nice, but people are so sceptical of these shiny buildings, because four or five years after they have been built, they are inevitably mothballing away and nothing is happening with them. It then costs millions of pounds of local tax payers’ money to repurpose them for the future, or millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money from the Government to turn them into housing or knock them down, creating empty brownfield sites. What we need is revenue funding, investing in people to support them.
I bang on about Hilary Cottam’s “Radical Help”, and I admit to being a late converter. It was Danny Flynn from YMCA North Staffordshire—a proud, self-confessed socialist—who told me to read Hilary. She talks about investing in people by having these community learning centres on our high streets, in our libraries, and in our schools or colleges. In them, we would have people from those communities who understand, empathise with, and can support and guide others from the community. An awful lot of adults feel very let down by the education system of the ’60s, the ’70s, and in some cases the ’80s as well. They feel it was an education system that did not serve them properly, so they are sceptical about what people want to do. If we invest in people to build community relationships and to network within those communities, and if we find ways to tackle other problems, which as childcare, which our report rightly cites—ultimately we can go a lot further. I really believe that if we can find ways to allow parents, particularly single parents, to have free additional childcare if they are taking up a qualification, so that they can do that course to the best of their ability while ensuring their child is also receiving a good education, good healthcare and safeguarding, it will be a big step in the right direction.
Ultimately, education is the biggest leveller that we have in society. If levelling up is really to be achieved, it will be through education. No matter how many things we build or how much money we invest, education is ultimately what will improve social mobility. Stoke-on-Trent is in the bottom fifth of the country for social mobility—a scary statistic that reminds me and the team I work with here in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke of the sheer challenge that we face today.
I took the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow about apprenticeships. As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships, I thought I should put my money where my mouth is, so I am advertising at the moment for my very own apprentice, who will get a level 3 qualification. I have not advertised for an 18 to 20-year-old, or even for an 18 to 25-year-old. I have said that anyone who wants the opportunity should apply regardless of age, because I want to make sure that I am reinvesting in my community and sending a signal out to many small and medium-sized enterprises that if I can do it, they can do it too and give access to earn and learn, which will hopefully drive so many more individuals into higher education. That is the way it will happen. It is about investing in people and showing that we are here to care.
I should discuss SEND provision in this country. An awful lot of adults were not diagnosed with dyslexia, dyspraxia or other learning needs when they were at school. In fact, those assessments were not even prevalent in the school that I went to, and I was privileged to go to Princethorpe College, a private school just outside Leamington Spa. I had school friends who were dyslexic and who were put in the bottom set; they were just assumed to be stupid, but actually that was far from the truth. They were people who needed support and help. We have to invest in making sure that such people have the opportunity to learn and have a support network around them.
The national tutoring programme, which I appreciate is slightly off-topic, is not delivering as it should be. That money could be going into colleges and schools to invest in the type of additional support that is needed, be it online or person-to-person, or more teachers being paid to stay on later in the day, so that they can work with individuals. Ultimately, there are solutions to all these problems.
I am proud to be part of the report. I am proud to see that the Government are taking the first big step, but there is still a long way to go and many challenges ahead. We cannot put up our feet and pat ourselves on the back at this very moment. We have to go full steam ahead and realise that if we are really going to change the mindset of a nation, it has to come from employers, the Government and the general public understanding that education does not end at 18—in fact, it never ends at all.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I call the Opposition spokesperson, Toby Perkins. If the bell goes, can you please continue?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Rees. I thank the Committee for an excellent report, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) not just on the report and on securing the debate, but on his wider commitment to this subject. He is a powerful voice speaking up for the sector, and his speech once again reflected that.
The report produced by the Committee is excellent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) said, it is a bold report that goes further than the Government’s suggestions, and the Committee has made a number of recommendations that really should be investigated more fully. We have heard a lot about how vital skills are. We have heard not only about the ways we have stepped backwards as a country in adult education and lifelong learning over the course of recent years, but about the scale of the challenge, which has been brought into particularly sharp focus by the coronavirus crisis.
I think the sector has welcomed the rhetoric from the Government and the sense that there is a greater focus on further education and skills, but the sector and, indeed, learners will judge the Government by their actions and funding, not by their words. The sector’s experience over the last 11 years is an important piece of context. It has had a decade of funding cuts. Adult education in particular has been savagely cut. As Members referred to, we have recently seen the clawback of adult education funding and the further education sector excluded from the Government’s main post-covid jobs programme—the failing kickstart programme. We have seen an obsession with programmes aimed at major employers, often excluding towns and rural communities, whose economies are based much more on small and medium-sized enterprises and sole traders. The programmes the Government have introduced have lacked scale, ambition and urgency.
The Minister probably did not help with expectation management regarding the White Paper. She regularly promised in the run-up to its publication that we were going to see transformational reforms that would offer the biggest change to the sector in 60 years. While I recognise, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) did, that lasting transformation is very difficult when you only have one-year budgets, the White Paper represents a considerable missed opportunity. My initial response was that it was predominantly lacking in ambition and scale and so would not take the sector far enough down the path required at a moment of such seismic challenge. Furthermore, there are genuine worries that, far from not going far enough in the right direction, there are elements of the White Paper that are actually boldly marching in the wrong direction. I shall expand upon my views to that in a moment.
We have heard really powerful testimony from many hon. Members. I particularly enjoyed what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, that the Government just does not really get further education yet. Whatever their narrative says, successive policy and funding decisions suggest that the Government see further education very much as something that narrowly loads skills that an employer needs into a recipient who goes from unemployed to an employee. Of course, skilling people for specific jobs and careers is a vital function of the further education sector, but further education is about so much more than that. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about what further education and adult education is all about. It is about second chances; it is about alternative learning environments, often for those who did not thrive at school; it is about providing a vehicle that helps local communities, employers, learners and learning institutions to work together.
I sense that this is a White Paper that lacks soul. Further education is not just a service; it is a way of life, a pathway and a staircase. It is transformative, empowering, beautiful, and it changes people’s lives, not just their jobs. That sense of joy and boundless opportunity is entirely missing from the Government’s very narrow approach. Close to where I live, there used to be a college called North Derbyshire Tertiary College. It has long gone now, but it was funded by a penny levy on miners that they paid at the end of their shift on a Friday. Men arriving back at the surface after an exhausting day at the coalface would drop a penny in a tin to help them learn to read and write and to educate their children, so that for the next generation there would be choices other than following their fathers down the pit. It was never about improving their use to their employers; it was about investing in their communities and themselves to widen those opportunities.
It is the Government’s failure to understand that principle that leads them to say stupid things like Unionlearn was of no value, because it mainly worked with people who were already in work. Of course! No one suggested that Unionlearn was the only skills approach the Government needed, but a programme with a great success rate of helping workers to learn skills that will help them get promoted or get a pay rise has real value. People do not need to be out of work to be able to gain value from improving their skills.
The Committee’s report makes some really sensible suggestions. I find very unconvincing the Government’s assurances that many of the issues raised by the Committee are already in hand. For example, we already know that there has been a 50% real-terms reduction in adult education funding under this Government, so the dismissal of the Committee’s suggestion that the spending increase required for adult education should be properly costed is most unconvincing.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about the value of adult learning, but also about how large the real-terms reduction has been. We cannot get away from the importance of that funding, and we know that adult education has seen catastrophic reductions in funding during the past 11 years. The right hon. Member for Harlow referred to well intentioned reforms, and I am sure that in many areas there were well intentioned reforms, but it is impossible to argue that the specific cuts made to adult education were well intentioned. That was a positive decision that the Government made. The Government can address that or choose not to, but they should not pretend that those funding losses are not real or that they have been in any way addressed since the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) became Prime Minister.
I welcome the Committee’s call for funding streams to be consolidated and streamlined. The Government outlined their ambitions to do that, but their approach so far has added barriers and complexities, not reduced them, so there is—I will be generous—widespread scepticism about whether the Government will deliver on their ambitions in that regard. I welcome the lifelong learning entitlement proposal, but given that the lifetime skills guarantee has turned out to be far more limited in scope than expected, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) said, the line
“We will consult on the detail”
is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the Government response to that recommendation.
The Government have huge confidence that their desire to put employers in the driving seat will address Britain’s skills challenges, but the right hon. Member for Harlow was right to say that 39% of employers admit to providing no training whatever, so the idea that employers being in the driving seat will resolve all these challenges is, I think, deeply concerning. Of course employers are crucial stakeholders in this approach and absolutely have to be in the room, but there is considerable doubt as to the extent to which they want or are able to drive the vehicle.
It is a stunning indictment of the Government’s approach to working with businesses that local enterprise partnerships seem to be entirely missing from the White Paper. The report, in recommendation 11, refers to attempts to bring local enterprise partnerships back in, but the Government response does not even mention that recommendation on local enterprise partnerships. Clearly, they are entirely shut out. Chambers of commerce have some brilliant branches and great people and they are capable of excellent practice, but there is a large gap between where those organisations’ current capacity is and their ability to play the kind of role that the Government appear to envisage.
It is telling that 50% of the Government’s adult education budget is devolved to the seven mayoral combined authority areas and London. It is depressing that the Government seem to be doing an about-turn on devolution. The Government’s dismissal of the Committee’s suggestion about devolving the National Careers Service is an example of that. They have no plan for devolution to those areas not in the shadow of a major city, and therefore a very limited plan for addressing the skills approach needed to target town and rural areas. That is particularly damaging because those are the areas most likely to be without the major employers that seem to drive so much of this Government’s approach to skills. Many of us live in towns dominated not by three or four employers of thousands of people, but by thousands of employers of three or four people. They have been widely shut out of the Government’s reforms thus far, and there is nothing in the skills White Paper that goes close to addressing those challenges.
Turning for a moment to the specific challenges that face the Government now, I remain mystified that the Government have failed to take up the apprenticeship wage subsidy idea put forward by Labour, utilising the money that remains unspent in the apprenticeship levy pot to support funding for the first year of new apprenticeships. I would also like the Minister to offer some justification for the ridiculous and damaging decision referred to by the hon. Member for Waveney to claw back adult education funds where providers have provided less than 90% of the contracted amount. For those colleges that do most back-to-work courses or focus particularly on ESOL work, that target is totally unrealistic. It will inevitably fall to colleges to at best cancel pay awards and, in many cases, make redundancies.
I really welcome this report and the contribution that the right hon. Member for Harlow and his Committee continue to make to this incredibly important area, but I think that the Government response to the report shows that there is still a long, long way to go before these challenges are properly tackled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
It is truly a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate. I know he cares very deeply about adult skills, both in his role as Chair of the Education Committee and as a former Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills. I follow in his footsteps to a great degree.
The Government welcome the Education Committee’s report on adult skills and lifelong learning and have responded to all the Committee’s recommendations. I thank all members of the Committee for all the work they do in this area. We may not agree on every detail, but we are all passionate about changing the lives of the people who need skills to get on in life. In our response, we set out what we are going to do to address the challenges presented by covid-19, as well as our longer-term strategy for ensuring that we have the skills that the future economy needs. I want to touch upon these two things today because they are vitally important, as many Members have said.
I agree with what many hon. Members have said. The pandemic has had a huge impact on the lives of many individuals and the topic of adult skills and lifelong learning has never been more important. We know from the 2008 economic downturn that for some people, especially young people and those in low-skilled and low-paid jobs, economic scarring can have a lifelong detrimental effect on future prospects. I reassure the Committee that the Government are acutely aware of that and we are doing everything we can to avoid that. We have learnt the lessons of 2008. The Government have taken some quick action to support those affected by covid-19, but we are always looking to see what we can do to rebuild, to build back better, to recover our economy and so on. Adult skills will be a key part of that.
At the beginning of the pandemic, in April 2020, the Department for Education introduced the skills toolkit. It was there as something that was useful for people to do when we first went into lockdown and on furlough. Providers included the Open University, Google, Amazon, FutureLearn and many others. They are delivering online courses, from practical maths to computer science and coding courses, to help people stay in work or to use the time they had to take up new opportunities. That offer was expanded last September to more than 70 courses. As of February this year, less than a year after it started, there had been an estimated 176,800 course registrations—only one of them was mine—and 33,600 course completions, and one of them was mine, too.
The Chancellor’s plan for jobs is also protecting, supporting and creating jobs across the country. We want to help people across the country, whether they are starting out on their career, thinking of updating their skills or considering changing their career. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) mentioned the challenges in the industrial strategy. “Build Back Better: our plan for growth” contains many of the Government’s plans. There is also the levelling up fund, which has some excellent uses to help level up and ensure that we genuinely build back better.
We have increased our investment in the National Careers Service. We are enabling more careers advisers to provide personalised careers advice for more people whose jobs or learning have been impacted by covid. We have doubled the number of work coaches for those who are going into the jobcentre. We are getting prepared to make sure that we are there to help people, however they access services and whatever help they need.
For those aged 16 to 24 and facing barriers to entering work or an apprenticeship, we are increasing the number of traineeships to give more personalised training, including in English and maths—many hon. Members mentioned additional support required in those areas—and work experience to help people progress. We are investing an additional £126 million in traineeships in the 2021-22 academic year.
Traineeships and pre-apprenticeships provide work-based learning focused on improving a young person’s abilities, including how to look and apply for a job, how to prepare and how to be successful in the workplace. They allow a young person to achieve the level 1 or 2 qualifications they may have missed out on. Digital skills are essential, and they are included, if the person did not do well in those subjects at school. There is also a vocational and occupational element of learning and, if required, qualifications aligned to a sectoral occupation.
The programme includes, vitally, work experience and a placement that lasts anywhere between two and eight weeks. At the end, we hope that all those young people will be offered a job or an apprenticeship. Businesses have a vital role to play, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) said, alongside business representative organisations, colleges, training providers, other local organisations, councils, LEPs and mayoral combined authorities. This is part of the local working together.
In terms of businesses, a lot is happening already. I mentioned traineeships, and Specsavers is a large employer engaged in a traineeship programme as a way of recruiting apprentices. It now has a 100% success rate of progressing young people who have completed a traineeship into an apprenticeship, and we want more of these models. Smaller businesses as well have engaged—Nexus Accountants has supported traineeships—enabling young people to access higher level apprenticeships and nurturing them along the way.
We have sector-based work academies also helping to make sure that we have a sector-based offer for employability training, work experience and so on that lasts up to six weeks. Many Members mentioned essential digital skills. We have updated them and they were available from August last year. On community learning, we have 259 providers in multiple centres across the country, and we have been working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that more unemployed people can take advantage of the lifetime skills guarantee. We are piloting an extension to the length of time that they can receive universal credit while doing work-focused study from later this month. We are delighted about that, because it means that universal credit claimants will now be able to train full time for up to 12 weeks, or 16 weeks if they are on a full-time skills bootcamp in England, while receiving universal credit to support their living costs. This will give them many more options and they will get the opportunity to improve the productivity of the country by using the time to ensure that they get more skills, become more valuable and secure their work future.
Through the national skills fund, we have the potential to deliver opportunities to generations of adults who previously have been left behind. We will do more than nurse things back to health. We will make sure that we invest £2.5 billion—£3 billion including Barnett funding for the devolved Administrations. It is a significant investment and we want to make sure it changes lives.
Available since 1 April, we are fully funding any adult aged 24 and over who wants to achieve their first A-level equivalent qualification. They will be able to access more than 400 valuable courses as part of the lifetime skills guarantee. The free courses for jobs offer is backed by £95 million from the national skills fund in year one, which removes the barrier to training for millions of adults and gives them the chance to get really valuable training. The list is not static. The courses can change. In fact, we have added more courses already, so it is not set in stone. We will adapt as required.
The qualifications on offer are already fantastic. Adults can take them up, boost their career prospects and wages, and help fill the skills gap. For example, from a diploma in engineering technology, they can progress on to roles in maintenance and manufacturing engineering. There is electrical installation, adult care, and all of the areas where we have skills shortages. This is an important part of our offer.
The second part of the lifetime skills guarantee is bootcamps. The first ones started in the west midlands, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, and Liverpool City Region. They are absolutely brilliant. Members should go and see them. I would be happy to go with members of the Committee when we can. There is the School of Code bootcamp. We have heard brilliant stories about changing lives. A print production manager for 15 years was made redundant from his job. He was looking for a change, something different to do, and he said, “The School of Code has truly changed my life. I have the skills and confidence to change careers and do something I truly love.” He has now launched as a junior software engineer at Wyze. There are so many examples: photonics, electronics, electrical engineering. Many companies are involved and we are looking to spread them all across the country.
Many Members have mentioned apprentices and apprenticeships. There are obviously incentives. They are so important and we have 130 level 6 and 7 standards now. I am a huge fan. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said, I am the only degree apprentice in the House. The White Paper is a huge opportunity. Many mentioned flexible modular provision. We will make sure that that is included, and we will simplify funding.
In conclusion, timing is everything, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned. We will now make sure that this does not collect dust on the shelf. The White Paper delivers on that technical revolution—the biggest in 60 years—and we are committed to ensuring that we have a skills system that will offer individuals all they need to be successful in life, and will enable our economy to build back better as a nation.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I thank the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister for speaking on through the bells, which is not easy; I appreciate it. Robert Halfon, would you like a couple of minutes to wind up?
Robert Halfon [V]
Thank you, Ms Rees, and I thank the hon. Members and Friends who have spoken this afternoon. I think the Minister will see that there is significant cross-party unity on this, particularly on issues such as community learning, raised so eloquently by the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis).
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), talked about further education being a way of life, and I absolutely agree with that; I think that is a phrase I will remember and use for a long time to come. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) talked about apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce versus Oxford. My dream is that one day, if somebody says they go to Oxford, people will say, “That’s nice”, but if somebody says they are doing an apprenticeship with Rolls-Royce, everyone will go, “How amazing. How incredible.” I want that to be seen as something very special to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about equality for FE and HE funding, and he was absolutely right to do so. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that we should take down the barriers to learning, which is why I am so supportive of community learning. That point was reiterated, as I have mentioned, by the hon. Member for Putney, who serves on my Committee. She made the point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, that community centres should be in existing buildings: we do not need brand new, shiny buildings in order to do this. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North also spoke about the Open University, which I think is one of the great reforms of the 20th century. No doubt he is here today because of the opportunities that the Open University offered his father, which he spoke about so movingly.
To conclude, the hon. Member for Putney spoke about not putting this report on the shelf. We are a campaigning Committee, so we are not going to put this report on the shelf; we will campaign on these things again and again. I will die with the word “campaigner” emblazed on my grave. I think that the Minister has got the message: we need a giant leap for adult learning, on top of the giant step forward in the White Paper. Community learning is skills, tax credits, and lifelong learning for adults. I think we have a good chance of really transforming the landscape in our country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Education Committee, “A plan for an adult skills and lifelong learning revolution”, HC 278.
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 and 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.
Recognised Auction Platforms (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Recognised Auction Platforms (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the regulations, which were laid before the House on 8 March in draft, be approved. This statutory instrument, laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, makes consequential amendments to financial services law and related matters to provide for the safe and effective operation of the market in UK emission allowances as part of the establishment of a UK Emissions Trading Scheme.
At the end of the transition period, the UK ceased to be part of the EU ETS. As of the start of this year the UK has established its own ETS, which has been designed to ensure a consistent price for carbon. This SI was preceded by legislation laid last year under the Climate Change Act 2008 which legally established the UK ETS. In implementing the UK ETS, the Government have drawn on the best of the EU system, which the UK was instrumental in developing. At the same time, however, we are making improvements where needed to ensure greater flexibility, so that this scheme is properly designed for the UK. The new scheme allows for a smooth transition for businesses while reducing our contribution to carbon emissions from day one. Reducing emissions while supporting UK industry is central to the Government’s mission to deliver our world-leading net-zero target. The UK ETS is key to achieving that target.
Emissions trading schemes work on the cap and trade principle. This is where a cap is set on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by installations and aircraft covered by the scheme. Within the cap, participants receive or buy emission allowances which they can trade with one another as needed. This cap is reduced over time, so that overall carbon emissions fall. Participants are required to monitor their emissions during a calendar year and surrender one emissions allowance for every tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent—CO2e—that they have emitted at the end of each reporting year. Thus the ETS is underpinned by the creation of a market for emission allowances. The auctioning and trading of allowances leads to the discovery of a market price for greenhouse gas emissions and will in turn drive cost-effective emissions reductions across our intensive industries, power generation and aviation sectors.
This statutory instrument amends existing financial services legislation so that it works in the context of the creation of a UK ETS. In doing so, it ensures that the Financial Conduct Authority can oversee the auctioning and trading of emission allowances and ensure the soundness and integrity of the market. This instrument is being introduced now so that it is in force in time for the first auctioning of UK emission allowances in May. In particular, this SI establishes the activity of bidding in an emission allowance auction as a “regulated activity” and establishes UK emission allowances as “financial instruments”. This means that the FCA has oversight of bidding in allowance auctions and ensures that the allowances themselves are subject to the appropriate regulatory treatment with regard to issues such as market abuse. The instrument also amends financial promotion legislation so that the promotion of investments in UK emission allowances can be undertaken only by persons with the correct permissions.
To properly empower the FCA to oversee the regime, the SI updates rules around the disclosure of confidential information so that the FCA can correctly discharge its functions with regard to the disclosure of information relating to the UK ETS and emissions allowance holdings. It ensures that the FCA has the investigation and enforcement powers to fulfil its duties with regard to preventing financial misconduct in the context of the auctioning and trading of emission allowances.
Finally, this SI amends the UK market abuse regulation so that it covers the primary and secondary market trading of UK emission allowances, and the secondary market trading of EU emission allowances where these activities are within the territorial scope of UK MAR.
This instrument will ensure the integrity of the UK carbon emission allowance market to facilitate ETS carbon pricing policy in the UK. This is integral to the Government’s ambitions to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions and, ultimately, achieve our goal of net zero.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very clear introduction. I recognise his expertise—probably more particularly on the financial side rather than the climate change side—and I have several questions which I hope he will be able to answer but, if he is unable to bring to bear the relevant expertise, I am quite happy for him to write to me.
I support these regulations; their intention seems quite unexceptional. The Government have established a domestic emissions trading scheme based on our previous expertise and experience in Europe to replace the EU Emissions Trading Scheme—that is the background to this. On Monday, we were discussing accounting obligations placed on the United Kingdom in relation to the existing scheme—or I should perhaps say, in our case, the previously existing scheme—which will of course go on for some time. Although there are remaining accounting obligations, we have clearly left the EU trading system and are now entering into a new system, although some of the furniture of the scheme is clearly familiar from the previous EU scheme.
The approach of the Government, as exemplified by these regulations, is to pursue a domestic ETS rather than a carbon tax, and I applaud that. I welcome the clear emphasis on decarbonisation and towards renewables at the centre of the Government’s policy, and that they are favourable towards nuclear too. As I say, these regulations are part of our domestic emissions trading scheme and are clearly designed to provide a smooth transition for effective carbon pricing in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend said, quite correctly, that the scope of the UK ETS includes presently energy-intensive industries and the power generation and aviation sectors, as it did previously and as the EU scheme does. There is clearly an attraction in that linkage but some respondents in the consultation that we undertook favoured extending the ETS to other sectors, and the Government have indicated that they are not unfavourable to looking at that some time in the future. For example, the Climate Change Committee has suggested agriculture and land use. Could my noble friend indicate the Government’s willingness to look at an expansion of the scheme, and when that will be? What will inform the discussion and the choice some time in the future? Could he also say whether we will want to talk to—I assume we will—our previous EU partners, our partners in Europe and in other countries, and how we will arrive at that decision? That would be most helpful.
The United Kingdom is committed by law to reducing emissions to net zero by 2050 and the UK ETS is clearly vital in that endeavour. Could my noble friend indicate the level of ambition that the United Kingdom will have in setting the cap for allowances for the UK scheme, as opposed to what our ambition would be if constrained by the European scheme? How will we approach that? Will we be more ambitious and, if so, how much more ambitious than within the EU scheme?
I welcome the structure of the first phase of the UK ETS from 2021 to 2030, which matches the EU ETS phase 4 length. Most consultees similarly welcomed that development. Will my noble friend confirm that it is intended that the United Kingdom’s operational approach—I stress “operational approach”—to the ETS will broadly mirror that of the EU scheme, while not precisely, of course? That seems sensible and is the conclusion that I draw from reading around the scheme, but it would be good to have his say-so and expertise on that.
Lastly, I would welcome confirmation from my noble friend, if he is able to give it, that the United Kingdom intends to be a trail-blazer on this area in general. I do not just mean the ETS. I know that the Prime Minister has great ambition in this area, and we are hosting COP 26, obviously. There is a massive opportunity for the United Kingdom here—not just on COP 26, of course, but looking to the future more widely. I mean not just our doing the right thing internationally, although the United Kingdom rightly prides itself on doing so, but in ensuring that we establish a strong green economy with sustainable jobs and prosperity domestically.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for his contribution to this short debate. While the instrument is not formally labelled as an EU exit document, it nevertheless deals with one of the many issues arising from our withdrawal from the European Union and its various structures and policies. As the Minister outlined, the instrument makes changes to the UK legal provisions to reflect the fact that we are no longer part of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. It then puts in place other provisions linked to the auction platform of the new UK Emissions Trading Scheme ahead of its first use later this year.
For some time, industry has sought certainty over the direction of travel on carbon pricing. It had not been clear whether the UK Government would operate a stand-alone ETS, some form of linked scheme, or an alternative approach such as a carbon tax. The decision to launch a UK ETS may have come later in the day than we would have liked, but it is one that we support. Maintaining the cap and trade principle will be important as we seek to reduce emissions in a manner consistent with meeting the 2050 net-zero target. It was not clear that alternative options such as a carbon tax would offer the same benefits as an ETS. In addition, while I will shortly turn to questions of how the UK’s scheme will work in practice, I can see that it makes sense to retain an approach that relevant companies are familiar with. However, it is regrettable that the regulations are being brought forward only now. The first auctions may not take place until later this year. It surely would have made more sense for the Government to spell out the detail and establish mechanisms further ahead of time. That would have provided greater clarity and certainty to all involved.
Establishing new markets and trading systems is always difficult, especially if you are to achieve early buy-in from companies, which generally require long lead-in times. I am sure that the Minister will be able to cite examples of engagement with business, but I cannot help observing that last-minute policy-making seems to have become one of the hallmarks of this Administration.
The relative size of the UK ETS when compared with the EU scheme raises a variety of questions. Going it alone also introduces an element of risk. Indeed, I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the concerns of the Committee on Climate Change, which pointed out potentially significant challenges in achieving market stability and liquidity.
Why has the UK set the auction reserve price at the level it has, when the EU scheme has seen prices rising sharply in recent months? We acknowledge that the auction reserve price is higher than the level initially proposed and are mindful of the need for it to be set at a level that creates a robust market and ultimately drives down emissions. With that in mind, how will the Government keep the price level under review? What importance, if any, will they place on price fluctuations within other emissions trading schemes around the world? Can the Minister provide an update on whether the UK is looking to link its scheme with others, as suggested in the White Paper published in December? Another consideration is the sectoral coverage of the UK ETS. Do the Government see a case for expanding the number of sectors covered by the scheme and, if so, when can we expect to hear more about it? If a decision were to be made this summer to include agriculture, for example, what kind of timescale would we be looking at for implementation?
I realise that many of these questions are better directed at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so I am happy to wait for an answer in writing. However, in the hope of bringing the focus back to the Treasury, could the Minister comment briefly on the role foreseen for the Financial Conduct Authority? What additional knowledge or resource, if any, does the FCA require to fulfil its new responsibilities? Are the Government confident that this will be in place come the first auction?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their valuable contributions and questions in this short debate, and for their broad support of carbon pricing and this statutory instrument.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked several questions, and I hope to be able to give useful answers. On the timing of the decision to create a UK ETS, it is right that at the moment of leaving the EU and in the transition period we took the time properly to prepare and consider a UK ETS and a carbon tax, given that the chosen mechanism will be crucial to meeting our climate ambitions over the coming decades. There was a full consultation on the structure of the UK ETS; the FCA has already completed a consultation on the rules that it will make, following the legislation being debated today.
On the £22 level of the auction reserve price, I agree with the noble Lord’s desire for a strong carbon price signal. The auction reserve price is not the trading price but a floor price. We need to allow sufficient room in this market for price discovery. The EU system does not have a floor, as we saw when prices were extremely low in the years after the financial crisis. We have cut the UK ETS cap by 5% to start with, and I shall consult on a tighter net-zero consistent cap trajectory this year. We would then expect a steadily reducing cap, visible to all participating businesses, to drive higher prices and so reduce emissions over time.
I note that other emissions trading schemes have experienced price volatility. In years one and two of a UK ETS, the cost containment mechanism will have lower price and time triggers, providing a mechanism by which the UK Government can decide whether to intervene sooner, should very high prices occur. We stand ready to use that mechanism if necessary. The risk of price volatility must be balanced with the risk of policy volatility, whereby excessive market intervention would erode policy certainty for businesses. We remain open to linking internationally, but have not made a decision on preferred linking partners. Clearly, ahead of agreeing any link, we will need to consider whether it is in our interests.
The Government said in the energy White Paper that we would explore expanding the UK ETS into the two-thirds of emissions currently uncovered by the scheme. We will set out any plans resulting from this, including on implementation, in advance of COP 26 —which, as the noble Lord will know, is quite soon.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about the role of the FCA. I can assure him that the FCA does not require any additional knowledge or resource to fulfil its new responsibilities. The FCA will continue to oversee the UK ETS in much the same way it oversaw the market for EU emission allowances in the UK when the UK was part of the EU scheme.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked about the scope of the ETS. As set out in the energy White Paper, we will consider expanding it, as I mentioned. We have initially cut the cap by 5% compared to the equivalent for the UK within the EU ETS. We have committed to introducing a net-zero-consistent cap trajectory and will consult on this later in the year. On the operation of a UK ETS, I can say that the environmental regulators of the four nations of the UK work in close collaboration with the UK Government and devolved Administrations as part of one UK ETS authority. I am happy to write to set out an answer in more detail on that specific question.
My noble friend is right that we want to blaze a trail on decarbonisation. To drive forward progress towards net zero, last year the Prime Minister announced his 10-point plan, which is also part of our mission to level up across the country and will mobilise £12 billion of government investment to create support for up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs in the UK and spur more than three times as much private sector investment by 2030. At the centre of his blueprint are the UK’s industrial heartlands, including the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the West Midlands, Scotland and Wales, which will drive forward the green industrial revolution and build green jobs and industries for the future. This will build on our already impressive progress to date, which has seen the UK decarbonise its economy faster than anyone else in the G20 since 2000, including France and Germany.
This statutory instrument, laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, will make amendments to financial services law to provide for the safe and effective operation of the market in UK emission allowances as part of the UK ETS. The ETS will drive cost-effective emissions reductions across our intensive industries and power generation and aviation sectors. As such, this legislation will ensure that the UK has a domestic carbon pricing policy that is fit for the net-zero future that we have led the world in committing to. Launching the UK ETS has allowed us the autonomy to pursue our climate goals in the way that works best for the UK. In some areas, we have already taken the opportunity to make the system work better, such as the immediate reduction in the overall size of the pool.
This instrument will ensure the integrity of the market that will underpin our carbon pricing goals and is vital in ensuring that the ETS can function as planned. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3 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 resume. 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. The time limit for this debate is one hour.
Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Wine) (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Wine) (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument concerns protection of geographical indications in Great Britain. GIs are a form of intellectual property protection for the names of food, drink and agricultural products with qualities attributable to the place they are produced or the traditional methods by which they are made. Wider examples include Scotch whisky, Welsh lamb and Melton Mowbray pork pies. This instrument concerns only wines such as an English regional wine, iconic products such as champagne and Rioja, and corresponding traditional terms: for example, grand cru or sparkling. It contains a necessary amendment to the retained EU regulation which provides the legal basis for the wine geographical indication scheme.
The amendment made by this short and technical instrument corrects an error in the original legislation, identified since the end of the transition period. I express my considerable apology and regret for this. Clearly, one seeks to have all legislation in the perfect form. I can report that this error was identified within the department. We immediately sought to remedy it, hence this instrument has used the “made affirmative” procedure. It ensures that the proper registration and protection of GIs and traditional terms in Great Britain continues and that the UK maintains compliance with its international agreements.
This SI does not make any wider policy changes. It corrects article 107 of retained EU regulation 1308/2013, concerning protected wine names and traditional terms. Three separate exit instruments provided for amendments in relation to this article, but in the process an inadvertent revocation was made of the text that was intended to be in place. This instrument puts the intended provision in place, ensuring that all established wine GIs and traditional terms are fully protected and legitimately appear on a public register of wines and traditional terms. “Established” means those names that were protected under the relevant EU schemes on the last day of the transition period. This in turn ensures that the UK Government fully comply with their GI commitments under the EU withdrawal agreement, and the WTO’s TRIPS obligations—the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement.
As well as making a direct amendment to a retained EU regulation, the instrument includes a corresponding revocation of domestic secondary legislation. The provision revoked is Regulation 6(3) of SI 2020/1452, one of the previous exit instruments I mentioned. As the provision has been rendered ineffective, it is being removed for clarity.
Since this instrument entered into force on 10 March 2021, the relevant entries in our public GI registers have been updated to show the date of registration as 10 March, rather than 31 December 2020. This change has been made to just over 2,000 records; seven of these are UK names, the rest are predominantly from EU countries. We have engaged with the Food Standards Agency and the network of trading standards authorities, who have confirmed that they are not aware of any wine GI infringements during this period.
We have also engaged with the European Commission and have provided reassurance that we are not aware of any breaches with respect to the affected product names given our checks with the responsible bodies. Furthermore, we have confirmed with the Intellectual Property Office that there have not been any conflicts with trademark applications during the period in question. We have also engaged with the two main UK wine trade bodies, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and WineGB, and with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. All were appreciative of the quick efforts we had taken to rectify the error and our engagement with them; they reported no knowledge of any breaches to affected product names. I reassure your Lordships that all product names under the three other GI schemes have not been affected, including spirit drinks and agri- foods, nor are wine GIs and traditional terms which are protected domestically through other international agreements.
As I have outlined, the regulations in this instrument are essential to ensure that the UK and EU wine GIs and traditional terms are appropriately protected in Great Britain, and that we comply with our important international obligations. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, viticulture is one of our great prospects in this country. In the two years leading up to lockdown there was a 35% increase in the number of people employed by the sector. More of our acreage is given over now to the commercial growing of wine than at any time certainly since the dissolution of the monasteries and possibly ever. Wine producers are making a calculated gamble on a warming of temperature in this region. Not only is a lot of Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire growing as a wine-producing area, but traditional champagne houses are buying up land because they too are able to see the way in which temperature is moving.
As my noble friend the Minister says, this SI deals in effect with an oversight that in itself is a minor issue. What is not a minor issue is the question of geographical indications and how to get them right. One of my neighbours in Hampshire produces an outstanding English sparkling wine—I say outstanding because it wins every blind tasting and is the only foreign sparkling wine served at the George V in Paris; not the only English wine, the only foreign wine—yet he has to get a name for it, a recognised brand, that will allow him to charge what it is intrinsically worth abroad.
We need to be aware of treading the line between consumer protection and accurate information for customers and, if you like, barriers to entry. These classification schemes are often set up deliberately to be a racket. They sometimes have rather amusing anomalies; for example, Stilton cheese can be produced in half a dozen places in the East Midlands, none of which is actually Stilton. It is not in the area allowed to produce that cheese and has to call it something else. Sometimes they are very obviously a racket. The most outstanding example within the wine trade is of course the 1855 Bordeaux classifications, from which you cannot move down. We need a response that is flexible, guards against producer capture and rewards innovation and start-ups.
My noble friend the Minister mentioned the trade bodies. WineGB’s chief executive, Simon Robinson, has a nice phrase, saying that our producers will be
“the New World in the Old World”,
by which he means that we will replicate the innovative, experimental approach of new world producers, who of course are much less tied to the concept of the appellation contrôlée than the European Union and continental wine producers are.
I hope that the Government will take on board what the industry is calling for, which is that, as we repatriate control, we should not simply replicate EU rules on geographical designations. We should have a UK regime, but it should be very light-touch. What is it that the prayer book says of marriage? We should approach it “reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly”—if “soberly” is the right word to use when talking about the wine industry.
I finish on a light note. Did noble Lords know that it can only be called “repartee” if it is said in the Repartée region of France, otherwise it is just sparkling wit?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it has taken me a while to come to terms with the reality that my noble friend the Minister has taken responsibility for an error in his department—a very rare occasion indeed—but his outstanding speech and excellent explanation of the GIs completely carried the Committee. We fully appreciate the way he has come back to us to give us the background.
I had the privilege of serving on the European Union Committee’s sub-committee in 2007 that undertook a detailed analysis of European wine, entitled A Better Deal for All. I had the great privilege of working with Lord Plumb at the time. I stand by all the committee’s recommendations, many of which are still relevant in the context of a post-Brexit UK, but possibly more relevant to the bureaucrats in Brussels. I am also a long-standing unpaid member of the Haberdashers’ Company’s wine committee.
These are simple and straightforward regulations and, as my noble friend the Minister said, they clarify a technical error, which is welcome. However, my noble friend’s presence at the Dispatch Box on this subject provides the Grand Committee with an opportunity to hear about a key issue during the current round of trade negotiations with wine-producing countries, being ably led by the Secretary of State, Liz Truss, who is doing excellent working securing future arrangements between the UK and a number of countries producing new world wine.
The issue in this context that should concern your Lordships is the future regime for wine import certificates, first in the context of the EU and separately in the context of all wine-producing countries with which we trade. Now that we have left the EU, I can see no national interest in nor justification for the retention of wine import certificates. Freed from unnecessary bureaucracy, the retention of these forms is a cost on the Exchequer and on the industry. In fact, they are no use, so much so that my noble friend the Minister would find it difficult—I would go as far as to say impossible—to name any other bottle of potable alcohol from vodka to rum that requires them. All are well served by standard customs paperwork.
Yet the retention of wine import certificates, which is exclusively a decision for government and Parliament, is to place an onerous and costly process on those merchants and buyers—the restaurants, pubs and bars—that buy a wide selection of wines as their unique selling point and which now have to face the bureaucratic process of obtaining a physical stamp for wine imported, which has no safety benefits and above all no consumer protection advantages. After all, if there were any consumer protection gains, we would have them for imports of every other bottle of alcohol.
With safety and authenticity being guaranteed by the importer, I am a loss to understand why the Government are looking to retain these import certificates. After all, one significant advantage of Brexit consistently argued by the Government with which I was in complete agreement was to ensure a substantial reduction in unnecessary red tape, freeing Parliament to promote freer trade and erasing unnecessary bureaucracy.
I ask my noble friend the Minister just one simple question: why does he of all people—bright, questioning and perceptive as he always is—want to keep VI-1s? What is their benefit? Can it possibly be greater than the bureaucratic costs and processes that they cause? These forms require a physical customs stamp on entry into the UK, duplicating everything that is necessary in normal commercial documentation. They do not address the historical challenge of counterfeited wine since, should there be another Australian scandal, that would not be discoverable on the face of the certificate. Counterfeited wine would be stamped at the customs point, so I cannot see how possible issues of fraud are in any way covered by these certificates.
Possibly this bureaucracy is to be retained to protect English producers, but surely my noble friend the Minister and the Committee would not conceive of resorting to red tape to protect our outstanding English producers, who can succeed on merit and quality even if they currently produce less than half a percent of total wine consumption in the UK. So what do the Government see as the benefit of VI-1s?
A simplified version of the form is good for the European Union, but the answer to that challenge is to welcome the deferred date for the EU introduction, which is now the end of the year, and use that time to introduce digital forms, moving with pace from the CHIEF to the CDS system. That is the least bad outcome with Brussels and is surely acceptable to everybody in the industry. However, importing to the EU is, of course, different from the rest of the world, where surely there is no need for these forms at all. After all, most of the wine imported from Australia is in bulk. While there may be 10,000 or more suppliers in the EU supplying major retailers in the UK, only a handful export from Australia, and the majority do so in bulk.
What can it possibly be that would make the exceptionally popular and able Liz Truss so unpopular in bars and restaurants the length and breadth of the UK, not to mention the dent in popularity of my noble friend the Minister when the Bishops’ Bar reopens? The only answer I can come up with is that this is a pawn in an otherwise much larger series of trade negotiations. If so, the Minister will understandably have little to say, particularly in answer to my only question of what is the value of a VI-1 certificate. If that is the case, I totally understand and would not wish to weaken the Government’s negotiating position in the trade negotiations under way this year. If I am wrong, then I hope this House will return to the subject in due course and be united in seeking to end this unnecessary and costly bureaucracy—costly to the Government, to the wine industry in the UK and, above all, to the consumers, who will pay the price for the bureaucracy we hoped we had left behind on 31 January 2020.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who, with eloquence and guile, has taken many of my points: I feel none the worse for being a shadow and an echo of much of what he said. Before that though, I welcome these regulations, straightforward but important and correcting, as my noble friend the Minister said, an error as we transpose legislation as a result of the end of the transition period. I shall focus, very much as my noble friend Lord Moynihan did, on the VI-1 forms.
In no sense do I wish to pre-empt the Minister, but I believe that my noble friend Lord Moynihan very effectively answered his own question: there is no purpose or point to VI-1 forms. Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at the Reducing Friction in International Trade paper that I alerted him to in the autumn of last year? That concerns a digital solution to this problem, a proof of concept for Australia-to-UK wine imports, not just about customs documentation but about all documentation, linking the digital, the legal, the physical, the health and safety and the viniculture all together through various new technologies, not least distributed ledger technologies, IoT and several other elements. What the proof of concept demonstrated was that we can today, if we so choose, have a real-time, effective digital solution to this issue; yes, with EU-UK trade; yes, with all trade.
It may be worth noting that we are not just an importer of fine wine from continental Europe; we have a stunning importer/exporter wine industry at all levels and at all sections of the wine industry. It is a less well-known but fabulous part of the British economy. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Hannan correctly identified, we have a growing range of fabulous wine producers, not least across the south coast of England, which is set in only one direction, and that is positive and set for growth. Does the Minister agree that we can work together and bring in a digital solution which would be far more effective than just taking into digital means the unnecessary details currently stored on VI-1 bits of paper? Until then, does he agree that not just until 31 December this year, but well beyond, to eternity, we should not have VI-1 forms in our trade with the EU or the world? They have no purpose; they merely leave UK drinkers with an acrid aftertaste in their mouth. If the forms come back, they will leave drinkers having to swallow increased prices and reduced choice. I know that my noble friend the Minister cannot want that. I very much look forward to his response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for agreeing to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, yesterday to discuss this SI, which as he says is a simple one that corrects a technical omission. I thank him for his gracious mea culpa at the beginning; we all make mistakes, but it is important to acknowledge them. As Peers are always busy dealing with SIs, the fewer we have of them in future, the better.
I do not think that the omission does anything to suggest that the Government are not serious in how they treat the issue of GI schemes. I believe that they understand their value, to both consumers and the trade, in delivering benefits to both. I would like the Minister to commend the staff for spotting this error. I think there was a nine-week period during which these regulations could have been exploited so, as I say, they should be commended. During that time, there was no protection for the investment made by companies that have invested in these high-quality products. As other noble Lords have said, those are mainly from Europe, with brands such as champagne and rioja but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, says there is a growing number of English sparkling wines, which we should be and are proud of—not just in Hampshire, I would like to say, but in the neighbouring county of Surrey, where I live.
I have no wish to prolong the debate, but I ask the Minister one question. When we last debated this matter, a number of noble Lords outlined the concerns that they had around the problems that people were having in importing wine from European countries. Can the Minister update us on the situation vis-à-vis imports of European wine into the UK, given that half of all the wine that we import into this country comes from the European Union? Therefore, a problem with the amounts of importing from Europe would be a significant blow to those who enjoy drinking those products.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
I also start by thanking the Minister for his very helpful meeting with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and for his openness about what has happened and the situation that has arisen. Clearly, as the Minister said, this is a very short instrument because its sole purpose is to reinstate a previously implemented operability amendment to geographical indicators that was inadvertently revoked by another Defra SI. This error has meant that the version of the EU regulation on the statute book following the transition period was technically incorrect, but we thank the Minister and his staff for their explanations yesterday that the impact has been minimal.
As we have already considered this instrument in Committee, and other noble Lords have discussed the wider implications, I also intend to keep my remarks brief. I was pleased to hear in the Minister’s opening remarks that he and his department have discussed the situation with both—[Inaudible]—and the devolved Administrations. I draw attention to the fact that, during consideration of previous Defra EU exit SIs, we have raised concerns around the possibility of drafting errors and potential for mistakes if Defra continues to favour multiple and sometimes overlapping instruments over one or two larger consolidating texts.
If we turn to Paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum,
“What is being done and why?”
we can see that our concerns have come to fruition in this case. I understand that it is often more complicated when we have so many different pieces of legislation that need to be updated, changed or brought into UK law following our departure from the EU, but it is concerning that mistakes such as this have been able to be made due to the complexity of the many different small pieces of legislation that are being passed.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in giving thanks to the member of staff who spotted this error, as it was extremely fortunate that it was picked up at this early stage. But I hope that the Minister will be able to explain how such an error came to be made. Is the department aware of any similar issues that have arisen in other areas? If so, how many have happened, and are relevant corrections being made? Has the department reviewed how it checks the drafting of often very complex and detailed legislation? We all need to have confidence in government legislation and confusion and avoidable errors are simply not acceptable. I thank the Minister again for his sincere apologies that such a mistake has happened and ask for his reassurance that there will not be any such confusion and reoccurrence in the future.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very constructive debate. It is clearly essential that we have the right legislation in place for the effective operation of the UK’s wine GI scheme, with appropriate product name protections visibly in place.
I enjoyed my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere’s absolute endorsement of viticulture in this country, and if I could trade some counties with my him and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in Suffolk we have some excellent wine production as well. Clearly, the champagne houses are not only buying land in Kent because of climate change but also because the soil structure is very similar to that obviously famous part of France—and that is why there is this commitment. The export of English and Welsh wines, in particular, around the world is an area of expansion and growth, and I am pleased that my noble friend mentioned innovation start-ups, which are really important.
I reiterate to both noble Baronesses my regret that the error has happened, but I would also like to remark upon their thoughtfulness in raising the matter of the official, whom I am not allowed to name, who detected this error. I am very grateful for their generosity. I am aware—as we all are, because we are all engaged in this—of the significant pressures on both policy and legal teams with regard to the SI programme. This was particularly the case in the run-up to the end of the transition. That is why, to pick up the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, we will continue to review and improve our processes in respect of legal and policy checks and clearances of legislation. This will include a consideration as to whether there is enough resource in place. I regret every error; the perfect form is something we strive for, but sometimes these things happen. I will always be up front when they do, but we obviously need to do everything we can to stop these issues manifesting themselves.
My noble friends raised the issue of VI-1s, which already exist for wine imports from other origins, such as Australia, the United States and Chile. These wines remain extremely competitive in our, and, indeed, the EU’s, marketplace. We believe the new self-certification requirement to be appropriate and affordable.
I also say to my noble friends, particularly my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Holmes of Richmond, that leaving the EU of course gives us the opportunity to consider and review changes in policy to suit the needs of British people and our businesses. We will continue to monitor all areas of retained EU law, including those concerning wine certification, to ensure that they are fit for purpose. I remember my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond raising the electronic transmission of wine certification strongly in debate on the Agriculture Bill. It is possible to transmit by those means and we will consider all aspects of VI-1 processes and their transmission. Our immediate attention has been focused on whether VI-1s serve a practical and useful purpose in today’s global wine trade. However, I remember the document and officials are considering this area.
A number of points were also made about the whole scenario of the wine world, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The first thing to say is that the United Kingdom is one of the most important global wine-trading nations. The UK is second only to the United States of America in the value of imports. She also raised the point that there were issues, which we have all identified, post the end of the transition with imports and arrival. My understanding is that these matters are improving all the time, as paperwork becomes better understood. A lot of attention has been paid to this and it is improving. It was interesting that imports from France and Italy were down by 10% in 2020, compared to 2019, but imports from Spain were up by 10%. Those are the three countries which have a significant supply issue.
I certainly want to take up the opportunities that my noble friends have raised for exports of our excellent English and Welsh wines. I should also say that we have recently extended the easement where any wines arriving from the EU will not need to have associated wine certification to 1 January 2022. This will provide time for the sector to adjust to the new trading arrangements, including those set out under the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
I agree that there have been these initial problems with exports to certain EU member states. We have a considerable interest in wine exports to the EU, of course, which total about £400 million per annum. This is largely made up of re-exports of imported wine from countries such as Australia, Chile and the United States, and fine wines from all around the world. Those problems are very important not only for our own domestic wine but obviously for this significant re-exporting, which is a key feature and part of the employment aspects of this sector.
We have been working hard with the companies concerned in this area and with their agents, our diplomatic network and member states to resolve the immediate issues, and what can be done to ensure these problems do not reoccur for future shipments. I cannot promise that we are in the perfect form on these matters as yet. What I know is that, across the piece, as exports have been building up since 1 January, these issues have been resolved and trade is starting to re-energise itself—not only because of coronavirus but because of the work we are doing in this sector.
With those comments and, if I may say so, a general endorsement of the opportunities for domestic wine consumption and exports, I recommend that the Committee agrees to these regulations so that we can rectify an error which, thank goodness, was identified by an excellent official. There was no issue with any goods and, from the work we have done, we are clear that there was no issue of any difficulty during those nine weeks. We would of course not have wanted that to arise. I will look at Hansard in case there are some points that I may not have covered, but with those remarks I commend the instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.05 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 resume. 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 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.
Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument extends the current regime of charging for plant health import checks to apply to checks carried out on consignments from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This is in line with the standard approach that the full cost of service delivery be recovered from businesses using plant health services.
It is our responsibility to protect biosecurity across plant and animal health, and the wider ecosystem. To that end, plant health checks—documentary, identity and physical—are carried out on regulated consignments imported into England from non-EU countries which may carry pests or diseases that could pose a risk to our biosecurity. Currently, the highest-risk commodities are subject to 100% documentary, identity and physical checks. The level of identity and physical checks on other commodities is based on risk.
During our membership of the EU, plants and plant products were able to enter the UK from EU member states without the need for any import checks. However, inspections carried out as part of Defra surveillance programmes have identified instances where EU consignments have contained plant pests or diseases that could pose a threat to UK biosecurity.
To address that threat, and in line with retained law, from 1 January 2021 the existing regime of plant health checks is being extended to consignments of regulated plants, plant products and other objects imported from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Under the agreed phased approach, which allows businesses time to adjust to the new arrangements, higher-risk goods, such as plants for planting, have been subject to documentary, identity and physical checks from January. This has already resulted in a number of interceptions of consignments with pests and diseases, allowing appropriate statutory action to be taken. Documentary checks on other, lower-risk regulated plants, plant products and other objects will commence on 1 January 2022, with identity and physical checks applied from March 2022.
It is UK government policy to charge for many publicly provided goods and services. The standard approach is to set fees to recover the full costs of service delivery. This relieves the general taxpayer of costs, so that they are properly borne by users who benefit from a service. This allows for a more equitable distribution of public resources and enables lower public expenditure and borrowing. Charging for plant health services is consistent with the principle that businesses using these services should bear the costs of any measures to prevent harm that they might otherwise cause by their actions or inactions, since most serious plant pests and diseases that arrive and spread in this country do so via commercial trade in plants and plant produce.
Fees are applied for checks under the Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) Regulations 2018. For lower-risk consignments eligible for reduced levels of physical checks, a proportionally reduced fee is applied to every imported consignment. This SI amends the 2018 regulations. It extends charging for plant health checks to also apply to checks carried out on consignments from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. In addition to ensuring equity with those importing from non-EU countries, it also reflects that exports into the EU are subject to chargeable import checks, so there is a degree of reciprocity.
We have worked closely with individual operators and industry bodies, including the Horticultural Trades Association, Fresh Produce Consortium and the National Farmers’ Union on developing our approach to dealing with imports from the EU. To give businesses time to adjust to the new arrangements, the fees for documentary, identity and physical checks on the higher-risk goods, and for documentary checks on other goods, will not be applied until June 2021, despite checks being undertaken since 1 January. Fees for identity and physical checks on the remaining regulated goods from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein will be applied from March 2022.
Under the 2018 regulations, there is a single combined fee for a documentary and identity check, reflecting the fact that both those checks were previously carried out at 100% on all consignments. From 1 January the frequency of the identity check is linked to that of the physical check as both checks are carried out at the same time. So any reduction in the level of physical inspection will also apply to the identity check. This instrument therefore provides for a separate fee for documentary and identity checks for all consignments. This SI does not make any other changes to existing fees for checks on consignments imported from non-EU countries, other than Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
This SI applies to England only. The vast majority of consignments entering GB from the EU do so via England. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are following the same phased approach in terms of the timetable for inspecting EU consignments and applying fees to recover the cost of those inspections.
This instrument is necessary because it provides for fees to be charged for plant health checks on commodities imported from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, thereby providing consistency with imports from the rest of the world, where fees already apply. I beg to move.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of the draft plant health regulations, which, as my noble friend alluded to, come into force on 1 June 2021 in England, together with similar provisions to be introduced in Scotland and Wales. However, it is important to note that charges are to be phased in for businesses with plant health checks from 1 January 2021. Higher-risk goods will be subject to documentary, identity and physical checks from January 2021, but for other regulated plants and plant products they will be phased through 2021-22, supporting the importance of uninterrupted business trade flow.
As well as applying legislation equally across businesses, whether large or small, the risk is relevant to whatever size of business to clearly demonstrate the importance of biosecurity, which must not be put in jeopardy at any cost. We must note accordingly that assurances are being kept, with the same arrangements post Brexit, again stressing the absolute necessity of seeking at all times to maintain the same high levels of plant health biosecurity, which is vital to ensuring that public health and the environment are fully protected 24/7.
Where consignments are authorised for identity and physical checks there are assurances for all inspectors, who are allocated strong systems for safe working, handling and inspection, with adequate light sources, the ability to fumigate gas testing and, of course, access to toilets and handwashing facilities. This all aligns with safe working practices.
This instrument provides for reasonable action coupled with cost recovery, so it is fair in outcome and maintained in line with existing fees, characterised into the following three principles: maintaining current high levels of plant health, preserving the flow of trade, and minimising any future impacts on businesses, whether large or small. I support the regulations.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. I have some questions for him regarding the operational nature of the regulations and the cost implications.
I fully concur with the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, that plant health and biosecurity are vital, irrespective of our constitutional position and Brexit. I note that the regulations will be phased in alongside other requirements, such as the requirement for importers to have a phytosanitary certificate. What is the timeframe for that phasing-in? Have assessments taken place regarding the operational nature of the regulations during this phasing-in period and, if so, what has been the result of such assessments?
I understand that only high priority plants and products from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein will be subject to these new requirements initially. I was going to ask the Minister what high priority plants are, but he has already told us that they are plants for planting. Are these all types or plants, or specific plants? How are they defined and will only these categories be subject to the new requirements?
With these regulations, the Government will be enabled to charge fees for plant health checks on imports from the aforementioned countries into England. Has charging already taken place in the intervening period, or will it happen only from 1 June 2021 in relation to the new factor of the post-transition period? What will be the actual cost to businesses and importers, and will there be any financial assistance from central government to mitigate the costs?
I, like other noble Lords, have been contacted by the Agricultural Industries Confederation, which stresses that the new non-tariff barriers and fees will have consequences. It asserts that the ongoing effects of both of these will continue to impact the seed industry, and could reduce choice for growers and increase the cost to consumers. As the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement continues, the AIC urges the UK and EU to work together to balance the priorities of removing non-tariff barriers where possible, while minimising biosecurity and plant health risks. What reassurances can the Minister give in this regard? What will be the impact on importers? Has there been any assessment of how they will bear those costs, particularly during the pandemic period?
These regulations do not apply to Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland will be covered by the protocol. But, as an aside to this particular issue, can the Minister provide any update that allows for easier ways to implement phytosanitary veterinary checks with respect to Northern Ireland? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is meeting his EU counterpart today.
An issue that was raised by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was the lack of an impact assessment. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the reasons for that. The committee was concerned about the potential impact of new additional costs on businesses and importers, and why this had not been considered worthy of assessment. The committee again raised the issue of costs.
These are some of the issues that I wanted to raise, but I believe and strongly contend that plant health and biosecurity are vital to the local agricultural and horticultural industry.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who was such an effective and distinguished member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place. I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing the regulations before us today and being so clear about how they will apply. I assume that this is a direct consequence of our leaving the European Union, as we are now being treated as a third country.
I am also grateful to the Agricultural Industries Confederation for its briefing and I have a number of questions—harmless, friendly questions, I hope—for my noble friend in this regard. How does the department expect to work with EU counterparts, both through the European Union and directly with member states, to balance the priorities of removing non-tariff barriers going forward, wherever possible, while minimising biosecurity and plant health risks? I entirely endorse the basis that he set out as to why the regulations are required.
As this is a new regulation, and following the concerns raised in the 50th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, why did the department decide not to conduct an impact assessment in this case? I am led to believe by the Agricultural Industries Confederation, a trade association representing a UK agrisupply industry that has a farm-gate value of more than £8 billion, that most of the seeds, presumably for agricultural purposes, actually come from the European Union. So the fees to which my noble friend referred, some applying from June this year and some from March next year, will apply for the first time, as they have not been importing in any great measure from the rest of the world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked, does my noble friend have a ballpark figure as to what the size of the fees, the scale and percentage of the fees on their costs, will be?
I notice that the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states that there was a consultation with the relevant trade bodies, including the National Farmers’ Union, the Horticultural Trades Association and the Fresh Produce Consortium. Was the Agricultural Industries Confederation consulted as part of the preparation for the regulations before us today?
I thank my noble friend and the department for delaying the introduction of the fees, in particular those on imports from the EU, because that indicates that my noble friend and the Government are aware that there will be an impact on the agricultural businesses concerned. I ask those few questions about how wide the consultation was and about the reasons for not undertaking an impact assessment. There is, in fact, quite a major change in that most of the seeds, as I indicated, are imported from the EU and so will not previously have incurred a fee, as not many seeds were imported from the rest of the world. How will my noble friend and his department seek to remove and minimise other potential non-tariff barriers wherever possible?
I also ask, from a personal interest, whether FERA, which was in my constituency for the last five years I was in the other place, has done any work on the consignments that have been identified as having a potential issue. I am full of admiration for the work it does. I realise that its status has changed and that it does some private sector work as well, but it would be good to know that it is still assisting the Government in this regard. With those few remarks, I bid the regulations well.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by Defra to amend existing regulations relating to fees for inspections of plant and plant produce imported into the UK from non-EU countries to reflect changes in inspection levels and corresponding fees according to risk profiles. EU law would continue to apply during any implementation period. Therefore, we are amending certain import inspection fees to give effect to changes at EU level.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like a reassurance from the Minister that the challenges that plant growers in the EU and the UK have faced in importing and exporting with the new inspection regime are being addressed by this Government. The matter of the condition of plants is not new to me, as it must be some 40 or perhaps even nearer to 50 years ago that I imported camellias from Australia, my homeland. We had to have a phytosanitary certificate, all soil had to be washed from them and I had to go to the airport and pick them up instantly. As far as I know, they are still going, because I have taken a cutting from each one every time I have moved house. A man with a beautiful collection at a stately home here also took cuttings from those plants.
I understand that the RHS has reported that there are continuing problems with the movement of plants between Europe and the UK, with some even suspending trade with the UK due to the imposition of the new inspection regime. Amateur Gardening has even stopped attaching free seed packets on its magazines heading over the Irish Sea, as it would cost £1 million in the necessary health checks and certification. In addition, there is growing concern in the industry about the restriction in the choice of more specialist plants, due to the additional complexity and cost of the new certification and inspection regime. An unintended consequence of this is that some of these plants die before the order reaches these shores, despite the hefty inspection fee proposed by the regulations.
Can the Minister look at what can be done to make the process easier and quicker while also trying to keep down costs, which are ultimately passed on to the consumer in higher costs and may lead to much less choice now and in future?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for their time in providing a briefing yesterday morning, and for his introduction this afternoon. This is a fairly straightforward SI, which attempts to level up the playing field around importation of plant and plant products into the UK from across a wide spectrum of countries. It uses the same fee-charging basis to countries inside the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, as currently applies to the rest of the world. As I understand it the fees may change slightly, but the methodology of calculating the fees will remain the same across GB and be based on the full recovery cost.
The fees in the schedules are extensive, ranging from £205 down to £6.40 for some seeds, per consignment. Yesterday morning, after the briefing with the Minister, I attended the launch of the Woodland Trust’s report, State of the UK’s Woods and Trees 2021. This provided some very stark detail about the state of our ancient woodlands and the wildlife that currently lives in them. Only 7% of our woodlands are in good condition, a devastating statistic given the role of woodlands in carbon stores and carbon sequestration. Many of our native trees have been lost through the importation of pests and diseases carried on imported plants and plant products.
Although woodland cover has increased, woodland biodiversity has decreased. Bird numbers are down by 29% since 1970, butterflies by 41% since 1990, and plants by 18% since 2015. Since 1990, 19 pests and diseases have been introduced into the country, threatening our biodiversity, compared with only four prior to 1990. The certification of trees, plants and plant products that come into the country is essential. Ash dieback arrived with us from the Netherlands. Xylella is also an extremely dangerous disease, which we must ensure we keep under control and prevent further importation, especially of oak saplings.
The gradual introduction of fees for health checks is to be welcomed to enable businesses to plan ahead and prosper. However, the various dates are confusing. The checks for high-risk products began on 1 January. This includes 1,200 entries on the plant risk register, including tree species. Lower-risk plant checking will begin in June 2021. However, fees will not be implemented until March 2022. I am slightly less concerned about low-risk plants, but I am very concerned about high-risk plants and trees.
At paragraph 3.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum there is mention of the devolved Administrations, and paragraph 7.7 indicates:
“Similar changes are to be introduced by the Scottish and Welsh governments.”
Can the Minister tell us whether the devolved Administrations have similarly been checking high-risk plant products since January or whether they are lagging behind? If no checks are currently taking place, a product could enter the country via Scotland or Wales without checking and then be transported into England, especially if the fees being charged are cheaper in the devolved Administrations than those being administered in England. I understand that some imports come through the island of Ireland and then into Wales. There is a possibility of some checking being avoided. Can the Minister provide reassurance?
I am concerned about the impact of costs to horticulture and other businesses of these additional fees. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised this as well. Although no fees will be applied until March 2022, the fees will be refreshed in October 2022, with an assessment being made of the full-cost recovery figures. At this stage there could be an uplift, which the importers, especially of seeds, might not be expecting. This could be excessive for them. Can the Minister comment on this?
This is a vital piece of legislation that should ensure the protection of our native-grown plants and trees. It should be rigorously enforced, and I fully support it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for the very useful meeting that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, had with him yesterday, and for his introduction today. [Connection lost.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We seem to have lost the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
Sorry, my computer took on a life of its own and decided to mute.
Biosecurity has become an increasingly important issue. According to the Royal Horticultural Society, UK imports of live plants have increased by 71% since 1999. But with increasing trade comes increasing risk of pests and diseases being imported inadvertently. It is extremely important that regulatory standards are not compromised following the UK’s departure from the EU, so we are pleased to support this SI. We know that there was previously some surveillance of plants coming in from the EU that sometimes found problems, so improved legislation with additional checks on plant imports from the EU provides an opportunity to detect plant pests and diseases at the border, therefore further reducing future pest and disease problems.
I turn to the detail of the instrument before us today. The Minister has explained that it enables fees to be charged for plant health checks on imports into England from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, bringing those countries into line with the rest of the world, and that under a phased approach, higher-risk consignments of regulated plants, plant products and other commodities imported from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein have been subject to checks since 1 January this year, with such checks on the remaining regulated goods being phased in later this year and in 2022. As there are a number of different checks and dates of implementation, I would be grateful if the Minister could clearly outline the timetable and provide clarification as to how businesses and industry have been informed about these changes, and what information has been provided to ensure that they are fully ready.
Changing plant health regulations also provides an opportunity to increase public awareness of plant health and biosecurity risks, encourage wider responsibility and drive cultural change. Has the Minister’s department been working with stakeholders such as the RHS to ensure that the UK’s plant health regulatory requirements are presented in a way that is accessible and user-friendly in order to encourage this outcome?
We understand that Scotland and Wales are introducing similar provisions. Can the Minister provide information about what dialogue has been held with the devolved Administrations to ensure a timely and co-ordinated introduction across the whole of Great Britain? Will the fee structures be the same across the devolved Administrations, and is it likely that the fee rates charged could be different? Industry will have to consider how it reacts to the new charges, so if there are different fee rates, has the Minister considered how businesses are likely to react and also how importers will decide to pass on the increased costs?
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the department about the expected additional cost to business arising from these fees and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady McIntosh, have gone into detail around this. But it is important that the SLSC regarded Defra’s approach in this area as “poor legislative practice” by not having
“analysis of the expected financial impact”.
The fact that
“the Department found it necessary to phase in the fees to give businesses time to adjust”
shows that an impact on business has been recognised. As the SLSC points out, there is no real information on the anticipated impact of these changes for those in the trade.
Defra has engaged with stakeholders extensively regarding the planned changes; however, we know from previous experience that the total potential impacts of the UK leaving the single market and customs union have not always been completely clear or understood by those it affects. In earlier SIs we have raised our concerns about the capacity of ports to carry out inspections; I therefore ask the Minister: where will the inspections take place? What assessment has been made of capacity and what additional resources have been provided to ensure effective delivery of the new checks?
As a final point, in its submission to an inquiry by the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee into biosecurity, the Prospect union recommended better training for plant health officers, with the re-establishment of a viable training programme for new and established inspectors, plus joint training ventures with the Horticultural Trades Association and Royal Horticultural Society. Can the Minister inform us as to whether this has taken place and, if not, whether further training of officers is planned?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for what has been a constructive and interesting debate. If there are any points that time does not permit me to cover today, I will of course write to your Lordships.
I was struck by all the comments about biosecurity and why we are doing this. It is to protect plant biosecurity, as was made clear by my noble friend Lady Redfern and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is absolutely key that we embark on this in a very serious and important way. I was also struck by my noble friend Lady Redfern, absolutely rightly, referring to the importance of the safety of those working to deal with pests, disease and invasive non-native species, all of which impinge upon our biosecurity.
Given the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others, I thought it would be helpful to summarise the timetable for the introduction of checks and associated fees. On 1 January 2021, documentary, identity and physical checks were introduced on high-risk EU goods and carried out at places of destination. No fees are currently applied for these checks. On 1 June 2021, fees will be introduced for documentary, identity and physical checks on high-risk goods and for documentary checks on other goods. On 1 January 2022, physical inspections of high-risk goods will move to border control posts. On 1 March 2022, identity and physical checks on other goods will commence at border controls posts, with fees then applied for those checks.
The noble Baronesses on the Front Benches opposite raised the devolved Administrations. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are following the same phased approach as in England in terms of the timetable for inspecting EU consignments and applying fees to recover the costs of those inspections. In all parts of GB, fees will set to recover fully the cost of services provided, in line with the general Treasury principle on cost recovery. As services in Wales are provided by APHA on behalf of the Welsh Government, fees in Wales will mirror those in England. A different cost-base applies in Scotland, so there may be some differences to actual fees, but the same methodology and principles apply.
I give the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, my absolute assurance that the devolved Administrations are currently checking high-priority plants. We are working very closely and extensively with our devolved counterparts on operational readiness to ensure that our policies and plans are operable. For example, a UK plant health post-transition period operational readiness board—I am sorry, that is such a long phrase—has been established to discuss planning with devolved Administrations. This includes weekly meetings to consider policy issues, including fees. We have been working closely with officials from all the devolved Administrations to design future common frameworks where they are necessary, in line with principles on common frameworks.
I understand the point about working closely with industry. My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, raised this. We have maintained regular engagement with the industry—indeed, I have been at a number of the meetings, particularly with the Horticultural Trades Association—on post-transition planning with individual operators and through key stakeholder groups. This included an explanation of the planned charging regime for EU imports, which was followed up with details of the actual changes. Discussions were held through fora such as the plant health advisory forum, the tree health policy group and the Ornamental Horticulture Roundtable Group. In addition, there was frequent bilateral engagement on EU imports with key stakeholders, such as the Horticultural Trades Association, the Fresh Produce Consortium, the National Farmers’ Union, the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association and—I declare my membership—the Royal Horticultural Society, which we have also been working with.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Hayman, my noble friend Lady McIntosh and others more generally raised the important point of how best we can support business with the changes that I think we have all agreed are desirable, given the interceptions that we have identified already, and before this new regime. We have been listening carefully to the concerns of industry to make sure that the new requirements are practical, proportionate and—importantly—risk-based. The import controls on EU-regulated goods are being phased in over 14 months. Regulated goods are not currently being held at the border for import checks in order to help trade flow. All EU high-priority goods may be checked at places of destination until January 2022, minimising that disruption at the border.
On a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the Government have invested £705 million to ensure that our border systems are functional from 1 January and will be fully operational in line with the phasing plan. Operating hours for plant health services have also been adjusted to service business needs, while ensuring that biosecurity standards continue to be maintained and strengthened in ways that support trade and the smooth flow of goods. I think it was my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes who made the point about the importance of biosecurity but also trade flows and supply.
So far as the financial costs raised in this debate, we have been clear that, in line with Treasury rules, the Animal & Plant Health Agency recovers the cost of delivering these services from businesses that use them. Low-risk goods will receive a lower frequency of checks; fees therefore need to be adapted to ensure that there is no over-recovery of costs.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised engagement with the EU. There is ongoing and active engagement with the EU on all these matters. She also raised the AIC report. We have regular contact and engagement with the AIC. She also mentioned FERA, which conducts seed testing to support imports and exports. The cost of seed inspections is £128.13 per consignment for a 100% inspection and £6.40 for a 5% inspection rate. Specific seeds are listed in the SI.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked about risks from Northern Ireland goods. The island of Ireland is of course a single epidemiological unit. It is really important that we respect both their biosecurity and ours. We have a risk-targeted surveillance programme, which monitors movement of plants from all origins. Again, it is important that we look at this constantly. She also raised the risks to woodlands. We review risks on a continuous basis through the UK plant health risk register and take action in response to new threats, including emergency regulations, such as those for Xylella.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised the definition of high-priority plants. High-priority plants are those that pose the greatest potential risk to GB biosecurity. This includes shrubs and plants for planting not intended for final users, host plants of Xylella—for instance, lavender and rosemary—and other plant material for propagation, such as seeds and cuttings. Fees are based on the actual cost and time that it takes to inspect different categories of material.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also raised costs. The methodology used to calculate these fees was fully consulted on in 2017 and has not changed. Fee income is carefully monitored to ensure that there is no over-recovery or under-recovery. Any discrepancy would normally be rectified in the following year. However, for this year, to ensure that there is no significant over-recovery of costs, APHA and Defra will monitor fee income on a monthly basis, which is important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, also raised Northern Ireland. In line with the principles of unfettered market access, there is no requirement for export phytosanitary certificates to accompany qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB, so there are no associated fees. There will also be no import checks on those qualifying goods entering GB and no additional costs to trade as a result of plant health service delivery by APHA.
I am sorry if that was a very brisk description of some of the questions asked by the Committee. However, I commend this statutory instrument to your Lordships.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Merron
Introduction: Lord Morse
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief. I call the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, to ask the first Oral Question.
Domestic Animals
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the welfare of domestic animals in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) [V]
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the welfare of domestic animals. We have updated legislation to facilitate the control of horses and improve licensing of activities involving animals, prohibited the third-party sale of puppies and kittens in England and targeted unscrupulous selling through our Petfished campaign. We are also supporting the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which increases animal cruelty sentences to five years, and acting on cat microchipping, puppy smuggling, pet theft and more besides.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
I congratulate my noble friend on everything that he is doing to protect domestic animals. Is he aware that one result of lockdown has been a surge in demand for companion animals and a resultant hike in prices, with Cats Protection reporting a 40% price rise for kittens last year? Sadly, some demand is met by unscrupulous online sellers, often peddling sick and underage kittens. It may also be responsible for the rising trend in cat thefts as well as the growing market for animals bred more for their looks than their welfare, such as the Scottish Fold cat, born with cartilage deficiency and destined for lifelong pain. What action will my noble friend take to ensure that cat breeding is properly regulated and that there is compliance with regulations governing commercial pet sales?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Following the introduction of Lucy’s law last year, anyone looking to get a kitten or cat now has to source directly from the breeder or consider adopting from a rescue centre. This is a major step forward in disrupting the unscrupulous online trade my noble friend has highlighted.
Defra’s national Petfished campaign, which launched in March last year, continues to educate prospective buyers on how to source pets responsibly and how to avoid deceitful sellers. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the regulation of commercial pet sales, and I urge anyone with any concerns to report the matter to the relevant local authority.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
The animal welfare sector has been under huge strain with the increase in abandoned pets during lockdown. The Minister mentioned horses. The RSPCA has raised serious concerns about the huge increase in abandoned horses and ponies. However, without rigorous enforcement and tough financial penalties, current legislation will do little to stop irresponsible horse owners continuing to dump their animals. Does the Minister agree that animal welfare charities need extra support following this very challenging year, and will he look at toughening up enforcement and increasing penalties for those who abandon horses?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness raises an important point. Animal rescue organisations do extraordinarily valuable work, usually on a voluntary basis, and the pandemic has had a massive impact on individuals, businesses and charities caring for animals. Throughout this challenging period, we have pressed to ensure that rescue and rehoming organisations are able to stay open, that staff and volunteers can continue to work and tend to the animals in their care and that rehoming, fostering and adoption services can continue. Throughout the pandemic we have kept in very close contact with the entire sector.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
Can the Minister say whether there should be fines for people who neglect or abandon their pets?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I am afraid to say that I did not hear the noble Lord’s full question. However, in relation to increased punishments for cruelty to animals, I can say that the Government are supporting a Bill that appears before this House tomorrow; my noble friend Lord Randall will be introducing the Sentencing Bill, and the Government support it. It will increase the maximum custodial sentence for animal cruelty from the current six months to five years, and that will enable courts to take a much firmer approach to cases such as dog fighting, the abuse of puppies and kittens and so on, and the gross neglect of farm animals. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, while I accept that my noble friend cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech, perhaps I may none the less urge him to expedite the introduction of a Bill to ban the export of live animals for slaughter or further fattening, which has long been desired by many of us. Our patience is not merely thin, it is getting threadbare.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I am hopeful that the Queen’s Speech, when it happens, will include a number of measures to improve animal welfare, not just those that appeared in our most recent manifesto. As my noble friend will know, we recently consulted on ending live exports for slaughter and fattening. We are analysing the responses that we received and will be publishing the government response very soon. We hope to have legislation in place to end live animal exports for slaughter and fattening by the end of the year, and hopefully sooner than that.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
There has been an explosion in the last two years of dogs imported into the UK—mainly puppies with poor disease status from Romania. What are the Government doing to increase the minimum age for imported dogs from 15 weeks to 24 weeks, which would solve this problem?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Now that the transition period has ended, we have the opportunity to manage our own pet travel and commercial importation rules. We are actively liaising with and listening to the concerns of stakeholders, not least Cats Protection, and there has been recent parliamentary work from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. We are considering a whole range of recommendations in the area raised by the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is actually up to the owners of animals to behave better towards them, which would be the best way to go forward, and that those who do not look after animals should be prohibited from owning them? Has my noble friend seen the SongBird Survival research into how cat owners can improve the mental and physical well-being of their cats, as well as reducing the number of wild birds that cats take each year, which is many millions?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I am not aware of the research cited by my noble friend, but I will certainly look out for it. The difficulty for the Government is that our job in a sense is to ensure that the minimum standard is acceptable and that owners are not able easily to sink beneath acceptable standards. It is therefore really a baseline that we set. But my noble friend is absolutely right that this is a country of animal lovers and most owners are inspired to look after their pets with great care, and we should of course be doing everything we can to raise standards across the board and encourage everyone to apply the same level of attention, care and love to the pets that they own.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, disease and ill health are a major cause of poor welfare in both companion animals and livestock. I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on recognising this with respect to livestock in the Agriculture Act by providing the possibility of financial incentives to improve health and welfare. How do the Government intend to assess and measure livestock welfare to achieve that objective?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The Government’s planned animal health and welfare pathway will support livestock farmers financially by using public funds to deliver public goods and pay for health and welfare enhancements that are valued by the public but not currently delivered by the market or through existing regulatory standards. We are working closely with animal welfare scientists and stakeholders to determine which animal welfare enhancements to pursue and the most effective welfare metrics to use as a basis for those future payments.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, as has already been touched on, there has already been a massive upsurge in the purchase of domestic animals during lockdown. It is clear that, as people return to normal forms of working, there will be an acceleration of the abandonment of many pets, particularly dogs. Is the Minister’s department prepared to engage in an advertising campaign about both the treatment and the rehousing of animals rather than their abandonment on the street?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Lord makes a really important point. The department has run a successful campaign called Petfished, which we launched in March last year, to raise issues associated with low welfare and the illegal supply of pets and to help prospective buyers source pets responsibly. It is one of the most successful comms campaigns that the department has run and it has generated masses of interest; we are told through YouGov polling that it has contributed to doubling awareness of low-welfare pet sellers. I cannot commit here and now that we will replicate those efforts in relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, but I will certainly take his message back to the department and discuss it with colleagues and officials.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, there is well-reported and documented evidence of people stealing pets for profit. It is usually dogs, but cats are also being stolen to order, usually Persians and Bengal cats. According to Cats Protection, only 26% of cats are microchipped. Will the Minister consider introducing the mandatory microchipping of cats to give their owners a small chance of getting their pets back?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce the compulsory microchipping of cats—so, yes, we will do that. We have consulted and will issue our response later this year.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the situation with pigs. I know we have high welfare standards here, but we still allow the import of meat from pigs and piglets that have been reared in less humane conditions such as farrowing crates and places where tails are docked. Will he level up the playing field and ensure that our trade rules ensure that animal compassion is in all our supply chains?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the new pig welfare code of practice, which came into force in March last year, states that the aim is to phase out the use of farrowing crates in the UK and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow as well as her piglets. We are continuing to work with the industry on this issue. In relation to imports of substandard produce, as set out in our manifesto and repeated many times since, both by the Prime Minister and by other Ministers, we will not compromise on our high animal welfare standards in the pursuit of free trade agreements. That is a commitment that we are absolutely committed to and will stick to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the variation in the standard of care received by patients with (1) Crohn’s disease, and (2) ulcerative colitis; and what plans they have to work with NHS England to implement a framework to improve care and outcomes for such patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, on the basis of the IBD audit, NHSEI is working closely with front-line clinical experts, patient representative groups and leading charities, including Crohn’s & Colitis UK, to develop evidence-based improvement tools to address possible variations in service. This work includes an important new inflammatory bowel disease right-care scenario, setting out what high-quality, joined-up care looks like at every stage of the patient journey.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He will know that over 500,000 people are living with inflammatory bowel disease, often with debilitating long-term symptoms and complications. Given the current huge variation in standards of care to which the noble Lord referred, will the Government appoint a national clinical director for IBD, solely to concentrate on spearheading a drive to implement the national IBD standards, which are backed by 17 healthcare professional and patient organisations?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We are doing a huge amount in this area, as the noble Lord rightly points out. In particular, we are working with Crohn’s & Colitis UK on the scenario work I mentioned. That is on top of working on diagnostic waiting times, formal personalised care, access to specialist treatment and formal, structured education. I will look into the possibility of having a formal leader to oversee all these strands, but my impression is that, at present, the work is best done by the individual workstreams I mentioned.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, what assessment have HMG made of how many treatments and admissions for inflammatory bowel disease have been impacted by Covid-19?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, Covid-19 has hit all services in the NHS. I pay tribute to those involved in the IBD area who have moved extremely fast to anticipate these problems. Rapid guidelines for gastrointestinal and liver conditions treated with drugs have been made available over telephone, email and text messaging services. NICE issued new guidance in August 2020 to advise healthcare professionals on gastrointestinal and liver conditions.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, what plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to introduce sanitary bins in public toilets for men? There is a terrible shortage of these, and many men need somewhere to put items such as pads when they have a disease.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am afraid that the management of public toilets is outside the reach of the department, but I will take that idea back to the department and write to the person responsible.
Lord Turnberg (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when I was a gastroenterologist, I knew that patients with inflammatory bowel disease did best when managed by a team made up of a gastroenterologist, surgeon and specialist nurse. Too often now, patients are denied access to such teams. In view of what the Minister has said, will this team approach be part of how we might correct this deficiency?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I would like to reassure the noble Lord that the scenario I described typically includes two gastroenterology consultants, a clinical intermediate fellow, a GP partner and a patient representative. It is exactly this kind of team approach that delivers the best patient outcomes, as the noble Lord rightly outlined.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
In 2012, NICE published a treatment pathway for Crohn’s and colitis. It was a groundbreaking change to ensure consistent and comprehensive services, including the team approach referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and outcomes for all patients of this autoimmune disease across England. NICE further updated this in 2019, so there has been a pathway for nine years. Why is it not being adhered to by NHS England? What will the Minister do to ensure that all Crohn’s and colitis patients get the treatment they are promised by NICE?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am not sure it is correct that it is not being adhered to widely, but there is some variation in all parts of the NHS. That is why we are developing a right-care scenario for IBD with key stakeholders. This will create a very clear template for all patients and all those involved in their care. It will, I hope, help create more consistent standards across the healthcare system.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I suffer from ulcerative colitis and understand how disabling this condition can be. Support from IBD specialist nurses is a lifeline in managing periodic flare-ups of the condition, yet the postcode lottery means that one-third of IBD patients do not have access to a specialist nurse. This is just one of the many examples of uneven standards of care. I do not know why the Minister cannot simply commit to endorsing IBD UK’s 2019 IBD standards and ensure that services are commissioned to these standards across the country. We have waited an age—at least three years—for the scenario he is talking about. Half a million patients are fed up of waiting.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful for the testimony of the noble Baroness. She speaks very movingly about the challenge faced by those with IBD—a challenge that we all sympathise with. We are working extremely hard with both Crohn’s & Colitis UK and IBD patient groups on this scenario. There has been disruption in the last year, but I reassure the noble Baroness that we are working extremely hard to get the scenario out as soon as possible.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, even for very experienced clinicians, diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can be very difficult indeed—as my experience over the years has taught me? Patients may present in bizarre ways—for instance, with a disease of the skin, eyes or joints. Furthermore, a patient with ulcerative colitis can almost imperceptibly become dangerously ill, requiring drastic emergency surgery. Clinicians are always trying to do better, and they need encouragement and thanks, particularly over this very difficult pandemic.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right that diagnosis is key to the accurate and prompt treatment of IBD and associated conditions. That is why we have put diagnosis at the heart of our research programme. Between 2015 and 2020, we funded 20 research projects, many of them on diagnosis, with over £17 million committed. That includes a study into the overlap of IBD and magnetic resonance enterology to image Crohn’s disease patients. This approach is extremely promising.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that some people are hesitant to go to their GP about problems with their bowels as they are embarrassed? Can there be a campaign across the country saying, “Early diagnosis can be vital”?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. A lot of late diagnoses are caused by the kind of delicacy the noble Baroness refers to. My noble friend talked about the challenge of diagnosis, which is made more complex by patients finding a lot of these subjects extremely delicate. The approach taken in primary care to handling such delicate issues has improved dramatically over the years. We are working with GPs and clinicians to make their bedside manner more delicate, so that they are able to broach such delicate issues more sensitively. That, I believe, is at the heart of the problem.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, Covid-19 has widened the huge cracks in the quality of IBD care, with patients facing even longer waits for elective care, surgery, investigations and a personalised care and support plan to support their daily lives. Surveys have shown nearly one in five IBD patients have suffered a flare-up crisis during the pandemic because they were unable to obtain specialist advice. We know that many have had to continue shielding because Crohn’s disease compromises the immune system and they have to wait for their two vaccines. What recognition and support of their particular care needs is being given at primary care and community level?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely sympathise with all those with IBD and associated conditions. The situation the noble Baroness described is exactly right and it is extremely challenging. I have particular concern for those shielding for a very long period, although I hope many of them will not be waiting long for their second vaccine. Those with all conditions have endured some waits because of Covid, but the NHS is working incredibly hard on the catch-up. Huge progress has already been made and there is a massive focus on diagnosis in particular, to ensure that we catch up with all those presenting with problems who need diagnoses.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Crown Courts: Outstanding Cases
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the backlog of outstanding cases in the Crown Courts.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Beith, who is regrettably attending a family funeral. Given that physical accommodation has at last been made available for Nightingale courts—
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, we ought to allow the Minister to reply.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the Question posed by the noble Lord on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, we spent more than a quarter of £1 billion on recovery in the last financial year, making court buildings safe, rolling out new technology for remote hearings and opening 60 Nightingale courtrooms. Although there is further to go, this has made a difference. In the Crown Courts, we are completing around 2,000 cases each week, which is the same as before the pandemic.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, my apologies. Given that physical accommodation has at last been made available for Nightingale courts in football grounds, hotels, theatres and even the ballroom in Chester Town Hall, how are these being manned by trained court staff? Given the fact that very few have custody facilities, to what extent are serious cases being held back and periods of remand in custody thereby lengthened?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, at the Nightingale venues, we use experienced court staff who are trained to deal with the type of work heard on site. While Nightingales deal with non-custodial cases, by taking this work away from the main court estate, custody cases can be heard in our specialist facilities faster than would otherwise be possible. To expand further our capacity to hear complex cases, we have also modified around 70 courtrooms to increase the capability to hear multi-handed trials of up to 10 defendants. In addition, work has begun on a super-courtroom in Manchester, which will further increase capacity for multi-handed cases. For those on remand in custody, our systems show that the majority of such cases had their first hearing in February 2021, and those who have pleaded not guilty have been listed for trial prior to September 2021. I acknowledge the courtesy shown by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, by intimating to my department the terms of his supplementary question in order that a specific answer could be given to this important point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Minister must be well aware that this problem has been going on for much longer than just the pandemic. The big problem is the Government’s savage cuts to court processes. The solution is not Nightingale courts but better funding. Will the Government do that?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, prior to Covid, the outstanding case load in the Crown Court was 39,000, which is well within the range of 33,000 to 55,000 over the last decade. At its lowest point, it was even as low as 33,000, in 2018-19. Immediately before the pandemic, the Government were increasing sitting days in the criminal courts to address rising demand.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, on 25 January, I tabled a Written Question to my noble friend Lord Wolfson regarding the closing, selling and standing empty of courts. My noble friend’s swift, detailed reply was that around 110 had been closed since 2015 but 21 new Nightingale courts, which have just been mentioned, had been made. Have these courts had what the Minister feels is the desired effect of reducing the backlog in the Crown Court as well?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for her question. The recovery steps taken have made a difference, allowing us to complete around 2,000 cases each week—the same figure as before the pandemic. I assure my noble friend that the decisions taken to close courts were not, and are not, taken lightly; they are taken alongside public consultation.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Covid pandemic has led to a surge of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court. While the setting up of special Nightingale courts to help clear the backlog is welcome, delays to effective hearings are leading to additional stress and anxiety, particularly for vulnerable victims. Does the Minister agree that, in looking to greater efficiency, we need to look harder at cutting the considerable time spent on cases that do not move to trial?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, we are keenly aware of the need to improve timeliness for both defendants and victims, and to mitigate the impact of delays on complainers and witnesses in such cases. To that extent, I agree with what the noble Lord asked in his question.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in a Written Question on 17 December, my honourable friend Alex Norris asked the Secretary of State for Justice
“what assessment he has made of trends in the level of defendants offending while awaiting delayed court dates.”
On 15 January, the dismissive one-sentence reply was:
“We do not hold any data on offences committed by offenders.”
Is data about the number of offences committed on bail no longer held on the police national computer? Why have this Government apparently lost interest in trends of the criminal behaviour of offenders awaiting trial?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the answer given previously: the department does not collect specific data on the level of offending by defendants on court bail. However, as the noble Lord is aware—and as Members present may not be aware—the commission of a crime on bail is itself an aggravation, which will be reflected in the sentence.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the recent Constitution Committee report pointed out that, because of delays to the courts reform programme, improvements to IT systems had not been sufficiently implemented by the time of the pandemic, meaning that remote hearings relied on antiquated systems and participants in the criminal and family courts in particular struggled with virtual hearings. How do the Government intend to supply adequate investment in training in IT while also guaranteeing fairness for all through physical participation for those for whom remote hearings are not a solution?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, we acknowledge that, in many cases, participation by way of remote hearings is valuable for people in such positions. None the less, we also appreciate that it is not appropriate for all such people, whether they be witnesses or complainers in cases.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that the Nightingale courts are being expanded. Can my noble friend comment on any plans that the Government might have to extend the serving period for, or bring back, retired judges so that we can deal with the backlog more rapidly—perhaps by extending court hours—and deal with ongoing ageism in the workplace, which seems to write off older people when they are too young?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, prior to retirement, judges below the High Court are already able to have their appointments extended on an annual basis up to the age of 75 where there is a business need. After retirement, salaried judges are already able to be authorised to sit beyond the current retirement age of 70, on an ad hoc basis, up to the age of 75. We are using our fee-paid judges, as well as salaried judges who wish to sit following retirement, to ensure that we maximise judicial capacity.
In answer to the second part of my noble friend’s question, we are looking at more flexible working. Temporary Covid operating hours have been piloted at seven Crown Court sites to test whether even more could be done, and we are looking at the extension of the working day as a short-term—I emphasise “short-term”—tool and aid to managing recovery. Magistrates’ courts also sat on at least 100 additional Saturday courts per month between September and December.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, justice delayed is justice denied. Is not the root cause of the delays the reduced finance that the Justice Department too speedily agreed to long before the pandemic? Have the Government given up on the alternatives that I have canvassed to speed up trials—for example, a reduction in the size of juries or trials of less serious offences decided by judges alone, with the consent of the defendant?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the figure that I gave earlier: over a quarter of £1 billion has been spent on a range of measures to increase Crown Court capacity. With respect to the additional measures that the noble and learned Lord outlined, I regret that I do not have to hand details of consultation and discussions, but I undertake to write to him on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wolfson in the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that this mountainous backlog impacts most upon victims, witnesses to crime and members of the public waiting for years to see justice done? Does he also accept that this backlog began well before Covid and is directly because of this Government’s savage funding cuts in courts and tribunals and even more punitive cuts in legal aid? Is it not high time that the Conservatives started investing in increased court capacity, qualified staff and victim support instead of cuts, cuts and still more cuts, benefiting only criminals?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I do not accept the adjectival premises on which the noble Lord’s questions were based. I refer to my earlier answers about the spending that has been identified in relation to these matters.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the fourth Oral Question.
Higher Education: New and Returning Students
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to update their guidance on Students returning to, and starting, Higher Education, last published on 8 March, following the resumption of university courses after Easter.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, on Tuesday my honourable friend the Universities Minister and I laid Written Statements confirming that, following the review of when all higher education students could return to in-person teaching, remaining students on non-practical courses should return to in-person teaching alongside step 3 of the road map out of lockdown no earlier than 17 May. Alongside this, the guidance document for students returning to or starting higher education was updated and published.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for updating the guidance shortly after this Question was tabled. I am, of course, conscious of the need for sensible restraint in emerging from lockdown. However, by 17 May, many summer terms will be so far advanced that it will be almost not worth while, in many cases, restarting physical teaching. For many students, I suspect that it will be the autumn before they get back to where they ought to be. It seems to me that university students have been handed yet again the shortest of short straws and are bearing a disproportionate part of the national burden. Will my noble friend think again?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, of course we recognise the difficulties and disruption that a return in line with step 3 might cause the students. It does allow them, however, to receive some extra in-person teaching and assessment, to engage with extra-curricular activities, to take part in face-to-face careers support, to visit specialist libraries and so on, as well as to see their peers and boost their mental health. Students are keen to get back to campus and universities are keen to have them back. We want to enable this as soon as the public health situation allows.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Students have been short-changed: they are anxious; they are angry; they feel let down; and they cannot understand why they cannot return to university when schools, shops, gyms and hairdressers are open. I do not understand that either. It is having a detrimental effect on their mental health, their well-being and their studies. The appalling delay in the guidance has made the situation worse. How did the Government reach the decision to delay the return of students until 17 May? Have they assessed the current and long-term impact on the mental health and well-being of students? Have they considered the impact on universities, which play such a vital role in the economy of our country and which have made the most enormous efforts to put in place all of the requisite Covid-safe measures in respect of in-person teaching, libraries, accommodation and other facilities? I remind noble Lords of my interest as principal of Somerville College, Oxford.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, of course we understand the frustration that students might feel, particularly as things are opening up under step 2, but many of the things that are opening are taking place outside and do not involve the formation of new households, which a return of students to university would do. Inside, the risks of transmission increase, and the decision we have taken is in line with our cautious approach to the road map out of lockdown. At the heart of our decision is public health but also student well-being, as the noble Baroness mentioned. The last thing that any of us want is for students to have to self-isolate repeatedly, as some had to previously. That would not only be damaging to their mental health and well-being but put at risk the ability of some students studying creative and practical subjects to graduate.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is cross-party support for the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I reinforce everything that he said. I declare my interest as an academic at Cambridge University. I note that this is guidance. Why on earth should students or universities listen to guidance if it is not law, particularly if it goes against the interests of students?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, the Government recognise how difficult the situation is for students, but the road map is designed to maintain a cautious approach to the easing of restrictions so that we can maintain progress and not have to go back on it. The guidance that we have made available is in the best interests of students and the wider community, and we urge everybody to adhere to it.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. I congratulate the Government on the student hardship fund, including the addition £15 million that has recently been made available. This has provided a necessary lifeline for many students. However, in relation to students returning to university, I am with noble Lords who have already spoken. What assurance can the Minister give that, in the event of a potential future lockdown, which has already been spoken about, the education of university students, many of whom have already lost at least a year’s worth of face-to-face teaching, will be prioritised in ways that they have not been over the last year?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her welcome for the further £15 million of student hardship funding that we have announced this week. That is on top of the £70 million that we had already provided and the £256 million which providers are able to use during this academic year. Our cautious approach is designed to ensure that this step out of lockdown will be irreversible and to avoid the situation that my noble friend outlined.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register. The ONS student insights survey revealed that almost two-thirds of students have experienced a decline in mental health over this academic year, brought about in part by the uncertainty, anxiety and isolation which is, of course, exacerbated by this further decision. Will the Government commit to providing additional funding for university mental health services, given the increasingly high demand that they will face both now and over the coming year?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we have worked with the Office for Students to provide Student Space, which is being funded by up to £3 million by the OfS to support students with their mental health and well-being. Furthermore, we have asked the OfS to allocate £15 million towards student mental health this year through the proposed reforms to strategic priorities grant funding.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, university students feel forgotten in the Government’s plans for leaving lockdown. What discussions have the Government had with university leaders and student representatives regarding the date for return to in-person teaching? Given that, by mid-May, many universities will have finished their teaching year, does the Minister accept that the reality is that this decision means that many universities and courses will effectively stay online until the autumn? What impact will this have on students, who have, frankly, been paying through the nose to study at campuses that they have not been able to access since Christmas?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The students are most certainly not forgotten. My honourable friend the Universities Minister engages directly with students and representatives of students through various groups that she has set up, including ones focusing on mental health. The Office for Students is also conducting some polling of students so that their views can be fed into decision-making. That, alongside the scientific advice, is what has led us to the decision that we have taken this week.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what is coming out in this Question Time and in the news is that students do not seem to know what the situation is? They do not know if they will get a reduction on fees. They do not know if they are going to get some money back on accommodation taken for university. Will the Government at least publish something that is a guideline to what sort of behaviour they think is proper? If not the Government themselves, the Office for Students would be a very good body to take this on.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as I say, we have updated the guidance to students with advice on returning to universities this week. As was announced in February, students and HE providers will be given a week’s notice of any further easing of restrictions as it affects them. This is a changing situation with the pandemic. We understand the frustrations people face, but we are grateful to them for their forbearance.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, surveys suggest that over a fifth of university students say they would need extra teaching over the summer—which I believe many of them are being offered—to catch up on lessons, tutorials and classes they may have fallen behind on over the course of the year. Will the Government provide additional financial support for students who may need to study beyond the normal academic year?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, such decisions are for universities, as autonomous institutions, to make in line with the guidance we have set out this week.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, would the Minister agree that the uncertainties of lockdown and this incomprehensible delay are having a negative impact on international students and the reputation of the UK as a place to come and study? What impact does he think this will have on the intake for 2021 and 2022?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Students around the world will have seen how UK universities have reacted admirably to the challenges posed by the pandemic, designing and delivering high-quality online learning and offering exceptional well-being and mental health support. The UK was one of the first countries to introduce immigration flexibility for students, and our new post-study work route, the graduate route, will launch on 1 July, further encouraging international students to choose to come and study in the UK.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
NATO: Russia and Ukraine
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with NATO allies regarding the recent amassing of Russian forces on the Ukrainian border.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we have significant concerns about Russian military activity on Ukraine’s border and in illegally annexed Crimea. We support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have discussed extensively with NATO allies; the Foreign Secretary has engaged with French, German and US counterparts and Ukraine and we attended the NATO-Ukraine Commission on 13 April. We and our allies urge Russia to uphold the OSCE principles and commitments it signed up to, which it violates through ongoing aggression against Ukraine.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Does the Minister agree that even if Mr Putin’s intentions are confined to the intimidation of Ukraine and those who support its legitimate wish to join the NATO defence alliance, the present, massive deployment of armed forces on the border is dangerously destabilising because of the risk of conflict arising by either misjudgment, mistake or provocation, real or manufactured? Is all this not particularly dangerous when we consider that the Russian military appears to have resurrected the Cold War doctrine of nuclear war fighting and the deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons on the battlefield? If there ever was a time for transatlantic solidarity, is this not that time?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, and that is why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been engaging extensively with NATO allies. He was in Brussels only yesterday. I also agree with the noble Lord regarding Russia’s aggressive behaviour towards Ukraine. Let us be clear: it is not limited to Donbass and Crimea; we know that Russia seeks covertly and overtly to undermine Ukraine at every turn.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, Russia applies pressure militarily, economically and politically until it meets counterpressure that is credible and strong and it has to pay a price, which we have seen here. Therefore, will the UK apply the latest group of US sanctions against Russia and encourage our NATO and EU allies to do the same? Do the Government support the completion of Nord Stream 2, which will severely damage the economy of Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, we have repeatedly stated our position on the issue of Nord Stream 2; while we ourselves do not welcome it, it is an issue and a challenge for Germany. I agree with the noble Lord’s earlier point, and we are working closely with our allies. The noble Lord alluded to reports that are currently circulating on further actions the United States will be taking. The formal announcement of that is imminent, and we will respond accordingly.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem about the importance of a strong transatlantic response, but does the Minister agree that if we are concerned about Russia building up its forces on the border, the UK also needs to be careful not to be seen to be fuelling any sort of arms race by threatening to increase its nuclear weapons?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent, as well as working with our key allies, is reflective of the importance the United Kingdom attaches to the defence of Europe and the wider world. History has shown us that our independent deterrent has ensured that those who sabre-rattle know that there would be an extensive response from allies of the United Kingdom if they were to go down that route. That said, the deterrent has done exactly what it is intended to do. It has deterred further action and aggression, which no one wishes to see.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, President Putin is an authoritarian and dictatorial bully, and like all bullies, he senses weakness. He senses weakness in Nord Stream in Germany; he senses it, rightly or wrongly—I think probably wrongly—in the new President Biden in the United States; and he senses weakness when the United Kingdom reduces its Armed Forces, its aircraft, its ships and, above all, the size of its Army at this time. So, will my noble friend go back to our right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and get him to argue in Cabinet that to reduce the Armed Forces at the moment is a signal to bullies that we are not to be taken seriously?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I know my noble friend speaks from great insight and expertise about our Armed Forces, but I assure him that Her Majesty’s Government are fully committed to our Armed Forces, which is underlined by the additional funding that has been provided to the Ministry of Defence. On the broader issue of security, we stand firmly with our allies and in support of the NATO alliance. I suggest that with the new Administration in the United States we have seen a realignment and strengthening of that alliance.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
The Minister will recall that Sir John Major and Lord Hurd of Westwell were the west European signatories of the 1994 Budapest memorandum. Do the Government agree that this gives us a continuing responsibility for the security and territorial integrity of Ukraine? If so, how do the Government intend to discharge it? The United States has a similar responsibility as a signatory, and the Minister will have noted that President Biden believes that now is the time for dialogue with both President Zelensky and President Putin.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we stand by our commitment to the convention that was signed and are fully supportive of the efforts in the defence of Ukraine and its sovereignty and integrity.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]
My Lords, given the relative ineffectiveness of the western response to the invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014, what assurance might Ukraine assume, should conflict or further invasion ensue? Also, could the Minister comment on any prognosis for the future of the Minsk accords and the prospects for Normandy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the Minsk accords are very much alive, and we remain supportive of them. On Ukraine’s recognition of support from the United Kingdom, that is firmly acknowledged by President Zelensky and his team. Indeed, when he visited the United Kingdom last year, I also met his Foreign Minister; they all recognise the strong support the United Kingdom continues to provide Ukraine in protecting its sovereignty and by continuing to implore Russia to withdraw from Crimea. Crimea is occupied territory; Russia should withdraw.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the threats and risks are clear, and the case for transatlantic co-operation cannot be overstated. Strong backing for President Biden’s bid for a summit is vital. When he spoke with President Putin earlier this week, he raised cyber intrusions and election interference. The Russia report called for a common international approach on Russia’s malicious cyberactivity, so what action is the Minister taking to support a common international approach on this, including through strengthening actions with the United States? Will we match the sanctions of the United States or sit back and wait?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we fully engage with the United States. The noble Lord is correct that President Biden spoke with President Putin on 13 April. Equally, we have been engaged in a large degree of diplomacy, both through NATO and directly with our allies, including the United States. We are fully aligned with the objectives behind the approach of the United States and work very closely with it. On the specific issue, as I said earlier, a formal announcement is due shortly from the United States, but we are working in a very co-ordinated fashion with it.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the integrated review claims that we
“will remain the leading European Ally in NATO, working with Allies to deter … threats … particularly from Russia”.
Are we playing a convening or a pivotal role in this instance?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we continue to play a pivotal role in the NATO alliance, to which we are strong contributors in both strategy and financing. That will continue to be the case. We are centrally involved in the discussions around the current situation we are seeing in eastern Ukraine.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, as Washington’s closest ally, can my noble friend confirm that the Biden Administration are consulting us and other NATO allies rather than simply informing us as to whether they intend to send warships into the Black Sea? In strategic terms, is it not vital that we ensure the Black Sea remains an international waterway rather than watch it turn into a Russian lake?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend’s second point in the sense that we continue to work with our NATO partners to ensure exactly that free operation in the Black Sea. On his earlier point, consultation is very much at the centre of the approach of the United States with its NATO allies, including the United Kingdom. As I alluded to earlier, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Brussels yesterday, together with the United States and Secretary of State Blinken, to discuss Ukraine among other key priorities for NATO.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, published last month, makes much of the UK’s new freedom to pursue different economic and political approaches to those of the EU, but does the Minister agree that, when the threat is such as that posed by Russia to Ukraine, so close to Europe, we should not stand alone—where we will be weak—but work jointly with our EU neighbours?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We are doing exactly that through the NATO alliance. As I said in my original Answer, the Foreign Secretary has engaged directly with key European partners, including France and Germany, and Italy joined various discussions in that respect.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I was fortunate to visit Ukraine on several occasions to witness the training support that the UK Government have been giving the Ukrainian military. To date, that training has been defensive and non-lethal in nature—for example, first aid training or counter-IED training. Can my noble friend reassure me that in future the UK will not necessarily feel obliged to follow those constraints and will consider any reasonable request from the Ukrainian Government for support?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I recognise the role my noble friend played in this respect in his previous role as Minister for the Armed Forces. UK military support for Ukraine, as he will be aware, covers training delivered through Operation ORBITAL. This has been extended, resulting in training as well as maritime training initiatives. I note what my noble friend says. We are working very closely with not just Ukraine but our NATO allies to ensure that an appropriate response is given at the appropriate time.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to combating Russian aggression, support for improved governance and strong institutions in Ukraine—helping it build a proper democracy—is vital. Is the UK currently financially supporting any projects run by the UN, the OSCE or others in Ukraine? If so, will they be affected by the cut to overseas development assistance that the Government have announced?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are working very closely with Ukraine, and not just in providing training support for its defence requirements. The noble Lord is right that we have been working; indeed, I remember that in my first role as Communities Minister—going back a bit to 2013—one of my international engagements was with Ukraine, about building local government structures. That continues to be the case; we work very closely with President Zelensky and his team.
Lord Benyon (Con) [V]
My Lords, egregious human rights violations and breaches of international law by murderous and kleptocratic regimes such as that in Russia can be responded to by using our relatively new Magnitsky legislation. Will my noble friend commit to using this legislation for such malign actions if they occur in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend; we are working on a range of issues around supporting human rights in support of Ukraine’s efforts, including in Crimea. We provide specific projects to groups supporting the rights of the citizens of Crimea. The United Kingdom has also contributed £700,000 to the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission. On sanctions, I agree with my noble friend inasmuch as the whole basis of the governance structure of the sanctions is to call out egregious abuses of human rights. Where necessary, we have exercised them. We keep all matters under review, but I cannot speculate at this juncture about any future action we may take.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 19 April to allow the Financial Services Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Kyoto Protocol Registry) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April
British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill
Thursday 15th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Act 2021 View all British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee. Manuscript amendments are not possible at present. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Thursday 15th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 View all Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee. Manuscript amendments are not possible at present. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Forensic Science Regulator Bill
Thursday 15th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Forensic Science Regulator Bill 2019-21 View all Forensic Science Regulator Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 November 2020 - (11 Nov 2020)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee. Manuscript amendments are not possible at present. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. We now come to Report on the National Security and Investment 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.
National Security and Investment Bill
Thursday 15th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 183-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Apr 2021)
18:12 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 232 - Amendment 24 agreed.
19:07 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 39 - Ayes: 118 / Noes: 255 - Amendment 39 disagreed.
Lord Lansley
“( ) details of the circumstances in which the application to an asset of any export control, transfer control, technical assistance control or trade control imposed under the Export Control Act 2002 and related provisions may affect the Secretary of State’s exercise of the power to give a call-in notice, and”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open proceedings on Report. I want to say generally that Members across the House, on all sides, are supportive of the principles of the Bill. It has been clear that all the amendments tabled have the intention of trying to make it as clear, effective and workable as possible, and—as we will discuss later—to make sure that there is proper accountability and transparency in the proceedings. Several of my noble friends have tabled amendments in that spirit. I know that Ministers in charge of the Bill have responded in kind with a willingness, even in the past few days, to supply additional material on how the workings of the national security and investment regime will be made more transparent and clear to those it affects, who are substantial in number.
I come to one of the issues in the two amendments in this group, both in my name, which relate to the interaction between the national security and investment regime and the export control licensing regime. Amendment 1 relates to the exercise of the call-in power by Ministers. Amendment 37 relates to the making of interim and final orders by Ministers. I start with the first amendment.
I quoted the 2018 White Paper at more length in Committee but it stated, on behalf of the Government, that
“where national security concerns relate solely or primarily to the export of goods, the Government expects that the export control regime would remain the primary means of protecting national security”.
In Committee, I asked the Minister responding to reiterate that expectation. He failed to do so, nor did he offer any specific assurance about how the two regimes would interact. I am grateful to Ministers because, since then, they have committed to the publication of guidance, which will include the interaction of the national security and investment regime with the Competition and Markets Authority, the Takeover Panel and the export control regime. We have not, of course, yet seen the text of that guidance. Nor is a reference to the export control regime being included in the draft statement, which has to be made under Clause 3, that will explain where and in what circumstances the Secretary of State will exercise his call-in power.
The importance of that is illustrated not least by the references from time to time in the consultation on the sectors in scope of the mandatory regime, in which a number of respondents made it clear that they thought there was a widespread interaction and overlap. For example, paragraph 3.76 said that one respondent suggested that the pre-existing export control licensing regime was appropriate, for which a number of businesses had robust and sophisticated compliance programmes, noting a significant overlap between the lists and a number of the other proposed mandatory sectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the Front Bench opposite, in Committee instanced other references to that in the consultation response. Indeed, he may have looked at the strategic export control list, which is 309 pages long, and the sectors in scope of the mandatory regime for the national security and investment regime. The overlap is very large indeed. It is important to those affected that these two regimes interact positively and sensibly.
Amendment 1 seeks to require that there be such a reference in the Clause 3 statement and a commitment to explaining to people how the two regimes will interact. Why does that matter? First, given the nature of the assets in the strategic export control list, a change of control of the entities that own them will often be a notifiable acquisition and therefore be subject to a mandatory notification. But will the acquisition be called in? That question will be in the minds of those affected and will depend upon the level of risk. If the acquisition is by a hostile actor, it is a fair argument that the national security and investment regime adds an extra safeguard beyond the export licensing process. However, it will be important for those who own sensitive assets to know when that issue—the nature of the acquirer—is the prompt for a call-in, not simply the sensitivity and nature of the assets themselves, since they can be safeguarded for national security purposes through the export control licensing regime. Therefore, those asset owners need to be able to reasonably predict when a call-in will be made.
Secondly, the Clause 3 statement should offer clarity about the distinction between the use of an asset and its control. The national security and investment regime is about ownership and, hence, control of assets. Export controls are directed to their use, specifically outside the United Kingdom by way of export. However, we should consider what will happen if we follow the American lead. Following the enacting three years ago of the latest US legislation, there are circumstances in which the American export control regime, because it anticipates that a given ownership could lead to a transfer of technology within an entity, deems such assets to be exports. We already see an increasing overlap between the question of control and the question of use. The statement needs to be clear about that distinction, too.
What I am really looking for from my noble friend on the Front Bench is, first, an assurance that these issues will be fully dealt with in the guidance to be published, and that there will be a specific reference in the statement to matters dealt with under Clause 3, even if that is supplemented in detail by the technical guidance.
Amendment 37 raises an important further interaction. When Ministers make interim or final orders, given the extent of overlap between assets in the scope of this regime and those in the strategic export control list, it is likely that the entities that control such assets may, if they pass into new ownership, be subject to such orders. Those orders are about not just the situation today but what should happen in future. There will be a temptation on the part of Ministers to make orders that, like contracts in law, provide for every set of circumstances in future.
My point is simple: when making orders, Ministers should always rely on the export control licensing regime to do its job effectively. They should not try to substitute for the export control regime in future by restricting, through orders, what entities are or are not able to do. Even though they have the power to do that, they should not do it. They should live up to the expectation of the 2018 White Paper that the export control regime is the means by which Ministers exercise control of the export of sensitive assets.
There are two units involved. The Export Control Joint Unit is made up of officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and there is the unit for the national security and investment regime. The interaction between the two units needs to be excellent. In the shape of my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench, we have the embodiment of the relationship between the Department for International Trade and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I hope that he makes sure that these two work together well.
We should not see orders under the NSI regime supplanting what should be licensing procedures under the export control licensing regime, not least because—I pre-empt an issue that we will come on to later—export control licensing is the subject of greater and specific parliamentary scrutiny by the Committees on Arms Export Controls in the other place. There is no such direct scrutiny of the orders being made under this NSI regime. I hope that I do not need to say that Ministers should not fall prey to the temptation to incorporate measures into orders under this regime because it entails less parliamentary scrutiny than would be the case for export licensing under the other regime.
When we get to Amendment 37, I hope that I will be able to rely on Ministers’ further assurances that they will not simply take account of the export control regime and will rely less on administrative law issues. It was slightly ironic that our debate in Committee was followed the following week by a debate on administrative law that suggested that statute should be as clear as possible about the requirements that people have to live up to and not rely on a general public law duty—but that is exactly what Ministers profess to rely on here. I would prefer Amendment 37 to be adopted by the Government and it to be very clear that Ministers will take full account of the export control licensing regime. Even if they are not happy to amend the legislation, I hope that what my noble friend says in response to this debate will make it clear that that will be the case. I beg to move Amendment 1.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for returning to the issue of the interaction of the NSI and export control regimes. He is correct to probe further with the explicit inclusion of Amendment 1, so that the new NSI regime is not buried within BEIS but works effectively across government, specifically across both regimes.
Amendment 37 underlines the need to recognise proper co-ordination in this regime. The Government had recognised only that the two regimes are distinct and would sit alongside each other, as the expression goes, yet they were concerned by activities that could circumvent the export control criteria. With the extent of the overlap to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, refers, this would be surprising.
Since Committee, further consideration has been given to the issue. We agree with the noble Lord in calling for greater clarity about the interaction needed with export controls, especially when a call-in notice has to be considered and when interim and final orders are being made. We are supportive of the intention behind these amendments regarding concerns about how this regime will interact with functions under the export control regime. Why does the Bill remain silent on the export control regime in its drafting?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendments 1 and 37, which explore the interaction between the export control regime and the regime created through this Bill. As we start this session, I thank your Lordships for the constructive way in which they have approached this Bill and the constructive debates that we have had.
Amendment 1 would provide that the statement about the exercise of the call-in power may set out how the Secretary of State will factor in controls placed under the export control regime when deciding whether to call in asset acquisitions. Amendment 37 would ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account controls placed under the export control regime when imposing interim or final orders on asset acquisitions. These amendments follow discussions in Grand Committee on the links between export controls and NSI; I thank noble Lords for the insights that they have shared.
I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that the Secretary of State will need to take into account the impact of any controls placed under the export control regime, as well as other relevant regimes so far as they relate to national security considerations. This is required by both the legal tests in the Bill and public law duties. This is the case when he decides whether to call in an acquisition of control; whether to impose interim orders or final orders in relation to such acquisitions; and what form those orders should take.
In particular, if existing controls under the export control regime already address any national security concerns arising from the acquisition of an asset, I am happy to confirm for my noble friend that it is unlikely that the Secretary of State would be able to call in that acquisition. As has been referenced by noble Lords, I commit that we will provide guidance on the interaction of the NSI regime with other relevant regimes, including export control, which will ensure that affected parties are clear on this point.
My noble friend also asked specifically about the Statement. I am happy to confirm that the Government will consider specific reference to export controls in it if we judge this to be appropriate following the consultation on the Statement. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for this suggestion.
I appreciate the intent behind these amendments, and I hope that I have finally given my noble friend sufficient reassurance on these matters not to press them.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think I heard the Minister say that the export control regime and the regime established by this Bill will be equal, rather than one being precedent to the other. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, quoted a White Paper which very clearly set the export control regime as having precedent over this regime. That is not what I heard the Minister say —so, in order of precedence, how does the Minister expect these two regimes, which I hope will be complementary and not conflicting, to work together?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. It is hard to give a black-and-white answer, because it would depend of course on the circumstances. Let us remind ourselves what the difference is. The export control regime, which is the licensing regime for certain controlled goods, is one important part of the safeguarding of our national security, and, of course, it sits well alongside the national security and investment regime. The two regimes are distinct and do not perform the same role. To give an example to clarify that, the export control regime does not provide the Government with the ability to scrutinise acquisitions of UK companies or the ability to direct the use of sensitive assets used in the UK, whereas the NSI regime would. In a nutshell, the precedence between these two regimes must and will depend on the circumstances that are being covered.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank your Lordships for this very short but useful debate—useful not least in assisting those who will be affected by the regime. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Fox, for their contributions.
The point about the White Paper and the commitment to use the export control regime primarily to deal with national security risks relating to the export of these assets, and specifically the qualifying assets, is that the export control regime sets specific limitations on the export of specific items to specific persons and places. It is very targeted in that sense. As the Minister says, it does not bear upon the question of control of entities or the overall ownership of assets, so there is a compelling need now for this new regime; it just does not need to reproduce or trespass upon those things that are being achieved through the export control regime. That is what I understood the White Paper to say, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to be asking for that to continue to be the expectation.
I hope that Ministers will make it very clear to those affected that, where they have a compliance regime in place for export control, that will continue to be sufficient for the purposes of the management of qualifying assets, because Ministers have made it clear that rarely would they expect to invoke the national security investment regime in relation to specific assets. It is really targeted on the ownership and control of entities and, by that route, the ownership and control of large-scale assets. I am sorry to have had to explain that again, but I do hope that Ministers will take it on board.
I am most grateful to my noble friend for going further than we were able to go in Committee, and, in particular, returning to Amendment 1, what he was able to say about the Statement under Clause 3 and the additional guidance has moved us on quite a long way from where we began. I am most grateful for that, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
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 6: Notifiable acquisitions
Amendment 2
Lord Lansley
2: Clause 6, page 4, line 15, leave out “or (6)” and insert insert “, (6) or (8)”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for speaking to two groups in a row. It is how chance would have it with the structure of the Bill.
Clause 6 of the Bill is where there is a definition of “notifiable acquisitions”. This is linked to Clause 8, which sets out the circumstances in which entities come under the control of a person, and the link between these two, as I understood it, was that if somebody takes control of an entity by any of the routes described in Clause 8, that acquisition would be notifiable under Clause 6 if it relates to a sector in scope of the mandatory regime. Therefore, I was slightly surprised that the cases presented in Clause 8 relate, in the first three instances, to shareholdings in total, or voting rights. My noble friend Lord Leigh has secured a notable concession from the Government, which he will no doubt refer to in a moment—actually, he may not, looking at the list—that secured a change. However, on his behalf I thank Ministers and I congratulate my noble friend on securing that change in the Bill in relation to shareholdings over 15%. It is a sensible shift.
However, I was looking not at shareholdings or voting rights but material influence, as defined under the Enterprise Act 2002. On the face of it, it seems that if one acquires control by virtue of material influence over an entity, why would that not also come under the Clause 6 requirement that it be a “notifiable acquisition”? In a very helpful exchange of correspondence, Ministers have explained to me that their intention is that the mandatory regime should apply only where those affected can be very clear that there is a mandatory notification requirement. Material influence, by its nature, is a less clear test. It is a subjective test and of course it can vary dramatically over time. It is much better, in the view of Ministers, that it should be governed by the voluntary notification regime or the Ministers’ power to call in if they are concerned, rather than by requiring everybody who acquires material influence over a sensitive entity to notify any change of material influence. They have explained that to me and I am very happy—so, in that sense, I am not pushing Amendment 2 any further.
I suppose the point of this short debate is to enable Ministers to explain that point, because otherwise, of course, people could fall into exactly the same confusion that I did: namely, is it control or not? The answer is that, where material influence is concerned, it may be control of a kind—you may be able to influence the policy of an entity—but there should then be a subjective question in the mind of somebody who acquires that kind of influence over the policy of a relevant entity in scope of the regime, and they should think that they should make a voluntary notification rather than being required to make a mandatory one. It does not take them out of the regime, but it changes their interaction with it. I am content that the Bill achieves that, but it is useful to explain that to those who might be affected. Otherwise, I very much welcome the government amendments in this group, and for the moment, I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, since this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I add my thanks to those of my noble friend Lord Lansley to the members of the ministerial team and the Bill team for the time they have given and the meetings we have had to clarify and sort out the delicate balance we are all trying to achieve and the changes being made, which are part of the amendments in this group.
I will focus my remarks on Amendment 8, which returns to whether minority investor veto rights automatically bring the investment in question into the provisions of the Bill. It was an issue I addressed in Amendment 29 in its previous incarnation, along with Amendment 72. I found the Government’s arguments about Amendment 72 entirely convincing, so I have not retabled it, but I am not able to say the same about the response I received to Amendment 29, so I have retabled it and have discussed it with the Law Society, which seems similarly confused.
This is important because if we do not get clarity on this issue, there are at least two possible consequences: a potentially large increase in the number of voluntary notifications required, so further straining the system which the department is setting up, and/or a deterrent effect on people’s readiness to invest in the defined sectors of our economy.
I explained in Committee that a private equity investment essentially has two parts. There is the purchase of the shares, which will take place under the standard provisions of the Companies Act, and that is where the control of the entity lies. In parallel, it will be supplemented by a specially drafted, custom-made investment agreement. This is an agreement which both parties—the investee company and the investor—hope will be put into a drawer and never looked at again but, life being what it is, disagreements take place and the agreement is therefore essentially a protective device for the investor against malfeasance or bad performance by the managers of the company. The Minister needs to understand that it is essentially an agreement about corporate governance, not corporate law, which is how the company is controlled. That investment agreement is likely to require the investor’s consent to a number of major issues, such as approval of the budget, major capital expenditure proposals and so on.
When I describe it like this, it can be seen that these are protective provisions, not proactive initiating ones, but although they are protective, they are extensive, and this is where the use of the words “substantially all” in Clause 8(7) becomes significant. If that is the case, the Bill appears to bring within its ambit a range of private equity investments where the new investor has taken a minority position. It might be assumed that the new investor will be taking a minority position for malfeasance reasons, but there are a large number of reasons why private equity houses do not wish to buy 100% of a company. It may be that the existing management will not sell more than 50%. It may be that the new investor wishes the continuing management to have a real incentive to do well, and therefore likes it to have a larger stake. Last but not least, it may be that the investor has a maximum size of investment he can make and that determines the percentage that the investor can hold. So if you have an investor who can put up only £40 million and the company is worth £100 million, it can take only 40% because that is how the maths work out.
The new investors who are in a minority position need additional protections, and if they can obtain those protections only after making a notification then there are these consequences of more voluntary notifications and some diminution in the attractiveness of the sectors covered by the Bill. That does not seem a desirable outcome.
I have said that significant changes to a company’s status come about not from the investment agreement, but as a result of passages of ordinary or extraordinary resolutions under the Companies Act. Amendment 28 is therefore designed to remove some of the wording of Clause 8(6), which is untried, untested and, at least in the view of a number of law firms, open to interpretation, and replace it with company law provisions with which everyone is familiar.
When winding up the debate on this amendment on 9 March, the Minister said, “I believe that his”—that is my—
“intent is very much to seek to exclude acquisitions of minority veto rights from constituting trigger events.”
So far, so good. He then went on to say:
“However, the Government consider that the Bill already achieves this goal to some extent”—[Official Report, 9/3/21; col. GC 637-38.]
because of the provisions of subsection (7). That is the heart of the matter. The concern of the Law Society and others is that the Bill creates uncertainty where no uncertainty need exist. That uncertainty can easily be dispelled if we use familiar company law concepts.
To summarise, I argue that if no change is made to guard against these uncertainties, legal advisers to private equity investors can be expected to take a belt-and-braces approach and suggest that on all occasions a voluntary notification should be made. When he comes to reply, I invite the Minister either to say that the Government believe that minority investor rights are not covered by the Bill so that we are all clear about that or, if he cannot say that, to please agree to take a further look at it to try to create certainty and dispel uncertainty, and therefore further ensure that we get the right balance between personal property rights and the nation’s security.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to the Government’s amendment and to Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but, as regards Amendment 2, the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are valid and it is rather inexplicable that that subsection of Clause 8 is not included in Clause 6.
When we debated the thresholds for the trigger for mandatory notification, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh—I am sure he will get many tributes today for having pushed the envelope and succeeded in having the Government agree with him—raised issues about 15% versus 25%. The principal arguments were that keeping it at 15% would result in a huge number of notifications, the vast majority of which would not give rise to national security concerns, which would place a significant administrative burden on the new investment screening unit, and that that the current filing threshold of 15%, as set out in the Bill, is significantly below the threshold used in a number of other major foreign direct investment regimes such as France, which requires 25%, Australia which requires 20% and Canada which requires 33.3%. I am delighted that the mandatory notification threshold has been increased to 25%, which was the threshold set out originally in the White Paper. I think the Government’s reversion to their original intent is very much to be welcomed.
As regards Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, not having practised company law for many years now, I can only admire his forensic ability in setting out exactly why we need greater clarity under that provision. He has illustrated that the current language does not provide that level of clarity. In his words, it does not dispel uncertainty, but the language in his Amendment 8 certainly would. I believe it is only in the Government’s and the ISU’s interest to acknowledge that, and I very much hope the Government will accede to his request to provide clarity, either by accepting his amendment or by giving assurance that they will look at it further and take that forward at Third Reading.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak for the first time on this Bill. I declare my interests in the register as a director and former director of a number of companies, although none is obviously affected. I have not spoken until today because I support this Bill, and it has been making good progress without any help from me and with the forensic assistance of my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lady Noakes, Lord Leigh and others right across the House.
There has been a succession of regrettable takeovers of UK jewels in recent years without proper scrutiny by the authorities. The SoftBank raid was the most egregious, yet it was welcomed by the then Chancellor. ARM—my favourite firm when I was Intellectual Property Minister, if I may now say so—was the world’s leading chip maker, headquartered relatively modestly in Cambridge and run by the talented Warren East, who must look back with pleasure to that time. Allowing its subsequent takeover was a serious mistake for UK interests.
This Bill is concerned primarily with security, so I suspect it would not have caught another controversial deal, that of Kraft/Cadbury, though it would have been useful had that too been caught. That example highlighted the fact that it is not only jobs but both R&D spend and cultural support that tend to go with the head office of a company or group.
Decades of such highly leveraged deals have contributed to damage in this respect. Think of aerospace pioneer Cobham and satellite service provider Inmarsat. As an aside, how lucky those of us who have benefited from its vaccine are that AstraZeneca held out against Pfizer a few years ago. We ought to have powers to prevent such a proposal if it arose again and was not in the UK interest. The powers in this overdue Bill should, among other things, slow the sale to overseas interests of companies engaged in tech and biotech, as well as emerging forms of AI and intellectual property.
My concern today is not with the Bill but with government Amendment 3 and its associated provisions, which, as we have heard, raise the threshold, from 15% to 25%, at which investors are required to notify the Government of their deals. I know this is done for apparently good reasons, summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—notably to avoid needless blockages and queues of deals awaiting approval in the new unit at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my old department—but I believe it is the wrong call. No doubt the ARM deal would have been caught by the new rules anyway, but less radical deals might not. I believe that it would be better to invest more in administration at the business department, to keep the threshold as it is and to improve the incentives to discipline and speed in processing of applications.
This is such an important matter for our future that we should not skimp on the new unit, which should be staffed by top people with the ability to work at speed. My noble friend Lady Noakes and others have rightly expressed concerns on this score, which I will support later. It would be a tragedy if this new Act were undermined by administrative inadequacy.
If we are to flourish in this more competitive and dangerous world, we need to prevent British science, technology and intellectual property leaving these shores without anyone noticing or reviewing it. We need thorough scrutiny of the deals identified in this Bill, so, for me, Amendment 3 goes too far and I would find it difficult to support the Government if the House chose to divide.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak on Report. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leigh on raising this persistently and so eloquently at earlier stages of the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on listening to and acting on the concerns expressed across the House at that stage by bringing forward the amendments that he has today.
I particularly associate myself with Amendment 8, to Clause 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I would like to press the case a little further with my noble friend the Minister and ask that we pause for a moment at this stage and ensure that we are not going to scare off potential large investors with an increase in referrals that perhaps could not be managed or see a deterrence to potential investment, therefore possibly damaging the economy.
The way in which I would like to press my noble friend the Minister follows on from what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said in her opening remarks just now as to what extraneous factors may be taken into account that could damage potential investment in this country. Those further factors that I ask my noble friend to rule out have been put forward at earlier stages by the Law Society of England, which I supported in Committee and repeat in connection with Amendment 8 here.
Can my noble friend clarify and give greater certainty as to what constitutes national security? Will he specifically rule out extraneous factors such as employment effects, reciprocal investment and trading opportunities in other jurisdictions and a desire to protect UK business from international competition as factors that would be taken into account when assessing whether a trigger event would give rise to a national security risk? In terms of Amendment 8 and our earlier discussions, it would give clear guidance to those practitioners at this stage if we could rule out that those extraneous factors would ever constitute a potential national security risk.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we have had a short and interesting debate. Speaking to Amendment 2, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has as ever uncovered an incongruity in the way the Bill is drafted. I suggest the Government are wise to listen to his advice. Similarly with Amendment 8, there is a need for clarity for people. Where do they stand on this issue? That is all people deserve when trying to manage their affairs.
We then come to the extraordinary intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is a shame that she was not around to give a Second Reading speech, which perhaps might have guided us through some of our decision-making, and arrived only at this late hour to offer her help. I suspect that, had she involved herself a little earlier, she might have been less concerned with the issues than she is now. For fear of doing the Minister’s work for him, I ask him to confirm that the regime retains the right to call in deals that are less than 25% at any time. The notion that there are deals that the regime may not see is one of the points inferred by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
This is the point: the unit has to be sufficiently resourced and efficient in its work to be able to pick these issues up. We shall talk later about where it gets its information and how the security guidance is fed in, because that comes under another group of amendments. However, with all the issues coming through, the point is how well the regime is actually operated; the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has mentioned this on many occasions. That will be the rub, in terms of how business will be affected by the Bill. The more the Minister can reassure us that the resources will be there to deliver this, the happier most of us will be.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, we remain committed to the principles of the Bill, and join others in thanking the Minister and his team for the way they have conducted discussions with us to resolve any issues on the Bill. One of the issues that remains involves the extensive adventure of the unit into the business environment. In Committee, my colleague and noble friend Lady Hayter introduced an amendment to delete Clause 6(2)(b), and asked why the Government wished to make subject to mandatory notification all acquisitions that resulted in only a minimum 15% stake in an entity. We consider that disproportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, also spoke passionately on the point, as did several other noble Lords. My noble friend apologises because, understandably, she cannot take part in these proceedings today.
However, it is to be welcomed that the Government have heeded the concerns about the unnecessary impact on businesses and the largely intrusive workload for the new ISU section in the department. Government Amendment 3, together with the consequential amendments in this group, would remove the 15% threshold for notifiable acquisitions from the regime. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have been concerned about the impact on businesses, especially in the SME sector, and the huge workload that the Bill would create. That government concession goes a long way towards meeting those concerns.
The Government will still be able proactively to call in transactions involving acquisitions under the 25% threshold of shares or votes if such an acquisition could be deemed to result in “material influence”. However, the ISU would be notified only of transactions most likely to raise national security risks in the most sensitive sectors of the economy. This is plainly sensible. The removal of the 15% threshold will also remove unnecessary impediments to investments in smaller start-ups and enterprises, which might have concerns about hitting the 15% threshold.
Initially the Government reckoned that the new screening regime would result in about 1,800 notifications per year. We expressed scepticism at that estimate, as did several others, including the CBI. Whatever would have been the result, have the Government now recalculated how many notifications the department is likely to receive, having deleted the 15% threshold? I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House the new figure, with any further explanations as to its determination. It would be useful to reflect on it, in the light of the experiences of the unit that are to come.
I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his Amendment 8, which redrafts Clause 8(6). I understand very well the point he is making, and I await the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for an interesting debate, and I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Hodgson for their respective amendments in this group concerning the scope of the regime. I will turn to those in a moment, but let me start with a few remarks on the amendments in my name.
Debates on the Bill, both in this House and in the other place, have reflected that there is a strong degree of cross-party consensus on its underlying principles. I am grateful to the Opposition for making that clear. All sides agree that reforms are necessary to keep the country safe and to bring our investment screening powers in line with our friends and allies. There has also been a shared recognition that the requirements of the mandatory regime must be no more than are necessary and proportionate for the protection of our national security, so that business and investment are not unduly burdened or stifled.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, put it well in Committee when he reminded us that the clue is in the name. This is the National Security and Investment Bill, and it is vital that we secure both these interests. To that end, the Government have reflected carefully on the scope of the mandatory regime and, in particular, on the comments made by a number of noble Lords in Committee on the 15% starting threshold. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who raised this—and who is, I am pleased to see, in her place, taking a break from her “get out the vote” campaign. Perhaps she would be better advised to be getting out the vote, but I am grateful that she has joined us. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Leigh and Lady Noakes, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who all spoke powerfully in support of her amendment.
The Government have concluded that the right approach is indeed to remove acquisitions between 15% and 25% from constituting “notifiable acquisitions”; Amendment 3 gives effect to this decision. We recognise that acquisitions between 15% and 25% will not result in material influence being acquired as a matter of course. Indeed, in many cases, we anticipate that material influence will not be acquired. We have always sought to ensure that the mandatory regime is reasonable and proportionate, and this is an important change, which I believe businesses and investors alike will welcome. I hope that it will reduce the business burden and allow the investment security unit to focus on notifications and cases that will necessarily result in control being acquired.
Let me make two further points on this amendment. First, there may be some noble Lords—my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was one, I believe—who will say that this is a weakening of the regime. Let me explain why I do not believe that that is the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, the Secretary of State will continue to be able to call in acquisitions across the economy at or below 25%—and, indeed, if necessary, below 15%—where they reasonably suspect that material influence has been or will be acquired. That call-in power will be available up to five years after an acquisition takes place, so the incentive for parties to notify cases of material influence that may have national security implications remains, in order to achieve deal certainty. The five-year period also provides the Government with a significant window to identify acquisitions of concern and for the Secretary of State to call them in for scrutiny.
Secondly, the Clause 6 powers enable the Secretary of State to amend the scope of the mandatory regime through regulations. Notwithstanding this amendment, that would include the ability to introduce, if necessary, a 15% threshold or, indeed—assuming the will of Parliament, of course—any other threshold that would be relevant to determining whether a trigger event would take place, for mandatory notification in future if that is considered appropriate. The Government do not currently envisage doing so, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is important that the Bill provides the power to do so, subject to the will of Parliament, if the evidence of the regime in practice suggests that this matter should be revisited. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Amendments 4, 5, 10 and 21 are all consequential amendments that reflect the removal of the 15% threshold, so I do not intend to dwell on them further.
I now turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley would make the acquisition of material influence a notifiable acquisition. I have to say that, in his speech, my noble friend did such a good job of advocating for the Government’s position on his own amendment that perhaps we should welcome him back to the Front Bench at some stage; actually, he would probably make a better job of it than me.
The Government do not consider that broadening the scope of the mandatory regime to material influence would be appropriate. The mandatory regime, given that it is underpinned by voiding and criminal and civil sanctions, must be defined with sufficient certainty for acquirers to determine their obligations objectively.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received a request to ask a short question for elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I suppose I should say that modesty had forbidden me from putting my name down for this group. I wanted to have a point clarified and to thank the Government for listening to the Back-Benchers. I think it was fairly random that I took the 15% point: I cannot remember how it was allocated. I thank the Minister for listening to the many people who made representations.
In respect of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the fourth case—Clause 8(8)—we debated this and I think I raised the question at the time as to what influencing the policy of the entity means. To return the compliment to the Government, I agree with them in this instance because if we had Clause 8(8), I can see a lot of discussion and debate as to the meaning of enabling a person to materially influence “the policy”. We discussed the meaning of this at length. I return the compliment and agree with my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will just say that, as always, I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it has been a helpful debate, not least from the point of view of helping those—I imagine that over time, there will be more of them than we imagine—who will look back and ask what the intentions were behind the Bill as it was brought forward. If I perhaps can say by way of comfort to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the point that we have discovered going through the Bill is that there are two tracks here—I confess that my Amendment 2 was tabled originally not quite getting that point. First, there is mandatory notification, which is required in respect of a notifiable acquisition, so the definition of notifiable acquisition needs to be specified very clearly. Then there is voluntary notification but also the power of Ministers to call in any transaction. That is precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made very clearly and which my noble friend on the Front Bench reiterated.
The common theme here is that taking out the 15% threshold and, indeed, not including the material influence test in notifiable acquisitions, means that it is not subject to a mandatory notification requirement. As my noble friend said, we should not ignore the fact that under Clause 13(1):
“A notifiable acquisition that is completed without the approval of the Secretary of State is void.”
The risk associated with an unclear boundary between what is notifiable and what is not is that potentially large numbers of acquisitions that should be notified are not and therefore those transactions are void. We do not want to arrive at that position. We want people who run the risk of their transaction being a notifiable acquisition either being captured by the mandatory requirement or voluntarily notifying. Frankly, for many people voluntary notification will probably be the better and simpler resort.
Taking out the 15% threshold does not mean, in any sense, that those transactions are taken out of the scope of the regime but simply means that they are dealt with within the regime in a more flexible manner than would be the case through the mandatory notification requirement. Some of the press reports I have seen about this slightly miss the point. This is not a hard-and-fast threshold. It is a threshold for mandatory notification, not voluntary notification. The regime still applies.
My noble friend very helpfully responded to my Amendment 2 in precisely the way that I anticipated and quite correctly and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect of omitting a category of notifiable acquisitions from the scope of the mandatory notification regime, namely where a person acquires a right or interest in a qualifying entity such that their shareholding or voting rights in the entity increases from less than 15% to 15% or more.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments at page 4, line 42, page 8, line 30 and page 21, line 7 are consequential on the removal of Clause 6(2)(b).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 4, line 22.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division, must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 6
“( ) In making regulations for the purposes of this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the risk to national security posed by climate change and to the role of qualifying entities and assets in mitigating that risk.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the risk to national security posed by climate change when making regulations relating to notifiable acquisitions.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, at the very end of the third day of Committee your Lordships had a short debate around the impact of climate change on national security. On these Benches, our view is that this is still not considered appropriately by the Bill as it is currently drafted. Climate is also possibly missed in some of the 17 technologies; I guess we will have a chance to debate that when the detailed list arrives formally. Infrastructure issues are also somewhat neglected, as we have heard on some occasions, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, opposite.
During that debate, I suggested that the best route might not be a lengthy definition of national security, which included a part for climate change. Rather, I suggested, something that focused on Clause 6 might be a better approach. This amendment is the response to that suggestion. Amendment 6 in my name would require the Secretary of State to
“have regard to the risk to national security posed by climate change”
when making regulations relating to notifiable acquisitions. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their signatures and, of course, to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones.
It is quite clear that climate change is already causing national security issues. We have only to look at climate-inspired migration crises, which are hitting many countries, and the related security issues that arise from that mass migration, to appreciate the nexus between these two issues. It is also clear that, when it comes to meeting these challenges, access to both technologies and the raw material to deliver those technologies are crucial to our national response to the climate change threat. Further, the ownership of key infrastructure which will, I hope, help to deliver a zero-carbon footprint will be a matter of concern going forward.
All of this could implicitly fall within the remit of the Bill, and I accept that. This amendment calls for a more explicit recognition of the potential for climate change—which, in my view, includes biodiversity—to affect national security, and that is what I am looking for from the Minister today.
The Minister has previously indicated his allergy to “have regard” amendments, notwithstanding the fact that there are such clauses in Bills that the Government have asked your Lordships to approve from other departments, so perhaps this allergy is simply reserved for the BEIS area. But, recognising this, I ask the Minister, and expect him to explain, why this amendment would contaminate this Bill, because the Government have voiced their concerns around climate change, and it is easy to make that connection in some cases.
At the very least, I think it is possible for the Minister to acknowledge that climate change and its influence will be one of the factors that should be taken into consideration when making regulations related to notifiable acquisitions. I think that he could find his way to confirming that the technology and raw material issues that I set out earlier would also be on the investment unit’s checklist, because they are important elements of national security. I remain hopeful that the Minister will be able to do that while, of course, retaining the option of putting my amendment to a vote. I beg to move Amendment 6.
Amendment 7 (to Amendment 6)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, as this is my first contribution to Report stage of this Bill, I make reference to the Law Society briefing. In summary, it expresses concerns about the Bill’s lack of a clear definition of national security, the definition of qualifying entities and assets, and the procedure for voluntary and mandatory notifications— the whole Bill then. There are grave concerns about the degree to which this has been thought through, through no fault of anyone here in this debate—a small number of people have put in a huge amount of often detailed work. On this point, it is right to note how appropriate it is that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, opened the debate on Report. I ask noble Lords to forgive me if anything in my speech today is unclear, since I am still in recovery from a minor bit of dental work this morning.
I speak now to Amendment 6 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Grantchester, to which I have attached my name, making it truly cross-party. It requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the risk to national security posed by climate change when making regulations relating to notifiable acquisitions. I also beg to move Amendment 7 and speak to Amendment 38 in my name. Amendment 7 adds “biodiversity loss” to the matters posing a risk to national security that the Secretary of State must have regard to when making regulations relating to notifiable acquisitions. Amendment 38 in some ways ties this all together, along with other matters, stating that:
“Within 6 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must publish a statement which outlines how provisions in this Act will align with the United Kingdom’s long term security priorities and concerns which have been identified in the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.”
That amendment is a repeat of an amendment in Committee—tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and myself—which has been only minorly updated to take account of the publication of the integrated review.
In introducing this group, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already spoken clearly and eloquently on the way in which the climate emergency is a national security issue. I note his focus on the list of technologies, which he has kindly offered to work with me on. I have not yet managed to get to that, but I will, and I very much appreciate his offer. I can also go to the Prime Minister’s foreword to the integrated review, which states:
“Her Majesty’s Government will make tackling climate change and biodiversity loss its number one international priority.”
I know that there are now few Members of your Lordships’ House who would at least actively deny the issue of the climate emergency. That does not include, I hope, any members of the new Environment and Climate Change Committee. Therefore, I will focus my remarks primarily on Amendment 7, which adds the concern about biodiversity to that of climate change. I might for completeness have made this amendment refer to planetary limits as a sustainable development goal-informed way of addressing the multiple national security threats from environmental degradation, social inequality and poverty, but this is at least a step along the way towards genuine systems thinking in our legislation.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee we debated the climate emergency as the most pressing issue that affects every aspect of everyday life. The climate crisis is not only a threat in the long term to our survival and that of the planet but a threat to security in the short to medium term. According to the Government’s own statistics, nature loss will result in a cumulative economic cost of up to £10 billion between 2011 and 2050. While the Minister may say that climate change is not directly connected to the national security and investment regime proposed in the Bill, actions by hostile actors that stifle our modern green infrastructure can only make us more vulnerable. As the former civil servant Paddy McGuinness has recently said, green networks
“provide an attractive opportunity for an adversary to unbalance, intimidate, paralyse or even defeat us."
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who have returned with simple “must have regard to” wording in Amendments 6 and 7 regarding climate change and biodiversity loss. Of course, all Governments will have regard to all legislation on the statute book that impacts on our activities and lives. Nevertheless, it is imperative that the risks of climate change be recognised in the new regime being initiated through the Bill, and the Secretary of State must consider how to mitigate these deepening risks.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for retabling our Amendment 38 from Committee, which asks for a statement to be made on emerging threats in the light of priorities identified in the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy. It allows me to follow up with some further questions on the integrated review and its associated documents.
Can the minister provide an outline of how the ISU will work effectively with the MoD directorate for economic security? It is all very well to say that the ISU will be drawing on the expertise in the MoD and the Defence Secretary will be able to make representations to the Business Secretary, but what mechanisms will be set up to co-ordinate across departments? Will there be a mechanism whereby the MoD directorate can give advice directly to businesses in a defence and supply chain through policies initiated from the ISU in the business department, especially in connection with technologies and future associated threats? It would be helpful if the Minister could respond or follow up with a letter in due course.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am grateful once again to the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—I am particularly grateful that she has joined us after her dental work and of course we wish her a speedy recovery—for their respective amendments in this grouping.
With the permission of the House, I will take Amendments 6 and 7 together. Amendment 6 seeks to require the Secretary of State to
“have regard to the risk to national security posed by climate change”
when preparing secondary legislation under Clause 6 in relation to the scope of the mandatory notification regime. Amendment 7 then seeks to amend Amendment 6 to require the Secretary of State to also have regard to the risk to national security posed by biodiversity loss.
I commend the sentiment of the amendments regarding tackling climate change. As I set out in Grand Committee, this Government are of course committed to tackling the climate crisis. I can also confirm, in response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that, just as the Prime Minister has said in his foreword to the integrated review, biodiversity loss very much sits alongside that as the UK’s top international priority. The Government continue to promote co-operation on climate action through the UK’s G7 presidency, and we look forward to the COP 26 conference in November, which will allow us to highlight our leadership in tackling the climate crisis, including biodiversity loss.
However, the Bill is focused on the risks to our national security posed by the acquisition of control over qualifying entities and assets. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, correctly predicted, we are therefore unable to accept amendments seeking to set out what is or is not a factor to be considered when looking at national security, including factors relating to climate change and biodiversity loss, without edging closer to defining it—which, as he knows, we are reluctant to do. I hope that having my comments on the record in response to these issues provides due assistance to noble Lords. I can further reassure them that, as drafted, the Bill provides the flexibility for the Secretary of State to consider all types of risk to national security that are relevant in the context of this regime, including those that are environmental in nature.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 38, which seeks to ensure that the national security and investment regime is consistent with the recently published integrated review. I note that a similar amendment was tabled in Grand Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Northover. However, whereas that amendment asked for a report
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has opted for “within six months”. As noble Lords will be aware, the integrated review provides a comprehensive articulation of the UK’s national security and international policy. It outlines three fundamental national interests: sovereignty, security and prosperity.
I understood the benefits of an amendment in Grand Committee when the Government had not published the integrated review but, now that we have, the alignment is clear for all to see. For example, the NSI will be tremendously valuable in countering state threats, in maintaining the UK’s resilience and in helping us to work with and learn from our allies, to name but a few areas of alignment. Indeed, as noble Lords would expect, this Bill is explicitly referenced within the review.
As noble Lords will know, the National Security and Investment Bill will prove a key tool in enabling the UK to tackle its long-term security concerns and pursue its priorities. The Bill will create carefully calibrated powers for the Secretary of State to counteract concerns around acquisitions and the flexibility to respond to changing risks and a changing security landscape. As part of this, the regulation-making powers in the Bill allow the Secretary of State to keep pace with emerging threats as they arise, such as by enabling them to update the sectors covered by mandatory notification.
Therefore, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not see a strong case for the amendments and I very much hope that their proposers will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank noble Lords for that debate and I thank the Minister for his response. It was entirely predictable, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who has just slipped out, said when we discussed the previous group.
What I heard the Minister say—
“types of risk … including those that are environmental in nature”—
was slightly more explicit than what is in the Bill. My sense when the Minister talks about long-term security is that the technology needed to maintain or further our fight against climate change will increasingly become a long-term concern. I suspect that this unit will find itself embroiled in calling in transactions that indeed concern the environment because they deal with technologies that are environmental in nature.
I will think again on this issue, and obviously I will read Hansard to make sure that I have got the words correct, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 9. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 9
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
“( ) For the purposes of this Act, a person does not gain control of a qualifying entity if the person acquires a right or interest in or in relation to the entity—(a) solely by way of obtaining security; and(b) in a situation where they obtain no effective control.”
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
I thank noble Lords. Amendment 9 is self-explanatory:
“Clause 8, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of this Act, a person does not gain control of a qualifying entity if the person acquires a right or interest in or in relation to the entity—
(a) solely by way of obtaining security; and
(b) in a situation where they obtain no effective control.”
The purpose of this is to ensure that transactions constitute a trigger event only where the person gains actual control of a qualifying entity and, very specifically, to exempt Scottish share pledges or other situations where no effective control is obtained. I moved a previous amendment in Committee, and I thank the Law Society of Scotland, which has drawn this matter to my attention. I thank both Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Grimstone, for engaging with me, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and representatives of the Law Society of Scotland to discuss this issue, which the Law Society still feels has not been satisfactorily addressed by the Government. Obviously, this amendment would be an attempt to ensure that it was.
There is a particular point about Scots law. The amendment is intended to exclude a situation whereby the sole fact of pledging shares in security, under Scots law, would be classed as a trigger event. A Scottish shares pledge does not allow a security holder to exercise effective control over the relevant shares in a Scottish company. The primary concern is that the current proposal suggests that a trigger event would take place in a situation where no control has in fact passed. The Ministers will be aware that not only did we exchange very useful views in discussion in meetings— I repeat, we are grateful to the Ministers for engaging with us—but the Law Society president then wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, copying in the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to express the concern that there was still an outstanding issue that needed to be addressed. As set out in the letter, the Bill as currently drafted fails to align with clear statutory precedents for treating shares that are the subject of Scottish share pledges as still being controlled by the pledger. For example, there is the definition of “subsidiary” in Section 11(59) of the Companies Act 2006, as supplemented by paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 to that Act. That reference obviously comes from the Law Society and not from me. This would create a disparity between Scotland and England—that is the real concern —and could make it harder for Scottish companies to obtain loan finance, as well as disincentivising potential investors from establishing vehicles under Scots law.
The amendment would ensure that a trigger event was recognised at the point at which the transfer of control actually occurs. In doing so, it would enhance the ability of the Secretary of State to carry out a national security assessment and impose any safeguards, but at the most appropriate point.
The Law Society, very helpfully, has set out a hypothetical example reflecting what it would say is a common, real-life scenario. For the purposes of this, it is control over company C which gives, or may give, rise to national security concerns. The situation is this: company A is seeking to raise finance, by way of a loan, and approaches bank B. Bank B agrees to lend the money against security over the shares held by company A in its wholly owned subsidiary, company C. Under current Scots law, the only way to obtain fixed security over shares is by way of a share pledge, with the shares being transferred to bank B or its nominee. As such, it can be said that bank B holds the shares, as per Clause 8(2)—that is, the bank holds 100% of the shares in company C. However, holding the shares in this scenario is not ownership in the true sense, and does not give the security holder effective control. Bank B will be unable to sell the shares, has no right to be paid dividends, has an obligation to immediately retransfer the shares on the money secured being repaid and, most importantly, will be unable to exercise voting rights, other than in conformity with company A’s wishes. In practical terms, company A therefore remains in full control of company C, and bank B is not, in fact, in a position of control.
In the previous debate, Schedule 1 was acknowledged and it appears to address the issue, recognising a scenario where a person grants security over shares but continues to exercise de facto control. However, the clarification refers to rights attached to shares, rather than the holding of the shares. Therefore, it does not fully account for the different situation, where a lender becomes the registered holder of shares in security. That has been the case with a share pledge in Scotland and has been standard Scottish legal and business practice since the 19th century. This is different from English law because, by way of comparison, under an English charge over shares this situation just simply does not arise, because no formal transfer of the charge shares is required to perfect the charge. In the parallel English scenario, the same relationships of control or lack of control exist but—this is crucial—no trigger event is recognised. The disparity between the situations in Scotland and England is one of real concern, which has been highlighted. It is not only prejudicial to existing Scottish businesses, by increasing obstacles to obtaining finance, but risks making Scotland less attractive as a jurisdiction in which to establish a business vehicle. I do not need to remind your Lordships how important the financial services sector is to Scotland. Indeed, Scotland’s contribution to the UK economy is disproportionately large in this sector. So, in project financing, investors could prefer an English vehicle, if this makes it easier to obtain funding. The practical effect is that long-established Scottish legal and business practice is being treated adversely compared to its English counterparts. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government or Ministers, but that remains a continuing concern of the Law Society of Scotland.
Acquisitions will, of course, be notifiable only in relation to the listed sectors. However, it is not the notification requirement per se that poses the risk to the ability of Scottish business to access finance. As identified in the context of the PSC, lenders are reluctant to enter into arrangements that suggest that they have control over an entity when this is not the case. The breadth of the call-in power, the potentially broad scope of national security concerns, means that many transactions may be called in for up to five years after the event has taken place. This creates uncertainty, and uncertainty, of course, opposes a commercial risk. The potential for transactions to be called in after the event in other sectors, may ultimately have a greater impact by disincentivising lenders. I hope the House is clear that this is a point of real and substantive concern.
In real life, it is very unlikely that bank B would seek to appropriate the shares in company C, in the scenario I outlined earlier. The most common scenario, following an event of default, would be for bank B to notify company A that it was going to enforce the security, and then sell the share in company C to repay the debt. The sale of the shares in company C to another purchaser—purchaser P—would constitute a trigger event under Clause 5. There is also the potential that bank B would decide instead to retain the shares. Having given notice to company A, bank B would therefore, at that point, enter into control of company C, acquiring all voting rights, dividend rights and the ability to sell the shares. That is the point at which the trigger event should occur. Entering into control of the shares following a default could indeed be specifically recognised as a trigger event, but that scenario is already suitably covered by Clause 8(2).
In a situation where company C falls within one of the 17 listed sectors, bank B’s acquisition of control would be recognised only if the appropriate notification had been given. In a situation where the Chancellor was not compulsorily notifiable, the five-year call-in period would begin to run at the point bank B assumed control. This could give the Secretary of State a longer timeframe in which to assess any risks posed by ownership of the shares vested in bank B. Notice of bank B’s interest would appear as a matter of public record, subject to the default occurring after the annual return showing that the share pledge had been taken. That would all happen long before bank B was able to take control. For these reasons, there is no real risk of hostile actors targeting lending arrangements as a means to gain control of national security-sensitive entities. The Secretary of State would retain discretion over available remedies, which could be applied at the appropriate time.
Nothing in the remarks that I have just made will come as a surprise to Ministers, because it has been set out in detail in a letter from the president of the Law Society of Edinburgh, addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and copied to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there is an outstanding point of concern. As I say, we are all grateful to the Minister for engaging with us and showing understanding that this is a real issue.
None of us is of the view that there is any intention to put Scotland and Scottish businesses at a disadvantage, but, without this amendment or some comparable amendment that the Government might agree to or introduce, there remains a real possibility of discrimination against Scottish financial services and investment businesses, which would be politically awkward and embarrassing as well as practically damaging to the interests of both Scotland and the United Kingdom sector. I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that this issue needs to be addressed head on and that assurances can be given that the concerns outlined will not actually take effect. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of, and to have co-signed, Amendment 9. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for moving and speaking to the terms of the amendment so thoroughly. I also echo his thanks to the Law Society of Scotland for highlighting this issue at Committee stage and bringing forward this amendment for Report. I also thank my noble friends Lord Grimstone and Lord Callanan for the time that they spent with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, me and members of the Law Society of Scotland going through the issue with us. I remind the House that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.
This is quite a sensitive time to be raising this matter, mindful of the fact that elections are going on in Scotland—they will be held on 6 May—so I am sure that it is not the intention of a British Government whom I overwhelmingly support to seek to disadvantage Scotland at this time. We are here to assist the Government and bring to their attention the ramifications of the preventions of the Bill currently before us. Amendment 9, so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, would simply ensure that transactions constitute a trigger event only where a person gains actual control of a qualifying entity—and to exempt Scottish share pledges in relation to other situations where “no effective control” is obtained.
Of all the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I echo the comparison that he made with English law, which could cause some confusion and has perhaps led to this regrettable situation. Of all the things that I recall from the conversation that we had on the call with my noble friends the Ministers, I want to impress on the Government that this is not just an issue but potentially one of some magnitude—my noble friend Lord Callanan seemed not to grasp that during the call, so I pause to emphasise it to him.
By way of comparison, under an English charge over shares, this situation does not arise, because no formal transfer of the charged shares is required to perfect the charge. In the parallel English scenario, the same relationships of control or lack thereof exist, but no trigger event is recognised. I am sure that this is just an unfortunate situation that has arisen, which is why it is timely to bring it to the Government’s attention today. The disparity between the situations in Scotland and England is one of the concerns that we seek to highlight as not only being prejudicial to existing Scottish businesses and increasing obstacles to obtaining finance but risking making Scotland less attractive as a jurisdiction in which to establish a business vehicle. I support all the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, made.
In the spirit of openness, as this is an extremely technical issue—I can quite understand if my noble friends perhaps do not fully grasp the situation in which we find ourselves—I have taken the opportunity to bring it to the attention of the Advocate-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who will fully consider the ramifications. As such, I have every confidence that, before the Bill leaves this place, full and due consideration will be given to Amendment 9 and what we are seeking by moving it today.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for looking critically at the legislation in relation to Scotland and its legal approach. Clause 8 defines the circumstances in which a person gains control of a qualifying entity, thus constituting a trigger event that may be subject to assessment under this regime. Throughout this process, we have stressed the importance of clarity on who qualifies for assessment under the regime.
Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, aims to ensure that transactions constitute a trigger event only when the person gains actual control of a qualifying entity and to exempt securities or other situations where no effective control is obtained. The amendment’s purpose is to avoid the potential unintended consequences of the Bill for financial transactions under Scottish law, as identified by the Law Society of Scotland. Under the amendment, rights and interests in, or in relation to, entities and assets held by way of security would be exempt from the regime, on the basis that lending and debt arrangements do not give rise to control.
We have been clear that the Bill must be fit for purpose across every part of the United Kingdom, and I ask merely whether the Minister can provide reassurances to the House that it has been properly considered in relation to its impacts on the Scottish legal system in particular. Can he reassure the House that consultation has taken place between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Administration and that there are no outstanding issues to be resolved in this respect?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am of course grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh for Amendment 9 in their names. As they outlined, it seeks to exempt from the call-in power acquisitions made by way of obtaining security over a qualifying entity where no effective control is obtained. I start by placing on record my thanks to the noble Lord, my noble friend and the Law Society of Scotland for meeting my noble friend Lord Grimstone and me following Grand Committee to discuss this issue in detail. Indeed, we have considered all the points that were made.
As I emphasised in that meeting and in our subsequent correspondence, the Government do not consider that the provision of loans and finance is automatically a national security issue. Indeed, lenders need confidence that they can see a return on ordinary debt arrangements in order to provide that service. However, we must also recognise that in a small number of cases national security risks can arise through debt arrangements. Noble Lords have particular concerns about the Bill with regard to Scotland. I understand—and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, stated—that this is because it is usual practice in Scotland for a lender to become the registered holder of shares in security through a shares pledge.
Having heard the concerns, the Government have reflected carefully on the issue, but we continue to believe that an exclusion would not be appropriate in this case. In such circumstances, the legal title to shares will, as a matter of fact, have been acquired by the lender, and it is important that we do not inadvertently create a loophole that those who wish us harm might otherwise seek to exploit.
While I note that the proposed amendment has been updated since the version debated in Grand Committee, reflecting my noble friend’s intention to limit the exemption to situations where “no effective control” is obtained, I fear that this would be difficult to reconcile with the mandatory regime.
It would introduce a new, inherently subjective concept that would sit uncomfortably with the need for acquirers to be able to objectively determine their legal obligations. I hope that noble Lords who have stayed the course on this Bill—a small, gallant band—will know by now that it is focused on the central premise of acquiring control, with these circumstances defined in detail in respect of entities in Clause 8. This amendment would lead to a circular argument in the Bill, in which a trigger event is the acquisition of control—except for when control is not acquired. I am sure that a number of lawyers in this country would be licking their lips with that provision in the Bill.
I mentioned particular concerns about how this would affect the mandatory regime, but the Government also consider that this would cause difficulties for voluntary notification and for the Secretary of State’s call-in power. None the less, both my noble friend Lord Grimstone and I have committed to monitoring the operation of the regime in practice with regard to this issue. Clause 6 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make “notifiable acquisition regulations” to amend the scope of the mandatory regime. That could be used in future, if considered appropriate, to exclude circumstances related to acquisitions by way of security from the mandatory notification regime.
I will address head-on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that this will be particularly disadvantageous to Scotland. It is important to emphasise that such lending arrangements are also possible in England and Wales—albeit we know that they are less common. This Government are staunch supporters of Scotland and it is vital that the Scottish legal and finance sectors continue to flourish.
Let me briefly make three other points on this amendment, which I hope will provide further reassurances to the noble Lord and my noble friend. First, the Bill broadly mirrors the existing approach of the persons with significant control register, which does not exclude legal owners of shares acquired by way of security. I take great confidence from the fact that this has been in place since 2016 and has had no discernible effect on the willingness of lenders to provide finance in Scotland.
Secondly, the mandatory notification and clearance element of the regime is proposed to apply only to entities of a specified description within 17 sectors of the economy. The number of circumstances requiring notification where a lender acquires the legal title to shares at or above the thresholds in this Bill is therefore likely to be low and, as with all acquisitions, the Government expect that the overwhelming majority will be quickly cleared to proceed.
Thirdly, as has been previously debated, I am sure my noble friends will welcome the removal of the 15% threshold I spoke about in a previous group. This will further reduce the number of cases covered by the mandatory regime in relation to securities.
So, for all the reasons I have outlined, I hope that both noble Lords will accept the arguments I have put forward and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for his response and for addressing the details. I am not convinced that the Law Society will be entirely satisfied that the difference between Scottish and English law has been fully appreciated. The Minister talked about legal title but, as I said in my opening remarks, legal title is meaningless if the shares pledge explicitly excludes any mechanism for dealing with the shares—either receiving voting rights, dividends, or the right to sell and an obligation to have them back when the loan is repaid. It simply is not control.
I take note that the Minister is concerned that the Scottish situation is not unique and therefore could cause complications in England and Wales, but the practice is clearly well established in Scotland. As I said in my opening remarks, it has been since the 19th century and is relatively unusual elsewhere in the UK.
I understand that the Minister believes that there will be relatively few instances, but part of the problem with the Bill is that an awful lot is undefined, in terms of the 17 sectors, the details of how those will be determined, the circumstances in which triggers will happen and the definition of national security. All of those things are explicitly not set out in detail.
I welcome Ministers saying they will monitor the situation closely. The assurance I would be looking for if we withdraw this amendment—obviously we will ask the Law Society what it feels about the unamended Bill—is that, if it becomes apparent there is a significant negative impact on Scottish business and the Scottish sector, the Government will be prepared to act to remove such discrimination.
It is a long-established fact that one reason the Scottish financial services sector is so strong is that it has a long history of prudent asset management and insurance, which has given Scotland a disproportionate share of both national and international business because of its reputation for, if I may put it in these terms, “canniness” in managing investments and other people’s money. That being the case, we do not want a situation where the law as introduced somehow compromises that. That would not be good for Scotland or the UK either.
I hope these remarks will be noted by Ministers and they will undertake to consult and respond to any representations that emerge showing that the concerns we have outlined are real and significant. If the Minister is correct in his assurance that, though they may be real they will not be very significant, perhaps the matter can rest. But I am sure that I, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others will make it clear to him that, if it becomes apparent that there is a significant problem for Scotland and that uncertainty is disadvantaging Scotland, he will hear about it. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 4, line 22.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 11
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes a specific time limit on the notification required to be made after the Secretary of State has decided whether to accept or reject a mandatory notification.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 11 and I will speak also to Amendment 12 in my name and Amendment 13 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, to which I have added my name.
With this group of amendments, we are returning to the issue of timing that we discussed quite extensively in Committee. There is a high level of concern in the business community that the timescales set out in this Bill are excessive and breed uncertainty. If a transaction is called in, the Secretary of State has 60 working days—with the possibility of a 45-day extension—to make up his mind what to do. That adds up to five months elapsed time, which could kill many deals and, if the target company is in financial distress, could spell the end of its existence.
I accept that, if national security issues are genuinely involved, we have to allow the Government sufficient time to examine transactions in order to make the right decisions in the interests of our nation. I am, however, concerned about the timing at the front end of the process, once a transaction has been notified to the Secretary of State for both mandatory and voluntary notifications.
I hope that most mandatory notifications will not result in a call-in notice, and it is important that the parties to a proposed transaction get clarity about whether they have to enter the tunnel of uncertainty due to a call-in notice or can proceed with their deal. Under the terms of Clause 14 the Secretary of State gets 30 working days—six weeks in real money—to decide whether to call in a transaction, but that is extended by two indeterminate periods.
In the first of these, the Secretary of State has an unlimited period of
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
in which to decide whether to accept or reject a notice. We challenged this in Committee, but the Minister told us that the Government could not define this period because it would be affected by the nature and quality of the supporting information that came with the notification. I have given the Government the benefit of the doubt on that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her Amendments 11 and 12. I am grateful to her and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for adding their names to Amendment 13.
My noble friend explained Amendments 11 and 12 extremely well. Let me say why separately there is an additional amendment in relation to the voluntary notification separate from mandatory notification. It is precisely because our expectation must be that there will be a significant number of voluntary notifications, particularly in the early days as people involved in various sectors begin to understand how this regime is to act and under what circumstances they should make a notification. Our expectation would also be that, partly for precisely that reason and in the early days, there will be a significant number of voluntary notifications that do not lead to further action on the part of the Government because there is not a national security risk involved and they do not need to review it any further— that is, they do not need to take it through the call-in notice for an assessment.
For many of these transactions, because of the level of uncertainty associated with this—of course, these might be transactions where the seller brings them forward to the Secretary of State to understand under what circumstances they contemplate an acquisition, and whether they should proceed and how rapidly—there are a lot of reasons why this should happen quickly. In looking at Clause 18, about the voluntary notification procedure, our problem was that the review period had “30 working days” applied to it, but that period, as is the case with the mandatory one, follows two indeterminate periods. First, there is the period of time between a notification being made to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State deciding whether to accept or reject it and, subsequently, the Secretary of State, after a period of time—this might be very short; I hope it would be very short—notifying each relevant person. The 30 working days, therefore, could be added to by two other periods.
The purpose of Amendment 13, therefore, is straight- forward. It is to say, “Let’s try to make sure that this is no longer than it needs to be, and that the pressure inside the Investment Security Unit is for what are essentially the bureaucratic processes”—in effect, saying, “We have received a notice. Is it compliant or not?”, then, “Okay, we have accepted the notice. Have we notified all the relevant persons?” Those things happen very quickly because the important thing is that the 30 working days are devoted as far as possible to the review period to get the decision right as to whether this potential trigger event should be called in or not. That is the crucial thing. All the time should be devoted to that review. Amendment 13 says that the 30 days start at the point at which a seller or an acquirer gives a notice to the Secretary of State. I hope that that is helpful.
I noted—no doubt we have a similar view—that the bureaucratic processes should be as short as possible, but the Government, as my noble friend Lady Noakes noted, have put forward their own amendments in a later group. The one that is relevant here is Amendment 27, which would tell us how long the period is between the receipt of a notice and the decision to accept or reject it, and tell us to report that in the annual report. Frankly, that is useful, but we would rather that the pressure was built into the statutory arrangements rather than simply through the question of what is in the annual report by way of performance against that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to these three amendments, I am extremely fortunate to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I do not think anyone could have explained more succinctly how these different timescales work for both the mandatory and the voluntary notification, so I will not go through it again. I really appreciate the persistence of both noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in teasing out the real consequences of these very indeterminate timescales, which may differ between the voluntary and the mandatory notification procedures but create uncertainty in both cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said in Committee,
“we want to ensure that the greatest possible certainty and the least possible delay intrudes into these processes for investors.”—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 229.]
That has been our common theme throughout this Bill.
We have heard some graphic phrases throughout, such as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, decrying both the “no man’s land” that we must not and do not want to fall into and the powers to “stop the clock”. We also heard the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, try to reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State has
“no desire to push his peas around the plate”,—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 222.]
another phrase introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson; he will probably write a book at some stage with all these phrases included. However, that is not the same as the assurance and certainty contained in statute.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said in Committee that
“the process of initially determining whether a valid and complete notice has been submitted is separate from fuller screening”.
We understand that, but there should be clear time limits in that case. He tried to give us a reassurance:
“I mention ‘maximum’ again because that is exactly what these deadlines represent. In many cases, we expect the Secretary of State to be able to review and clear notifications much more quickly.”—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 235.]
Businesses need certainty on whether to proceed with a transaction. A delay in the Secretary of State making a decision outside the time limits—because they can—would cause uncertainty over the validity of the transaction. This lack of a clear timescale could create uncertainty for investors, universities and businesses, making domestic and foreign investment less attractive and disincentivising industry in the process.
I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the later amendments on what should be contained in the annual report; I entirely agree that more transparency is very desirable, but that is not the same as specifying exactly what the timescales will be.
There is also the question of what I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, called the “bureaucratic processes”. There is not yet a great deal of reassurance on that basis. We do not know how the regime will operate. Throughout this, especially on these timescales, the impression is that all the cards are in the Government’s hands, not the hands of the potential investor. That could be a real deterrent. I hope the Government will respond to the very consistent view throughout the passage of this Bill that there needs to be a considerable tightening up in this direction.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief, but I wanted to speak in this debate having spoken on similar amendments in Committee. I oppose Amendments 11 and 12—I will reserve judgment on Amendment 13 until I have heard the full debate—and find myself in the unusual position of supporting the Government’s proposed legislation and opposing changes to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in introducing Amendment 13, talked about the pressure from bureaucratic processes; these amendments are trying to impose a pressure for speed. We hear talk of not wanting these rules to slow things down or to have too many limits or controls. This very much reflects the kind of language we have heard about “cutting red tape”. I always go back to the words of the hazards at work campaign: better red tape than red bandages. What are referred to as red tape are very often the rules that keep us safe, protect us and ensure our security, in the terms of this Bill.
I wanted to make sure that the Government hear voices from the other side in this debate, saying that we have to privilege the public good and national security. Processes must take as long as they need to take to be done properly and have full and proper scrutiny.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 11 and 12, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which concern mandatory notifications, as she made clear. However, I am equally enthusiastic about Amendment 13, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley—even though I have not put my name to it—which addresses voluntary issues as well.
I will add a couple of points in support of these two approaches. As my noble friend made clear on Amendments 11 and 12, the use of the phrase “practicable” or “reasonably practicable”—it is not clear why we have one in one place and one in another—has come in for some pretty widespread criticism. As we have discussed before and heard from various legal advisers, the word “possible” would be a big improvement on “practicable”.
Mandatory notifications will be at the sharp end of the Bill and can be expected in many cases to be controversial. There will be a temptation for a Secretary of State, faced with a controversial decision, to try to delay it. It is common ground that, while we need to take appropriate steps to protect our national security interests, it is also in our national economic interest to encourage as much investment as possible in the chosen 17 sectors which will collectively have a significant impact on our economic future.
With great respect, I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is trying to say, but the reality is that this is a balance; if we are in a competitive market around the world for investment and are unable to balance it properly, people will go elsewhere. It is as simple as that. Her idea of having an open-ended arrangement for the Secretary of State to make up his or her mind is a recipe for an outflow of investment which might otherwise come here to support this country, with its worldwide reputation in tech and other sectors.
On my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment on voluntary notifications, we have been around this course many times before; there will be a substantial flow and the new unit at BEIS may find it difficult to cope. In Committee, we discussed a number of amendments to try to help the Government with this and focus the new regime on the really significant cases. Amendments by various Members of your Lordships’ House, including me, proposed inter alia to exclude intra-group investments, to require only one trigger event for each group of companies and to limit notifications to assets used in connection with activities carried on in the UK—in other words, to limit the extraterritoriality of this Bill’s provisions.
The Government declined to accept any of these, arguing that they needed the widest possible strategic view to prevent evasive tactics by unwelcome purchasers. I must accept the force of that argument, but it means the Government must live with the consequences of those decisions. To provide an appropriate level of certainty for investors, we simply cannot risk a situation where, if a flood of voluntary notifications occurs, the Government could decline to start the 30-day clock.
In his concluding remarks, my noble friend may refer to Amendment 27, which the Government have tabled, about the contents of the annual report. If it is accepted by the House, as I expect it will be, it will include details of the number of days taken to give a decision, or the time taken to reach a voluntary notification. I do not want to add to the points the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made, but I have to say to my noble friend that it is really shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted to be told, a year later, that we have not been able to hit the targets or that they are being missed widely. There is nothing wrong with that, but we are trying to create a balanced regime that hits the ground running, and to learn, a year later, that “the system is overwhelmed”, which a number of us in this Chamber feel is likely to happen, is simply not an adequate answer.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, set out his view of a balance, and I will set out another dichotomy—between thoroughness and timeliness. I do not think any of us in the Chamber are asking for this process to be less thorough. I think we are all saying we want a thorough process. But that thoroughness cannot be at the expense of timeliness, which is what these amendments are seeking to establish.
I do not think it is the Government’s intention to sow the market with uncertainty; I am absolutely sure that is not the intention of the Bill or this element of it. However, we all know that once things get written into law, they move into a departmental process and there is a unit dealing with this, unless there are specific guidelines on achieving timeliness, things will drag and take time. Departmental clocks can run at a different speed to business clocks. We should be clear that that will cost jobs and opportunities, because the longer a transaction takes, the longer it is in play, the fewer opportunities those companies have and the more threat there is for them. This is particularly clear in sales out of distress and in businesses that are already in play. Once they are in play, they become victims of exploitation, and the longer this department maintains a business in play through this process, the more danger those businesses are in.
The Government’s “intent” has come up many times in speeches, and that is an important element here. The way this Bill is currently drafted does not reveal an intent for rapid resolution. It does not reveal an understanding of the importance of timeliness, and that is what these amendments seek to establish.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Clement-Jones, for returning to the issue of the impact of this legislation on businesses and the uncertainty it would create within a business environment as businesses must interface with its bureaucracy. It has been interesting to hear the reflections from debates in Committee.
In Committee, we were sympathetic to Amendment 11 and others in the group as we have also pushed the Government to ensure greater clarity and transparency regarding how long businesses and organisations will have to wait for answers from the Government concerning notifications. It is important not only that statutory time limits are laid down to each stage of assessment but that the overall accumulated length of time of the whole process is defined. We remain supportive of the intentions behind the amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the many business interests that have expressed concerns to us. I merely ask again: what does “reasonably practicable” mean as a length of time?
In Committee, the Minister did not address whether and to what extent five working days could become practicable. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked many pertinent questions concerning the operation of the unit and its systems in addressing the tasks it will have to be administrating. Could the Minister provide more clarity? Can he give assurances today that officials in the department will engage effectively with business and provide updates and explanations regarding issues under consideration to businesses, should an answer not be forthcoming within the defined five-day limit proposed in this amendment, rather than expect businesses to delay and wait for an unspecified length of time to be proved practicable? Communication of the position would prove extremely reassuring to businesses.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Hodgson for their contributions and all the other noble Lords who have contributed so far. Perhaps it is not out of order to especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her rare support of the Government in this instance. I will begin with Amendments 11 and 12 together.
As currently drafted, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State must decide whether to reject or accept a mandatory or voluntary notice as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving it. They must then inform relative parties of the decision as soon as practicable. I will later draw the distinction again between “as soon as practicable” and
“As soon as reasonably practicable”.
Amendment 11 would require the Secretary of State to provide written reasons to the notice “within 5 working days” if a mandatory notice is rejected, instead of “as soon as practicable.” Amendment 12 has a similar effect but would require the Secretary of State to notify each relevant party that a mandatory notice has been accepted within five working days of acceptance, rather than as soon as is practicable, as currently drafted.
My noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Hodgson asked about the distinction in places in the Bill between the timescales, “as soon as practicable” and
“As soon as reasonably practicable.”
These different tests reflect that some requirements are more onerous. For example, determining whether a valid notification has been given will be dependent on the facts of the case, so it is appropriate, in that instance, to use
“As soon as reasonably practicable.”
However, communicating the decision to parties should be possible without delay, so in that instance, the Secretary of State must do so as soon as practicable. I hope that clarifies that for noble Lords.
The Secretary of State already expects to be able to quickly decide to accept or reject notifications in many cases—then inform parties of those decisions—much faster than the five-day working limit proposed. However, I must stress that it is important that there is scope for flexibility in the relatively rare circumstances where more time may be needed. When notifying relevant parties that a notification has been accepted, there may, for example, be multiple, potentially international, parties needing to be contacted whose details are not immediately available.
In some cases, purely as a matter of practicalities, the Secretary of State may need more than five working days to notify a party that their notification has been rejected. Take a notification sent in by letter, from either a UK or a foreign company, without proper contact details and which does not meet the requirement for notification. The Secretary of State would, therefore, be likely to reject it. This may seem trivial, but it may take more than five working days to find the contact details for the notifier to notify them of the rejection. If the letter contained commercially sensitive or personal information, it is particularly important to get that right to make sure that any correspondence from the Secretary of State is not sent to the wrong person. This is just one practical example where it could take longer than five days to notify of an acceptance or a rejection.
Just imagine: the amendments could enable sophisticated hostile actors to game the system. There will be people out there who will want to game this system, if they can, but I am sure that that is in no way the intention of my noble friends.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate—even the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, with whom I never agree. This is a Government trying to take the maximum possible scope for manoeuvre in the Bill because of bad actors out there. We understand that, but we have essentially been pressing practical issues. I was disappointed by what the Minister said, because he gave us lots of extreme outlying examples of where people might be trying to game the system, which I do not quite understand, but little about what the Government will do in practice to address the uncertainty that is feared by the business community, because of a lack of concentration on timeliness will in practice be part of that.
For example, I asked my noble friend the Minister whether there would be a prioritisation or triaging system, so that those transactions that have a great need for speedy resolution can, if possible, be dealt with quickly. I heard nothing on that. I am beginning to wonder whether Ministers have a handle on what the practical arrangements will be within the ISU. My noble friend said that Ministers would be accountable. That is good because if this starts to go wrong, transactions will be caught up, which will end up doing more damage to the UK economy by creating an environment in which no investment comes to us. That would be very damaging. I had hoped that the Minister would go further and say what sorts of practical steps would be taken to increase a focus on timeliness and what the implications would be.
I will not press my amendment to a Division today but, I must say, I do not have the impression that Ministers have a grip on this yet. We accept that the Bill needs to ensure that nothing bad can happen in the area of national security. On the other hand, the Government need to accept that the business community needs much more reassurance than Ministers currently appear willing to give. I beg leave to withdraw.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 30: Financial assistance
Amendment 14
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendments to Clause 30 in the name of Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle seek to ensure that Parliament is able to scrutinise financial assistance before the Government is committed to its provision.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I speak to move the linked Amendments 14, 19 and 20, which appear in my name. I must begin by offering my profound thanks to the Public Bill Office for providing the expert legal assistance to deliver a legal framework for the purpose set out in the explanatory statement, which is
“to ensure that Parliament is able to scrutinise financial assistance before the Government is committed to its provision.”
Noble Lords will recall that, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, drew our attention particularly to Clause 30, which provides the Secretary of State with the power to compensate for the consequences of him or her making a final order under Clause 26. I quote the noble Lord from that debate:
“Its wording can best be described as wide, and the Explanatory Notes are not much more helpful.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said in that debate that,
“if the Government’s requirements have caused disaster to befall a company through delay, there should be a mechanism for compensation. However, how that is to operate needs to be made clear.”
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked a good question about
“from which budget the grants, loans and indemnities would come.”
I will now disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, by proving that it is possible for us to agree, at least occasionally, for I entirely agree with her comment in Committee that
“a Bill about stopping certain transactions could have morphed into one whereby the Government will stuff public money into the pockets of one or more of the parties involved, with almost no explanation.”
I conclude my little roundup with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who started this debate. He said that
“there is no control over what the Secretary of State does.”—[Official Report, 16/3/21; cols. 215-20.]
I apologise to your Lordships’ House that these amendments appeared late. Given all the discussion in Committee, I was rather hoping that someone with more experience of legislating than me would pick the issue up but, when I saw that that had not happened, I thought that I should at least give the House a chance to find the solution to a problem so clearly identified in Committee. What I am doing is taking the financial compensation—the potentially swingeing payout—from the hands of the Minister and handing it to the best possible democratic control and greatest transparency: that of Parliament.
To run through some of the regular reactions that we hear from Ministers, if the Government say, “This could be better drafted”, I would be happy for them to do so. If they say that there should be a lower limit to the sums concerned, that is certainly something to talk about. If they suggest that this would slow the process, I would point to recent times when Parliament has proved able to act very quickly—the events of 30 December 2020 come to mind—if the money is needed and justified.
However, I think that there is clearly greatly increased public concern about the Government handing over money to the private sector; that concern has increased even more since our debate in Committee. In the interests of not being seen as political, I will resist the urge to expound at length on the reasons why there is growing public concern, because I am making a serious attempt here to see if some improvement, clarity or democratic oversight can be provided to the exercise of Clause 30.
Last night, during the Financial Services Bill, we were talking about regulatory capture and, indeed, political capture—a situation in which the Government are often seen to be acting as a wing of, or advocates for, business, rather than as an advocate for the common good. I am not saying at this moment that I will not push this matter to a vote but am not saying that I will. I want to hear the, albeit rather disappointingly short, debate and anyone who might want to question the Minister’s response before making a decision on that. I should like there to be some movement, clarity and reassurance on the use of Clause 30. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for the amendments in this group. We recognise the importance of financial assistance in relation to the regime where it would have financial impacts on businesses, following a final order being made. We understand the public significance of financial assistance and are supportive of there being parliamentary oversight and agreement to that assistance. The issue of how practical it is to undertake that before any final order is made, presumably after close contact with an affected business, is an interesting point that the Minister will address.
The noble Baroness will understand that consideration of regulations is not generally contentious. Nevertheless, her points are well made. Any greater clarity that the Minister can give in the parliamentary process regarding awards made in consequence of government decisions would be helpful. Will all individual cases of those receiving financial assistance be made public? It would be interesting to understand the Government’s intentions and the role of Parliament in scrutinising financial assistance.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for the amendments she has tabled. I also welcome to the Chamber one of my supporters, the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh.
These amendments would remove the requirement for financial assistance to be given with consent from Her Majesty’s Treasury. They would require, instead, regulations to be approved by Parliament before financial assistance is given. Amendment 20 would consequently remove the reporting requirement when financial assistance exceeded £100 million in any financial year.
I think it is a sensible check in the context of this regime to set out in the Bill a requirement for the consent of HM Treasury. Parliament has a choice today in the final stages of this Bill on whether to approve the principle that financial assistance should be made available in consequence of the making of final orders. Requiring that an affirmative statutory instrument be laid each time money is proposed to be spent for these purposes would be excessive and possibly cause that principle to be debated each time. Indeed, parliamentary approval for each occasion of spending is likely to be impractical in many circumstances because of the time required. The delay could lead to the UK losing important capabilities that we may have otherwise been able to support while an appropriate acquirer was found.
On accountability, I remind the House that Parliament will already have voted on the spending estimates, and BEIS will need to account against those. The BEIS accounting officer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that budgets are spent in the correct ways. I am therefore unable to accept these amendments.
Finally, and more generally, I know that several of your Lordships are concerned about the seeming opacity of providing financial assistance. Perhaps I may say a few words to explain the provision further. The reporting provisions are intended to ensure that Parliament will be able to see what assistance the Secretary of State is providing, at least on an annual basis, and more frequently if spending rises over £100 million in any relevant period. Your Lordships may also, at any time, ask Questions to the Minister about spending on financial assistance, which will have to be answered in the House. Additionally, HM Treasury will not be forthcoming in its consent to spending unless a strong case is made, and use of the power will be subject to all obligations on using public money.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his contribution and the Minister for his response. I particularly note that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, shared my concern about the need for greater clarity on the use of Clause 30, his focus on the need for payments to be made public and the need to understand the rationale behind them.
The Minister suggested that there was a problem with the principle being debated each time a payment was proposed. I am not sure that it is necessarily bad that principles should be debated regularly. It was interesting that he said that this proposal would be impractical in many circumstances. I must admit that I find a matter of concern his suggestion that that might be something that happens often. He also said that accountability was through the BEIS accounting officer. However, what we are talking about there is after the fact, and in the depths of a great deal of varied and complex spending.
In his general comments, the Minister said that it was always possible for your Lordships to table Questions in the House but people have to know what is going to happen if they are to have any hope of intercepting it, or at least throwing light on it, before it happens. I am concerned that there will be no separate guidance about the use of the power, which is, as in the nature of the whole Bill, a novel use of government spending.
None the less, although we have not reached where we need to get to, it is clear that I have not found the route to get there, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 15
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes whether there could be any circumstances beyond a risk to national security which would result in financial assistance being given under Clause 30.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall move the amendment and speak to Amendments 16 and 17 in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for adding their names. I have also added my name to Amendment 18 in the group, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots.
My amendments are probing amendments, following the interesting stand part debate that we held in Committee on Clause 30, which gives the Government extraordinarily wide powers to give financial assistance. The Minister’s response in Committee raised as many questions as he answered and we have therefore tabled amendments to gain further enlightenment.
There is no constraint on the ability to provide financial assistance in the Bill, other than that it can be only
“in consequence of the making of a final order”.
My noble friend the Minister sought to reassure us that this was
“not a general compensation scheme”
and would be used only in exceptional cases. The Minister said the power
“will only be used in instances where the public interest, particularly national security interests, require it”.
Later, he said that
“the nature of national security makes it very hard to predict where some of these issues might arise. However, where they do and where national security is an issue, it is important that the power is there”.—[Official Report, 16/3/21; cols. 223-26.]
I was puzzled by this. Is national security a necessary condition for the use of the power or not? Our horrible hybrid working practices mean it is not easy to pursue questions in Committee when the Minister gives answers, so I tabled Amendment 15 to explore this further.
Amendment 15 adds to Clause 30(1) the words “if he or she”—that is, the Secretary of State—
“considers that there is a risk to national security”,
so that the financial assistance power could be used only if it were necessary on national security grounds. There could easily be other grounds for giving financial assistance—for example, if we had an industrial strategy, which I am definitely not advocating. I do not believe it would be appropriate to allow considerations broader than national security to underpin financial assistance under this Bill. If my noble friend the Minister thinks anything beyond national security could be involved, I suggest he needs to explain to the House what those circumstances could possibly be.
Amendment 16 takes out some words from Clause 30(2) so that financial assistance can be provided only by way of loans, guarantees or indemnities. The current wording allows practically anything under the sun and certainly allows grants and soft money. My noble friend the Minister will know that I am deeply sceptical about giving a Government powers to throw taxpayers’ money around. Powers such as these, drafted with good intent, can end up being used as cover for politically expedient expenditure. The best way to stop that happening is not to have the power in statute, as it is too much of a temptation and, even if I trust the current Government to act responsibly, which of course I do, I would not trust Governments of a different party—if we were unlucky enough to experience that again.
Lastly, Amendment 17 says that financial assistance has to be provided on arm’s-length terms. I should probably have drafted this in terms only of loans, guarantees or indemnities, as I do not think that subsidies or grants—which I am sure my noble friend the Minister will tell me he needs the power to provide—can ever be on arm’s-length terms. I was prompted to table this by what my noble friend the Minister said in Committee:
“For example, if the Government provided a loan, it would normally have to be at market rates.”—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 224.]
I hate weasel words such as “normally” almost as much as I hate throwing taxpayers’ money around in non-commercial transactions. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to say a little more about the boundary between commercial and non-commercial terms for assistance given under Clause 30. What will drive the use of market rates and, I hope, market terms and conditions? What criteria would be used for abandoning arm’s-length terms?
I would have preferred not to have this broad and undefined power sitting on the statute book, because it implies an intent to provide financial assistance. The Government could have relied on the Appropriation Act for genuinely exceptional circumstances. However, if the Government are set upon having the power, Parliament is entitled to some better explanations than we got in Committee of its potential use. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, once again I have the pleasure of flying in the slipstream of my noble friend Lady Noakes. Before I turn to my own Amendment 18, I will say that I entirely support the remarks she made about Amendments 15, 16 and 17, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 18, like my noble friend’s, is a probing amendment and seeks to discern the possible financial impact of this Bill on the small battalions. I hope the House will forgive me if I become a little granular and practical about how this clause might work. It can far too easily be assumed that this Bill will impact only on big companies. That is not the case. It has not been the case in the past and certainly will not be the case in future, with the big increase in the number of sectors of the economy falling within the provisions of the statute.
I would like to take the House back to our first day in Committee, when I raised the case of Impcross Ltd. Impcross had been the subject of a reference under the old regime. It was statutory instrument 2019/1490. I am not—repeat, not—going to ask my noble friend to comment on the details of the Impcross case. It would be utterly improper for me to ask, and probably even more improper for him to answer. But I want to use the Impcross case as an example of how drastic an impact the provisions of this Bill could have on smaller companies and their owners.
Impcross is based in Stroud and machines parts for the aerospace industry. Its annual turnover is just shy of £12 million, so it is not a large company but a small one, and one that in the year to 30 June 2019—according to the records at Companies House—made a small operating loss. Significantly, it has a person with significant control. In this case, the accounts reveal that a particular individual owns between 50% and 75% of the company. If you look back through the records, you can see that the individual appears to have been at the company for many years, so it is not fanciful to believe that the company is the result of a lifetime’s work and effort and, further, that perhaps the particular individual is now considering his future options, which might involve selling up the company and enjoying the fruits of his labours.
One exceptionally important and helpful aspect of the Bill the Government have brought forward is the establishment of timeframes, which we have already talked about today. We are a bit nervous about how good the timeframes are—we think they may be a bit too flexible for our wishes—but nevertheless there are some there. The Impcross case was referred in early December 2019. It was not until 10 September 2020, nine months later, that Gardner Aerospace, the Chinese-owned potential buyer, withdrew. That cannot have been an easy nine months for all involved, but it serves to underline—if I may say so to my noble friend on the Front Bench—the real importance of sticking to the fixed timetables. Otherwise, the company in the gun sights has a very uncomfortable time indeed.
This does not deal with any potential economic consequences. Let us take the example a little further. If companies are in interesting sectors, they are often sold on a multiple of turnover. Let us say it is two and a half times turnover, which would mean Impcross was worth £30 million. Let us suppose that was the figure that Gardner Aerospace offered, but that when it was refused permission to complete the transaction the next best offer was £27 million, a reduction of 10%; it could well be more. My noble friend the Minister, who has enormous and extensive experience of the City, knows that once an offer has failed to complete, there is always a concern among other buyers that there is something they have not spotted and that there is something wrong that they will need to look at more carefully.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am again very fortunate in following the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I have signed Amendment 18 and my noble friend Lord Fox has signed Amendments 15 and 16. I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said about the lack of clarity and the important implications of this clause.
In our clause stand part debate in Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, described the clause as “tightly drawn”. Today, he has talked about strong checks on the power, but I would have thought that it is now abundantly clear from the debates we have had, not only on the previous group of amendments but particularly on this group, that there is insufficient clarity about the operation of the clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, described the clause as extraordinarily wide, in particular in terms of transparency, the reporting requirement, an inadequate and arbitrary cut-off point, the nature of affected parties who could be compensated, the lack of alternatives to compensation, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fox, such as taking an equity stake, and the lack of a specific reference to public interest and national security in the clause. It seems we have to rely on the threat of judicial review rather than the wording of the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the compensation is “necessary and proportionate”.
The Minister assured us that the power would be used only “responsibly and respectively”—I am not quite sure what “respectively” means in that context—but that the circumstances were hard to predict. Nothing that has been said so far today has dispelled the opacity, which I know the noble Lord intended to do. It is still extremely cloudy, and that was illustrated by both who have spoken. All this argues for a much tighter framework, such as suggested and probed by these amendments. I hope that the Minister will either take that on board or give pretty clear, detailed assurances about the workings of the clause or, probably even better, separate guidance. I understand from the Minister that that will not be provided, which seems highly regrettable. I hope that the Minister can give much greater detail about the operation of this clause, as required by these amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is arriving back in his place, as I am not intending to speak for very long, so he had better get there swiftly.
This seems to be the other half of the amendments that went with the previous debate, and the group, with the exception of the noble Lord, is mutually exclusive, but it is still around subsidy payment money and what it is. The central question about Clause 30 is: what was in the Government’s mind when it was drafted? What is it for? The longer the Minister refuses to be specific in answering that question, the more I am drawn to the supposition that the Government do not know what it is for and that it has been put there as an insurance measure, just in case. Frankly, that is typical of the way this Bill has been written. It has been written as widely as possible to give the department as much leeway as possible in the event of stuff happening, stuff which is as yet undefined or is perhaps undefinable. That is not a good example of what Governments should be bringing to your Lordships’ House for approval.
The questions that have been asked very clearly by the previous speakers are important. If the Minister wants to prove that there is some guiding force behind Clause 30, and not just “We’ll put it in just in case we need it”, which is what it looks like to me, I look forward to hearing his comments.
In speaking to the previous group, the Minister implied that the fact that the Treasury would have a hand on the tiller should give us comfort. If the only comfort we have is that the Treasury will be looking over your shoulder, it does not sound very comfortable. The department should know what this money is for, why it is there and what it is going to be used for. We should not have to rely on the good offices of Her Majesty’s Treasury.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for looking after my welfare.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Fox, for pressing further through this group on the scope of Clause 30 concerning financial assistance, how far and in what circumstances financial assistance will be provided to businesses resultant on government decisions, and what the Government have in mind when under Clause 30(2)
“any other kind of financial assistance (actual or contingent)”
could be helpfully provided.
Amendment 18 is important in raising the issue of compensation, which I am sure the Government will continue to resist. Greater clarity will be always be helpful. Does the Minister envisage assistance being given beyond a certain figure? The sum of £100 million is specifically mentioned in the Bill. It seems to us, however, that the scope of the provision in Clause 30 is adequately drawn up.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the attention that your Lordships have paid to Clause 30 today and in Grand Committee. As we know, the clause enables financial assistance to be given to, or in respect of, entities in consequence of the making of final orders. The key challenge from your Lordships towards this clause has been about transparency and how the system will work. I will do all I can today to cast some further light on this.
First, I shall address Amendment 15, tabled by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would limit financial assistance to situations in which the Secretary of State considered that there was a risk to national security. I am pleased to be able to reassure the House that this Bill already requires that financial assistance may be given only where there is a risk to national security, since it states that financial assistance may be given only when a final order has been imposed. As final orders may be imposed only once a risk to national security has been determined to exist, I am happy to confirm and to reassure noble Lords that a risk to national security is a necessary part of granting financial assistance.
All financial assistance will be further subject to the usual scrutiny and agreement of HM Treasury, as I said in Committee. I may not be completely reassuring to all noble Lords, but I have no doubt that it would be scrutinised thoroughly by HMT. Essentially, the Secretary of State will not be able to hand out money in any way they choose, or, in my noble friend Lady Noakes’s phrase, to
“stuff public money into the pockets”—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 218.]
of companies.
Turning to Amendments 16 and 17, tabled by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, Amendment 16 would limit the forms of permissible financial assistance to loans, guarantees and indemnities. Amendment 17 would specify that financial assistance would need to be given on “arm’s length terms”, which might be subject to a degree of interpretation in this context, but I appreciate that both amendments are probing the nature of any financial assistance.
It is important that the Secretary of State has some flexibility in the types of financial assistance that might be given, because there may be circumstances—perhaps unforeseen at the moment—where a form of assistance other than loans, guarantees or indemnities, will be appropriate. It would be most unfortunate if we had tied the Secretary of State’s hands so that they could not give such assistance just when it was needed. I assure noble Lords that the Government will be guided entirely by prudence when deciding what form of assistance is appropriate. However, we should not limit financial assistance in the way proposed by the amendments in lieu of a clear case for why this must be done. I am afraid I have not heard that clear case today, although I am very grateful to my noble friends for their points of explanation.
Picking up a point made in Committee, I reassure my noble friend Lady Noakes that financial assistance may be recoverable, depending on the terms set by the Secretary of State. Just as the decision to grant financial assistance will be taken on a case-by-case basis, so the terms of that assistance will be fixed on a case-by-case basis, including whether it should be recoverable. Indeed, I expect that in many circumstances the assistance would be recoverable. All such spending would be made clear in the annual report and in a separate report to the House of Commons if spending exceeded £100 million in any relevant period.
It may be the case that following a final order, only non-recoverable financial assistance would ensure that the UK does not lose capabilities considered important enough for the Secretary of State to intervene to protect them in the first place. If they are important enough to prevent losing them to actors who may do us harm, it should be open to the Secretary of State to decide whether they merit unrecoverable support. If financial assistance is given to a firm, that does not mean, in these circumstances of national security matters, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson said in Committee, that the firm is somehow a wounded bird or has become inherently unattractive. In most circumstances it may just mean that the Government are tiding it over until a more suitable acquirer, which does not pose a risk to national security, is found. To be absolutely clear, the Government do not intend for financial assistance under the NSI regime to be used as a form of back-door subsidy control. Under the Bill, financial assistance may be given only in consequence of a final order—to mitigate the effects of a final order, for example.
Amendment 18 would provide that financial assistance may include compensation given to anyone who suffers economic harm because of actions taken under the Bill. I remind your Lordships that subsection (1) already limits financial assistance to assistance given
“to or in respect of an entity in consequence of the making of a final order.”
Therefore, even with this amendment, Clause 30 is not a general compensation scheme. It relates only to final orders. Additionally, I have doubts as to whether the amendment would be straightforward to apply. For one thing, it is not entirely clear what would constitute “suffering economic harm” as a result of actions under the Bill. Furthermore, it is not clear how such harm would be assessed, what evidence would be needed or what sort of assistance would be appropriate.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I was not expecting many answers from my noble friend the Minister, and I was not disappointed. We can conclude that we have heard nothing that explains this clause any more clearly; it is still opaque. This probably indicates that Ministers do not know how they will be using this power, but they would like it in their back pocket just in case. I am not at all surprised by this being the case.
This will mean that ex post scrutiny and accountability of Ministers’ use of this power will become very much more important. Obviously, if there is a large amount—over £100 million—in one year, an ad hoc report will go to the other place. Otherwise, there is the content of the annual report, which will become quite important. There is the BEIS Committee in the other place, which I am sure will have an interest in this, and your Lordships will be aware that this House has recently set up the Industry and Regulators Committee, to which I am pleased to have been appointed. This power, if used, would be the kind of thing that your Lordships’ Committee would want to look at, to see how it had been used in practice and whether it had been used prudently, as the Minister has assured us it will be.
I do not think we can take this any further forward today. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 4, line 22.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 53: Procedure for service, etc
Amendment 22
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations under Clause 53 may make provision in respect of non-individuals required to give notices and any other documents under the Bill, as well as those in receipt of such documents.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 22 in my name, but with the permission of the House I will also speak to Amendments 23, 25, 27 and 32. I shall begin with Amendments 25, 27 and 32.
A strong theme of debate in Grand Committee, and in the other place, has been whether there is sufficient accountability in the regime—in particular, through the reporting requirements in the annual report. In general, as the House will be aware, the Government’s position has been that, as the Secretary of State may add anything judged appropriate to the annual report, there is no need to amend the Bill to include additional reporting requirements. The Government have, however, listened to proposals, including those made through amendments tabled in Grand Committee, and seek to add additional reporting requirements where it is judged that they would provide significant additional value for parliamentarians and the general public.
Amendment 32, in my name, will therefore increase the level of detail provided on final orders in the annual report, so that in addition to their total number being published, the number of orders varied and revoked will also be published. We recognise that final orders will be significant and reflective of government intervention following the call-in of an acquisition. There will already be a duty on the Secretary of State, in Clause 29, to publish notice of the fact that a final order has been made, varied or revoked. It is therefore appropriate that we provide information on the total number of orders varied and the total number of orders revoked. I thank, in particular, my noble friend Lord Lansley for this proposal, and for our discussions on how to improve this Bill prior to, during, and following Grand Committee. His counsel has been much appreciated.
Amendments 25 and 27 address the concern that the requirements on the Secretary of State to decide whether to accept or reject a mandatory notice or voluntary notice are insufficiently specific. As it stands, the Secretary of State must decide
“As soon as reasonably practicable”
after receiving a notification, and thereafter notify parties of his decision as soon as practicable. I set out during Grand Committee that the Secretary of State would strive to ensure that decisions to accept or reject notifications were made quickly. In many cases “as soon as reasonably practicable” is expected to be a very short period indeed, but we do not consider it appropriate to limit the period to a specific number of days, so as to provide scope for flexibility where required. In place of that, the Government propose reporting on the average number of days taken to respond to voluntary notices and mandatory notices. This additional detail will, we believe, ensure that parliamentarians and the wider public will be able to judge whether the Government’s expectation that this will be a matter of hours or days is proving correct year on year. Of course, these changes do not preclude the Secretary of State from going further by providing more information than required, where the information provides value to Parliament, and where, in particular, it provides reassurance where there is no time limit expressed in terms of a number of days.
Amendments 22 and 23 are minor amendments. Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 53 provides for regulations to be made setting out the procedure for service of documents under the Bill. These changes are intended to put the scope of the power beyond doubt. A change is proposed in subsection (2)(g), so that it is clear that the regulations may specify what must, or may, be done in relation to service of documents by senders outside the United Kingdom. A corresponding change is then made to paragraph (e), to avoid any doubt that the regulations will be able to set out what must, or may, be done where a sender is not an individual.
I hope that I have made clear the principles on which the Government are approaching the amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, all of which would amend the annual reporting requirements. Some of them overlap with amendments that my noble friend has just spoken to. In particular, my Amendments 26 and 28 are similar to his Amendments 25 and 27. The difference is that my noble friend’s amendments ask for the average time to be given, whereas I ask for both the average and the maximum, because averages can be very misleading. However, we shall have some data, and I am sure that those can be used as a springboard for further examination of BEIS Ministers and officials, if either House wished to do that, so I shall not pursue those amendments.
Of my other amendments, Amendment 29 asks for differentiation between call-in notices issued for mandatory and for voluntary notifications. That is not given, and it is quite an important bit of information, which would be useful to enable us to see how important that mandatory notification route turns out to be. The other thing I have asked for is a focus on timing—the time between issuing the call-in notice and getting to the end of the process and giving the final notifications and the final orders. I continue to believe that those areas would be important for keeping an eye on how well the process is operating, especially as there are very long times available once the call-in notice is issued. Again, I am sure that questions can be tabled and Ministers can be interrogated in the usual way, so I am not worried about that. I am glad that my noble friend has moved towards more transparency, although he has perhaps not gone quite as far as I would have preferred.
Although I have not added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I think it is important for annual reporting to keep a focus on the resources dedicated to this, because the timing performance will be in part a reflection of whether adequate resources have been dedicated. Of course, giving numbers never gives an idea of the quality of resources, so that can only ever be an imperfect picture, but it is important for Parliament to have an opportunity to review and keep in focus the resources dedicated to the ISU processes. That is where the biggest impact is likely to be felt by businesses as they come up against the system. Well done for bringing in some transparency; a bit more would have been better.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as I noted earlier, the administrative arrangements for consideration of deals referred to BEIS are incredibly important. This is a good Bill, but it must not be undermined by poor implementation, or UK plc will be cast in a bad light. As others have said in Committee, delays create cost and uncertainty, which can jeopardise beneficial takeovers or combinations. Deals in the 17 categories must be reviewed, but this must be done professionally and quickly.
I therefore welcome the Government’s amendments, and thank my noble friend the Minister, but I do not think they go far enough. At the least, I feel that he should also accept some or all of Amendments 28 to 31, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes—either in the Bill at Third Reading or through a commitment to add to guidance.
I have years of experience of being regulated, by the CMA and other anti-trust and investment authorities round the world, mainly in my former retail role. Good people, and good regulators, are both thorough—I know that has been a cause for concern right across the House—and timely. I can tell noble Lords that authorities use the set timeframes as a defence, and almost never, in my experience, report or publish ahead of the deadlines. So the timelines need to be clear, and, as argued by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Lansley, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in the debate on Amendment 11, they need to be tight. They could perhaps also be shorter for smaller or struggling companies, which have more to lose. It would be helpful if my noble friend could have a look at that, if it is not already envisaged that we will take special care with those categories.
It is a worry that we are running out of time for the Bill in this legislative Session. As I have said, I supported the Bill at the start, and I am keen to get it on to the statute book, as I know the Government are as well.
In the light of discussion, I have four questions that probably go slightly wider than the annual report. Perhaps I could ask the Minister to respond either today or before Third Reading. My first question is whether in principle the Minister has the ability to consult on sensible arrangements on timeliness and timelines and put them into statutory guidance or whether a new power is needed, which is rather suggested by my noble friend Lord Leigh’s Amendment 36, which we will come on to.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I can be brief. I acknowledge with thanks that the Minister has brought forward government amendments that respond both to my Amendment 81 in Committee, about the number of orders varied or revoked and, in part, to what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, had to say on Amendment 80 in Committee, including on the time taken to decide whether to accept or reject mandatory and voluntary notifications. I will not rehearse what my noble friend Lady Noakes had to say. Knowing more about the time taken, in addition to what is already intended to be in the annual report, will certainly give us reassurance about these administrative processes, which I think will be very important—especially at the outset, bearing in mind that we start with already potentially five months’ worth of relevant transactions that are within the scope of the regime but the legislation has not yet entered into force. Operating rapidly in relation to all those potential notifiable transactions will be really important, even in the first annual report.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments tabled by the Minister, and I thank him for doing so. I shall also speak to those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which I have signed and strongly support. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has highlighted the extra importance of transparency in the annual report in these circumstances where we already no doubt have a backlog of potential action.
I thank the Minister for responding to concerns in Committee and in the meantime and for taking us towards greater transparency. While the noble Baroness did not use the expression “half a loaf”, since it is perhaps three-quarters of a loaf, it goes some way towards giving us a greater understanding of how effective the regime is, particularly given the Government’s desire to keep these rather uncertain timescales that we were talking about in Committee.
In Committee, I hoped to persuade the Government to undertake a regular review of whether the Act was achieving its aims. It seems good practice to make sure that we have the right balance between the investment climate and national security concerns. The Government were unpersuaded by that, but I hope they will take on board the contents of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, particularly new paragraph (p),
“the impact on levels of foreign investment in the United Kingdom brought about under this Act”,
which would be inserted as a requirement in the annual report. Currently, the annual report does not go far enough. Surely, seen in the round, one of the most important factors is the impact of the Bill on foreign investment. Is this not a key indicator that should be included in any annual report? How can we judge how the balance of the Bill’s requirements are working? Is foreign direct investment not sufficiently important to be included in the annual report? I hope that the Minister can perhaps explain, if there is no explicit reference to it, why not, and if not, whether there will be a description of how the regime is operating.
Other aspects of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, are extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned the average staff resource allocated to the operation of reviews and so on. That resource aspect is going to be very important so that we can see transparently what resource is being devoted. Then there is the whole aspect of SMEs, which potentially could be impacted very heavily. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about this. I think that is a very important aspect too.
The way that the regime in the Bill impacts is extremely important. The Minister has given us some transparency, but I very much hope that he will accede to further requirements that could be included in the annual report really without very much difficulty.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I welcome the lead amendment in this group from the Government, providing greater clarity to the Clause 53 procedure for service. However, the bulk of the amendments in this group concern Clause 61, on the annual report. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
In commerce, I have always championed annual reports as a strategic publicity document for an organisation, displaying how it is performing, how effective it has been, what results and achievements it has attained and what wider societal responsibilities it has performed. It can be far more than a dry, lumpy statutory document that has to be produced and is a chore to be complied with. I am sure it should be the same for government departments and public agencies.
I am grateful, therefore, for the dialogue since Committee with the Minister and his team regarding this issue. I am very glad that the Government have looked again at Clause 61 and at the material that could be provided in the annual report of this new unit and its operation. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for looking at this and extending the information to be provided to cover both mandatory notifications as well as voluntary notices.
The noble Baroness has also added many more aspects that would provide greater visibility for the activities of the ISU. It is important that the Government are transparent about these areas so businesses can see the impact on their activities and compare experiences. Parliament and the public can monitor the work of the unit and determine the value to national security activities and how far legitimate businesses are being affected. These amendments were all supported by the UK BioIndustry Association. I thank it for the briefings it has sent throughout the Bill.
However, we still believe that there is more that the Government could do to assist the understanding of this new regime. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his name to my Amendment 34. Greater transparency could still be given on the resources allocated to the new unit, the extent to which small and medium-sized enterprises are called in under the regime and the Bill’s impact on foreign investment. This is about requiring greater accountability from the department on the unit’s service standards.
The business community still remains somewhat nervous concerning the impacts on it as a result of the Bill. Throughout its passage, we have sought to champion clarity and support for SMEs and innovative start-ups, which are the engine of growth in the economy, create many new jobs and enhance prosperity. We are keen to foster a business environment in which SMEs can thrive.
It would be beneficial for the Government to report on the unit’s work with SMEs in the annual report. This can only be helpful in providing detail and reassurances to SMEs on the operation of the unit and its impacts on them. I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide reassurances that his department will embrace the annual report in a positive manner and provide as wide a range of information as possible.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lady Noakes—for her Amendments 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31—and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendment 34.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, to whom I will reply first. The Government have written on plans for a range of guidance, as my noble friend said. This is intended to aid parties in understanding and complying with the Bill. Timings and matters of requirements are set out in the legislation; they were consulted on, and of course they cannot be added to in guidance. As in the past, the Constitution Committee advised us quite strongly against legislating through guidance. Of course, we remain open to further proposals for guidance that assists in understanding and complying with the basic provisions in the Bill.
I move on to Amendments 26 and 28, which seek to require the Secretary of State to report on the “maximum and average time” taken to process mandatory and voluntary notices. These amendments would also require the Secretary of State to report on the “maximum and average time” taken between a notice being accepted and a call-in notice or notification of no further action being given or issued. Clauses 14 and 18 already set out that, if a notification is accepted, the Secretary of State has up to 30 working days to either give a call-in notice or notify each relevant person that no further action will be taken under the Bill.
I outlined in Grand Committee that these timings are a maximum, not a target. I have also set out the principles by which the Government consider it appropriate to specifically amend the Bill to require additional reporting, rather than to judge over time whether it would be beneficial to publish the information. It is already clear in the Bill that the maximum time that can be taken to make a call-in decision is 30 working days.
On the point of including average times, as I hope noble Lords will appreciate, each case will turn on its own facts. Therefore, reporting an average time without explaining the complexities of every individual case would be meaningless, in my view. For example, there may be a low average for some response times where particularly straightforward cases were prevalent—this may be held up as an efficient case review. There may be another period where particularly complex cases are dealt with exceptionally efficiently but none the less slightly more slowly. What would a comparison of the averages without further details on the cases provide? To my mind, it would provide nothing but a misunderstanding.
Amendment 29 seeks to require the Secretary of State to separately report on the number of call-in notices given in response to mandatory and voluntary notifications. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill already allows for the Secretary of State to do this in the future if deemed useful. Clause 61 sets out minimum reporting requirements that the Secretary of State must meet in the annual report.
Amendments 30 and 31 seek to require the Secretary of State to report on the “maximum and average time” taken between a call-in notice being issued and the making of a final order as well as the “maximum and average time” taken between a call-in notice being issued and a final notification that no further action will be taken under the Bill. In my view, the same argument applies in response to these amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 24. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 61: Annual report
Amendment 24
Lord West of Spithead
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to my Amendment 33, which is consequential to Amendment 24 and part of it. Both are supported by the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord King of Bridgwater —a pretty impressive front row, I think noble Lords will agree. The amendments have general support across the House—I know this from my ex-CDI hat, having gone around and checked. I should make it clear that if the Government are not able to resolve this issue, I intend to test the opinion of the House on these amendments.
In Committee, the question of oversight of the investment security unit was raised—specifically, that the Bill does not allow for any oversight of the sensitive intelligence of its work, and that that oversight should be provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. There are many in this House who have served on the ISC, and who were therefore very concerned—as I was—by some of the misunderstandings about the operation of the ISC put forward by the Minister in Committee and what appeared effectively to be a reneging by the Government on the very clear commitments made to Parliament during the passage of the Justice and Security Act.
I assume that the Government accept that there should be a process for evaluating the national security implications of investment in British companies. That concern was first raised by the ISC. Indeed, the Government have stated that the Bill puts national security concerns at the very heart of the process—so why are those national security concerns which will be at the very heart of the process not to be properly overseen? It would mean the Government avoiding scrutiny of their decisions, and that is precisely what Parliament is here to ensure does not happen.
The Government have said that they expect the intelligence scrutiny to be undertaken by the BEIS Select Committee. With the greatest respect to the BEIS Select Committee, which is eminently qualified to scrutinise the work of BEIS, it cannot provide scrutiny of intelligence, because it cannot have access to all the national security material concerned.
The Minister has argued that the BEIS Select Committee does have access to sensitive material, and I grant that, in theory, that may be the case. The Osmotherly Rules allow the Minister discretion to give Select Committees top secret information. In practice, however, that is not the case. We know that the BEIS Select Committee has not been given any top secret information—sensitive information perhaps, but not top secret information. The reality is that it cannot be given top secret information. The BEIS Select Committee, with its excellent chairman, members and staff, cannot be given top secret material because it does not have the requisite security apparatus in place to do so. The committee’s staff do not have the security clearance required to see such material, and the committee does not have the facilities to store or discuss top secret information or have a statutory process to safeguard against the publication of top secret material. Therefore, unless the Government are intending to break their own rules on the handling of top secret material—something that would prompt an ISC inquiry in itself— the BEIS Select Committee cannot provide the scrutiny required. It cannot consider the national security material at the heart of the decision, and therefore the decision itself.
Now that we have established that the BEIS Select Committee cannot in practice be given the top secret material in question, and therefore cannot provide oversight, the question is, who can? Fortunately, the Government and Parliament had the foresight to create a body which can be given top secret material on a regular basis because it does have the requisite security apparatus in place. In 1994, the Intelligence and Security Committee was established expressly to scrutinise the intelligence and security activities of Her Majesty’s Government.
The ISC’s remit was extended through the Justice and Security Act 2013. Noble Lords will have heard it said during earlier stages in this House that the JSA provides the ISC with oversight of the three intelligence agencies. That is, perhaps, a little misleading. The ISC does not only oversee the agencies: it was established to oversee all intelligence and security matters across Government—or at least that was what Parliament was told.
The long title of the Justice and Security Act is,
“An Act to provide for oversight of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters and other activities relating to intelligence or security matters”.
The memorandum of understanding which sits underneath the JSA, and which was expressly agreed by the Prime Minister, says that this means,
“those parts of Departments whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters”.
Both Parliament in the JSA, and the Government in the MoU, have already expressly agreed that the ISC has oversight of all intelligence and security matters across Government.
In case there can be any lingering doubt, I draw your attention to the commitment given by the then Security Minister during the passage of the Bill when he said that it was,
“the intention of the Government that the ISC should have oversight of substantively all of central Government’s intelligence and security activities to be realised now and in the future”.
I trust the Minister has noted the wording there: “now and in the future”.
At the time the MOU was written there were seven such organisations, and these are therefore listed in the MOU. The then Security Minister also made it very clear during the passage of the Bill that the MOU was intended to be updated. He told Parliament:
“Things change over time. Departments reorganise. The functions undertaken by a Department one year may be undertaken by another the following year. The intelligence world is no different from any other part of Government ... An MOU is flexible: it can be changed much more easily than primary legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Justice and Security Bill (Lords) Committee 31/1/2013; col. 98.]
Clearly, the Minister’s argument that the ISU is not listed in the MoU is irrelevant. That is what the Minister said. His Government have already committed to changing the MOU when necessary in order to ensure the ISC has oversight of all intelligence and security matters. It really could not be any clearer. It is therefore of very grave concern that, despite Parliament’s clear intent and the Government’s clear commitments, oversight is being expressly denied.
The Minister also said that the ISC does not need to be given oversight expressly because the ISC can scrutinise the public report and can ask for other information about the ISU. Again, I am afraid this misses the point entirely. Of course the ISC can ask for information: we can ask for information from any part of the Government, but that does not mean to say that they will give it to us. By contrast, the organisations listed in the MoU—and therefore within the Committee’s remit—are required to provide information to the ISC. This is quite a different proposition, and demonstrates why the ISC should expressly be given oversight.
One last argument that has been put forward is around demarcation. There is concern that the work of BEIS should be overseen by the BEIS Select Committee, and therefore concern that to give the ISC oversight of the work of the ISU would have the ISC parking its tanks on the BEIS Committee’s lawn. This is simply not the case. The ISC chairman has already discussed this with the chairman of the BEIS Committee and they recognise that this issue cannot be overseen by the BEIS Committee and that some accommodation is required.
The ISC already oversees parts of departments that, for the most part, fall to a departmental Select Committee. The OSCT—I think it is now called Homeland Security—in the Home Office is just one such example, and the ISC and HASC have worked harmoniously for some years. I draw the Minister’s attention yet again to the commitments already given in this respect. The MoU clearly states that:
“Only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of the Agencies and of those parts of Departments whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security”.
This will not affect the wider scrutiny of departments such as the Home Office, FCO and MoD—ditto BEIS —by other parliamentary committees. It really could not be any clearer and the Government have already recognised that demarcation is not a problem. So, I hope the Minister does not seek to put it forward today as an argument against ISC oversight.
I trust that I have demonstrated thus far why proper oversight is needed, why that can only fall to the ISC, why there is no reason for it not to fall to the ISC, and how the Government have already given commitments previously to Parliament that the ISC will oversee these matters. Now perhaps I might explain the amendment I have laid, with the support of the noble Lords I have mentioned. It seeks to provide this missing oversight and thereby enable the Government to honour their commitment.
Clause 61 mandates the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to Parliament. The information in that report is limited, and obviously will not include any sensitive security information. My amendment to Clause 61 would add two further categories of information to that annual report and provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State to redact any of this information from the public report, should it be deemed damaging to national security. That information must be moved into a classified annexe, understandably, which must then be provided to the ISC, thereby ensuring that if Parliament as a whole cannot scrutinise it—which clearly it cannot because of its classification—the ISC can.
Noble Lords will have noticed that this amendment simplifies the amendment I laid in Committee. The ISC has consistently tried to engage with the Government on this issue, to understand their concerns about our approach, and to try to chart a course through. Despite this, the committee and I remain wholly ignorant of the real reason for the Government’s intransigence. The arguments put forth by the Minister in this House in Committee were flawed, I am afraid, as I think I have shown. They cannot therefore be the real reason why the Government appear to be seeking to renege on the commitments given to Parliament during the passage of the Justice and Security Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, has questioned whether there is some deep-seated dislike of the ISC at the heart of Government. Certainly, oversight is not comfortable, but it is not meant to be comfortable. I cannot believe that the Government would prioritise a petty squabble regarding the committee’s Russia report or the chairmanship of the committee over the clear commitments that they have given to Parliament. I am sure that cannot be the case, knowing the Minister as I do. We will therefore see the Government, I hope, honour their commitments today.
To show that I am an unusually flexible naval officer, I wish to reiterate the offer I made to the Government in Committee. If our amendment is unacceptable, for some reason that they have not yet told us, then the alternative is to put the Investment Security Unit into the MoU and provide for oversight by the ISC in that way. The MoU was intended to be a living document; it is very simply amended by way of an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the committee chairman. Perhaps the Minister was unaware of the simplicity of the mechanism, when he said that putting the Investment Security Unit into the MoU was a “substantial amendment”.
The Minister may be unaware that in the work of the Investment Security Unit, the unit which currently takes these decisions is the Investment Security Group in the Cabinet Office, and that is currently overseen by the ISC. Therefore, adding the Investment Security Unit to the MoU is not some radical step but simply preserves the status quo, rather than actively removing it from ISC oversight.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I was flattered to be included in the front row that my noble friend set out. I have one qualification about it though, and that is that these days, such is the pressure of rugby that the front row is often completely substituted at half-time. But this is a front row that has not been substituted at half-time. I and the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord King, have lasted the pace.
It is not necessary for me to expand in any way upon what were, if I may say so, the most compelling arguments put forward by the noble Lord just a moment or two ago. I acknowledge my interest in these matters, having been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee for seven years, but I am afraid that I take issue with some of the flavour of the correspondence that has passed between some of us on this matter. The dismissal of the amendments, and the arguments that lie behind them, has been, in my respectful view, cavalier and verging on the insulting. This is a fundamental issue and it demanded a more reasoned set of arguments for simply refusing to accept the amendments that have just been so eloquently proposed.
I will say a word or two repeating to some extent what I said in Committee. When Huawei was first raised it was not raised with the Intelligence and Security Committee, as it ought to have been, but officials sent it to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Had the importance and understanding of the Intelligence and Security Committee been properly recognised perhaps some of the difficulties that ultimately presented themselves with Huawei would have been avoided.
The other point I want to make is slightly self-aggrandising, I suppose, but those who have chosen to be members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are carefully vetted. On some occasions, when the leaders of political parties have made nominations, these have been turned down. It is supposed to reflect those with experience and judgment, who can be relied on to accept the onerous responsibility that membership brings. That involves signing the Official Secrets Act and going through the necessary processes attached to it. I do not understand that the BEIS Committee will be subject to that. Although the Secretary of State may offer classified information, the BEIS Committee will not have the statutory rights, as pointed out so eloquently by the noble Lord who last spoke. I fear this is yet another illustration of how the Government believe that, with a docile majority in the House of Commons, they can, if not ignore what happens in this place, at least enter their opposition in the hope, belief and perhaps the knowledge that if it goes back to the other place the Government’s position can be restored.
The last point I want to make is this: what can be more important than issues of national security? What can be more important than ensuring that those charged with oversight are given every opportunity, based on experience and judgment, to consider these issues and reach conclusions? There seems to be no recognition of that in this issue. It is deeply disappointing.
As the noble Lord who introduced the amendment pointed out, there are not only undertakings on the part of the Government but statutory principles to be observed. My submission is that the Government should think again, but they have already said that, irrespective of argument, they will not accept this amendment. They can hardly be surprised, therefore, if those who support it believe that the attitude of the House must now be taken.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]
My Lords, in supporting the amendment I will first say how disappointed I am to be here at all. As we have gone through the Bill’s stages the argument has been very clearly made. I think a mistake was made in the original construction of the Bill and there now seems to be a determination not to repair the one problem that exists.
I say this as somebody who strongly supports the Bill. We need to have powers for the Secretary of State to prevent serious loss and threats to our national security. I note my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s comments, citing some of the pretty valuable businesses that should not have been allowed to go. If wiser counsel had prevailed that could have been prevented. This Bill would have helped that.
The other important thing that the Government have got absolutely right is ensuring that, if we are going to have this Bill and give the Secretary of State these new powers, there has to be proper parliamentary oversight of it. But they either were negligent or perhaps unaware of the important background: there are limitations affecting the operation the BEIS Committee. It is not qualified and will not be able to see any “top secret” information. If anybody on the government side seriously suggests that there could not possibly be any “top secret” information arising in connection with some possible takeover or acquisition, that position is not one they can seriously seek to sustain in a rapidly changing, increasingly technical and pretty dangerous world, as the noble Lord, Lord West, said. This is a pity, because I would like to pay my compliments to the Minister for the way he has handled the Bill. In every other respect it has been a model of parliamentary oversight and the proper review of it.
Referring again to what we now call the front row of the scrum, it seems, if I may say so, that we in your Lordships’ House each come from a different background. I, having been Secretary of State for a number of departments and then, for seven years, chairman of the ISC, was able to see this from both sides and saw the importance of there being, in the end, proper oversight of the intelligence agencies and of the intelligence and information that may be coming to them which government Ministers might be relying on.
Somebody has kindly sent me a copy of the letter sent by Jacob Rees-Mogg to Julian Lewis, and I echo something the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord West, said: it is pretty dismissive and merely says that the committee’s role should not be on an ad-hoc, Bill-by-Bill basis, and that it would be a significant precedent, providing parliamentary oversight of the UK’s intelligence community. Although my noble friend Lord Grimstone paid what may have been a perfectly well-deserved tribute in Committee to the qualities of the BEIS Select Committee, the simple fact is, as my two colleagues have said, it will not be allowed to see any top secret information. It is not cleared for top secret intelligence that comes in, which might, on some occasions, be the key consideration that affects a decision the Secretary of State takes, for which there would then be no parliamentary accountability or oversight.
I have some sympathy with the Minister, because there are others who seem to have dug their heels in on this one, but even at this late stage, the argument does not stack up. A sensible decision by the Government would be to include this limited amendment to an otherwise excellent Bill and get on with it. Otherwise, it is a serious gap, and we could well pay the price for it in the future.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, in my rugby-playing days I played in the back row, and I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, played on the wing. However, I am very happy, in this case, to be in the front row with the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Campbell and Lord King, even though the rules might say that that is one too many.
This is a very important amendment, and the House and the Government have to take it seriously. The noble Lord, Lord West, has made an irrefutable case for the involvement of the ISC, on the basis of what the Government promised Parliament during the passing of the Justice and Security Act and subsequently, and there really can be no answer to that.
I will come to the role of the ISC in a moment, but first I will draw attention to an oddity of Clause 61 in its present form if the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord West, is not accepted. We have been discussing the content of that clause, which stipulates that the Secretary of State must make an annual report to each House of Parliament about the exercise of the powers in the Bill. The clause requires that the annual report should cover details in no less than 12 areas, and the Government are now proposing to add to that. So much detail—but all the details are administrative. The clause in its present form omits the essential matter in which Parliament and the public will be interested: namely, the actual decisions of the Secretary of State and the justification for them—the grounds on which they were made. That is an extraordinary omission, and the first part of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord West, puts it right.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I express my support for the amendments presented by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and his colleagues. Curiously, we seem to have four on the front row, but I am perfectly happy where I am, because I am quite a big chap and used to play left lock, so that will be fine.
Colleagues will recall that I had an amendment in Committee to extend the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee under the 2013 Act. I think the place we have reached on Report is right; my amendment was unnecessary and might have led to precisely the criticism which my successor bar five as Leader of the House of Commons has put to the chair of that committee—that it is expanding the role of the committee beyond its original statutory function. Jacob Rees-Mogg has expressed this criticism about where we are now, but I am afraid he is plain wrong. That is precisely not what this amendment seeks to do; it seeks to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee can fulfil the role it was given in precisely the terms that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, set out in introducing his two amendments. I very much support him.
I fear the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, may have hit on why the Government are resisting this; not for the reasons they have expressed, but because it will enable the quality of some of those decisions to be examined in detail, including with reference to the security risks that must be incorporated into this decision-making. Perhaps they do not wish that to happen, but that is why we have parliamentary oversight and why, in particular, the Intelligence and Security Committee was originally instituted. I was not a Member of the other House at the time it was instituted, but I was director of the Conservative Research Department and my deputy director is now chair of that committee—as my mother would say, as these things go around, they come around. I am very happy to support their role.
I will mention one other thing. He is not with us this afternoon, but in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, made an essential point about the Government’s argument that the ISC can go after the information it is looking for and make inquiries of whoever. He said:
“I think we would all argue that effective scrutiny leads to better decision-making. The Minister in another place said that there is nothing to stop the ISC calling for evidence on a specific decision. That may be true, but is it practical? It calls to mind Donald Rumsfeld’s ‘unknown unknowns’: how does the ISC know which decisions to examine in detail? I question whether such a hit-or-miss approach to scrutiny would lead to better decision-making.”—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 250.]
We do not want a hit-or-miss approach. Even less, frankly, do we want the ISC to have to go out on fishing expeditions to try to find out on what the intelligence material on which decisions were made was based. I would far rather it was done in a well-constructed manner. I support these amendments for that reason and hope my noble friend, at the very least, will be able to say that the Government will bring back their own amendments at Third Reading to serve this purpose or amend the memorandum of understanding in the right way. If not, I will have to support these amendments this afternoon.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the fact that such esteemed Members on all sides of the House have coalesced on this amendment speaks volumes for your Lordships’ concern about this issue.
It has been a heavyweight debate, with all due respect to the four amigos who have been speaking. I will now bring it down to earth with a bit of politics. It has been an authoritative debate and, all other things being equal, we would expect and hope that it causes the Minister not just to listen but to act. However, I fear his hands—metaphorically if not actually—are tied behind his back by other things. A couple of previous speakers mentioned the letter from the Lord President of the Council, Leader of the House of Commons, to wit, the right honourable Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg. This seems to indicate the bindings the Minister is currently under.
In this short tome, as we have heard, Mr Rees-Mogg tells the right honourable Dr Julian Lewis MP, who is, as we know, chairman of the ISC, that decisions regarding committees’ roles and remits should not be made on an ad hoc, Bill-by-Bill basis, and that there needs to be careful consideration.
I suggest this is a patronising view of the proceedings of your Lordships’ House. When have your Lordships’ considerations not been careful? The most reckless behaviour I have seen during the course of this Bill has been the Minister’s wholesale consumption of sugar-based products, so where is the carelessness that the right honourable Member for North East Somerset speaks of? We should be a little outraged by that suggestion.
This Bill is written by BEIS, and it is understandable that BEIS would want to favour its own Select Committee. I am sure that is how we set out along this route. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who said that we have set out in the wrong direction. I feel sure that is what happened. Good governance would be to understand that, take advice and make changes.
It would not be so bad if the BEIS Committee had not been so obviously exposed by the comments we have heard today to be the wrong committee to do the security part of the scrutiny of this very important Bill. It is absolutely clear that it is the wrong committee. If the Minister cannot make or promise changes, I believe he can undertake to accurately reflect both the strength of feeling of your Lordships’ House and the facts, rather than the assumption of the facts that appears to be driving the letter that Jacob Rees-Mogg has written.
I ask just one question of the Minister. If the Bill in considered by the Government to be an ad hoc process, what is careful consideration? What does careful consideration look like if it is not the careful scrutiny of legislation?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, they did not do rugby at my secondary technical school, and I am only guesting for my noble friend on the front row for this debate. I will be brief, as I do not want to repeat what was said in this debate or in Committee, when I spoke briefly.
As has already been commented, my noble friend Lord West has made an irrefutable case for the amendment. It is quite clear that there is a serious problem here. No one is arguing with the committee in the other place or wants to devalue or undermine the role of elected Members of Parliament and the departmental Select Committees. They have been an enormous success since they were introduced in, I think, the 1980s and early 1990s. But they have a specific role, which does not cover security matters. Parliament and government decided together to form a different structure for that purpose, which is effectively what we are debating today.
With all due respect, I feel sorry for the Minister, because others are making the decisions on this and he is but their messenger and will give us their message. The fact is that no acceptable, reasonable reason has been given by anybody in government for opposing the procedure envisaged in this amendment: that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have oversight of these decisions. We have no reason for it at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to the Government’s docile majority. We have to be careful about that; we are hoping that docile majority will support your Lordships’ House, so in my view they are obviously all very intelligent, alert parliamentarians, putting the interests of the country and their constituents first. It is very important that we take that on board.
The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, mentioned the cruciality of parliamentary oversight in respect of the committee he once chaired—indeed, he was the first chair—and made it clear that the Select Committee in the other place that oversees the department’s day-to-day activities cannot possibly have the relevant information put before it in all the cases. One is not arguing that every single case of a takeover or merger will be referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made the point that of course the principal role of scrutiny of BEIS lies in the Commons with the departmental Select Committee. However, the Government seem to be ruling out the ability for questions to be asked of the security services by opposing the amendment. That cannot be good. He wants to know what the objection is.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may start by welcoming back to the Front Bench the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is an extremely adequate substitute, if I might say. It is a delight to see him back and fully recovered from injury.
There have been a lot of analogies about rugby and positions in this debate. I did not really play much rugby in my career, which is probably a good thing, but the occasional time that we played at school, I seemed always to be the hooker, which seemed, in the poor quality of rugby that we played, to be the one in the middle of the scrum being kicked by everybody else—somewhat appropriate in this debate.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Butler, for their Amendments 24 and 33, which would require the Secretary of State to provide additional information on regime decisions, either in the annual report, or, where details are too sensitive to publish, in a confidential annexe to the Intelligence and Security Committee. This information would include summaries of decisions to make final orders or to give final notifications, and summaries of the national security assessments provided by the security services in relation to those decisions.
A number of noble Lords have spoken with such passion and knowledge on this important issue, both in this debate and when we previously discussed amendments in this area during Grand Committee. I am particularly grateful—I say this genuinely—to the noble Lords, Lords West and Lord Butler, for their careful consideration of the words used by my colleague my noble friend Lord Grimstone during Grand Committee, and for their continued pursuit of an amendment that attempts to satisfy all parties.
The noble Lords’ amendment would effectively require the Secretary of State to include material provided by the security services in a confidential annexe. Of course, the ISC is already able to request such information from the security services as part of its long-established scrutiny of those organisations, as is set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and its accompanying memorandum of understanding.
I will directly address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, and others, about the BEIS Select Committee and its access to sensitive or classified information. The Government maintain their view that there is no barrier to the committee handling top-secret or other sensitive material, subject to agreement between the department and the chair of the committee on appropriate handling. As part of its role, the BEIS Select Committee can request information, which may include sensitive material, from the Secretary of State for BEIS, including on the investment security unit’s use of information provided by the intelligence and security agencies. The Select Committee already provides scrutiny of a number of sensitive areas and there are mechanisms in place for them to scrutinise top-secret information of this kind on a case-by-case basis.
The amendment would also require sensitive details to be provided to the ISC of the Secretary of State’s decisions in respect of final notifications given and final orders made, varied, or revoked. As we discussed earlier, the Bill already provides that the Secretary of State must publish details of each final order made, varied, or revoked. The Government have also recognised that providing this information at an aggregate level will be helpful, and Amendment 32 in my name would require the Secretary of State to include the number of final orders varied and revoked in the annual report. Even without Amendment 32, Clause 61 already requires the report to include the number of final orders made. The Secretary of State must also include in his annual report a number of other details pertinent to this amendment. I am confident that this will provide a rich and informed picture of the Government’s work to protect our national security from risks arising from qualifying investments and other acquisitions of control.
As I have said before, for further scrutiny, we welcome the fact that we can follow existing appropriate government procedures for reporting back to Parliament, including through responding to the BEIS Select Committee, which does such an excellent job of scrutinising the work of the department. As the Secretary of State for BEIS said on 13 April, during a session of that committee, the NSI Bill “sits within BEIS” and the powers of the Bill sit with the Secretary of State for BEIS.
The chair of the BEIS Select Committee—who, I remind noble Lords, is an Opposition Member of Parliament—supported the view that his committee should scrutinise the investment security unit as part of its oversight of the department. Therefore, it makes sense that, from a governance perspective, the BEIS committee should be the appropriate scrutinising committee.
As this was discussed at length in Grand Committee, I do not wish to try the patience of the House by repeating the assurance that my noble friend Lord Grimstone, the Minister, provided to the House on the ability of the BEIS Select Committee to request and see materials regarding the work of the investment security unit. Therefore, I hope—it is probably more in hope than expectation—that noble Lords will accept my explanation and feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who had an input in this debate, particularly those supporters. We almost got a full scrum, with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, added as well—we had a bit of weight there. We are more second than front row, to be quite honest, but I have now found that the Government Minister is actually a hooker, so we have a bit of front row around. As he rightly says, the hooker gets punched by everyone—I am afraid that that is the way that it is going tonight.
I have considerable sympathy for the Minister: I was in that position when I had to argue for 90 days pre-trial detention. Because I am not really a politician, I had actually already said on the “Today” programme that I thought that this was a very dodgy thing to do—and then I had to stand at the Dispatch Box and argue for it. Lo and behold, I am in Guinness World Records for the biggest defeat of the Government since the House ceased being entirely hereditary—so I feel for the Minister.
However, I am afraid I question a couple of the things that he said—for example, the chairman of the BEIS Committee has no objection to my amendment at all, so he was given some wrong information there. I also fear that the Minister has failed to provide an explanation for the Government’s intransigence and indeed seems willing to stop Parliament having a mechanism whereby it can scrutinise highly classified intelligence, based on which key decisions are made. To cut it short—I have spoken for far too long—I therefore have no choice but to test the opinion of the House on this key amendment.
“(da) the average number of working days—(i) from receipt of a mandatory notice to notification of a decision to accept that notice, and(ii) from receipt of a mandatory notice to giving written reasons for a decision to reject that notice,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reporting requirement to ensure that the average length of time taken to give notification of a decision to accept or reject a mandatory notice is included in the annual report that must be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 61.
“(ga) the average number of working days—(i) from receipt of a voluntary notice to notification of a decision to accept that notice, and(ii) from receipt of a voluntary notice to giving written reasons for a decision to reject that notice,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reporting requirement to ensure that the average length of time taken to give notification of a decision to accept or reject a voluntary notice is included in the annual report that must be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 61.
“(m) the number of final orders varied,(n) the number of final orders revoked.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reporting requirement to ensure that the number of final orders varied or revoked is included in the annual report that must be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 61.
Lord West of Spithead
“(m) in respect of final notifications given, and final orders made, varied or revoked— (i) a summary of the decision of the Secretary of State under section 26(1), and(ii) a summary provided by the Security Services of any national security risk assessment provided under section 26(3)(a)(ii) relating to each decision under section 26(1).(2A) Where the Secretary of State considers that publication of any information listed in paragraph (2)(m) would be contrary to the interests of national security, those details may be excluded from publication and instead must be included in a confidential annex to the report provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament on the same day that the rest of the report is laid before each House of Parliament.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to Amendments 35 and 36. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 35
Lord Rooker
“Higher education guidance
(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance for the higher education and research sector in relation to provisions in this Act, which includes, but is not limited to—(a) a clear explanation of asset transactions in respect of which higher education institutions must give notice to the Secretary of State;(b) how the provisions of the Act affect contract research, consultancy work, and collaborative research and development;(c) the application of the provisions of the Act to strategic security partnerships and domestic partners.(2) The Government must consult the higher education and research sector on draft guidance and include feedback in the final publication.”
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 35, which was tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester.
As my noble friend Lady Hayter said in Committee, there is considerable concern in the higher education and research sectors about the potential impact of the Bill on research partnerships. Organisations have been crying out for clarity. Amendment 35, which I move on behalf of my noble friend—I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Clement-Jones, for signing it—would require the Government to
“publish guidance for the higher education and research sector”,
including
“a clear explanation of asset transactions”
indicating how
“research, consultancy work, and collaborative research and development”
will be affected and how the provisions apply to
“strategic security partnerships and domestic partners.”
The amendment would also require the Government to
“consult the higher education and research sector”
in a meaningful way in advance of the guidance. The amendment is therefore about developing guidance and promoting good practice, in that it should be done in co-operation with the sector. I certainly hope that the Government will agree to that.
The Russell group has said that, without clear guidance, a significant proportion of universities’ routine engagement with British business could inadvertently be captured by the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement on this issue; I understand that there has been an indication that the Government have listened. Without getting ahead of the Minister, when he comes to wind up, will he confirm when the guidance will be published by the Government and how higher education and research institutions will be involved in drafting it? Will a draft of the guidance be published beforehand, for example? How will higher education institutions be highlighted in the critical sectors? Will the guidance include hypothetical scenarios so that people can plan?
Universities want to help to make the Bill work, as we all do; the Bill has enormous support across Parliament. We can all be united in recognising the benefits of businesses working with research institutions, which we want not only to continue to support and allow to flourish but to continue increasing. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Callanan—he is not in his place—for his letter to us regarding guidance products. I was a bit confused by the word “products” but let us let that pass for the moment. The letter tells us about the expert panel, which is welcome; I gather that it has already sat, so that is a good start. I was slightly disappointed not to see any representatives from the insolvency profession on that panel because I think that, when they wake up to it, they will find that this Bill affects them much more than they realise. R3 had already told me that it would like to be on the panel, and no doubt the IPA, after its annual lecture the other week, will be keen to have representations on it. I also hope that the expert panel might include members of the public and practitioners who feel that they can contribute usefully.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am very glad to support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. It follows a debate in Committee led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which I thought drew out some of the issues for the higher education and research sector very well.
I am really pleased that our noble friends on the Front Bench have responded that they will provide guidance. I was originally looking for what amounted virtually to a safe harbour for higher education and research institutions, which I accept may be a stretch too far, but there is a substantial range of transactions that the higher education sector is concerned may be within scope.
When one looks at the consultation on the scope of the regime and the range of assets that are in scope, one sees that its concern about it is entirely justifiable. What it really comes down to is understanding through guidance and the sort of scenarios that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was referring to, how this is actually going to work. One of the central issues is that this is a regime about ownership and control, not about use. I am sorry; I have not given my noble friend notice of this question so if he wants to write to me about it subsequently I will completely understand, but I will take one example, which is non-exclusive licensing.
There are instances, and I think they are reasonably frequent, where the licensing process will allow people the use of an asset but will not allow them control of it, which remains within the higher education institution. It would be really helpful if the Minister were able to say, “Yes, the guidance will cover that and our expectation is that non-exclusive licencing would not be within the likely call-in”, not least because if the assets were to be used outside the United Kingdom and by particular persons outside it then, coming back to my earlier point, the export licensing regime would catch that use. The two regimes, working alongside each other, would work in harmony in that sense but would focus on the control and ownership of the technology in question rather than trying to capture all its potential uses.
With that said and with that question asked, I am glad that the Minister was able to give us some guidance —I should not say “guidance about the guidance”—or some expectation of the use of the guidance in the way that we wanted that to happen. I am very glad to support Amendment 35 but hope that, in reiterating that expectation, the Minister will allow this to be withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this group of amendments because of the progress that has been made. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his new Front-Bench incarnation. Long may it last.
On Amendment 35, I declare an interest as chair of the governing body of Queen Mary University. As I said in Committee, although the Bill does not directly reference universities, given the width of the sectors included in the scope of the Bill, it is clear that there is an intention to capture partnership entered into by universities. Elements of the Bill, while introducing measures to protect national security, could have unintended consequences for future investment in UK R&D and could cause BEIS to be overloaded with references from the university sector. That would add to lead-in times and create red tape for both universities and businesses, and that would not be to the benefit of R&D in our universities. I am delighted that the Government have now accepted the case that there is a need for specific guidance for higher education when the trawler of the noble Lords, Lord Grimstone and Lord Callanan, goes by. It is really about the specificity that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned; the nature of the guidance needs to be specific.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, assured us that
“we do not generally expect the acquisition of qualifying assets for exclusive use by UK-based research or higher education institutions to give rise to national security concerns. Indeed, to go further, the use of assets where there is no acquisition of a right or interest resulting in control over a qualifying asset would not even constitute a trigger event”.
I hope that kind of thing is going to be spelled out. Similarly, the noble Baroness pointed to the three levels of risk set out in the draft statement on the Secretary of State’s call-in power. She said:
“I am confident that higher education and research institutions will be able to assess their activities and decide in which of these three areas of risk they fall.”
Again, I very much hope that that is spelled out in the guidance. The summary certainly looks quite promising in terms of talking about the scenarios that are going to be outlined. She concluded:
“The Government very much appreciate the Russell group’s ideas on inclusion for guidance”,—[Official Report, 9/3/21; cols. 657-58GC.]
and I very much hope that they will continue to listen. I see that the Russell group is represented on the expert group, and I think that is extremely helpful.
I think we can be much more confident that the Government will turn that appreciation into tangible guidance, but I hope that the Minister will—in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned—give further comfort on the nature of the consultation, the timing and with whom it will take place, in respect of that particular set of guidance.
Turning to Amendment 36, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of the corporate finance faculty of the ICAEW. Of course, it follows that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and I have been very carefully following the correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and David Petrie of the ICAEW. Again, I am delighted that the Minister has accepted that the statement about the exercise of the call-in power will not be sufficient for the investment community and that the annual report—and, indeed, the fact sheets mentioned in Committee—is not the best vehicle and that the Government have now committed to issuing market guidance.
But the market guidance notes really must do what they say on the tin. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, had a slightly veiled criticism of how detailed these were going to be in terms of their use to those who are transacting. This has rather different wording from that applied to higher education. It seems to me that the wording is much more helpful when it talks about scenarios in higher education; this talks about drawing on analysis of patterns or trends in notifications received by the investment security unit. It is all about the notifications; it is not an end-to-end analysis of the trends as regards the Secretary of State’s decisions, call-in and so on. There is a great deal more that could be covered. I welcome the flexibility shown by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his letters to the ICAEW, offering to make progress on developing guidance notes. I very much hope that will happen now that the ICAEW is part of that expert group.
I think it might be helpful to put on record significant detailed additions that could be put into the guidance notes. In addition to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I suggest that it would be useful to have contained in the market guidance notes details about at what stage in a transaction advisers or companies should contact the ISU, and how sellers seeking to retain control of the process might manage that element of the transaction—although, of course, we know that most of the emphasis is on the acquirer notifying the unit. It might also be useful to have advice for investors on the provisions that could be exercised and the circumstances in which the Secretary of State has declared deals as null and void, and commentary that recognises the need for maintaining competitive tension in an investment or sales process in order to obtain optimum terms from investors or acquirers, in terms of enabling a limited number of final bidders in a trade auction process. These are the sorts of the things that could be envisaged. It could also include advice about mechanisms to prevent bidders submitting vexatious or deliberately incomplete notifications, and advice designed to avoid frequent requests to investors and/or acquirers for additional information.
A market guidance note might be useful when it becomes clear that the Secretary of State is unwilling to permit investment and control in particular subsectors that have been identified. Additionally, I think that the ICAEW has mentioned that a market guidance note specifically for private equity investors would be useful. Of course, publishing these market guidance notes in a timely and regular fashion as circumstances change is really important. Again, on the question of the consultation, I very much hope that the Minister will say who will be consulted and when such market guidance notes might be available—that would be good.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments, which seek to require the provision of guidance. As a former practitioner, I am very pleased with the progress we have made in this area with your Lordships’ help. It is an important topic.
Amendment 35 requires that the Secretary of State provides guidance for the higher education and research sector within three months of the Bill passing. This amendment also requires the Government to consult the higher education and research sector on the draft guidance. I thank the noble Lords, across three parties no less, for their amendment. As has been said, this amendment and others encouraged my noble friend Lord Callanan to write to all Peers on Tuesday setting out our intention to publish guidance. I am pleased to be able to commit on the Floor of the House that the Government will provide guidance to the higher education sector within three months of Royal Assent.
I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that we are already working with the Russell group and others as part of our expert panel across all guidance. This panel is providing feedback and input to ensure that parties have the utmost clarity and assistance in understanding and complying with the regime. In this guidance, we will pay care, as the amendment seeks, to the treatment of assets under the regime. I can confirm that the Government will also engage with representatives from the broader research sector as part of this work.
I will just make a few further, brief points. First, I wish to make it clear that asset acquisitions will not be in scope of the mandatory notification regime, so there will be no obligation to notify any asset acquisition. Secondly, as my noble friend Lady Bloomfield set out during Grand Committee, the statement provided for in Clause 3 sets out core areas and core activities to which the Secretary of State is likely to pay closer attention, and the majority of research, consultancy work and collaborative research will fall outside these areas. The guidance we are publishing will provide higher education and research establishments with hypothetical scenarios—effectively case studies—of where acquisitions in the research sector could fall in scope of the regime. It is our aim that the guidance will aid the higher education sector’s understanding of where acquisitions in its sector may be in scope and will prevent unnecessary voluntary notifications, which is clearly in everyone’s interest.
Thirdly, the amendment makes reference to the application of the provisions of the Bill to security partnerships and domestic partners. I am pleased to clarify that this Bill covers only acquisitions of control over qualifying entities and assets, so does not apply specifically to the formation of partnerships. An acquisition of control by a partnership will be in scope of the regime in the same way as any other acquisition of a qualifying entity or asset by a party but, if there is no acquisition of control, this regime would not apply.
Amendment 36, from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, would require the Secretary State to provide market guidance notes within six months of the Bill passing and every six months thereafter. Such market guidance notes would provide information to assist with compliance with the regime.
I am pleased to confirm to my noble friend and other noble Lords on the Floor of this House that it is indeed the Government’s intention to provide market guidance notes, sometimes known as practice statements or practice notes, and we will draw on the expert panel. The composition of the panel was set out in the letter that noble Lords recently received, and no doubt the composition of the panel can be adjusted over time to make sure the appropriate experts are on it.
These practice statements will be issued periodically and based on an analysis of the notifications received and, of course, feedback on what it would be helpful for them to contain. I believe this guidance will be helpful to advisers in particular. It will refer to and emphasise aspects of the statement where it is clear such emphasis would benefit parties in coming to a judgment about whether to notify. The statement will be published by the Secretary of State on how he expects to exercise his call-in power as provided for by Clause 3. We remain open to considering over time what further information will be helpful to guide parties as part of such market guidance. I have already carefully noted the suggestions noble Lords made today in that respect.
I thank noble Lords for these amendments, and for their discussions with me. The Government have listened and acted as a result of their helpful suggestions, and I have no doubt that the regime will be better understood as a result. I hope I have reassured noble Lords with the commitments I have made in the House today and I therefore ask that they do not press their amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for what he has said, particularly on education. I am also grateful for the letter sent by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which I expressed my appreciation for when speaking on Amendment 22.
My question relates to something said at that time: the suggestion that market guidance to buyers and sellers could not cover timelines, timeliness and the modus operandi. There was a reference to the Constitution Committee apparently making that problematic. Clearly, guidance on such issues is very helpful to operators, so I wondered whether it would be possible to have a little more detail—not now, but later—as to why there is a problem in covering that in guidance. If there is a problem, perhaps the Minister would consider whether we need to take a power, which I think the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh provides for. This would ensure that we can give operators the sort of guidance they need to make operations work well, as we all hope.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those comments. It certainly seems a bit weird that the Constitution Committee will have a role in this. If I may, I will look into the matter, write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I wanted to inquire whether my noble friend might write to me about the question of non-exclusive licensing of technology in the higher education sector, as I mentioned earlier.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
Yes, I am very happy to give my noble friend the assurance that I will write to him on that topic.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
In the main, the Minister’s reply was a model of its kind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to Amendment 39. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make this clear in debate.
Clause 63: Regulations under this Act
Amendment 39
“(6) Before making regulations under section 6(1) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament— (a) the proposed draft of the regulations, and(b) a document which explains the proposed draft regulations.(7) Where a proposed draft of the regulations is laid before Parliament under subsection (6), no draft statutory instrument containing the regulations is to be laid before Parliament until after the expiry of the 30-day period.(8) The Secretary of State must request a committee of either House whose remit includes industrial strategy, economic affairs, science or technology to report on the proposed draft regulations within the 30-day period.(9) In preparing a draft statutory instrument containing the regulations, the Secretary of State must take account of—(a) any representations,(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and(c) any recommendations of a committee under subsection (8),made within the 30-day period with regard to the proposed draft regulations.(10) If, after the 30-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make regulations in the terms of the proposed draft or revised draft regulations, they must lay before Parliament a statement—(a) stating whether any representations, resolutions or recommendations were made under subsection (9),(b) giving details of any representations, resolutions or recommendations so made, and(c) explaining any changes made in any revised draft of the regulations.(11) The Secretary of State may make a statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether or not revised) if, after laying a statement under subsection (10), a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament as outlined in subsection (5).(12) In this section, reference to “the 30-day period” in relation to any draft regulations is to the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the initial proposed draft regulations were laid before Parliament.(13) For the purposes of subsection (12) no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce the super-affirmative procedure for regulations made under section 6(1).
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to know that I will not repeat the entire, long speech that I gave in Committee. The wording of this amendment has not changed between Committee and Report, but there are a few points I want to remind your Lordships of. I am sure the speech is still fresh in noble Lords’ minds. To be clear, I will be putting this amendment to a vote at the end of this process.
Under Clause 6, the Secretary of State has great power to make the regulations concerning how the Bill will work. The Secretary of State can specify the description of the qualifying identity for the purpose of identifying a notifiable acquisition. He or she can amend the circumstances in which a notifiable acquisition takes place or does not take place, exempt acquirers with specified characteristics from the mandatory notification regime and make consequential amendments to other provisions in the Bill.
The Minister has represented, as he did in Committee, the proposed use of the affirmative procedure in the Bill as meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. However, the truth is that, from the perspective of these Benches, this means that Clause 6 can be amended by this and any subsequent Government as they please. Parliament cannot amend statutory instruments and, perhaps more importantly, this House has voted down affirmatory statutory instruments just four times in the past 70 years. I refer, as I did last time, because it is important, to the Constitution Committee’s 2018 report, The Legislative Process: The Delegation of Powers, which states:
“Without a genuine risk of defeat, and no amendment possible, Parliament is doing little more than rubber-stamping the Government’s secondary legislation. This is constitutionally unacceptable.”
For this reason, affirmative statutory instruments do not constitute meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. This Government—or, I remind the Minister, any subsequent Government—are effectively free to amend the Bill as and when they please. The Minister sort of said this when speaking to the second group of today’s amendments.
Regrettably, I do not think Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will roll behind me when this moves to a vote. That is the indication I have been given. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is as up for scrutiny as any man or woman. He likes a bit of scrutiny, and he is possibly not averse to knocking back legislation from time to time. However, his colleagues, particularly those at the other end—who are, even now, trying to measure up ministerial curtains in advance of their march towards power—would not welcome the democratic speed bumps proposed in this amendment, so their reaction, while regrettable in the great scheme of things, can be explained in that way.
Those sitting on the Benches opposite will live to regret not putting in place such measures. Members of their own party are not above adapting powers of Bills to create micromanagement, but we certainly heard enough at Second Reading, from some Members of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, to feel that there are those who will seek to use this as a proxy for interventionist market strategy. I support having a collaborative strategy for national prosperity, but this Bill should not be used to enforce such aspirations.
The super-affirmative procedure in the amendment would provide both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation, and to recommend amendments, before orders for affirmative approval are brought in their final form. However, the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister. The two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them. So I ask the Minister what there is to fear from that. I beg to move Amendment 39, and I give formal notice that, unless a miracle occurs, I expect to divide the House on this issue.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I have very little to add to what my noble friend has just said. The basic fact is that everything we have discussed in the course of our consideration of the Bill could be changed by regulation. If noble Lords do not believe me, they can look at Policy Statements Regarding Statutory Instruments Required for the Commencement of the NSI Regime, as updated on 2 March 2021. There are eight extensive areas—my noble friend mentioned a few of them—for changing the sectors covered. If that is not a massive change, I do not know what is. Changing the trigger thresholds, which we have been debating today, would effectively change the entire mandatory regime. These changes could all radically change the nature of the Bill. Whether or not noble Lords accept the scenarios put forward by my noble friend, that should be a real wake-up call. No primary legislation should be subject to the possibility of change as broad as that. So I support my noble friend’s amendment, and I very much hope the Minister will rethink the attitude taken by the Government in Committee to this self-same amendment. The super-affirmative process is a good one; it gives proper deliberation to changes and it is far more democratically accountable.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, for the amendment, which proposes a super-affirmative process for regulations under subsection (1) of Clause 6, “Notifiable acquisitions”. This was debated at length in Committee, and we certainly agree that parliamentary scrutiny of regulations is not always as meaningful as it might be. We can feel sympathy with the view that notifiable acquisition regulations are highly significant and require proper oversight, not merely by both Houses of Parliament but also by many experts who might become involved.
The opinions of those experts could be sought and made available to Parliament and deliberated on. The importance of consultations with stakeholders who are knowledgeable and familiar with the situation at the leading edge is also recognised. However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not call for the super-affirmative procedure to be adopted for these regulations under the Bill. Indeed, in its report of 22 February it said that
“there is nothing in the Bill to which we would wish to draw the attention of the House.”
It would be unusual to take a view contrary to the considered opinion of that well-respected committee of your Lordships’ House.
We remain somewhat sceptical about how the super-affirmative procedure would work in practice, over and above the normal affirmative procedure, in this case, even if custom and practice deemed the process less than ideal in all circumstances. We feel that experience needs to be gained first before undertaking this extra affirmative process. I hope this confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, may have heard about our view on his amendment may not greatly startle him.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I of course welcome the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, which seeks further parliamentary scrutiny of Clause 6 regulations, and the opportunity to put forward the Government’s case once more. I can spare the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the agony and tell him that, great though my ministerial powers are, I am not a miracle worker and, therefore, probably will not satisfy him.
The Bill as drafted provides for regulations made under Clause 6 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a proposed draft of any regulations made under Clause 6 before Parliament for 30 days before the draft regulations themselves are laid and subject to the approval of both Houses. It would also require the Secretary of State to identify a committee to report on the proposed draft regulations and then report on their consideration of the committee’s recommendations.
We have, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, previously discussed the importance of regulation under Clause 6, and I thank the noble Lords for their commitment to ensuring meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of the making of such regulations. However, the Government’s position remains that the affirmative procedure—or regulations made under Clause 6—ensures such scrutiny by requiring Parliament to approve regulations. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord also highlighted the importance of the Secretary of State maintaining “serious technology foresight” and making any regulations under Clause 6 to protect our national security effectively. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to keeping regulations under constant review to ensure that this regime is effective in protecting our national security and reflects technological changes.
The affirmative procedure will, in addition, provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to update the mandatory regime quickly should new risks to national security arise. For all these reasons, I ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment though, in the absence of the requested miracle, I suspect that he is not going to do so.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his speech. The Minister is correct: there was no miracle, and there was no surprise. Of course, I was aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had not recommended opposing this in any way. Sitting through three days in Committee and a day on Report would activate many people who worry about the way in which Governments run their affairs. Therefore, with all due respect to everyone, having been through that process, it would be remiss if someone did not bring an amendment of this kind before your Lordships’ House. To that end, I would like to test the mood of the House.